G3 Heaven

[adamkadmon 0]

I would be curious to know how Daniel justifies flying on larry Flints gulf stream jet? Only because I have seen Hustler magazine and there doesn't seem to be much love for Jesus there.

[mrdannyg 274]

anyone else expecting some Satriani links?

[HangukMiguk 8]

Think about this:Who did Jesus spend most of his time trying to reach? Was it the "holy people " in the temples? If not, who?

[Loismustdie 0]

Think about this:Who did Jesus spend most of his time trying to reach? Was it the "holy people " in the temples? If not, who?

Sure. I am sure that Daniel was all about preaching and teaching while hanging with the Lord of Porn.

[HangukMiguk 8]

Sure. I am sure that Daniel was all about preaching and teaching while hanging with the Lord of Porn.

no, but does being a christian mean we have to segregate ourselves away from other people who aren't christian, and spend time exclusively with Christians, and just sing kum-ba-ya to each other?Showing your faith by example is a ton better than getting up in people's faces with it.

[Loismustdie 0]

no, but does being a christian mean we have to segregate ourselves away from other people who aren't christian, and spend time exclusively with Christians, and just sing kum-ba-ya to each other?Showing your faith by example is a ton better than getting up in people's faces with it.

"A peculiar people, a royal priesthood". Honestly, if I happened to win some sort of trip or get an invitation to the playboy mansion, I couldn't go. On some level you are the company you keep. I don't even know what this is about, apparently there was a flight taken in Flynts private jet. That doesn't strike me as any big deal, and I don't know what the circumstance was, but for somebody to make the argument that it's good to hang out with pornographers so you can set a good example is just wrong. What, you think by some miracle they haven't already chosen there path? Christ is known throughout the free world, nothing you do is going to change a pornagrapher, and the word "christian" get's tossed around so freely I wouldn't be suprised if a good percentage of people who work in porn claim to be christians. Obviously,they are not.

[BWToth 0]

"A peculiar people, a royal priesthood". Honestly, if I happened to win some sort of trip or get an invitation to the playboy mansion, I couldn't go. On some level you are the company you keep. I don't even know what this is about, apparently there was a flight taken in Flynts private jet. That doesn't strike me as any big deal, and I don't know what the circumstance was, but for somebody to make the argument that it's good to hang out with pornographers so you can set a good example is just wrong. What, you think by some miracle they haven't already chosen there path? Christ is known throughout the free world, nothing you do is going to change a pornagrapher, and the word "christian" get's tossed around so freely I wouldn't be suprised if a good percentage of people who work in porn claim to be christians. Obviously,they are not.

It appears some assumptions you make are false.Depending on what you constitute the 'free world' as, I think there are many people within it that don't know 'the story of christ'.With regard these 'pornographers' who claim to be christians. Are you making a blanket statement that anyone who claims to be christian but is living a 'life of sin' are not christians and therefore going to hell?Finally, a question i'll pose....Will this person go to heaven or hell: A person born in india and raised with hindu values and follows them as best they can and lives a 'good' hindu life until they die. At some point during their life, say when they are 30 they come accross a christian missionary who teaches them christianity and attempts to convert them away from hinduism and to christianity. However, for whatever reason, say, the indian person has much too deep and ingrained belief in their faith in hindu that they reject christianity. Eventually they die...having lived a worthy life by the code of Hindu, while at the same time rejecting christianity.Do they go to heaven or burn in hell??

[Loismustdie 0]

It appears some assumptions you make are false.Depending on what you constitute the 'free world' as, I think there are many people within it that don't know 'the story of christ'.With regard these 'pornographers' who claim to be christians. Are you making a blanket statement that anyone who claims to be christian but is living a 'life of sin' are not christians and therefore going to hell?Finally, a question i'll pose....Will this person go to heaven or hell: A person born in india and raised with hindu values and follows them as best they can and lives a 'good' hindu life until they die. At some point during their life, say when they are 30 they come accross a christian missionary who teaches them christianity and attempts to convert them away from hinduism and to christianity. However, for whatever reason, say, the indian person has much too deep and ingrained belief in their faith in hindu that they reject christianity. Eventually they die...having lived a worthy life by the code of Hindu, while at the same time rejecting christianity.Do they go to heaven or burn in hell??

If you are living a life of sin, you go to hell, christian or not. It's not a spiritual shield, it's a life style covenant between you and God, and in your hypothetical, the Hindu burns. It's that simple.

[HangukMiguk 8]

Christ is known throughout the free world, nothing you do is going to change a pornagrapher

Saul knew of Christ. Saul knew what Christians claimed. Do you remember what Saul did to Christians?No, Saul wasn't a pornographer, but to say that one is unable to change a pornographer is like saying that no miracle could've possibly happened to convert Saul.And I just reread my post, and I don't want you to think I was belittling you with my rhetoric above, so if I came off that way, my apologies.

[BWToth 0]

If you are living a life of sin, you go to hell, christian or not. It's not a spiritual shield, it's a life style covenant between you and God, and in your hypothetical, the Hindu burns. It's that simple.

What is a child was born into a satanic cult, his parents never let him see the outside word and he did satanic things for his whole live and lived within this cult until the age of 30 when he accidentally burned to death while sacrificing a goat to the devil.He goes to hell?How can he, he is completely ignorant to any moral code other thant he one he was taught as a child to be correct. To him he is living a very moral life.How can God send this person to 'hell'??

[Loismustdie 0]

What is a child was born into a satanic cult, his parents never let him see the outside word and he did satanic things for his whole live and lived within this cult until the age of 30 when he accidentally burned to death while sacrificing a goat to the devil.He goes to hell?How can he, he is completely ignorant to any moral code other thant he one he was taught as a child to be correct. To him he is living a very moral life.How can God send this person to 'hell'??

God wouldn't have a choice, and, really, where are these kids exactly, that are completely out of touch with the real world, don't go to school, and don't have any concept of right and wrong? I don't live my life by hypotheticals, and christianity wasn't designed with hypotheticals in mind. That's the same type of thinking that makes it to where some dimwit on a helpline somewhere can't do the obvious thing because rules were written for the few. Say those kids existed. Fine. How much more do you think God is going to punish those parents? Do you ever wonder why little kids die that obviously live in bad situations? Could it be that God sees fit to take them now, before they are to damaged? To Hanguk, you didn't come off like you were belittleing me and even if you did I would let it go- you're a good dude who has always treated me with respect. Now, to kind of give you my point of view on what you are saying, put it this way- there is no reason for a christian to subject himself to sin in order to spread the gospel. It's not neccesary, plain and simple. People can change, but would I go and party with them, but not REALLY party with them just to be a shining example in front of the heathens? No. Christ didn't do that, and when he did he was constantly speaking out and telling them they were on there way to hell, not condoneing what they were doing. Understand where I am coming from? He says be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers. A night out with Larry Flynt and a bunch of porn stars would qualify, wouldn't you think?

[BWToth 0]

First of all, I don't think it says anywhere in the bible that jesus was constantly telling the 'sinners' he hung around with that they were going to hell.As for the Hypothetical situation, I have a couple of issues:You say "God wouldn't have a choice"...so are you conceding that god isn't all-powerful? Or that god doesn't care about humans and decided that his rules about sin supercede the ignorance of a person that doesn't know any better. According to this logic, isolated tribes in africa or the amazon would be going to hell based on the fact that they were ignorant to the stories in the bible? Or people of different denominations of christianity than the one you beileve to be correct for that matter?"Where do these kids exist?" Ever heard of the Branch Davidians? There was a group of them, in Texas, around '93....I think near a place called Waco? Well the compound that they built for their cult was large enough that children were born, raised, and schooled there (ages 12-16) without any contact with the outside world until the ATF and US govt. blew them up. They were taught a warped version of christianity where their leader... David Koresh (ring a bell?) claimed to be the second coming of christ. God obviously 'frowned' upon these people, but you really think he is 'heartless' enough to send those teenagers to hell? If he is, then that is reason enough for me to reject God by itself.You may want to consider using hypothetical situations in order come to conclusions about situations, its one of the most effective means to examine a topic objectively. I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that "christianity wan't designed with hypotheticals in mind."Just because God will punish the parents MORE doesn't excuse him for punishing their innocent children LESS.You ever wonder why kids in 'good situations' die?You don't think it's possible for any of those children who live in 'bad situations' to get out of that situation and go on to lead great (moral, christian, whatever) lives? Maybe you're right, it makes sense for god to kill them before they have a chance to become more 'damaged'.

[Loismustdie 0]

First of all, I don't think it says anywhere in the bible that jesus was constantly telling the 'sinners' he hung around with that they were going to hell.As for the Hypothetical situation, I have a couple of issues:You say "God wouldn't have a choice"...so are you conceding that god isn't all-powerful? Or that god doesn't care about humans and decided that his rules about sin supercede the ignorance of a person that doesn't know any better. According to this logic, isolated tribes in africa or the amazon would be going to hell based on the fact that they were ignorant to the stories in the bible? Or people of different denominations of christianity than the one you beileve to be correct for that matter?"Where do these kids exist?" Ever heard of the Branch Davidians? There was a group of them, in Texas, around '93....I think near a place called Waco? Well the compound that they built for their cult was large enough that children were born, raised, and schooled there (ages 12-16) without any contact with the outside world until the ATF and US govt. blew them up. They were taught a warped version of christianity where their leader... David Koresh (ring a bell?) claimed to be the second coming of christ. God obviously 'frowned' upon these people, but you really think he is 'heartless' enough to send those teenagers to hell? If he is, then that is reason enough for me to reject God by itself.You may want to consider using hypothetical situations in order come to conclusions about situations, its one of the most effective means to examine a topic objectively. I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that "christianity wan't designed with hypotheticals in mind."Just because God will punish the parents MORE doesn't excuse him for punishing their innocent children LESS.You ever wonder why kids in 'good situations' die?You don't think it's possible for any of those children who live in 'bad situations' to get out of that situation and go on to lead great (moral, christian, whatever) lives? Maybe you're right, it makes sense for god to kill them before they have a chance to become more 'damaged'.

I like the 2nd to the last sentence, where all of the sudden your hypothetical kids could all of the sudden be saved. Which is it? Tottaly damaged by there parents and unsalvageable or saveable? It's your hypothetical, you tell me. As far as Jesus not teaching constantly and confronting sin constantly, O.K. Show me one account where sin was going on and he didn't confront it, or exort the sinner. Good luck.

[Loismustdie 0]

And, as far as the branch davidians go, you would have to ask God. God doesn't send people to hell for that which they were not responsible for. I would assume that innocents were spared hell, but God would be the judge, not you or I.

[adamkadmon 0]

One instance of Jesus at least not standing up against evil is the lack of clarification he took about slavery. I dont think he said a word about the flourishing practice.

[jmkiser 0]

One instance of Jesus at least not standing up against evil is the lack of clarification he took about slavery. I dont think he said a word about the flourishing practice.

In Lois's defense, Jesus didn't comment on a lot of things he didn't know about or understand... oh wait a second, that would mean he's not the son of Go...eh, I tried

[SuperJon 175]

anyone else expecting some Satriani links?

I was...this thread sucks.

[herokid7 0]

xxxchurch. You need to take a look at that site, Lois. And if you really think that "pornographers have chosen their path" you need to look at this site:Donny Pauling And then tell me what you think. And plus, God doesn't sin Christians and non-christians to hell if they live a life of sin. Those people CHOOSE to go to hell. It's our choice. And if you're really a Christian you won't go to hell, regardless of your sin. Because Jesus paid the price for your sin on the cross.

[Loismustdie 0]

xxxchurch. You need to take a look at that site, Lois. And if you really think that "pornographers have chosen their path" you need to look at this site:Donny Pauling And then tell me what you think. And plus, God doesn't sin Christians and non-christians to hell if they live a life of sin. Those people CHOOSE to go to hell. It's our choice. And if you're really a Christian you won't go to hell, regardless of your sin. Because Jesus paid the price for your sin on the cross.

I did check out that Donny Pauling site, and really only have one comment: FORMER pornographer, meaning he has repented from that lifestyle. Good for him, but it adds nothing to this discussion.

[Loismustdie 0]

One instance of Jesus at least not standing up against evil is the lack of clarification he took about slavery. I dont think he said a word about the flourishing practice.

Then apparently you haven't read the bible.You know, where his actual words were recorded. You should try that.

[11 to 1 0]

As far as Jesus not teaching constantly and confronting sin constantly, O.K. Show me one account where sin was going on and he didn't confront it, or exort the sinner. Good luck.

In the following passage, the Roman Centurian is, of course, a pagan. His "servant" which he claims to love so much, is understood to be a catamite. Jesus does not try to convert him, tell him to come and follow him or admonish him for his relationship with the the young man who is ill. He simply heals him. The centurian leaves, still a pagan. But Jesus tells His followers exactly the opposite of what Loismustdie has said: Jesus says that people from other faiths, "many will come from the east and the west" meaning pagans and Hindi, and more will be in heaven and many of the so-called "faithful" (children of the kingdon) meaning Jews in this case, will be rejected. (Remember all Christ's followers in those days were Jews, so He was talking about people who think they follow Him, but don't have the faith this pagan did.) He says it in several places. (There are other examples of Jesus not "exhorting" the sinner - but I like this onem, it has so many contradictions to Lois' rather bizarre beliefs:

Matthew 8:5-13 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion approached him and appealed to him, saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, suffering dreadfully." He said to him, "I will come and cure him." The centurion said in reply, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed. For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes; and to another, 'Come here,' and he comes; and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, "Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I say to you, many will come from the east and the west, and will recline with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the banquet in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom will be driven out into the outer darkness, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth." And Jesus said to the centurion, "You may go; as you have believed, let it be done for you." And at that very hour (his) servant was healed.

Note that Jesus does not exhortthat pagan to stop worshipping false gods or stop oppressing the populace or any other thing. As far as the servant who was healed, we have no idea what he believed or did or any other thing, he never asked Jesus for a thing and neither of them became followers as far as we know. Lois is simply wrong......again.

[Satchboogie3@gmail.com 0]

G3... Satriani, Petrucci, Gilbert.... Am I missing something? lolThe BETTER version of G3:http://www.satriani.com/G3/

[jmkiser 0]

mmm guitarthe best!petrucci is my god!

[DerekTah 0]

One instance of Jesus at least not standing up against evil is the lack of clarification he took about slavery. I dont think he said a word about the flourishing practice.

I disagree, while I do believe you are correct if you say that there is no passage where Jesus just say "slavery is wrong, those who own slaves will burn in hell!" Jesus makes the decision to teach the slaves what do to. Jesus says turn the other cheek and love your enemy and pray for those that persecute you. This is coming at a time where the Jews are basicly slaves to the Romans.

[Loismustdie 0]

In the following passage, the Roman Centurian is, of course, a pagan. His "servant" which he claims to love so much, is understood to be a catamite. Jesus does not try to convert him, tell him to come and follow him or admonish him for his relationship with the the young man who is ill. He simply heals him. The centurian leaves, still a pagan. But Jesus tells His followers exactly the opposite of what Loismustdie has said: Jesus says that people from other faiths, "many will come from the east and the west" meaning pagans and Hindi, and more will be in heaven and many of the so-called "faithful" (children of the kingdon) meaning Jews in this case, will be rejected. (Remember all Christ's followers in those days were Jews, so He was talking about people who think they follow Him, but don't have the faith this pagan did.) He says it in several places. (There are other examples of Jesus not "exhorting" the sinner - but I like this onem, it has so many contradictions to Lois' rather bizarre beliefs: Note that Jesus does not exhortthat pagan to stop worshipping false gods or stop oppressing the populace or any other thing. As far as the servant who was healed, we have no idea what he believed or did or any other thing, he never asked Jesus for a thing and neither of them became followers as far as we know. Lois is simply wrong......again.

Or, Jesus had a lick of sense and realized that there was a time and place for everything and healed on his own terms, jew or gentile, whatever. To say that just because he healed somebody without teaching means that he did not teach, is a lie. " No man goes to the father except through him." That simple. Anything else, isn't christianity, it's something else. So, I would say that I effectively stole the ball back from Team Crazy and scored a basket for Team Can Read Basic English. He shoots, he scores!!!( And the crowd goes nuts!!)