Do Christians really think...

[Hawkins]

god has favorites...

Law is where fairness is built. The gift is for everyone to choose, as long as he hears the gospel.

Moreover, the gift is based on His own self-sacrifice. And a gift doesn't actually need fairness, though it is fair enough that everyone can get it as long as he's willing to.

 

[waitasec]

How do you know that they broke the Law? It's only up to God to judge.

the doctrine you believe in says no one is sinless...
everyone is born in debt and ordered to pay it off for some strange reason...

 

[Hawkins]

the doctrine you believe in says no one is sinless...
everyone is born in debt and ordered to pay it off for some strange reason...

The Bible also says that not every sin is a death sin.

 

[waitasec]

Law is where fairness is built. The gift is for everyone to choose, as long as he hears the gospel.

Moreover, the gift is based on His own self-sacrifice. And a gift doesn't actually need fairness, though it is fair enough that everyone can get it as long as he's willing to.

which gospel?

 

[Hawkins]

which gospel?

Read through Paul's letters.

 

[waitasec]

The Bible also says that not every sin is a death sin.

where?

 

[waitasec]

Read through Paul's letters.

i'm sorry but paul's gospels are not in the koran....

 

[Hawkins]

where?

Why don't you just read it through to get the answer? That's your doubt, not mine.

 

[Blackdog22]

Why don't you just read it through to get the answer? That's your doubt, not mine.

Isn't it reasonable that you provide evidence to back up your claim? The Bible clearly says all have sinned and fall short of Gods glory, so where exactly is this claim that some sin is okay, while others aren't, coming from?

I also still don't understand why Moses didn't go straight to hell for having proof of God, while someone like me would. How exactly do you rationalize this?

 

[Hawkins]

Ok, this one is easier to find out.

1 John 5:16
If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.

 

[Hawkins]

Isn't it reasonable that you provide evidence to back up your claim? The Bible clearly says all have sinned and fall short of Gods glory, so where exactly is this claim that some sin is okay, while others aren't, coming from?

Theological concept is sometimes from the study of the Bible as a whole. So it depends on whether you are argueing about a certain biblical point of view or the bases. The bases are built on the whole Bible. If you are out of concept, then none can help.

I also still don't understand why Moses didn't go straight to hell for having proof of God, while someone like me would. How exactly do you rationalize this?

God has HIs own right to see HIs prophets. Are you saying that you know better? Moreover, old covenant for Jews, as I said (hello are you listening), they are subject to the Mosaic Law. So base on what you made the judgment that Moses should go to hell? You are on the judgment seat? Or are you have strong evidence that Moses violate the Mosaic Law?

 

[thedope]

All sins can be forgiven save for blaspheme against the holy spirit. Only then because the holy spirit is our communication with god.

 

[Blackdog22]

Theological concept is sometimes from the study of the Bible as a whole. So it depends on whether you are argueing about a certain biblical point of view or the bases. The bases are built on the whole Bible. If you are out of concept, then none can help.

So when it says all have fallen short of Gods glory it doesn't mean that? Does something in the Bible contradict that statement? If so can you provide that verse? I could also claim your out of concept for not understanding "All have fallen short," but at least I am posting a verse to back up my position.

God has HIs own right to see HIs prophets. Are you saying that you know better? Moreover, old covenant for Jews, as I said (hello are you listening), they are subject to the Mosaic Law. So base on what you made the judgment that Moses should go to hell? You are on the judgment seat? Or are you have strong evidence that Moses violate the Mosaic Law?

It seems you have lost touch with what you were arguing against. I agree God can show up to whoever he likes, that however means if he leaves certain individuals out then he picks favorites.

As far as who made the judgement that Moses should go to hell, well, you did. Did you or did you not post this.

By the current covenant in effect, you need faith to be saved. That is, if God show up in front of you, you can no longer be saved as you'll fail to deliver your faith as required by the covenant.

I believe you blatantly stated that those who see God in front of them can no longer be saved. Why then was Moses saved? The disciples? Noah? Aaron? Adam and Eve?

 

[That Dude]

Okay, you claimed that just the demonstration of the leprechaun analogy insulted your intelligence? Is that correct? If so then am I not allowed to explain analogies, for my own sake of argument, without you being offended? Exactly what analogy would I need to post, that wouldn't offend you, that involves unprovable beings? If just speaking of the analogy offends you then please try not to be so offended. We are merely discussing things and no one here thinks your an idiot.

Well that's better! lol
Now what happened was, you asked me why muslims were any different then Christians and my answer turned into the whole "I've been a Christian for 15 years" debacle.
Which ended with you being proven wrong.
So we went onto the leprechaun debacle because muslims obviously don't think the same way as Christians.
And some where in there I got called a hypocrite because people who believe in leprechauns should be just as respected for their belief in leprechauns as I should for God.
Which I threw back at you because you couldn't understand why muslims don't think like Christians.
So now you're a hypocrite, live with it or give a proper answer.

 

[darkendless]

Difference is, I stepped into this thread to defend my beliefs.
Show me where I started a thread that forced you to do the same.
Then show me where I made assumptions about your motives. Like you have mine.

You chose to defend your beliefs, I chose to comment on a particular post you made which I disagreed with.

I'm not assuming anything, you're the one assuming I believe in something because I don't believe in God.

 

[That Dude]

You chose to defend your beliefs, I chose to comment on a particular post you made which I disagreed with.

I'm not assuming anything, you're the one assuming I believe in something because I don't believe in God.

Actually, you said you despise religion, or loath it or something to that effect. Dictating an emotional response. It's a reaction that comes from influence.
Someone influenced you to "feel" that way. Could be a response you got by watching religious people themselves, or from a source that you see as positive, or both. Either way it's a response that came from observing another person.
I never said that it mattered that you believe or don't believe in God. Just made suggestions as to why you don't believe in God, that you're probably not admitting too. And those suggestions weren't explicit or pointed. They simply stated that you had feelings. Which you just confirmed.

Just because God means something to you doesn't mean it means anything to anyone else.

That statement is an assumption about my motives.

 

[David69]

Katzpur, you are most certainly entitled to ignore my posts if you wish, but please don't mistake my arguments as insults. I never said you were dumb or stupid, I never insulted you. I am using leprachauns as an example of why I don't believe, their is no insult to be gleemed from this. Since your position is arguing that of a being that can in no way be proven I have to, for discussion, use a being that is also unproven. I chose leprachauns, I could of chosen unicorns, flying pigs, fairies, santa clause, etc. It is in no way meant to insult you.

BTW, complaining about insults(without reason) and then insulting me by calling me juvenile and a spoiled adolescent may not be the best way to present yourself. Just a thought.

You do insult everyone Black dog. Debate is fine but insults is not. You are feeding your inflated ego and think everyone thinks your cool, but dude, its not cool and neither are you!!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

First off, let me start at the beginning, it might have been lost in all this confusion.
I said, you need to be sincere about God and not hold a belief in him before you get proof he exist.
You say, "you need evidence, or proof that God exist"
I say, "you only need to be sincere for the briefest of moments to get proof"

My argument is that it's impossible for you to be sincere because of what you believe and that you only believe what you do because of how you feel.
So the difference is in how we've each been influenced. If you say, "you're only influenced by evidence"
I call foul because you became influenced to only need evidence in the first place over how you feel.

Sorry, but this just sounds like nonsense to me. I could just as easily say that the only reason you believe in God is because you are insincere and refuse to accept reality in favour of personal fantasy. The question is how do you go about establishing the truth value of someones claim? The way you do this is simple: by providing objectively verifiable evidence or reason. If you cannot do this, even if your justification is merely personal experience, then the truth value of your claim is nil. You may have personal reasons to believe it to be true, but you cannot expect other people to reach the same conclusion.

In any case, this isn't answering answering the question I asked about what differentiates your beliefs about God from a hypothetical belief about leprechauns.

Yeah and for the 3rd time now, that's not the explanation I gave for being insulted. lol
Your understanding of why I said I was insulted is incorrect.

False! Wrong! Incorrect! I call foul SIR!!!
That is NOT WHY I SAID I WAS INSULTED. haha
Did you see it that time? lol

Last time.
I admit that I find comparing God to a leprechaun is insulting.
BUT!!! I DID NOT say that was why I said I was insulted.
I said, you misjudged my ability to understand that you need proof or evidence in the first place and by default used the leprechaun analogy before even trying a different method that would suggest I was capable of understanding an analogy that met with a higher standard of intelligence.

And you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying, either. Since you have yet to actually respond to the analogy whatsoever, I fail to see how repeating it should be in any way insulting. It's very simple, really.

 

[Morpheus]

That God is going to reveal himself to us just in time to send us to hell?

What I mean by this is apparently God remains an invisible being all of our lives and then when we die.... BAM, "Hey God, Did I believe in you hard enough to go to heaven?" Of course God answers that no, an atheist didn't believe hard enough to go to heaven and then proceeds to backhand us into hell, which he didn't want to send us too, but somehow we end up their without his permission? Or something?

Do Christians really believe this? Doesn't that seem rather...... silly?

Some christians will believe it some won't. And yes, this does seem rather silly.

 

[Blackdog22]

You do insult everyone Black dog. Debate is fine but insults is not. You are feeding your inflated ego and think everyone thinks your cool, but dude, its not cool and neither are you!!

David, this is probably one of the last times I will even respond to you since most of your posts are without reason.

So, here before everyone, lets see you post my insults that I have made to everyone at religious forums. All the posts are saved so you should have no problem finding the insults. So before all to see, lets see your evidence. If not no one is going to take you seriously, because claims based on no evidence is called a lie and people don't respect liars.