It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if on May 21st, 2011, "Christ" does "return"?

page: 27
42
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 


There are many more scriptures which show jesus referring to God as his father. These scriptures far outnumber the ones you just quoted. Jesus is Jehovah's son.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


I have noticed a correlation between MAG 6.8+ earthqaukes and planetary alignments.

May 11th +/- 1 day : Saturn-Sun-Mars, Elenin-Sun-Uranus, Earth-Mercury-Venus
So far today: 6.8 in Loyalty Islands followed by seven 5.0+ aftershocks. Tomorrow i predict an even bigger earthquake, possibly in the 7.0+ ranges. Last 6.8+ earthquake occured April 23rd 2011 in the Solomon Islands which was preceded by 2 planetary alignments (Earth/Mercury Mars & Elenin/Mars/Uranus).

May 21rst +/- 1 day: Earth/Mercury/Venus/Mars Align
Jupiter/Mars/Sun Align
Elenin/Sun/Venus Align
Uranus/Venus/Sun Align on opposite tangent
Neptune/Mercury/Sun Align.....

Going back 10 years..... i havent been able to find this many alignments on the same day ....



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Caleb.K
There are many more scriptures which show jesus referring to God as his father. These scriptures far outnumber the ones you just quoted. Jesus is Jehovah's son.

There are also many quotes where Jesus equates himself with God. Note that "God" is not "Father", those are two different Greek words (theos and patros). Even in the OT Isaiah calls the "son" the "everlasting father". But I'm not going to chase down rabbit trails for the JW, the LDS, or others; I'm focusing on the basics of the gospel here.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Caleb.K
 



John 1:1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
edit on 10-5-2011 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
If Jesus does show up, I'm going to insist on seeing a contract in writing (which doesn't exist) proving that I knowingly agreed to the terms of the so-called Covenant. If, by my own free will, I rejected the Covenant, I can't be held liable for a failure to abide by its terms and conditions. That is, unless Jesus is a tyrant, in which case all I can say is, here we go again.

P.S. Anyone who would allow an innocent man die for his sins isn't worth saving.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SaberTruth
 



Defend what, exactly? I'm defending my personal faith, not The Institution. And do you not also pick and choose details you feel are relevant for various things you believe? It's called discernment or wisdom, as opposed to blindly swallowing what others try to feed you. I read the Bible myself, I consider the interpretations of others, and I debate the issues among both believers and unbelievers. If you DON'T do similar things to determine what you believe, then you're not thinking but only reacting.


You miss my point. This process only serves to justify every statement within the Holy Books. I used to do this too with my own faith: hey this is a metaphor, what is the true value of this statement? But this is merely a way of responding to any possible question that can be raised and it leads to vast inconsistencies. I found it easier to shed the 'label' and develop a personal form of spirituality.

Some questions for example, how can man have free will if God has written his fate? Why would an infinitely kind God condemn anyone to hell without trying to personally lead him to salvation - he knows the nature of critical thought for he created it. Why would he place emphasis on the literal story of creationism in light of the nature of evolution of the universe? I.e. Why make it difficult for intellectuals to believe? Within this discussion, I have seen very little debate from your end - rather the affirmation of your own beliefs. It's nice to see you're open-minded with your approach, but you still seem to base your perspectives within the confines of the Bible.


They are making a choice. This isn't about how good we are, but about who God is. Of course we're supposed to be good; as Paul stated, "We have died to sin, how can we live in it any longer?" But good deeds can be done by anyone. And just as with genetics, it isn't the similarities that matter, it's the differences. The Christian believes that Jesus is God in the flesh who rose from the dead, and acknowledges that he is God and we're not. I think it boils down to being humble before God, and pride is a very stubborn weed to pull.


It is not a choice - if someone finds it impossible to believe in God through the very free will that God has granted them, surely therein lies a contradiction? Believing in something you don't believe in is not an option - it is better to be honest. Or as our friend Ghandi said, 'It is better in prayer to have a heart without words than words without a heart'.

Upon what does the modern Christian base the belief that Jesus is God in the flesh who rose from the dead? One can be humble before God, but surely God himself is not egotistical. Why create someone for the sole purpose of worshipping you? That does not really match the description of God as infinitely wise, compassionate, etc.


Eyewitness testimony, as any court of law would accept

Few courts would accept eyewitness testimony alone. This would lead to serious problems.


Um, yeah... the one God wrote, the one people ignore when they demand God tell us what's going on, the one they claim is filled with fairy tales-- that damn the very people who allegedly made them up! (Who writes a fable that condemns the writer as the villain for telling colossal lies?)


Um, yeah... how do you know 100% that God wrote it?


Do you believe there was ever a Plato? On the basis of what evidence exactly? (If you say, "well, there's secular support", then you have to explain why only the secular is to be trusted, etc.)


I agree, it's possible that there wasn't a Plato.


Also, did Ghandi rise from the dead, or did anyone even try to claim he did?


Irrelevant - if the same number of people said he did and documented this eyewitness testimony, would it make it true? Surely, his achievements are even more noble seeing as he was not pre-determinedly special in any way at all?



That's good to know, but I hope you apply it consistently, and make the same demands of other ancient writings that you make of the Bible.


Indeed I do, I apply it to the media and current writings as well.


It's great that you have some positive opinions about Jesus, but how can you be so sure about them when you doubt everything else and demand proof for ideas about Jesus you personally don't like? As C. S. Lewis put it, Jesus had to be one of three things: a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. He either knew he was telling fables (which makes him "not good"), or he really believed what he said but it was untrue (madness is another thing that is "not good"), or he really was God.


I don't demand proof, I question how you can justify such claims. My opinion is that the lessons that have been taught from his example are relevant and positive. However, it is impossible to objectively know if he was resurrected without a particular personal experience to consolidate this belief. In light of this, if he was a liar or a lunatic, he still could have been good.


But I'm curious... as one purporting to know so much about Jesus, how did you not know these quotes existed?


I never purported to know a lot about Jesus. I invited you to correct me on that particular issue if I was wrong - highlighting my uncertainty, the opposite of what you are implying. With your quotes in consideration, could you logically explain how his death is relevant to my sins? I had not yet sinned when he died. Are all my future sins forgiven because he died for them? Are the sins of all those who lived before his death wiped clean?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
If Chirst "returns" to us on the 21st I will literally get on my knees and pray to him everyday, admit that I was wrong, and start have belief based on actual fact.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I have learned through painful, reluctant experience over the course of my life that seeming coincidences don't have to mean something. They really can simply be unrelated coincidences. That doesn't mean they are or have to be, but I would strongly caution against coming to the conclusion that they must mean something or that something is definitely going on.

Not only does correlation alone not prove causality, but correlation also sometimes isn't even really correlation at all. I know it can feel improbable at the time, but how many other ostensible correlations people believed suggested an impending event or some deeper meaning have come and gone without a trace?

Anything is possible and it doesn't have to simply be coincidence. But it could be. Human beings perceive patterns in things without any further meaning all the time. Pattern and coincidence recognition are something we're very, very good at as a species, and our minds tend to want to try and deduce possible significance when we see them. But sometimes there isn't any, beyond what each aspect means on its own. (Again, it remains to be seen whether that is the case here. I'm just pointing out the possibility.)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
A belief system is simply that. Our current scientific belief system is that around 15 billion years ago, the whole universe came to being by itself, out of NOTHING. Then over time, small particles, the composition of which no one has definitively defined, came together to form atoms. These atoms, through gravity, eventually formed the first stars. The first stars were blue giants and supergiants, made out of hydrogen and helium, and upon running out of fuel, collapsed in unimaginable explosions, forging the heavy elements of which we are constructed. after a few billion more years, some of these heavy elements came together, again through gravity (the nature of gravity is still undefined, ie we dont really definitively know what it is) and formed planets around later generations of stars. One of these planets, the only one that we know of, evolved life. Again this happened out of pure chance, the universe just happens to possess the characteristics that allow certain atoms to come together to form molecules that can replicate. Over a very long time, through trial and error, life evolved into more and more complex forms, through the success of their ability to survive. Wormlike creatures evolved into vertebrates, which became fish, which became amphibians, which became reptiles, evolving into mammals and birds. After a huge space rock hit the planet and killed off the dinosaurs, small shrew like animals became arborial and evolved into primates. Eventually one branch of the primates became apes, and one branch of the apes became us. Ok, here is my point. THAT explanation of existence is at least as weird as the supernatural one, becuase it cannot explain the plausibility of us coming into existance that way. And I know some people will say "ah but we have evidence of these things, we dont have evidence of God". Yes, you have evidence, but no one can definitively tell you what subatomic particles ARE, what gravity IS, what CAUSED the big bang. Because these things cannot be definitively defined, science IS a belief system, because its what you BELIEVE to be the truth. And maybe existence itself IS the evidence for God. There is a Buddhist saying that the creation is a finger pointing at God. And until someone can definitively DISPROVE the existance of God, is existence is that, not disproven.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Jesus may or may not return (rapture) on May 21 2011, but if He does the world will not end on Oct 2011. The length of time allotted for the time of testing is off. Whether one sees it as 3 1/2 years or 7 years. The time stated is still wrong to the end.

There is not a major Jewish holiday on this date. Lag baOmer begins at sundown on the 21st. If one was to pick a date based on Jewish feasts it would most likely occur on Rosh Hashannah (The Feast of Trumpets) on Sep 29-Sep 30. All Jewish holidays begin at sun down and end at sundown the following days.

One can not or should not set actual dates. The bible is clear on what we are to watch in the world around us and in the seasons.

edit on 10-5-2011 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by the4thhorseman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by the4thhorseman
 




If one chooses to try to lead a good life with out accepting Jesus as your redeemer. You are judged by the law if you break one of the laws you are seen as a law breaker that is breaking all of the laws.


... if you break one law you are seen as a law breaker that is breaking all of the laws? Hm...

...What if the only law you break is stealing a few chocolate bars from Walmart because your family is on the brink of starvation?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Oh boy! Jesus is going to come this month, and if not, then Aliens. Oh boy! What a madhouse!!
Just think of it and realize, the kind of Lunies that are here...-
edit on 10-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SonicInfinity
 


If "christ" comes back..then that means hes a real and hes not...problem solved..and if someone quits theri job in this economy then something is very VERY wrong with them...specially if they are gunna run up into the mountains



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by the4thhorseman
 




If one chooses to try to lead a good life with out accepting Jesus as your redeemer. You are judged by the law if you break one of the laws you are seen as a law breaker that is breaking all of the laws.


... if you break one law you are seen as a law breaker that is breaking all of the laws? Hm...

...What if the only law you break is stealing a few chocolate bars from Walmart because your family is on the brink of starvation?


Well if one is to steal..chocolate bars would not be the best to save your starving family...just kidding. I see your point. On a serious side tho why would you need to steal? There are still options out there that will help. Sadly enough if you need to steal to save your family then we as Christians are not doing our jobs commanded by Christ to do.

Man is quick to do things on his own when God said he will take care of His own. Here is just one of the many ways:

1 Kings 17

1And Elijah the Tishbite, who was of the inhabitants of Gilead, said unto Ahab, As the LORD God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain these years, but according to my word.
2And the word of the LORD came unto him, saying,
3Get thee hence, and turn thee eastward, and hide thyself by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.
4And it shall be, that thou shalt drink of the brook; and I have commanded the ravens to feed thee there.
5So he went and did according unto the word of the LORD: for he went and dwelt by the brook Cherith, that is before Jordan.
6And the ravens brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and he drank of the brook.


The verse that was quoted was to show that no one can get to heaven just being a good person. I do not make the rules God does You can live by the law or you can live by grace.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
2015 is the year I heard somewhere that Jesus is going to come back. Not now. Whatever happens on May 21 could just be Project Bluebeam, if anything.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by sphinx551
2015 is the year I heard somewhere that Jesus is going to come back. Not now. Whatever happens on May 21 could just be Project Bluebeam, if anything.

No no, your wrong. He is going to come 1016 on christmas eve, or was it on Halloween? Oh shuks! I forgot...-
There is nobody here who knows anything about anything and your gues is as good as mine!
edit on 10-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
what would be the point of him revieling himself , half would accuse him off being the antichrist, others would think he is here to save them and forget the fact they always needed to save themselfs, christ is not above you, he showed the way remember......., anyway the true question is "can u feel him" , if u dont these guys didwww.abovetopsecret.com..., if they let go the ego , and not continue on a quest to be the only and true holder of the knowledge, they will remember that we are all connected and traveling along the energywaves to enlightenment



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
A Guy who might not even have existed as such and could be only a painted over old pagan story, or who did exist but has died 2000 years ago, wll apear in the clouds again, to take his friends away, and leave the rest to rot? If this is not secret wishfull thinking, I would not know what is. Thats the way you Guys would like it, is'nt it? "Oh, we all go to Heaven, trallala, BUT YOU WONT!" How far will we allow this madnes to go on? When will we return from being brainwashed Lunies to healthy humans again?
edit on 10-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by CarlitosAmsel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Even though I do not think anything will happen, if I had the choice I would definitely ask for forgiveness before the end... try to mend my life a bit.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by arollingstone
You miss my point. This process only serves to justify every statement within the Holy Books. I used to do this too with my own faith: hey this is a metaphor, what is the true value of this statement? But this is merely a way of responding to any possible question that can be raised and it leads to vast inconsistencies. I found it easier to shed the 'label' and develop a personal form of spirituality.

If you mean "defend the Bible", you might consider making that clearer initially next time the topic comes up.

But the criteria I use to defend the Bible are no different that those I would use to argue for the accuracy of any other document; I am not a presuppositionalist though many Christians are. I would only say "because the Bible says so" to those who are already convinced that it is the Word of God and thus authoritative. In this venue however, I have appealed to methods of legal investigation and asked that other ancient documents be given the same degree of scrutiny before you accept them as accurate. So if my methods for defending the Bible are inadequate, then I am unable to defend anything at all-- and so are you, because my methods are not exclusively Biblical or Christian.

As for figures of speech or judging genre, there are established principles for that too. Some take the easy way out and write off the whole Bible as allegory, or the lazy way out and take it all in a woodenly literal fashion. I have a page in my blog dedicated to explaining the method I use: literal-historical-grammatical. You can tell from that title that I consider also the grammar of koine Greek, as well as finding out as much as i can about the culture of the time. Rest assured I've done my homework.


Some questions for example, how can man have free will if God has written his fate?

On what basis do you assert that God has written anyone's fate? Please be careful not to lift verses out of context in your reply; I'm well aware of these, as there is a whole section of Christianity (Calvinism) that does not believe in free will, and I've lambasted that view in my blog on many occasions. (I put one of them in my book section under the title "The Hunt/White Debate", which you can find at the Book link in my signature.)

Briefly, here is my illustration of man's free will: Picture a school playground, filled with students out for recess. There are teachers watching them, as well as fences around the perimeter. The purposes of both are for the children's safety, not to keep them from having fun. The teachers are not there to micromanage play but to contain it, and to limit its duration so the students will return to class on time. But if any child chooses to violate the minimal rules such as against violence or cheating, that student alone faces disciplinary action because they freely chose to behave poorly. In the same way, God puts limits on free will but does not micromanage, and is not interested in keeping us from enjoying life. We make our own mistakes, we commit our own evil, but like an incorrigible playground bully we strike out at the "teacher" for calling us out. This, IMHO, is irrational. Free will must be limited because some people's idea of freedom is to do whatever they please to other people.

Now let's add a twist: the local PTA refuses to allow the teachers to intervene in any fights, or administer any discipline, or limit playtime, or keep the fences up. They believe it's harmful to little Johnny and Suzie to have any restrictions, even if it means Big Bubba gets to beat on anyone he chooses.

Satan is the PTA (a correlation some may find all too accurate) and God is the teacher. The kids don't know or grasp the clash between the two, though both try to explain. Now am I saying God and Satan are equals and that God is not all-powerful? No, I'm saying that God will not violate free will but at the same time he will not violate Satan's ownership of the world.

"Whoa!" you say, and rightly so. But it's true, and that's another thing I examine in my book Reconciled. The Bible speaks of Jesus paying a ransom, and in such a situation there are three parties: the victim, the buyer, and the seller. Mankind is the victim, Jesus is the buyer, and Satan is the seller. The price Jesus paid on the cross was "paid in full" (Jesus' word was rendered in Greek as "tetelestai" which is a financial term for a bill that was completely paid off, and the identical word uttered by the high priest in Judaism as the lambs were slain-- which was going on at that very moment!). But the time of actual transfer of property has not yet arrived, because God also planned to include non-Jews, as James said in the so-called "Jerusalem Council" in Acts, and Paul later said that the end will not come "until the full number (lit. ship's complement) of Gentiles has arrived".

So there is much more going on here than meets the eye; there is a cosmic chess game being played, and God will win but not by cheating or pulling rank, but by playing according to agreed upon rules.


Why would an infinitely kind God condemn anyone to hell without trying to personally lead him to salvation - he knows the nature of critical thought for he created it.

Who says he didn't? In light of what I just wrote about limited free will and cosmic chess, I think him coming down among us personally, sticking around for three years, then rising from the dead is bending over backwards to tell us. We are called his "ambassadors" and though we fail miserably at the job, many of us do try, and God will take all our human frailties into account. I honestly think that some people could watch Jesus walk on water, raise others from the dead, and create a dinosaur in front of their very eyes and they'd still demand "proof".


Why would he place emphasis on the literal story of creationism in light of the nature of evolution of the universe? I.e. Why make it difficult for intellectuals to believe? Within this discussion, I have seen very little debate from your end - rather the affirmation of your own beliefs. It's nice to see you're open-minded with your approach, but you still seem to base your perspectives within the confines of the Bible.

That's a whole other can of worms as you know. But for now I'll just say that I don't need anything but hard, empirical science to debunk the THEORY of evolution, which doesn't even deserve to be called "scientific" because it cannot be falsified; red blood cells in dino bones and discoveries of "living fossils" (a most amusing oxymoron) have only made the ToE shapeshift instead of its followers admitting these things disprove its very foundation. I'll just give you a few links and leave that for another day:
www.scienceagainstevolution.org...
www.parentcompany.com...
theology.fether.net...
(the last one was written by someone whose demeanor I don't condone, but he makes good points about biology)


It is not a choice - if someone finds it impossible to believe in God through the very free will that God has granted them, surely therein lies a contradiction? Believing in something you don't believe in is not an option - it is better to be honest. Or as our friend Ghandi said, 'It is better in prayer to have a heart without words than words without a heart'.

Choosing to reject an argument is not a loss of choice at all; in fact, for choice to exist there must be at least two opposing paths, each of which is viable. The expression "no-brainer" is a good description of "choosing" something so obvious that no real choice is necessary. I see no contradiction at all in calling it free will to choose whether or not to be reconciled to God. If you don't believe this, or that there is a God to reconcile with, you came to that point (hopefully) by examining evidence and then choosing what to do with it. For example, not all cosmologists accept the Big Bang Theory; many now support the "plasma" theory, and most of them are not creationists either. They have the same facts to examine, the same phenomena to observe, but come to two very different conclusions. That's a choice.


Within this discussion, I have seen very little debate from your end - rather the affirmation of your own beliefs. It's nice to see you're open-minded with your approach, but you still seem to base your perspectives within the confines of the Bible.

Honestly, I consider your comments in the exact same way. You confine yourself to what you can observe, while I think it's reasonable to deduce certain things from what is observed, though I cannot prove them. You too give your opinions and have made several assertions about Jesus and the Bible without knowing either very well through years of study.


Upon what does the modern Christian base the belief that Jesus is God in the flesh who rose from the dead? One can be humble before God, but surely God himself is not egotistical. Why create someone for the sole purpose of worshipping you? That does not really match the description of God as infinitely wise, compassionate, etc.

How can God be egotistical? The def. of that word is to think more highly of one's self than is warranted, but that is impossible for God. And what about the fact that Jesus "humbled himself" (Phil. 2:5-11) to become one of us and die a horrible death for us? I've already stated what I base that on, BTW. And who are you to presume God's reason for making us? Have you considered that what he wants from us is love, which is only genuine if given freely? You also make yourself the judge of your creator, a notion I find incredibly arrogant and egotistical. Just sayin'.


Few courts would accept eyewitness testimony alone. This would lead to serious problems.

Did I say what was the sum total of my reasoning? Courts also use circumstantial evidence, examine motives, corroborate testimonies, etc. Read the Greenleaf doc and then see if you think he was a poor lawyer.


Um, yeah... how do you know 100% that God wrote it?

I already gave one reason: no one would write a book that condemns the writer. Another is fulfilled prophecy, and I'll just recommend to you the book Daniel In The Critics' Den for details. You might also actually try reading the Bible for yourself and then compare it to other writings of the time, as well as other religious writings of other times. But that will take you years, so no need to respond immediately. ;-)


Irrelevant - if the same number of people said he did and documented this eyewitness testimony, would it make it true? Surely, his achievements are even more noble seeing as he was not pre-determinedly special in any way at all?

Not irrelevant at all; I was pointing out the uniqueness of Jesus among great figures of history. We both agree there have been many good teachers, but there is only one who rose from the dead or whose followers made such a claim.


Indeed I do, I apply it to the media and current writings as well..

Yet you haven't studied the Bible but critique it nonetheless. I find that inconsistent. o.O


I don't demand proof, I question how you can justify such claims. My opinion is that the lessons that have been taught from his example are relevant and positive. However, it is impossible to objectively know if he was resurrected without a particular personal experience to consolidate this belief. In light of this, if he was a liar or a lunatic, he still could have been good. .

If you haven't demanded proof then what has this whole conversation been about? And here again you deny eyewitness testimony about the resurrection of Jesus yet claim you don't always demand that level of proof. I also strongly disagree that a liar or a lunatic is considered "good".


I never purported to know a lot about Jesus.

It was obvious from your comments, as you made several assertions.


With your quotes in consideration, could you logically explain how his death is relevant to my sins? I had not yet sinned when he died. Are all my future sins forgiven because he died for them? Are the sins of all those who lived before his death wiped clean?

You seem to presume that the effects of Jesus' sacrifice are limited to the time in which it was made; I don't know of any basis for that presumption. But consider that relationship and reconciliation I keep talking about: do people who have reconciled continually irritate each other or ignore each other? We mere mortals know better than that. What Jesus did was make it possible for us to reconcile by faith alone, by simply accepting what God is offering, and the reasons for that are as I said detailed in my Reconciled book.

Point being, that the sins Jesus paid for are the ones you admit and repent of, but this only holds true for those who have put their trust in Jesus as Savior. In fact, such people are "adopted" as children of God and heirs to his "wealth" and blessings. As one of those children you would not have to pay for defying the infinite and holy God any more than an adopted child in this life is disowned on the occasion of every misbehavior. God loves his children and wants them to love him too, but we aren't his children if we ignore him or continually do things we know he hates. There are many in the churches who think salvation is a license to sin, and I seriously have to question their salvation in those cases, considering the importance of reconciliation and all that implies. But such people are not God's or Jesus' fault; we have the Bible, we have the Holy Spirit (scripture calls him "a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance"), and God will base the rewards his children get on what they did with what they were given.

In fact, that last sentence is the answer to a lot of question: God is a fair judge and will weigh everything. None of us has all the answers and it isn't fair to demand them of fellow human beings. But I trust God to judge us according to what we had or knew. Jesus also said that we will be judged according to the standard we have used for other people-- a great motivation for leniency. I'm sure I've done an imperfect job of defending my faith, but it's the best I've got, and God will honor that. He'll also take pity on anyone who comes to him sincerely wanting to know him. The key is attitude.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join