Interesting thought I had.

soulsinging

deadnothingbetter wrote:

well, you're certainly not understanding me yea even though through your emphatic empirical research. hey but listen we will all keep sinning. all of us, even me. even billy graham. but that's not the point. your argument is against the teaching that salvation is accomplished through Jesus Christ which i totally respect. i mean again we all have our beliefs. i'm only sharing mine because you guys keep asking me. so even though my perception is through the eyes of the bible yours is through a mundaine outlook of vain human understanding. so while you're only trying to justify yourself in regards to the afterlife go right ahead. it's your call. if you're trying to change my beliefs, it's not going to happen. just like i can't change yours. but if you want to ask me and know these things i'll be glad to answer. so blind or whatnot... what's the difference? they're beliefs just like yours.

our argument is that you cannot claim that god's love is unconditional and then say that salvation is only achieved through jesus, becos that is a per se condition of god's love.

deadnothingbetter

soulsinging wrote:

our argument is that you cannot claim that god's love is unconditional and then say that salvation is only achieved through jesus, becos that is a per se condition of god's love.

the fact that Jesus was sent to die on the cross is reason enough to suspect that his love is unconditional. even though we deny him and shun his ideas or teachings the opportunity is still there. how much more conditional can that get? because you believe God is sending you to hell for not believing in him? when in the first place Christ came to completely avoid the possibilities of us going there. but somewhere along the way the original purpose was distorted and completely misunderstood. I interpret this as simply finding reasons to argue the ideas of Christ and his salvation away.

soulsinging

deadnothingbetter wrote:

this makes complete sense. and wow have i not heard a theological response as reasonable as this. thank you because this clears a lot for me.

i would like to believe the same. it makes complete sense. i mean, he's god. but then again realizing what sin is really, it is the oppossitte of life. sin can't exist in heaven. that is it's nature. sin is like a false identity. something that we humans shouldn't be. so while God can do anything he can't interfere in our choices either. if we don't believe in God or heaven and hell how then is he going to get us there? by force? well even if he would we would die. see nature is like a representation of the spiritual things. in nature when our bodies are not acostumed to different climates or viruses we are not immune to it. we would then get sick and if not tended to, eventually not survive. the same with the spiritual things our souls are not acostumed to different spiritual climate changes. as in the days of Moses, when he walked up to the mountain to speak with God he was only allowed to see the back of God because God's glory was to powerful for Moses to contain. so that would mean if Moses would have seen the face of God he would've died. why? because of Moses' sinful nature. so this legitimizes the purpose for Jesus and his plan to redeem humanity. because the idea of God was very hostile and strange to us Christ came to be a representation of him. He came to bring us to the knowledge and understanding of God. No one cannot understand or see God if not through Jesus Christ.

i think that's a pretty tenuous argument. god can interfere with our choices, he simply chooses not to. i still do not see the necessity of jesus. when we die, god could simply absolve our sin at the pearly gates if he wanted. or simply judge us based on our merits and pardon based on that. there is no need for jesus to forgive sins. at best, i could concede that jesus was divinely inspired to better explain god's nature and wash away some of the old nonsense surrounding him. but i still cannot reconcile us NEEDING jesus to get to heaven. you can argue that jesus and god are the same, but that changes nothing, becos you are still simply talking about god clarifying his message. if you arrive at this clearer understanding of god through hinduism instead of christianity, i do not see how god would somehow be unable to simply make you worthy of seeing him completely of his own volition. jesus is still just one of many possible avenues to understanding god. or even if you say he offers the only RIGHT way to understanding god, i still do not see how a hindu who strove for that understanding could not simply be pardoned by god at the pearly gates and totally absolved and shown the truth.

the idea of a god that needs jesus to forgive sins seems totally backwards to me.

soulsinging

deadnothingbetter wrote:

I understand and I'm explaining this very clearly how God's love is unconditional but for whatever reasons that don't make sense to me I cannot seem to explain it effectively. You're saying that clearly it is not. I have not found enough reason to understand why it's not. I've given reasons to show that it is, although it be few.

Your perspective is that God wants you to worship him and him alone and if not you are going to hell. But although that maybe your perspective it is not the teachngs the Bible gives us.

that's a contradiction. you say you can only get to heaven through jesus, but you don't need to worship jesus to get to heaven. which is it?

soulsinging

deadnothingbetter wrote:

the fact that Jesus was sent to die on the cross is reason enough to suspect that his love is unconditional. even though we deny him and shun his ideas or teachings the opportunity is still there. how much more conditional can that get? because you believe God is sending you to hell for not believing in him? when in the first place Christ came to completely avoid the possibilities of us going there. but somewhere along the way the original purpose was distorted and completely misunderstood. I interpret this as simply finding reasons to argue the ideas of Christ and his salvation away.

im not sure i understand whatever point you're trying to make here. this all operates on the assumption that you already accept jesus divinity. and this is still conditional. anytime you offer only one way to a specific result, it is a condition. if jesus is the only way into heaven, then that is conditional. your entry into heaven is conditioned upon your belief that jesus was a god.

deadnothingbetter

soulsinging wrote:

im not sure i understand whatever point you're trying to make here. this all operates on the assumption that you already accept jesus divinity. and this is still conditional. anytime you offer only one way to a specific result, it is a condition. if jesus is the only way into heaven, then that is conditional. your entry into heaven is conditioned upon your belief that jesus was a god.

so are we talking about entering into heaven unconditionally? or are we talking about unconditional love?

catefrances

PJammin' wrote:

yeah, lets talk; but it seems that I'M the one who's doing most of the talking. you don't even put your OWN beliefs out on the line. i don't even KNOW how you explain the creation and so forth. at least soulsinging gave me his views, and i appreciated him taking the time to do that. you, on the other hand, come in here and there and make your little comments and that's the extent of it.

i have nothing to say about my 'beliefs'. within the definition of beliefs i have none. i neither have faith in any doctrine nor am i firmly pursuaded by any.

PJammin' wrote:

you fail to understand the scriptures, cate. Jesus and The Father are ONE. the gentlemen who quoted you first gave you a respectable answer. if God would show Himself to you He would blow your mortal body away.

i fail to understand the scriptures? fancy that. were jesus and God ONE while jesus was on earth. or did he only become so after his ascension into heaven?

PJammin' wrote:

yes, it's pride AND arrogance. that's the thing, you have that love for YOUR children. do you have that same love for another child? i doubt it. you don't have the perfect love of God. God loves your neighbor's children just as much as YOUR children. i bet you don't love your neighbors children as much as your own.

i don't need to love my neighbour's children. according to you WE are ALL God's children, therefore yes he must love us all. I have only to love my own children just like God does.

PJammin' wrote:

ultimately, they are God's children. you don't even know how they were formed in your womb. God blessed you with them and you're their caretaker on this earth. but you don't believe that, so what can i say.

no. they are MY children. but ultimately they are THEIR OWN children. however, i do ask for their respect. but i love them regardless. i will not turn my back on them and deny them entry into MY kingdom while they are alive.

PJammin' wrote:

i agree with that. you control your own life, don't you????? believe in what you want. although, you don't even know where you came from or where your going. you're a gutsy girl.

i came from my parents and they came from theirs and so on it goes. where i am going is into old age to watch my children and grandchildren grow. to be content in my life with my partner. i doubt it will be all smooth sailing, life never is. but once my life has ended all that will remain of me are memories. and my descendants. i have one life. this life. there is no afterlife. this is not something i waiver on.

Pjammin' wrote:

you SHOULD take responsibility, they're YOUR choices. also, take my words how you want, i'm sharing my faith on this board. you can do the same, but you choose not to. finally, God can be intangible to you, and He can remain that way, but i personally wouldn't be surprised if He brings you down to your knees in your life. time will tell. much love, cate.

i have been down on my knees during my life. but it was not to pray or seek guidance from on high. it was metaphorical. i have had death in my life. i have had sickness. i have had great joy in my life. all these things will repeat themselves for the remainder of my life. time will tell.

PJammin'

soulsinging wrote:

our argument is that you cannot claim that god's love is unconditional and then say that salvation is only achieved through jesus, becos that is a per se condition of god's love.

i'll say it before and i'll say it again. God IS love. there wouldn't even be love in the first place without God. also, God's love IS unconditional. the problem is if you're denying Jesus and also living in sin, you're following the devil, you're NOT God's child anymore. God is free from you because, you see, YOU'RE NOT HIS. you're a child of the devil; and if you're a child of the devil, you'll take residence in hell with your parent, the devil. really, it's simple.

catefrances

PJammin' wrote:

i'll say it before and i'll say it again. God IS love. there wouldn't even be love in the first place without God. also, God's love IS unconditional. the problem is if you're denying Jesus and also living in sin, you're following the devil, you're NOT God's child anymore. God is free from you because, you see, YOU'RE NOT HIS. you're a child of the devil; and if you're a child of the devil, you'll take residence in hell with your parent, the devil. really, it's simple.

you do realise that when one does not believe in God they do not believe in the devil, right?

deadnothingbetter

soulsinging wrote:

i think that's a pretty tenuous argument. god can interfere with our choices, he simply chooses not to. i still do not see the necessity of jesus. when we die, god could simply absolve our sin at the pearly gates if he wanted. or simply judge us based on our merits and pardon based on that. there is no need for jesus to forgive sins. at best, i could concede that jesus was divinely inspired to better explain god's nature and wash away some of the old nonsense surrounding him. but i still cannot reconcile us NEEDING jesus to get to heaven. you can argue that jesus and god are the same, but that changes nothing, becos you are still simply talking about god clarifying his message. if you arrive at this clearer understanding of god through hinduism instead of christianity, i do not see how god would somehow be unable to simply make you worthy of seeing him completely of his own volition. jesus is still just one of many possible avenues to understanding god. or even if you say he offers the only RIGHT way to understanding god, i still do not see how a hindu who strove for that understanding could not simply be pardoned by god at the pearly gates and totally absolved and shown the truth.

the idea of a god that needs jesus to forgive sins seems totally backwards to me.

i'm sorry but that's the way it is. at least for the bible that's the way it is, i mean, deny it all you want. but see in the garden of eden when man sinned we gave our powers to the devil. so the devil had taken control of our minds and ultimately our lives. God couldn't take it back because there had to be a ransom. again the wages of sin is death. we had to die. that's the way it was going to be. because that is the nature of sin, it vanishes. it is destined to nonexistence. God couldn't absolve sin and make it disappear because our minds didn't allow him to. so it was important that a man had to accomplish a perfect life to bring man back to it's primary purpose. the deaht of Christ is very important in a christian life because it was the only way to rescue us from death. Yes God would've been able to take sin. Like in the case when God banished adam and eve from the garden he said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. HE MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO REACH OUT HIS HAND AND TAKE ALSO FROM THE TREE OF LIFE AND EAT, AND LIVE FOREVER."23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden..." which means that if he would've stayed there he would've lived forever but would not have access to God's glory. in the same way if God were to absolve our sins right here and now, which he can, we still wouldn't receive God's purpose for us to share in his glory. This would mean that we would live forever but would still be held captives to the devil.

PJammin'

catefrances wrote:

you do realise that when one does not believe in God they do not believe in the devil, right?

of course i realize that. if you don't believe in God, then you can't believe in His adversary the devil. yes, i understand that.

PJammin'

catefrances wrote:

you do realise that when one does not believe in God they do not believe in the devil, right?

i wanted to add one more thing. just because you don't believe in either one doesn't mean they don't ACTUALLY exist. YOU could be the one really living in a fairytale.

deadnothingbetter

soulsinging wrote:

that's a contradiction. you say you can only get to heaven through jesus, but you don't need to worship jesus to get to heaven. which is it?

now here you are misunderstanding me. first of all, believing in Christ accomplishes your act of worship. now secondly and most importantly i was making reference to humanity's misunderstnading of the scriptures. but i've explained this so many times and yet no one has been able to explain how God's love is conditional. it's like your saying God's love is conditional because it is.

God loves us undoubtedly because we are his creation. So in that case he has prepared so many means for us to defeat death, becuase death is an unatural course that we have taken.

catefrances

PJammin' wrote:

of course i realize that. if you don't believe in God, then you can't believe in His adversary the devil. yes, i understand that.

so therefore i ain't going to Hell.



but you know alll this toing and froing is ridiculous. i understand that you believe in God and all that comes with that. for you that is the way to go. for me however it is not. i shall step back now because ramming my thoughts down people's throats when there clearly is no absolute universal truth seems a waste of all our time.

deadnothingbetter

catefrances wrote:

so therefore i ain't going to Hell.



but you know alll this toing and froing is ridiculous. i understand that you believe in God and all that comes with that. for you that is the way to go. for me however it is not. i shall step back now because ramming my thoughts down people's throats when there clearly is no absolute universal truth seems a waste of all our time.

you're absolutely right. it baffles me at how people try to argue my beliefs and try to show me how my beliefs are wrong. but in the event that people are asking questions i'll be sure to answer.

catefrances

PJammin' wrote:

i wanted to add one more thing. just because you don't believe in either one doesn't mean they don't ACTUALLY exist. YOU could be the one really living in a fairytale.

so long as i get to have a dragon, i'll be sweet.

PJammin'

catefrances wrote:

so therefore i ain't going to Hell.



but you know alll this toing and froing is ridiculous. i understand that you believe in God and all that comes with that. for you that is the way to go. for me however it is not. i shall step back now because ramming my thoughts down people's throats when there clearly is no absolute universal truth seems a waste of all our time.

i understand that, but others might feel it's beneficial to read some of these posts, especially if they want to look more into the Bible. i'm not forcing anyone to believe in Christ. the original thread starter posed a question and it still seems to be a hot subject on the moving train. although, something tells me that we won't come to ONE harmonious answer to his initial question.

PJammin'

catefrances wrote:

so long as i get to have a dragon, i'll be sweet.

"It's okay, do you want some more?"
I said, "Yeh,..."
"You'll see dragons after 3 or 4...
I said, "Yeh,..."


:eek:...:o...:)...:p...:D

catefrances

PJammin' wrote:

i understand that. i'm not forcing anyone to believe in Christ. the original thread starter posed a question and it still seems to be a hot subject on the moving train. something tells me that we won't come to ONE harmonious answer to his initial question.

ah yes the mocking of homosexuals and religion. guess i should answer it then.
religion is an institution. homsexuality is a personal thing. when you mock or attack homosexuality you are attacking the individual in my opinion. an institution can withstand the pettiness of being mocked.

catefrances

PJammin' wrote:

"It's okay, do you want some more?"
I said, "Yeh,..."
"You'll see dragons after 3 or 4...
I said, "Yeh,..."


:eek:...:o...:)...:p...:D

no no i want a real dragon.