What does it take for me to get into Heaven?

[Borachio]

'Strewth!

Prolixity, anyone?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If prolixity means being an obnoxious bastard, at least 2 of them.

 

[Borachio]

But where does it get anyone?

I mean, how does anybody know whether any of it is correct?

How can "Christians" tell that the Bible wasn't inspired by the "Enemy" intentionally to mislead? With some bits true and others false. But which is which?

Do they have a hot line to God herself? How do they know it's really her talking to them?

 

[timtofly]

Since hell is not physical, not sure why people would get a "porno" amusement from such. If one cannot stand God in the physical, and add that to God being an eternal fire any ways, the torment would be: being so God like that one cannot enjoy their own physical entity apart from God.

The current state of affairs regarding hell and death is different from the eternal one. If one claims the eternal seperation is an "Evangelical" addition, I may agree. One cannot ever be seperated from God, but can they be seperated from who they are? If we are going the eternal route from past to future route, then we should have some remembrance of our past self. IMO, we are each a new creation and we do have a say in how our eternal self will be. Eternal damnation may not be seperation, but an eternal torment knowing that one will never have a chance at a physical experience ever again, as opposed to those who accept God and His ability at controlling one's destiny via personal choice.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But where does it get anyone?

I mean, how does anybody know whether any of it is correct?

How can "Christians" tell that the Bible wasn't inspired by the "Enemy" intentionally to mislead? With some bits true and others false. But which is which?

Do they have a hot line to God herself? How do they know it's really her talking to them?

My theory is that they're so keen on hearing (or seeing) themselves talk, that when they close their mouth for a minute their brain just keeps on jabbering and it is interpreted as God talking to them. Obviously telling them what they want to hear and already knew.

 

[Arakhor]

But where does it get anyone?
I mean, how does anybody know whether any of it is correct?
How can "Christians" tell that the Bible wasn't inspired by the "Enemy" intentionally to mislead? With some bits true and others false. But which is which?
Do they have a hot line to God herself? How do they know it's really her talking to them?

Quite simply, no one wants to learn that everything they believe is a lie. This problem is far worse for Evangelical creationists, as they believe that the Bible is the answer to everything, from microbiology and quantum physics to history and religion, with everything else in between.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's barbaric. It's an offence to what has made us where we are today. They reject every single thing that saves us from being just verbal primates. And since they rail against science but at the same time trust on it in every other part in their lives, they're also massive hypocrites.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I have structured part of your post like this:


Now what you are saying in A makes some sense:
In my words you are saying that the world(people) has accumulated certain bad karma which would threaten them with sever punisment perhaps even massive destruction if executed by cosmic forces as in old testaments tit for tat. But your reasoning that Jesus could take this karma into himself only becouse he was innocent is wrong. In my opinion the reason for that was only becouse of his spiritual stature. He was above these laws yet sympatized with humanity. He could have done it in silence but he choosed to do it outwardly and with symbolism becouse he saw that it could convince peoples minds. And most importantly he did that unconditinaly.

Now my big question is how did you come from A. to B? Becouse I see no logic in it.

I think that depends on exactly how you think of Christ's death.

If you believe in Limited Atonement, then you believe that Jesus died only for "The Elect." In that case, if you don't believe, its because Jesus never died for you, in particular. As an unbeliever you wouldn't have to worry about this in particular because if you DO believe that means that he would have died for you.

If you accept the Satisfaction theory than presumably Christ's death + your belief would satisfy God, while Christ's death + your continued rejection would not.

Accepting both penal substitution and unlimited atonement seems a bit contradictory soomehow (With "Unlimited" meaning that the way Christ died for the elect and everyone else are both the same) but a lot of people do it.

 

[madviking]

Relevant video:

Link to video.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think that depends on exactly how you think of Christ's death.

If you believe in Limited Atonement, then you believe that Jesus died only for "The Elect." In that case, if you don't believe, its because Jesus never died for you, in particular. As an unbeliever you wouldn't have to worry about this in particular because if you DO believe that means that he would have died for you.

If you accept the Satisfaction theory than presumably Christ's death + your belief would satisfy God, while Christ's death + your continued rejection would not.

Accepting both penal substitution and unlimited atonement seems a bit contradictory soomehow (With "Unlimited" meaning that the way Christ died for the elect and everyone else are both the same) but a lot of people do it.

What a load of bollocks.

 

[Borachio]

But by their fruits ye shall know them.

So 2000 years of "Christianity" has lead us where, exactly?

Schismatics, anyone? I think there must be a separate sect for each individual. I've not heard any two "Christians" agree.

@madviking Nice video

 

[Heerlo]

I have structured part of your post like this:

Now my big question is how did you come from A. to B? Becouse I see no logic in it.

Jesus took the punishment that we deserved so we would not have to.But if you refuse to accept Him and what He has done for you, then you forfeit what He has done, and the Wrath will also eventually come on you, because you did not take advantage of His Sacrifice.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I welcome the Wrath by now.

 

[Heerlo]

And I also believe that Jesus died for everyone, not just for a select few.And like I said in the above post, Jesus died for all, but if you reject Him, you reject His sacrifice, and the Wrath the He took for you, will come on you anyway, because you did not take the opportunity to avoid it.

 

[Arakhor]

The same Wrath that a pure and sinless God unleashed upon his creation for their own good?

 

[AlpsStranger]

I'm impressed that a non-Christian who doesn't study theology for a living even knows what Calvinism is

Well, I'll take a compliment I guess

As an unbeliever, just realize that you DO have a choice and you won't be able to plead innocence because you were somehow unable to believe.

I totally get what you're saying, and I obviously understand Christianity at least well enough to know where I stand if it turns out to be true.

I wasn't offended. I just think that to present Supralapsarian Calvinism as The Biblical view is a bit crazy when even among Evangelical Christians there is so much debate on the subject. I've seen some people think that Calvinism is absolutely inseparable from the text and others say its unable to be placed into the text. I still think its a bit debatable. But you won't find double predestination ANYWHERE in the text, so I'd advise you not to present the Biblical God that way unless you can find evidence of it.

I hope the fact that I showed you the destinction (Between double predestination and regular predestination) will get you to look at it again.

No worries

Look, I really don't have anything polite to add so I'll just content myself with giving you the last word. Have a nice weekend, Ghost.

 

[Borachio]

Jesus took the punishment that we deserved so we would not have to.But if you refuse to accept Him and what He has done for you, then you forfeit what He has done, and the Wrath will also eventually come on you, because you did not take advantage of His Sacrifice.

Well, fine. But how do you know this for sure? (Beyond the Bible - which may very well not all be true. And how would you know if it were all true?)

(I'm not going to get an answer to this. So I shall give up, soon.)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If the Gods are with us, you will have little choice.

I just hope they answer my prayers swiftly.

 

[Heerlo]

The same Wrath that a pure and sinless God unleashed upon his creation for their own good?

If you are referring to the Flood, it was a just act of God in bringing judgement on the world who had forsaken Him, and turned to sin.

Is there any murderer out there who doesn't deserve to die?And would you say the government was wrong if the execute such a person?That time was the same way, and judgement came on them, and God was not unjust in doing that.And likewise, all people now, in this world or in Hell, will suffer that same just Wrath if they continue in their evil ways.

God is the ultimate good, but He desires to save all from their evil ways.But if they will not stop, then He has no choice to bring judgement eventually.And I'm not sure, but if I'm correct, even Hell was not created for mankind, but for the angels that rebelled against God.And if people don't turn from their wicked ways, it's really not even God that sends them there, but they go of their own will, because they refused to stop their sin.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's going to take a lot for you to get into heaven at this point Ziggy. I think you should just try and feel positive about a nice roasting climate and sado masochistic activities in the other place.

I think I'm already in the other place then.