I have a dream, that mine will be the only comment in this entire thread and that one day, our children will live in a world where no one will comment on this retard's posts.
Reaching God isn't about following the rules. No one is going to get to Heaven by following the rules. The rites and rules are there to help a person connect with God. Any sin will separate you from God.
It isn't a trial by law. If you think of it that way, you are missing the point.
I didn't say you had to only be a good person you dummy. I said you can't get there by only following the rulebook. Your reading comprehension sucks, so shut your faggot mouth.
And you know dick about the Bible so shut your dumb heathen mouth about shit you don't understand. Stick to things you know like dog fucking or having no idea what grammar is.
but if your jewish, (according to 98% of the users here, sit wide. and 70% of the users in KIA2 ) atheist, gay, or adulators, there is no repentance, and you go to hell.
This is just wrong, I've not heard anyone saying that. If you repent and then sin no more you are going to be forgiven. Being gay is not a sin, having same sex relations is.
As for being Jewish, I doubt that is a sin.
The only sin that is unforgivable is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. at least as far as my limited knowledge.
#1 why should someone who's gay take what the bible says seriously?
Because it's the truth
#2 why would god make gay people?
I can't speak for God but from my point of view it is to test us. Different people have different obstacles to overcome, we learn from them. Sociopaths or pedophiles are also expected to control their urges. Average guy needs to not lust over women. You control yourself and then you realize that it is good to do so.
The prodigal son, in my opinion, is very much about this. Lets say you are gay, are in to the gay lifestyle and then abandon it. It is hard but you realize that you are much happier then before and God is there to welcome you back.
#3 a gay person could cherry pick the bible
They are free to do as they please. The beauty of truth is that it is there for you to learn, your opinion of it is inconsequential.
cherry pick the bible it's alright or you don't do it. when others you don't like do it they're not real christians.
I don't claim to be a "real Christian", I've turned my back to God for a long time, it is just for a few years I've returned. I'm not a "real Christian", I'm just a guy who believes in Jesus Christ and tries his best to learn what that implies.
pedophilia has been confirmed to be a legit mental disorder. and outside of right wing christian institutions... homosexuality is not
I don't care if it is a mental disorder or not, people seem to be split on that but it is irrelevant. I was responding to your argument not making a secular argument against homosexuality. Keep on point.
Being gay is not a self-destructive lifestyle. it's something your born as.
Also wrong by the way. There is no gay gene so there are other factors including molestation. There are genes that make it more likely to become gay yes. At most you can make the argument that it was not under your control.
Also The rest is just silly non-answers to my argument. You are making a secular, poorly made argument on why homosexuality should be acceptable and I make the argument that a homosexual would be happier if he embraced religion as long as it comes from his heart rather then forced upon him by society.
So... you just brushed off my opinion.
Yes, in a way. I can't talk for God nor am I an expert on the Bible, all I can say is that, for me, being a Christian means learning each day from my life and from scripture. "Cherry-picking" for most atheists means that there are instances we go against a scripture because we either don't know or we didn't understand it.
"your opinion doesn't matter in the eyes of the bible"
Also correct. Neither your opinion nor mine, nor the opinion of pickers of cherries.
This is wrong. Even the ancient Greeks realized that sexually abusing boys makes a large part of them gay. Studies have shown identical twins where one was gay the other not, so you are not born that way. Different behaviors as a child can make you gay or straight. You also see it in society now. Also porn affects you.
Being gay is not a self-destructive lifestyle. it's something your born as
Also wrong. You are not born gay and it is very much self-destructive in several ways. Gay lifesyle is a degenerated molestation factory that causes incredible harm to themselves. Is very much self-destructive.
There are gays that are not part of the gay lifestyle, that is correct as well and they usually turn better. Is still not good for them as you are a genetical dead-end. They would also be happier if they were not gay.
Not to mention how you suppose being a gay person who deconverts from their... lifestyle, will be happier. you truly are a fucking idiot you know that?
You will have to trust me on this one, I'm 100% certain to be correct. Although it looks to be much more successful for them to change once they turn 30.
I really don't like you man. that's your fucking excuse? this? and are you dumb? christians call out this shit too! it's not just "atheistic assumptions" it's calling you dickheads out. you cherry-pick to suite the need. that's it
I honestly don't. I try to understand and I change my life accordingly. I do make mistakes and I have a lot to learn.
I've been around alot of atheists as of late. and i've heard nothing but good things from these atheists. that after leaving religion... they felt free.
Basically Satan, he is the one that wants you free of all the rules of God, there is no happiness at the end of that road except misery and pain. I was an agnostic for most of my life and I can attest to that from personal experience
In your case. you think all of life's problems. will be solved if everyone becomes christians
No, God tests us and wants us to learn. We will have to face obstacles in order to learn.
Bullshit. tell me. how much did you actually, have to sacrifice because the bible told you so?
A lot. My entire lifestyle. I don't want to go in to details with a stranger but I have sacrificed a great deal.
and how many convenient laws, passages, and so on, that so happen to align with your own ideology, did you have to follow?
Most have been against how I was and I had to change. I'm not following this laws out of convinience
doesn't mean that there isn't any earthly consequences
Correct.
the bad guys will get theirs in the end... somehow?
Christ didn't preach to Caesar.
The bible DOES NOT (unlike many religions) set out to establish the earthly laws of Christendom. There is no Leviticus in the Synoptic Gospels. The bible preaches forgiveness because forgiving others is the best for YOU, not those who transgress against you.
The medieval conception of the divine right of kings came later, to explain how Caesar can be Christian. Because a just Caesar must do things which are decidedly un-Christian in order to create and preserved Christendom, creating law, imposing it, and condemning those who transgress it.
Anyone can turn away from Judaizing, from atheism, from homosexuality, or from adultery. I told you there was only one sin that can't be repented from, and that's on the grounds of logic. If a person rejects the nature of the universe over the course of a mature lifetime, that person gets so confirmed in that rejection that it becomes permanent and unchangeable, and remains negative indefinitely. And that's what the person's free will chose by unanimous consent over many years.
Jesus said that a king will forgive small debts and great debts the same way, but the difference is the one forgiven a great debt is so much more conscious of it that the reaction of gratitude becomes a greater testimony to the king's beneficence. Also there are differences of rewards in heaven, so there are additional things to strive for even though everyone who wants a heavenly relationship with the universe will receive it.
Other answers are the same as before. Thanks for the ping.
If there is life after death, then punishment after death matters. If there isn't any, then what matters most is the expression of punishment in this life, which is also sufficient if death is the end. So whichever choice you make you still have consequences.
I pointed out in this thread that the sin that is "unforgiven" is the hardening against the way the universe works (e.g. to preserve life), and that's on logical grounds. Every moment you get to harden yourself to truth or to be open-minded and pursue truth, and the hardening yourself is its own sufficient punishment. The person who meets truth and pushes back is already being punished in finding that things in this universe don't work and people recognize him as a bully, loser, or other failure in his pushback. That natural consequence is why most people most of the time have a common grace of wanting to at least appear to be true and doing the right thing, because it works better among humans and also in nature.
So you're right that when one kicks against learning the consequence is that one is illiterate. Over the course of a life we see potential for those consequences reaching a point of no return, and there are some people we consider as unforgivable, gone too far, "sold-out souls". If hell exists it's just the continuation of that, and even if it doesn't the natural way this known universe works is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of unforgiveness (and the deep potential for forgiveness of severe sins as well).
If your point is that in the case of afterlife punishment one can take the risk that it's just a sham, my answer was that there are enough natural consequences to bad behavior in this life that they suffice.
You suggest that some bad actors apparently go unpunished, and one could also infer that if, say, sodomy was so wrong then there would be more negative natural consequences (besides some relatively easily avoided diseases). Yes, all kinds of people make all kinds of innovations, sometimes improving on common morality to everyone's agreement, and sometimes trying new things that the majority disapproves; and we might argue that the disapproved innovations don't get the "smite" treatment lately.
This is not a proof that the universe won't stop immorality or that it's unjust. Because Blue, logically, either there is no universal justice (meaning there's nothing "unjust" about the person you disapprove getting off scot-free in your humble opinion); or there is universal justice (meaning that whatever that justice is really will happen and our own thinking that justice has been deferred or sleeping is the real error). You don't get it both ways by saying injustice exists (meaning people get away with junk) and justice doesn't exist (meaning we have no duty to do right ourselves).
It's not me imposing my will any more than it's you imposing your will on real bad actors (like pedophiles). It's us working together to learn how the universe really does work. If the universe has lots of loopholes where what is called bad really does go unpunished, let's learn the universe's true loopholes so we can best pursue our enlightened self-interest! Could there be some good in sodomy after all?
Did I say people can repent in hell? No. But it doesn't matter because, whether the dividing line is death or some later confirmation, if there is a point of no return then there is a risk of loss. (If there is never a point of no return then everything is fixable and we're Origenist universalists.)
(You may be thinking of purgatory, which is much more complicated, but for which Catholics still admit there is a point of no return and purgatory doesn't cross it.) Your critique of the universalist model is actually in line with the majority of church testimony, not opposed to it as you suggest.
I've had to have a handle on the vast evils that have happened over world history because your basic theodicy arguments (existence of evil, unobserved tree) come up again and again here. I daresay you might be underestimating how evil it is. Now keep in mind: it's your judgment that these things are not being fixed and also will never be. You judge from the limited perspective of what you can see, as do I. But the universe, as you note, goes on to permit these things to accumulate for centuries without apparent justice to our eyes.
This still presents us the same dilemma that you haven't chosen a side of. "if nothing in the known universe that we can observe can stop evil", then your human judgment that good exists has no basis in reality because you would have defined the nature of reality as having no consequential distinction between good and evil. On the other side, every time you say it should be a certain way, justice should fall upon the wicked, you define the nature of reality as having some real and consequential distinction, and you indicate that life does have meaning and that meaning is to find that justice wherever it may be found, and to amplify it until all these unsolved murders are resolved.
Until you decide whether your perception of good does or does not reflect something external to you, your conflict will remain. Either it's merely human and therefore no better than anyone else telling you what to do, tooth and claw, or it's real and thus we can participate in the healing for the evils we have observed. I invite you to join me in the latter quest, it's exciting and inspiring and I will either achieve universal justice or heroically die trying.
Me thinking that is the rough idea as a general response to someone trying to consider a philosophical approach to interpreting the bible does not mean that's how I think in any way.
And so I cannot reply, in good faith, as to how I am different from any religion because I have not stated my position on anything as absolute as knowing.
Had I an interpretation of the bible I would be sure to keep it to myself because, as you have stated, trying to explain would bring up lots of criticism and I don't want to upset people on a subject that is beyond reasoning.
The bible is one of many religious texts and I apply the same methodology to them all as I do not wish to upset people on a subject that is beyond reasoning.
Had I divine knowledge I would surely keep that to myself for the same reasons.
Ignore, downvote, move on.
I have a dream, that mine will be the only comment in this entire thread and that one day, our children will live in a world where no one will comment on this retard's posts.
Inshallah!
Edit: ...
Can I still tell him to drink bleach?
Not in posts he starts. This is my decree.
It only took you 27 days, very impressive.
Rip
Even for you this is astonishingly retarded.
To tell you how astonishingly retarded you are, of course.
The bible only speaks about one unforgivable sin, at Hebrews 10:26. Sinning deliberately after having knowledge of the truth, is the unforgivable sin.
Child rape, theft, murder, is not necessarily the unforgivable sin. Doing those things after coming to know Jesus, is.
They are equally forgiven, not equally bad.
Have you even read the bible?
Okay, thanks for replying to this 27 days later.
Reaching God isn't about following the rules. No one is going to get to Heaven by following the rules. The rites and rules are there to help a person connect with God. Any sin will separate you from God.
It isn't a trial by law. If you think of it that way, you are missing the point.
I didn't say you had to only be a good person you dummy. I said you can't get there by only following the rulebook. Your reading comprehension sucks, so shut your faggot mouth.
And you know dick about the Bible so shut your dumb heathen mouth about shit you don't understand. Stick to things you know like dog fucking or having no idea what grammar is.
Listen don't be ignorant your whole life.
This is just wrong, I've not heard anyone saying that. If you repent and then sin no more you are going to be forgiven. Being gay is not a sin, having same sex relations is.
As for being Jewish, I doubt that is a sin.
The only sin that is unforgivable is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. at least as far as my limited knowledge.
It is in my book.
Because it's the truth
I can't speak for God but from my point of view it is to test us. Different people have different obstacles to overcome, we learn from them. Sociopaths or pedophiles are also expected to control their urges. Average guy needs to not lust over women. You control yourself and then you realize that it is good to do so.
They are free to do as they please. The beauty of truth is that it is there for you to learn, your opinion of it is inconsequential.
I don't claim to be a "real Christian", I've turned my back to God for a long time, it is just for a few years I've returned. I'm not a "real Christian", I'm just a guy who believes in Jesus Christ and tries his best to learn what that implies.
I don't care if it is a mental disorder or not, people seem to be split on that but it is irrelevant. I was responding to your argument not making a secular argument against homosexuality. Keep on point.
Also wrong by the way. There is no gay gene so there are other factors including molestation. There are genes that make it more likely to become gay yes. At most you can make the argument that it was not under your control. Also The rest is just silly non-answers to my argument. You are making a secular, poorly made argument on why homosexuality should be acceptable and I make the argument that a homosexual would be happier if he embraced religion as long as it comes from his heart rather then forced upon him by society.
Yes, in a way. I can't talk for God nor am I an expert on the Bible, all I can say is that, for me, being a Christian means learning each day from my life and from scripture. "Cherry-picking" for most atheists means that there are instances we go against a scripture because we either don't know or we didn't understand it.
Also correct. Neither your opinion nor mine, nor the opinion of pickers of cherries.
This is wrong. Even the ancient Greeks realized that sexually abusing boys makes a large part of them gay. Studies have shown identical twins where one was gay the other not, so you are not born that way. Different behaviors as a child can make you gay or straight. You also see it in society now. Also porn affects you.
Also wrong. You are not born gay and it is very much self-destructive in several ways. Gay lifesyle is a degenerated molestation factory that causes incredible harm to themselves. Is very much self-destructive. There are gays that are not part of the gay lifestyle, that is correct as well and they usually turn better. Is still not good for them as you are a genetical dead-end. They would also be happier if they were not gay.
You will have to trust me on this one, I'm 100% certain to be correct. Although it looks to be much more successful for them to change once they turn 30.
I honestly don't. I try to understand and I change my life accordingly. I do make mistakes and I have a lot to learn.
Basically Satan, he is the one that wants you free of all the rules of God, there is no happiness at the end of that road except misery and pain. I was an agnostic for most of my life and I can attest to that from personal experience
No, God tests us and wants us to learn. We will have to face obstacles in order to learn.
A lot. My entire lifestyle. I don't want to go in to details with a stranger but I have sacrificed a great deal.
Most have been against how I was and I had to change. I'm not following this laws out of convinience
Correct.
Christ didn't preach to Caesar.
The bible DOES NOT (unlike many religions) set out to establish the earthly laws of Christendom. There is no Leviticus in the Synoptic Gospels. The bible preaches forgiveness because forgiving others is the best for YOU, not those who transgress against you.
The medieval conception of the divine right of kings came later, to explain how Caesar can be Christian. Because a just Caesar must do things which are decidedly un-Christian in order to create and preserved Christendom, creating law, imposing it, and condemning those who transgress it.
Anyone can turn away from Judaizing, from atheism, from homosexuality, or from adultery. I told you there was only one sin that can't be repented from, and that's on the grounds of logic. If a person rejects the nature of the universe over the course of a mature lifetime, that person gets so confirmed in that rejection that it becomes permanent and unchangeable, and remains negative indefinitely. And that's what the person's free will chose by unanimous consent over many years.
Jesus said that a king will forgive small debts and great debts the same way, but the difference is the one forgiven a great debt is so much more conscious of it that the reaction of gratitude becomes a greater testimony to the king's beneficence. Also there are differences of rewards in heaven, so there are additional things to strive for even though everyone who wants a heavenly relationship with the universe will receive it.
Other answers are the same as before. Thanks for the ping.
If there is life after death, then punishment after death matters. If there isn't any, then what matters most is the expression of punishment in this life, which is also sufficient if death is the end. So whichever choice you make you still have consequences.
I pointed out in this thread that the sin that is "unforgiven" is the hardening against the way the universe works (e.g. to preserve life), and that's on logical grounds. Every moment you get to harden yourself to truth or to be open-minded and pursue truth, and the hardening yourself is its own sufficient punishment. The person who meets truth and pushes back is already being punished in finding that things in this universe don't work and people recognize him as a bully, loser, or other failure in his pushback. That natural consequence is why most people most of the time have a common grace of wanting to at least appear to be true and doing the right thing, because it works better among humans and also in nature.
So you're right that when one kicks against learning the consequence is that one is illiterate. Over the course of a life we see potential for those consequences reaching a point of no return, and there are some people we consider as unforgivable, gone too far, "sold-out souls". If hell exists it's just the continuation of that, and even if it doesn't the natural way this known universe works is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of unforgiveness (and the deep potential for forgiveness of severe sins as well).
If your point is that in the case of afterlife punishment one can take the risk that it's just a sham, my answer was that there are enough natural consequences to bad behavior in this life that they suffice.
You suggest that some bad actors apparently go unpunished, and one could also infer that if, say, sodomy was so wrong then there would be more negative natural consequences (besides some relatively easily avoided diseases). Yes, all kinds of people make all kinds of innovations, sometimes improving on common morality to everyone's agreement, and sometimes trying new things that the majority disapproves; and we might argue that the disapproved innovations don't get the "smite" treatment lately.
This is not a proof that the universe won't stop immorality or that it's unjust. Because Blue, logically, either there is no universal justice (meaning there's nothing "unjust" about the person you disapprove getting off scot-free in your humble opinion); or there is universal justice (meaning that whatever that justice is really will happen and our own thinking that justice has been deferred or sleeping is the real error). You don't get it both ways by saying injustice exists (meaning people get away with junk) and justice doesn't exist (meaning we have no duty to do right ourselves).
It's not me imposing my will any more than it's you imposing your will on real bad actors (like pedophiles). It's us working together to learn how the universe really does work. If the universe has lots of loopholes where what is called bad really does go unpunished, let's learn the universe's true loopholes so we can best pursue our enlightened self-interest! Could there be some good in sodomy after all?
Did I say people can repent in hell? No. But it doesn't matter because, whether the dividing line is death or some later confirmation, if there is a point of no return then there is a risk of loss. (If there is never a point of no return then everything is fixable and we're Origenist universalists.)
(You may be thinking of purgatory, which is much more complicated, but for which Catholics still admit there is a point of no return and purgatory doesn't cross it.) Your critique of the universalist model is actually in line with the majority of church testimony, not opposed to it as you suggest.
I've had to have a handle on the vast evils that have happened over world history because your basic theodicy arguments (existence of evil, unobserved tree) come up again and again here. I daresay you might be underestimating how evil it is. Now keep in mind: it's your judgment that these things are not being fixed and also will never be. You judge from the limited perspective of what you can see, as do I. But the universe, as you note, goes on to permit these things to accumulate for centuries without apparent justice to our eyes.
This still presents us the same dilemma that you haven't chosen a side of. "if nothing in the known universe that we can observe can stop evil", then your human judgment that good exists has no basis in reality because you would have defined the nature of reality as having no consequential distinction between good and evil. On the other side, every time you say it should be a certain way, justice should fall upon the wicked, you define the nature of reality as having some real and consequential distinction, and you indicate that life does have meaning and that meaning is to find that justice wherever it may be found, and to amplify it until all these unsolved murders are resolved.
Until you decide whether your perception of good does or does not reflect something external to you, your conflict will remain. Either it's merely human and therefore no better than anyone else telling you what to do, tooth and claw, or it's real and thus we can participate in the healing for the evils we have observed. I invite you to join me in the latter quest, it's exciting and inspiring and I will either achieve universal justice or heroically die trying.
Is an eternity on non-existance better than hell?
I think the rough idea is just don't break any of the well set out rules and leave the rest of how it is interpreted to god.
Me thinking that is the rough idea as a general response to someone trying to consider a philosophical approach to interpreting the bible does not mean that's how I think in any way.
And so I cannot reply, in good faith, as to how I am different from any religion because I have not stated my position on anything as absolute as knowing.
Had I an interpretation of the bible I would be sure to keep it to myself because, as you have stated, trying to explain would bring up lots of criticism and I don't want to upset people on a subject that is beyond reasoning.
The bible is one of many religious texts and I apply the same methodology to them all as I do not wish to upset people on a subject that is beyond reasoning.
Had I divine knowledge I would surely keep that to myself for the same reasons.
It's all fun to think about until you share it with another Bluestorm, then there are only wars.
There will be wars anyway and so why taint the wonders of existence with spilled blood?
This isn't a religion forum you should ask on c/Christianity.
Why so rude? I wasn't attacking you. Yes it allows it but you might get better answers there.