The Bible is literally true.

[Nighthawk 0]

When did hobbits show up in the Bible?

Book of Thugs, Chapter AK, Verse 47

[MrRant 0]

That was right after Genesis right?

 

When Adam had to handle his bizness?

[Nighthawk 0]

Uhh... That, or we can see it taking place every day.

 

Quick, what evolution did you see today? Answer or everything you say is a fairy tale.

 

Read the title of this thread and maybe you'll be laughing as hard as I am right now.

 

I really don't care, in fact I wish you well. Cause I'll be laughing my head off when you're burning in hell.

 

No crime deserves eternal torture.  Maybe I would send them there for 100 years and then make him disappear, but I don't even know if I could do that.  How am I nicer than God?  Anyway if you believe in the bible, these are the kind of sickos that go to heaven, as long as they have faith.  While if any one of those kids he tortured was an atheist, they would've went straight to hell after he killed them. 

 

Not if they were kids, no. Saying no crime deserves eternal torture is merely ignorance of the immensity of God.

 

The bible says there's no excuse so there must not be! 

 

Correct. You're really having a hard time interpretting that.

 

Not only do you not go to Hell, you get paradise and you have to do nothing to get it. It's free and all you have to do is accept.

 

Then I don't have anything to worry about.

 

Unless you, you know, reject it. I could show that Hell will be worse for you than most, but you probably don't want to hear it.

 

Buy yourself a dictionary.  "Free" means nothing is required in return.  Yet belief is required for salvation, so please stop claiming this is a "free" gift.

 

This ranks up there with the stupidest things I've ever heard. So someone giving you a present isn't a "free" gift because it requires the energy to reach out your hands and take it.

 

Webster's says cruel is to cause pain and suffering.  Is there pain and suffering in the world he created or in hell?  Is torturing babies to punish their parents causing pain and suffering?  Yep.  So it's not an opinion that he's cruel.  It's just what he is.  You can't take the deliberately designed pain and torture and say it isn't cruel just because you don't want him to be cruel.  Things don't work that way.  How can you be so wrong on every single sentence you type?

 

Why are you so slow? We do not have the authority to decide who is deserving of pain and suffering, but God does. It is wrong to kill a man, but a judge can sentence someone to death because they have that authority. It is an opinion that he's cruel, because in order for it not to be, you have to say that you have the authority to say that rejecting God is not worthy of punishment, and if it was, it is for you to decide what level of punishment is earned. I can take the deliberately designed pain and torture and say it isn't cruel because I understand what cruel is. Earlier in this thread you yourself said that torture can be good in some cases, and now you attempt to define cruelty as the infliction of pain and suffering regardless of the circumstance or the parties involved. That would be bending the facts to fit your opinion.

Repeating over and over again that things don't work a certain way just because you want them to, and then abusing that thought process again and again in your own arguments is what prompts me to call you stupid.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I thought whether you were considered a christian or not was based upon whether you believed Jesus was the Son of God. Nothing more nor less.

Ok, but what does that mean?

It means, IDRM, that by this definition Catholics are also Christians. To say that all Catholics are not Christians is like saying that only Evangelical Protestants are going to heaven. There are many Catholics who are incredible Christians that love God, and don't "worship" Mary. I know several. Just because they have some "unique" beliefs doesn't mean that they are not part of the body of Christ. Hell, I grew up Pentecostal. Some people think we're possesed by demons. It doesn't mean every Pentecostal is going to Hell.

 

And yes, I do understand that there are some "out there" Catholic beliefs, but I would think that the Catholic Church is in a much better state than it was 500 years ago.

[Guest SP-1]

I thought whether you were considered a christian or not was based upon whether you believed Jesus was the Son of God. Nothing more nor less.

Ok, but what does that mean?

It means, IDRM, that by this definition Catholics are also Christians. To say that all Catholics are not Christians is like saying that only Evangelical Protestants are going to heaven. There are many Catholics who are incredible Christians that love God, and don't "worship" Mary. I know several. Just because they have some "unique" beliefs doesn't mean that they are not part of the body of Christ. Hell, I grew up Pentecostal. Some people think we're possesed by demons. It doesn't mean every Pentecostal is going to Hell.

 

And yes, I do understand that there are some "out there" Catholic beliefs, but I would think that the Catholic Church is in a much better state than it was 500 years ago.

There are Catholics that are saved. No doubt. But not all Catholics. And definitely not all who claim to be Christians. Some Catholics place some things on too high a level, and some supposed "Christians" don't have a clue about what the Bible really says or really commit themselves to Jesus Christ.

 

Then there are the cults (Mormons and JW's being the most prominent in my mind). Who don't even really believe in the same god (theirs is lowercase 'g' for sure), but try to slip in amongst the others.

 

 

EDIT: As well, I think alot of Pentecostals/Charismatics are awesome. They completely go against the dry super-rationalism that's overtaken the western church and actually remember that God is SUPERnatural and there are unseen things out there that effect us. There are, unfortunately, some out there who use the Pentecostal mindset to set themselves up as idols and who, I believe, do NOT know Christ.

Edited October 10, 2004 by SP-1

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Some Catholics place some things on too high a level, and some supposed "Christians" don't have a clue about what the Bible really says or really commit themselves to Jesus Christ.

I think that the Catholics aren't the only ones who place some things too high. As I said before, I was raised Pentecostal. Now that Im married, my wife and I are looking for a "home" church. We told our parents that we were looking at a Presbyterian church. Her Mom(also pentecostal) laughed at us, and mine told me I shouldn't go there because they don't speak in tongues.

 

There are, unfortunately, some out there who use the Pentecostal mindset to set themselves up as idols and who, I believe, do NOT know Christ

 

I agree with this as well. I have large problems with "Christian" media because of this.

[Guest SP-1]

Some Catholics place some things on too high a level, and some supposed "Christians" don't have a clue about what the Bible really says or really commit themselves to Jesus Christ.

I think that the Catholics aren't the only ones who place some things too high. As I said before, I was raised Pentecostal. Now that Im married, my wife and I are looking for a "home" church. We told our parents that we were looking at a Presbyterian church. Her Mom(also pentecostal) laughed at us, and mine told me I shouldn't go there because they don't speak in tongues.

 

There are, unfortunately, some out there who use the Pentecostal mindset to set themselves up as idols and who, I believe, do NOT know Christ

 

I agree with this as well. I have large problems with "Christian" media because of this.

You're absolutelt right. Some Christians place things on too high a level as well. Mary is the most notable among Catholics which is where the biggest debate comes from. In my mind, however, placing tongues on a seperate level of importance is just as big a mistake as the position Mary holds in Catholocism. I also disagree with having to have a Priest as a "mediator". It's not neccessary.

 

Tongues is not the only, or even most prevalent, sign of the Holy Spirit. Zero basis for that. My advice would be to find a church that concentrates on teaching the Bible more than teaching its own denominational doctrine. Which can be difficult. But worth it.

 

I would add: There are different kinds of Presbyterian. I'd go with PCA before PCUSA since PCUSA isn't exactly upholding biblical doctrine in some areas. In much the same way that the Anglicans and some Methodists are ignoring biblical standards.

Edited October 10, 2004 by SP-1

[Nighthawk 0]

Catholics change the definition of what's required for salvation, which is what makes them not christians. They have numerous sacraments which they add on to God's grace, rendering it a work based salvation, and therefore not true salvation at all. Yes, some Catholics are Christians, but they're not good Catholics.

[Guest SP-1]

Catholics change the definition of what's required for salvation, which is what makes them not christians. They have numerous sacraments which they add on to God's grace, rendering it a work based salvation, and therefore not true salvation at all. Yes, some Catholics are Christians, but they're not good Catholics.

Exceptional wording.

[Guest Nanks]

This question will probably be clumsily worded because it's hot and I'm tired but bear with me.

 

Where is the sense in God creating EVERYTHING including materials that can be used to destroy the entire creation. Surely only God should be able to undo what He has done, however, as we know, that is not the case.

[Guest Nanks]

Uhh... That, or we can see it taking place every day.

 

Quick, what evolution did you see today? Answer or everything you say is a fairy tale.

My friend owns a labradoodledor

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Well, you guys had me up until you denied the value of works. Grace is extremely important but works are also crucial to salvation. Your model of predestined, grace-only salvation is unjust. You'll tell me I'm going hell, and that's fine. But you're wrong. And you rely too heavily on pouring over the minutia in the Bible, telling everyone why they're going to burn, instead of living out the message of Jesus. No, it isn't love when you arrogantly determine someone's fate, and say the only way to save oneself is to believe exactly as you believe.

[Kardo 0]

I really don't care, in fact I wish you well. Cause I'll be laughing my head off when you're burning in hell.

Feels the Weird Al reference

[TheBigSwigg 0]

I actually had a discussion Friday night about works and faith, and I'll give you the basic idea behind it:

 

Having been raised Christian, I've been told things my entire life without detailed explanation. (You need to be saved and sanctified...., Carry your cross..., and accordingly: You aren't saved by works but by faith.) It wasn't until I discussed Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will" in my Renaissance and Reformation class that I realized that Catholics aren't the only ones who work for their salvation. Having been raised in an Evangelical Protestant household, the looming threat of Hell is what kept me faithful until I was about sixteen. I've spent a good majority of my life praying for forgiveness every time I committed a sin because I was afraid of dying suddenly or missing the "rapture" (An idea I will in no way, shape, or form debate. I don't want debate starting because of this post because it is not necessary to Christianity.). Even after my salvation grew beyond this, I still spent a lot of my time carrying around the guilt of my transgressions.

 

In my class, my professor made it a point to emphasize Luthor's point that you cannot take salvation, you can only receive it. To do anything that would work towards your salvation takes the work away from Christ and makes His sacrifice less worthy. My uncle in law brought a verse from Romans into the conversation which mentions something along the lines of carrying a dead body, which was a practice used by the Romans when someone committed murder(the murderer would carry the dead body on his back, and it would eventually kill him). The idea is that when you receive salvation, Christ removes the dead body from your back. But if you don't "receive" salvation, you still carry the body around.

 

The point of this is that sacraments aren't the only works done by Christians. Dwelling on your sins and carrying them around with you is a work. Anything you do to try to "prove your worth" is a work.

 

SIDE NOTE: I'm actually going to a PCA church around the corner. PCA was recommended to me by one of my professors. Thanks, though SP.

 

 

Well, you guys had me up until you denied the value of works. Grace is extremely important but works are also crucial to salvation. Your model of predestined, grace-only salvation is unjust. You'll tell me I'm going hell, and that's fine. But you're wrong. And you rely too heavily on pouring over the minutia in the Bible, telling everyone why they're going to burn, instead of living out the message of Jesus. No, it isn't love when you arrogantly determine someone's fate, and say the only way to save oneself is to believe exactly as you believe.

 

I agree that works are crucial to salvation, but only after you receive salvation.(Which you'd understand some if you read the rest of this post.) I also agree, as well, that there has been some "arrogantly determining of someone's fate," as it's one of the few problems I've had with this thread. I'd have to disagree with the pouring over the minutia of the Bible, as you can't discuss Christianity without the discussing the sources involved. I'd say more, but Mr. McHaggis, I've only just met you.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I agree that works are crucial to salvation, but only after you receive salvation.(Which you'd understand some if you read the rest of this post.)

I agree with that. God, obviously, is the judge and has to give me the chance. But I have to take it... and not just with beliefs but with actions.

 

I'd have to disagree with the pouring over the minutia of the Bible, as you can't discuss Christianity without the discussing the sources involved.

Oh, you're absolutely right when discussing the nature of Christianity. But when it's time to live, the spirit is more important than the letter.

 

I'd say more, but Mr. McHaggis, I've only just met you.

Haha, good show.

[Guest SP-1]

I'm a little confused as to why you say I'm not living the message, Spicy. Do you observe me in my day to day life? When I'm working with a mission in the city to give food to the people there for nothing save a chance to show Christ's love to them and try and make their time there a little more bearable? You there? Or maybe when I give my time, which is burdened enough with school right now, to helping my mentor plant a church back home, where I don't even live anymore? Or maybe it's when I look at the overweight women in the city out of the corner of my eye, deep down hoping one of them is my sister, so I can run up to her, give her a hug, and tell her she's forgiven and loved on my end regardless of anything that's happened between us, regardless of her criminal record, regardless of whether she goes to prison or not.

 

You there?

 

Let me know who you are so I can say hey.

 

I discuss the Bible on messageboards because I'm growing in my education of it. Because I study it 7 days a week between school and church from a non-denominational, scholastic point of view. I explain and defend where I can because of all the msunderstandings, mis-applications, and mis-interpretations that exist out there that need to be dealt with when presented. I hardly live on this messageboard, and it is hardly a measurement for how I live my life.

[Guest SP-1]

I agree that works are crucial to salvation, but only after you receive salvation.(Which you'd understand some if you read the rest of this post.)

I agree with that. God, obviously, is the judge and has to give me the chance. But I have to take it... and not just with beliefs but with actions.

 

I'd have to disagree with the pouring over the minutia of the Bible, as you can't discuss Christianity without the discussing the sources involved.

Oh, you're absolutely right when discussing the nature of Christianity. But when it's time to live, the spirit is more important than the letter.

 

I'd say more, but Mr. McHaggis, I've only just met you.

Haha, good show.

No one is denying the value of works in Christianity. But works do not earn your salvation. They are an outword evidence OF the salvation you've recieved from God. Nothing more or less. In this, they are important as they show the fruit of the Holy Spirit which is at work in you. But only you and God usually know whether you're working FOR your salvation or BECAUSE of your salvation. One will not count. One will.

[Nighthawk 0]

You'll tell me I'm going hell, and that's fine. But you're wrong. And you rely too heavily on pouring over the minutia in the Bible, telling everyone why they're going to burn, instead of living out the message of Jesus. No, it isn't love when you arrogantly determine someone's fate, and say the only way to save oneself is to believe exactly as you believe.

This is pretty far from how I am. I have all sorts of problems with all sorts of branches of Christianity, but I let them go because it doesn't change the big picture, and they're still Christians even if we don't agree on everything. I don't have a problem, however, recognizing when the big picture is changed and pointing it out. And Catholics fall here.

[TheBigSwigg 0]

And Catholics fall here.

Could you at least make it sound like an opinion and not fact? Because it is YOUR opinion.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

No one is denying the value of works in Christianity. But works do not earn your salvation. They are an outword evidence OF the salvation you've recieved from God. Nothing more or less. In this, they are important as they show the fruit of the Holy Spirit which is at work in you. But only you and God usually know whether you're working FOR your salvation or BECAUSE of your salvation. One will not count. One will.

Okay, but you can't set up a system where actions can't earn your salvation but they can lose it. That's contradictory. If works are things you do because of your salvation, then you already have it before you start, as evidenced by Jesus taking on all sin. I don't quite understand your last sentence. If your salvation is already there, what exactly are works counting for? Everybody's equal to God, which leads me to:

 

...deep down hoping one of them is my sister...

I differ with you here. She IS my sister regardless of what she believes. There's no hoping. Atheist, Jew, Wiccan... even if they've got something wrong they're still my brothers and sisters.

 

And ultimately the only justice is either acceptance into heaven or some place which purifies the soul or reincarnation... turning away from God is the biggest of sins but it's a sin nonetheless... which the Resurrection took away. I can't see God placing someone in hell, only the person choosing hell.

 

Oh and I don't question your service, SP, I was incorrectly sensing a lack of perspective re: living the message.

 

IDRM, care to elaborate how Catholic practices change the big picture?

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

No one is denying the value of works in Christianity.  But works do not earn your salvation.  They are an outword evidence OF the salvation you've recieved from God.  Nothing more or less.  In this, they are important as they show the fruit of the Holy Spirit which is at work in you.  But only you and God usually know whether you're working FOR your salvation or BECAUSE of your salvation.  One will not count.  One will.

Okay, but you can't set up a system where actions can't earn your salvation but they can lose it. That's contradictory. If works are things you do because of your salvation, then you already have it before you start, as evidenced by Jesus taking on all sin. I don't quite understand your last sentence. If your salvation is already there, what exactly are works counting for? Everybody's equal to God, which leads me to:

 

...deep down hoping one of them is my sister...

I differ with you here. She IS my sister regardless of what she believes. There's no hoping. Atheist, Jew, Wiccan... even if they've got something wrong they're still my brothers and sisters.

 

And ultimately the only justice is either acceptance into heaven or some place which purifies the soul or reincarnation... turning away from God is the biggest of sins but it's a sin nonetheless... which the Resurrection took away. I can't see God placing someone in hell, only the person choosing hell.

 

Oh and I don't question your service, SP, I was incorrectly sensing a lack of perspective re: living the message.

 

IDRM, care to elaborate how Catholic practices change the big picture?

He means his *actual* sister obviously. He was talking about personal things so he brought up that particular personal factoid.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

My bad.

[Guest SP-1]

I never said works keeps your salvation, Spicy. Nor do I believe that. I do believe, however, that a lifestyle change will be an organic outgrowth and evidence of true salvation as the Spirit works in you. You won't be doing it because you feel obligated. You'll be doing it because the transforming love of God at work in you will have changed you into a more natural state of desiring to love others. Again: You aren't working to gain or keep salvation, you're working because Christ has changed you into a state of loving others instinctively through your spiritual and practical gifts and personality.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I pretty much agree with that.

[Nighthawk 0]

IDRM, care to elaborate how Catholic practices change the big picture?

Sure, although I've alluded to it somewhat before. Lots of Catholic stuff is unbiblical, and I would say wrong, without affecting salvation, what sets them apart is their requirement for salvation. There's water baptism, which as I attempted to explain to chaos, is not connected with salvation. They also perform it on infants, unbiblically. They also use a sprinkling version when the very word means immersion. That last two are some of those things I disagree with some denominations on but doesn't affect my opinion of their salvational status, but while I was on the subject, I figured I'd throw a mention out.

Regardless of your stance on Mary and the saints, which I sidestep because this point is more clear using the following example, they practice idolatry with the eucharist. And we all know what the Bible says about idolatry. You know... it's against it. Now this is a tricky issue because some denominations, such as Lutherans, believe in transubstantiation, which I would vehemently disagree with, but I would still think of them as Christians. What sets Catholicism apart is that you are required to worship the eucharist as Christ himself, or you will be anathema. I find that to be crossing a line.

Beyond the myriad questionable doctrine, this salvational requirement of idol worship is enough to set them apart. It's also something which many Catholics don't do. But by the church's stated doctrine's, a good and true Catholic and a good and true Christian, I find to be mutually exclusive.

There are other salvational sacraments also. As well as the concept of a pope who can speak ex cathedra, totally undermining the authority of God. The papal office has quite the sordid history, anyway. I could even present a somewhat convincing argument that Revelation's Antichrist would be a pope. But this is all pure conjecture.

Consider, suppose a force out to bring down Christ's church, call it the devil or whatever, tries to set up a false religion. The ideal would be almost exactly like the true religion, but change just enough to keep you away.

 

Also, I'd be the first to admit I'm a very arrogant individual, but I don't think that's what this is at all. Opinion is not something magical which is outside the realm of right and wrong. That's what the tolerance police would like it to be, but everyone is not ok to do whatever they like so long as they don't hurt anyone. The real world doesn't work like that and never has.

Now, we're perfectly within our rights, are even commanded, biblically, to examine those claiming the name of Christ, to see whether they be true followers of him. The idea of tolerating a false teaching because it's "your opinion" is unbiblical to an extreme degree. The entire book of 1 John is about this. It's full of tests to see whether we, ourselves, and others, are truly in fellowship with Christ. Chapter 2 verse 4: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." That's a pretty harsh judgement, but it's the judgement God calls us to make. There's also verses that tell you to let it go when it's a disputable issue, but some things just aren't. One of the strongest themes of the New Testament is to beware of false Christs, and false teachers, and the only way we can do that is to examine them against what the Bible says.

[Guest Nanks]

Can someone please address my question from halfway up the page?

[Nighthawk 0]

Yes, but could you word it less clumsily?

[Guest Nanks]

I'm afraid not, it's still hot and I'm still tired and sick.

 

I'm sure you understand what I'm getting at.

 

You're probably also just fucking with me.

 

It's too hot.

[Nighthawk 0]

Well... God hasn't created anything that can destroy the universe. If you're just talking about destroying humanity, or life on Earth, read the book of Revelation.

[Guest Nanks]

I'd really rather not, could you possibly give me the gist of it??