Loismustdie 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I'm not suggesting that I am the first to ever ask it. It seems to be a very simple and obvious question that anybody looking at Christianity objectively would ask, and by no means is it remotely hypothetical.Personally, I have not yet asked and therefore not yet had the question answeredWhat you have put forward as an answer is atypical in its generality.How about some simple yes or no's...Given that all men sin, he needs 'a process' for want of a better phrase to enter heaven.Must he believe in Jesus? Yes/Noor can he accept that there is a greater 'unknown/unnamed' power that he must answer to ? Yes/NoMust he be baptised? Yes/No I answered all those questions. Yes, he would have to believe in Jesus, and be baptized. Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I answered all those questions. Yes, he would have to believe in Jesus, and be baptized.and any suggestions how he would of acheived that? I mean a reasonable objective person would suggest that it couldn't have happened.Now it becomes hypothetical so you have full poetic license... Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,759 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Hi.There is at least one thing worse than who preaches mindless bullshit, and that's a plagarist.1) Anybody can cut & paste2) It doesn't answer the question3) It makes you look like an idiotHave a nice day nowAs I asked before, what happens to the souls of adults that haven't been introduced to Christianity? Anybody with a clue want to answer?I mentioned before that that was not mine... it was on another thread with the same people... but you have a nice day too.And you obviously didn't read the article if you don't think it didn't answer your question. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,759 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 They go to hell. Remember Dante's Inferno?This isn't necessarily true. The new testament allows for people to come to God through creation. I've actually heard a missionary speak that went to Papua New Guinea, to tell people about God. After they arrived they were greeted by a man that was crying.... I don't remember how long, but at least a year or more later, after they had learned some of the language, they were able to figure out that this guy had cried out to God and said, "I know you're out there, please show yourself to me." And he just figured when he saw the white people that they were there to tell him. Will people be judged harsher that have heard the message clearly? Like disbelievers on this very board? Who knows.and to quote my previous post....The passage under consideration is Romans 1:18-25. Verse 18 says that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against men who deliberately suppress the truth. What truth do they suppress? The next verse tells us: “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.” How has God made it evident? “I have never seen God,” one may object. Again, the next verse tells us: “for since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so they are without excuse.” Romans 1:19 Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,759 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 I answered all those questions. Yes, he would have to believe in Jesus, and be baptized.This is an area where Lois and I strongly disagree. But the beautiful thing about God is, is that we both believe that Jesus' blood will cover our sins, and both of us will be in heaven. I believe that baptism is merely an obedient act that is an outward expression of what has occured in my heart. I died to sin... my head goes under waterand I was raised again in new life .... my head is lifted out of the water.I again must mention Lois, if baptism is REQUIRED to be saved, was Jesus a liar? How did the criminal on the cross enter heaven without being baptised? Link to post Share on other sites
Canada 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 This isn't necessarily true. The new testament allows for people to come to God through creation. I've actually heard a missionary speak that went to Papua New Guinea, to tell people about God. After they arrived they were greeted by a man that was crying.... I don't remember how long, but at least a year or more later, after they had learned some of the language, they were able to figure out that this guy had cried out to God and said, "I know you're out there, please show yourself to me." And he just figured when he saw the white people that they were there to tell him. Will people be judged harsher that have heard the message clearly? Like disbelievers on this very board? Who knows.Interesting. Lois says they do go to hell, and he seems to have studied the bible from cover to cover a few times over.Yet you are here telling me they don't.Also if you think that article you like to quote answers anything more than the wonderment and self doubt of the simple minded you are delusional.Its transparant arguements and analogies are so fundamentally flawed.Oooh a person is more complex than a 747. There must be a GodOh and I've pointed out elsewhere, monkeys in a print shop will come up with the Gettysburg Address, given enough time. Mathematical fact. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 Interesting. Lois says they do go to hell, and he seems to have studied the bible from cover to cover a few times over.Yet you are here telling me they don't.Also if you think that article you like to quote answers anything more than the wonderment and self doubt of the simple minded you are delusional.Its transparant arguements and analogies are so fundamentally flawed.Oooh a person is more complex than a 747. There must be a GodOh and I've pointed out elsewhere, monkeys in a print shop will come up with the Gettysburg Address, given enough time. Mathematical fact.please please please dont believe everything you hear from lois...There is so much that he is making up that doesnt have any sort of biblical truth to it. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 and any suggestions how he would of acheived that? I mean a reasonable objective person would suggest that it couldn't have happened.Now it becomes hypothetical so you have full poetic license... God would find a way, if he was a seeking soul. The question was a hypothetical the whole way. Trust me, this is not new material here. At some point, you have got to have faith that God is smart enough to have already seen these weak loopholes.This is an area where Lois and I strongly disagree. But the beautiful thing about God is, is that we both believe that Jesus' blood will cover our sins, and both of us will be in heaven. I believe that baptism is merely an obedient act that is an outward expression of what has occured in my heart. I died to sin... my head goes under waterand I was raised again in new life .... my head is lifted out of the water.I again must mention Lois, if baptism is REQUIRED to be saved, was Jesus a liar? How did the criminal on the cross enter heaven without being baptised? The gospel that Jesus taught required baptism. Focus- HE IS JESUS. HE IS ALL POWERFUL. HE NEVER EVEN HAD TO ACTUALLY DIE ON THE CROSS, HE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. So, it stands to reason that if as one of his last living acts he wanted to pardon a guy, he could. What exactly are you missing there? You still haven't answered MY question, and my offer still stands- show me one scripture where it says baptism is merely an outward expression, and I will publicly EAT MY BIBLE. For a site that is essentialy a gambling site no one sems to have any gamnble in them. interesting.please please please dont believe everything you hear from lois...There is so much that he is making up that doesnt have any sort of biblical truth to it. LOLOLOLOL. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 God would find a way, if he was a seeking soul. The question was a hypothetical the whole way. Trust me, this is not new material here. At some point, you have got to have faith that God is smart enough to have already seen these weak loopholes. The gospel that Jesus taught required baptism. Focus- HE IS JESUS. HE IS ALL POWERFUL. HE NEVER EVEN HAD TO ACTUALLY DIE ON THE CROSS, HE COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. So, it stands to reason that if as one of his last living acts he wanted to pardon a guy, he could. What exactly are you missing there? You still haven't answered MY question, and my offer still stands- show me one scripture where it says baptism is merely an outward expression, and I will publicly EAT MY BIBLE. For a site that is essentialy a gambling site no one sems to have any gamnble in them. interesting. LOLOLOLOL.Yes baptism was necessary before the death of Jesus. Not after.... Jesus said so many times that faith was what saved you. Paul focused on this over 100 times saying faith was enough. But I guess Paul was wrong too...haha. THis coming from a guy who doesnt think knowing the greek is necessaryAs for Jesus. Your correct He was God so He didnt have to die at all. BUT what was the purpose of the cross? To die for the sins of man!!!!! Therefore in order for us to be declared righteous it was absolutely necessary that He be on the cross...For what did Jesus say in the Garden of GethsemaneMatthew 26:39 "And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 'My Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will"What was to happen to Jesus next had to be that way. It was the only way that God coudl redeem us!!!! Jesus, The righteous man who fulfilled the law, had to die in order to fulfill the Law!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 Yes baptism was necessary before the death of Jesus. Not after.... Jesus said so many times that faith was what saved you. Paul focused on this over 100 times saying faith was enough. But I guess Paul was wrong too...haha. THis coming from a guy who doesnt think knowing the greek is necessaryAs for Jesus. Your correct He was God so He didnt have to die at all. BUT what was the purpose of the cross? To die for the sins of man!!!!! Therefore in order for us to be declared righteous it was absolutely necessary that He be on the cross...For what did Jesus say in the Garden of GethsemaneMatthew 26:39 "And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, 'My Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will"What was to happen to Jesus next had to be that way. It was the only way that God coudl redeem us!!!! Jesus, The righteous man who fulfilled the law, had to die in order to fulfill the Law!!!!! You love to focus on the wrong thing. It is a clear explanation of how you come to the understandings that you do.You love to focus on the wrong thing. It is a clear explanation of how you come to the understandings that you do. I don't see anybody offereing me a scripture, and I am hungry. I guess I will have to go to Arbys instead. Link to post Share on other sites
Mattnxtc 0 Posted March 13, 2006 Author Share Posted March 13, 2006 You love to focus on the wrong thing. It is a clear explanation of how you come to the understandings that you do. I don't see anybody offereing me a scripture, and I am hungry. I guess I will have to go to Arbys instead.Matthew 7:22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miraclesNow notice Jesus's responseverse 23: "And then I will declare to them,'I never knew you; Depart from me, You who practice Lawlessness"Now did you see it? Jesus never declared that they didnt do those things. But that they did not do those things b/c of their faith in Jesus. Their hearts were not for Jesus when they did these things!!!...Its not a tough concept...Acts 9:17-18 "So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized..."so apparently Ananias was an apostle as well? funny nobody ever has said that Link to post Share on other sites
cu in 4years Dan 1 Posted March 15, 2006 Share Posted March 15, 2006 i think i posted this on another thread but i'll post it again.god is a fair god, we do not know what he will do when a baby dies but we are told to trust in god and he will take care of our troubles. he is a fair god and we are told that we must trust him even though we might not always understand why or how he does these things but if we trust in him to do the right thing by these people then im sure he will. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted October 28, 2007 Share Posted October 28, 2007 since the notion that 50%+ of scientists don't believe in evolution would just be sheer stupidity, i have assume you are confusing polls asking scientists if they believe evolution is the most likely cause of speciation (vast majority favor it), with polls asking if evolution necessarily precludes god, intervening or otherwise. in the latter case you would be correct, because only a minority think evolution precludes god. but in the former case you would be very badly misinformed. if you think a poll has shown that 50%+ of scientists don't believe evolution happened i would love to see it specifically.everything listed after 2000 deals with issues within the framework of evolution about things we don't (or didn't at the time) understand, and not with major challenges to evolutionary theory as a whole. there are more significant challenges listed prior to 2000, and they are badly out of date, yes. that isn't a very good site, even by creationist standards.just look at the dude featured in the very first section - "Flew, 1984 still accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts that it can explain the ultimate origins of life"also the entire "religion" section deals with how evolution and theism are not incompatablenot sure what you mean. trees are constantly being updated as we learn more. that's how science works. just because we do not know every tiny detail doesn't mean the framework of evolution is incorrect.i assume you're referring to piltdown which is old news that no scientist considers or cares about. obviously the vast majority of hominoid fossils that the tree is based on aren't fakes, and if an odd fake is discovered it is immediately taken out of account. you seem to think scientists aren't trying to be objective about these trees, when there is a well-established peer review system in place for the very purpose of keeping things objective.Hey, how come Matt never replied to this? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Hey, how come Matt never replied to this? Man, if you are really this bored Porn is literally a mouse click away. Link to post Share on other sites
solderz 0 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I really would have no problem with religion if people didn't continually challenge scientific theory in God's name. The modern world exists the way it does because of science, not religion. I mean honestly, if you don't believe in evolution at this point, with Darwins observational data, fossil records, and dna, then you just don't understand the scientific method. Which isn't surprising since the religious are dominated by faith, not reason. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Man, if you are really this bored Porn is literally a mouse click away.At some point I have to give Old Steve Tallingflats a rest, right? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I really would have no problem with religion if people didn't continually challenge scientific theory in God's name. The modern world exists the way it does because of science, not religion. I mean honestly, if you don't believe in evolution at this point, with Darwins observational data, fossil records, and dna, then you just don't understand the scientific method. Which isn't surprising since the religious are dominated by faith, not reason.It took hundreds of years of mathmatical studies to decode some of the mysteries of the universe and it's make up. Many of the things we've found are too advanced for most people to understand.And you want to say they happened by accident/chance. We still are trying to grasp DNA and what it all means. Billions of sequences of code with self regulating preocreation.Again by random mutation?You may be able to stump me with specifics, but the overall theme of evolution is illogical at best, egocentrict self delusions at worst.Watch out, I'm using big words now. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 It took hundreds of years of mathmatical studies to decode some of the mysteries of the universe and it's make up. Many of the things we've found are too advanced for most people to understand.And you want to say they happened by accident/chance. We still are trying to grasp DNA and what it all means. Billions of sequences of code with self regulating preocreation.Again by random mutation?You may be able to stump me with specifics, but the overall theme of evolution is illogical at best, egocentrict self delusions at worst.Watch out, I'm using big words now.What you basically just said is that although the specific mechanics of evolution are beyond your grasp of understanding, you are comfortable saying that you don't think that evolution is possible because it just doesn't seem to make sense.I like you, so I'm not looking to start a big flaming thing, but using big words doesn't make that statement any less ridiculous. "I don't get it, so it must not be true." COME ON!Also, saying that the theory of evolution is "egocentric" when compared to the "god created man to rule over all other living creatures" theory is...ah, special. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 It took hundreds of years of mathmatical studies to decode some of the mysteries of the universe and it's make up. Many of the things we've found are too advanced for most people to understand.And you want to say they happened by accident/chance. We still are trying to grasp DNA and what it all means. Billions of sequences of code with self regulating preocreation.Again by random mutation?jeez how many times has evolution been explained here? mutations are random yes, but the driving process behind evolution (natural selection) is not - it is the exact opposite of random. once you study how the mechanism works (which you aren't willing to do apparently) you start to understand that great complexity beyond our simple human intuitive ability to comprehend CAN build up over long periods of time, creating the illusion of design.You may be able to stump me with specifics, but the overall theme of evolution is illogical at best, egocentrict self delusions at worst.you have that exactly backwards. what's egocentric is to think that something must necessarily have been created rather than happened just because you can't comprehend how it could have happened. that's exactly what you're doing. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 What you basically just said is that although the specific mechanics of evolution are beyond your grasp of understanding, you are comfortable saying that you don't think that evolution is possible because it just doesn't seem to make sense.I like you, so I'm not looking to start a big flaming thing, but using big words doesn't make that statement any less ridiculous. "I don't get it, so it must not be true." COME ON!Also, saying that the theory of evolution is "egocentric" when compared to the "god created man to rule over all other living creatures" theory is...ah, special.I agree that what I said could be taken how you took it. I mostly assume people think like I do cause I assume people are smart. ZINGBut I did not mean to imply that I don't get me none of that science stuff but I knows the truth better than them educated folk.More I am saying there are many fields of study that evolutionist use that I do not have an answer for because I fail in terminology, and basic understanding of the field. Take DNA, I know OJ killed Nicole, but I don't understand how a piece of DNA can contain enough information to be able to make a spleen. I don't get the code or how it works, so I can be argued into a place I cannot get out of.so I spend more time looking at the bigger picture, trying to equate the philosphy of random chance + environmental changes + mutation with a self repairing system containing a high level CPU, multiple input facilitators, and a self aware being that can laugh. I can't make the two sides balance out. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 so I spend more time looking at the bigger picture, trying to equate the philosphy of random chance + environmental changes + mutation with a self repairing system containing a high level CPU, multiple input facilitators, and a self aware being that can laugh. I can't make the two sides balance out."i can't understand it so god must have done it" Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 "i can't understand it so god must have done it" What is God? Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 More I am saying there are many fields of study that evolutionist use that I do not have an answer for because I fail in terminology, and basic understanding of the field. Take DNA, I know OJ killed Nicole, but I don't understand how a piece of DNA can contain enough information to be able to make a spleen. I don't get the code or how it works, so I can be argued into a place I cannot get out of.Yeah, but you're not arguing with geneticists here. If you understand the very basics of natural selection, random mutation, and a few other simple concepts, you should be able to fully understand how evolution occurs on both a micro and macro level.so I spend more time looking at the bigger picture, trying to equate the philosphy of random chance + environmental changes + mutation with a self repairing system containing a high level CPU, multiple input facilitators, and a self aware being that can laugh. I can't make the two sides balance out.As long as you understand that you're no different from ancient civilizations that couldn't understand the sun rising and decided that a god must be driving it across the sky in a chariot, I'm fine with this.edit: Also, you may not be fully realizing the concept of just how long a process we're talking about here. To go from primordial (sp) ooze to functioning CPUs took an amount of time almost incomprehensible to most humans. I include myself in that group. Link to post Share on other sites
speedz99 145 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 What is God?Didn't we decide that if there's a god he is most likely nothing more than a really complex and impressive (but physical nonetheless) alien? Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 What is God? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now