Question for Christians...

[Swedishguy]

We have a big problem on this thread. One strong believer says:

God is unfair!

While another as believing says:

God is fair!

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So the mere existence of Jesus guarantees that all go to heaven? Or is more required, thus necessitating an addition after "we believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved"?

 

[warpus]

In my opinion, hell for the part I bolded. But, since you are not dead yet, you have some time to change your heart, repent and once again seek the lord.

"Don't believe in our God and spend an eternity in hell" is just peer pressure employed by certain churches to get people to join

Though if Katheryn, warpus and MobBoss are to be believed, I would realy benefit from being able to believe in their god. I just have no idea how to believe.

My God is the God of sarcasm

 

[Quasar1011]

How do you know Paul was including John's later works when he mentioned people preaching false Gospel? It's right there, in black and white, that he warns that the apostles can preach false gospel.

Because of the context of Galatians. Notice from whom Paul recieved the gospel:

Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—

Galatians 1:11
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

So Paul received the gospel from Jesus Christ. Notice what Paul said about John in the next chapter:

Galatians 2:6-9
As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

Paul said that John "added nothing to my message", and called John a "pillar". Would Paul do so if John were preaching a false gospel?

Peter then said that Paul's letters were "Scripture", meaning that they were inspired of God.

2nd Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

At one point, Peter and John preached the true gospel together.

Acts 8:25
When they had testified and proclaimed the word of the Lord, Peter and John returned to Jerusalem, preaching the gospel in many Samaritan villages.

So Peter, Paul, and John are all in agreement about the true gospel.

 

[Swedishguy]

"Don't believe in our God and spend an eternity in hell" is just peer pressure employed by certain churches to get people to join

Not as bad as this one:

Do you seek a meaning of life? Thinking to much at nights? Join the church!

My God is the God of sarcasm

I don't doubt that!

 

[Zarn]

I'll say it again. Okay, so I'll quote myself.

It sounds like #1 could go to Heaven. It could mean purgatory first, then Heaven, though. It could be argued to be a venial sin. In order for a sin to be venial, it must either be done without knowledge, not a grave sin, or without the complete consent of the sinner (yes, its possible). If he did not pay attention to Christianity, how would he know? He wouldn't be deliberately trying to disobey the Trinity.

#2 is iffy, because he did murder. That's a huge no-no whether he killed Christians or non-Christians. He has commited mortal sin and must repent to reach Heaven. You cannot just say 'I repent,' either. If he does repent, he would probably 'make it.'

I believe this. MobBoss does not. Not all Christians are going to agree.

I'm just putting this out there to show non-Christians that MobBoss does not speak for all Christians. He speaks for himself (which people are entitled to do).

I'm also wondering if anyone would think person #1 would go to hell via the Catholic teaching or if he would go to purgatory. No, I have not asked a priest. If you want me to ask one, I guess I could. I just don't see it as needed.

 

[El_Machinae]

Paul said that John "added nothing to my message", and called John a "pillar". Would Paul do so if John were preaching a false gospel?

Well, no, but wasn't Revelations written afterward, after Galatians? Paul specifically warns about apostles spreading false Gospel, doesn't he?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If John adds nothing to Paul's message, why do we need his writings?

 

[El_Machinae]

That's my question.
There's no reason to trust Revelations as true (or even symbolically true) since Paul warns about apostles giving false prophecies.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, I trust Revelations because modern LDS revelations cite it. But that doesn't really help those who aren't Mormon.

 

[El_Machinae]

That seems similar to trusting Genesis because Jesus cites it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But if you trust Jesus, then it works.

 

[El_Machinae]

Except Genesis is false ...

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

What do you mean? Parts of it must be viewed symbolically, but that doesn't mean it is all false. And as far as I remember the only part of Genesis that Jesus mentions involves marriage, and he doesn't mention the entire book, he just quotes the scripture and says "it is written".

 

[El_Machinae]

That's what I mean. You can't label the whole of Genesis as true, even though Jesus endorses parts of it ... because parts of Genesis are false.

For the same reason, you need not believe the whole of Revelations, even though LDS prophets endorse parts of it.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

It's a littledifferent with revelations, which is (probably) a single text composed at one time, not a collection of stories later written. At any rate, just as important as "true" and "false" is "literally true", "allegorical", "metaphorical", etc, etc. Even if I think John was speaking on behalf of God, I still don't know what the heck he was saying.

 

[El_Machinae]

All good points. Especially not knowing what he meant!

 

[Katheryn]

Hey, if we want to discuss Mormonism specifically then my thread is a better place.

Anyways, we do place our trust fully in Christ. Salvation can only come through him; however, he asks a few things of us as well. it is not enough just to say we want salvation, we have to do our part even though it is not by our works that we are saved. We do also believe a whole lot of other things not shared by other Christian denominations and not in the Bible, but so do almost all Christians.

Well, I see absolutely no problem.

You can live by whatever rules you choose to live by as long as they don't conflict with this paragraph you just wrote which is almost perfect as what both Paul and John taught (You didn't mention the deity of Christ).

I think the difference between what you said and what a traditional Christian would say is the status of man after conversion: ie if he becomes as glorified as the Son and Kinsman Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Since to most, it is quite speculative what happens in the afterlife, I don't see any problem with building a church around what you think is going to happen, as long as you don't step on the other commandments of Jesus (love your neighbor, sacrifice for your brother, preach the gospel) in the doing so.

Who agrees?

 

[El_Machinae]

Amusingly, the Mormon vision of the future is awfully similar to mine (mine just doesn't require death)

 

[Katheryn]

Except Genesis is false ...

Hey, I already posted this!

How can you say this is "false" ?

Genesis 1

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

3 God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

4 God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness.

5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." There was evening and there was morning, one day.

6 God said, "Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."

7 God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

8 God called the expanse "sky." There was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear;" and it was so.

10 God called the dry land "earth," and the gathering together of the waters he called "seas." God saw that it was good.

11 God said, "Let the earth put forth grass, herbs yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with its seed in it, on the earth;" and it was so.

12 The earth brought forth grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with its seed in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

There are many different uses for the word 'day' in the Bible, like 'Day of the Lord' and 'In that day' and means 'age' many time.

The Day of the Lord/In that 'day' means the Millineum, the Thousand year reign of Christ. So it is also an 'epoch'.

In any case, it reads like a poem and doesn't seem to me like it should be considered literal, like much of the Bible, including Ezekiel, and dreams in Daniel and Revelation.