It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
naming his new companion "Friday" after the day of the week he appeared. Crusoe then teaches him English and converts him to Christianity.
What I meant by my Robinson Crusoe analogy was a person who may have followed the 1st commandment given by Jesus, but was incapable of disobeying the 2nd commandment because there was no way to do that (no other people). Would he still require Jesus's sacrifice to earn eternal life? Would he have to accept it (even if we assumed he knew about it, but rejected it)?
Originally posted by AshleyD
The issue then becomes WHAT God? And replacing Jesus and Jehovah with a pagan god like Zeus, Thor, or Horus (as general examples)?
Originally posted by babloyi
While not directly related with what I was talking about, I thought this interesting enough so as to wish to comment on it. I don't believe in the concept of a 'false god', insofar as it is a deity that is not 'ungodly' (ie. has hatred for his creation, or wishes pain on them, etc). God is God, whether known as Deus, Gott, Allah, YHWH, El, etc.
I'm not very sure about the choices you offered, perhaps the closest one would be the last. First, I suppose it will be more clear if I understand you on this: If there are no other people around, then the only 'sin' would be such things as wasting resources, mistreating animals, etc. If we assume that this person does not do any of these things (due to belief in God, or a basic realisation that he better not if he wants to survive), then is he sinless? He is following the first commandment, as well as whatever of the 2nd is applicable. Does he need Jesus's sacrifice if he has no sins to atone for (not even pride, he doesn't consider himself better for not sinning)- what happens if he consciously does not accept it? Or is he doomed to sinning anyway?
It makes this world a worse place to live when you let people do bad things because they believe they are too weak to resist them...
and it doesn't matter whether they resist or not because they'll get a reward either way.
Originally posted by AshleyD
Great questions. We're told we are saved through grace, that it is not according to good works 'lest any man should boast,' that our righteousness is as filthy rags, and when the apostles (who were Jewish and used to the strict rules of OT law) asked Jesus what they needed to to do be saved, Jesus said, 'Believe in the one who was sent [Him].'
So that is how we are saved.
Originally posted by ThePiemaker
That's an incredibly irresponsible message. It makes this world a worse place to live when you let people do bad things because they believe they are too weak to resist them and it doesn't matter whether they resist or not because they'll get a reward either way. It's lame. I don't like it at all. I'd like to remove that from the minds of Christians, and all other beliefs that feel it's ok to do bad things for whatever bull crap religious reason they want to use.
Surely this omnipotent, omniescent 'God' will recognise that a death bed conversion to a belief in Christ does not cancel out a life of 'sinning' and wrong doing?
It is sometimes also identified with the bosom of Abraham, the abode of the righteous dead awaiting Judgment Day. In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus tells a penitent criminal crucified alongside him that they will be together in paradise that day.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Er wait, hold the phone, that didn't mean that the thief would go to heaven. it meant he would go with Jesus to paradise.
not necessarily the kingdom of heaven
You have to also abide by the word and Gods law as well.