A New Dark Age For Europe

loverofhumanity said:

Fair enough I respect your view. I just understand the two are linked. But linking paradise to good deeds likewise links hell to bad deeds. It seems in the Quran the two are always linked repeatedly in different passages.

16:97

Whosoever works righteousness, whether male or female, and is a believer, We shall give them new life, a good life, and We shall surely render unto them their reward in accordance with the best of that which they used to do.

Click to expand...

loverofhumanity said:

16:97

Whosoever works righteousness, whether male or female, and is a believer, We shall give them new life, a good life, and We shall surely render unto them their reward in accordance with the best of that which they used to do.

Click to expand...

2ndpillar said:

The battle against Rome/iron/Russia and the Muslims/clay is still ongoing. The "bow, the sword, and war" has not been "abolished from the land" (Hosea 2:18). Australia apparently even helped the British in the struggle with respect to Afghanistan, although with multiple horsepower versus single horse power. As a result, you apparently have your Muslim's taking apart Australia's welfare system, and straining law enforcement capabilities. Although this is not a problem limited to Australia.

Click to expand...

2ndpillar said:

Righteousness for a Muslim terrorist is taking down 3000 civilians with two planes. Don't think for a minute, that that didn't warm the hearts of many Muslims.

Click to expand...

Faithofchristian said:

Well it's evidence that you didn't know who the Priest and Levite are.

Because everything that I given refutes everything that you given.

But if you can't handle that, that's your problem and not mine.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

So condemning a false religion equals not loving your neighbor? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Faithofchristian said:

First of all, before you accuse or make accusations, You should first find out things first.
As I do not belong to any church or Religious organizations that pertains to the teachings of man's.
As I only go by the teachings of Christ Jesus alone.

Click to expand...

The_Fisher_King said:

Can you provide me with a link or two?

Click to expand...

Notanumber said:

There is a huge difference between being violently aggressive against someone and criticizing the ideology that they happen to follow.

Click to expand...

Kangaroo Feathers said:

In poker I think that's what they call a "tell".

Click to expand...

The_Fisher_King said:

What's your perspective on the crucifixion? And for that matter 'Eid-al-Adha?

Click to expand...

Faithofchristian said:

Those 4 Arab tribes, has nothing to do with Samaritans. As the Samaritans are only half breed Jews of Israel.
As Galilee is the tribe of Benjamin,
Which the Samaritans are neighbour to the tribe of Benjamin, which is Galilee that is spoken of in the book of John 4:1-12

Note the Samaritan woman saying to Jesus in Verse 12 above, that Jacob as being the Samaritans father,
But also remember that Jacob had other children that was not by his wife Rachel.

"Rachel was a Biblical figure, the favorite of Jacob's two wives, and the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, two of the twelve progenitors of the tribes of Israel. Rachel's father was Laban. Her older sister was Leah, Jacob's first wife"

Note Rachel had two sons, one which is Benjamin, which is the tribe of Israel.
Which is Galilee, which the Samaritans are neighbour to Galilee. Benjamin.

Note that before this Jacob had other children by Rachel's handmaiden.
Unto which came the Samaritans.
Half breed Jews, and not full blooded Jews of Israel. Which are the Samaritans.

Click to expand...

sooda said:

Do you know there is sin other than original sin or inherited sin?

Click to expand...

sooda said:

When the Apostles baptized new converts, they did not do it "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit", as Jesus appears to have instructed in Matthew 28:19. They baptized them "in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 2:38), and "in the name of the Lord" (Acts 10:48).

Click to expand...

shmogie said:

Of course, any act contrary to the will or desire of God is sin.

Original sin is simply the inability of man to be in perfect harmony with God, as Adam was originally.

Because of this propensity to sin, blood must be spilled to atone for sin.

God required a blood sacrifice for atonement right at the beginning, Abel provided it, Cain did not.

In the first covenant between God and Israel, blood sacrifices were required, and once a year on the day of atonement, the entire people participated because every one had sinned, and required atonement.

The Bible says Christ was the lamb that takes away the sins of the world.

Just as a lamb was sacrificed, He was sacrificed. The one ultimate sacrifice for atonement, none other is ever needed.

Click to expand...

shmogie said:

I think you are wrong, but what difference does it make ?

Click to expand...

Kangaroo Feathers said:

"Everything you ever said is wrong. Just google it. If you don't google it it's only because you know your cherished narrative will be rocked." That's how silly you sound.

I'm also dying to know what you think my "cherrished narrative" is?

Click to expand...

sooda said:

It goes back to Azazel, the scapegoat... quite pagan. That's not exactly atonement.

Why was Abel a blood sacrifice? I never heard that before.

Original sin was never mentioned by Jesus.. It wasn't Christian doctrine until the 4th century.. and then it meant babies were sinful because they were conceived in sin.. inherited from Adam and Eve,

Click to expand...

sooda said:

Actually we were talking about John the Baptist .. a Jew and a Nazirite. He wasn't baptizing in the Christian sense of the word.

Click to expand...

shmogie said:

Cain provided a grain sacrifice, Abel a blood sacrifice, as required.

Jesus used the word repent more times than he did the word love. He was continually pointing out sin.

Original sin did not have to be mentioned by Him, the yearly atonement for sin had been part of the Jewish belief structure for 2,000 years.

The Apostles clearly made the point about original sin, especially Paul.

Christ Himself made it as well. When He said, "no man comes to the Father but by Me". A sinless man could be righteous without Christ's atonement, he could come to God perfect, without the need for Christ's atonement.

Since no man can do this, even a quadraplegic blind and deaf, no man, then sin is more than an act, it is a condition, original sin, and there is only one way to escape the consequences for it.

Click to expand...