IMHO, as a Christian, anyone can be saved whether or not they acknowledge or profess a belief in Jesus or even GOD
That's fair enough Jar. But as long as you realize that that is indeed your opinion.
As for what I think, my topic concerning not judging I suppose, is what I think. I think that what Christ says and has said is what counts. Who is saved and who is not; I will judge not, for all will stand before the judgement seat of Christ, including me.
I see you preach the above a lot, about being saved without Christ etc... Make sure to inform people that it's not what the bible says, but what you say.
And when you read that, there is nothing about professing GOD or Jesus, nothing about being a Jew or Christian, nothing about being religious. In fact, many who profess a belief in Jesus, who are good Christians, Jews or Muslims, will certainly be Goats and not sheep
Well, again - I'd rather not cross that barrier Jar. Where exactly does it say this thing?? Now Highlighted in yellow - this is judging who and who will not go, which I'd rather not do. However, I recall something that Jesus said that might have vaguely encouraged you to say this. In that, he said many would claim to know him etc. However, how you can say the above in yellow and claim biblical backing without a quote here and now, is beyond me. Please provide that quote to end my confusion.
Also, in the New Testament, "saved by grace" - has this escaped you?
However, I am aware of the seperation of the sheep from the goats. You often provide this quote.
Yet I don't think cutting God out is necessarily "it". Why you promote this all the time escapes me. As for those who come to Christ, "I will in no wise cast out".
You see, "the wrath of God abideth" on him that hasn't believed in the only begotten son, IS ALSO mentioned.
I am telling you this because your selling the parts that fit your opinion in the NT, and not mentioning these other parts of Christ's words.
I am not against your notion, but I think it is certainly your own notion, and no one can know for sure, as you said, it is our opinion. Therefore, preaching those other things Christ said is also necessary - whether he meant them or not, let Christ judge.
Well, actually, Jesus said in no uncertain terms that there were two commandments, and that all the Laws and Prophecy hang on those two commandments.
Yes, I know, but he also said those other things which you didn't address.
Okay Jar, fair enough, as I say - I'm not against you but I think it odd that you preach a message which says you don't even have to bother to believe. How can anyone recieve that which is from God if they dismiss him? Does it not feed the self-righteouss such a message? And encourage ego's to think that they "know it all" in this age?
In addition, as I have said before, GOD and Jesus were not bling-bling pimp-daddies that would get upset when someone disrespected them.
Erm....?, Well, I didn't say he was. How about answering my post instead of forcing this on to me?
Nevertheless, are you Christ that your opinion rules that which God thinks? How can you know whether he is upset?
As to my belief that many Jews, Christians and Muslims will not be saved, I think the cleansing of the temple was a pretty good sign. Even Jesus death and resurection support that idea. Afterall, it was not the atheists and agnostics that were threatened by his life and ministry, but the franchise owners themselves.
I see your point. Yet that won'r mean all atheists are some special kind of people. Yet you seem to support them more than any other group. Why is this?
So, I still think you are picking and choosing what you think is what God meant. Yet I hear many interpretations of scripture, and I am confident that God can judge who will go to heaven without me saying a thing. Why should I give heed to Jar's Gospel though?
A being that could think this universe into existence, that could intuitively understand the relationship between gravity and the other forces, is not someone who would get his nose out of joint because someone says he doesn't exist.
Listen, I get upset for him, but I never said he gets upset. Where is this rant going to?
.Sorry Jar but is this catholicism speaking? I'm not catholic.
I simply cannot believe that any such being would condemn folk to hell simply because they denied he existed.
But this is a strawman of bibleGod Jar. It's our sins that condemn us. I mean, it's like I said to Rrhain, trying to drive it into his brain --> That God in the bible punishes people when they have sinned. It's all good and well to take up the big bad sky daddy position, as long as you know that infact it's only the unbelievers who take this position upon themselves. The whole point of Christ's suffering is to pay for our sins,now only HE ever done this, and he is from God to do it.
Test to see if I am wrong about sin, go through the list of bible quote mining any nonebeliever offers you concerning big bad sky daddy, and read what happens before the quote - I gauruntee you will find sin being the prevailent cause of God's wrath. THE WHOLE OT is a long list of man getting sinful/wicked and God getting angry. Now this time in the NT, God says he gets angry if you don't believe in his only begotten Son. Are we condemned already? Why already are we condemned? I'll give a clue --> "Let he without sin cast the first stone". Why didn't you know - everybody is fallible, even those scientific atheists you do favour so very much, Jarry boy. If everybody is imperfect, how can we put on perfection?
Notice how the unbelievers gather when mike speaks? You see, they have this daft idea that it's acceptable to say " you unbelievers won't perish " rather than simply not judge them at all. I guess they prefer Jar's gospel.
I wonder why they don't gather against Jar, and the unbeliever- friendly teachings thereof.
. If it's not Job - it's any bad sky daddy quote mining they can muster. And they keep their silence about Christ's example.
Is that a biblical scripture you provided Jar? I couldn't find it - can you tell me the chapter and verse, thanks. Cos if it ain't biblical - you don't seriously expect me to take it over Christ's words do you?
Now when you say that God punishes for sin, you may be right (if I were to believe in God in the first place.) Still, sin is defined in many ways
Pa-lease let's not define words - don't go Rrhain on me.
Let's just pretend mike recognises what sin is - him being repentant and all.
I can imagine your unbeliever thoughts as I type this......." Hmmmmm, that;s true - we do quote mine making God look bad, *bingo* - I'll do what all the others do and start saying define this, define that".
If you feel there should be nothing wrong with saying the non believers will be condemned, why not just answer the question.
You'd like me to say that - but I have no intention of judging who and who will not go to heaven or hell. Read back in this topic if you are a newbie, and see that I infact take the stance of not judging at all. Or you can look in the F&B section for a topic called, "Dear fellow christians, judge not lest you be judged".
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-04-2004 08:30 PM
Nope Mike, I have never expected you to accept anything I say. But are you saying that Jesus wasn't a full and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the world?
Why don't you expect me to accept anything you say Jar? Do you think I am against you?
What is the BCP? Am I expected to know these initials?
Jar, the only difference between our views in this thread is slight, it's just that my tongue is far more radical. Think about it, all most of my talk is jive to ignite flames amongst unbelievers - which amuses me highly. But all I have said is that I will judge no-one. Likewise - I suppose you haven't judged, but you have suggested a belief in Christ isn't necessary. - I only seek the truth of what God said, and it's not just the seperation of the sheep from the goat. The things you preach is if your honest, not the normal version. Remember the Gospel message is Christ. How can people receive that which God has for them if they don't know him?
He says ask anything in prayer, and if it be according to God's will, it will be added unto you.
How can people be healed if they doubt and don't believe? How can they receive?
Well, no one is going to change your mind. But what's with all this bling bling pimp daddy, and the name "phatboy".
Anyway, I gues you kinda like Mathew 25, but to be honest, I don't buy into no common prayer book as biblical.
You see Jar - you're conveniently skipping things Phatz and I have said concerning sin, accountability etc.. You see, if you repent, and believe then you want to expose your sin, and if you don't then it's of doubt - and you want to keep your sin, and therefore love sin/darkness rather than the light.
Furthermore - Now you can see were this friendly message gets you Jar, not only do we get a so far peaceful thread, but now Crash crashes - and doesn't care anything for your preaching Jar - his only intent is to declare that God doesn't exist - and that God should have done this, that and the other..I mean - if this isn't the prize mike's been waiting for then what is?
Thus, Crashfrog - I fully expect that you are indeed as good as your word - and go about ending "real suffering in the world" because of your words against Jar's post. Infact - it is now fitting and ironic, that you should now go out into the world - and DO Mathew 25, that's right - you now must infact do Jar's request by word alone, because you have said that God sits on his arse, when infact he heals people even daily.
Now you have also induced.
Because you see suffering - you assume God cannot exist - and/or has sat on his arse.
Yet - ironically - what did Jar say?? He said that a richman could fund someone all of the days of his life - without Crashfrog knowing, likewise - could not God do things all the more so - without Crashfrog knowing? Thus your premise is inductive;
\"There's real suffering in the world;" ....."to believe that a God exists, but that this is the best he can do."
And so - you only include that which you know of - suffering, inducing bad things for God's name. You cannot credit him with suffering alone, you're ignoring the good things people have claimed - from God.
And if you do go to heaven - what will you say about Christ's suffering - for you? Shall you spit it in his face?
So you see - unbelieving man cannot shut his tongue up no matter what we say Jar. It's a lose-lose situation with these guys - and you have to learn it!
It should be amusing to watch a cell argue with a universe though.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-08-2004 02:29 PM
I think it's fair to say that if there is suffering on the Earth, then God either cannot or will not intervene to stop it.
Ahhhh, but I also remember your comments. What about all that none-suffering that you think doesn't exist? What about the healings and testimonies from people who defy medical science, and even the doctors acknowledge it?
What about all the times God has intervened to stop things - with you being ignorant of it?
Example; Hambre is walking for the paper - and mike the sniper hits the bottle top tied to Hambre's pocket - him being an avid bottletop collector, God knowing it would save his life - that rare super bullet proof bottletop - that can only be found in Hambre's favourite newsagent - that bottletop being from(the viagra bottle).
Yes H - it was me that shot at you. I remember your comments, " Well atleast something can shoot ".
Doesn't work like that. He who makes the positive assertion - that an entity exists - must prove. Not he who questions that assertion.
It was you who asserted his none-existence though. If you want to start a new thread then do that, but what has this got to do with who can be saved?
I do what I can. But then, nobody claims that I have infinite power over life and death, now do they?
Mankind could end all suffering tomorrow - if each man tried, - so even if we do what we can, our claims are less than our actions I'm afraid.
So what if God asks why you didn't devote your life to this like Christ did?
Can you say that you were more interested in your own life? And if after your argument with God was over, who would win? Can you judge God or would your efforts be futile?
Which, by definition, must be the case. The existence of unameliorated suffering is not consistent with the nature of God as he has been defined.
Listen, God has endowed us with the full capabilities to turn away from sin and selfishness, the problems for the innocent sufferers - is their uncaring human beings. God however - does provide food for me each day - you cannot only count the starving people - like Christ said - the last shall be first. And infact Christ still heals today - we have documented miracles that even doctors agree on.
Irrelevant. The fact that you're doing ok in the UK doesn't change the fact that someone is starving to death in Ethiopia. God's blessings on you don't erase someone else's suffering.
Nor do sufferings remove reality - that God is!
I'll say "that's a good start, but you couldn't have done any better? Show me why."
Would you die on a cross? Would you willingly die in agony for the likes of you, who would say the above quote?
Tell ya what. Keep your mouth shut about what atheists will or won't do, and I'll never have to talk to you again.
Listen, I didn't mean to offend, but come on - you came on this thread guns blazing while we were on topic about who is saved.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I never want to talk to you again, but who's attacking who? Weren't we just discussing salvation? Yet it seems you don't even want salvation.
Nevertheless, sorry if I offended you Crash - I promise I didn't mean to - I thought you didn't even like atheism.