What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...?

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not phased by anything you say. Why should your assertion of a logical fallacy on my part be any different? God tells us in scripture that His rewards and punishments are eternal. What needs explaining?

You claimed that, because God is eternal, the punishments and rewards he gives out are therefore eternal. You made a 'A implies B' claim, despite the fact that there is no obvious way A implies B. In your own words:

"God is an eternal being, therefore any punishment or reward He imposes upon a person will be eternal as well."

How does the former imply the latter?

Then they're not being honest.

Hah, of course. A self-professed Christian disagrees with you? Then they clearly belong to a heretical cult that parodies and mocks the True Christian Faith, which you yourself are obviously a member.
For a religion claiming to be one of love and peace, there sure is a lot of backstabbing.

Because humans were not created to be sinful in the first place. They were created to live in full fellowship and in paradise with God. So why not make it that humans inherit that perfect relationship through birth? It's not as crazy as it sounds. Humans inherit a lot of things through birth from their parents. Not all of it is good though.

Unless you're proposing that this 'relationship' is passed down by natural means (genetics, culture, etc), I can only surmise that God himself plays a hand in this. Why, then, does he continue to plonk newborns into a 'sinful' relationship? Even if I've got my surmise wrong, why doesn't he do something about it? As an omnipotence, he is able to just poof the sinful nature out of a person. Why doesn't he?

And those finite sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ, which restores us to a right relationship with God. If this restoration results in eternal life, then why should the punishment against an eternal God not also be eternal?

Because that would be unfair. It works both ways: no finite series of finite deeds is worthy of eternal punishment or reward.

I don't think it's that people will go to Hell that bothers you, I think it's how long God has declared they will be there. If universalism is true, people will be there for an indefinite period of time. Universalists don't agree on how long this purifcation takes.

Well, I have only ever objected to infinite punishment for finite crimes. Finite punishment for finite crimes? Sure, that's reasonable. That's why the idea of purgatory appealed to me when I was a Christian: the punishment fit the crime.

But can't we just say that eternity is an indefinite period of time as well?

No: an indefinite period of time is still finite, we just don't know its precise length (typically because its endpoint hasn't been specified yet). An eternity is an infinite period of time.

Depends on what your standard is. Imagine how utterly repugnant one sin must be to God, if the punishment He administers for sinning against Him is Hell.

But what, exactly, is so bad about it? A couple of our ancestors ate forbidden fruit, and that's justification for condemning all humans to an eternity of suffering? If God hates it so much, why doesn't he just snap his fingers and poof our 'sinful nature' out of us?

It doesn't matter how you look at it. You are going to find a way to convince yourself that God is a monster and not worthy of your worship.

I do not worship your god because I do not believe such a being exists, not least because of the theological inconsistencies. He could be depicted as the most benevolent being in the universe, guaranteeing all humans entry into eternal paradise (Christians and non-Christians alike), I still wouldn't believe in him. Not without supporting evidence and/or rationale.

A point you have already made clear by your association with other gods. How do the gods of Wicca handle sin? Or do they even address the issue?

They do not. The Wiccan gods are not depicted as all-just, all-loving, etc. Nature is harsh, and my gods embody nature. Thus, my gods are as harsh and as loving as nature.

'Sin' is not a Pagan concept.

Okay. So according to you, people can do whatever evil thing they want and it doesn't matter. There is no punishment for evil.

I never said that. I said that no series of finite crimes is worthy of infinite punishment. If the only alternative is no punishment at all, then so be it, but I don't see why this should be the case.

God has a law and since God is holy and righteous He must uphold that law. Would you think a human judge were loving and kind if he released a criminal back into society to commit more crimes against society? No. You'd demand that judge be removed from the bench, because he's not doing his job and protecting the people he's sworn to defend. God by sending people to Hell, keeps His chosen people safe from evildoers. It's actually very loving.

Loving? The entire world would demand a social reform if our judicial system sent each and every criminal, from juvenile thieves to mass murders, to the torture bed, or the concentration camp. No one would ever dream of calling such a barbaric system 'loving'. We'd become no better than the KGB, complete with gulags.

Do those faiths promise a teacher that will enlighten people to the "truths" of those faiths? We know the claims of Muslims and Ba'hai and others are fake, because their leaders are all dead and buried. That isn't the case with Jesus Christ. Jesus told His followers that God would raise Him from the dead three days after He died. And whaddya know. Jesus rose from the dead. No one's seen Mohammed or any other religious figure that claimed to be from God. Hmm? Wonder why that is.

Because they never claimed they would rise from the dead. Where in the Qu'ran does Mohammed claim that, after his death, he would rise? Moreover, what evidence is there that Jesus really did resurrect?

Sorry this doesn't work. All Bible translations say the same thing, they just say it differently. Compare any of them you want. Compare the ESV to the NASB to the NLT to the NRSV to the KJV to the NKJV. They all deliver the same message. Jesus Christ born, lived, died, and resurrected to pay for the sins of mankind. The plethora of interpretations does not invalidate the work. I'm sure there's a plethora of interpretations regarding any religious document. That by itself does not invalidate the truth of the work.

Aye, but it does obfuscate just what the truth is. The general theme of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are not particularly different in each compilation, translation, and interpretation, of the NT. But other things are not so clear: did Jesus travel to the Americas, as espoused by the Mormons? Did God take six days to Create everything? Is God pro-gay, anti-gay, or neither?

And, since this is a thread concerning homosexuality, the latter is most important to this discussion.

My point is that other faiths espouse works righteousness, by doing works you will be saved. Christianity is different in that it is the work of another that saves us.

And my point is that it doesn't. Wicca, for instance, merely says "Do what you want, just don't hurt anyone". There is no notion of 'salvation', either by works or by faith.

Prove me wrong. How are Hindus saved again?

They aren't. There is no concept of 'salvation' within Hinduism, since there is nothing to be saved from. There is, however, the concept of samsara and moksha: samsara is the continuum of birth, death, and rebirth. One can either continue to progress through this cycle and experience physical pleasure, or one can be released from samsara via moksha, and thus ensure everlasting happiness.

What is their punishment for not behaving well? Reincarnation isn't it? Look at Judaism. They believe following the law will save them. Look at Buddhism. To attain enlightenment you have to do what, again?

You have to simply achieve enlightenment. Desire is the root of suffering, so abstain from desire.

It's pretty funny that a Wiccan is attempting to tell me what all of Christendom believes. I don't care what all of Christendom believes. That's not my standard for what is true.

Perhaps, but I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply relating my experiences with other Christians.

My views on what is fair are not in play here. It doesn't matter what I think is fair. How is what I personally think is fair, binding upon God? He is the creator, I am the creation. What right do I have to dictate to my creator what is fair? Job tried that. Didn't work out too well as I recall. Being a homosexual Christian will not send you to Hell. To say otherwise is to deny the power of Christ's blood to forgive and cleanse sin. God can not send a soundly saved Christian to Hell. It would be a clear violation of His promise.

Nevertheless, some people believe it. They believe that one cannot be saved if one still identifies as homosexual (even abstaining from same-sex sex isn't enough).

Call it what you want. It's an expression of absolute shock.

Fair enough.

Sorry. The first four are: "In the begging God." If you can't accept that there is a God, don't bother reading the Bible.

Oh, I can accept that, I just don't see any reason to. But I don't have to believe the Bible to read it, so I don't see where you're going with this.

No because a gun manufacturer would then be in violation of the law. Parents can't do anything they want because they would be in violation of the law. God has laid down a law too, and anyone who violates it is punished. That's justice. You just disagree with the punishment. That's not God's problem and your disagreement is not binding upon Him to change His punishment.

Indeed. But I still object to the punishment, and find it ludicrous to call such a entity (who imposes itself as judge, jury, and executioner) 'loving', 'fair', 'just', etc.

Simple. He is the law giver. Who is the government to decide who should and should not do something? Nobody has freewill when it comes to salvation. That's Arminianism and it's heresy. Humans are born in sin with a sinful nature. That sinful nature dictates our actions. Nobody can choose salvation. Nobody chooses to be saved, because there is not one who seeks after God or seeks to do good. All have turned away from God. God had to come down here to us, gather us to Himself and save us. There is not one line of scripture that supports the idea that people choose salvation, but it's all the rage in modern-day evangelicalism.

Then why doesn't God save everyone? If he's omnipotent and wants everyone to be saved, what's the problem? Like you said, we don't have a choice in the matter (so much for free will).

Sorry, but there is no slew of metaphor there. Those are all litereal statements.

So we have to literally walk through the physical manifestation of Jesus where, on the other side, God awaits? We have to swim through a physical swimming pool filled with Jesus' blood?

The wages of sin is death. If you go back through the OT you will see that when people committed sins, the high priests had to offer a sacrifice to cover the sins of the people. The only sacrifice that would suffice as a sin offering were animals that were perfect and without blemish. This was a foreshadowing of Jesus, who would be the sacrificial lamb, perfect without defect, who would take on the sins of the world and pay for them with His death upon a cross. Now no one knows how blood cleanses sin, but that's apparently how it happens.

So a person is saved when they are given the divine revelation that Jesus Christ is in fact the messiah that has saved them from their sins. This revelation is a gift from God.

So why haven't I received it?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Here's a good example of where heresy leads:

You must be a politician, Polycarp_fan. You gave a great deal of spiel while avoiding answering the question/s. As long as you believe that homosexuality (homosexual behavior?) is wrong according to God, why the need to torment them in hell for all eternity (infinitely) for this (finite) wrong?

Talk about spin. It is all you do here. "I" just agree with the Apostolic reality that gay sex is not for Christians. You cannot and never will be able to turn me into your straw man. "I" have never once written that gay sex damns anyone. Refusing the Gospel already does that. I just agree with what the Apostles wrote and why they wrote it. They saw you guys coming. Kind of prophetically so really. It's a bit creepy. And here you are. Same ol' same ol'.

Why would you desire to love a God that would do this?

I love a God that loves a contrite and huble spirit. I love a God that "FORGIVES" me when I cry out to Him. I do not see repentance as a hate crime. I don't see foregiveness as an ex-gay ministry to sue.

You sir, are fighting against the Apostles and the Gospel. I am just humbly agreeing with Christ and His Apostles. I don;t like lying either. "Christians" are taught that that is wrong "too." Should I consider a call to the ACLU to sue my Church because it teaches that I should not lie?

Why would you desire that EVERY ONE ELSE love a God that would do this?

How does that great song go? Oh yeah . . . "I was blind but now I see." Another recognition of Gospel truth. Even King David saw that. (Psst, and he wasn't a "Christian.")

Where is the logic in this?

Where is the "logic" in your "anything goes" theology? It's quite "adversarial" to the Gospel really. Do you know the Hebrew word for "adversary?"

Note: Even in our man-made legal system it is supposedly designed as a means to rehabilitate people as well as to punish them. God's evil system (according to mainstream Christanity) makes no such allowances for people to be rehabilitated.

You are either bearing false witness out of ignorance or malice. It is the man-made systemes that allow for NO alterations of orientation. Christian reality is the exact opposite to your opinions.

By the way, I don't adhere to mainstream Christinity's cruel version of hell.

Welllllll, there's a surprise. Not really. Heresy always follows the same path. It may be called liberal or progressive ideology now, but it is always the same "thing." I knew where you stood. The whole "part" and parcel thing.

Jesus thought hell was reality. (So did the demons.) You on the other hand . . ., why are you opposing Jesus?

Seems to me that Christianity (God?) creates the fear.

Again, the Apostles make your position in the wrong. I just agree with them.

Then Christianity (God?) creates a way out. Seems very much like control.

Ummm, you do listen to gay statements don't you? They seem so structurally important to you. Now THAT is a place to see control and caveat as doctrine and dogma. Talk about "creating" a way out. In fact, no other style of sin and sinning gets the pass that gay sex does. Not one.

You need to do more study. Stop letting emotionalism drive your reasoning.

 

[KCKID]

Perhaps you and I should call a truce, Polycarp_fan. I don't particularly enjoy fighting with you in this way. It's not beneficial to either one of us. We may not see eye to eye on this issue but there's no need for us to behave as though we hate each other.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.

- Charles Darwin

Hmm, either a God way of thinking, or an emotional position based on a man having his beloved daughter die from a disease and "why did God allow it to happen?"

Why is it, that the atheist desires such a puppet master god? Probbaly the answer lies within thier incessant need to lead by authoritarian rule.

Or, in context to the OP, getting people away from lies and liars is an act of love and compassion.

You claimed that, because God is eternal, the punishments and rewards he gives out are therefore eternal. You made a 'A implies B' claim, despite the fact that there is no obvious way A implies B. In your own words:

"God is an eternal being, therefore any punishment or reward He imposes upon a person will be eternal as well."

How does the former imply the latter?

Time is a created thing. Once we no longer live under "time," we have forever "now." Or, eternity. I wouldn't want to tell somone that they should live forever "now" away from God. Look at how Jesus tells of hell as a "seperation" from others. THAT, is an absolutely provable experiment as to what hell "is."

Hah, of course. A self-professed Christian disagrees with you? Then they clearly belong to a heretical cult that parodies and mocks the True Christian Faith, which you yourself are obviously a member.
For a religion claiming to be one of love and peace, there sure is a lot of backstabbing.

Rote reply. skeptics.org, or a Dawkins book?

Seperating the wheat from the chaff is a daunting task. Jesus used parables as a scientist uses established facts. Wolves wearing shppes clothing. Etc., etc., etc.. Even scientists challenge each other. It is using the intelligence God gave you.

Unless you're proposing that this 'relationship' is passed down by natural means (genetics, culture, etc), I can only surmise that God himself plays a hand in this.

0 x 0 equals atheism and other nonsensical belief systems like evolution.

We are created beings created by the Creator. We are not puppets on a string. Like children we can grow up and choose good or evil. Even science proves cause and effect is rational thought. You don;t stand under a brick you've just tossed skyward, but than again, someone can make that choice. Christians desire reality above silliness.

Why, then, does he continue to plonk newborns into a 'sinful' relationship?

Hmm, rather, why does anyone have a desire to have children when they themselves know that life is frought with all kinds of nastiness? Breeding then must ne a mantal illness worse than suicdal ideation. Far worse actually. Animals don't know that they are going to die. But we do. Now ask why?

The nongodian ALWAYS breaks everything down to selfishness. The same old "why are babies born blind," declaration. Atheists demand a far more harsh God them the One we see in reality. Science can prove God easier than "it" can prove chaos makes order.

Even if I've got my surmise wrong, why doesn't he do something about it? As an omnipotence, he is able to just poof the sinful nature out of a person. Why doesn't he?

In reality, the "sin nature" is never worked out of a person. It can only be scientifically recognized and dealt with rationally. Or not. But the "or not" part is not coming from Christians. Without a loss and victory is meaningless. It is a human being thing. It exists in no other species. Why is that I "wonder." I quote "wonder" because "even" atheists wonder about things. They just want absolutism to rule the world. And yet, the Christians get charged with that. Hmm, I wonder why?

Because that would be unfair. It works both ways: no finite series of finite deeds is worthy of eternal punishment or reward.

Ummm, that IS the Christian" message." It is all about the "mind" of God. Both Jesus and Paul speak on this. Scientifically so.

Well, I have only ever objected to infinite punishment for finite crimes. Finite punishment for finite crimes? Sure, that's reasonable. That's why the idea of purgatory appealed to me when I was a Christian: the punishment fit the crime.

"When" you "were a Christian, reality was not changed there either. Purgatory proves yet again, that "Christians" are indeed free thinkers. Time to comem back to reality sir.

No: an indefinite period of time is still finite, we just don't know its precise length (typically because its endpoint hasn't been specified yet). An eternity is an infinite period of time.

Eternity is a word for "now," this very "moment" never ending.

Every love story ever spoken or written.

God is the desire of the heart and mind.

"A love that lasts forever."

Human nature speaks only to God. God is literally in our DNA.

Even a scientist desires to be correct "forever." That is why they search for "answers." Christians become the ultimate scientist.

But what, exactly, is so bad about it? A couple of our ancestors ate forbidden fruit, and that's justification for condemning all humans to an eternity of suffering?

The atheist enters compassion. Sometimes it proves them to be so noble. But nobility does not exist in the animal kingdom. A gorgeous lion has no idea he is gorgeous. His mane is just there for heterosexual reasons. Exclusively heterosexual reasons. Nothing more and nothing less.

If God hates it so much, why doesn't he just snap his fingers and poof our 'sinful nature' out of us?

If there is no free will and free choice, then why and how can you even contemplate your thoughts here? Winning and losing is the human nature. An atheist can be seen as proof of God because, no animal thinks about tomorrow. They only observe pre-programmed instinct. Asking questions enters "Logic" into eternity. How "can" that happen? Evolution makes no sense to a thinking mind. Especially when considering the coveting your neighbors wife thing. I know I am much stronger than the wimp down the street with the hot wife. As an evolutionist, I should be able to take her as I wish. But, then that nasty old thinking process of "right and wrong" enters the fray. Atheists are more moral than religionists in some areas it appears.

I do not worship your god because I do not believe such a being exists, not least because of the theological inconsistencies. He could be depicted as the most benevolent being in the universe, guaranteeing all humans entry into eternal paradise (Christians and non-Christians alike), I still wouldn't believe in him. Not without supporting evidence and/or rationale.

Yet you present ideas to the contrary. There is no reason to care about idiot religionists. They are not competing for atheist goals. Letting these bumblers go through life to their worm-eating destination SHOULD BE the Atheist mantra. But, we see the atheists far more passioante and malevolent in their demands for conformance and "good" for all mankind. Even forced goodness. We are back to the authoritarian god worshipped by atheists. Wanting their cake and eating it too. As it were.

They do not. The Wiccan gods are not depicted as all-just, all-loving, etc. Nature is harsh, and my gods embody nature. Thus, my gods are as harsh and as loving as nature.

Nature emobodies order. Why even respond to anything to do with Wicca?

'Sin' is not a Pagan concept.

Then why the incantations? "Sin" is just a word denoting the need for payback. THAT is a very pagan idea. And an atheist one also. It's interesting how Atheists and Pagans support homosexuals and homosexuality. Fascinating. Especially considering that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary at best. Nature does not celebrate the homosexual. A pitiless end for them there. No hope of a future. Literally.

I never said that. I said that no series of finite crimes is worthy of infinite punishment. If the only alternative is no punishment at all, then so be it, but I don't see why this should be the case.

Human "nature" speaks to accountability and consequences." Human nature is in opposition to atheism and of course nature and homosexuality are not freinds.

Loving? The entire world would demand a social reform if our judicial system sent each and every criminal, from juvenile thieves to mass murders, to the torture bed, or the concentration camp. No one would ever dream of calling such a barbaric system 'loving'. We'd become no better than the KGB, complete with gulags.

One word and you have no worries. That is Christian love. Yet, Christians can be outlawed and imprisoned for just wanting to be Christians. Preaching cannot hurt anyone. Actions can though. We see humans developing a justice system that is cruel. "God" only desires a contrite heart and a declaration of this choice and all is well.

Because they never claimed they would rise from the dead. Where in the Qu'ran does Mohammed claim that, after his death, he would rise? Moreover, what evidence is there that Jesus really did resurrect?

The canard about the resurrection being a myth is laughable. We are not arguing about a carpenters son from Cleveland Ohio.

Aye, but it does obfuscate just what the truth is. The general theme of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are not particularly different in each compilation, translation, and interpretation, of the NT. But other things are not so clear: did Jesus travel to the Americas, as espoused by the Mormons? Did God take six days to Create everything? Is God pro-gay, anti-gay, or neither?

Such free thinking in Christianity. Rather different than the authoritarian toltalitariansim of the non-godians.

And, since this is a thread concerning homosexuality, the latter is most important to this discussion.

You sure spun your way to the OP. Gay sex is not appropriate for Christians. That is provable from the texts of the New Testament. Christians desire study and examination to establish truth. Not just knee jerk emotionalism. Such as Darwin's at the top here.

[quite[And my point is that it doesn't. Wicca, for instance, merely says "Do what you want, just don't hurt anyone". There is no notion of 'salvation', either by works or by faith.[/quote]

And we see through cause and effect, that people "doing as they wilteth," does indeed harm many people. It is sceintifically provable. Ask an AID's victim that has never done drugs or gay sex.

They aren't. There is no concept of 'salvation' within Hinduism, since there is nothing to be saved from. There is, however, the concept of samsara and moksha: samsara is the continuum of birth, death, and rebirth.

The math just isn't there for that to be reality.

One can either continue to progress through this cycle and experience physical pleasure, or one can be released from samsara via moksha, and thus ensure everlasting happiness.

Myth is something akin to reality. Only something like it. The Christians seem to hold reality at a very high value. "Logic" and all.

quote]You have to simply achieve enlightenment. Desire is the root of suffering, so abstain from desire.[/quote]

Which is antithetical to reality. Even Hindus know that. That's why they want to be capitalists, materialism and all. Sin is a tangible reality.

Perhaps, but I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply relating my experiences with other Christians.

Is there really, a reason to be dishonest? Every atheist desires to recruit everyone into atheism. It is part of human nature. No one likes to be alone. It is why hell is a provable reality as well. It is also why atheists don;t like to be opposed. Their god is one of authoritatrian rule. They follow their doctrine dogmatically.

Nevertheless, some people believe it. They believe that one cannot be saved if one still identifies as homosexual (even abstaining from same-sex sex isn't enough).

And . . . using the truth IN the Bible, these people could be shown the errors of their ways. But, they have to want to choose to open their eyes. Which is a matephor for "mind." Metaphor is used a lot by smart people. Parables are used to show people as stupid for the most part.

Fair enough.

usually, if you push hard enough, you can get an atheist to be oen-minded. But it takes work.

Oh, I can accept that, I just don't see any reason to. But I don't have to believe the Bible to read it, so I don't see where you're going with this.

Research is a sceintific method. I notice with frequecncy the atheist relies on emotionalism for almost all of their beliefs.

[quuote]Indeed. But I still object to the punishment, and find it ludicrous to call such a entity (who imposes itself as judge, jury, and executioner) 'loving', 'fair', 'just', etc.[/quote]

Spoken like a sixteen year old child to a decent set of parents. Why think like a child? Cause and effect is a sceintific method. Do the math.

Then why doesn't God save everyone? If he's omnipotent and wants everyone to be saved, what's the problem? Like you said, we don't have a choice in the matter (so much for free will).

There you go back to your totalitarianism again. It is any wonder why Christians oppose atheists in authority???????

Anyone that has even had a child or desires to have a child knows how flawed your emotional outburst is here.

So we have to literally walk through the physical manifestation of Jesus where, on the other side, God awaits? We have to swim through a physical swimming pool filled with Jesus' blood?

Stop allowing early Church heresy to influence you. Jesus used the Passover Meal as an example of what He was to be remembered doing. It's not as tough an idea as you "have been led" to believe. But, false teachers are even worse than atheists when leading people astray. At least atheists "sometimes" desire justice and equality for all.

So why haven't I received it?

You haven't used your mind to think things through. That choice is open for you as well, for a long period of time. Your wholoe life actually.

 

[Zecryphon]

You claimed that, because God is eternal, the punishments and rewards he gives out are therefore eternal. You made a 'A implies B' claim, despite the fact that there is no obvious way A implies B. In your own words:

"God is an eternal being, therefore any punishment or reward He imposes upon a person will be eternal as well."

How does the former imply the latter?

When you leave this world through death, you enter God's realm where time doesn't exist. You now exist in eternity. When judgment is passed upon you at the Great White Throne Judgment there is only one Judgment that will be handed down, because those at that particular judgment are not in Christ. Since they rejected Christ and God's offer of salvation they have made it clear that they don't want to have their sins forgiven or to spend eternity with Jesus in Heaven. Since this is their wish, God tells them that they will now pay for their sins, that they will now be punished for their sins. Since you now exist in eternity any punishment or reward you receive can only be eternal.

The sinners will be punished in Hell. What you seem to be asking is why God has declared an eternity in Hell is reasonable. You're asking me to speak as to why God did something. I can't speak to that, as I don't know why God does things. He has made it very clear that if you die without Christ as your savior, you will go to Hell for eternity. You want to use reason so much here? Figure out which ending is better for you. Heaven or Hell.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Then they're not being honest.
​

Hah, of course. A self-professed Christian disagrees with you? Then they clearly belong to a heretical cult that parodies and mocks the True Christian Faith, which you yourself are obviously a member.
For a religion claiming to be one of love and peace, there sure is a lot of backstabbing.

So now it's a single self-professed Christian? I thought you were arguing the position that not all Christians agree with my views. So which is it? If it's a single self-professed Christian, who is it? I never said they belong to a heretical cult that parodies and mocks the True Christian Faith. Produce one sentence typed by me that says that or retract your lie about me. You are projecting lies here. Probably because you've got nothing else to offer.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Because humans were not created to be sinful in the first place. They were created to live in full fellowship and in paradise with God. So why not make it that humans inherit that perfect relationship through birth? It's not as crazy as it sounds. Humans inherit a lot of things through birth from their parents. Not all of it is good though.
​

Unless you're proposing that this 'relationship' is passed down by natural means (genetics, culture, etc), I can only surmise that God himself plays a hand in this. Why, then, does he continue to plonk newborns into a 'sinful' relationship? Even if I've got my surmise wrong, why doesn't he do something about it? As an omnipotence, he is able to just poof the sinful nature out of a person. Why doesn't he?

The newborns inherit the nature of their parents. Since we all came from Adam and Eve, we inherit the sinful nature of Adam and Eve. God doesn't insert this sin nature into each and every newborn. It is passed to them by their parents, not given to them by God. I can only speculate as to why God doesn't pull the sin nature from each newborn. My guess is that it wouldn't do any good. Adam and Eve were created perfect and without sin, yet they still fell into sin. So even if God did pluck the sin nature out of each individual newborn, they would still fall into sin. So Jesus sacrifice to pay for sin is still necessary. Plucking the sin nature out, doesn't solve the problem of sin for humans.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

And those finite sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ, which restores us to a right relationship with God. If this restoration results in eternal life, then why should the punishment against an eternal God not also be eternal?
​

Because that would be unfair.

According to who's standard?

It works both ways: no finite series of finite deeds is worthy of eternal punishment or reward.

In your opinion. Your opinion of what is and is not fair is not binding upon God.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

I don't think it's that people will go to Hell that bothers you, I think it's how long God has declared they will be there. If universalism is true, people will be there for an indefinite period of time. Universalists don't agree on how long this purifcation takes.
​

Well, I have only ever objected to infinite punishment for finite crimes. Finite punishment for finite crimes? Sure, that's reasonable. That's why the idea of purgatory appealed to me when I was a Christian: the punishment fit the crime.

But the idea of purgatory is not scriptural. It goes against having Jesus Christ pay for your sins with His death and resurrection. The idea is that you go to this place and pay for your sins yourself. That's heresy.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

But can't we just say that eternity is an indefinite period of time as well?

​

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Depends on what your standard is. Imagine how utterly repugnant one sin must be to God, if the punishment He administers for sinning against Him is Hell.
​

But what, exactly, is so bad about it? A couple of our ancestors ate forbidden fruit, and that's justification for condemning all humans to an eternity of suffering? If God hates it so much, why doesn't he just snap his fingers and poof our 'sinful nature' out of us?

Because maybe not all people desire to be with God. Ever think of that? I mean you've made the choice to reject God in favor of the god and goddess of Wicca. You clearly don't want to be with God forever, so why should God take you to be with Him forever? Is divine kidnapping your definition of love?

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

It doesn't matter how you look at it. You are going to find a way to convince yourself that God is a monster and not worthy of your worship.
​

I do not worship your god because I do not believe such a being exists, not least because of the theological inconsistencies. He could be depicted as the most benevolent being in the universe, guaranteeing all humans entry into eternal paradise (Christians and non-Christians alike), I still wouldn't believe in him. Not without supporting evidence and/or rationale.

Okay, what's the supporting rational evidence that the religion of Wicca is true? Where is the proof that your god and goddess exist? C'mon. I wanna see it. I wanna see scientific evidence that proves without a doubt that the beliefs of your religion, are true. But then if we use your line of reasoning about what makes something true, which is all people must agree with each other, then Wicca can't be true either, because not all Wiccans agree with each other about what happens when you die. Guess your religion is a sham too, huH?

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

A point you have already made clear by your association with other gods. How do the gods of Wicca handle sin? Or do they even address the issue?
​

They do not. The Wiccan gods are not depicted as all-just, all-loving, etc. Nature is harsh, and my gods embody nature. Thus, my gods are as harsh and as loving as nature.

'Sin' is not a Pagan concept.

I never said that sin was a pagan concept. So now you're addressing points I'm not even making. Wonderful. So these violent gods that you worship are somehow more loving or fair than the God of the Bible? Obviously not. In fact, you just said they were harsh, since nature is harsh. So your gods aren't loving at all.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Okay. So according to you, people can do whatever evil thing they want and it doesn't matter. There is no punishment for evil.
​

I never said that. I said that no series of finite crimes is worthy of infinite punishment. If the only alternative is no punishment at all, then so be it, but I don't see why this should be the case.

This is your opinion and it is not binding upon God. He has said what the punishment is. You can either accept that or reject it. You've rejected it. No point in going over and over this.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

God has a law and since God is holy and righteous He must uphold that law. Would you think a human judge were loving and kind if he released a criminal back into society to commit more crimes against society? No. You'd demand that judge be removed from the bench, because he's not doing his job and protecting the people he's sworn to defend. God by sending people to Hell, keeps His chosen people safe from evildoers. It's actually very loving.
​

Loving? The entire world would demand a social reform if our judicial system sent each and every criminal, from juvenile thieves to mass murders, to the torture bed, or the concentration camp. No one would ever dream of calling such a barbaric system 'loving'. We'd become no better than the KGB, complete with gulags

You forget willingly, to keep harping on your point that God is a monster, that God did provide an alternative to Hell and that no one has to go to Hell. People send themselves to Hell by rejecting Christ. All God is doing is giving people what they clearly want. That's loving. If a criminal refuses a plea bargain that will save him from the lethal injection table, whose to blame for his fate? The state, who offered a solution to his problem, or the criminal? Using your line of logic, you blame the state.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Do those faiths promise a teacher that will enlighten people to the "truths" of those faiths? We know the claims of Muslims and Ba'hai and others are fake, because their leaders are all dead and buried. That isn't the case with Jesus Christ. Jesus told His followers that God would raise Him from the dead three days after He died. And whaddya know. Jesus rose from the dead. No one's seen Mohammed or any other religious figure that claimed to be from God. Hmm? Wonder why that is.
​

Because they never claimed they would rise from the dead. Where in the Qu'ran does Mohammed claim that, after his death, he would rise? Moreover, what evidence is there that Jesus really did resurrect?

There are eyewitness accounts in the Bible and extra-Biblical accounts as well. The information regarding this is plentiful, you should have no problem finding it.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Sorry this doesn't work. All Bible translations say the same thing, they just say it differently. Compare any of them you want. Compare the ESV to the NASB to the NLT to the NRSV to the KJV to the NKJV. They all deliver the same message. Jesus Christ born, lived, died, and resurrected to pay for the sins of mankind. The plethora of interpretations does not invalidate the work. I'm sure there's a plethora of interpretations regarding any religious document. That by itself does not invalidate the truth of the work.
​

Aye, but it does obfuscate just what the truth is. The general theme of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection are not particularly different in each compilation, translation, and interpretation, of the NT. But other things are not so clear: did Jesus travel to the Americas, as espoused by the Mormons? Did God take six days to Create everything? Is God pro-gay, anti-gay, or neither?

Those topics are not binding upon the mission of Jesus Christ which is to save sinners. Mormons aren't Christians and no Jesus did not travel to the Americas. He ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father until He comes again. The six days of creation has been put to rest as investigation of the original Hebrew word for day does seem to indicate a 24 hour period. When God created, that's still debatable. I see nothing in the scriptures that dictates it was 6,000 years ago. The gay thing is a waste of time.

It doesn't matter if your gay or straight or bi, if you have Jesus as your savior, you are saved. The Christians who say that gay people are not Christians and are not saved, are heretics because they are denying that Christ has the power to save some people, that His blood is not sufficient to pay for certain sins. This is found in Mormonism too. They believe in blood atonement for certain sins, because they too believe that Jesus' blood is insufficient to pay for certain sins.
And, since this is a thread concerning homosexuality, the latter is most important to this discussion.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

My point is that other faiths espouse works righteousness, by doing works you will be saved. Christianity is different in that it is the work of another that saves us.
​

And my point is that it doesn't. Wicca, for instance, merely says "Do what you want, just don't hurt anyone". There is no notion of 'salvation', either by works or by faith.

No but there is a notion of some sort of retribution if you do evil against another person. Your three-fold law, I believe it's called. How is it rationally justified or even reasonable that if a person does evil against another person, that the evil will be returned to the three-fold? Why three times as bad, why not just the idea of karma? You know what goes around comes around?

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Prove me wrong. How are Hindus saved again?
​

They aren't. There is no concept of 'salvation' within Hinduism, since there is nothing to be saved from. There is, however, the concept of samsara and moksha: samsara is the continuum of birth, death, and rebirth. One can either continue to progress through this cycle and experience physical pleasure, or one can be released from samsara via moksha, and thus ensure everlasting happiness.

Gee that's funny because when Hindus are witnessed to on the street and asked what happens in Hinduism when you commit a sin, they all have an answer. When they're asked how they're saved they have an answer. But I guess you know more about other people's religions than they do, don't you?


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

What is their punishment for not behaving well? Reincarnation isn't it? Look at Judaism. They believe following the law will save them. Look at Buddhism. To attain enlightenment you have to do what, again?
​

You have to simply achieve enlightenment. Desire is the root of suffering, so abstain from desire.

Right, you have to do something. That's what I've been saying and you're telling me I'm wrong. Apparently I'm not wrong. People in other faiths have to do something to receive whatever reward it is their faith promises. Christians don't have to do anything and in fact, can't do anything to save themselves. Our salvation or reward, since the word salvation seems to mess you up, is a gift. It's not something we earn or achieve through a work on our part.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

It's pretty funny that a Wiccan is attempting to tell me what all of Christendom believes. I don't care what all of Christendom believes. That's not my standard for what is true.
​

Perhaps, but I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply relating my experiences with other Christians.

Not all Wiccans agree on what happens in the afterlife, does that invalidate the teachings of Wicca? According to the logic you've displayed towards Christianity, the answer would be yes, the teachings of Wicca are not true, becuase not all Wiccans agree on some aspect of the faith.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

My views on what is fair are not in play here. It doesn't matter what I think is fair. How is what I personally think is fair, binding upon God? He is the creator, I am the creation. What right do I have to dictate to my creator what is fair? Job tried that. Didn't work out too well as I recall. Being a homosexual Christian will not send you to Hell. To say otherwise is to deny the power of Christ's blood to forgive and cleanse sin. God can not send a soundly saved Christian to Hell. It would be a clear violation of His promise.
​

Nevertheless, some people believe it. They believe that one cannot be saved if one still identifies as homosexual (even abstaining from same-sex sex isn't enough).

So what? I could personally believe that if I sing the Hokey Pokey while spinning around three times while patting my head and rubbing my belly five times a day I will be saved. Doesn't make it true though. This idea that a person who is a homosexual can not be saved simply because they are a homosexual is not supported in the scriptures. And the people who do espouse such a position find they have a very hard time making their case from scripture. Scripture teaches us that Jesus' shed blood is sufficient to pay for the sins of all people. Guess those people don't understand what the word "all"' means.



Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Sorry. The first four are: "In the begging God." If you can't accept that there is a God, don't bother reading the Bible.
​

Oh, I can accept that, I just don't see any reason to. But I don't have to believe the Bible to read it, so I don't see where you're going with this.

My point is that if you don't believe God exists, why would you care about His revelation to His people? Why would you care whether or not all people agree about what that revelation is? You don't see me going to Wiccan forums and pointing out all the inconsistencies in your religion, if there are any. I know not all Wiccans agree on the afterlife, so I could probably start with that as a launching point. But I don't. So what drives you to come to a Christian forum and tell us how wrong we all are and how flawed our holy books are? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

No because a gun manufacturer would then be in violation of the law. Parents can't do anything they want because they would be in violation of the law. God has laid down a law too, and anyone who violates it is punished. That's justice. You just disagree with the punishment. That's not God's problem and your disagreement is not binding upon Him to change His punishment.
​

Indeed. But I still object to the punishment, and find it ludicrous to call such a entity (who imposes itself as judge, jury, and executioner) 'loving', 'fair', 'just', etc.

Yeah and I don't care that you object.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Simple. He is the law giver. Who is the government to decide who should and should not do something? Nobody has freewill when it comes to salvation. That's Arminianism and it's heresy. Humans are born in sin with a sinful nature. That sinful nature dictates our actions. Nobody can choose salvation. Nobody chooses to be saved, because there is not one who seeks after God or seeks to do good. All have turned away from God. God had to come down here to us, gather us to Himself and save us. There is not one line of scripture that supports the idea that people choose salvation, but it's all the rage in modern-day evangelicalism.
​

Then why doesn't God save everyone? If he's omnipotent and wants everyone to be saved, what's the problem? Like you said, we don't have a choice in the matter (so much for free will).

Because God is not going to force people to be with Him who don't want to be with Him. What would be loving about that?


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Sorry, but there is no slew of metaphor there. Those are all litereal statements.
​

So we have to literally walk through the physical manifestation of Jesus where, on the other side, God awaits? We have to swim through a physical swimming pool filled with Jesus' blood?

No and that is not taught anywhere in scripture. It is Jesus' sacrifice and shedding of blood that satisfied God's wrath. For those who call upon the name of Jesus to be saved, those will be saved. Jesus taught repentance and faith as the way to be saved. His sacrifice satisfied God's wrath. If people repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ, they will be saved. It's all very consistent.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

The wages of sin is death. If you go back through the OT you will see that when people committed sins, the high priests had to offer a sacrifice to cover the sins of the people. The only sacrifice that would suffice as a sin offering were animals that were perfect and without blemish. This was a foreshadowing of Jesus, who would be the sacrificial lamb, perfect without defect, who would take on the sins of the world and pay for them with His death upon a cross. Now no one knows how blood cleanses sin, but that's apparently how it happens.

So a person is saved when they are given the divine revelation that Jesus Christ is in fact the messiah that has saved them from their sins. This revelation is a gift from God.
​

So why haven't I received it?

Because you've chosen to follow other gods. But you're not a completely lost cause yet. I believe that one day God will give you the gift of faith, just as he gave it to me when I was involved in all that Pagan stuff too.

 

[Zecryphon]

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Why would He violate His own revelation about how people are saved. People are not saved by actions they perform. They are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
​

Yet this contradicts what you stated earlier, that people are only sent to Hell for committing hundreds of thousands of sins.

When I wrote that I was trying to explain the concept of Hell to another Christian. If I were writing to you I would have stated it differently. The people who die without Christ go to Hell.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

We have seen that He has meted out various punishments for those who oppose Him. He has made it clear that after Christ's life, death, resurrection and ascension, if you are not saved by the blood of Christ by Judgment Day then you are going to Hell.
​

So you admit that people are sent to Hell for committing only one sin. Which again raises the question why God would eternally punish a person for simply not believing in Him, particularly when that God doesn't provide any real evidence that he even exists.

He has provided real evidence. Jesus Christ's existence, death and resurrection, which God's prophets all foretold, point to God's existence.

You make God sound like a narcissistic and sadistic God for creating people, hiding himself from them, and then torturing them forever in the worst possible ways for simply not believing in Him.

You are the one who paints him that way not me. Stop projecting your lies about God onto me as if they're even valid. You've hardened your heart against God. He has provided proof of His existence, you just reject it. Just like you reject Him and His Son who He sent to die for your sins.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

So since all Christians disagree on something, that something can't be true? Who's the authority here, God or all Christians?
​

Merely pointing out that you are claiming God hides Himself so much that even those who believe in Him can't agree on exactly what God wants or what He will send them to Hell for. Yet he'll sent people to hell if they don't believe in the correct version of Him. After all, many Protestants, particular Fundamentalists, believe those that don't believe as they do will go to hell, such as Catholics, Mormons, etc -- they claim these people believe in a different "God".

The key to salvation is not believing as the fundamentalists do. The key to salvation is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons will go to Hell because they don't believe in a different god altogether. Joespeh Smith was told by the angel Moroni that all Christian churches were apostate and false and that the religion Joseph would establish would be the one true church. Joseph Smith never considered himself or any of his followers Christians. He hated Christiand and considered them apostate. It's only recently that the LDS has taken on the mantle of Christian in an effort to boost their membership numbers. If you go back to the early writings of the Mormon church by Joseph Smith you will see that a Mormon is not a Christian.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

There isn't such an emphasis on homosexuality. Remember where you are when you ask that question. You're in a forum dedicated to discussing homosexuality from a Christian perspective. Of course it's going to seem like homosexuality is more of a big deal to Christians in here, than it actually is in every day life.
​

So were are all the other sub-forums for all the other sins? Why is homosexual relationships the one sin that Christians are attempting to pass constitutional amendments against? The fact that this is the only sub-forum for a single sin on this forum tends to dispute your claim that this sin isn't emphasized by Christians.

I've never claimed that Christians don't emphasize this sin. Hey did you know there's a forum on here for sexual addiction? Yeah, it's true. It's for anyone who has a problem with pornography and other sexual addictions. This forum was set up to curb debate about homosexuality that occurred in the other forums and derailed many threads. Obviously supporters and non-supporters want to debate this ad-nauseum. So this forum was created to allow that. It wasn't set up for the sole purpose of bashing homosexuals and parading this one sin out as THE cardinal sin.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Because they have violated the first commandment and have other gods other than the one true God as revealed in the scriptures.
​

So, again you contradict yourself. People will only be sent to Hell for a single sin, not for "hundred of thousands or millions" of sins.

Sorry. You're seeing contradictions where none exist. You're taking my comments to another poster's statements out of context. It is and always has been my position that those who die without Christ are the ones who go to Hell.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

I don't claim a Christian homosexual will go to Hell. I believe the blood of Jesus Christ forgives ALL sins, not just heterosexual sins.



The key there is repentance and faith exhibited by the Christian homosexual. The mass assumption that is going on in this forum by a lot of conservative Christians is that Christian homosexuals are not repentant. There is just no way to prove that. It's an assumption, nothing more.
​

That doesn't seem to reflect what the majority of Christians (at least of those that believe homosexuality is a sin) believe. They seem convicted that Christian's who perform homosexual acts will go to Hell.

Fine and they're heretics. Happy now? Is that what you want to hear me say? Anyone who is not in Christ at the time of their death goes to Hell. It's my guess that a lot of the Fundamentalist Christians who post such tripe are going to be very disappointed when they see gay people in Heaven. And when they ask "how did you get here?" The homosexual will respond "the same way you did. By the blood of Jesus shed for ALL sinnners."

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

But you forget that He didn't initially set it up this way. Go back to Eden, Hell was never a part of that plan. It existed to deal with Satan and his angels who had by that time, I believe, already rebelled against God and waged war in Heaven, although the Bible never directly addresses this. I believe to read about that you'd have to read the books of Enoch and the Quran.
​

So you are trying to tell me an all-knowing God, who placed two people in a Garden and told them not to eat from a single tree didn't know in advance that they would eventually eat of it? Not much of an all knowing God if that is the case.

Right and the god of Deism is so much wiser, right? Well it would have to be, otherwise it wouldn't be worthy of YOUR worship. Please. I don't care what you think about the God of the Bible. You see what you wanna see. You wanna think that God has done nothing to reveal Himself, so that's what you see.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Huh? What crimes has God committed against Himself?
​

You need to go back an re-read that, it isn't what I said (though I admit I maybe should have phrased it differently). Rather, I said that no human is capable of being perfect, to not commit a crime against God (other than God as Christ). So this all-knowing God created us knowing we would all (including Adam and Eve) commit crimes that would cause us to be condemned to Hell. Then he provides an unclear path (since Christians can't agree on precisely what that path is) to avoid Hell knowing the great majority of his "children" will still go to Hell. How is that compatible with a loving God?

The path is not unclear. The path to salvation is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. If Christians aren't professing that, then they need to go back and read their Bibles. There is a problem that does exist within Christianity. Alot of Christians go to church on Sunday and listen to what the preacher says. They don't follow along in their own Bibles to see if what he is saying is true. They just accept it as true, because he's the preacher. They don't test the spirits as they are commanded to do in scripture. They are not like the Bereans.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

He didn't stack the deck against anyone as non-Christians always love to assert. He gave Adam and Eve one law. One simple little law. All they had to do to remain in fellowship with God is not eat from one particular tree in the garden. That's it.
​

And if they couldn't keep that one little law, having absolute knowledge of God's existence, then what hope is there for the rest of us. Again, the Bible clearly states that only one is perfect -- the rest of us are simply not capable of it. Why would a loving God create us in such a way that we are not capable of not sinning against Him?

So He could be glorified by sending His Son Jesus Christ to pay for the sins of mankind. Thus bringing salvation to us and glory to God. We have the same hope Adam and Eve had. A future messiah who would later be named Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

If it made them equal to Hitler it would make everyone on the planet guilty of crimes against humanity. That's not what it does. What it does is it shows all people why they are in need of a savior.
​

Yet they are all punished equally.

Not all are punished though. Those in Christ are not punished.

Yes because both Ghandi and Hitler committed the same crime. They both violated the first commandment. They chose to serve other gods.[/quote]

Again you are contradicting yourself. You claim that Hitler committed different crimes, crimes against humanity. I think we can agree Ghandi did not. Yet here you state they both committed the same crime and so deserve the same punishment.

They did both commit the same crime, they believed in another god, thus violating the first commandment. Did Ghandi believe in Jesus Christ as His savior? No. Did Hitler? No. Same crime, same punishment. Neither one of them had to go to Hell though. They could have been saved by the blood of Jesus. They both thought they knew a better way.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

This is such rubbish. God does actually tell us and He uses human writers to do it.
​

And how many "writers" did he have tell us. Considering the billions and billions of people who have lived on the earth, calling the 40 some authors of the Bible a handful may be overstating.

You've answered your own question. You've said 40.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

He didn't "masquerade" as a human. He took on human flesh and the people who were His followers knew that He was God, He didn't keep it from them.
​

So people could recognize Him as God simply by looking at Him? Strange, seems to me that the Bible claims that Christ looked pretty much like everyone else -- that is masquerading -- He was hiding that He was God.

Until He revealed Himself as God. So it's not like Jesus kept His identity a secret. People knew who He was. Peter knew He was the son of God and confessed that to Jesus.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Peter confessed to Jesus that Jesus was the Son of the Living God. Jesus told His accusers that He was God. Two disciples saw Jesus transfiguration, this was hardly a secret.
​

I didn't say it was a secret. I said that He made Himself appear human so that people had to have faith, they couldn't tell He was God just by looking at Him. Despite the fact that a few of His closest followers knew He was God, the vast majority of people who saw Him never believed He was. For that matter, even Christ didn't tell people He was God as a general rule; it was only after Christ left that it really started being preached publicly.

Christ told His accusers that He was equal with God. How many people were at the trial of Jesus? A few thousand maybe? Not exactly a secret. People declared Jesus to be God after they witnessed His miracles. It wasn't after the ascension of Christ that Jesus is God really started being preached publicly.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

All Christian churches agree on the essentials of the Christian faith. Where there is disagreement is over secondary non-essential issues, like Baptism and Communion.
​

So why do so many Christians think that Christians who believe differently from them are not going to Heaven? And John 3:5 would indicate that Baptism is not a "secondary non-essential" issue.

People argue about what that baptism actually is. Some think that since Christ had not yet ascended that this is a reference to the Jewish Mikveh. Some Christians contend that water baptism is only a symbol now because we have been baptized in fire by the Holy Spirit when we are given the gift of faith. They believe that it is now something they do for God, instead of something God does for them.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

If you die without Christ, yes you will go to Hell.

Wrong, one sin is enough to send you to Hell. But you forget that since we are all descendants of Adam and Eve, we are already born separated from God by sin. We inherit the sinful nature from our parents. See Psalm 51:5.

It's clear to me that we are born in sin and separated from God. All Christians agree with this. If they don't they are denying God's revelation about Himself and humanity.
​

So basically it takes zero sins to go to Hell. A baby could live for a second, by this belief, and since that child never has a chance to know God or believe in God, that baby must automatically must go to Hell since it was born sinful. That definitely contradicts the idea of a loving God.

Faith is a gift. We see clear evidence from the scriptures that a baby can be given the gift of faith, even in the womb. This is evidenced by John the Baptist when Mary went to visit her sister Martha when she was pregnant. When the still unborn Jesus came near to the unborn John, John leaped in Martha's womb, because he knew He was in the presence of the messiah. How did he know that? He was given that revelation by God. God can save babies the same way today by giving them the gift of faith. Does He always do that? I don't know.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

It's clear to me that God provided a way for humans to be reconciled back to Himself by sending His son to die for the sins of humanity. It's clear to me that God saves people by giving them the gift of faith in Christ.
​

So it is God's fault that some people won't be saved, since he didn't give them the gift of faith in Christ? While this may not be what you mean, there is a sect of Christianity that does believe this.

Who hasn't heard the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ by now? The Great Commission has been going on for close to two thousand years now. Plus with the assistance of the internet and podcasts and the wealth of information that is available to all people now, the gospel is reaching many many more people than we've ever thought possible before. Some people hear the gospel and turn away from it because it's nonsense to them. Those people have not been given the gift of faith. But a seed has been planted, that I believe God will use other people to water and nurture so that that one seed will one day blossom into saving faith.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

It's very clear to me that not everyone is going to be saved. It's actually very clear on a lot of points you assert it's not clear on, because you're test of whether or not scripture is true or clear is not the scriptures themselves, but whether or not all Chrisitans agree. As long as your standard is other people, there will always be confusion. If your standard is God and what He has plainly revealed, there is no confusion.
​

Sorry, I have not found a Christian yet that can completely reconcile all the scriptures; though many claim to. My point is not that we have to depend on other people, my point is that even among the believers none of them agree on a single interpretation of the Bible -- and all of them claim the Bible is their sole standard. Again, the evidence is that the Bible does not provide a clear standard; which further reinforces the idea that the God you believe in is not a loving God when those who all claim a belief in Him can't even agree on what His words say.

That problem that you think is such a huge stumbling block that nobody could possibly come to saving faith in Christ, is a problem in all faiths. Islam has the same problem. Judaism has the same problem. As long as you have human adherents to a faith system, you will have that problem. The problem isn't the scriptures or the faith, the problem is humans.

 

[Maren]

When I wrote that I was trying to explain the concept of Hell to another Christian. If I were writing to you I would have stated it differently. The people who die without Christ go to Hell.

So you are admitting that God sends people to Hell and punishes them forever simply for a single sin. How does this correspond to a loving God when he will torment and torture people forever for a single mistake?

He has provided real evidence. Jesus Christ's existence, death and resurrection, which God's prophets all foretold, point to God's existence.

Except that he really hasn't. We have no real evidence of the resurrection of Christ, outside of the writings of those who believed in him. And if you are going to say that is evidence and proves Christ and his resurrection to be true, then you must also state that the testimonies of those who have been abducted by aliens proves aliens are real and that they do kidnap humans.

You are the one who paints him that way not me. Stop projecting your lies about God onto me as if they're even valid.

You are the one stating that God will torture people forever in Hell simply for not believing in Him. As such, it is you that is making it appear God is sadistic and narcissistic.

You've hardened your heart against God. He has provided proof of His existence, you just reject it. Just like you reject Him and His
Son who He sent to die for your sins.

Again, what proof is there that absolutely prove your God?

The key to salvation is not believing as the fundamentalists do. The key to salvation is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons will go to Hell because they don't believe in a different god altogether.

Last I knew they believed in the Christ of the New Testament, which above is who you stated that people must believe in.

Joespeh Smith was told by the angel Moroni that all Christian churches were apostate and false and that the religion Joseph would establish would be the one true church.

And how is that different than the Catholic's belief in Peter, not as an apostle (or not merely as an apostle) but as the founder of their church, the one and only true Christian church?

Joseph Smith never considered himself or any of his followers Christians.

Sorry, but no. Rather, Joseph Smith considered himself to have the correct form of Christianity and others to be missing the authority of Christ (much as the Catholics claim that Protestants don't have Christ's authority).

He hated Christiand and considered them apostate.

Just as Catholics consider Protestants apostate, so does that make Catholics non-Christian?

It's only recently that the LDS has taken on the mantle of Christian in an effort to boost their membership numbers. If you go back to the early writings of the Mormon church by Joseph Smith you will see that a Mormon is not a Christian.

Sorry, I just don't see that and I do know Mormon beliefs and doctrine. The most I see is that they differ on the "non-essentials" like you were mentioned earlier. After all, Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved". How is that not the same belief in Christ you say is all that is necessary?

Not to mention how odd it is that you only argued Mormons and completely ignored Catholics, which was the other example given. It seems you are trying to use Mormons as a straw man so that you could try to ignore my actual point.

I've never claimed that Christians don't emphasize this sin. Hey did you know there's a forum on here for sexual addiction? Yeah, it's true. It's for anyone who has a problem with pornography and other sexual addictions.

The key word here being addictions. These forums are not to tell those addicted they are going to Hell or to otherwise debate That has nothing to do that homosexuality is the single "sin" that is singled out.

This forum was set up to curb debate about homosexuality that occurred in the other forums and derailed many threads. Obviously supporters and non-supporters want to debate this ad-nauseum. So this forum was created to allow that. It wasn't set up for the sole purpose of bashing homosexuals and parading this one sin out as THE cardinal sin.

Maybe not, but the fact that it is such a heavy topic helps prove that it is considered by many Christians as "THE cardinal sin". Just look at the many comments made by various Christians.

Sorry. You're seeing contradictions where none exist. You're taking my comments to another poster's statements out of context. It is and always has been my position that those who die without Christ are the ones who go to Hell.

Here is your quote: "They will be going there for committing and not repenting for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sins or crimes if you will against God. Eternity is a totally fair punishment for people who do not repent of committing hundreds of millions of crimes. Don't you agree?" Would you care to explain how I'm taking it out of context? Especially since you now admit that people will go to Hell for only a single sin and not for "hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sins or crimes".

Fine and they're heretics. Happy now? Is that what you want to hear me say? Anyone who is not in Christ at the time of their death goes to Hell. It's my guess that a lot of the Fundamentalist Christians who post such tripe are going to be very disappointed when they see gay people in Heaven. And when they ask "how did you get here?" The homosexual will respond "the same way you did. By the blood of Jesus shed for ALL sinnners."

And why should I believe you over them? They use the same Bible to "prove" their beliefs as you do to "prove" yours. The only difference is in the interpretation and which verses are given more emphasis.

Right and the god of Deism is so much wiser, right? Well it would have to be, otherwise it wouldn't be worthy of YOUR worship. Please. I don't care what you think about the God of the Bible. You see what you wanna see. You wanna think that God has done nothing to reveal Himself, so that's what you see.

Sorry, there is no god of Deism. So, do you feel better after that personal attack? Perhaps we could stick to debating.

The path is not unclear. The path to salvation is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. If Christians aren't professing that, then they need to go back and read their Bibles. There is a problem that does exist within Christianity. Alot of Christians go to church on Sunday and listen to what the preacher says. They don't follow along in their own Bibles to see if what he is saying is true. They just accept it as true, because he's the preacher. They don't test the spirits as they are commanded to do in scripture. They are not like the Bereans.

Strangely, many who argue differently than you (such as those that claim all homosexuals are going to Hell) would say the same thing about people who believe as you do. They also believe that "the path is not unclear" yet somehow their clear path is different from yours.

So He could be glorified by sending His Son Jesus Christ to pay for the sins of mankind. Thus bringing salvation to us and glory to God.

Which again is making God sound like a narcissist. If He is truly God, why does he need glory? Strange that God says that people should be humble, no matter how great they may be, but that he should be glorified - seems a bit hypocritical.

We have the same hope Adam and Eve had. A future messiah who would later be named Jesus Christ.

And what about the Chinese in the time of the Old Testament, or even the time of Christ? They never heard of Christ or God and so, per your belief, are merely going to Hell based on living in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Not all are punished though. Those in Christ are not punished. They did both commit the same crime, they believed in another god, thus violating the first commandment. Did Ghandi believe in Jesus Christ as His savior? No. Did Hitler? No. Same crime, same punishment. Neither one of them had to go to Hell though. They could have been saved by the blood of Jesus. They both thought they knew a better way.

Which again merely seems to show God as cruel, narcissistic, and vindictive. Ghandi's largest fault seems to have been that he didn't accept Christ, while Hitler is held out as one of the worst humans that ever lived. Yet you claim God will punish both the same for not believing in Him.

You've answered your own question. You've said 40.
Until He revealed Himself as God. So it's not like Jesus kept His identity a secret. People knew who He was. Peter knew He was the son of God and confessed that to Jesus.
Christ told His accusers that He was equal with God. How many people were at the trial of Jesus? A few thousand maybe? Not exactly a secret. People declared Jesus to be God after they witnessed His miracles. It wasn't after the ascension of Christ that Jesus is God really started being preached publicly.

And how many Americans know that David Koresh declared himself as God? How many don't know that Rev. Moon has pronounced himself as Christ? What reason did people have to believe a person that was convicted to death is actually God. The fact that he was convicted and died would actually appear as proof to many that He was not God. Further, outside of the writings of a few Christian authors, where is this trial recorded, particularly by the thousands that were there?

People argue about what that baptism actually is. Some think that since Christ had not yet ascended that this is a reference to the Jewish Mikveh. Some Christians contend that water baptism is only a symbol now because we have been baptized in fire by the Holy Spirit when we are given the gift of faith. They believe that it is now something they do for God, instead of something God does for them.

And yet Christ himself said that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without it. Seems like it is a rather important issue for there to be such disagreement on. This is a prime example of how the Bible is not clear, nor is the path to the Christian heaven.

Faith is a gift. We see clear evidence from the scriptures that a baby can be given the gift of faith, even in the womb. This is evidenced by John the Baptist when Mary went to visit her sister Martha when she was pregnant. When the still unborn Jesus came near to the unborn John, John leaped in Martha's womb, because he knew He was in the presence of the messiah. How did he know that? He was given that revelation by God. God can save babies the same way today by giving them the gift of faith. Does He always do that? I don't know.

So, in essence, it is God's fault I don't believe in Christianity because He did not give me that faith. And since He didn't give it to me He will make me burn in Hell forever. Doesn't seem like a loving God.

Who hasn't heard the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ by now? The Great Commission has been going on for close to two thousand years now. Plus with the assistance of the internet and podcasts and the wealth of information that is available to all people now, the gospel is reaching many many more people than we've ever thought possible before. Some people hear the gospel and turn away from it because it's nonsense to them. Those people have not been given the gift of faith. But a seed has been planted, that I believe God will use other people to water and nurture so that that one seed will one day blossom into saving faith.

Yet this merely emphasizes the billions of people who lived and died prior to our time, who never heard of Christ and so could not believe on Him. As such, these billions are going to Hell simply because God never gave them an opportunity to believe.

That problem that you think is such a huge stumbling block that nobody could possibly come to saving faith in Christ, is a problem in all faiths. Islam has the same problem. Judaism has the same problem. As long as you have human adherents to a faith system, you will have that problem. The problem isn't the scriptures or the faith, the problem is humans.

Which again points out that if God is going to punish us for not believing in Him the right way (as you claim Mormons will be punished for), then God Himself should make the instructions so clear and so obvious that no could misunderstand. That He doesn't, and especially that He will torture us forever if we misunderstand, merely proves that He is not a loving God.

 

[Zecryphon]

So you are admitting that God sends people to Hell and punishes them forever simply for a single sin. How does this correspond to a loving God when he will torment and torture people forever for a single mistake?

Why are you elevating one attribute of God, His love, above all His other attributes? Why must God be loving and nothing else? According to you He must be love and therefore can not be just and righteous. He can not enforce His own laws, because to do so makes Him not loving. The punishing of sinners corresponds to God's attribute of being just and upholding His own law. Who's gonna follow a deity that doesn't enforce His own laws?


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

He has provided real evidence. Jesus Christ's existence, death and resurrection, which God's prophets all foretold, point to God's existence.
​

Except that he really hasn't. We have no real evidence of the resurrection of Christ, outside of the writings of those who believed in him. And if you are going to say that is evidence and proves Christ and his resurrection to be true, then you must also state that the testimonies of those who have been abducted by aliens proves aliens are real and that they do kidnap humans.

There are writers outside the Bible who spoke to the resurrection of Jesus.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You are the one who paints him that way not me. Stop projecting your lies about God onto me as if they're even valid.
​

You are the one stating that God will torture people forever in Hell simply for not believing in Him. As such, it is you that is making it appear God is sadistic and narcissistic.

I never said He will torture them. This is a claim made by non-believers to paint God as a monster so they can justify their disbelief. In another thread I posted all the NT verses that speak of Hell and not one of those verses mentions torture of the people in Hell.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You've hardened your heart against God. He has provided proof of His existence, you just reject it. Just like you reject Him and His
Son who He sent to die for your sins.
​

Again, what proof is there that absolutely prove your God?

What proof is there that the god of deism exists? People don't come to faith because they've been reasoned and debated into it. They come to faith because of a divine revelation by God that what He has said is true.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

The key to salvation is not believing as the fundamentalists do. The key to salvation is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Mormons will go to Hell because they don't believe in a different god altogether.
​

Last I knew they believed in the Christ of the New Testament, which above is who you stated that people must believe in.

They don't believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to pay for their sins. They believe they must do works like blood atonement, in addition to faith in Christ. Their founding father Jospeh Smith declared all Christians and their churches apostate and Mormonism to be the one true faith. Mormons, until recently, never considered themselves Christians.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Joespeh Smith was told by the angel Moroni that all Christian churches were apostate and false and that the religion Joseph would establish would be the one true church.
​

And how is that different than the Catholic's belief in Peter, not as an apostle (or not merely as an apostle) but as the founder of their church, the one and only true Christian church?

It isn't. Catholics are mistaken in their view of Peter. Look to Peter's own testimony. He never pointed to himself as the foundation of the church, He pointed to Christ.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Joseph Smith never considered himself or any of his followers Christians.
​

Sorry, but no. Rather, Joseph Smith considered himself to have the correct form of Christianity and others to be missing the authority of Christ (much as the Catholics claim that Protestants don't have Christ's authority).

And the Catholics are wrong. Mormonism is not Christianity. It defies every central tenet of the Christian faith. It asserts that God has not always been God, but rather started as a man who earned his way to godhood. That is not taught anywhere in Christianity. They don't trust in Christ for salvation, they trust in their works to earn them a celestial kingdom where they will rule over all the spirit babies they have with their multiple wives. A far cry from anything Christian.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

He hated Christiand and considered them apostate.
​

Just as Catholics consider Protestants apostate, so does that make Catholics non-Christian?

Catholics don't consider Protestants apostate. They consider Protestants to be outside of the church, but still saved by the grace of God.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

It's only recently that the LDS has taken on the mantle of Christian in an effort to boost their membership numbers. If you go back to the early writings of the Mormon church by Joseph Smith you will see that a Mormon is not a Christian.
​

Sorry, I just don't see that and I do know Mormon beliefs and doctrine. The most I see is that they differ on the "non-essentials" like you were mentioned earlier. After all, Joseph Smith wrote, "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved". How is that not the same belief in Christ you say is all that is necessary?

Yeah, there ya go. May be saved. Christianity teaches that through the atonement of Christ people ARE saved.

Not to mention how odd it is that you only argued Mormons and completely ignored Catholics, which was the other example given. It seems you are trying to use Mormons as a straw man so that you could try to ignore my actual point.

Catholics are Christians. They trust in the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. You don't see Catholics promoting blood atonement to pay for sins that Jesus' sacrifice didn't cover. You do however, see Mormons doing that. I don't have all day to sit around and address every little example you throw my way.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

I've never claimed that Christians don't emphasize this sin. Hey did you know there's a forum on here for sexual addiction? Yeah, it's true. It's for anyone who has a problem with pornography and other sexual addictions.
​

The key word here being addictions. These forums are not to tell those addicted they are going to Hell or to otherwise debate That has nothing to do that homosexuality is the single "sin" that is singled out.

Fine, then the next time a Christian tells a homosexual they are going to Hell, report them.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

This forum was set up to curb debate about homosexuality that occurred in the other forums and derailed many threads. Obviously supporters and non-supporters want to debate this ad-nauseum. So this forum was created to allow that. It wasn't set up for the sole purpose of bashing homosexuals and parading this one sin out as THE cardinal sin.
​

Maybe not, but the fact that it is such a heavy topic helps prove that it is considered by many Christians as "THE cardinal sin". Just look at the many comments made by various Christians.

I don't care what other Christians think about homosexuality or this perceived fixation you are convinced other Christians have toward this sin. It's a sin, no greater or lesser than other sins.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Sorry. You're seeing contradictions where none exist. You're taking my comments to another poster's statements out of context. It is and always has been my position that those who die without Christ are the ones who go to Hell.
​

Here is your quote: "They will be going there for committing and not repenting for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sins or crimes if you will against God. Eternity is a totally fair punishment for people who do not repent of committing hundreds of millions of crimes. Don't you agree?"

Would you care to explain how I'm taking it out of context? Especially since you now admit that people will go to Hell for only a single sin and not for "hundreds of thousands, if not millions of sins or crimes".

A single sin will send a person who does not repent of it to Hell, that is true. What you're ignoring to make your silly claim that I've contradicted myself, is that nobody is capable of committing just one sin. By the end of a person's lifetime they will have committed as many sins as I have said in that statement, if not more.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Fine and they're heretics. Happy now? Is that what you want to hear me say? Anyone who is not in Christ at the time of their death goes to Hell. It's my guess that a lot of the Fundamentalist Christians who post such tripe are going to be very disappointed when they see gay people in Heaven. And when they ask "how did you get here?" The homosexual will respond "the same way you did. By the blood of Jesus shed for ALL sinnners."
​

And why should I believe you over them? They use the same Bible to "prove" their beliefs as you do to "prove" yours. The only difference is in the interpretation and which verses are given more emphasis.

You shouldn't believe anybody just because they say something. You should investigate the writings and testimonies for yourself, go back to the original languages and find out what was really said. Don't take somebody's word for anything just because they're a Christian. Be a Berean. Test the spirits. Compare everything you hear against the scriptures and find out what is true.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Right and the god of Deism is so much wiser, right? Well it would have to be, otherwise it wouldn't be worthy of YOUR worship. Please. I don't care what you think about the God of the Bible. You see what you wanna see. You wanna think that God has done nothing to reveal Himself, so that's what you see.
​

Sorry, there is no god of Deism. So, do you feel better after that personal attack? Perhaps we could stick to debating.

Deists believe in God. Belief in God + reason = Deism. So there is no personal attack. How about you stick to debating and stop hurling false accusations?

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

The path is not unclear. The path to salvation is repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. If Christians aren't professing that, then they need to go back and read their Bibles. There is a problem that does exist within Christianity. Alot of Christians go to church on Sunday and listen to what the preacher says. They don't follow along in their own Bibles to see if what he is saying is true. They just accept it as true, because he's the preacher. They don't test the spirits as they are commanded to do in scripture. They are not like the Bereans.
​

Strangely, many who argue differently than you (such as those that claim all homosexuals are going to Hell) would say the same thing about people who believe as you do. They also believe that "the path is not unclear" yet somehow their clear path is different from yours.

Why are you so obsessed with what various groups of Christians believe. Here is the way to salvation. Repentance and faith in Jesus Christ which is a gift given to us by the grace of God. If anyone tells you different than that, they need to read their Bible.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

So He could be glorified by sending His Son Jesus Christ to pay for the sins of mankind. Thus bringing salvation to us and glory to God.
​

Which again is making God sound like a narcissist. If He is truly God, why does he need glory? Strange that God says that people should be humble, no matter how great they may be, but that he should be glorified - seems a bit hypocritical.

When people can do wonders on par with God, then maybe they can have some braggin' rights too.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

We have the same hope Adam and Eve had. A future messiah who would later be named Jesus Christ.
​

And what about the Chinese in the time of the Old Testament, or even the time of Christ? They never heard of Christ or God and so, per your belief, are merely going to Hell based on living in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Faith is a gift. It can come by hearing and it can come in other ways as well. What do you think the Great Commission is all about? Why do you think that Christ sent the apostles forth to make discples and take His message all over the world? I've heard that if a person dies without ever hearing the gospel that God will judge them based on how they lived their life. But I don't have any scriptural support for that statement, though. So I trust God to judge those people as He sees fit.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Not all are punished though. Those in Christ are not punished. They did both commit the same crime, they believed in another god, thus violating the first commandment. Did Ghandi believe in Jesus Christ as His savior? No. Did Hitler? No. Same crime, same punishment. Neither one of them had to go to Hell though. They could have been saved by the blood of Jesus. They both thought they knew a better way.
​

Which again merely seems to show God as cruel, narcissistic, and vindictive. Ghandi's largest fault seems to have been that he didn't accept Christ, while Hitler is held out as one of the worst humans that ever lived. Yet you claim God will punish both the same for not believing in Him.

Yeah, whatever you have to tell yourself. How you view God doesn't matter. How God views you, since He is the judge, that's what matters.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

You've answered your own question. You've said 40.
Until He revealed Himself as God. So it's not like Jesus kept His identity a secret. People knew who He was. Peter knew He was the son of God and confessed that to Jesus.
Christ told His accusers that He was equal with God. How many people were at the trial of Jesus? A few thousand maybe? Not exactly a secret. People declared Jesus to be God after they witnessed His miracles. It wasn't after the ascension of Christ that Jesus is God really started being preached publicly.
​

And how many Americans know that David Koresh declared himself as God? How many don't know that Rev. Moon has pronounced himself as Christ? What reason did people have to believe a person that was convicted to death is actually God. The fact that he was convicted and died would actually appear as proof to many that He was not God. Further, outside of the writings of a few Christian authors, where is this trial recorded, particularly by the thousands that were there?

Go find it. You're the one with the questions and the doubts. Why do I have to do your homework for you. I found the answers, I'm sure you can too.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

People argue about what that baptism actually is. Some think that since Christ had not yet ascended that this is a reference to the Jewish Mikveh. Some Christians contend that water baptism is only a symbol now because we have been baptized in fire by the Holy Spirit when we are given the gift of faith. They believe that it is now something they do for God, instead of something God does for them.
​

And yet Christ himself said that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without it. Seems like it is a rather important issue for there to be such disagreement on. This is a prime example of how the Bible is not clear, nor is the path to the Christian heaven.

Everyone I know who is a Christian has been baptized. Whether or not they see the importance of it, or whether or not they recognize it as the supernatural work it is, doesn't matter. I take Jesus at His word and got baptized. I believe that the Word of God is combined with the water and acts as a means of grace, delivering to me all the promises of Christ and all the benefits He won at Calvary by dying on that cross.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Faith is a gift. We see clear evidence from the scriptures that a baby can be given the gift of faith, even in the womb. This is evidenced by John the Baptist when Mary went to visit her sister Martha when she was pregnant. When the still unborn Jesus came near to the unborn John, John leaped in Martha's womb, because he knew He was in the presence of the messiah. How did he know that? He was given that revelation by God. God can save babies the same way today by giving them the gift of faith. Does He always do that? I don't know.
​

So, in essence, it is God's fault I don't believe in Christianity because He did not give me that faith. And since He didn't give it to me He will make me burn in Hell forever. Doesn't seem like a loving God.

He's not done with you yet. I believe you will come to faith when God wants you to.

Originally Posted by Zecryphon

Who hasn't heard the law of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ by now? The Great Commission has been going on for close to two thousand years now. Plus with the assistance of the internet and podcasts and the wealth of information that is available to all people now, the gospel is reaching many many more people than we've ever thought possible before. Some people hear the gospel and turn away from it because it's nonsense to them. Those people have not been given the gift of faith. But a seed has been planted, that I believe God will use other people to water and nurture so that that one seed will one day blossom into saving faith.
​

Yet this merely emphasizes the billions of people who lived and died prior to our time, who never heard of Christ and so could not believe on Him. As such, these billions are going to Hell simply because God never gave them an opportunity to believe.

I trust God to deal with those people in those circumstances as He sees fit.


Originally Posted by Zecryphon

That problem that you think is such a huge stumbling block that nobody could possibly come to saving faith in Christ, is a problem in all faiths. Islam has the same problem. Judaism has the same problem. As long as you have human adherents to a faith system, you will have that problem. The problem isn't the scriptures or the faith, the problem is humans.
​

Which again points out that if God is going to punish us for not believing in Him the right way (as you claim Mormons will be punished for), then God Himself should make the instructions so clear and so obvious that no could misunderstand. That He doesn't, and especially that He will torture us forever if we misunderstand, merely proves that He is not a loving God.

He has. You just don't get it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Since my reply was in excess of 22000 characters, I've expunged some of the more frivolous points.

When you leave this world through death, you enter God's realm where time doesn't exist. ... Since you now exist in eternity any punishment or reward you receive can only be eternal.

OK, that I get. But why must Hell exist in a timeless state? If God is capable of creating one realm with its own timeline, why not another?

The newborns inherit the nature of their parents.

Why?

Adam and Eve were created perfect and without sin, yet they still fell into sin.

Only because God created an entity solely designed to tempt humanity.

So even if God did pluck the sin nature out of each individual newborn, they would still fall into sin. So Jesus sacrifice to pay for sin is still necessary. Plucking the sin nature out, doesn't solve the problem of sin for humans.

Then why not pluck out the capacity to sin?

In your opinion. Your opinion of what is and is not fair is not binding upon God.

On the contrary, unless you are claiming that a single deed is sufficient to warrant an eternity of suffering, it is a logical necessity.

But the idea of purgatory is not scriptural. It goes against having Jesus Christ pay for your sins with His death and resurrection. The idea is that you go to this place and pay for your sins yourself. That's heresy.

According to you. As you said, you do not speak for God.

Because maybe not all people desire to be with God. Ever think of that? I mean you've made the choice to reject God in favor of the god and goddess of Wicca. You clearly don't want to be with God forever, so why should God take you to be with Him forever? Is divine kidnapping your definition of love?

There's a difference between rejection and non-belief. I simply don't believe your god exists (and, for the record, I was an atheist between my times as a Christian and Wiccan).

I mean, who wouldn't want to live in eternal bliss? It's not that we non-Christians don't want eternal bliss, it's that we don't believe that Christianity is they way to attain it.

Okay, what's the supporting rational evidence that the religion of Wicca is true? Where is the proof that your god and goddess exist? C'mon. I wanna see it. I wanna see scientific evidence that proves without a doubt that the beliefs of your religion, are true.

As would I. But since I never claimed such a thing, your point is moot. It's also worth noting that no amount of evidence constitutes proof.

But then if we use your line of reasoning about what makes something true, which is all people must agree with each other, then Wicca can't be true either, because not all Wiccans agree with each other about what happens when you die. Guess your religion is a sham too, huH?

How so? I never once claimed that, if the followers of a religion aren't in 100% agreement with each other about their religion, the religion is false. You're putting more words in my mouth.

I never said that sin was a pagan concept. So now you're addressing points I'm not even making. Wonderful. So these violent gods that you worship are somehow more loving or fair than the God of the Bible? Obviously not. In fact, you just said they were harsh, since nature is harsh. So your gods aren't loving at all.

And your point is...? I never claimed my Gods were more loving than yours. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of an allegedly loving deity imposing such a barbaric judicial system upon people. If you didn't advocate that your god was all-loving, I wouldn't have a problem.

You forget willingly, to keep harping on your point that God is a monster, that God did provide an alternative to Hell and that no one has to go to Hell. People send themselves to Hell by rejecting Christ. All God is doing is giving people what they clearly want. That's loving.

Don't be ridiculous, no one but the most masochistic person wants to endure an eternity of suffering. The point is that we just don't think such suffering will occur if we aren't Christians. God isn't giving people what they want: he is giving them rewards and punishments based upon an arbitrary system.

If a criminal refuses a plea bargain that will save him from the lethal injection table, whose to blame for his fate? The state, who offered a solution to his problem, or the criminal? Using your line of logic, you blame the state.

If the criminal isn't aware of the bargain, then yes, I would blame the state. If the legislation for the bargain is hidden in the text of one unremarkable religion among many, I would blame the state. If the Bible is true, God has sure tried his hardest to make it look as inconspicuous as possible.

There are eyewitness accounts in the Bible and extra-Biblical accounts as well. The information regarding this is plentiful, you should have no problem finding it.

I've read the cases put forth by both sides. The one advocating the Bible's truth is very weak indeed.

No but there is a notion of some sort of retribution if you do evil against another person. Your three-fold law, I believe it's called.

The three-fold law is not universally held within Wicca, much as your notion of eternal punishment is not universally held within Christianity. I, for one, do not believe in the "three-fold law of return". I act morally for the same reason the atheist does: not out of fear of supernatural retribution, but out of compassion for my fellow man.

Not all Wiccans agree on what happens in the afterlife, does that invalidate the teachings of Wicca? According to the logic you've displayed towards Christianity, the answer would be yes, the teachings of Wicca are not true, becuase not all Wiccans agree on some aspect of the faith.

Where have I even alluded to such logic? I'm not saying that you are wrong because other Christians disagree with you, I'm simply saying that you are possibly wrong: you talk as if yours is the only True Christianity, and all others are heretical cults to be scorned. By pointing out that your flavour of Christianity is not the only one, I'm not saying "Hah, therefore you're wrong".

So what? I could personally believe that if I sing the Hokey Pokey while spinning around three times while patting my head and rubbing my belly five times a day I will be saved. Doesn't make it true though. This idea that a person who is a homosexual can not be saved simply because they are a homosexual is not supported in the scriptures.

Says you. And me, for that matter. But then, I daresay they would accuse you of heresy.

And the people who do espouse such a position find they have a very hard time making their case from scripture. Scripture teaches us that Jesus' shed blood is sufficient to pay for the sins of all people. Guess those people don't understand what the word "all"' means.

Or that they disagree with that interpretation of the Bible. It's not so cut and dry: just because you believe that the Bible says something doesn't mean it does say that (or, at least, that the authors intended it to say that).

My point is that if you don't believe God exists, why would you care about His revelation to His people? Why would you care whether or not all people agree about what that revelation is?

So what drives you to come to a Christian forum and tell us how wrong we all are and how flawed our holy books are? I don't get it.

Because it affects me: the anti-gay people wish to enact legislation that would create a legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual couples (e.g., homosexual couples wouldn't have their unions recognised, unlike their heterosexual counterparts). Thus, I debate.

That, and I take pleasure in debate and discussion (though I do not play Devil's advocate).

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but they are also free to avoid places where their beliefs would come under scrutiny. Besides, that our discussion has gone on this long tells me that you are enjoying it as much as I am.

Because God is not going to force people to be with Him who don't want to be with Him. What would be loving about that?

It would get people out of eternal torment. If a child wished to stay in a burning building to stay with its stuffed toy, would the parent be considered loving if it acquiesced to its wishes? Of course not: the parent would be viewed as a monster.

Right, you have to do something. That's what I've been saying and you're telling me I'm wrong. Apparently I'm not wrong. People in other faiths have to do something to receive whatever reward it is their faith promises. Christians don't have to do anything and in fact, can't do anything to save themselves. Our salvation or reward, since the word salvation seems to mess you up, is a gift. It's not something we earn or achieve through a work on our part.

...

No and that is not taught anywhere in scripture. It is Jesus' sacrifice and shedding of blood that satisfied God's wrath. For those who call upon the name of Jesus to be saved, those will be saved. Jesus taught repentance and faith as the way to be saved. His sacrifice satisfied God's wrath. If people repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ, they will be saved. It's all very consistent.

You contradict yourself:

"People in other faiths have to do something to receive whatever reward it is their faith promises. Christians don't have to do anything and in fact, can't do anything to save themselves."

I.e., Christians don't have to do anything to be saved.

"For those who call upon the name of Jesus to be saved, those will be saved. Jesus taught repentance and faith as the way to be saved. ... If people repent of their sins and have faith in Jesus Christ, they will be saved."

I.e., only those who call upon the name of Jesus, repent of their sins, etc, will be saved.

Which is it? Is salvation free offered as a gift, or must one do this, that, and the other?

Because you've chosen to follow other gods.

So?

But you're not a completely lost cause yet. I believe that one day God will give you the gift of faith, just as he gave it to me when I was involved in all that Pagan stuff too.

Then what is the point of Christianity? If everyone will eventually get saved, what's with all the preaching?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hmm, either a God way of thinking, or an emotional position based on a man having his beloved daughter die from a disease and "why did God allow it to happen?"

Why is it, that the atheist desires such a puppet master god? Probbaly the answer lies within thier incessant need to lead by authoritarian rule.

Wow, just how many fallacies can one person make in just three sentences? I count: false dichotomy, appeal to emotion, ad hominem, caricaturisation, broad-brushing, unjustified conjecture, logical leaps, and simply blatantly false premises. Kudos.

Or, in context to the OP, getting people away from lies and liars is an act of love and compassion.

But that begs the question: who is the liar, and what are the lies?

Time is a created thing. Once we no longer live under "time," we have forever "now." Or, eternity. I wouldn't want to tell somone that they should live forever "now" away from God. Look at how Jesus tells of hell as a "seperation" from others. THAT, is an absolutely provable experiment as to what hell "is."

Nevertheless, God is evidently capable of creating a realm with a flow of time: the Earth. Why, then, could Hell not be a place within its own timeline?

Rote reply. skeptics.org, or a Dawkins book?

Huh?

Seperating the wheat from the chaff is a daunting task. Jesus used parables as a scientist uses established facts. Wolves wearing shppes clothing. Etc., etc., etc.. Even scientists challenge each other. It is using the intelligence God gave you.

Equivocation. It is one thing to engage in peer review to remove the superfluous and faulty claims, but quite another to engage in flame wars and make more superfluous claims to justify your own shaky position. The 'No True Scotsman' fallacy comes to mind.

0 x 0 equals atheism and other nonsensical belief systems like evolution.

Atheism is the absence of belief in, or belief in the absence of, deities. The former (weak atheism) is far more common than the latter (strong atheism), but neither are any more nonsensical than theism. Indeed, weak atheism is the logical position to take in the absence of evidence.

We are created beings created by the Creator. We are not puppets on a string. Like children we can grow up and choose good or evil. Even science proves cause and effect is rational thought. You don;t stand under a brick you've just tossed skyward, but than again, someone can make that choice. Christians desire reality above silliness

Then why do some of you posit a mud-man and a rib-woman? A global floods and a 6000 year old Earth?

Besides, your response is a non sequitur: I was responding to Zecryphon's claim that one's "sinful nature" is inherited in the same way one's "perfect relationship" was meant to be inherited.

Hmm, rather, why does anyone have a desire to have children when they themselves know that life is frought with all kinds of nastiness?

Because the desire to breed is as old as behaviour itself. If a species lost its desire to breed, it would die out.

Breeding then must ne a mantal illness worse than suicdal ideation. Far worse actually. Animals don't know that they are going to die. But we do. Now ask why?

OK: why? Why does God give newborns a "sinful nature"?

The nongodian ALWAYS breaks everything down to selfishness. The same old "why are babies born blind," declaration. Atheists demand a far more harsh God them the One we see in reality. Science can prove God easier than "it" can prove chaos makes order.

Science proves nothing, so that's my first clue you don't know what you're talking about (the other being your strange usage of the words 'chaos' and 'order'). Moreover, it can be readily demonstrated that the entropy of a system can spontaneously decrease: it is only in closed systems that entropy must increase to a limit.

In reality, the "sin nature" is never worked out of a person. It can only be scientifically recognized and dealt with rationally. Or not. But the "or not" part is not coming from Christians. Without a loss and victory is meaningless. It is a human being thing. It exists in no other species. Why is that I "wonder." I quote "wonder" because "even" atheists wonder about things. They just want absolutism to rule the world. And yet, the Christians get charged with that. Hmm, I wonder why?

You haven't answered my question. Why doesn't God poof our sinless nature out of us? Or, at least, our capacity to sin?

Ummm, that IS the Christian" message." It is all about the "mind" of God. Both Jesus and Paul speak on this. Scientifically so.

You sure do like dragging science into this. Do you even know what has and has not been scientifically demonstrated (not proven; proof is for mathematics and alcohol)?

"When" you "were a Christian, reality was not changed there either. Purgatory proves yet again, that "Christians" are indeed free thinkers. Time to comem back to reality sir.

I am a scientist. I live in reality, not the world of mud-men, rib-women, and their pet talking serpent.

Even a scientist desires to be correct "forever." That is why they search for "answers." Christians become the ultimate scientist.

Hardly: you presuppose that the claims of Christianity are true, and that belief in those claims makes one "the ultimate scientist". I suggest you take a look at what being a scientist actually entails.

The atheist enters compassion. Sometimes it proves them to be so noble. But nobility does not exist in the animal kingdom. A gorgeous lion has no idea he is gorgeous. His mane is just there for heterosexual reasons. Exclusively heterosexual reasons. Nothing more and nothing less.

What are you going on about? Where did compassion and atheism come from?

If there is no free will and free choice, then why and how can you even contemplate your thoughts here?

False dichotomy. Free will is not a prerequisite for thought. But how is that at all relevant?

Winning and losing is the human nature. An atheist can be seen as proof of God because, no animal thinks about tomorrow. They only observe pre-programmed instinct.

Justification?

Asking questions enters "Logic" into eternity. How "can" that happen? Evolution makes no sense to a thinking mind. Especially when considering the coveting your neighbors wife thing. I know I am much stronger than the wimp down the street with the hot wife. As an evolutionist, I should be able to take her as I wish. But, then that nasty old thinking process of "right and wrong" enters the fray. Atheists are more moral than religionists in some areas it appears.

Yet another tangent.
1) Evolution explains the biodiversity around us. It says absolutely nothing on how we should act. Where you got that idea from I don't know.
2) Evolution does explain morality and other behavioural traits that the layman intuitively sees as counter-productive to a species' survival.
3) What on Earth does all this have to to with the topic at hand? I was asking Zecryphon why God allows humans to sin; how do you go from that to evolution?

Yet you present ideas to the contrary. There is no reason to care about idiot religionists.

Your words, not mine. I engage in debate and discussion on CF because I find it pleasurable, because I want to know why people believe things different to my beliefs, and because I want to correct people's understand of science and scientific knowledge.

They are not competing for atheist goals. Letting these bumblers go through life to their worm-eating destination SHOULD BE the Atheist mantra. But, we see the atheists far more passioante and malevolent in their demands for conformance and "good" for all mankind. Even forced goodness. We are back to the authoritarian god worshipped by atheists. Wanting their cake and eating it too. As it were

... what? You sure are hung up on atheists. Why don't you take that caricature of atheism and go shout at some atheists?

Nature emobodies order. Why even respond to anything to do with Wicca?

Because Zecryphon asked a question about Wicca, and I was happy to oblige. What's it to you?

Then why the incantations? "Sin" is just a word denoting the need for payback. THAT is a very pagan idea. And an atheist one also. It's interesting how Atheists and Pagans support homosexuals and homosexuality. Fascinating. Especially considering that homosexuality is anti-evolutionary at best. Nature does not celebrate the homosexual. A pitiless end for them there. No hope of a future. Literally.

Yet more lies and slander. This is getting tiring.
1) You use sin in a different way to Zacryphon. Take it up with him.

2) Paganism does not have an inherent notion of 'sin', neither your definition nor Zacryphon's.

3) Atheism is the absence of belief in, or belief in the absence of, deities. There is no notion besides that.

4) That most atheists and most Pagans are pro-gay is incidental. Most Christians are pro-gay too. Most Christians, atheists, and Pagans are also pro-evolution. Most of them are also male, white, between 20 and 50, and live in Westernised countries. What's your point?

5) Homosexuality is not contrary to evolution. Homosexuality evolved and persisted to facilitate a) same-sex social groups (nursing groups, hunting groups), b) the rearing of orphans (a same-sex couple will typically be childless, so orphans that would otherwise die, survive). Even if it was detrimental, that doesn't mean it couldn't have evolved. Indeed, it has been observed in over 1500 species besides humans. Nature celebrates genetic proliferation, regardless of how this is accomplished.

Human "nature" speaks to accountability and consequences." Human nature is in opposition to atheism and of course nature and homosexuality are not freinds.

See above. Your lies are unsubstantiated rubbish.

One word and you have no worries. That is Christian love. Yet, Christians can be outlawed and imprisoned for just wanting to be Christians. Preaching cannot hurt anyone. Actions can though. We see humans developing a justice system that is cruel. "God" only desires a contrite heart and a declaration of this choice and all is well.

And if one doesn't comply with God's bizarre demands, one is sent to an eternity of suffering. And you call our justice system cruel?

The canard about the resurrection being a myth is laughable.

It's interesting that you only laugh instead of offering substantiation. If you can't answer the question...

Such free thinking in Christianity. Rather different than the authoritarian toltalitariansim of the non-godians.

More lies and emotional responses.

You sure spun your way to the OP.

I try to stay on-topic, unlike you.

Gay sex is not appropriate for Christians. That is provable from the texts of the New Testament.

Which excerpt from which interpretation of which translation of which compilation of the NT? As I have said before, some conclude a pro-gay Bible, others an anti-gay Bible, and others neither.

And we see through cause and effect, that people "doing as they wilteth," does indeed harm many people. It is sceintifically provable. Ask an AID's victim that has never done drugs or gay sex.

It's worth pointing out that 50% of people with HIV are women (source). So that's your anti-gay myth out the window. Besides that, do you have a point here, or are you on another rant?

The math just isn't there for that to be reality.

Please, show us your mathematical disproof. As a theoretical physicist, I shall be most interested in this.

Myth is something akin to reality. Only something like it. The Christians seem to hold reality at a very high value. "Logic" and all.

Pfft.

Which is antithetical to reality. Even Hindus know that. That's why they want to be capitalists, materialism and all. Sin is a tangible reality.

Wow, could you paint a worse stereotype? I love how you still throw around these unsubstantiated claims without any regard

Is there really, a reason to be dishonest? Every atheist desires to recruit everyone into atheism.

Source? Atheism isn't a thing to be recruited into, it is simply those people who aren't in any group; it is not a group unto itself.

It is part of human nature. No one likes to be alone. It is why hell is a provable reality as well. It is also why atheists don;t like to be opposed. Their god is one of authoritatrian rule. They follow their doctrine dogmatically.

Gods, where do I begin...

Research is a sceintific method. I notice with frequecncy the atheist relies on emotionalism for almost all of their beliefs.

Since there are no atheistic beliefs, your point is moot.

Spoken like a sixteen year old child to a decent set of parents. Why think like a child? Cause and effect is a sceintific method. Do the math.

Don't talk to me about mathematics. You think it can be used to prove things about Hinduism . I've had enough of this.

Polycarp, are you even aware that I'm not an atheist?

 

[Maren]

Why are you elevating one attribute of God, His love, above all His other attributes? Why must God be loving and nothing else?

I'm not elevating it, just that is the topic of this conversation. But Christians and the Bible claim God is loving, I'm just looking for the evidence.

According to you He must be love and therefore can not be just and righteous. He can not enforce His own laws, because to do so makes Him not loving. The punishing of sinners corresponds to God's attribute of being just and upholding His own law. Who's gonna follow a deity that doesn't enforce His own laws?

So was Saddam Hussein just being just and righteous for enforcing his own laws, or was he a narcissistic and evil man who demanded respect from those in his power. Like Saddam, God is the one that creates the law that if people don't "accept" Him that they will be punished. Unlike Saddam, those that God punishes for not "accepting" Him will be punished forever. Not to mention, people could and did actually see Saddam; even believing the Bible, no one has seen God for over 2000 years.

There are writers outside the Bible who spoke to the resurrection of Jesus.

And they are people who were not present but rather there writings are based on what appears in the Bible.

I never said He will torture them. This is a claim made by non-believers to paint God as a monster so they can justify their disbelief. In another thread I posted all the NT verses that speak of Hell and not one of those verses mentions torture of the people in Hell.

So Hell will be a place of tea and cookies? Mark 9 (among others) definitely makes it sound as if those in Hell will be subject to permanent torture, "into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

They don't believe that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient to pay for their sins. They believe they must do works like blood atonement, in addition to faith in Christ. Their founding father Jospeh Smith declared all Christians and their churches apostate and Mormonism to be the one true faith. Mormons, until recently, never considered themselves Christians.

Sorry, but no. You really should study Mormonism if you are going to attempt to represent what they believe and not depend on anti-Mormon sites. Mormons, like Catholics and some other Christians, merely believe that they have to repent of sins. But this isn't the place to debate the beliefs of Mormonism, nor does it really matter for this discussion. Rather, it does point out that you claim to speak for God as to who actually is His follower.

It isn't. Catholics are mistaken in their view of Peter. Look to Peter's own testimony. He never pointed to himself as the foundation of the church, He pointed to Christ.

Of course, Catholics claim that it was Christ who pointed it out (particularly when you go back to the original language. So Peter had no need to point to himself.

Catholics don't consider Protestants apostate. They consider Protestants to be outside of the church, but still saved by the grace of God.

But many Protestants believe Catholics are not Christian and will go to Hell. Not to mention, Catholics believe Protestants will be saved is a rather recent change of position on the part of the Catholic Church.

Yeah, there ya go. May be saved. Christianity teaches that through the atonement of Christ people ARE saved.

Sorry, that isn't what you have said. You have said people MAY be saved IF they believe in God and accept that atonement. However much you try to deny it, you are stating that people must do some work to be saved.

Catholics are Christians. They trust in the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. You don't see Catholics promoting blood atonement to pay for sins that Jesus' sacrifice didn't cover. You do however, see Mormons doing that. I don't have all day to sit around and address every little example you throw my way.

And you don't see the Mormon Church promoting it either, nor did it come from Joseph Smith. But it doesn't matter anyway. If all that is required is a belief in Christ, then Mormons are largely going to be saved regardless of any ridiculous beliefs they may have. You are the one adding qualifications to the atonement of Christ, saying people have to believe the same as what you read in the Bible. And you are the one that claimed these other beliefs, such as Baptism (which John 3 indicates may be required to go to heaven) are not important.

Fine, then the next time a Christian tells a homosexual they are going to Hell, report them.

What rule would they be breaking?

I don't care what other Christians think about homosexuality or this perceived fixation you are convinced other Christians have toward this sin. It's a sin, no greater or lesser than other sins.

And it is too bad that more Christians here don't believe as you do.

A single sin will send a person who does not repent of it to Hell, that is true. What you're ignoring to make your silly claim that I've contradicted myself, is that nobody is capable of committing just one sin. By the end of a person's lifetime they will have committed as many sins as I have said in that statement, if not more.

But more than one does not necessarily equal hundreds of thousands. Before, you were trying to make it sound like only truly wicked people will go to hell, whereas now you are admitting that good people will be sent to Hell just because they don't believe in God.

You shouldn't believe anybody just because they say something. You should investigate the writings and testimonies for yourself, go back to the original languages and find out what was really said. Don't take somebody's word for anything just because they're a Christian. Be a Berean. Test the spirits. Compare everything you hear against the scriptures and find out what is true.

And what makes you think I haven't investigated? And the Bible can be used to defend any numbers of positions; for example it was used for hundreds of years to defend slavery and segregation. It is still used by some for the subjugation of women.

Deists believe in God. Belief in God + reason = Deism. So there is no personal attack. How about you stick to debating and stop hurling false accusations?

The personal attack was your claims of "it wouldn't be worthy of YOUR worship" and "You see what you want to see". Not to mention, "You've hardened your heart against God." These comments by you were not meant to add to our discussion or make any real point, they are instead ad hominems.

When people can do wonders on par with God, then maybe they can have some braggin' rights too.

So if your "wonders" are big enough it is okay to be a braggart? I find the truly great do not need to brag or demand respect. It seems truly odd that a God, especially one that hasn't shown himself in about 2000 years, should have laws that require his creations to believe in him and to demand their worship on threat of eternal punishment.

 

[Zecryphon]

So to sum up, God is not worthy of your worship because He's a big meanie who can't be bothered to provide any proof for His existence and sends people to Hell because He can? That about sum up what you believe? I think so. So further discussion with you will be pontless. Oh and another thing if you want people to treat you with respect and not engage in personal attacks perhaps you shouldn't go to their religious forums and tell them how much the gods they worship suck and are not worthy to be worshipped because the behavior of their god/s don't make sense to you.*unsubscribing from thread*

 

[morningstar2651]

Why would He violate His own revelation about how people are saved. People are not saved by actions they perform. They are saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

So homosexuals that believe in Jesus are saved. Thanks for clearing that up.

Unless actions performed play a part in salvation, which would totally contradict what you just said.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So homosexuals that believe in Jesus are saved. Thanks for clearing that up.

Unless actions performed play a part in salvation, which would totally contradict what you just said.

Which makes one wonder why God made up all those laws and things in the OT in the first place.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

So homosexuals that believe in Jesus are saved. Thanks for clearing that up.

Jesus is not God to an Atheist, and therefore cannot save anyone from anything right? That is your belief system is it not?

Though I will applaud your absolutely correct expressing of Christian truth. ANY sinner can be saved. Science and reason always find a partnership worth pursuing.

Unless actions performed play a part in salvation, which would totally contradict what you just said.

Salvation is a result of "actions" from both God and the person. Just as the universe is provable by "actions." You have correctly represented Christian truth yet again. Science, as is always the case, agreeing with Biblical reality.

This is why both Christ Jesus and Paul were amazed by "others," that did the right thing as a matter of their nature.

 

[brightmorningstar]

What - Precisely - Are Christians Attempting To Save Homosexuals From ...?

Well the wages of sin is death, so with regards homosexual practice the answer is death, but Christians cant really save anyone from eternal death, salvation is through Jesus Christ.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Well the wages of sin is death, so with regards homosexual practice the answer is death, but Christians cant really save anyone from eternal death, salvation is through Jesus Christ.

Sins not repented of or cared about will cause people to end up where they have chosen to end up.

"Forgive them for the do not know what they are doing."

Many caught in the snares of gay culture and its powerful manipulations, believe the lie being forced on them that they have no choice of what they can do. Many of these people are being led astray by malevolent forces (powers and principalities).

Jesus has proven that His sacrifice was for these people as well. Many are calling on the Name of the Lord.

"Who then can be saved?"

"What is impossible for man is possible for God."

Once a sin is repented of, it no longer exists "to God."

Gay culture cannot alter the truth of God.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Polycarp fan

Sins not repented of or cared about will cause people to end up where they have chosen to end up.

yes thats what Jesus taught.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

To Polycarp fan
yes thats what Jesus taught.

False teachers and false teachings is what "Christians" (followers of Christ Jesus) are tying to save "homosexuals" from.

 

[brightmorningstar]

yes agreed