[Wondergirl]

"guilty before God" but don't know that, have never been told that....

[jlisenbe]

"guilty before God" but don't know that, have never been told that....

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." What did you think that meant?

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all."

"Transgressions". "Iniquities". What are those?

I would suggest you read the first three chapters of Romans.

[Wondergirl]

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." What did you think that meant?

It doesn't mean damnation.

I suggest you read Hebrews 11.

[jlisenbe]

It doesn't mean damnation.

No, but Rev. 20 did.

I suggest you read Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11 is the "hall of faith" chapter. It speaks of those who found favor with God by their faith. And Jesus said, in the John passages above, that it is faith in Him that delivers from sin. So what is your point?

[Athos]

Just about everything you write is wrong! I will address it point by point. Read carefully.

Athos: I am not a member of the John Birch Society.So you have a problem with those who are anticommunist?

I do not have a problem with anti-communists. I never said I did. You are making stuff up again. We're off to a bad start.

You obviously have a problem with the word of God, when that word comes from Christians.

You OBVIOUSLY cannot read! Never did I say I had a problem with the word of God - whether from Christian or from Muslim. Please, please, please - READ!!!!!!

Republicans have no Muslim Congressmen or Senators but Democrats have three that I know of. Republicans have no communist/socialists in their ranks but Democrats have at least two that I know about.

Name the communist who is a Dem Senator. What is wrong with Muslims in Congress? Are you familiar with US Law and how it applies to Congressional membership? I asked you what you think socialism is, but you didn't answer. Unfortunately, people like you only use the word "socialism" as a trigger word for your friends. You wouldn't know socialism if it bit you in the arse. Your objection to Muslim Congresspeople tells me you are not a convinced American. Go back to your history books.

Oh, to your charge: Republicans have no Nazis or right wing extremist in their party

Your comment was about SUPPORT to the parties!!!!! Domestic terrorism is almost exclusively white male supremacists. Can you read a paper, watch a news program? These neo-Nazis, and Klansmen, and anti-semites and fascists support the RIGHT wing!! Do you deny it?

Communists killed 38,000 Americans in the Korean Conflict and 58,000 Americans in the Vietnam Conflict....that is 96,000 Americans killed by Bolsheviks but yet you say we should not worry about that and concentrate on the number of Americans killed by Christians because Christians killed more Americans than did communists? What in the name of God are you talking about?

Yes, I know, but you don't. Add up the American Revolution (British Christians), War of 1812 (same), Mexico, Civil War, Spanish-American War WW1, WW2 to start. The American dead killed by Christians dwarf those killed in your example. Do you deny it?

Do you even know? Oh, and by the way: ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE....there is no such thing as a Christian that doesn't believe in the Bible! Obviously, you missed this one....you don't know much about the Bible, do you?

V7 - I'm sorry but you're really coming across as a moron. Sorry for the label, but you invite it. You say things on impulse without a scintilla of knowing what you are talking about. I'm reaching a limit with you unless there's some marked improvement.

And, then, there are the Muslims: You labeled me....I didn't label you and I WILL NOT EVER LABEL YOU.....I just don't do that. ,<You just did it above> Why are those on the left so quick to label? You label me as a Religious Bigot because I point out the discrepancies that exist between the Right and the left in terms of who is embracing Muslims more than they are embracing Christians...that makes me a Religious Bigot,

Yes, you are a religious bigot because you believe it necessary to point out who is Muslim and who is Christian - the Muslims out to destroy America. That's religious bigotry - as bigoted as it gets.

what I am doing is demonstrating that Democrats have, in their ranks, members of a religion that has DECLARED WAR ON THE UNITED STATES AT HOME AND AROUND THE WORLD...

I can almost see the spittle coming out of your mouth. You're hopeless.

and that is not an exaggeration, at all. Do you remember 911? It wasn't committed by Christians, was it? Terrorism is owned by this religion, try and dispute that and you will look mortally silly......that religion owns 98-99% of world terrorism....dispute it, if you can but I know its undisputable.

It's INdisputable, not UN. When I post on these pages, I assume my "opponent" uses a modicum of logic. You don't even have that. If we blame Muslims for all members of their religion, do we blame Catholic or Protestant or Jewish offenders (pick your offense) for their religions?

.but I have problems with radicals of this religion

Ah, progress. Not ALL Muslims, just the radicals. Good

we are secular n terms of government and the same rules apply to all religions, not just Christians. The left wishes to exclude Christians while embracing other religions

V7 - That's an out and out lie. I can put up with your ignorance, but you cross the line when you try to lie your way through a discussion. SHAME!

And it is a DICHOTOMY between you and the left on these issues

You still don't know what DICHOTOMY means. You had a chance to look it up, but you couldn't even do that.

: You and the left talk about freedoms but yet are perfectly willing to deny those same freedoms to those who do not believe as the left does.

More unsubstantiated charges.

You tried desperately to make jlisenbe look like a fool, saying no scriptures existed that says you will burn in hell for eternity if you die not believing in God...you are clearly wrong!

He made himself look like a fool (your words) - I don't necessarily think that. He believes erroneously, that's all. Now that you are on his punishment/hell team, check his post today. Not one quote proves his point. But that's another thread.

...When it comes to the scriptures, God said it and that is that!....and it doesn't matter if you believe it or not but be aware that the payment for not believing is eternal damnation.

Why, oh why, do you fundies ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS close out with a threat?

[jlisenbe]

There is a difference between a threat and a warning. Anger threatens. Love warns.

[Wondergirl]

There is a difference between a threat and a warning. Anger threatens. Love warns.

Where's the love? I see only anger and threats.

[Vacuum7]

Athos: You are an excellent counterpuncher, my hat is off to you! I can only hope to be as polished as you are at this, one day!

Make no doubt about it: The Democrat Party has sketchy relationships with a lot of sketchy people and groups....The Republicans, not so much. In their past, and the past predicts the future, most of the time, the Democrats have accepted campaign money from the Chicoms, point in fact, going into Bill Clinton funds....this is shear treachery.

The scriptures that jlisenbe stated come from the Bible, there can be no doubt about that.....they may not be the words you wish to hear, they may not fit the narrative you hope to fill, but they are from the Bible and they are clear in their meanings. These are hard, heavy words stated in the Bible but there can only be one true interpretation. So if you disagree with the words from those scriptures, you are disagreeing with the word of God, by definition.

Klansmen in the Republican Party? I am from the South and have some news for you: The Democrat Party IS THE PARTY OF THE KLAN! The real hard assed racists I know are Democrats...I know this at a level you never will. What you see running around, pretending to be Klansmen: they aren't Klansmen, they are weirdos...Klan wouldn't have them.....the Klan is a secret society, they don't "expose" themselves....and they are dreadfully evil people.

I am not trying to trigger anyone: Bernie Sanders is a communist....an old Bolshevik, to be more exact.....he has flirted with "romantic communism" his whole life....he is one of those who thinks Che Guevera was a superhero......hell, he took one of his honeymoons to Soviet Russia while we were in a "Cold War" state with Russia...do you think that was because he anticommunist? No, he is in league with communism: Scratch a socialist hard enough and you find a communist underneath...Remember the acronym U.S.S.R.? Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics......socialist = communist.

And why do you identify NAZIs as Republicans, they cannot be Republicans: Nazi stands for National Socialist...ke word here is SOCIALIST.....so you think SOCIALISM IS OF THE RIGHT? I thought you said I wouldn't know Socialism if it bit me in the : You might need to look in the mirror on this one!

Radical Muslims do not have American values, we know that......but the jury is still out about the capacity of Muslims to assimilate. Like I said, those that are U.S. Citizens and have adopted to American way of life are fine. But those radical Muslims in the Democrat Party are in no way representative of the American way of life.....in fact, they poorly represent their own religion: Remember Keith Ellison beat the hell out of woman (a no, no!).

In the end, though, we are talking about historical fact, not conjecture: The danger exists in any situation where we have to "watch" people because we can't be 100% sure where their allegiances reside.....this is a big, big problem. There can be no denying: 911 was committed by those proclaiming to be Muslims, radical as they were.....and these acts certainly were not committed by Christians. The Democrats, not the Republicans, have an association with Muslims.....only they can reconcile that relationship and have a clean conscious. I don't have a problem because I am neither Democrat nor Republican.

O.K., so you are going to count the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, The Spanish American War, WWi, WW2, all of that as Christians killing more Americans? I guess you could be right.....but who were the Christians in WWII that were killing Americans? Are you saying the Nazis were Christians? All of this doesn't get the Democrats off the hook: They are "closer" to communists than are the Republicans: Its the "Number Line Of Politics" where the extremities define the sides, and the Democrats are decidedly to the "left" of the origin......and the Republicans are on the right of the origin!

You are wanting to say that every crazy joker that shoots up a place is a domestic terrorist because that gives you some sort of "balance" to leverage against Islamic terrorists? NO! That scale is still weighing heavily in favor of the Islamic terrorists. And, then, you are wanting to say these "domestic terrorists" are all Right Wing? NO! What about the Ohio shooting? What about the Dallas Police Ambush (Black left wing perpetrator)? There are loads more that were just crazy bastards having no affiliation politically.

[Athos]

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.

John 8:24 Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.

Rev. 20:11ff Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

I would guess you do not dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. For those who do not have faith, what do you think happens to them?

None of your citations meet all the requirements - punishment, hell, eternity, unbelief. Some have some, none all.

As for Revelation, the language is so obviously poetic/dramatic/mythical/fantastic, who could possibly take it as literal? Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome. However, your right to believe what you want is your right.

Of course, I dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. How could people who never heard of Christ have faith in him? How about people who lived 5,000 years before Christ?

I have no idea what happens to them. Neither do you. I hope we all lead decent lives. Life after death will always be a mystery in the here and now. We may hope as we will.

[jlisenbe]

None of your citations meet all the requirements - punishment, hell, eternity, unbelief. Some have some, none all.

The "requirements" are yours and yours alone. They are silly and designed to appear clever, but serve no useful purpose.

As for Revelation, the language is so obviously poetic/dramatic/mythical/fantastic, who could possibly take it as literal? Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome. However, your right to believe what you want is your right.

You won't take it literally because you don't like the message. As to readers of that time, how do you know how they saw it?

Of course, I dispute the necessity of faith in Christ. How could people who never heard of Christ have faith in him? How about people who lived 5,000 years before Christ?

Then you disbelieve the Bible. Now that's your prerogative for sure, but then one wonders what you base your beliefs on.

Where's the love? I see only anger and threats.

When one sees a day of judgement coming, then love would prompt that person to warn others.

[Athos]

The "requirements" are yours and yours alone. They are silly and designed to appear clever, but serve no useful purpose.

No, the requirements are yours. I got them from you. What's silly about them? Do you now deny they are what you believe? "Designed to appear clever" ?? "Serve no useful purpose"?? They're hardly clever or useful. I have no idea why you should think so.

You won't take it literally because you don't like the message.

Frankly, Revelation is like a comic book - something out of someone's imagination. But that's not the issue here. Believe it if you must.

As to readers of that time, how do you know how they saw it?

Because they included it in the Bible.

Then you disbelieve the Bible.

Not believing in Revelation does not mean I disbelieve in the Bible. I understand why you say that. That will make you feel that you are correct.

Now that's your prerogative for sure

Thanks.

but then one wonders what you base your beliefs on.

As far as the Bible, I base my belief on the brain God gave me to discern literal truth from allegorical truth. It's not new - been done for two thousand years. You should try it.

When one sees a day of judgement coming, then love would prompt that person to warn others.

When is your day of judgement coming? Seems somebody here had a similar prediction and he swore up and down he was right. He was wrong. The predicted day came and he left, never to be seen here again. What date do you have in mind? It will be a good test of your belief.


Finally, do you now hold that unbelievers do NOT go to hell for eternal punishment?

[jlisenbe]

I am referring to the requirements you listed months ago. I haven't listed any requirements.

I was asking how you could know that, "Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome." How do you know how people in John's time saw the book of Revelation?

As to the day of judgement, Jesus said this. "“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." As to someone predicting a date, I haven't seen that on this board, but certainly it has been done all too frequently, and millions of books have been sold on that basis.


Yes, we must use our minds to make sense of what we read, and some Bible passages are clearly figurative, but you must have good reason to look at it that way. The general rule of thumb is to take a passage literally unless there is a compelling reason not to, and thinking that the passage does damage to some cherished belief or makes one uncomfortable is not sufficient.. I don't know of any compelling reason not to take the 20th chapter literally. Also, I don't know of anyone other than you who considers the book of Revelation to be some sort of cryptic reference to Rome. There are some references to Babylon that could mean Rome, but to suggest the entire book is a reference to Rome is questionable. That wouldn't really make any sense. The great white throne of judgement description is pretty hard to simply pass off as figurative language. It would be figurative of what???

I believe as I have for years. I believe that only those with faith in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus are in right standing with God and will not face judgement on that day. It is a very plain teaching of scripture. Those who do not have faith will be judged as they are still in their sins. They will spend eternity in hell. Now is it possible for a person to be trusting in the mercy of God and have a faith in Jesus though they have not heard of Him? I think it's possible. I look to the story of the pharisee and tax collector in prayer to be able to say that. The tax collector, Jesus said, prayed, "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner." Jesus said the man went away justified, so it might be that those who sincerely seek God's mercy will be accepted even if they have not heard of Jesus. That's not, however, a widely accepted point of view. But the Bible is very clear that one cannot be saved by following other gods.

It is also possible to take the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 to show how God responds to those who are genuinely seeking the God of the Bible but do not know about Jesus.

[Athos]

"Even then, readers saw it as symbolic referring to Rome." How do you know how people in John's time saw the book of Revelation?

Contemporary evidence. One example - coinage from 71AD. Many others. Look it up.

As to someone predicting a date, I haven't seen that on this board,

This board has been around long before you arrived.

I don't know of anyone other than you who considers the book of Revelation to be some sort of cryptic reference to Rome.

Babylon as Rome was the original common understanding. You could look it up.

The great white throne of judgement description is pretty hard to simply pass off as figurative language.

You gotta be kidding! A great white throne NOT figurative? It couldn't be anything else. Unless you think God sits up there on it.

Those who do not have faith will be judged as they are still in their sins. They will spend eternity in hell.

There you are! In black and white. Unbelievers (those who do not have faith) will spend eternity in hell. ALL THE REQUIREMENTS YOU DENIED HAVING!!!! I hope all those interested read this comment in your own words. Especially after you denied it so many times!

Now is it possible for a person to be trusting in the mercy of God and have a faith in Jesus though they have not heard of Him? I think it's possible.

Exactly how someone has faith in Jesus without having heard of him is a bit of a mystery. But I detect an attempt to walk back your original belief. Keep trying.

I look to the story of the pharisee and tax collector in prayer to be able to say that. The tax collector, Jesus said, prayed, "Lord, have mercy on me, the sinner." Jesus said the man went away justified, so it might be that those who sincerely seek God's mercy will be accepted even if they have not heard of Jesus.

Excellent example. I was holding that one for you, but you needed to be much more advanced in your belief before I brought it up. You surprised me, but I am glad for it. Now, can you go a step further? The Pharisee was a Jew. What about a Samaritan? A good one. Can you extend the idea to a Buddhist, a Hindu, and the ultimate test, an atheist?

But the Bible is very clear that one cannot be saved by following other gods.

We'll leave that for now.

It is also possible to take the story of Cornelius in Acts 10 to show how God responds to those who are genuinely seeking the God of the Bible but do not know about Jesus.

How God responds to people is not at issue here.

[jlisenbe]

Contemporary evidence. One example - coinage from 71AD. Many others. Look it up.

In other words, you have no idea. You really want us to believe that coinage from 71 A.D. shows us how people viewed the book of Revelation in 90 A.D.? Really?

I'm not going on one of your wild goose chases. If you have evidence, then fine. Post it here. Otherwise, admit that you have no idea how the Christian community in A.D. 90 viewed the book of Revelation.

Look, this is how it is supposed to work. Someone says, "How do you know that?" You can then respond with something like, "I read a quote from the Roman historian Tacitus (or whoever) in which he said blah, blah, blah," or you can simply say that you don't have a clue. But to be evasive with a comment about how someone needs to go out and look something up is really a poor response. Either put your cards on the table or get out of the game, but don't just make statements that you can't back up.

There you are! In black and white. Unbelievers (those who do not have faith) will spend eternity in hell. ALL THE REQUIREMENTS YOU DENIED HAVING!!!! I hope all those interested read this comment in your own words. Especially after you denied it so many times!

I have never denied it, and I don't recall posting any requirements. If I did, then post the quote. The only exception I am aware of, and I have said this before, is for children or for those who are mentally unable to be held accountable.

Exactly how someone has faith in Jesus without having heard of him is a bit of a mystery. But I detect an attempt to walk back your original belief. Keep trying.

No, I'm attempting to have a thoughtful conversation with someone who is interested in pursuing the truth. I don't think that describes you, but I hold out hope that I am wrong.

Excellent example. I was holding that one for you, but you needed to be much more advanced in your belief before I brought it up. You surprised me, but I am glad for it. Now, can you go a step further? The Pharisee was a Jew. What about a Samaritan? A good one. Can you extend the idea to a Buddhist, a Hindu, and the ultimate test, an atheist?

No, the idea cannot be extended to those who pursue false gods. In the story Jesus spoke, the man was praying to the God of Israel, not to one of the millions of Hindu gods. As to Cornelius, when he began to seek God, then God responded by sending the gospel message to him.

How God responds to people is not the issue? It is entirely the issue. How God responds to your sins and my sins is 100% the issue. That God will someday judge every person for sin is, in fact, the very heart of the issue. When we all stand before a completely holy God and have to give account for wrong acts, then it is going to be a day that is going to be terrible. Those who have faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ have nothing to fear. Those who trust in their own goodness have everything to fear.

The idea that you were holding onto something until the right time made me laugh. It is funny how you seem to view yourself as the great fount of knowledge.

[paraclete]

Look God responds to prayer whether in 90 AD or now. Revelation tells us something and we should be aware that this time is passing away. Now I don't expect to be around when the asteroids start falling, but if you read Revelation you get the message, time is short

[Vacuum7]

Paraclete: You nailed it! Time is short and we are on the end of a lightning bolt as far as our time here on earth. Rather than debate who is or who isn't going to go to hell, you need to get right with God! THERE IS ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER because there is only one God......God, in his Divine Wisdom, will sort all of this debate out and the one who is correct will go one way and the one who is wrong will go some place else. It is sufficient to say that the MAJORITY of those ever born, before, now, and into the future, WILL NOT GET TO GO FORWARD UNTO HEAVEN.

[Wondergirl]

It is sufficient to say that the MAJORITY of those ever born, before, now, and into the future, WILL NOT GET TO GO FORWARD UNTO HEAVEN.

What a depressing understanding of what the Bible really says! I weep!

[Vacuum7]

W.G.: I agree with you, it is extremely depressing......and very entirely preventable.

[Wondergirl]

W.G.: I agree with you, it is extremely depressing......and very entirely preventable.

YOUR inadequate understanding is what's depressing!

[Vacuum7]

W.G.: Everyone can not go to heaven.....there are prerequisites that must be met....this is no different than many other tenets of life.....You can't expect wacked-out, cultic believing souls will receive passage into heaven, do you. For instance, atheist can not go to heaven: Do you know how many Marxist there are in world? Millions, possibly billions and NONE OF THEM will receive passage into the kingdom of heaven: To be a Bolshevik means that you are an atheist and to be an atheist means you can not get into heaven. Anyone who has committed blasphemy will not go. It is straightforward and clear as it can be. God will have the final say so.....I know nothing but my own interpretation of the word of the Lord so, please, don't shoot the messenger!