|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 25, 2018 23:44:24 GMT
gadreel Hmmm, what is the best method of teaching people? The Bible is fine, it's the people that's the problem when they decide to contort its words to fit their want or reject it outright. Not the Bible's problem. Still, reading the Bible in and of itself was never the means to salvation. It always involved education and conforming to what is expected in order to gain what is hoped for as well as current enjoyment. So for the ignorant, the Bible isn't necessarily the key as much as the teaching is. Really, most of the Bible, if not all of it will not be taught after salvation anyway. Pardon me that was meant to say "BY" various people, meaning God could have sent many prophets. I find the bible fine as well, but a lot of people to not. There is also the translation issues where words are used that change meaning. I am in 100% agreement. Yeah I am much more of a gnostic than that, I believe others can lead you in the right direction through instruction or words (written or not), but that real understanding (and therefore salvation) comes from an internalised understanding, that is to say that you cannot be saved by agreeing to someone elses idea, you must come to the understanding in your own way. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 25, 2018 23:55:26 GMT
gadreelHe did, but prophets were ones that were educated toward true worship, so I'm not sure if you are saying people should have been magically drafted to increase the numbers. It doesn't matter what your views are. The understanding is not internalized unless you ignore the what the Bible says the avenues are. So back to what I thought was the original topic. Yes, it is possible to gain salvation starting out as an ignorant person (Not the same as a person who simply chooses their own path to understanding...), but the expectation would be that the ignorant person would gain proper knowledge or else salvation simply repeats what we've got now.
|
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 26, 2018 0:01:42 GMT
gadreel He did, but prophets were ones that were educated toward true worship, so I'm not sure if you are saying people should have been magically drafted to increase the numbers. It doesn't matter what your views are. The understanding is not internalized unless you ignore the what the Bible says the avenues are. So back to what I thought was the original topic. Yes, it is possible to gain salvation starting out as an ignorant person (Not the same as a person who simply chooses their own path to understanding...), but the expectation would be that the ignorant person would gain proper knowledge or else salvation simply repeats what we've got now. I meant by various people across cultures, like why not a prophet in 1st century China. The expectation that the person gains proper knowledge is fine, but it seems like a convoluted way to do it by having a 7 year tribulation, of course not everyone agrees that will happen either so there is that. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 26, 2018 0:18:29 GMT
gadreel He did, but prophets were ones that were educated toward true worship, so I'm not sure if you are saying people should have been magically drafted to increase the numbers. It doesn't matter what your views are. The understanding is not internalized unless you ignore the what the Bible says the avenues are. So back to what I thought was the original topic. Yes, it is possible to gain salvation starting out as an ignorant person (Not the same as a person who simply chooses their own path to understanding...), but the expectation would be that the ignorant person would gain proper knowledge or else salvation simply repeats what we've got now. I meant by various people across cultures, like why not a prophet in 1st century China. The expectation that the person gains proper knowledge is fine, but it seems like a convoluted way to do it by having a 7 year tribulation, of course not everyone agrees that will happen either so there is that. As I said before, any preacher would have to be educated in true knowledge about jesus and his role. The simple answer is there were no Chinese hanging around 1st century Jerusalem and China was not in the zone to radiate out the message within a century's time. Christianity was spreading basically where boats/trade would go and via the Roman highway system. Further, just like in any attempt to expand Christianity until the Catholic Church became entwined with politics, Christianity was never going to have a ton of adherent even as it grew exponentially and despite initial persecution. So just because people have heard of Christianity and have a basic concept of what it means, that doesn't mean they were ever going to the majority religion in any particular region. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 26, 2018 0:27:46 GMT
I meant by various people across cultures, like why not a prophet in 1st century China. The expectation that the person gains proper knowledge is fine, but it seems like a convoluted way to do it by having a 7 year tribulation, of course not everyone agrees that will happen either so there is that. As I said before, any preacher would have to be educated in true knowledge about jesus and his role. The simple answer is there were no Chinese hanging around 1st century Jerusalem and China was not in the zone to radiate out the message within a century's time. Christianity was spreading basically where boats/trade would go and via the Roman highway system. Further, just like in any attempt to expand Christianity until the Catholic Church became entwined with politics, Christianity was never going to have a ton of adherent even as it grew exponentially and despite initial persecution. So just because people have heard of Christianity and have a basic concept of what it means, that doesn't mean they were ever going to the majority religion in any particular region. wrong end of the stick, without the tribulation the vast majority of humanity would never be exposed to the teachings of Christianity and so would never be saved. But you have the doctrine of the tribulation, so in your view everyone ever born or who has ever lived will be exposed to Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 1:55:51 GMT
You DO realise that is like saying " I believe in the Bible/scriptures/gospel because it says to believe in it" Right? Circular reasoning. You could also call it faith,(and probably do) butt then why would you then want to discuss it rationally and interpret anything near a truth or a way of life No, what I do realize is that I am following scriptural mandate and quoting scripture and I was doing this with someone who claims to know a lot about the Bible. The Bible says these things, not I. When speaking with non-Christians? Sure. When speaking with Christians, it should be mutually agreed upon that the Bible is fact. Which is where I run into issues with Gadreel, who does not accept the validity of scripture. Which is why I am no longer allowing myself to be strung along with his foolishness. Yeah, so he claims, but the truth is that he is only interested in trying to confuse Christians. His arguments almost always end up contradicting scriptures. I wonder why that is. What is 'scriptural mandate' and I am not being disingenous. Surely if the scriptures are interpretable, there can BE no absolute mandate? NOT so...again if you can interpret it, it logically CAN'T be 'fact'. Just look at the arguments between your 'scriptural 'buddies' who are of different denominations. In fact MOST of the hard core Christians disagree on lots of stuff. Cody and the Catholics e'g and there used to be heaps of JW's on the Boards who almost came to computerised fisticuffs over this stuff! His 'foolishness' looks to me VERY much like a logical challenge which YOU can't or won't accept. WHAT? The scriptures very often contradict themselves and every denomination contradicts each other. Do you now what the most revealing two words you just posted are IMHO? 'Confusing Christians'. THERE you have the truth. This comment reveals that you are not up for a rigorous and knowledgeable discussion of scripture because you acknowledge deep down its inconsistencies and untruths and because YOU think you have it neatly wrapped up, you deeply resent an intelligent articulate person with a knowledge of the scriptures ruffling your personal feathers. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 26, 2018 2:13:24 GMT
As I said before, any preacher would have to be educated in true knowledge about jesus and his role. The simple answer is there were no Chinese hanging around 1st century Jerusalem and China was not in the zone to radiate out the message within a century's time. Christianity was spreading basically where boats/trade would go and via the Roman highway system. Further, just like in any attempt to expand Christianity until the Catholic Church became entwined with politics, Christianity was never going to have a ton of adherent even as it grew exponentially and despite initial persecution. So just because people have heard of Christianity and have a basic concept of what it means, that doesn't mean they were ever going to the majority religion in any particular region. wrong end of the stick, without the tribulation the vast majority of humanity would never be exposed to the teachings of Christianity and so would never be saved. But you have the doctrine of the tribulation, so in your view everyone ever born or who has ever lived will be exposed to Christianity. If you are discussing the great tribulation that occurs around Armageddon, that's not the same thing I'm discussing so it's probably not my doctrine. That tribulation does not teach them Christianity since it would be too late to learn it. Judgement is not based on knowing Christianity, but rejecting it through any number of ways. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 2:18:44 GMT
No, what I do realize is that I am following scriptural mandate and quoting scripture and I was doing this with someone who claims to know a lot about the Bible. The Bible says these things, not I. When speaking with non-Christians? Sure. When speaking with Christians, it should be mutually agreed upon that the Bible is fact. Which is where I run into issues with Gadreel, who does not accept the validity of scripture. Which is why I am no longer allowing myself to be strung along with his foolishness. Yeah, so he claims, but the truth is that he is only interested in trying to confuse Christians. His arguments almost always end up contradicting scriptures. I wonder why that is. What is 'scriptural mandate' and I am not being disingenous. Surely if the scriptures are interpretable, there can BE no absolute mandate? NOT so...again if you can interpret it, it logically CAN'T be 'fact'. Just look at the arguments between your 'scriptural 'buddies' who are of different denominations. In fact MOST of the hard core Christians disagree on lots of stuff. Cody and the Catholics e'g and there used to be heaps of JW's on the Boards who almost came to computerised fisticuffs over this stuff! His 'foolishness' looks to me VERY much like a logical challenge which YOU can't or won't accept. WHAT? The scriptures very often contradict themselves and every denomination contradicts each other. Do you now what the most revealing two words you just posted are IMHO? 'Confusing Christians'. THERE you have the truth. This comment reveals that you are not up for a rigorous and knowledgeable discussion of scripture because you acknowledge deep down its inconsistencies and untruths and because YOU think you have it neatly wrapped up, you deeply resent an intelligent articulate person with a knowledge of the scriptures ruffling your personal feathers. You're wrong, Goz. I simply don't like being lied to. Gadreel is an imposter and I won't waste any more time on him. As for me not being up for a rigorous and knowledgeable discussion of scripture, that's false too. I am always up for that. I'm just not up for someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be true carrying on a long-winded debate with me about the interpretations of something he doesn't even believe. I want you to think about that a moment. What would profit me to debate the interpretation of scripture with you, Goz? As a secondary question, why would you want to debate something like that with me since you don't believe? That's my whole point. This:
because you acknowledge deep down its inconsistencies and untruths and because YOU think you have it neatly wrapped upis a contradictory statement. Either I have it wrapped up or I acknowledge inconsistencies. Can't have it both ways. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have it neatly wrapped up. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 2:19:17 GMT
wrong end of the stick, without the tribulation the vast majority of humanity would never be exposed to the teachings of Christianity and so would never be saved. But you have the doctrine of the tribulation, so in your view everyone ever born or who has ever lived will be exposed to Christianity. If you are discussing the great tribulation that occurs around Armageddon, that's not the same thing I'm discussing so it's probably not my doctrine. That tribulation does not teach them Christianity since it would be too late to learn it. Judgement is not based on knowing Christianity, but rejecting it through any number of ways.This fascinating, what can you possibly mean? |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 26, 2018 2:24:15 GMT
wrong end of the stick, without the tribulation the vast majority of humanity would never be exposed to the teachings of Christianity and so would never be saved. But you have the doctrine of the tribulation, so in your view everyone ever born or who has ever lived will be exposed to Christianity. If you are discussing the great tribulation that occurs around Armageddon, that's not the same thing I'm discussing so it's probably not my doctrine. That tribulation does not teach them Christianity since it would be too late to learn it. Judgement is not based on knowing Christianity, but rejecting it through any number of ways. ahh for some reason ( I may have confused you with another poster) I thought you held that the time of the tribulation was when the people who had not been taken up had a chance to repent and become Christian and saved/. Just regards that last sentence, you therefore hold that if you have never heard of Christianity you wont be judged right? So what happens to those people? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 26, 2018 2:26:32 GMT
If you are discussing the great tribulation that occurs around Armageddon, that's not the same thing I'm discussing so it's probably not my doctrine. That tribulation does not teach them Christianity since it would be too late to learn it. Judgement is not based on knowing Christianity, but rejecting it through any number of ways.This fascinating, what can you possibly mean? The sentence is pretty self-explanatory isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 26, 2018 2:44:27 GMT
If you are discussing the great tribulation that occurs around Armageddon, that's not the same thing I'm discussing so it's probably not my doctrine. That tribulation does not teach them Christianity since it would be too late to learn it. Judgement is not based on knowing Christianity, but rejecting it through any number of ways. ahh for some reason ( I may have confused you with another poster) I thought you held that the time of the tribulation was when the people who had not been taken up had a chance to repent and become Christian and saved/. Just regards that last sentence, you therefore hold that if you have never heard of Christianity you wont be judged right? So what happens to those people? As I already stated, I've never stated my beliefs at all, so not sure what made you think I follow the rapture. I don't waste time thinking in detail about what salvation means anyway which is why I just leave it at eternal life. To be clear, I'm not stating anything regarding judgement since I'm not the one judging. For example, kids may not know anything about Jesus, but it seems they will suffer the same fate as their parents which makes sense. I am saying the Bible states that there are some that are unrighteous who are given the same opportunities as the righteous toward getting a reward. However, it also states that the only people actually achieving salvation are the righteous, meaning the unrighteous would need to become righteous or the unrighteous who stayed unrighteous croak.We have no idea what these unrighteous would consist of (To clarify a previous statement I made, it wouldn't be Bible characters in the OT since they were righteous if not aware of Jesus' purpose). Maybe they are people who are aware of Christianity but aren't allowed to worship like in the middle east by law. Maybe they are the entire Chinese population prior to Christianity making inroads there. Who knows and it would certainly be in the realm of possibility and especially if we are discussing resurrections anyway. Maybe it's 3 people. Who knows? Who cares? It doesn't matter since our view of the fairness of it doesn't matter. I'm just saying that that the Bible is nothing if not a guidebook for providing outs/solutions for wayward people. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 2:52:55 GMT
What is 'scriptural mandate' and I am not being disingenous. Surely if the scriptures are interpretable, there can BE no absolute mandate? NOT so...again if you can interpret it, it logically CAN'T be 'fact'. Just look at the arguments between your 'scriptural 'buddies' who are of different denominations. In fact MOST of the hard core Christians disagree on lots of stuff. Cody and the Catholics e'g and there used to be heaps of JW's on the Boards who almost came to computerised fisticuffs over this stuff! His 'foolishness' looks to me VERY much like a logical challenge which YOU can't or won't accept. WHAT? The scriptures very often contradict themselves and every denomination contradicts each other. Do you now what the most revealing two words you just posted are IMHO? 'Confusing Christians'. THERE you have the truth. This comment reveals that you are not up for a rigorous and knowledgeable discussion of scripture because you acknowledge deep down its inconsistencies and untruths and because YOU think you have it neatly wrapped up, you deeply resent an intelligent articulate person with a knowledge of the scriptures ruffling your personal feathers. You're wrong, Goz. I simply don't like being lied to. Gadreel is an imposter and I won't waste any more time on him. As for me not being up for a rigorous and knowledgeable discussion of scripture, that's false too. I am always up for that. I'm just not up for someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be true carrying on a long-winded debate with me about the interpretations of something he doesn't even believe. I want you to think about that a moment. What would profit me to debate the interpretation of scripture with you, Goz? As a secondary question, why would you want to debate something like that with me since you don't believe? That's my whole point. This:
because you acknowledge deep down its inconsistencies and untruths and because YOU think you have it neatly wrapped upis a contradictory statement. Either I have it wrapped up or I acknowledge inconsistencies. Can't have it both ways. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have it neatly wrapped up. WOW. The logic here has really gone down the dunny! You ONLY call Gadreel an imposter because he doesn't have it wrapped up and is open to discussion and YOU claim to have it wrapped up. In this case I seriously wonder why you come here at all because you clearly CANNOT have a relevant 'discussion' with anyone because you (are a ) 'know it all' and they must necessarily disagree with you as you prosthelytise your absolute and perfect version. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 2:57:48 GMT
This fascinating, what can you possibly mean? The sentence is pretty self-explanatory isn't it? No, not at all. So you are saying that you don't have to know Christianity to be 'judged' favourable, only that IF you know it and reject it you are judged? Or is there more to it than that? If so what? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 3:01:40 GMT
You're wrong, Goz. I simply don't like being lied to. Gadreel is an imposter and I won't waste any more time on him. As for me not being up for a rigorous and knowledgeable discussion of scripture, that's false too. I am always up for that. I'm just not up for someone who doesn't believe the Bible to be true carrying on a long-winded debate with me about the interpretations of something he doesn't even believe. I want you to think about that a moment. What would profit me to debate the interpretation of scripture with you, Goz? As a secondary question, why would you want to debate something like that with me since you don't believe? That's my whole point. This:
because you acknowledge deep down its inconsistencies and untruths and because YOU think you have it neatly wrapped upis a contradictory statement. Either I have it wrapped up or I acknowledge inconsistencies. Can't have it both ways. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I have it neatly wrapped up. You ONLY call Gadreel an imposter because he doesn't have it wrapped up and is open to discussion and YOU claim to have it wrapped up. No. You've apparently not understood anything I've been saying. Well, see above. As far as why I come here, I'm starting to wonder the same, to be honest. I thought i was coming to a board with people who had spiritual beliefs and wanted to discuss them respectfully. From day one I was called a "fucking imbecile" and that was the nicest thing anyone has said to me here besides Erjen and DennisReynolds. I was hoping to encounter Christians who would be interested in discussing controversial matters, deep dives, that sort of thing. And I was hoping to be ignored by all the people who don't believe in biblical truth, since, you know, that's the defintion of "respectable." I think you're right. I think it's high time I leave this board. For once, I agree with you. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 3:11:17 GMT
You ONLY call Gadreel an imposter because he doesn't have it wrapped up and is open to discussion and YOU claim to have it wrapped up. No. You've apparently not understood anything I've been saying. Well, see above. As far as why I come here, I'm starting to wonder the same, to be honest. I thought i was coming to a board with people who had spiritual beliefs and wanted to discuss them respectfully. From day one I was called a "fucking imbecile" and that was the nicest thing anyone has said to me here besides Erjen and DennisReynolds. I was hoping to encounter Christians who would be interested in discussing controversial matters, deep dives, that sort of thing. And I was hoping to be ignored by all the people who don't believe in biblical truth, since, you know, that's the defintion of "respectable." I think you're right. I think it's high time I leave this board. For once, I agree with you. Well, certainly you are an enigma. You and I can discuss almost anything with some bite, derogatory accusations, name calling, much truth, a little humour and a lot of respect...and I am a fucking ATHIEST! What went wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Feb 26, 2018 3:27:47 GMT
You ONLY call Gadreel an imposter because he doesn't have it wrapped up and is open to discussion and YOU claim to have it wrapped up. As far as why I come here, I'm starting to wonder the same, to be honest. I thought i was coming to a board with people who had spiritual beliefs and wanted to discuss them respectfully. From day one I was called a "fucking imbecile" and that was the nicest thing anyone has said to me here besides Erjen and DennisReynolds. I was hoping to encounter Christians who would be interested in discussing controversial matters, deep dives, that sort of thing. And I was hoping to be ignored by all the people who don't believe in biblical truth, since, you know, that's the defintion of "respectable." A little history might be helpful: RFS came into being because everyone (atheists and theists) on the old IMDb was going to The Passion of the Christ board to debate religion. RFS was created as a way to have a forum for that because it got to a point where nobody was actually discussing the movie. So this board was never and has never been a place for believers to discuss religion among themselves; it's always been a board where atheists and theists butted heads. There are message boards out there that are only for believers to discuss theology, and there are other boards out there more like this that are for discussing RFS from all sides (including non-believers). I've said the same thing to Erjen (and Ada) before: if you want a believers-only board, this isn't (has never been) it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 26, 2018 3:50:52 GMT
The sentence is pretty self-explanatory isn't it? No, not at all. So you are saying that you don't have to know Christianity to be 'judged' favourable, only that IF you know it and reject it you are judged? Or is there more to it than that? If so what? I can't say it any simpler than I did and I expounded on it further. At the end of the day, I'm saying people are too caught up in how others are judged. It's not your concern or problem. Worry about yourself and if you aren't worried, then that's exactly how you should feel. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 26, 2018 4:04:16 GMT
No, not at all. So you are saying that you don't have to know Christianity to be 'judged' favourable, only that IF you know it and reject it you are judged? Or is there more to it than that? If so what? I can't say it any simpler than I did and I expounded on it further. At the end of the day, I'm saying people are too caught up in how others are judged. It's not your concern or problem. Worry about yourself and if you aren't worried, then that's exactly how you should feel. PHEW! I am much relieved.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Feb 26, 2018 4:11:44 GMT
If you are discussing the great tribulation that occurs around Armageddon, that's not the same thing I'm discussing so it's probably not my doctrine. That tribulation does not teach them Christianity since it would be too late to learn it. Judgement is not based on knowing Christianity, but rejecting it through any number of ways.This fascinating, what can you possibly mean?  I'm not sure that he even knows. Oh yeah! If one isn't a Christian and rejects it's teachings, there is a Christian mandate that they must be judged.  |
|
