Which Commandments?

[Mark Quayle]

Not only might somebody say these things, you just did. You might think you evaded the question, but you didn't. You just said that one must repent, obey and pursue Christ to go to heaven.

Nope. I didn't try to evade the question. I answered it by saying it is bogus. One cannot do anything to go to Heaven.

If the question is bogus, why did you answer it?

Here is your answer.

I answered it BECAUSE it was bogus; the fact it was bogus deserved to be pointed out.

First, I told you I would laugh so hard I would spit my beer out if you ignored the question and tried to divert it into a question of what causes one to do these things. And what do you do? You try to ignore the question and talk about the cause! Hence today's mess.

Second, I notice that you answer with negatives. I find that people that obfuscate often switch to negatives, double negatives, and even triple negatives. Somehow they think that if they don't avoid not answering, that answers.

Now lets take a quick look at some basic logic:

Let A = you repent.
Let B = you go to heaven.
If not A then not B. (that is what you just said.)
Therefore: If B then A. (Since this is logically equivalent to the assertion above.)
Therefore: If you go to heaven, you repented.
Therefore: You must repent to go to heaven.
Applying the same logic to your entire paragraph, we find that you just said we need to do the following to go to heaven:
1) Be elected
2) Be regenerated*
3) Believe*
4) Have faith*
5) Confess to God*
6) Repent*
7) Obey*
8) Pursue Christ*
9) etc etc*
* Mark asserts that these are the result of the Spirit's indwelling, not the cause of the Spirit's indwelling. That assertion is irrelevant to this discussion.

Is this your final answer?

Funny. As I remember, first you were saying that I was diverting from the question. Now you have changed it to fit your current narrative, to that I am trying to divert from it.

Your faulty logic implies cause from coincidence. The act of repentance does not CAUSE the salvation. But without the repentance, one will not be saved.

Those things I listed ARE THE WORK OF GOD —of the Spirit of God, to be specific— and so it is not irrelevant. It goes to the question of whether they are the things one must do to go to Heaven, as you once claimed I was saying. They are not something I can do, regardless, if God doesn't do it in me; but the list is irrelevant as to your question of what does one have to do to go to heaven.

You are asking for what one can, or must, do, with the result being to go to heaven, no? The items in that list are identifying marks of the believer, not the causes of going to heaven. Your beer stock may find some relief in the lack of different ways I can think of to say the same thing. This constant repeating myself to an deaf wall is getting ....stale.

 

[Lukaris]

I know in our Church we believe in free will but it is the will of God which determines who is saved or not. So an individual whose disposition & actions are pleasing to God are predestined but might appear to an atheist etc. as a person who is psychologically sound & sensible ( law abiding, charitable etc.). In this there is overlap between understanding by faith & secular thought. These actions are spontaneous & the individual uses their conscience & is Christian ( for ex. John 14:15-18) or non Christian ( Romans 2 etc. although as Christians, we cannot tell non Christians everything is fine with or without Christ but He knows His stray sheep ( John 10:14-16 etc.) & we are not to judge our neighbor ( Matthew 7:1-12).

An Orthodox Bishop explains better than I can:

On Predestination

 

[doubtingmerle]

Ha!

I swallowed my beer before reading your post. There. No mess.

But I am still roaring with laughter. You cannot possibly be serious. Are you seriously having that much trouble understanding what I say?

Nope. I didn't try to evade the question. I answered it by saying it is bogus. One cannot do anything to go to Heaven.

And yet you answered with a list of 9 things one must do to go to heaven.

Your faulty logic implies cause from coincidence.

No it does not. It specifically says for each item, "Mark asserts that these are the result of the Spirit's indwelling, not the cause of the Spirit's indwelling."

So when I am screaming at the top of my lungs (eight times in one post) "I am not implying you say these things cause salvation," how can you possibly sit back with a straight face, and say, oh, "he says these things cause salvation?" LOL!

If I swear on a stack of Bible that I am not saying you say these things cause salvation, will you still say with a straight fact that I am saying you say these things cause salvation?

What the hey, let's try:

I solemnly swear that I am not saying that you are saying these things on your list cause salvation.

That didn't make a bit of difference, did it? You will still write back and try to claim I said the exact opposite, yes?

The act of repentance does not CAUSE the salvation. But without the repentance, one will not be saved.

Neither you nor I said that the act of repentance causes salvation.

But I did echo back what you said, that if one does not repent, one will not go to heaven. That is the same thing as saying that, to go to heaven, one must repent. That is what you said. (I swear on a stack of Bibles that I am not saying you say this causes salvation.)

They are not something I can do, regardless, if God doesn't do it in me;

I didn't say you said you had to do them without God.

I said you said you had to do them. (I swear on a stack of Bibles that I am not saying you say this earns salvation.)

Your beer stock may find some relief in the lack of different ways I can think of to say the same thing. This constant repeating myself to an deaf wall is getting ....stale.

The problem is you keep saying different things. Sometimes you say emphatically that if you do not repent you will not go to heaven. Sometimes you say emphatically that you can go to heaven even if you don't repent. When I ask for clarification you obfuscate.

So which way is it? Do you or do you not need to repent to go to heaven? If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven? (I swear on a stack of Bibles that I am not asking if repentance causes salvation.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

I swallowed my beer before reading your post. There. No mess.

But I am still roaring with laughter. You cannot possibly be serious. Are you seriously having that much trouble understanding what I say?

And yet you answered with a list of 9 things one must do to go to heaven.

How many times and in how many ways have I said that is NOT a list of things one must do to go to heaven????

No it does not. It specifically says for each item, "Mark asserts that these are the result of the Spirit's indwelling, not the cause of the Spirit's indwelling."

So when I am screaming at the top of my lungs (eight times in one post) "I am not implying you say these things cause salvation," how can you possibly sit back with a straight face, and say, oh, "he says these things cause salvation?" LOL!

If I swear on a stack of Bible that I am not saying you say these things cause salvation, will you still say with a straight fact that I am saying you say these things cause salvation?

What the hey, let's try:

I solemnly swear that I am not saying that you are saying these things on your list cause salvation.

So you say, yet you keep repeating they are things one must do to go to heaven. If the word "to" there, means only "as evidence that", and not "in order that", why did I get accused of criticizing your character by saying you had summarized and quoted me out of context 'to' make me appear to have said things I didn't mean (see #166 and 169)?

That didn't make a bit of difference, did it? You will still write back and try to claim I said the exact opposite, yes?

You still claim it is a list of what one must do TO go to heaven. What does 'to' mean, there, anyway? Is what you are going to tell me now the same thing you meant by it the first time you put it into this thread?

Neither you nor I said that the act of repentance causes salvation.

But I did echo back what you said, that if one does not repent, one will not go to heaven. That is the same thing as saying that, to go to heaven, one must repent. That is what you said.

No, it is not the same thing. The first implies only result of salvation, not causation of salvation through repentance.

I'm thinking there must be a reason you insist on putting it the way you do. Is it because you want me to give in and say yes, so you can crow and then claim I finally acquiesced to the wording of your bogus question? If there is no difference, why has this contest continued so long? Why have you lost so much beer on the floor?

I didn't say you said you had to do them without God.

I said you said you had to do them.

My point, once again, is, as one poster on this site said lately, that God is the one doing every good work in them, including every obedience, every repentance. It is "not I, but Christ in me."

The problem is you keep saying different things. Sometimes you say emphatically that if you do not repent you will not go to heaven. Sometimes you say emphatically that you can go to heaven even if you don't repent. When I ask for clarification you obfuscate.

So which way is it? Do you or do you not need to repent to go to heaven? If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven?

You are going to take me wrong either way, so I relent. My past answers were good enough, and did not contradict. You took them as contradictory, as you would continue to do if I was to continue to repeat them. Good day to you, sir. I've had enough of this foolishness.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How many times and in how many ways have I said that is NOT a list of things one must do to go to heaven????

Again, the other person using your account said if you don't do these things you will not go to heaven.

Now we must have a different person using your account. You now appear to say we can go to heaven without believing, without repenting, without obeying, etc. So which one of the two people using your account is right?

If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven? You refuse to clarify. Instead you appear to me to just switch back and forth.

And I think everybody here agrees with me on this. I don't think one person here can tell us if you think the person who does not repent can go to heaven.

No, it is not the same thing. The first implies only result of salvation, not causation of salvation through repentance.

Just as I thought. I told you I swore on a stack of Bibles that I am not implying that you say repentance causes salvation, only that you sometimes appear to be saying that if one does not repent he will not go to heaven.

(And sometimes you appear to say the opposite.)

I can swear on a thousand Bibles that I am not implying what you claim I am implying, and yet you will still claim that I am implying that. You simply have no evidence that I am implying what you claim I am implying.

The problem is that you have a canned sales talk. That canned talk says to insist that the other person says what you want him to say. Sorry, that does not work.

I have asked you a simple question, and you simply talk gibberish, going back and forth between two different answers and absolutely refusing to clarify.

You are going to take me wrong either way, so I relent.

You say this in direct response to:

If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven?​

Got it. You do not care to comment on whether the person who does not repent can still go to heaven.

You do not care to comment on whether the person who does not believe can still go to heaven.

etc.

Fine. I will write you down as "no comment" to the question of this thread, and move on.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again, the other person using your account said if you don't do these things you will not go to heaven.

Now we must have a different person using your account. You now appear to say we can go to heaven without believing, without repenting, without obeying, etc. So which one of the two people using your account is right?

If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven? You refuse to clarify. Instead you appear to me to just switch back and forth.

And I think everybody here agrees with me on this. I don't think one person here can tell us if you think the person who does not repent can go to heaven.


Just as I thought. I told you I swore on a stack of Bibles that I am not implying that you say repentance causes salvation, only that you sometimes appear to be saying that if one does not repent he will not go to heaven.

(And sometimes you appear to say the opposite.)

I can swear on a thousand Bibles that I am not implying what you claim I am implying, and yet you will still claim that I am implying that. You simply have no evidence that I am implying what you claim I am implying.

The problem is that you have a canned sales talk. That canned talk says to insist that the other person says what you want him to say. Sorry, that does not work.

I have asked you a simple question, and you simply talk gibberish, going back and forth between two different answers and absolutely refusing to clarify.



You say this in direct response to:

If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven?​

Got it. You do not care to comment on whether the person who does not repent can still go to heaven.

You do not care to comment on whether the person who does not believe can still go to heaven.

etc.

Fine. I will write you down as "no comment" to the question of this thread, and move on.

Hahaha! you certainly have put a lot of effort, not to mention wasted a lot of beer, on responding to no comment!

You already know the answer to these pseudo-questions, not to mention the bogus question you began with. You are playing semantics at this point. Good day to you sir.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hahaha! you certainly have put a lot of effort, not to mention wasted a lot of beer, on responding to no comment!

You already know the answer to these pseudo-questions, not to mention the bogus question you began with. You are playing semantics at this point. Good day to you sir.

I tried my hardest to get you to answer. Again here is the question:

Must one repent to go to heaven? If one does not repent, can he still go to heaven?​

Sometimes you seem to answer one way. Sometimes you seem to answer the opposite, and now you just obfuscate. Nobody here knows your answer.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let's cut to the chase. It was necessary that Christ die to save those to whom God chose to show mercy.

You have not explained why it is necessary. All you have told us is that it was necessary for God to choose to have Jesus die before he saved us because he chose to say it was necessary to have Jesus die before he would save us. It is one big circle.

You say the universe works under what I call a rule, that God must have his Son die before he forgives. I don't think the universe works under this rule.

It is not a rule.

I call it a rule. Whatever you want to call it, you say God is bound by what I refer to as a "rule", that God must have his Son die before he forgives.

And you say there is no other reason for this thing that I call a rule (God must have his Son die before he forgives ) other than the fact that God imposed it upon himself.

If you don't want to call it a rule, call it a requirement.

Somehow you say God got bound by this requirement that he had to have his son killed before he forgave. And you also say that it was God himself that required himself to do that. But if God makes the rules, uh, er, the requirements, why did he make this a requirement?

It is not a requirement.

Got it. God requires that he have his son die before he forgives, but it is not a requirement. It is the kind of doublespeak I find throughout your posts. Do your writings even seem consistent to you?

Ok, not a rule, not a requirement. But you yourself call it a necessity. Let's rephrase my question:

Somehow you say God got bound by this necessity that he had to have his son killed before he forgave. And you also say that it was God himself that necessitated himself to do that. But if God makes the rules, uh, er, the necessities, why did he make this a necessity?​

Oh the gymnastics we need to go through to meet your language necessities.

And please don't say that this necessity just exists and God is forced to follow. You have already told us that there is no necessity outside of God that is forcing God to do this.

It was the means by which God worked salvation.

Salvation from the necessity that you say God made.

There was no other way to make the particular people for himself he had in mind.

Who made this rule, er, uh, requirement, er, uh, necessity that God cannot do it any other way then having his son killed? God?

Do you have some reason to think God demanded Christ die?

Well, you are the one who said that Christ had to die before God would forgive sin. Did you forget you said that?

You are asking the scales of justice to balance, without equal weight on each side.

No I am not.

To me killing an innocent person is not justice.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well that was interesting.

I conclude that the Bible has no clear way to get to heaven. Many verses say many different things. Efforts here to clear it up have only made it more confusing. I see widespread disagreement on how to get to heaven.

How can the Bible be God's word to us for our eternal good, and yet not make this clear?

See also Dwindling In Unbelief: 176 ways to get yourself saved.

 

[Lukaris]

The Bible does make it clear for many people and not for others. Those that it has made it clear for still have different understandings though. We have to at least treat each other as respectful as possible ( the golden rule Matthew 7:12, Matthew 7:1-12, Luke 6:31 within the overall context of Luke 6)

My conclusion is just in general not in direct relation to the particular discussion.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The Bible does make it clear for many people and not for others. Those that it has made it clear for still have different understandings though.

If everyone gets a different interpretation, how would anybody know that his interpretation is correct? Could it be that all are just seeing what they want to see?

Since you say the Bible has made the requirements clear, please tell us, based on your reading of the Bible, what we need to do to go to heaven.

 

[Lukaris]

If everyone gets a different interpretation, how would anybody know that his interpretation is correct? Could it be that all are just seeing what they want to see?

Since you say the Bible has made the requirements clear, please tell us, based on your reading of the Bible, what we need to do to go to heaven.

Everyone does not have a different understanding but different understandings prevail among Christians. Still within the Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant understandings there should be enough of the Gospel message conveyed to convince someone. Either you believe it or you do not. The golden rule should help us to hopefully know the truth as best we can & treat each other accordingly.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Everyone does not have a different understanding but different understandings prevail among Christians.

Sorta like meatloaf, huh? There are a lot of different recipes, but you will find some people that use the same recipe that another person uses.

Does every recipe to heaven work? Some have used the recipe that says fly a plane into the WTC, thinking that would not only get them to heaven, but give them a good supply of virgins. Surely you cannot be saying their recipe to heaven is as good as any other.

So how do I know which recipe is good, and which is not?

Still within the Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant understandings there should be enough of the Gospel message conveyed to convince someone.

What constitutes "enough of the gospel message" in order to go to heaven? What is the minimum requirement?

Either you believe it or you do not.

I do not.

The golden rule should help us to hopefully know the truth as best we can & treat each other accordingly.

Is this your way to heaven? Follow the golden rule? If this is the way, why didn't Jesus tell this man that?

 

[Lukaris]

Sorta like meatloaf, huh? There are a lot of different recipes, but you will find some people that use the same recipe that another person uses.

Does every recipe to heaven work? Some have used the recipe that says fly a plane into the WTC, thinking that would not only get them to heaven, but give them a good supply of virgins. Surely you cannot be saying their recipe to heaven is as good as any other.

So how do I know which recipe is good, and which is not?


What constitutes "enough of the gospel message" in order to go to heaven? What is the minimum requirement?



I do not.

Is this your way to heaven? Follow the golden rule? If this is the way, why didn't Jesus tell this man that?

No one here has said anything about justifying terrorism like the WTC. What is so mystifying about practicing basic courtesy towards another human being ( that is much of the golden rule)?

People tell you in a basic way that living by commandments of human decency are necessary for salvation ( like Romans 13:8-10). As Christians we believe we need to acknowledge our Savior & live by His commandments & that He died for our sins because we fall short.

You have been told that there is a way of natural law that individuals might live by the commandments ( ex. Romans 2) but we believe that is a risk & cannot tell a person they have an assurance of salvation in this ( ex. Hebrews 10:21-24).

You said you do not believe this so what is there to say to you? You just go back & ramble on, “which commandments, huh, huh, huh? which ones, huh, huh?”

 

[doubtingmerle]

No one here has said anything about justifying terrorism like the WTC.

Well, there are many people here saying different ways to heaven and you seemed to be saying you were fine with all of them. But now you have clarified that at least one way that I have heard from people not on this forum, flying a jet into the WTC, does not work.

So which ways to get to heaven work, and which ones don't?

What is so mystifying about practicing basic courtesy towards another human being ( that is much of the golden rule)?

Nothing is mystifying about practicing basic courtesy toward people. Is this your answer? Just treat people courteously, and you will go to heaven? Or is there more involved?

People tell you in a basic way that living by commandments of human decency are necessary for salvation ( like Romans 13:8-10).

That is one way that has been proposed here. But others have said that all that matters is faith. And others have suggested the Ten Commandments. And others have said all that matters is God choosing us, and what we do makes no difference at all.

So is your answer to live in basic human decency? Is that how you get to heaven?

As Christians we believe we need to acknowledge our Savior & live by His commandments & that He died for our sins because we fall short.

Now you seem to be saying there are 3 requirements:

1) acknowledge our savior
2) Live by his commandments
3) [acknowledge] that He died for our sins because we fall short.​

And I find that living in basic human decency is not on this list. The list is quite confusing. On the third one, for instance, you seem to be implying the word "acknowledge", but it is not clear.

Is this you final answer?

You have been told that there is a way of natural law that individuals might live by the commandments ( ex. Romans 2) but we believe that is a risk & cannot tell a person they have an assurance of salvation in this ( ex. Hebrews 10:21-24).

Which is odd because "live by his commandments" made your list above, "but live by the commandments" is apparently a big risk. So how can I tell which commandments are "his commandments" that I need to follow, and which are a big risk?

You said you do not believe this so what is there to say to you?

You could begin by stating some evidence. If I need to believe a certain thing, then please tell me what it is I need to believe, and give me some evidence.

I cannot change beliefs simply by willpower. I need evidence.

You just go back & ramble on, “which commandments, huh, huh, huh? which ones, huh, huh?”

I don't remember ever saying this.

But if some commandments are "his commandments" and are required, and some commandments are "a risk", then it seems very appropriate to ask which commandments are required, and which are "a risk"?

 

[Lukaris]

Well, there are many people here saying different ways to heaven and you seemed to be saying you were fine with all of them. But now you have clarified that at least one way that I have heard from people not on this forum, flying a jet into the WTC, does not work.

So which ways to get to heaven work, and which ones don't?


Nothing is mystifying about practicing basic courtesy toward people. Is this your answer? Just treat people courteously, and you will go to heaven? Or is there more involved?



That is one way that has been proposed here. But others have said that all that matters is faith. And others have suggested the Ten Commandments. And others have said all that matters is God choosing us, and what we do makes no difference at all.

So is your answer to live in basic human decency? Is that how you get to heaven?

Now you seem to be saying there are 3 requirements:

1) acknowledge our savior
2) Live by his commandments
3) [acknowledge] that He died for our sins because we fall short.​

And I find that living in basic human decency is not on this list. The list is quite confusing. On the third one, for instance, you seem to be implying the word "acknowledge", but it is not clear.

Is this you final answer?

Which is odd because "live by his commandments" made your list above, "but live by the commandments" is apparently a big risk. So how can I tell which commandments are "his commandments" that I need to follow, and which are a big risk?


You could begin by stating some evidence. If I need to believe a certain thing, then please tell me what it is I need to believe, and give me some evidence.

I cannot change beliefs simply by willpower. I need evidence.

I don't remember ever saying this.

But if some commandments are "his commandments" and are required, and some commandments are "a risk", then it seems very appropriate to ask which commandments are required, and which are "a risk"?

I believe I answered your original question back in post #14 but I guess you missed or dismissed it. I provided a comparison between Romans 13:8-10 & the commandments given in Matthew 19:16-19. Paul is preaching according to what Jesus said. I also provided a link to an early church manual ( about 100 AD or earlier) called the Didache showing the commandments observed by the early Christians. See: Didache

I have said scripture indicates that God says it is possible that a person may live out their life in which He will judge them for good or bad ( see Romans 2, John 5:22-30, Ezekiel 18:4-9, Psalms 15, Revelation 20:11-15 etc.). A prime example of a person who does what is good by nature is, I believe, the Good Samaritan ( see Luke 10:25-37 ). The risk is that how many individuals can truly know that they measure up to a Good Samaritan?

Your expression of what is right or wrong, basic human decency ( in your condescending way, I think)seems to be confused over what is said in Matthew 19:16-19, Romans 13:8-10 vs flying aircraft into skyscrapers.

 

[dcalling]

Check.

I don't kill, not just because the law says not to kill, but because my heart doesn't want to kill.

But I know of many Christians (and Non-Christians) who do want to kill.

Jesus said who ever hate his brother in his heart have committed murder. That is the standard of God.

I don't know where it comes from but yes, I have love.

That "love" is unconditional love, the ones that we don't have, i.e. die for other people who hate you.

Check.

Ah, the commandments in the Bible are for a specific time and place. When it comes down to it, it is better to use our sense of reasoning to figure out what R&R we need, rather than strictly follow the command to remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.

I am starting to like the way you think.

Got it. R&R is good. Demanding a literal following of the sabbath day command is bad.



Understood. Some people are mistaken.

That does not prove I am mistaken.


That's odd. Why is it that folks like Interested Atheist, Clizby Wampuscat, Nihilist Virus, Cvanway and others understand things so well?

We agree to disagree You think they understand things well, I don't and vice-versa.

And why is it that some other posters (whom I will not name) seem far from understanding?


I had a similar experience. I was terrified of hell as a youth, and then I found I could simply trust Christ. It was like a light switched on. Sorta. But the fear of hell never really went away. And the fear that other people were going to hell drove me to the streets, door to door, trying to persuade others to accept Christ. All this while fighting back my own fears of hell and doing my best to squash out the frequent doubts and questions.

And then one day I saw that there likely was no hell and no God to condemn me. I found that I was free to think, to ask hard questions, to explore, to reach out, to take whatever path I found to be best. For the first time in my life I could really experience the thrill of the mind set free. That second change was literally very much like someone had flipped a switch,

It is the same feeling you get when your are facing a difficult math issue and just can't understand it. And then one day you suddenly know. Not sure if you ever had that experience before.

You and I have the opposite experience. I was never afraid of hell, never thought I will go there. Because I thought I was too good to go to hell before I became a Christian, and I know I am saved by God after became a Christian.

What I can tell you is, ever since I found out there must be something supernatural, I went on a quest, from eastern religions to Christianity/Judaism and Islam. Nothing else in this world will truly set you free. But it is for you to find out. Will pray for you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I believe I answered your original question back in post #14 but I guess you missed or dismissed it.

Sorry, I was involved in other posts and overlooked that one.

I provided a comparison between Romans 13:8-10 & the commandments given in Matthew 19:16-19. Paul is preaching according to what Jesus said.

Paul says that love is the fulfilling of the law. But Matthew 19 lists 6 commands required for heaven, one of which is to love your neighbor. So is love one of six required commandments, or is it the sum of what is required?

If Jesus thought that the answer was love, he could have just said "All you need is love".

Paul says love is the fulfilling of the law. But he also says fulfilling the law or doing good works is not necessary for salvation. "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) If we believe, is that all we need?

I also provided a link to an early church manual ( about 100 AD or earlier) called the Didache showing the commandments observed by the early Christians. See: Didache

The Didache is an odd books. I never heard of it being described as a description of what we need to do to go to heaven. Are you saying that this book makes it clear?

I have said scripture indicates that God says it is possible that a person may live out their life in which He will judge them for good or bad ( see Romans 2, John 5:22-30, Ezekiel 18:4-9, Psalms 15, Revelation 20:11-15 etc.).

I find it interesting that you include John 5:24 in your list: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."

John 5:24 is used by those who teach an easy believism. It specifically says believers won't come into judgement. But you say we will come into judgement and list John 5:24 as evidence. Huh? John 5:24 says the opposite.

A prime example of a person who does what is good by nature is, I believe, the Good Samaritan ( see Luke 10:25-37 ). The risk is that how many individuals can truly know that they measure up to a Good Samaritan?

It is interesting that you bring Luke 10:25-37 up. Here another man asks Jesus a very similar question, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?." Interesting. He asks virtually the same question as the guy in Matthew 19. Were multiple people asking Jesus this question?

Interestingly, Jesus has a different answer here. In Matthew Jesus says follow six commands including love. In Luke we find two commands: Love God and neighbor. Which is the correct answer?

Your expression of what is right or wrong, basic human decency ( in your condescending way, I think)

No, I am in now way condescending of basic human decency. As a humanist, I strongly support treating others with basic human decency.

seems to be confused over what is said in Matthew 19:16-19, Romans 13:8-10 vs flying aircraft into skyscrapers.

Nope. I do not confuse Matthew 19 with flying aircraft into skyscrapers.

Again, I was having trouble understanding your posts. You seemed to be saying we all have different ways to heaven, but we should love those that differ. The aircraft example was used to refute the idea that all ways are equally good. I now see that you are not saying that, so the aircraft illustration is irrelevant to your posts as I now understand them.

 

[Lukaris]

To Merle in post #218, I will reply more later but I want to address what is taken as “easy believism”. St. John in his 1st epistle clearly illustrates in his 1st epistle that there are commitments to striving to do good ( 1 John 1:5-10, 1 John 2:1-5). St. Paul does not preach an easy believism either ( Romans 11:22, all of Colossians 1 in particular Colossians 1:9-14, Colossians 1:23, Galatians 6 etc,). It is upon keeping the commandments ( John 14:15-18) as best we can that grace covers are shortcomings ( Ephesians 2:8-10). John 5:24 is tied to the overall context of John 5:29 ( doing good vs evil).

 

[doubtingmerle]

Jesus said who ever hate his brother in his heart have committed murder. That is the standard of God.

Whew! I guess it is a good thing I don't hate, huh?

Nothing else in this world will truly set you free.

With all due respect, I once was where you are now. I thought I was free. But I never really knew what it was like to be free until I abandoned my beliefs in a God.