Correct Me If I'm Wrong

[brvheart 1,752]

Sharon Tate is pregnant and about 25 - she has not yet accepted ChristTex Watson walks in and carves her and her unborn baby upTex has of course accepted Christ in prisonSo Tex goes to heavan and Sharon goes to hell?

1) Sharon had 25 years to accept Christ, we don't know if she did... 2) In Matthew 20, Jesus is speaking and he makes it clear through a parable that anyone, at any point in their life can be forgiven.Matthew 20The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard 1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. 3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went. "He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?' 7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.' 8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.' 9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.' 13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' 16"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."

[mrdannyg 274]

I am sorry but you arent disagreeing with christians. You are disagreeing with God... You can take that up with Him when you see Him but I am not sure how forgiving He is going to be at that time. As a christians we are merely telling you what God said.

initially i read this post, and assumed it was another dogmatic Christian point of view. some of us do not believe in god, yet your response implies god's existence.after reading it a little more carefully, i realized there isn't really another way it could be said. everything you believe in implies a strict belief in God, whereas the very belief others disagree with is the existence of God.

Oh, well if we're gonna go with the "God created everything, don't question it" argument, then I guess I'll never be right.

it's not quite that, but I think Idaho's argument (correction may be needed) is essentially that God created all humans. Whether this was 2000, 4000 or 4 billion years ago, it happened. Then the Pygmies and whatever other races who worshipped different or not Gods did not believe in God as the christians know Him (brownie points). he still existed though, they just chose to ignore His influences, His existence, etc. so while they had no belief in Him, He was still their Creator, and the source of their moral standard, even if they did not acknowledge it.is that right?

[gobears 0]

But my life is mine to live and i'm willing to take the consequences, but i don;t as i've said like when religion preys on peoples fears or damns them for disagreeing

I'm a Christian and agree that it does seem unfair - why should someone who's been totally evil in his whole life get a "get out of Hell free card" when he accepts Christ right before he dies?But that's what the Bible says. And if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then that's that.My analogy is that we make rules and do what's best for our kids - when they are very young or babies, they don't know why they can't do this and that and there's no way they could. God is so far above us in comparison that we will never comprehend his way of "thinking"Eternal Damnation and Hell is the ultimate scare tactic, I admit. I do hope that there is an "out" for those good people that don't believe in Jesus when they die.

[missIdaho 1]

it's not quite that, but I think Idaho's argument (correction may be needed) is essentially that God created all humans. Whether this was 2000, 4000 or 4 billion years ago, it happened. Then the Pygmies and whatever other races who worshipped different or not Gods did not believe in God as the christians know Him (brownie points). he still existed though, they just chose to ignore His influences, His existence, etc. so while they had no belief in Him, He was still their Creator, and the source of their moral standard, even if they did not acknowledge it.is that right?

Yes

[avsfan 0]

I'm a Christian and agree that it does seem unfair - why should someone who's been totally evil in his whole life get a "get out of Hell free card" when he accepts Christ right before he dies?Only god knows if they do >I am sure they really reall really better be serious about it and only God would know if they where really really reallly are geniune.But that's what the Bible says. And if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then that's that.except the part where only god truly knows. The humans couldn't know. They took a leap of blind faith that admits they don't know.My analogy is that we make rules and do what's best for our kids - when they are very young or babies, they don't know why they can't do this and that and there's no way they could. God is so far above us in comparison that we will never comprehend his way of "thinking"nice. just remebmer the belivers won't know the truth till they meet the man himself.Eternal Damnation and Hell is the ultimate scare tactic, I admit. I do hope that there is an "out" for those good people that don't believe in Jesus when they die.If you do it cause your scared your gonna be highly disappointed, No matter how much of a bad ass christian you are. Flanery O'connor writes good stories about that. Also who knows what plans god truly has for the lost. He is God and has to speak to so many diffrent types of ppl and beliefs.

[gobears 0]

I'm a Christian and agree that it does seem unfair - why should someone who's been totally evil in his whole life get a "get out of Hell free card" when he accepts Christ right before he dies?Only god knows if they do >I am sure they really reall really better be serious about it and only God would know if they where really really reallly are geniune.But that's what the Bible says. And if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then that's that.except the part where only god truly knows. The humans couldn't know. They took a leap of blind faith that admits they don't know.My analogy is that we make rules and do what's best for our kids - when they are very young or babies, they don't know why they can't do this and that and there's no way they could. God is so far above us in comparison that we will never comprehend his way of "thinking"nice. just remebmer the belivers won't know the truth till they meet the man himself.Eternal Damnation and Hell is the ultimate scare tactic, I admit. I do hope that there is an "out" for those good people that don't believe in Jesus when they die.If you do it cause your scared your gonna be highly disappointed, No matter how much of a bad ass christian you are. Flanery O'connor writes good stories about that. Also who knows what plans god truly has for the lost. He is God and has to speak to so many diffrent types of ppl and beliefs.

Avsfan, I agree.In the end only God knows and it's a leap of faith no matter what you believe.

[brvheart 1,752]

I'm a Christian and agree that it does seem unfair - why should someone who's been totally evil in his whole life get a "get out of Hell free card" when he accepts Christ right before he dies?But that's what the Bible says. And if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then that's that.My analogy is that we make rules and do what's best for our kids - when they are very young or babies, they don't know why they can't do this and that and there's no way they could. God is so far above us in comparison that we will never comprehend his way of "thinking"Eternal Damnation and Hell is the ultimate scare tactic, I admit. I do hope that there is an "out" for those good people that don't believe in Jesus when they die.

There can't possibly be an out. It would go against God's very nature, as outlined in the Bible. Sin cannot exist in heaven... the only way to not have sin is to have the blood of Jesus cover your sin.... or before Jesus was born, periodic sacrifices.

[davezz5 0]

Faith , for when all rational argument has run its course. I believe coz i believe...So there.

[natewood3 0]

honestly dude stop raping little boys get out and meet a woman you've been sniffing too many paint fumesif everyone defined and redefined things like you we'd still be cavemen My guess is I probably follow Jesus more than you

The point is not whether or not I rape little boys, which I obviously don't. The question is why is that wrong. I have a reason why it is wrong, just like I have a reason why murder is wrong. You don't have any kind of standard to tell me what is wrong or what is right.Explain to me how I am "defining" and "redefining" things.I appreciate the last judgmental comment. If you cannot defend yourself, just simply resort to slandering the other persons character and that will supposedly make his/her arguments somehow wrong.

[natewood3 0]

Dude, you keep asking for some concrete way to judge right and wrong without God, and when someone gives you an answer you just say they're wrong. Basically by your argument you're saying that humans are inherrantly retarded and without God cannot make their own judgements.Do you see how this makes no sense?Basically you're saying that without God there is anarchy, yet ever sense the prescence of man has been recorded, there has been community values and morality, all well before your God was ever known. So how did they know?

I have seen no standard of truth given. Notice I said standard. I have seen an answer that says that says that the "laws" of morality are evolutionary and changing, but this simply means they are subjective, and at some point in the future, what is now called "evil" could become good, if it would help us survive. That answer simply will not work. If I find it good for myself and the human race to kill anyone who does not believe like I do, that does not make it right. WHY?I do believe that humans cannot know anything apart from God, so you are right about that. Everything we do know is because we are made in His image and because He has revealed Himself to us.I have yet to find a person who can even state my position. Everytime it is a strawman that they are knocking down. How do culture have community values and morality? Because God exists and because they live in God's world and were created in God's image. The fact that cultures DO have morality and ethics is a testimony to the God of the Bible. I know of no other "god" that says that He has given us a conscience whereby we inherently know good from evil. I have an explanation for it. You might not like it or agree with it. That does not make it wrong or illogical. My point is that I do not believe you can give a definite answer. You can do like Keith and keep ignoring the questions and resort to character bashing. If you want to do the same, that is your choice.The question still stands: How can you have universal, unchanging laws of morality without a personal, absolute God who has given these laws?

Oh no, I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God because of morality, I was just saying that morality is possible without the existence of God. My assertion is that even without God, humans would have morals based on our predisposition towards society and community.

You are at least right about this: You have simply made an ASSERTION. You have not proven this is so. What are these "predispositions" toward society and community? Where do they come from? Are they universal and unchanging? A simple answer to these kinds of questions would be extremely helpful in determing what you actually believe. It is hard to examine what someone believes when they cannot or will answer such questions.

The flaw in this argument is that you are assuming there is no God. God created man and made himself known to him, instilling in him a sense of right and wrong. There was no time when man did not know of God.

At least someone believes and understands this point!

[natewood3 0]

You are both making the argument that people that don't believe in the Christian God, have morals therefore there is no Christian God. No one is saying that you have to BELIEVE in god to have morals and know the difference between right and wrong. God created man and instilled in us the these values, no matter what we believe. Can you see what I am saying? Either you believe this or you don't. It's a matter of faith.

Once again, thank you for pointing this out. The argument is basically as follows:1. If there are people who have a moral value system apart from believing in the Christian God, then the Christian God must not exist.2. All people have some kind of moral value system, even though not all believe in the Christian Go.3. Therefore, the Christian God must not exist.Miss Idaho is right. We are not saying you must believe in God to have morals, as if all people deny the Christian God are immoral people. The point is how can your worldview justify universal laws of morality? How can there be such a thing as a standard of morality?

[AlphaOmega 0]

You say the village would get mad if someone killed someone in the village. My question is why? If morality is subjective and arbitrary, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to get mad over anything that anyone ever does! It is not coherent to say that morality is arbitrary and subjective, but then get mad at someone for not following your subjective standard of morality.In your worldview, once again, you cannot account for any type of law. There is no such thing, including laws of logic. Would you say the laws of logic are universal and unchanging? I would contend that you cannot know anything in your worldview. If all you have is mental processes going on in the brain, then everything is subjective and life is meaningless. Nothing makes sense; I am not sure that what I just said makes sense. I have no reason to believe that my senses are reliable; I have no reason to trust anything.How do we know what you are saying is true and what I am saying is not true? In fact, how do you account for the fact that if your worldview is right, my cannot be right, because they are contradictory? That would assume that human language has meaning, which in turn assumes the laws of logic...

Natewood,Instincts. It's proven.However, I realize that you can just say "well, God gave us instincts", so that won't do us any good.Suffice to say that we, as humans, could have morality because I made up a God, corresonded the history of it with text, and claim that he gave it to us.Which God is it? How is your God right?

[natewood3 0]

Natewood,Instincts. It's proven.However, I realize that you can just say "well, God gave us instincts", so that won't do us any good.Suffice to say that we, as humans, could have morality because I made up a God, corresonded the history of it with text, and claim that he gave it to us.Which God is it? How is your God right?

Instincts? I would not say to you that God gave us the instincts and thereby dismiss your argument. I would simply press you to tell me where those instincts come from and ask if they are universal.To say that God is "made up" along with the Bible has absolutely no way of being proven or verified. It is an assertion.Which God is it? It is the God of the Bible, who is both absolute and personal. No other worldview claims to have a personal and absolute God, and without Him, you cannot have intelligibility. I would say that the God of the Bible is the true God because of the impossibility of the contrary. Once again, no other worldview can make sense of human intelligibility or human experience. They all try to base intelligibility on something other than the divine revelation of God, i.e. the Bible. Hence, you are either for the God of the Bible or against Him. All other worldviews try to autonomously know all things apart from the revelation of God. Hence you have:A or not-Anot A cannot make sense of human experience or intellgibility.Therefore, A.You might not accept that, but I see no way to make sense of the laws of logic and morality apart from a personal, absolute God. Immaterial laws sure do not come from material processes in the brain, and they do not come from impersonal forces either.However, the main question is: Where do instincts come from? Are they material or immaterial in nature? Are they universal and unchanging?

[AlphaOmega 0]

Instincts? I would not say to you that God gave us the instincts and thereby dismiss your argument. I would simply press you to tell me where those instincts come from and ask if they are universal.To say that God is "made up" along with the Bible has absolutely no way of being proven or verified. It is an assertion.Which God is it? It is the God of the Bible, who is both absolute and personal. No other worldview claims to have a personal and absolute God, and without Him, you cannot have intelligibility. I would say that the God of the Bible is the true God because of the impossibility of the contrary. Once again, no other worldview can make sense of human intelligibility or human experience. They all try to base intelligibility on something other than the divine revelation of God, i.e. the Bible. Hence, you are either for the God of the Bible or against Him. All other worldviews try to autonomously know all things apart from the revelation of God. Hence you have:A or not-Anot A cannot make sense of human experience or intellgibility.Therefore, A.You might not accept that, but I see no way to make sense of the laws of logic and morality apart from a personal, absolute God. Immaterial laws sure do not come from material processes in the brain, and they do not come from impersonal forces either.However, the main question is: Where do instincts come from? Are they material or immaterial in nature? Are they universal and unchanging?

I don't mean to say that God is made up, though that may have come across in some of my posts.I don't think there is any way to prove nor to disprove the existence of one, so I choose not to make a leap of faith in either direction, but I have no problem with those that do.There is a logical fallacy in your A, not-A point. We can't prove something simply by disproving the alternative. By all means it may just indicate that neither are right, and that we have more searching to do.Also, instincual behavior corresponds with brain chemistry, hormones, etc. The natural fear response can be artifically administered in lab rats, and over time many species will develop these responses on their own in the wild to various stimuli. By all means, we can say that God gave us this brain chemistry, but there are many more alternative explanations that prove these processes - particularly the concept of adaptation and survival of the fittest - which we have actually seen and observed.As organsisms become more complex, so too does their capabilities for things such as instinctual behavior. Evolution accounts for this. However, we are presented with a problem, because certainly God could have enabled this process of evolution to occur, so that really gets us nowhere, nor will most arguments against/for the existence of God and all the things that he encompasses or controls.I think a lot of the argument stems from the credibility of the Bible. Obviously for me and many others, the Bible is not credible, but for others it is. We seek evidence of God and other concepts outside of the Bible for that reason, and it may very well be impossible to do so.

[natewood3 0]

I don't mean to say that God is made up, though that may have come across in some of my posts.I don't think there is any way to prove nor to disprove the existence of one, so I choose not to make a leap of faith in either direction, but I have no problem with those that do.There is a logical fallacy in your A, not-A point. We can't prove something simply by disproving the alternative. By all means it may just indicate that neither are right, and that we have more searching to do.Also, instincual behavior corresponds with brain chemistry, hormones, etc. The natural fear response can be artifically administered in lab rats, and over time many species will develop these responses on their own in the wild to various stimuli. By all means, we can say that God gave us this brain chemistry, but there are many more alternative explanations that prove these processes - particularly the concept of adaptation and survival of the fittest - which we have actually seen and observed.As organsisms become more complex, so too does their capabilities for things such as instinctual behavior. Evolution accounts for this. However, we are presented with a problem, because certainly God could have enabled this process of evolution to occur, so that really gets us nowhere, nor will most arguments against/for the existence of God and all the things that he encompasses or controls.I think a lot of the argument stems from the credibility of the Bible. Obviously for me and many others, the Bible is not credible, but for others it is. We seek evidence of God and other concepts outside of the Bible for that reason, and it may very well be impossible to do so.

I appreciate an at least thought out reply, instead of just character bashing and illogical arguments.I would agree that you cannot prove one worldview by disproving all others. However, I believe that the Christian worldview is the only possible worldview that accounts for reality and intelligibility. If it does do that, and it is consistent and coherent, then can there be another worldview that is "true"? I don't think there can. If there was, it would have to simply agree with my worldview, which would just say it was the same worldview.I think it takes just as much faith to believe what you are saying about evolution and natural selection and adaptation as it does to say that God created the universe. How does life come from non-life? How does intelligence come from non-intelligence? How does morality come from non-moral things? How do "instincts" evolve? How do immaterial laws of logic come from material processes in the brain? It is funny when scientists and atheists act as if they were there when all of this happen. You have absolutely no record of these things happening. I can at least give you a record from the Bible as to how the world got here. Whether you accept that record is another issue.I would like to know if instincts and morality are universal and immaterial in nature? Are they also unchanging?As far as the reliability of the Bible, I do not think the Bible is the problem. I believe the presuppositions you bring when examing the facts and evidence of the Bible's reliability is the problem. For example, say we found a book that and it said on the cover, "Do not test to see whether or not this book is reliable and infallible." If we believed the claims of the book, we would not test to see if it was true or not. If we do test the claims of the book to see whether or not it is reliable and infallible, we have thereby proven that we in fact do NOT believe the book is what it says it is. Hence, either way, you have presuppositions when coming to the issue of the reliability of the Bible. The question is are those presuppositions about limits of reality justified or not. I would argue that God is the precondition for intelligibility and the foundation for knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 says that fear [respect, submission to] is the beginning of knowledge. If that is the beginning of knowledge, without God there is no knowledge. Without God we could not be discussing what we are discussing. In this discussion we are presupposing that language is meaningful, which means we presuppose the laws of logic. I can account for the universal and unchanging laws of logic. Where do these immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws come from in your worldview? If you cannot account for them, then you are not justified in using them. If you do continue to use them, you have simply borrowed from my worldview and showed that your worldview is incoherent and inconsistent and arbitrary in and of itself.For the record, I am not being judgmental or anything of that sort. This is a good discussion as I see it.

[timwakefield 68]

However, we are presented with a problem, because certainly God could have enabled this process of evolution to occur, so that really gets us nowhere, nor will most arguments against/for the existence of God and all the things that he encompasses or controls.

This is actually not a problem at all. I say, 'Look at this natural process which is occurring: this is how it works, and this is how I know how it works.' Now if you say, 'Yeah, but God created and started that process,' you are adding NOTHING to our understanding of the process. You are making an assertion about a specific process, and it is an assertion which cannot be tested. It is less that academic...it is useless to our understanding of the process, and it certainly does not throw our understanding of that process into question.

[AlphaOmega 0]

This is actually not a problem at all. I say, 'Look at this natural process which is occurring: this is how it works, and this is how I know how it works.' Now if you say, 'Yeah, but God created and started that process,' you are adding NOTHING to our understanding of the process. You are making an assertion about a specific process, and it is an assertion which cannot be tested. It is less that academic...it is useless to our understanding of the process, and it certainly does not throw our understanding of that process into question.

I hope the "you" in your post isn't me.I agree that it is not academic to state, "well, God did it." and if you read the rest of my posts I infer that pretty clearly.We can't expect an academic response, though, for something that requires a leap of faith to believe in in the first place. It can't be scientifically tested, you can't scientifically prove or disprove God, so that was the reason I said it was a problem. I don't really think it's debatable.

[timwakefield 68]

I hope the "you" in your post isn't me.I agree that it is not academic to state, "well, God did it." and if you read the rest of my posts I infer that pretty clearly.We can't expect an academic response, though, for something that requires a leap of faith to believe in in the first place. It can't be scientifically tested, you can't scientifically prove or disprove God, so that was the reason I said it was a problem. I don't really think it's debatable.

The "you" just means "one." But the reason it's not a problem is that the belief that God created evolution does not add to our understanding of the subject. Information which is neither testable nor provable is worthless in a scientific discussion.

[Loismustdie 0]

Sharon Tate is pregnant and about 25 - she has not yet accepted ChristTex Watson walks in and carves her and her unborn baby upTex has of course accepted Christ in prisonSo Tex goes to heavan and Sharon goes to hell?

I would argue that two things- one, in order to be forgiven you would need to be able to in some way reverse said sin. There is no way to reverse, or forgive, what has been done there. Think of it this way- most of the sins we commit are largely arbitrary, done in hiding and mostly between you and God. If you lied, you can tell the truth, if you stole you can return it. Also, you need to have a mind to serve God- Tex Watson is insane, there is no way he could serve God. Kind of tough to walk christlikie when your thought process goes from, " Hey, I like Jejus" to " Hey, I know I shouldn't think like this but the one thing I crave right now is murder- oh, and donuts." Keith has a problem with the statement what he said because it is wrong- what kind of God would he be if he allowed that? Tex Waters is going to sit with Christ? No way in hell.

[Loismustdie 0]

Oh, and by the way, if there ever was a thread that can put distance in the way that I view the bible and Christianity vs. Simple religous minds that I go back and forth with this is the one. I hope they try and battle me on this one- I shall slay them where the stand. Feelin very D and D today.

[AlphaOmega 0]

The "you" just means "one." But the reason it's not a problem is that the belief that God created evolution does not add to our understanding of the subject. Information which is neither testable nor provable is worthless in a scientific discussion.

Ok cool. For some reason I figured you were a Christian (found out later that you probably weren't) so I viewed your post defensively, which is wierd, but I apologise for the misunderstanding. BTW, I don't dislike Christians, I think it's just a somewhat natural reaction in an argumentative discussion.I agree completely. It doesn't add to a "scientific" discussion to say "God did it" or the like. But that's why it's a problem. It's a theological stance, not a scientific one. It does present a problem from an agrumentitive stance, however, because it presents us (non-believers) with the burden to disprove something that can't be disproven, and is outside scientific reasoning. We can't prove that God didn't do something any more that we can prove the he doesn't exist. They can't prove that he DID do something any more than they can prove that he DOES exists. Unfortunately, the debate is theological with them, and not scientific, so the burden of proof is less applicable from their stance. That's why it's hard to debate. Thus the problem.

[SilentSnow 1]

It's a theological stance, not a scientific one. It does present a problem from an agrumentitive stance, however, because it presents us (non-believers) with the burden to disprove something that can't be disproven, and is outside scientific reasoning. We can't prove that God didn't do something any more that we can prove the he doesn't exist. They can't prove that he DID do something any more than they can prove that he DOES exists. Unfortunately, the debate is theological with them, and not scientific, so the burden of proof is less applicable from their stance. That's why it's hard to debate. Thus the problem.

heres one method that makes the debate easier- anytime someone is using a specious argument regarding God or whatever, just substitute in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Penguins from Pluto, or your favorite super hero for God. if there is the same amount of support for either, then you can pretty much assume that they are wrong, or at the very least have no logical basis for their claim. things that have zero correlation with logic or the real world should not be thought of as equally valid, but equally a worthless waste of time.

[AlphaOmega 0]

heres one method that makes the debate easier- anytime someone is using a specious argument regarding God or whatever, just substitute in The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Penguins from Pluto, or your favorite super hero for God. if there is the same amount of support for either, then you can pretty much assume that they are wrong, or at the very least have no logical basis for their claim. things that have zero correlation with logic or the real world should not be thought of as equally valid, but equally a worthless waste of time.

No belief will fit the laws of logic. Anything that takes a stretch of faith or intuition can be subject to that, not just Christianity.It's not that I don't agree that Christianity is completely illogical. But seriously, nothing that requires faith is going to be logical.

[keith crime 8]

To be honest it is my conclusion that God didn't create us but that we created God and that the powerful have conned the weak through preying on their fears to trade their life in this world for one in the next that does't exist and be docile while they enjoy their time here. Religion is how the strong control the weak.

[Mattnxtc 0]

I would argue that two things- one, in order to be forgiven you would need to be able to in some way reverse said sin. There is no way to reverse, or forgive, what has been done there. Think of it this way- most of the sins we commit are largely arbitrary, done in hiding and mostly between you and God. If you lied, you can tell the truth, if you stole you can return it. Also, you need to have a mind to serve God- Tex Watson is insane, there is no way he could serve God. Kind of tough to walk christlikie when your thought process goes from, " Hey, I like Jejus" to " Hey, I know I shouldn't think like this but the one thing I crave right now is murder- oh, and donuts." Keith has a problem with the statement what he said because it is wrong- what kind of God would he be if he allowed that? Tex Waters is going to sit with Christ? No way in hell.

And this is why I believe you lack in the area of understand of the bible and instead have made up ur own ideas about this. Where in the bible does if the sin is something you cant reverse that you go to hell? You cant reverse adultery, murder, lust, cussing and so forth. You can ask for forgiveness but thats about it. Your scale of sin is not biblical and your reasoning doesnt hold any sort of biblical standing. As for Tex Watson, who is to know if he has truly accepted Jesus as his Savior or not. Could he be a nut just saying it? of course...but could he have truly asked Jesus for forgiveness and been saved? absolutely possible too. Who are you to judge? bible asks this question. If you are righteous then you can judge others but if you cant then really you have no say. The greatness of God is that He will love you even when you have sinned. That He will give you a second chance b/c he doesnt want you in hell. He doesnt want anybody in hell.

Oh, and by the way, if there ever was a thread that can put distance in the way that I view the bible and Christianity vs. Simple religous minds that I go back and forth with this is the one. I hope they try and battle me on this one- I shall slay them where the stand. Feelin very D and D today.

Yes you are distancing yourself from christianity though not in this grand way that you claim. Joseph Smith distanced himself from the bible and you see where that lead him. Good luck