Too much trash talk against Christianity

lazygal

steamengine wrote: »

We are all God's creation and were allotted a particular sexuality, either hetero or homo as part of that creation. How can anything associated with expression of that sexuality in a loving relationship be wrong ?

God played no part in creating my children. I was there for the whole thing.

Cabaal

lazygal wrote: »

No, they just want to take them from real couples.

...and then eat them and rename mothers day,

Timberrrrrrrr

lazygal wrote: »

No, they just want to take them from real couples.

Or single parents

lazygal

Cabaal wrote: »

...and then eat them and rename mothers day,

No no no. They want to make them part of the Homosexual Agenda. They eat the mammies who are forced to hand over the babies.

frag420

steamengine wrote: »

Each to his own

What you saying about my mom eh

solodeogloria

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

See this is the part I have an issue with your "god"

Man kills family of 4 (husband, wife, 2 kids)

Man and woman go to he'll because the sinned and never repented.

Kids get into "heaven" because your "god" deems them to be innocent and therefore worthy.

Killer goes to jail and over the years he finds "god" and repents for his sins.

He dies and goes to "heaven"

Kids now have to see their parents killer every day all the time knowing that their parents are in a horrible place because they didn't repent to this so called all loving "god"

Good evening!

As I said earlier thank you for your question. People like you force me to think and I'm a man who likes to think things through.

If I was considering the relative badness of the murderer versus the family I will agree with you that the murderer doesn't deserve to go to heaven. If the family are the benchmark that the man is compared against then I agree with you. He doesn't deserve to go to heaven as much as the family. However the truth is that neither of them deserve to be there of their own account. I don't deserve it at all. That's why it is called grace. Grace simply put is the unmerited favour of God. Nobody deserves it (Romans 3:23).

The Bible is clear that we all will stand at the judgement seat of the Lord Jesus. It is also clear that of our own standard we are fully guilty and we are without excuse. If the murderer repented and put his trust in the Lord Jesus then he is a new creation. God is transforming him into something new. Jesus paid for his account in full. The issue is in the relationship between us and God. Repentance also means sorting out relational issues with others and it most certainly means being subject to the rulers and authorities. It would mean turning yourself in. It would mean turning away from what you used to do.

I really don't like thought experiments like this because it abstracts me away from real lives. I long that everyone would do the right thing and turn and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before it is too late because I want people to know the love that God has for them and I long for all to see that the Christian life is much better than living for ourselves now. But if you reject Jesus His warning is repent or you will likewise perish. I can't tone that down because I can't compromise the truth.

Luke 13:1-5 ESVUK wrote:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Let me know if I missed anything in your question. I want to answer it well and properly and I don't want to be evasive.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Baggy Trousers

Cabaal wrote: »

Shame is built right into the church, its in their basic message that people are born in sin.

My dad recently told me how when he was younger each day of the week the church would drop envelopes into all the houses in one specific street in the town for "voluntary donations". So Monday would be High Street, Tuesday would be Bridge Street etc etc.

Then come Sunday at the end of the mass the church would read out exactly who donated what, starting with the largest donation and going right down to the very least.

Its clear as day the church was all about shaming the avg family, they did it with donations and they did it so they created a profitable situation for them with baby's.

My dad told me the same thing. He said the priest would even shame rural families that were starving at home because they made the small donation.

Baggy Trousers

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well shock horror, who would have thought the church would be campaigning against gay marriage and are in favour of not aborting the unborn.

It's not a popularity contest, they are just as entitled to express their view same as anyone else.

Expressing views and expressing lies are 2 different things.

Gullible people believed the lies and voted No. Thankfully sense prevailed.

You don't hear much from Iona and Rome now on the subject despite all their false fears and predictions.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Likewise if it is bound to do what's best, can it do what it wants over what's best? If it was 'best' to send someone to heaven, but they hadn't repented...

To be fair I don't think this addresses the question. I suppose it is a question about predestination as you mentioned.

solodeogloria wrote:

God has made His mercy available to all who repent and turn to His Son. (John 3:16-18 being one of the more famous places to look). God is faithful to His Word that He has spoken most supremely through Jesus. I don't think God's grace is under question. There are questions about how predestination (see Romans 8-9 or Ephesians 1) works in the Bible but God's mercy is available to all who repent. Jesus assures us that God will answer any prayer that is for God's glory. Of course God is also a refuge and a fortress for the Christian in times of trouble but He doesn't assure us that we get everything that we want. No loving father would do that.

Separating Jesus's and god's jobs is only adding to the problem. Could they have a difference of opinion? If so how would that work? If not then why would they bother to divide the labour?

Who's making the rules, man or god? And is god bound by the rules?

Baggy Trousers

I am curious; Do parents/teachers still teach their communion children that they have Original Sin from Adam & Eve?
Are they asked to confess their original sin in their first confession? Is it then "forgiven"?
Or has that "birth" sin been dismissed the same way as hell and limbo are now nonsense?

Does anyone know?

pauldla

Cabaal wrote: »

Shame is built right into the church, its in their basic message that people are born in sin.

My dad recently told me how when he was younger each day of the week the church would drop envelopes into all the houses in one specific street in the town for "voluntary donations". So Monday would be High Street, Tuesday would be Bridge Street etc etc.

Then come Sunday at the end of the mass the church would read out exactly who donated what, starting with the largest donation and going right down to the very least.

Its clear as day the church was all about shaming the avg family, they did it with donations and they did it so they created a profitable situation for them with baby's.

I can remember the PP in our parish doing the same thing when I was a boy. My mother was outraged; my father's response is not suitable for these pages, I'm afraid.

Hotblack Desiato

steamengine wrote: »

Why jump from Catholic to atheist though, unless the whole religion thing was a charade from the outset ?

A charade forced on children by parents and schools.

Would it not be more logical to switch to the nearest option, such as Anglican which is close to Catholicism in nature and free of the terrible scandals which affected the Catholic church. Why throw the baby out with the bath water so to speak ?

Why would anyone with no belief choose any religion?

I agree there is a huge number of people who tick the 'catholic' box on the census (and some even go to church every once in a while) whose views would much more align with one of the reformed churches, but the mere suggestion of such an idea could well produce apoplexy! For them, religion is as much if not more a cultural identity than it is a set of beliefs and practices.

Your first paragraph doesn't stack up, perhaps back in 'fifties' Ireland such a scenario existed. The special position of the Roman Catholic church was removed from the constitution decades ago.

That change was and is meaningless, as long as they retain so much influence and control over most schools and some hospitals.

The RC church has in actual fact become very Protestant like, where its members to speak out and up about issues, and do all those naughty things the prods used to do years ago , like using contraceptives.

RC teaching has not changed, it's just that most people who describe themselves as 'catholic' reject much or most of it.

As regards 'sticking to the knitting', would you include the Capuchins who feed thousands of poor people daily and how about St. Vincent de Paul, or the Salvation Army ?

Religion is not a requirement for charitable work. I would object to taxpayer's money being given to charities which promote religion as part of the 'service'.

solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

To be fair I don't think this addresses the question. I suppose it is a question about predestination as you mentioned.

Separating Jesus's and god's jobs is only adding to the problem. Could they have a difference of opinion? If so how would that work? If not then why would they bother to divide the labour?

Who's making the rules, man or god? And is god bound by the rules?

Good morning!

Sorry I found your question here quite hard to understand.

Likewise if it is bound to do what's best, can it do what it wants over what's best? If it was 'best' to send someone to heaven, but they hadn't repented...

What do you mean by it? Are you referring to God?

I don't separate God and Jesus intentionally. I believe in one God in three persons.

Jesus according to the New Testament freely submits to God the Father. (John 5 and John 10 explain how this works in the Bible)

I'm genuinely not trying to be evasive. My short answer is that God will not reject those who come to Him. (John 6:37)

Where predestination comes in is that God knows who will come to Him in advance. (also in 6:37 and in 6:64 of John).

Can you please explain what exactly I've missed or rephrase your question because that would help massively!

Edit: God declares His standards in His Word. Man made rules should be systematically ignored. There is no special representative of God on earth. That's where I part ways with the Catholic Church as an evangelical Christian. There is no mediator between God and man other than Christ.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09

steamengine wrote:

Where's their power, all of those passed ? Campaigning doesn't equal power.

It's lobbying to impose the values of their faith on the laws of the state and all its citizens, regardless of whether they're catholic or not. Why would they do that?

Exerting political power is something the catholics have always done, but it has nothing to do with their religious values. I see it purely as acting as a political entity. Their influence is on the wane now but they had bishop John McQuaid, calling shots way beyond his rightful influence in the past and they were very comfortable with that situation.

Absolam

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's lobbying to impose the values of their faith on the laws of the state and all its citizens, regardless of whether they're catholic or not. Why would they do that?

The same reason anyone lobbies to have the State behave in tune with their beliefs, surely? We lobby to act against FGM, or drink driving, or smoking in the workplace, not because we want to impose our values on others, but because we think some values are sufficiently universal that it is the purpose of the State, being the manifest representation of the will of the people, to uphold and enforce those values. Yes, there's enormous disagreement about what those values ought to be, but that's democracy, and there's no reason Catholics shouldn't have the same say as everyone else.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Exerting political power is something the catholics have always done, but it has nothing to do with their religious values. I see it purely as acting as a political entity. Their influence is on the wane now but they had bishop John McQuaid, calling shots way beyond his rightful influence in the past and they were very comfortable with that situation.

There's no doubt that the Catholic Church permeated just about every aspect of Irish society for a very long time, but I think it's a mistake to see it as an entity exerting power (political or otherwise) over society; it was a part of society, not something separate from it. It still is, in a smaller and altered form, and so it should be, because there are people who feel they are part of it. Exerting political power is something people have always done, and will continue to do, whether they are part of a body that represents a huge portion of society, or solo chancers with an eye for opportunity. Or maybe even someone with the best interests of the nation at heart, who knows, anything is possible.

solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

steamengine wrote:

Where's their power, all of those passed ? Campaigning doesn't equal power.

It's lobbying to impose the values of their faith on the laws of the state and all its citizens, regardless of whether they're catholic or not. Why would they do that?

Exerting political power is something the catholics have always done, but it has nothing to do with their religious values. I see it purely as acting as a political entity. Their influence is on the wane now but they had bishop John McQuaid, calling shots way beyond his rightful influence in the past and they were very comfortable with that situation.

Good morning!

I totally agree that it is wrong both Biblically and on a secular level to coerce people to live by Christian principles by law.

I care more about whether or not people actually follow the Lord Jesus,
solodeogloria

steamengine

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's lobbying to impose the values of their faith on the laws of the state and all its citizens, regardless of whether they're catholic or not. Why would they do that?

Exerting political power is something the catholics have always done, but it has nothing to do with their religious values. I see it purely as acting as a political entity. Their influence is on the wane now but they had bishop John McQuaid, calling shots way beyond his rightful influence in the past and they were very comfortable with that situation.

To support your argument you have to travel back in time to the Archbishop McQuaid era - enough said. As regards all this lobbying, I seem to remember plenty of secularist signatures here on boards lobbying non practising catholics to tick the 'NO religion' box on the recent census form. Just because one doesn't attend church or mass, doesn't necessarily negate their belief.

One law for the goose and another for the gander - it's ok for secularists to lobby, but not the Church.

Baggy Trousers

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

I am curious; Do parents/teachers still teach their communion children that they have Original Sin from Adam & Eve?
Are they asked to confess their original sin in their first confession? Is it then "forgiven"?
Or has that "birth" sin been dismissed the same way as hell and limbo are now nonsense?

Does anyone know?

Anyone?

frag420

Are Christians happy with folks living good lives, having morals, not hurting others......basically living like a Christian but without the Christian beliefs or must we all believe in God in order to be good humans?

Do Christians believe that being a good human being goes hand in hand with being a Christian or can they be exclusive of one another?

robdonn

steamengine wrote: »

One law for the goose and another for the gander - it's ok for secularists to lobby, but not the Church.

The 'Tick NO' campaign is an entirely different thing, they were not asking people to tick no because they wanted more people to be non-religious, the campaign was to raise awareness for people to reflect on their personal beliefs and reevaluate if they truly are Catholics, or were simply raised that way and no longer practise/believe.

The objective was to have people fill out the census as accurately as possible, to tick the box of their religion if it applied to them in 2016 and not to simply tick the box of the religion they were raised in.

Very different from the religious lobbying of "Vote NO, don't let gay people get married."

El_Duderino 09

steamengine wrote:

To support your argument you have to travel back in time to the Archbishop McQuaid era - enough said. As regards all this lobbying, I seem to remember plenty of secularist signatures here on boards lobbying non practising catholics to tick the 'NO religion' box on the recent census form. Just because one doesn't attend church or mass, doesn't necessarily negate their belief.

Nope. To support the argument you have to go to the most recent referendum. To demonstrate how comfortable the catholics are with legislating their beliefs on the entire country, John McQuaid is a great example. Luckily their influence has deminished since then. I don't think for a second that the catholics would refuse that type of power if it was on offer to them again today.

Gay marriage was a perfect example. Nobody was telling catholics what to do. They could continue to not hold gay marriage ceremonies. But the catholics wanted the entire state to not hold gay marriage ceremonies for anyone, regardless of religion. Maybe you think that's OK. I'd be interested to know you opinion.

steamengine

robdonn wrote: »

The 'Tick NO' campaign is an entirely different thing, they were not asking people to tick no because they wanted more people to be non-religious, the campaign was to raise awareness for people to reflect on their personal beliefs and reevaluate if they truly are Catholics, or were simply raised that way and no longer practise/believe.

The objective was to have people fill out the census as accurately as possible, to tick the box of their religion if it applied to them in 2016 and not to simply tick the box of the religion they were raised in.

Very different from the religious lobbying of "Vote NO, don't let gay people get married."

So you don't regard that as lobbying then ? How would you describe it ? There was a clear instruction to 'Tick No' and a clear inference that if you didn't practise your religion, then you had no religion.

Delirium

steamengine wrote: »

So you don't regard that as lobbying then ? How would you describe it ? There was a clear instruction to 'Tick No' and a clear inference that if you didn't practise your religion, then you had no religion.

I thought lobbying was when you were approaching/attempting to influence the government on an issue. The 'Tick No' campaign was an appeal for honesty/accuracy from the general public.

robdonn

steamengine wrote: »

So you don't regard that as lobbying then ? How would you describe it ? There was a clear instruction to 'Tick No' and a clear inference that if you didn't practise your religion, then you had no religion.

'Tick No Religion' is a lot catchier than 'Tick no religion if you don't actively subscribe to that religion, but if you do then by all means tick whatever you feel is most accurate.'

'Vote NO' is also catchier than 'Vote NO, don't give gay people the right to get married because our religious moral system says it is wrong so the entire country should abide by it.'

El_Duderino 09

steamengine wrote:

So you don't regard that as lobbying then ? How would you describe it ? There was a clear instruction to 'Tick No' and a clear inference that if you didn't practise your religion, then you had no religion.

Lobbying to encourage people to fill out the form in accordance with the law. Not trying to change the law of the entire country to reflect the values of their religion.

If the catholics were honest brokers, they wild be encouraging people to tick the box that most accurately applies to them.

The idea that the catholics would want the honest number of ticks if it was smaller than the number of unconsidered, casual ticks, is unthinkable.

There is no reason in the world for catholics to want to limit the freedom of non catholics in the way they tried to in the recent referendum.

steamengine

Delirium wrote: »

I thought lobbying was when you were approaching/attempting to influence the government on an issue. The 'Tick No' campaign was an appeal for honesty/accuracy from the general public.

Lobbying in the loose sense, read campaigning if it suits better. I've no issue with any group campaigning for anything, but it's applying double standards when the same group criticises a Church for doing the same thing. The issue is irrelevant, it's not about the 'size' of the problem rather interference by one religious/non religious group into the belief system/non belief system of another.

Also it comes across as very patronising for a group to essentially assume that in this case Christians and others don't possess the necessary 'where with all' and honesty to fill out their own census details.

steamengine

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope. To support the argument you have to go to the most recent referendum. To demonstrate how comfortable the catholics are with legislating their beliefs on the entire country, John McQuaid is a great example. Luckily their influence has deminished since then. I don't think for a second that the catholics would refuse that type of power if it was on offer to them again today.

Gay marriage was a perfect example. Nobody was telling catholics what to do. They could continue to not hold gay marriage ceremonies. But the catholics wanted the entire state to not hold gay marriage ceremonies for anyone, regardless of religion. Maybe you think that's OK. I'd be interested to know you opinion.

And what did the YES side want us to do ? Vote Yes. And what did the NO side want us to do ? Vote No. Did both sides have groups lobbying ? Yes. - there's your answer, its called democracy.

frag420

steamengine wrote: »

Lobbying in the loose sense, read campaigning if it suits better. I've no issue with any group campaigning for anything, but it's applying double standards when the same group criticises a Church for doing the same thing. The issue is irrelevant, it's not about the 'size' of the problem rather interference by one religious/non religious group into the belief system/non belief system of another.

Also it comes across as very patronising for a group to essentially assume that others cant lead decent lives without interference from the Christian church.

FYP :cool:

robdonn

steamengine wrote: »

And what did the YES side want us to do ? Vote Yes. And what did the NO side want us to do ? Vote No. Did both sides have groups lobbying ? Yes. - there's your answer, its called democracy.

And the difference being, as El_Duderino 09 pointed out, was that the Yes side were not trying to force their beliefs on anyone, the No side were. The practise of Catholicism was never effected by the legalisation of same-sex marriage, only the practises of a secular government. What the Catholic Church were lobbying for was enforcing a particular religious stance that would effect countless people outside of their religion.

This is the argument against religious lobbying, trying to make the world abide to their rules by putting them into secular laws.

solodeogloria

frag420 wrote: »

Are Christians happy with folks living good lives, having morals, not hurting others......basically living like a Christian but without the Christian beliefs or must we all believe in God in order to be good humans?

Do Christians believe that being a good human being goes hand in hand with being a Christian or can they be exclusive of one another?

Good afternoon!

I don't accept the principle that people are good by nature.

Are we all as bad as we could be? No, thankfully!
Are we all good? In respect to God's standards, no. If we are attempting to live our lives in clear opposition to what God has spoken that is still wrong from a Christian perspective. Downplaying our sin and it's consequences to others is dangerous.

If we are attempting to convince ourselves that we are good on our own account we're mistaken.

1 John 1:8-10 ESVUK wrote:

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

El_Duderino 09

steamengine wrote:

And what did the YES side want us to do ? Vote Yes. And what did the NO side want us to do ? Vote No. Did both sides have groups lobbying ? Yes. - there's your answer, its called democracy.

You would be correct if the options were 'nobody can have a gay marriage' and 'everyone has to have a gay marriage'.

The actual lobbying was one side saying that people should have the choice and if your religion forbids it then you can follow your conscience. The other side were saying nobody should have the choice because their religion forbids it.

Can't you see the difference?

robdonn

solodeogloria wrote: »

Are we all as bad as we could be? No, thankfully!
Are we all good? In respect to God's standards, no.

May I ask what God's standard is in relation to pedophilia? I don't remember seeing anything about it in the Bible despite shellfish and pork getting a mention.

looksee

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't accept the principle that people are good by nature.

Are we all as bad as we could be? No, thankfully!
Are we all good? In respect to God's standards, no. If we are attempting to live our lives in clear opposition to what God has spoken that is still wrong from a Christian perspective. Downplaying our sin and it's consequences to others is dangerous.

If we are attempting to convince ourselves that we are good on our own account we're mistaken.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

What are God's standards? Other than reference to interaction with God, which is irrelevant if you are not a follower of that God, what standards does God have that are not basic human decency and social behaviour?

How do you define sin?

Timberrrrrrrr

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't accept the principle that people are good by nature.

Are we all as bad as we could be? No, thankfully!
Are we all good? In respect to God's standards, no. If we are attempting to live our lives in clear opposition to what God has spoken that is still wrong from a Christian perspective. Downplaying our sin and it's consequences to others is dangerous.

If we are attempting to convince ourselves that we are good on our own account we're mistaken.



Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

As others have asked what are "gods" standards and also how could someone who has never heard of this "god" be expected to live up to his standards?

steamengine

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You would be correct if the options were 'nobody can have a gay marriage' and 'everyone has to have a gay marriage'.

The actual lobbying was one side saying that people should have the choice and if your religion forbids it then you can follow your conscience. The other side were saying nobody should have the choice because their religion forbids it.

Can't you see the difference?

I'm not discussing gay marriage per se, so for the third time I'm discussing lobbying or campaigning on any issue by believers or non-believers or their representative groups as being a normal part of the democratic process. Keep missing the point if you wish.

El_Duderino 09

steamengine wrote:

I'm not discussing gay marriage per se, so for the third time I'm discussing lobbying or campaigning on any issue by believers or non-believers or their representative groups as being a normal part of the democratic process. Keep missing the point if you wish.

I've just made my point. Both lobby bit only one tries to force others to conform to their view. The gay marriage referendum is a great example as I mentioned earlier.

One side lobbied for choice which would apply to everyone. The other side wanted nobody to have a choice and instead impose their religious rules on the whole state.

You don't have to engage in the discussion, but please at least acknowledged that you understand the difference.

frag420

steamengine wrote: »

I'm not discussing gay marriage per se, so for the third time I'm discussing lobbying or campaigning on any issue by believers or non-believers or their representative groups as being a normal part of the democratic process. Keep missing the point if you wish.

Allow me to try and explain this to you very simply, Ive just called my sister and tried to explain it to my seven year old niece and she got it so here goes........

Yes both sides are lobbying.

One side is lobbying to tell people to fill in the census correctly, to think about their answers before they tick the box, in particular what religion one is! They are not telling people what to answer but to tink about it before they do. IE if you are not a Catholic then dont put down that you are because you made your communion in the 80's but have not stepped inside a church since.

The other side (the Church) is lobbying to push their beliefs on the rest of the country including those that are not members of the(ir) church!

Can you see the difference now?

As my niece said to me "what fool could not understand that, now more importantly when are you taking me for ice cream uncle lala?"

steamengine

frag420 wrote: »

Allow me to try and explain this to you very simply, Ive just called my sister and tried to explain it to my seven year old niece and she got it so here goes........

Yes both sides are lobbying.

One side is lobbying to tell people to fill in the census correctly, to think about their answers before they tick the box, in particular what religion one is! They are not telling people what to answer but to tink about it before they do. IE if you are not a Catholic then dont put down that you are because you made your communion in the 80's but have not stepped inside a church since.

The other side (the Church) is lobbying to push their beliefs on the rest of the country including those that are not members of the(ir) church!

Can you see the difference now?

As my niece said to me "what fool could not understand that, now more importantly when are you taking me for ice cream uncle lala?"

Dig deep now and buy that bright little niece of yours a '99' :cool:

frag420

steamengine wrote: »

Dig deep now and buy that bright little niece of yours a '99' :cool:

So can we take from that reply that my 7 yr old niece gets it and yet you still struggle with it?

What can we do to help you with understanding this? Should I ask my niece to help you with it?

steamengine

frag420 wrote: »

Unless God and my mom got together back in the day then he has nothing to do with my creation, it was down to a cold February night and my parents feeling somewhat amorous that created me!

I know there is a lot of talking of the coming of our Lord but it didn't create me!!

frag420 wrote: »

So can we take from that reply that my 7 yr old niece gets it and yet you still struggle with it?

What can we do to help you with understanding this? Should I ask my niece to help you with it?

I do struggle with some of your posts, what did you mean by this line ?

El_Duderino 09

steamengine wrote:

I do struggle with some of your posts, what did you mean by this line ?

Evidently. Some religions thrive on their members inability to comprehend. Not you're religion, I'm quite sure.

The poster was using a pun to illustrate their point in a light hearted way. Think really hard about it, see if it comes to you.

robdonn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Think really hard about it, see if it comes to you.

Teeheehee...

indioblack

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

As I said earlier thank you for your question. People like you force me to think and I'm a man who likes to think things through.

If I was considering the relative badness of the murderer versus the family I will agree with you that the murderer doesn't deserve to go to heaven. If the family are the benchmark that the man is compared against then I agree with you. He doesn't deserve to go to heaven as much as the family. However the truth is that neither of them deserve to be there of their own account. I don't deserve it at all. That's why it is called grace. Grace simply put is the unmerited favour of God. Nobody deserves it (Romans 3:23).

The Bible is clear that we all will stand at the judgement seat of the Lord Jesus. It is also clear that of our own standard we are fully guilty and we are without excuse. If the murderer repented and put his trust in the Lord Jesus then he is a new creation. God is transforming him into something new. Jesus paid for his account in full. The issue is in the relationship between us and God. Repentance also means sorting out relational issues with others and it most certainly means being subject to the rulers and authorities. It would mean turning yourself in. It would mean turning away from what you used to do.

I really don't like thought experiments like this because it abstracts me away from real lives. I long that everyone would do the right thing and turn and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ before it is too late because I want people to know the love that God has for them and I long for all to see that the Christian life is much better than living for ourselves now. But if you reject Jesus His warning is repent or you will likewise perish. I can't tone that down because I can't compromise the truth.



Let me know if I missed anything in your question. I want to answer it well and properly and I don't want to be evasive.

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

I read timberssss hypothetical scenario yesterday evening and, from a Christian perspective, it was obvious what the answer would be.
The murderer had repented, [presumably of all his sins, including murder].
The parents had not repented of whatever shortcomings they were guilty of at the time of their deaths.
They may have been more worthy people than the murderer in the whole of their lives - but that's irrelevant in this context.
He get's judged on his repentance, they on their lack of same.
The children have no opportunity to live, to be good and bad, [the human condition], so I'm not sure on what basis they will be judged.
Hypothetical scenarios may be awkward - sometimes limiting and lacking the myriad of detail that is a human life - but this is belief, a subjective matter.
There is something unsettling and incomplete about all of this.
Of course the murderer should be judged - on the whole of his life - taking into account his changed heart and repentance of course - but that isn't the entirety of him, it's not all that he was as he lived here.
The parents may also be judged by the same logic - not simply because death deprived them of the opportunity to, who knows, follow the same redemptive path as their killer.
How will the children be judged? The adults at least were able to reach a stage in their lives where they had, [hopefully], the intellectual ability to make choices between right and wrong - not forgetting that huge grey area in between.
The children , in this hypothetical case, never got that far.

frag420

steamengine wrote: »

I do struggle with some of your posts, what did you mean by this line ?

I would hazard a guess that you are struggling with the vast majority of posts that dont agree with your Christian outlook......

So the bold part was tongue in cheek, a joke if you will.

The second part was that you still dont seem to grasp what people are saying so I was doing the Christian(nice human) thing and offering help in understanding it........from a 7yr old who had no issues understanding it after about 30 seconds!

steamengine

frag420 wrote: »

I would hazard a guess that you are struggling with the vast majority of posts that dont agree with your Christian outlook......

So the bold part was tongue in cheek, a joke if you will.

The second part was that you still dont seem to grasp what people are saying so I was doing the Christian(nice human) thing and offering help in understanding it........from a 7yr old who had no issues understanding it after about 30 seconds!

Please explain it, not much pointing in explaining one post and not the other - what's the problem ???

marienbad

steamengine wrote: »

Please explain it, not much pointing in explaining one post and not the other - what's the problem ???

I think asking responders to be accurate in a survey is simply common sense and not lobbying .

frag420

steamengine wrote: »

Please explain it, not much pointing in explaining one post and not the other - what's the problem ???

Its a bit risqué..........dont want to upset those with a delicate Christian disposition!

steamengine

frag420 wrote: »

Its a bit risqué..........dont want to upset those with a delicate Christian disposition!

I wouldn't let that stop you, there are not that many Christian posters in here any longer for some unknown reason.

robdonn

steamengine wrote: »

I wouldn't let that stop you, there are not that many Christian posters in here any longer for some unknown reason.

Christianity forum attendance starting to reflect church attendance?

El_Duderino 09

robdonn wrote:

Christianity forum attendance starting to reflect church attendance?

But not census form ticks!