Salvation is a gift.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Funny, Christians like to say how we are born into sin, what with Adam and Eve and all. That sin is bred into us because of what they did. And I say bugger that idea. I didn't eat the fruit - is shouldn't have to share in any of that.

"We don't have to be good, even." Why oh why is that a selling point? It just doesn't sit well that a person doesn't have to be good and still be "saved." I can accept a person who was bad asking and then living a good life, or trying to live a good life with good intent. But not having to be good at all? While a good person can end up in hell because they didn't believe in God due to the lamentable lack of reason or proof he has given us to believe? Bah.

Furthermore, as Jesus said, if one does not believe from the Word itself, one would not believe even if there were signs and miracles.

The shedding of Christ's blood covers over all our signs--no matter how bad they are. To use accept Christ and then willingly do wrong things because we know we can get away with it is...very bad, much so. I cannot state how God will deal with these people.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
ITS THAT SIMPLE ?!?!?!? 😱

Damn...then IM SAVED !!!!! YEAHHH !!!! I asked Jesus if i can go to Heaven a year ago, that means im IN !!!! RSVP !!!!

Now I'm gonna go and do all my little gay sins and STILL go to HEAVEN YEAHHHH !!!!! 😄

Originally posted by Soleran
Hmm interesting, but since you said high cost what is it?

Well, the US tortures people around the world everyday. You don't honor thier sacrifices.

Originally posted by Alliance
SPQR for life.

Indeed, the Senate and the Roman People forever. They really were good with titles and phrases.

I misunderstood what you were getting at; I thought you were talking about Jesus' crucifixion. Unfortunately, that is the price of sin--that it is passed down and we must suffer the consequences of it. [Not that any of us are not guilty of sin, anyhow.]

Then the free will thing is dodgy. Billions have no choice but to sin because of the actions of two people a long time ago. How is that right? Pelagius should be right with his doctrine of free will. We should not be born into sin. It should not be bred into. It mocks the idea of us having choice - we apparently have no choice in the matter. We are sinful, no matter what we do.

There is no 'good' person. One might do good works, but one is surely not a good person.

Furthermore, as Jesus said, if one does not believe from the Word itself, one would not believe even if there were signs and miracles.

The shedding of Christ's blood covers over all our signs--no matter how bad they are. To use accept Christ and then willingly do wrong things because we know we can get away with it is...very bad, much so. I cannot state how God will deal with these people.

Which just doesn't sit right. This absolute. That it is impossible to be classed "good" without God/Jesus. Intent. Actions. Outlook - it is these things that should matter, not some sort of label - oh sure, you are a merciful, compassionate, loving, generous, peaceful person - but that doesn't in fact mean your good. Until you belong to Jesus your belong to the devil, no matter how "goo" your actions or intents are.

It strikes me as a horrible way to detract from humanity and its achievements. And a way from detracting from good people in general. People with good intentions. Good actions. Good views. They exist, and they can be good without God. It, I feel, stems from the attempt to control access to heaven that stretches back to Christianities founding - "We can't have people thinking they can get to heaven by just being good people. They wouldn't need us then. No, we tell them that they have to work with the priesthood, get in that way."

As to the rest - it strikes me as somewhat crappy. If people don't believe the word no number of miracles will make them believe - I don't see it. Proof can affirm it. And what of all these Christians who promote stories like "90 minutes in Heaven" - any number of Atheist doctors saw this miracle and were made believers - it's what I have always said - Christians need to get together and work out their stories. Is there people believing with proof - or isn't there? Is God doing visible stuff in the world... or isn't he?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, Lord Urizen--you are going to heaven.

This is a very positive and appreciated statement, but it seems a little too good to be true (unless God is truly that great)

However, there are multitudes of Christians (and even Athiests- go figure) who will disagree with the claim you are making above.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Then the free will thing is dodgy. Billions have no choice but to sin because of the actions of two people a long time ago. How is that right? Pelagius should be right with his doctrine of free will. We should not be born into sin. It should not be bred into. It mocks the idea of us having choice - we apparently have no choice in the matter. We are sinful, no matter what we do.

Which just doesn't sit right. This absolute. That it is impossible to be classed "good" without God/Jesus. Intent. Actions. Outlook - it is these things that should matter, not some sort of label - oh sure, you are a merciful, compassionate, loving, generous, peaceful person - but that doesn't in fact mean your good. Until you belong to Jesus your belong to the devil, no matter how "goo" your actions or intents are.

It strikes me as a horrible way to detract from humanity and its achievements. And a way from detracting from good people in general. People with good intentions. Good actions. Good views. They exist, and they can be good without God. It, I feel, stems from the attempt to control access to heaven that stretches back to Christianities founding - "We can't have people thinking they can get to heaven by just being good people. They wouldn't need us then. No, we tell them that they have to work with the priesthood, get in that way."

As to the rest - it strikes me as somewhat crappy. If people don't believe the word no number of miracles will make them believe - I don't see it.

Proof can affirm it. And what of all these Christians who promote stories like "90 minutes in Heaven" - any number of Atheist doctors saw this miracle and were made believers - it's what I have always said - Christians need to get together and work out their stories. Is there people believing with proof - or isn't there? Is God doing visible stuff in the world... or isn't he?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Simply because we are "bred into" sin does not mean that we have no choice in our actions.

But you are saying our actions don't mean anything - UNLESS one of them is saying "Jesus, forgive me" - it seems funny, the Christians (or any religious group) that claims without a religious belief one would be an amoral nihilist - it looks far more likely if you are religious - you have free will, but nothing you do means anything to God. Only asking Jesus into your heart. Beyond that - meh."

I am not good. My fellow Christians are not good. Non-Christians are not good; Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, atheists--all of them are not good. We are not good as a whole. We may do good things, but that does not make them good.

Seems to me its a definition of good. I see good people everywhere, doing good things, possessing good intentions, existing with a good frame of mind. I think that if it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, and is genetically identical to a duck, then it is likely a duck. Same with good people. I am not prepared to strip people of a "good" classification simply because they don't have a metaphorical piece of paper that says "Jesus is with, now I am good."

Am I unreasonable in this? Am I unreasonable in refusing to label people fundamentally "non-good" unless they have God? Am I unreasonable in thinking people can be good and wholesome and happy without God?

It is not Christianity that needs followers; it is people that need YHVH.

Really? Just liked the Roman's needed their Gods? And the Egyptians? And the Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and the like? People don't need God, but the concept has benefits to people. But people can, and do, lead lives that are full, happy and more importantly good without him. It is only if one believes there is an afterlife of some type that a God becomes relative.

How many pass off all the wonders of nature as being naught but random chance? We who are without excuse make excuses to diminish God himself. If a man were to come today and heal with a touch, he would be called a charlatan or he would be worshiped as the Messiah--when he would be neither.

I see nothing in nature of the world that can't be explained by science, or by mankind's ingenuity. And that is far more beautiful to me then the idea of an aloof God who is beyond human understanding and who doesn't feel any need to face his equation with any sense of equality.

So if a person came along today, and did the same kind of things Jesus did, and claimed he did it through the power of his God - then he wouldn't deserve to be called a messiah?

The various stories that JIA posted are hardly proof. They are stories, tales that may or may not be legitimate.

So, assuming they were legitimate, are those people not valid believers because there belief was born out of witnessing a miracle that confirmed the existence of God for them? Assuming Near Death Experiences were real, and these people get to heaven and God sends them back a born again Christian, is there belief not valid as it is born out of proof?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
But you are saying our actions don't mean anything - UNLESS one of them is saying "Jesus, forgive me" - it seems funny, the Christians (or any religious group) that claims without a religious belief one would be an amoral nihilist - it looks far more likely if you are religious - you have free will, but nothing you do means anything to God. Only asking Jesus into your heart. Beyond that - meh."

Am I unreasonable in this? Am I unreasonable in refusing to label people fundamentally "non-good" unless they have God? Am I unreasonable in thinking people can be good and wholesome and happy without God?

Really? Just liked the Roman's needed their Gods? And the Egyptians? And the Muslims and Buddhists and Hindus and the like? People don't need God, but the concept has benefits to people. But people can, and do, lead lives that are full, happy and more importantly good without him. It is only if one believes there is an afterlife of some type that a God becomes relative.

I see nothing in nature of the world that can't be explained by science, or by mankind's ingenuity. And that is far more beautiful to me then the idea of an aloof God who is beyond human understanding and who doesn't feel any need to face his equation with any sense of equality.

So if a person came along today, and did the same kind of things Jesus did, and claimed he did it through the power of his God - then he wouldn't deserve to be called a messiah?

So, assuming they were legitimate, are those people not valid believers because there belief was born out of witnessing a miracle that confirmed the existence of God for them? Assuming Near Death Experiences were real, and these people get to heaven and God sends them back a born again Christian, is there belief not valid as it is born out of proof?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, one's actions do mean something even if one isn't a Christian. However, good works are not a currency; one cannot simply do enough good works to "pay back" the debt of sin. The death of Christ is the only thing that can pay it back.

If you don't believe in God then you aren't doing good works in order to pay of a sin debt. How are such people not good? If I don't believe in God, and I still do "good things", with no thought that they might be going towards some afterlife bonus, what does it matter?

I do not think any man is truly good, but it is reasonable to say that those who are in Christ may not be good and those who are not in Christ may be good.

That is a slide then. Few people are "truly liberal" in the sense they dream of being anarchists, but they are liberal enough to be classified liberal. I accept no person is perfect, but there are people who are good enough to be classified good.

The Romans and others needed their gods; they made them in the search for YHVH.

That had value in themselves, they in no way were stand ins for the Christian God, and show no sign of having been attempts to get into contact with God.

No, he would not. There is only one who deserves the title, only one who can truly save. He could be a miracle worker, a healer, a sorcerer, a necromancer, or anything else--but not the Messiah.

How would you know he was not sent by God? Or Jesus returned? It's not like God hasn't just come out of the blue before and done something, oh, flood the world or anything. If he was doing the things Jesus was doing, and claiming his God sent him...

To put it differently, hypothesis - two men are dropped in a room, they perform miracles - the same miracles. You don't recognise either of them (since Jesus probably didn't look anything like the images we have of him) and neither will say his name. But you are told before hand both are representing their Gods - one the Christian God, and the other another God. Which one would you choose? Why would you be prepared to dismiss the miracles of one over the other? Or would you consider that both might have equal claims?

To see heaven, or to have a vision of it, is not the miracles and wonders of which Christ spoke. I believe that the individuals in question did not actually see heaven or hell; they saw the idea of heaven or hell for whatever reason. Their beliefs are valid, but the LORD blesses those who believe but have not seen.

How does he bless them? Is there an exclusive part of heaven? By hells he doesn't seem to reward those long suffering individuals on earth who believe non-stop despite experiencing every turmoil imaginable.

And to clarify - you are saying God does not, in fact, do anything visible for people on earth, since if a person saw this an began believing it wouldn't be the right kind of belief?

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
If you don't believe in God then you aren't doing good works in order to pay of a sin debt. How are such people not good? If I don't believe in God, and I still do "good things", with no thought that they might be going towards some afterlife bonus, what does it matter?

That had value in themselves, they in no way were stand ins for the Christian God, and show no sign of having been attempts to get into contact with God.

How would you know he was not sent by God? Or Jesus returned? It's not like God hasn't just come out of the blue before and done something, oh, flood the world or anything. If he was doing the things Jesus was doing, and claiming his God sent him...

To put it differently, hypothesis - two men are dropped in a room, they perform miracles - the same miracles. You don't recognise either of them (since Jesus probably didn't look anything like the images we have of him) and neither will say his name. But you are told before hand both are representing their Gods - one the Christian God, and the other another God. Which one would you choose? Why would you be prepared to dismiss the miracles of one over the other? Or would you consider that both might have equal claims?

How does he bless them? Is there an exclusive part of heaven? By hells he doesn't seem to reward those long suffering individuals on earth who believe non-stop despite experiencing every turmoil imaginable.

And to clarify - you are saying God does not, in fact, do anything visible for people on earth, since if a person saw this an began believing it wouldn't be the right kind of belief?

Originally posted by FeceMan
I believe that no one is truly good because we all have our secret sins, our shame that we would like to go back and undo. Aside from this, I believe we're going to arrive at a stalemate at this.

I would prefer to learn from such mistakes, rather then go back and change them. Everything, good and bad, is defining. All that we have done brings us to the point we are at now. It is regrettable that there are those who actions have accumulated in such a way that they dislike their lives. Even more so if they have willfully done these actions and only after have regretted them.

But once again - do you know not all crimes are created equal? You know how a guy do 65 in a 60 zone is not equal to a serial killer? That the speeding ticket does not instantly put him in the same "bad category" as a record of brutal killings? It doesn't really matter if you believe no one is "truly good" - it is kind of sad to think you have so little faith in your fellow humans. Sure, at a species level humanity can be dodgy, but at personal level people can be and often are good. So far nothing you have said has really disputed this. We all have sins in our past - so? You say all the good works in the world can't make a person good, well a couple of minor "sins" can't make a person bad.

In their search for God, they constructed idols and deities that were not Him but spawned from their desire.

If the people of the world were looking for God why didn't he come to them? Why damn them in the ignorance? Hardly seems just, does it?

God: "Hahahah. Look at all those people down there, vainly trying to find me but not succeeding. They'll go to Hell, even though they never had the choice to repent."

But anyway - I have never, in my studies, seen anything to indicated the great "pagan" cultures were trying to find God with there religions. Far more weight can be given to the theory many ancient religions were a form of scientific explanation for the natural world - explaining the process and phenomena in absence of science, as well as being cultural and artistic.

That does not make him the Messiah.

Seems rather summery. Jesus was the Messiah because the Bible says he filled the criteria for being the Messiah. Another chap comes along who does comparable things to Jesus but he doesn't deserve belief.

I would choose neither. False prophets have come and gone, and so have "miracle" workers. I would not dismiss the miracles of one and accept those of the other; rather, I believe thoroughly that there are some who can work miracles and are of other faiths. This does not mean, however, that their miracles are inspired by the divine that they claim to know.

Well it's good to know that you will allow your rational mind to doubt the acts of both Jesus and the other when placed before you.

I don't know. Very little is known of heaven.

It would be of the right kind but of lesser quality, I believe. Perhaps not "quality", per se...but likely to be less rewarded because their faith was through proof and not the Word alone.

Isn't it a bit wrong to make claims like "the LORD blesses those who believe but have not seen" when one doesn't have any real providence for such a claim? Aren't we all, theoretically, upon being taken in, equal? I would have even less reason to believe if I found out there were class divisions in heaven based upon the nature of ones belief.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I would prefer to learn from such mistakes, rather then go back and change them. Everything, good and bad, is defining. All that we have done brings us to the point we are at now. It is regrettable that there are those who actions have accumulated in such a way that they dislike their lives. Even more so if they have willfully done these actions and only after have regretted them.

But once again - do you know not all crimes are created equal? You know how a guy do 65 in a 60 zone is not equal to a serial killer? That the speeding ticket does not instantly put him in the same "bad category" as a record of brutal killings? It doesn't really matter if you believe no one is "truly good" - it is kind of sad to think you have so little faith in your fellow humans. Sure, at a species level humanity can be dodgy, but at personal level people can be and often are good. So far nothing you have said has really disputed this. We all have sins in our past - so? You say all the good works in the world can't make a person good, well a couple of minor "sins" can't make a person bad.

If the people of the world were looking for God why didn't he come to them? Why damn them in the ignorance? Hardly seems just, does it?

God: "Hahahah. Look at all those people down there, vainly trying to find me but not succeeding. They'll go to Hell, even though they never had the choice to repent."

But anyway - I have never, in my studies, seen anything to indicated the great "pagan" cultures were trying to find God with there religions. Far more weight can be given to the theory many ancient religions were a form of scientific explanation for the natural world - explaining the process and phenomena in absence of science, as well as being cultural and artistic.

Seems rather summery. Jesus was the Messiah because the Bible says he filled the criteria for being the Messiah. Another chap comes along who does comparable things to Jesus but he doesn't deserve belief.

Isn't it a bit wrong to make claims like "the LORD blesses those who believe but have not seen" when one doesn't have any real providence for such a claim? Aren't we all, theoretically, upon being taken in, equal? I would have even less reason to believe if I found out there were class divisions in heaven based upon the nature of ones belief.

Heaven is not made equal. There will be those who are of higher rank than others in the afterlife based on their good works (God does not let them go in vain). Will it matter, though? No, I don't think so. We will feel no jealousy, and I don't believe that God will "play favorites"--however, He will reward us for our servitude accordingly.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I know not all crimes are created equal. I do admit that I have little faith in my fellow man to do good--or even non-evil things. It is not my duty to deem people as being good or evil, but, from my limited understanding, I can comment on them.

I am not advocating judgement, merely not seeing the entire world in two categories:

1. Everybody not of the Christian way can not be good.

2. Those of the Christian way receive the label good.

It just doesn't seem to work. That label does not make a person good or bad. Their actions and intentions do.

It does seem unjust, to us. But we are not God. I do not know how God judges those prior to His word being Law; I have said this before. However, in the NT, there is a specific verse that says something to the effect of "a man who knows his master's will but disobeys will be punished more harshly than one who does not know his master's will" [which may or may not have contributed to the invention of purgatory].

Why did God bother making us in his image if he has no intention of facing as as equal on any level? If he doesn't feel he needs to share his reasoning for motivation. The master bit there reminds me of the old slave cultures - a slave doesn't need to understand the workings of his master, because he is a slave. He simply has to obey. We, God's children he refuses to let grow up. Always judged as not needing to know, not deserving to know.

Damn free will. I want to make my decisions in an informed manner. He should treat his children with the respect they deserve. We shouldn't have to just "believe" - he should share his thinking's.

Exactly. And their creations were the means by which they explained this. They became religious people because of this; I am not saying that they were intending to seek Yahweh explicity, but that in their quest to explain, they were seeking Him through the wonders of the natural.

But the wonders they were explaining were in no way divine. The sun is no divine. The seasons are not divine. They are natural. Hence the natural world. I don't see God in the tides of seasons or storms. I see scientific reasonings for such things.

If he met the criteria prior to Jesus and he claimed he were the Son of God, then he would be the Messiah. He did not, however (in this example).

Ah, so it is a matter of time frames. Would people be wrong, say, if this figure with Jesus level powers came along, and he said "I am the son of Chalathow, and here is his holy book - here it says he is the true God, and that he is sending me to bring you into the true faith."

Would you be fully able to dismiss his claims as being the savior sent by a unchristian God. Would you truly be able to say you might not be tempted into believing in that proof - after all, didn't people do the same with Jesus? He turns up, says he is the son of God, and to prove it he does miracles. People believe, write the miracles in a book to help others believe. How is the son of Chalathow any-less deserving of consideration?

So it is written in His word.

Heaven is not made equal. There will be those who are of higher rank than others in the afterlife based on their good works (God does not let them go in vain). Will it matter, though? No, I don't think so. We will feel no jealousy, and I don't believe that God will "play favorites"--however, He will reward us for our servitude accordingly.

Hmmm.