Must you be "Saved" ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
I think heavan and hell are found within onlesself and not simply something you go to after you die.


Well you are close, hell doesn't exist. It a creation from "Dante". hell is nowhere in the bible. Hell implies that those there would get imortality, actually unrepentant's die a "second" death in the lake of fire.




posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those are very clear instructions. VERY clear. You have to eat
the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to have eternal life. At
this point only the Catholics, Orthodox, and some Episcopalians
have transubstantiation in their worship services.


So ah, all the guests of these churches are going to Heaven too? Quite a door-prize I'd say if that's the case. Don't need to believe in God or Jesus Christ, just participate in our ritual and you're in! No need to repent of sin or follow Christ's teachings...is that how it goes?


[edit on 10-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan


Mostly John. Here is what I have about Christ being present
in the Holy Communion. (get your bible out)

Christ actually present in -
Matthew 26:26, Mark 14:22, Luke 22:19,
John 35, 41, 51-58
1 Cor 11:27-29

Source of divine life -
John 6:27, 33, 50, 51, 58
1 Cor 11:30



I got no Bible
, so I had to google it.
Thanks for the info.


I watched that video, it is interesting.
Though, there is one thing to be said about these miracles. They occur in all religions and they seem to directly reflect the belief of those involved... makes you think, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Well you are close, hell doesn't exist. It a creation from "Dante". hell is nowhere in the bible.


Mark 9:45. Be thrown into what?


Originally posted by DrHoracid
Hell implies that those there would get imortality, actually unrepentant's die a "second" death in the lake of fire.


Matthew 25:46. Eternal what?

[edit on 10-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by dancer
is it Really a requirement that one be "Saved" before
one can enter Heaven?


Here's an 'eternal life' requirement for ya' -

John 6 51 - Jesus said 'I am the living bread which
comes down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will
live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the
world is my flesh.'

then Jesus backs this up with John 6 53-56 -
So Jesus said to them, 'truly, truly, I say to you, unless you
eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have
no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has
eternal life, and I will raise him up o on the last day. For my
flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who
eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.

Those are very clear instructions. VERY clear. You have to eat
the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to have eternal life. At
this point only the Catholics, Orthodox, and some Episcopalians
have transubstantiation in their worship services. Guess that
means ya'll have to become Catholic, Orthodox or perhaps
Episcopalian to get to heaven.


Oh ... but make sure you go to confession before going to
Holy Communion to receive Christ. Because if you go to the Lord's
Table without first confessing your sins, then you bring abomination
upon your soul and you are back to not getting into heaven.

Not sure of the bible quote on that one ... It's there ...
I'll look it up and get back to you with it.


How's THAT for a requirement? There are bunches.... just gotta'
read the scriptures.


.

As for John 6:51

Jesus is the Word. Read it, BELIEVE IT , and act on it, and live forever.
plain and simple.

The rest of the stuff was littered with catholicisms.
The pope is a false teacher, ...him and his organization are not to be confused with Christs church.

Surely you can look at the history of the RCC and see they stopped following christ. If not, google it. Its very easy to find.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
Since I didn't see/notice this topic, and it seemed to be a fruitful discussion I will ask:

The born Again Christians are big on saving souls, and it is a very nobel undertaking, but is it Really a requirement that one be "Saved" before one can enter Heaven?

Of course, thats why its called 'saved'. By definition, being saved is getting into heaven. Most Protestants think its accomplished by 'accepting christ' and once thats done it can never be undone. I think this is called 'sole fides'. Other christian religions think it requires faith and works.

But, either way, only the saved get into heaven. For, say, baptists, only people who accept christ are saved. For catholics, even jews can be 'saved' and the eastern orthodox are saved along with other non catholic christians.

From what I understand, in the non christian religions, for jews there is no heaven, not like anything in christianity, and there is no 'saving' properly, but you must follow talmudic /mosaic law to avoid becomming filthy and unclean.

Amoung muslims, everyone is saved. THe islamic conception of hell is more in line with catholic purgatory, where the non beleivers and those who were lax in their islamic faith are sent to be purged, to be cleaned and what not, and then eventually let into paradise. The truly pious are simply given quicker, or instant, admission, and apparently live a 'better life' in paradise.

Amoung the greco-romans, there was no real heaven or hell. When you died you wandered the underworld as a shade of your former self. Super heroes got a life more like a normal life, and the very wicked did get punished, but most drank for a river that destroyed their memory, and they simply wandered.

The norse beleived in something similar, expect that heroes went to a great hall, the valhalla, where the afterlife was a permanent celebration.



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Among the things I find a bit currious is that the requirements for being saved were only mentioned in the New Testiment, as taught by Christ and his followers.

Couldn't that equate to any Evangelist saying you can't get in without me? Followed by the followers of their doctorine endorsing the belief system.

There is another thread that discusses the creations of God, and the proposition there is that God loves all his creations. If that holds true, definition of Unconditional Love. Then wouldn't requiring one to be saved to get in to heaven be a type of conditional Love? So, Wouldn't he forgive those who were not saved, and have compation upon those of his children who were unable to be saved?

Placing a Christian slant on things, Christ died for the sins of man (humanity), past, present, and future. That must include all or it would be futile, and an entity of that caliber is not capable of futility.

What more could God want from you, If you are the best person you know how to be, and strive to improve yourself?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Those are very clear instructions. VERY clear. You have to eat
the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to have eternal life. At
this point only the Catholics, Orthodox, and some Episcopalians
have transubstantiation in their worship services.



So ah, all the guests of these churches are going to Heaven too? Quite a door-prize I'd say if that's the case. Don't need to believe in God or Jesus Christ, just participate in our ritual and you're in! No need to repent of sin or follow Christ's teachings...is that how it goes?


[edit on 10-3-2005 by saint4God]


I guess you didn't read all of FlyersFan post #1231758

Here is the part you missed.

"Oh ... but make sure you go to confession before going to
Holy Communion to receive Christ. Because if you go to the Lord's
Table without first confessing your sins, then you bring abomination
upon your soul and you are back to not getting into heaven. "


You must take instruction in the Catholic Church before you can take part in the Sacraments. Catholic Christians do believe in God the Father, Jesus our Savior and the Holy Spirit.

It takes a long time to be ready to receive the Sacraments. Here we learn the importance of a good confession and then the forgiveness of God. Then we can partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. (The Eucharist)



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   
quote//Those who heard St. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost asked what they must do to be saved.
He answered, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

www.fatheralexander.org...



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
in my opinion, you do not have to be "saved" as in the christian version of saved. I know all religions think that they are correct, but the idea of a jesus that loves EVERYONE yet turns away those that might have been a hindu or buddhist during their life but led a life that contributed to the world and humanity, is downright absurd, and pretty arrogant that someone would think this. thats why I do not follow organized religion, especially christianity. they all teach love and peace and understanding, but yet are so intolerant of others beliefs, its absurd



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
Here is the part you missed.

"Oh ... but make sure you go to confession before going to
Holy Communion to receive Christ. Because if you go to the Lord's
Table without first confessing your sins, then you bring abomination
upon your soul and you are back to not getting into heaven. "


You must take instruction in the Catholic Church before you can take part in the Sacraments. Catholic Christians do believe in God the Father, Jesus our Savior and the Holy Spirit.

It takes a long time to be ready to receive the Sacraments. Here we learn the importance of a good confession and then the forgiveness of God. Then we can partake of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. (The Eucharist)


Thanks Mahree. I'd only been to a Catholic church a few times so that's why I was asking. Is this also true for Orthodox and Episcopal? How about Protestant churchs, they do practice the bread and 'wine' tradition as well.

[edit on 11-3-2005 by saint4God]



posted on Mar, 11 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
As for John 6:51

Jesus is the Word. Read it, BELIEVE IT , and act on it,
and live forever. plain and simple.
The rest of the stuff was littered with catholicisms.
The pope is a false teacher, ...him and his organization
are not to be confused with Christs church.


Those are your opinions, which you are entitled to have.
But you are missing the point of what I said... either that
or I didn't say it clearly.

You didn't discuss the direct command of Christ in John 6,
You just said 'ah that's just Catholic and that's a false religion'.
and then you said other nice, but irrelevant, things about Christ.
I'm not talking Catholic doctrine here. I'm talking about
direct commands from Christ and the bible about what must
be done to be 'saved' and to go to heaven. He (CHRIST) said
that unless you ate his body and drank his blood, you would
not have life within. This is very clear.

If you believe in the bible and say 'I believe in Christ therefore
I am saved because the bible says so' ... then you can't
cafeteria style your Christianity and say ... 'I dismiss the rest
of the commands because of _________ (fill in the blank).'

There are MANY other commands in the bible, some straight
from Christ Himself. They are very clear. Such as dissing the
Holy Spirit. If you sin against the Holy Spirit this can not be
forgiven. Matthew 12:31-32 Christ Himself speaks -
'Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men,
but the blasphemy against the Spirit wil not be forgiven. And whoever
says a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks
against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age
to come.'

There are MANY things one must do (and not do) in order to 'make it'
according to the bible. Gotta' do (or not do) them all if a person is going
to call themselves a bible christian.

This brings another point - Christ Himself spoke of an age to come
in which sins will be forgiven. Purgatory? You don't get forgiven
IN heaven or hell. Hmmmm ....




[edit on 3/11/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
If the Bible (Old Testiment) is the inspired word of God, and Christs teachings are based on the Old testiment, What makes His word better than the Old Testiment? (We can essentially prove that the Old testiment was the signature of God with the Bible Code, yet we can't do like wise with the New testiment. However, on the same token it can be proven that any of the Gospels was made last - Due to the fact that "some" of the specific words used are not found in any of the other gospels. (I belive the reference on that was Dr. Gene Scott, although it is possible that it was Chuck Missler).

Is it not feasable, that when Christ said I am the light that he was refering to his teachings, and his life being primary examples of enlightenment?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
If the Bible (Old Testiment) is the inspired word of God, and Christs teachings are based on the Old testiment, What makes His word better than the Old Testiment? (We can essentially prove that the Old testiment was the signature of God with the Bible Code, yet we can't do like wise with the New testiment. However, on the same token it can be proven that any of the Gospels was made last - Due to the fact that "some" of the specific words used are not found in any of the other gospels. (I belive the reference on that was Dr. Gene Scott, although it is possible that it was Chuck Missler).

Is it not feasable, that when Christ said I am the light that he was refering to his teachings, and his life being primary examples of enlightenment?

like the serpent enlightening Eve?, or the 'lightbringer' - lucifer, or the solar number - 666. the illuminati seem to be claiming enlightenment by their choice of a name.
Must I be saved? probably.......i seem to always get myself into tight spots that require someone to lend me a hand. But I refuse to buy the whole dying for my sins on the cross theory. I always wondered why people who like Jesus don't become Jews, like him? He wasn't a Christian, I know that.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   




If the Bible (Old Testiment) is the inspired word of God, and Christs teachings are based on the Old testiment, What makes His word better than the Old Testiment? (We can essentially prove that the Old testiment was the signature of God with the Bible Code, yet we can't do like wise with the New testiment. However, on the same token it can be proven that any of the Gospels was made last - Due to the fact that "some" of the specific words used are not found in any of the other gospels. (I belive the reference on that was Dr. Gene Scott, although it is possible that it was Chuck Missler).

like the serpent enlightening Eve?, or the 'lightbringer' - lucifer, or the solar number - 666. the illuminati seem to be claiming enlightenment by their choice of a name.


Interesting that that which is evil doesn't admit to being evil (even though as sic as society is I don't figure it would have any problems with recruitment)



Must I be saved? probably.......i seem to always get myself into tight spots that require someone to lend me a hand. But I refuse to buy the whole dying for my sins on the cross theory. I always wondered why people who like Jesus don't become Jews, like him? He wasn't a Christian, I know that.

I have had my tail spared more than a few times by something more than luck.

Isn't it odd that Gods Son, Christ (who stood for peace), was not only the cause of so much destruction, but additionally divided the Judea religion, and Since Martain Luther has repetedly divided the Christian religion...

Strikes me that if the Christian sect was following the "Love thy Neighbour" concept there would not be division within the Sect, there would be unification. The Most obserd part is that there are Christians who hate the Jews, and since Christ was a Jew....



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
you can look at the history of the RCC and see they
stopped following christ. If not, google it. Its very easy
to find.


I can google up anti-ANYTHING. It doesn't mean that
those anti whatever sites are correct. Most are full
of paranoia and lies. There are plenty of Anti-bible
sites .... are they right?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
The born Again Christians are big on saving souls, and it is a very nobel undertaking, but is it Really a requirement that one be "Saved" before one can enter Heaven?


The conspiracy here is in the tautology. "Saved" = "Heaven" so yes. You have to be saved to get to heaven.

What's heaven? It's where you go when saved.

What's being saved? Eternal life in heaven.

Where did heaven come from and my ability to get there at all? Christianity.

In the strictest of definitions, there is...

No Atheist heaven. (Duh.)
No Agnostic heaven. (But there could be.)


Then the "ethics" based systems...

No Animist heaven (The spirits just watch, reward and punish in this life. Better make 'em happy.)

No Hindu heaven (Moksha is just reuniting with the Brahman as merely a drop of water in everything, losing all sense of self, and ending the journey. ) Note this is the oldest organized religion on the planet!

No Buddhist heaven (Nirvana is just "to extinguish" or end the journey of suffering with achieved enlightenment.)

No Confuciousism heaven (organized morality, no metaphysics at all)

Then it gets tricky:

Judaism Heaven? (I'll get back to you on that at a later time, for now, let's just do what God says.)


And then the Johnny-come-latelys that followed everything else:

Christianity? (ding, ding, ding... The whole point is heaven. So shiny and new. Come aboard. God's expecting you..... Nothing here matters anymore but accepting the physical manifestation of Jesus Christ AS GOD, and believing he rose from the grave... which is the entire and sole argument for Christianity. The cover stone moved, no body inside, eyewitness accounts. That's IT! So accepting that and him makes you saved. And Saved = Heaven or eternal life, and the kicker is you really don't have to be good, just saved. Hitler could be in heaven. If he accepted Christ in his last moments. He's there. Nice, huh?)

Then Islam? (Just reverse Christianity. It's ethics based. There's a heaven alright, full of all the things that you must give up in this life to get in the next. Wine, women and song await those that shun them here. Nice incentive.)


Apologies for leaving out principles of Gnosticism, Druidism or anything else Christianity destroyed as blasphemey. But there was no heaven awaiting them either.



Or is being a good and kind person enough?


No. Being a good person is everything in every other religion, system and arguably Atheism and Agnosticism too.

But NOT in Christianity. Once saved, you should be a good person, but you can always use the scapegoat clause and get saved again. You can be the worst person on the planet, accept Jesus Christ in your life as your personal Savior, then go kick it in heaven for eternity. One requirement. That's it. Believe, be sorry for your sin, but sin all you want, as it's unavoidable.

Personally, the teachings of Jesus are fine with me up to the heaven and accept Him as physical God part. Basically he said nothing about how to live that Buddha didn't already say 600 years earlier when he was reforming Hinduism (as Jesus did Judaism), so it's all fine philosophies of living and church/caste system reform.


But the scapegoats abound in the specific tenants of Christianty that demonstratably allow for much evil in the world. The same can be said of it's cousin Islam (obviously).

And it's in the Heaven thing this all happens. It's more important than how you live here, and you can do ANYTHING and justify it or repent later with some hocus pocus and be absolved.

That's not in any other ethics system on the planet, spiritual or otherwise.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by RANT]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   
People in the old testament were taken to heaven, So it cannot be that the only souls saved will be through Jesus. How will god treat a people that have never heard of the bible? how will god treat people that were ruled over by monsters in religion like the middle ages?

Will tammy faye and jim bakker sit at the same table as Ghandi? Will pat robertson take his diamond mines to heaven? Does accepting Jesus give you carte blanche to molest choir boys and cover up the crime?

there is too much conflict and wrought with corruption. There is a lot missing from the Bible.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker

People in the old testament were taken to heaven, So it cannot be that the only souls saved will be through Jesus.


Well, sort of. Some were taken to be with God but as unique "rewards" or examples to the Jews, not a path just any Jew could achieve.

Like I was saying before the Heaven/Saved concept is unique to Christianity.

Jews Saved?

The "chosen people" stature of the Jews was as much a "curse" as gift. Yes, they were honored with special recognition and a covenant from God due to adherance to worship and their example to the world... remember they were technically the first metaphysical Monotheists (and may still be aside from Islam)... but the journey of the covenant was/is harsh (lots of sacrifice, animal and otherwise). But never to be saved or go to heaven, or avoid eternal punishment. Those are all new beliefs from Jesus.


According to many modern rabbinical scholars the Christian concept of salvation from sin has no equal in Judaism. Judaism does not believe that man, by his nature, is evil or sinful and therefore has no need to be “saved” from an eternal damnation. In fact, most Jews today do not believe in a place of eternal punishment or a literal hell. The Hebrew root word for “sin” is chayt, which literally means to “miss the mark.” It is a term commonly used in archery, of one who “misses the mark” of the bulls eye. When a Jew misses the mark, and occasionally falls into the sin of failing to fulfill the laws of God, the belief is that one can obtain forgiveness through prayer, repentance and doing good deeds.

The Book of Leviticus (17:11), the third Book of the Torah, clearly gives the prescription for forgiveness. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.” The Temple sacrifice was always the centerpiece for Jewish atonement. Once a year, on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the Levitical High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies in the Temple and sprinkle the blood of the sacrifice on the Mercy Seat. Through this yearly act, atonement was made for the sins of all Israel, but the Holy Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and for almost 2000 years Jews have been without a Temple, a sacrifice, and a means of atonement.


Christians will say Jesus came to reform all that. His blood replaced the laws requiring animal sacrifice, the graft of money changers, the constant devotionals. The reward/appeal being everlasting life to every man that seeks it. What a foreign concept. Heaven? Salvation? Not to mention, God has literally impregnated a 13 year old Virgin and come to walk among us and let us kill Him for our own good. These radical concepts, common Sunday school dogma now, are quite scoffable in the proper context.

And the concepts continue to evolve. Obviously it didn't take long for everything to get mucked right up again or we'd be done with the reformations by now.
We never are.

And why did Jesus need to save us again? Once it was so we could stop the blood sacrifice of animals... but when that no longer made sense, it was to save us from a concept invented 400 years after his death. Original Sin.

The Catholic Encylopedia summarizes principal adversaries to the concept:


II. PRINCIPAL ADVERSARIES

Theodorus of Mopsuestia opened this controversy by denying that the sin of Adam was the origin of death. (See the "Excerpta Theodori", by Marius Mercator; cf. Smith, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography", IV, 942.) Celestius, a friend of Pelagius, was the first in the West to hold these propositions, borrowed from Theodorus: "Adam was to die in every hypothesis, whether he sinned or did not sin. His sin injured himself only and not the human race" (Mercator, "Liber Subnotationem", preface). This, the first position held by the Pelagians, was also the first point condemned at Carthage (Denzinger, "Enchiridion", no 101-old no. 65). Against this fundamental error Catholics cited especially Rom., v, 12, where Adam is shown as transmitting death with sin. After some time the Pelagians admitted the transmission of death -- this being more easily understood as we see that parents transmit to their children hereditary diseases- but they still violently attacked the transmission of sin (St. Augustine, "Contra duas epist. Pelag.", IV, iv, 6). And when St. Paul speaks of the transmission of sin they understood by this the transmission of death. This was their second position, condemned by the Council of Orange [Denz., n. 175 (145)], and again later on with the first by the Council of Trent [Sess. V, can. ii; Denz., n. 789 (671)]. To take the word sin to mean death was an evident falsification of the text, so the Pelagians soon abandoned the interpretation and admitted that Adam caused sin in us. They did not, however, understand by sin the hereditary stain contracted at our birth, but the sin that adults commit in imitation of Adam. This was their third position, to which is opposed the definition of Trent that sin is transmitted to all by generation (propagatione), not by imitation [Denz., n. 790 (672)]. Moreover, in the following canon are cited the words of the Council of Carthage, in which there is question of a sin contracted by generation and effaced by generation [Denz., n. 102 (66)]. The leaders of the Reformation admitted the dogma of original sin, but at present there are many Protestants imbued with Socinian doctrines whose theory is a revival of Pelagianism.


Which is important to recognize for one reason. Anyone calling themselves "literalists" (as most fundamentalists do), have a problem. A major problem. How can so many literalists disagree with each other? Either it's literal and quite clearly so, or it's not.

The answer is it's not. It's evolving. It's been added to, both in word and meaning. And continues to be done so today.

But as for the tautology of "saved" = "heaven" ... yes, that's all Jesus.

No other religion presumes to have God walking around or offers a second eternal life (except Islam on that last bit) but Christianity.

So when a Christian witnesses to a non-believer... don't you want to be saved? It's the only way to heaven. Know what's being said. Heaven is a Christian concept. All part of the package.

Movies and pop culture made up this "all good people go to heaven" stuff as if to accept heaven exists aside from Christian salvation. Why would it?

Just a pet peeve of mine. Talking about non-Christian heaven or salvation. No such thing. Not that I believe there's a Christian heaven either.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Anyone calling themselves "literalists" (as most fundamentalists do),
have a problem. A major problem. How can so many literalists disagree
with each other? Either it's literal and quite clearly so, or it's not.

I'm SOOOOO GLAD you said that! That's what I was getting at.

If you say that take the bible literally and that it's the absolute
word of God ... then look at all the things it says in there that
you have to do to get to heaven. How many people actually do
everything it says? I gave the John 6 example which is rejected
cafeteria style, by bible christians. However John 6 is VERY clear.
Well ... was Jesus telling the truth, or was he telling a lie? Or
did it get written down wrong by humans, and thus this (and
every other part of the bible) is suspect and no longer can be
taken literally?

There are other things that the bible says you MUST do, but how
many people really do them? How many people pick and choose
what they think God ment as opposed to what is clearly written?

So many cafeteria style interpretations ....

Either the bible is the absolute word of God, or it isn't.
If only parts are ... then who decides which parts are and
which parts aren't? If only parts are literal and parts are
metaphore (or whatever), then who decides which is which?

You can't push one part of the bible and say 'this is the absolute
word of God, you must be saved to get to Heaven' and then turn
around and point to another part that you don't like and say
'well .... this part is only figurative, even though Christ is issuing
a command, He didn't really mean it'.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join