So in the end the sinner and the saint, rapist and rape victim, murderer and deceased, young whom haven't developed faith, sick who have lost the ability to believe, will be saved beacause they have been faithful. It can't be that simple. Because if it were, we would understand the workings of God and Jesus Christ--two entities who work in mysterious ways, as it were.
But it is that simple. That saying about being faithful, Mother Teresa said it. She did a lot of good things but that wasn't what would've made her ok to go to Heaven it was being faithful, or obeying what the Lord had commanded her. God has already decided that our sins have made us unfit for heaven but He wants us there so he gave us an atonement for everything, a forgiveness for every sin. That was Jesus Christ. Being faithful means obeying and accepting that forgiveness and that is the only requirement to heaven. When you accept Him in your life, He changes you and conforms you and that "being good" comes from Him not from us. Because it's about being faithful not succesful
( ... )
Nicely done in dodging the issue. I, however, will address yours. Disregarding the fact that there's no way to prove faith and religion to be anything beyond the imaginative workings of a child, which lends itself to the difficult to determining which faith is correct, there are still problems with the premises you've laid you. If accepting faith is what changes you, then there is no longer free will. The person who gets into heaven is no longer him/her self. The only way the person makes it is if the change comes from within--that the person who adopts faith chooses to change. You, no longer are the person who goes into heaven, but the person you'd been conformed into does. As for the bible being a tool for understanding, that hasn't worked out very well. Every sect in christianity claims to hold the true understanding of the bible. All it has done is convoluted man's understanding. And so wars have been fought, clearly proving that they do not. This is of course assuming that the bible itself has divine meaning.
I'm not dodging any issues and I don't want do this back and forth thing, it's unneccesary. Why don't you pick up C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for a breakdown of fundamental Christian beliefs
( ... )
Fair enough. We both have our different viewpoints, I think it's been well established. Let it be known, however, that I have read not only Mere Christianity, but the Tanakh, Qur'an, and New Testament (albiet not in their native language), among other religious reference books. So should you walk away from the table, don't think you've been talking to an ignorant, raving inferior. Assumptions are bad, as I'm sure you very well know.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment