Christian Discussion Thread III

[Menassa]

*shrug*
He said he'd never destroy it again, so I don't really see the problem.

That's not the point. I do not want to upset God regardless of what might happen to me. The things I have suffered in my life are nothing compared to the pain He suffered on the cross for our sins.

Not really going to evaluate the pain you've suffered with the pain of your God.

All good Christians remember His sacrifice and will not allow it to have been in vain.

Then let the world be without sin?

[Saludong]

Oh Menassa nice to see you here too. ^_^

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Hi

[Menassa]

Oh Menassa nice to see you here too. ^_^

I exist in all things, my friend.

[Saludong]

Oh Menassa nice to see you here too. ^_^

I exist in all things, my friend.

You are omnipresent.

[Irredento]

I just changed the major religion of my nation, which is essentially an alternate history Russia where Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg became Tsar through some political wrangling and strong leadership, from Eastern Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism.

I only wish real life could be more like my imaginary Eastern Europe.. nothing would make me happier than to see us reconcile with our Eastern brothers.

[Saludong]

I just changed the major religion of my nation, which is essentially an alternate history Russia where Baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg became Tsar through some political wrangling and strong leadership, from Eastern Orthodoxy to Eastern Catholicism.

I only wish real life could be more like my imaginary Eastern Europe.. nothing would make me happier than to see us reconcile with our Eastern brothers.

I think Eastern Catholicism is the same with Eastern Orthodoxy except that its in communion with the Pope.

I think among the Patriarchies that didn't break communion with the Pope, the only one left would be the Patriarchate of the Saint Thomas Christians in India. They never broke communion with the Pope, ever. However among the historical patriarchates that did have communion with Rome, we have the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem (Now gone) and the Patriarchate of Constantinople (He accepted Latin law) before the Schism. However, today, most of them are gone.

And even now, most of the Patriarchies are not in communion with Rome. Which is a shame really because the Latin Americans and Asians are in full communion with Rome.

[Magna Libero]

1. Weird. I haven't heard of any anti- poor people churches. My churches help poor people and also evangelize in foreign poor countries and help them.

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”

I mean, the Catholic Church itself here in Italy isn't exactly pro-welfare, but they would never dare to go to the lenght of the Christian Right in the US.

That's another thing I don't get. Why would the Catholic Church, of all institutions, be opposed to welfare? You'd think that if they were as concerned for the impoverished and downtrodden as they say, they'd welcome the extra help.

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”

And that's part of why I don't believe in actively trying to convert people. In addition to the fact that doing so violates the bit Jesus preached about 'doing unto others'. I feel the best way a Christian can fulfill the Great Commission is not by shoving our religion down others' throats, but by living our lives in such a way that people will want to learn more about Christianity (and even become Christians themselves).

What is wrong with evangelizing? You both make it sound like it is a bad thing. How does this harm anyone?
The missionaries provide education, translate the Bible to their language, familiarize with their culture and give other sorts of help to them.

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”

I do not believe in that. Because if it were true God would say don't tell anyone about Christ so they can go to heaven. He says go tell the world. So that makes me believe that if you haven't heard about God you are not going to heaven.

Oh, I hope you're wrong. It just can't be true. We would be worse than genocidal leaders, if that is true, since we send those people to spiritual damnation, without raising a finger about it.

This is just me and my tiny thinking capacity, but I do not think God would punish those unenlightened people that harshly, or the people who lived before Jesus. I believe God will judge those people differently.

From what I've heard the time when the Bible has been translated to every language is when the world will end and God will decide if we go to heaven or not. Those people who are not being sent to heaven can't say that they did not have the chance to know about Jesus.

On the other hand, there are also those people in the Western world, who have not heard about God, even though the Bible has been translated to their language. So, we can ALSO concentrate on sending missionaries and spreading the word to people in literate areas, where the Bible has been translated to the local language, if we feel uncomfortable in travelling that far away.

[Nuverikstan]

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”

That's another thing I don't get. Why would the Catholic Church, of all institutions, be opposed to welfare? You'd think that if they were as concerned for the impoverished and downtrodden as they say, they'd welcome the extra help.



And that's part of why I don't believe in actively trying to convert people. In addition to the fact that doing so violates the bit Jesus preached about 'doing unto others'. I feel the best way a Christian can fulfill the Great Commission is not by shoving our religion down others' throats, but by living our lives in such a way that people will want to learn more about Christianity (and even become Christians themselves).

What is wrong with evangelizing? You both make it sound like it is a bad thing. How does this harm anyone?
The missionaries provide education, translate the Bible to their language, familiarize with their culture and give other sorts of help to them.

I do not believe in that. Because if it were true God would say don't tell anyone about Christ so they can go to heaven. He says go tell the world. So that makes me believe that if you haven't heard about God you are not going to heaven.

Oh, I hope you're wrong. It just can't be true. We would be worse than genocidal leaders, if that is true, since we send those people to spiritual damnation, without raising a finger about it.

This is just me and my tiny thinking capacity, but I do not think God would punish those unenlightened people that harshly, or the people who lived before Jesus. I believe God will judge those people differently.

From what I've heard the time when the Bible has been translated to every language is when the world will end and God will decide if we go to heaven or not. Those people who are not being sent to heaven can't say that they did not have the chance to know about Jesus.

On the other hand, there are also those people in the Western world, who have not heard about God, even though the Bible has been translated to their language. So, we can ALSO concentrate on sending missionaries and spreading the word to people in literate areas, where the Bible has been translated to the local language, if we feel uncomfortable in travelling that far away.

Well if it is not then you should never tell a soul about Christ. God said that wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to heaven. So that means a lot of people are not going to heaven. And no we are not worse then genocidal leaders if we try to tell people about God and (for lack of a better word) convert them.

[Magna Libero]

Well if it is not then you should never tell a soul about Christ. God said that wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to heaven. So that means a lot of people are not going to heaven. And no we are not worse then genocidal leaders if we try to tell people about God and (for lack of a better word) convert them.

I said we are worse than genocidal leaders if we do not tell them about our Lord and Jesus Christ. It's our responsibility, regardless if they will be saved or not from eternal damnation and if they had heard of God, and regardless if many people will not be saved.

[Grenartia]

That's another thing I don't get. Why would the Catholic Church, of all institutions, be opposed to welfare? You'd think that if they were as concerned for the impoverished and downtrodden as they say, they'd welcome the extra help.



And that's part of why I don't believe in actively trying to convert people. In addition to the fact that doing so violates the bit Jesus preached about 'doing unto others'. I feel the best way a Christian can fulfill the Great Commission is not by shoving our religion down others' throats, but by living our lives in such a way that people will want to learn more about Christianity (and even become Christians themselves).

You can certainly TELL them about Christianity, but forcing it down people's throats? That's not a good thing.

Like it's always says, spread the Seed, let God do the growing. Basically free choice.

Isn't that basically exactly what I said?

And that's part of why I don't believe in actively trying to convert people. In addition to the fact that doing so violates the bit Jesus preached about 'doing unto others'. I feel the best way a Christian can fulfill the Great Commission is not by shoving our religion down others' throats, but by living our lives in such a way that people will want to learn more about Christianity (and even become Christians themselves).

That idea seems more Jewish than it does Christian...

I chalk it up to most of Christianity not living up to Jesus's teachings and paying attention to Christ's words. That and the fact that Jesus was Jewish, so obviously, many of His teachings would sound Jewish.

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”

I do not believe in that. Because if it were true God would say don't tell anyone about Christ so they can go to heaven. He says go tell the world. So that makes me believe that if you haven't heard about God you are not going to heaven.

Which means that millions of people have been sent to Hell purely by accident of their birth. By pure chance. That doesn't sound like something a rational, loving, merciful God would do.

Well then, there must be billions and billions of people in hell then, according to that logic.

Yeah, I believe that souls who do not know the Good News will spend some time in Purgatory so long as they lived decent lives and are therefore in a state of grace when they die.

However, no one stays in Purgatory forever, nor do they go to Hell, so Heaven does await them in the end.

The reason we spread the gospel is because God wishes His people to live according to His will so that they might be happy and fulfilled while serving Him. We do not want God to look down on a Godless world akin to a global Sodom and feel regret over having created us.

Something I've always personally wondered. What if Earth was also Purgatory?

“Eskimo: "If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?" Priest: "No, not if you did not know." Eskimo: "Then why did you tell me?"”

That's another thing I don't get. Why would the Catholic Church, of all institutions, be opposed to welfare? You'd think that if they were as concerned for the impoverished and downtrodden as they say, they'd welcome the extra help.



And that's part of why I don't believe in actively trying to convert people. In addition to the fact that doing so violates the bit Jesus preached about 'doing unto others'. I feel the best way a Christian can fulfill the Great Commission is not by shoving our religion down others' throats, but by living our lives in such a way that people will want to learn more about Christianity (and even become Christians themselves).

What is wrong with evangelizing? You both make it sound like it is a bad thing. How does this harm anyone?
The missionaries provide education, translate the Bible to their language, familiarize with their culture and give other sorts of help to them.

Because evangelizing is shoving your religion down another person's throat. Which directly goes against "Do unto others..." After all, you wouldn't want, say, an atheist, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu trying to make you give up your religion, would you? Then why subject people of other religions to that treatment?

What is wrong with evangelizing? You both make it sound like it is a bad thing. How does this harm anyone?
The missionaries provide education, translate the Bible to their language, familiarize with their culture and give other sorts of help to them.



Oh, I hope you're wrong. It just can't be true. We would be worse than genocidal leaders, if that is true, since we send those people to spiritual damnation, without raising a finger about it.

This is just me and my tiny thinking capacity, but I do not think God would punish those unenlightened people that harshly, or the people who lived before Jesus. I believe God will judge those people differently.

From what I've heard the time when the Bible has been translated to every language is when the world will end and God will decide if we go to heaven or not. Those people who are not being sent to heaven can't say that they did not have the chance to know about Jesus.

On the other hand, there are also those people in the Western world, who have not heard about God, even though the Bible has been translated to their language. So, we can ALSO concentrate on sending missionaries and spreading the word to people in literate areas, where the Bible has been translated to the local language, if we feel uncomfortable in travelling that far away.

Well if it is not then you should never tell a soul about Christ. God said that wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the road that leads to heaven. So that means a lot of people are not going to heaven. And no we are not worse then genocidal leaders if we try to tell people about God and (for lack of a better word) convert them.

I'm pretty sure that passage refers to the number of people who will after hearing the message, either accept the message versus those who won't, not necessarily "how many people are going to Hell by pure accident of birth" versus "how many people are going to Heaven".

[Bundesdeutschland]

Again, I reiterate. Evangelizing itself isn't inherently bad; in this case, it's just telling others the Good News and spreading. That's another one of our duties besides acting as an example to others. It's the recipient's choice whether to listen or believe or not. However, when people start becoming like the Spanish Inquisition, that's when it gets too far. (I know I'm toning it up a bit much but hopefully you get my point.) Really as long as you tell the Good News in the way it should (through love and compassion) then it's sure to work.

[Menassa]

That idea seems more Jewish than it does Christian...

I chalk it up to most of Christianity not living up to Jesus's teachings and paying attention to Christ's words. That and the fact that Jesus was Jewish, so obviously, many of His teachings would sound Jewish.

Well I mean, you being one who rejects Paul who was the Apostle to the gentiles... I could see how the two messages could be diametrically opposed.

[Benuty]

I chalk it up to most of Christianity not living up to Jesus's teachings and paying attention to Christ's words. That and the fact that Jesus was Jewish, so obviously, many of His teachings would sound Jewish.

Well I mean, you being one who rejects Paul who was the Apostle to the gentiles... I could see how the two messages could be diametrically opposed.

If one were to take an evangelical view of Paul ( anti-jewish tirade) then I could see how. One would have to ignore the fact Shaul worked in an environment pervaded by Hellenism and 2nd Temple Sects (especially the faction of the Sadducees and Zealots) not to mention Shaul being an ex pharisee.

[Menassa]

Well I mean, you being one who rejects Paul who was the Apostle to the gentiles... I could see how the two messages could be diametrically opposed.

If one were to take an evangelical view of Paul ( anti-jewish tirade) then I could see how. One would have to ignore the fact Shaul worked in an environment pervaded by Hellenism and 2nd Temple Sects (especially the faction of the Sadducees and Zealots) not to mention Shaul being an ex pharisee.

If Shaul was a Pharisee, he wasn't a very die-hard one and certainly no student of Rabbi Gamliel.

[Grenartia]

Again, I reiterate. Evangelizing itself isn't inherently bad; in this case, it's just telling others the Good News and spreading. That's another one of our duties besides acting as an example to others. It's the recipient's choice whether to listen or believe or not. However, when people start becoming like the Spanish Inquisition, that's when it gets too far. (I know I'm toning it up a bit much but hopefully you get my point.) Really as long as you tell the Good News in the way it should (through love and compassion) then it's sure to work.

And again, I reiterate that actively trying to convert people goes against that Golden Rule that Jesus preached about.

[Othelos]

Again, I reiterate. Evangelizing itself isn't inherently bad; in this case, it's just telling others the Good News and spreading. That's another one of our duties besides acting as an example to others. It's the recipient's choice whether to listen or believe or not. However, when people start becoming like the Spanish Inquisition, that's when it gets too far. (I know I'm toning it up a bit much but hopefully you get my point.) Really as long as you tell the Good News in the way it should (through love and compassion) then it's sure to work.

But if you don't tell people, and they don't find out, they'll go to heaven anyway.

[Benuty]

Again, I reiterate. Evangelizing itself isn't inherently bad; in this case, it's just telling others the Good News and spreading. That's another one of our duties besides acting as an example to others. It's the recipient's choice whether to listen or believe or not. However, when people start becoming like the Spanish Inquisition, that's when it gets too far. (I know I'm toning it up a bit much but hopefully you get my point.) Really as long as you tell the Good News in the way it should (through love and compassion) then it's sure to work.

But if you don't tell people, and they don't find out, they'll go to heaven anyway.

Who would say they would be damned to hell?

[Othelos]

But if you don't tell people, and they don't find out, they'll go to heaven anyway.

Who would say they would be damned to hell?

Nobody. It's all part of the ignorance-of-Christianity loophole.

All Christians should convert to Judaism/another religion so that people forget about Christianity - it's the only way everyone can be saved.

[Benuty]

Who would say they would be damned to hell?

Nobody. It's all part of the ignorance-of-Christianity loophole.

All Christians should convert to Judaism/another religion so that people forget about Christianity - it's the only way everyone can be saved.

2.2 Billion people are going to be rather hard to convince.

[Othelos]

Nobody. It's all part of the ignorance-of-Christianity loophole.

All Christians should convert to Judaism/another religion so that people forget about Christianity - it's the only way everyone can be saved.

2.2 Billion people are going to be rather hard to convince.

I never said it would be easy or even possible. But it's still the solution.

[Bundesdeutschland]

2.2 Billion people are going to be rather hard to convince.

I never said it would be easy or even possible. But it's still the solution.

Ironic isn't it?

[Othelos]

I never said it would be easy or even possible. But it's still the solution.

Ironic isn't it?

Yep.

Jesus should have kept it all to himself.

[Benuty]

Ironic isn't it?

Yep.

Jesus should have kept it all to himself.

The fact is he didn't exactly come to create a new religion at all. So hiding it would be well..worthless.

[Othelos]

Yep.

Jesus should have kept it all to himself.

The fact is he didn't exactly come to create a new religion at all. So hiding it would be well..worthless.

If he knew that no one knowing would mean that everyone would be saved he wouldnt have shared