jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (581 posts)

Free, Free,It is free for all, regardless of the country of origin...

  1. youcanwin profile image36
    youcanwinposted 4 years ago

    Salvation is free for all, regardless of your religion, faith, country of origin, your ethnicity, cast, creed or your language, it is free for all.  Jesus paid the price.  Just believe that Jesus came to this world, died for our sin and resurrected on the third day.  He paid the price of your sin and redeemed you through his blood.

    It is absolutely free gift for those who believe.

    When Adam and Eve rebelled, man was separated from God through sin. God's holiness required punishment and payment (atonement) for sin, which was (and still is) eternal death. Our death is not sufficient to cover the payment for sin. Only a perfect, spotless sacrifice, offered in just the right way, can pay for our sin. Jesus, the perfect God-man, came to offer the pure, complete and everlasting sacrifice to remove, atone, and make eternal payment for sin. Why? Because God loves us and desires an intimate relationship with us.

    A prayer for salvation:

    Dear Lord,
    I admit that I am a sinner. I have done many things that don’t please you. I have lived my life for myself. I am sorry and I repent. I ask you to forgive me. I believe that you died on the cross for me, to save me. You did what I could not do for myself. I come to you now and ask you to take control of my life, I give it to you. Help me to live every day in a way that pleases you. I love you, Lord, and I thank you that I will spend all eternity with you.

    Amen.

    1. youcanwin profile image36
      youcanwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      All are welcome to receive this free gift...

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Presumably you are a born-again pentecostal type christian.  ?????

        Are you so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good?

    2. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think you'll find salvation is a free gift irrespective of whether one believes or not. The Father's gifts come without evangelical strings attached preconditions and they do not expire at the point of death.

      Temporary human sin committed in a finite life does not result in eternal death or punishment. You have completely missed the point of the law, that punishment is measured in accordance with the crime; eye for eye tooth for tooth.

      Do you think the Father was caught by surprise by the antics of Adam and Eve? He created them knowing it would go horribly wrong for them.....but not for him. Because where sin abounds so his grace abounds all the more and he is more glorified because his love and sacrifice covers that sin. Sin was inevitable, it came as a result of granting man choice. But knowing this, the Messiah's mission was prepared before creation.

      Do you think The Father would tell man to love his enemies and do good to them if he will not do that himself? If you think he will see anyone in your pagan hell you have a warped view of love.

      1. youcanwin profile image36
        youcanwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for projecting God as a good and loving God.  God loves all mankind.  He loves me and loves you irrespective of your cast, religion or ethnicity.  But do you think he will not show justice to the afflicted.  To show justice to the afflicted, he has to punish all the wrongs done by me and you.

        There comes the need of the penalty for your sin.  Jesus did it at the cross.  Jesus paid for your sins.  Now if you believe that Jesus died for your sin, then you will have eternal life.  But for those who do not believe, there is only one hope of eternal punishment.

        Why God sent his son Jesus to be sacrificed on the cross? The only purpose of sending Jesus was to pay the price of sin as well as show the way of life.

        Now this salvation is free for those who believe in Jesus.

        Thanks for your views.

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So what you are saying is god is a judge to settle your silly disputes?


          Now don't you need justice?  If I did you wrong,  how Jesus' s death undo it? Or are you saying that this is all nonsense and the effort to believe it will be the penance?


          You first said,  salvation cannot be given to everyone because it won't serve justice.  Now you are saying it serve justice provided the rapist or murderer or thief 'believe' in Jesus. So which is it?

          1. Iamsam profile image65
            Iamsamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Anybody’s dog will follow me if I feed it, but only my own dog will follow me if I beat it. And any man will be a Christian, or profess to be one, while it is all joy, and silver slippers, and gravel walks—but only the
            man who really loves God, who says, “All the daylong have I been plagued and chastened every  morning”—it is only the man of God who can say, “Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him—if He takes away my comfort, and I have no joy but in Himself, still will I cling to Him.”

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Your dog will grow to despise and hate you for beating it.

              1. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I gotta admit I wondered why she chose that analogy.

              2. youcanwin profile image36
                youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Last warning to you:

                God/Jesus  says to you:

                Those who find joy because of me will experience more joy.

                Those who look down on and despise me will get what they have sown.

                I will make it sure they will have their comeuppance soon.

                Therefore, you repent.

                Plow the old land and come to me with a pure and soft mind.

                If you repent from the bottom of your heart, I will undo your sins and remember nothing about them.

                If you refuse to change your actions in spite of my warning, I will never stop my wrath on those who still have arrogant eyes, cynical remarks, and boasting head moves.

                I will never stop until my judgment comes.

                Therefore, you repent.

                I repeat you repent.

                I will make those who neglect my warnings realize.

                They will be punished. 

                They will be made to realize that all that comes from me.

                Therefore, you repent.

                1. JMcFarland profile image92
                  JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No.  I will not "repent".  I will not believe in your version of god - or any other version of god - until that god can be sufficiently proven and/or demonstrated.

                  Christianity makes you sick - or makes you THINK your sick by giving you the disease (telling you that you are sinful and unworthy of love or salvation) and then offers the cure to the disease that it created.  Why should I repent of asking for evidence before blindly believing and following some deity?  Why should I repent of using the brain that you think your god gave me to ask for proof?

                  1. Chris Neal profile image84
                    Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Um, if you have the evidence then it's not blind belief.

                    Unless semantics have changed. I don't know.

                  2. youcanwin profile image36
                    youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Tell me what do you meant by the word "God"?
                    Your question (Using the word "God") proves the existence of God!

                2. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  More extortion, Do as I say or I'll punish you.

                  It's rather infantile and very embarrassing.

                3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you very much for your post, youcanwin, it describes perfectly the kind of selfish, tyrannical egomaniac that is the God of the Bible, nothing short of how a despot would act and what he would demand from his followers.

                  And, just to be clear, that is a threat, not a warning. smile

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ivan the terrible or Qin Shi Huangdi? May be it is Chingis Khan..
                    All this characters are now only in the books brother, so forget about them and live a life for yourself and try not to direct other people's life, especially with nonsensical threats.

            2. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Last time I checked, If you beat a dog, it will either avoid you or try to tear your leg off

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your blatant contradiction and ridiculous threat have been noted. Do you enjoy making conflict, too?

    3. Paul K Francis profile image82
      Paul K Francisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      " And all mankind will see God's salvation."  It is something that I think would be difficult to avoid regardless of what one believes or disbelieves. Yet I like your prayer, quite humble.

      1. youcanwin profile image36
        youcanwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes that is something which we cannot avoid at all.  Every one is required to believe in Jesus.  For that is what Jesus came to this world.  Thanks.

    4. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
      Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No thanks. What is it you think I need saving from again? Your god?

      1. Iamsam profile image65
        Iamsamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You need saving from eternal punishment for your sins.

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image86
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Right. Your god. You don't really believe that do you? And you expect me to believe that there is a god that is so petty that he punishes eternally for not believing he exists? You don't think much of your god's intellect do you?

          1. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Actually He's pretty much laid it out like that. Why would it be disrespect to believe He will do what He says He will do?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          But, what if we have no sins?

          1. Iamsam profile image65
            Iamsamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is great!

            If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So, by not living a life of sin, I am living a life of deception and lies? lol

              1. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You really saying you've never even thought about taking something that wasn't yours, ever? You never  ever told even the teeniest little lie in your whole life? Then you're wasting your time here, you need to be out selling how-to's.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Here we see a couple of intelligent individuals, each with a different outlook on the world, their outlooks at least reasonable and arguably valid, taking up most of two Hubs, getting nowhere useful, IMHO.

                  Is there ever likely to be resolution?   I don't think so.   Change of opinion(s) can only normally take place when a need arises.   

                  Background information is helpful because it does give a bigger picture of an individual's point of view and understanding.  So we can at least gain from that.

                  (I will now shut up and go back to bed... it's gone 3.00am here!)

          2. boyatdelhi profile image41
            boyatdelhiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No sin means no need of salvation.
            A doctor is required for the patient. Not for the healthy.

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    Hmm.  Without regard to religion, you say?  Does that mean that a Muslim that knows quite well that Jesus was just a man can still be saved without changing his religion?  Or a pagan, that knows there are no gods at all?  An atheist that knows the same thing - that your god is simply a figment of your imagination?  Can these all be saved without becoming a Christian first?

    1. youcanwin profile image36
      youcanwinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There is no restriction on the basis of religion which you belongs to.  Still you can be saved only if you believe that Jesus was/is the son of God and he died for your sins.  It is same with a pagan or an atheist.  They can also become a child of God and attain salvation by believing in Jesus.

      Please note many atheists and other religious people are being saved every day.  It is open to everybody and free for all.  Come on and be saved.

      Thanks for your visit and comment.

      1. 0
        riddle666posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Again contradiction, you say there is no restriction based on religion then say one has to believe in jesus. So which is it?

      2. nightwork4 profile image60
        nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        religion and restrictions are hand in hand. believing that some god let his kid be killed to save us and then saying in order to be saved you have to worship him isn't only a restriction, it's the ultimate control weapon. it's all absurd.

        1. Iamsam profile image65
          Iamsamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Is it a control weapon or a complete submission to the higher authority?  When you work with an organization, you have to obey the authority.  You submit yourselves to do the work for an earing.  It is just like that.  We submit ourselves to the all powerful God for our salvation.  You are free to rebel or obey the commandments.  It is your choice.

        2. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          On the contrary, there is a genuine depth to the entire thing that is missed so often by so many, both within and without the church (body of believers.) God has laid out His plan. Of course there is submission, there has to be, but a true relationship with God, which is reciprocal, is a sweet thing, full of depth and warmth.

    2. youcanwin profile image36
      youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Of course a Muslim who believe in Jesus can go to heaven.  Many Muslims does so.  Change in the heart that God look for...

    3. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Can paradox exist?

      Yes.

      But the Bible has made it clear that you must accept Jesus in order to be saved. So the direct answer to your question is no.

  3. JMcFarland profile image92
    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago

    Can you prove historically that jesus came into the world at all  - let alone that he was the son of god?

    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      If the Gospels are so false, then why are there no documents from that era stating so? And don't give me junk about them being buried by the Nicene Council or anything all "Da Vinci Code" like that. Fragments would have survived. No earthly power, no matter how ubiquitous or aggressive, has ever been able to completely eradicate sources of conflict with itself. And the church is certainly no exception.

      1. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        are you kidding?  The gospels have been ridiculed by contemporary people ever since they surfaced.

        Just so I know where we're starting from -
        who wrote the gospels and when?

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but there was never anything written saying "Joshua was there and none of that happened," or "Rabbi Michael was in the Sanhedrin and Jesus never entered the Temple and did that."

          Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Between 30 and 60 years after the crufixion.

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            have you ever told someone something, then asked them to repeat it in 30 years?  how much is it like the thing you originally told them?

            Try a smaller example.  Have you ever played telephone?  a group of people sit in a circle.  The first person whispers a sentence to the person next to them, so forth and so on - then the last person says what they heard out loud and everyone has a good laugh - why?  Because it's NOTHING LIKE the original sentence at all.  That's only in the space of 5-10 minutes.

            Contemporary secularists of the gospels ridiculed the things they got wrong - like geography or topography.  For example, in one of the gospels, it says that jesus went from one city to another city - by way of a third city.  The problem is, that third city is 50 miles away in the opposite direction.  Or another example - the sea of galilee isn't a sea.  Contemporary writers were mocking it from the moment it was written down, and the sea of galilee wasn't called a sea at all until the gospels were written.

            There were dozens of contemporary historians in the area that discussed (often in great detail) other "messiah" figures, but none of them mention jesus at all.  Not his miracles.  Not his teachings.  not his entry into jerusalem.  Not his illegal trial.  Not his execution or his resurrection - or the jewish zombies that were wandering the streets when he died, not the earthquakes or the darkness.  Nothing.  You think that all of them just forgot to mention it?

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Have you ever sat through something that you've heard 1000 times before just because someone is convinced that it's absolute proof, when it's not?

              Telephone, 30 years, you might as well trot out the trope that the AVERAGE lifespan at that time was 40 years as a codeword for the MAXIMUM lifespan was 40 years (which is untrue) and therefor no one would have survived to tell the tale 60 years hence.

              The fact is that most people in that day and age were illiterate and even those who could read depended on people's memories because writing instruments were expensive. Memories back then were developed to a degree that you rarely see now because they had to be.

              Contemporary secularists want pinpoint accuracy with complete disregard for time and culture. Gee, wouldn't it be nice if the world worked that way? Things were different back then. I'm not saying the third city was somehow closer back then, I'm saying that the way people talked about things back then, they sometimes edited for content and people living in that area at that time were familiar with what was being discussed. I've as yet to meet a contemporary secularist who can point to the thousands of papers from antiquity that got it 100% right and these poor stone aged herdsman were so stupid.

              And, just like everything else you've mentioned, the "other messiahs" are both well known and well discussed among modern theologians and apologists. Many Jews cite the case of Bar Kochba as a good reason why Jesus couldn't be the Messiah.

              Yeah, people have been ridculing the Gospels since they were written. But three of the writers claim eye-witness to some or all of the events described (Mark is thought to be Peter's story, with a little bit of stuff that Mark would have seen first-hand like Gethsemane) while Luke claimed to thoroughly research everything he wrote about. And there are no contradicting scholars, nobody saying that it didn't happen, only that it's ridiculous.

              1. 0
                riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nobody saying that unicorns flying didn't happen either, only that it's ridiculous.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Um, you want to try again? Don't get so caught up in your own cleverness that you defeat yourself.

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    One need not be clever to understand nonsense as nonsense, being normal is enough.

              2. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                See, you made my case for me.  Early church apologists mention other "false messiahs".  CONTEMPORARY historians mention a bunch of these same messiahs - but NO contemporary historian mentions jesus at all.  He's absent from all of the contemporary historical record - for almost 100 years after he supposedly lived.

                None of the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses - in fact, aside from Luke, none of the gospels mention who's writing them, and the names were attached long after the books were written and in circulation.  Since Mark was written first, and you're claiming that it was the testimony of Peter, why does it leave out some of Peter's key moments?  For example, Mark does not include the conversation between Jesus and Peter where Jesus says "upon this rock, I will build my church".  You'd think that Peter (and therefore Mark) would remember it.  Marks' gospel also ends with the crucifixion.  The resurrection account was added later.

                Tell me, if the gospels were written by supposed eye-witnesses - which ones were present at Jesus' trial?  None of them.  How did they find out what happened, and why don't they agree?  They list Jesus being born in different years, and in different cities.  One has Jesus and his family fleeing to egypt, one has them going back home to Nazareth (except Nazareth didn't exist at the time).  No historical record mentions Herod's slaughter of the innocents, although Herod did have histories written about him during and directly after his life.  The gospels have jesus dying on two different days, and none of the resurrection accounts agree.  I suggest that if you think you can manage it, try to do Dan Barker's easter challenge.  There's a cash reward for anyone that can reconcile the accounts of the resurrection in chronological order without leaving anything out or contradicting themselves.  To date, no one (including prominent christian apologists) have managed to pull it off.  More and more biblical scholars are seriously debating the question of whether Jesus existed or whether he was a myth - or a collection of various teachers.  There's ample research on the subject by renowned and qualified historians.  If you think that there isn't any, you may want to look it up.  Oh - and Luke is particularly amusing - he claims to be the ONLY gospel writer giving an accurate account - and then goes on to get multiple things wrong, proving that he not only is unaware of Judean life, Jewish Culture and the Old Testament, but also history, geography and apparently time.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow. Well, you got almost all of that wrong. The fact that Matthew, Mark and John wrote in first person meant that they were claiming eye-witness. Which trial are you referring to? Mark was at the trial before the Sanhedrin. And you say 100 years, which I would agree with if you meant 30 years, which is more like when Matthew and Mark came out.

                  Most of the "disagreements" are more matters of perspective than actual factual errors.

                  And Jews did not put their name to their writings. But clues are there.

                  1. 0
                    riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I too can claim anything. I have a book which contain most legends of my area. The author claims he know somebodies somebody who experienced and the like. I too can write a book and claim. But it will be just that, a claim.

                  2. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Show me specifically what I got wrong, and list your sources - because Biola University (you know, one of the biggest christian universities in the country if not the world) taught me, and they agree with me.  They wrote in the first person, but that was a common literary style at the time, and aside from Luke, none of them come out and say "Hi, I'm Matthew, I'm writing a gospel because I was there".

                    Mark, who never met Jesus and was a disciple of Peter (supposedly) was at a closed, illegal trial in the middle of the night in front of the Sanhedrin?  That's news to me after 4 years of theological seminary.  Mark is the earliest gospel, and the majority of biblical scholars date it after the fall of Jerusalem, which places it in AD 73-80 ish.  That's a full 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

                    How is dating Jesus' death on two different days a matter of perspective?  How is the resurrection account that is different in every single gospel a matter of perspective?  How is the fact that all of the contemporary historians miss several hours of unnatural darkness, earthquakes and jewish zombies wandering the streets a matter of perspective?  Where did you get your theological degree?

    2. youcanwin profile image36
      youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      When you write the date, you are saying that Jesus came to this world.

      History says it so.

      By the way can you prove that Jesus was not came to this world?

      1. Reality Bytes profile image92
        Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        History?





        http://images.4chan.org/wsg/src/1366055984976.gif

      2. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am not saying with any certainty that Jesus never existed.  I'm saying it's impossible to know.  Which date, exactly, since both of the birth narratives have different years?  There is no consensus on how long his ministry was - some gospels say three years or so, one gospel says it's only one year or so.  John has Jesus dying on a different day than the synoptic gospels, and there is no cohesive account of the resurrection when you compare the four gospels horizontally.  There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all which means that while it's possible someone named Jesus wandered around palestine, it's also possible that it didn't happen.  No one can say for sure on either side - you or me.  I'm saying that the evidence deserves to be examined independently.  Scholars have been doing this for centuries and each one comes to a different result.

        1. youcanwin profile image36
          youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Charles Haddon Spurgeon said, “If sinners will be damned, at least let them leap to hell over our bodies; and if they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees, imploring them to stay, and not madly to destroy themselves. If hell must be filled, at least let it be filled in the teeth of our exertions, and let not one go there unwarned and unprayed for..”

          So I would urge you to take some time and think about the hell.  I don't want you to go their.  I urge you to turn to heaven.  Salvation is only by grace, through faith, in Jesus Christ only.

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            A lot of different religions have a hell.  I'm not afraid of the Islamic hell.  I'm not afraid of the Christian hell.  I don't believe they exist, and if your god is moral or just, he wouldn't have created a place of eternal torture for well over 2/3 of the worlds population throughout history.  How much are you really going to enjoy heaven, knowing that your friends, relatives, family members, coworkers, etc are going to be tortured forever? 

            I don't need to think about hell.  Since you like it so much, why don't YOU think about it more - and ask yourself why a perfect, merciful and just god would need to create eternal torture for the crime of not believing in him in the first place.  Why he would need to force people into faith out of fear, not out of love or acceptance.  That's not a god.  It's a tyrant - and I would rather go to hell than worship him.

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Here's the paradox, one that a lot of people have difficulty with. When you're in the unfiltered presence of God all the time, that's all you'll think about. And knowing that other people chose not to be there won't lessen your experience.

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And I find the description of hopeful reality morally absurd.  do you become a robot once you get to heaven and fail to notice that 2/3 of the world isn't there?  Don't recognize that you're missing loved ones?  Becoming a mindless, worshiping automaton sounds like hell to me.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  As it obviously does to a lot of people. I know before I became a Christian and especially before I experienced the Holy Spirit I couldn't fathom it.

                  I don't know what your experiences have been, I remember somewhat what you wrote and I don't remember if you listed anything truly comparable to what I experienced. I don't want to make any assumptions. All I know is that when you've truly experienced the Holy Spirit there's literally nothing else like it.

                  Besides, the real question would be, "If you knew that you could have something wonderful beyond words forever and ever, and other people knew it too but didn't believe it, would their choice not to partake of it lessen your experience?" Universalism is not necessarily a good answer to that question, the dragging along of people who didn't want the experience into it. I'm not just talking about people who don't believe in Heaven, I'm talking about people who express anger at God because He doesn't behave the way they think he should, who literally hold Him to blame for everything bad that has ever happened. Why would Heaven be Heaven to them?

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't think mindlessly singing and being lost in the worship of a being solely to feed its ego sounds like a true heaven for anybody, to be honest with you.  And while we've discussed personal experiences on a surface level (with an interest in discussing them more) I've seen many of the supposed affects of the holy spirit, and the only thing I can really tell is that it's different yet similar for everyone (and similar to the experiences of people in other religions, for that matter) AND the only reason that it's attributed to the holy spirit is because believers claim it is.  There's really no way to tell where these experiences are coming from, or if they're from any god and not simply a human experience as evidenced by the fact that similar experiences are repeated around the world - no matter what religion or god you follow.  DO you not find that slightly strange?

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol

            2. youcanwin profile image36
              youcanwinposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Soldiers heading to an almost hopeless battle on a great ship cornered their chaplain and asked him if he believed in a literal hell. He was a liberal who didn’t believe the Bible completely and he said “absolutely not…take courage and don’t worry. I do not believe that a loving God would send anyone to such a place as hell.” They then asked him to resign saying, “if there is no hell…we don’t need you…and if there is a hell…we do not wish to be led astray!”

              Don't be so liberal and led astray!

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The ethical maturity of a child.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I assume you mean the liberal minister.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, anyone who's only reason to do right is because they are afraid of hell needs to grow up.

              2. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not a liberal.  I'm an atheist.  I don't believe in hell at all - and despite a handful of biblical verses (which I don't accept, because I do not believe in the bible - although I'd bet that I've studied it more than the majority of Christians I know) you simply cannot prove that it exists any more than the Romans can prove Hades or Muslims can prove their hell or Hindus can prove reincarnation.  It makes no sense to be afraid of an imaginary place.  I'm also not afraid of your god, the boogeyman, the tooth fairy or bigfoot.

  4. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    JMcFarland wrote:
    Satan has the power to do miracles?  Really?  Where in the bible does it say that? 
    = - = -
    A Driveby Quipperwrote

    Revelation.
    = - =
    me
    I believe you are right   which I think would mean that he could and/or does  "Bless" those that follow his false doctrine.  As well as curse his oposition

  5. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Wow! When did Messiah fulfill His coming (2nd coming?) again?
    Robertr04,  You ask so ... here is my opinion
        Daniel 9:1 tells us when these events happened to Daniel (538 BC).   Daniel 9:23 says THE Command has gone forth!   From that time the children of Daniels people (Hebrew Nation) has 70 weeks to quit sinning (or Else)
        (From that time)  it shall be 69 weeks unto Messiah the prince.  Theologians say that this is talking about the 2nd coming,…  ( From that, 538) time it shall be 62 weeks and then they will kill the Messiah.
        This 62 weeks lasted approx 568 of our years.
        The children of Daniels people didn’t quit sinning or anoint the most Holy, SO , Those people were punished through the 7 seal judgments until  they came to their end of days in 138 AD.   Evidently the 70 weeks must have passed and also the 69 weeks unto the Messiah the Prince. The Rapture happens at this time and some of those which lie in their graves are risen. This is not “THE” resurrection.
        This word “Beast” sounds like such a terrible thing when in reality it isn’t.  The power that this beast was given was given to it from God.  All of the 4 kingdoms  depicted through out the book of Daniel are seen in visions as Beasts. Babylon kingdom, Persian kingdom, Grecian kingdom and the Roman Empire are seen as Beasts. So in revelation this Beast is also a kingdom of some sort.   This described in Rev is a kingdom which made everyone serve God it’s way; or suffer the consequences. That is all that Revelation is saying. 
        Who or what is the beast? This beast is organized religion as established by Emperor Constantine in 326 AD 
         satan's 1000yr "binding" ended before WW1?  And will be free to gather the kings together for battle. for a “Little season”  A season is 13 weeks. 13 weeks which are equal to the weeks described when 62 weeks took 568 years to come to fulfillment in Daniel 9.
        What of Rev.20,21,22? Have the unrighteous already been judged and punished? NO!
        Rev 14 and 20 happen at the same time they are depicting the same event. Six of the seven trumpet judgments had been sounded. And the first resurrection happens at this time. It is after this event happens as described in C 14 that the bowl judgments are given to the Last seven angels as described in C 15.
        What of the 2 witnesses? They are given exactly 1260 days. The beast was given 42 months which is approx 1260 days.  They began their time on earth at approx the same time that the Beast began its 42 months.
        Who was (or what was) the false prophet?  The false prophet is Islam,  What ever these two witnesses represent ?  One resides within each of the organized religions, Christianity and Islam.
        This is what caused the division (denominations and sects) within both religions.   The righteous and unrighteous are both members of both religions.
    When the 42 months is finished there will be a very short period of time before we come to the end of the Book.

  6. 60
    Doris Cavalieroposted 3 years ago

    Salvation is free only if you use your free will to reconcile with God the Father by loving your neighbor (any human being), and if you use your free will to work for a better society where abortion is made illegal,food, clothing, shelter, drugs, money, and communism are not made for capitalistic profit through a humble and spiritual life, simple living, fasting and abstaining from excessive sex, ownership, and enslavement of each human being.  Lastly, salvation is free only if you use your free will to pray, tithe, and live as a soul that is totally dependent on Almighty God, Father (Abba), Son (Savior and Lord), and Holy Spirit (Spirit of Life and Holiness).  Salvation is also free when we use our free will to follow our personal heart and respect each other as we altogether follow the heart.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image85
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Doris, Dear, I am free to see that the freedom you speak of is not free at all.....it's all dependent upon conditions!   You have described contradiction after contradiction.

      Even your beliefs are not free of the demands of the god you claim to follow.

      Logic is not your best talent!  But, when we think about it, nothing of faith is logical.

      1. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, but then let's extrapolate that out: What freedom actually  contains no conditions? The freedom to do what you want either must be conditional or it must inpinge the freedom of someone else at some point. So what it boils down to is what you consider freedom to be free from.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am all in favour of sensible, fair and reasonable requirements; the society in which I choose to live making rules and codes of conduct for me to follow.   We have such rules and codes, although they can vary from community to community.  We also have, basically (although not perfectly designed) a set of punishments and corrections for not following the rules, etc.  We humans have set these up over the  years, having come to understand what will work best for our sustained enjoyment of life, as a community.   This imposes some constraints up me, of course.   I give up my "freedom," somewhat, because I accept the rules for my own good as well as my community.

          The reduction of freedom which I do not accept is that imposed by other humans who try to restrict me without good reason, unfairly and in a bullying fashion.  Such restrictions will be imposed mainly because other humans want to control me beyond what is reasonable and conducive to good community living.  I see much of the religious rhetoric and argument directed towards such control.

          Therefore I reject it, until someone can convince otherwise.

          1. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The irony is that much of the anti-religious rhetoric I hear, especially from the public square (by which I mean members of various governments and certain activists) has the same intention. The difference is not whether there will be control or not but what and who will be controlled.

            Most Christians believe in "sensible, fair and reasonable requirements" as well. John Carpenter notwithstanding, we're not looking to set up some kind of police state, in fact just the opposite.

            "We humans have set these up over the  years, having come to understand what will work best for our sustained enjoyment of life, as a community." That's true, but over time what we humans have considered to be the best enjoyment of life has changed radically, and will continue to do so. In general, if you look at history, there are periods of permissiveness followed by backlashes.

        2. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Precisely, and each of us is FREE to decide for ourselves, without the interference of those who have ulterior motives and staunch faiths of their own. 

          Each opinion is dependent on background, need, desire, time of life, etc., etc.  It is mostly christian people who find it difficult to allow other opinions without judgment in my experience.  People of other persuasions tend to be a bit more flexible and accommodating.  I know some others are equally fixed in their opinion, so I am not targeting only christians.

          1. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What I'm trying to figure out is where you live that really and truly it is Christians who are the most inflexible and in your face. In my experience, government (no matter who is in charge) is the most guilty of that charge.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              It's not a question of where one lives, Chris.  The more "right-wing" (for want of a better term) christian is more likely to regard me, as a man with a homosexual disposition, as "sinful in the eyes of the Lord," and therefore very much in need of forgiveness and redemption. 

              If I entered a church with a strong evangelical, "born-again" emphasis in its teachings, and declared myself homosexual, what do you suppose the reactions of the congregation and their pastors would be? Would they accept me with unconditional love, without declaring me sinful, and admit me to their presence without insisting I can not be "just as I am, without one plea?"

              If I declare that I have a leaning towards Buddhist teachings and understandings of the world, yet I fully accept the right of the christian to have and hold his/her views without wishing to change their views, will they then turn to me and say, "yes, we have our views and we know these views are different from yours, but we respect you have your views and we do not stand in judgment of you, or expect you to change just because we differ."

              That strong, fundamental christian stand is usually adamant.   "We have the authority of the Bible, and we know we are saved and you are not, and it is our intention, our duty, to convert you to our way of thinking."

              The Jewish faith, the Hindu, Buddhist, the Pagan, the Wiccan people of the world do not stand over people like the christians do.  I agree that some of them do not accept homosexuality as being legitimate, and they can be to a greater or lesser degree antagonistic towards homosexual people.  However, I do not think they are any where near as arrogant and judgmental as the right-wing christians (including the official line of the Roman Catholic Church).

              Finally, you put the point, "....government .... is the most guilty of that charge," i.e., being inflexible and in-your-face.   What government today is not being influenced by people of the right-wing christian groups?   Sure, the fanatical people of Islam can be guilty of this also, but at least they are open and forthright about it.   The christians have to, in many cases, be covert and hypocritical about it, usually with a purely political or commercial purpose at the root of their deliberations.

              Can you wonder that I have such a strong anti- towards christianity?   No doubt I am not alone!

              1. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's both rather true and rather unfair. By that I mean  that yes,  the kind of people who would picket military funerals would also be unlikely to regard you with much compassion because you're gay. It's unfair because I could just as easily cite groups that would regard me just as negatively based on the fact that I am a conservative Christian. And as a man who has studied and thought about it a lot, I do regard you (as I regard myself and everyone else) as sinful in God's eyes and in need of forgiveness by God and compassion from men. My experience is  that no single group has a corner on either compassion or lack thereof.

                That depends on which church, and how you presented it. It's by no means unheard of for activists to enter churches with the express purpose of picking a fight. But if you said you need compassion and forgiveness, I think most churches (not all, but many) would want to welcome you. Would there be dissension in the ranks? Yes. But I think that many leaderships would want to at least give you a chance.  Again, we are all sinful. But yes, I think you would be surprised at how much love you would experience from many conservative churches.

                That depends on who, specifically you're talking about. I've said that many times.

                Again, although there is some truth  there, it's unfair to single us out. I've lived long enough and in enough different situations that  I've only ever discovered one group that has so far been unconditionally accepting and I haven't seriously tested that, and that is musicians. For instance:

                In Israel and India, the record disagrees with that. In America, maybe, but in India Hindus sometimes rampage and burn houses of worship for other faiths. In Israel, some Jewish groups can be very aggressive. I used to live in New York City and had a lot of Jewish friends (and even a girlfriend or two) and I tell you Oy! I got a lot of love for them but it's untrue to say that no Jews are as judgemental as some Christians. And speaking of NYC, I hung out with a few Wiccans in my day and I gotta tell you, they can be quite judgemental. While it is true that many conservative Christians are in Congress, it would be quite a stretch to say that the current occupant of the White House is a fundamentalist, or any member of the Supreme Court. So in that respect, I can comfortably say that Christianity is on the downswing in our government. As for that last sentence, bit of bias there?

                I never did. And I've been in this forum long enough to know that you are not alone.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "salvation is free only if you use your free will to pray, tithe, ..."

      I'm sorry, but when monetary payment is necessary it just doesn't seem very "free" to me.  And when you add in all the other things that you are demanding for salvation the cost becomes literally your entire life. 

      Given that, I would have to pass.  Anyone demanding that I give everything, including the ability to choose how I would live, for the claimed chance of an undefined "salvation" won't get much business from me.  When they tell me it's free but have their palm out for payment, well, it's time to walk (or run) away.

      1. Chris Neal profile image84
        Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You got it and you didn't. You are correct that what is demanded is basically your life. But the claim of salvation is not undefined, it is quite clear what it means. But ultimately it is true that you must decide what you will give up now for what you hope to gain later.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That claim of salvation is NOT defined in any real sense, because it (and a theoretical possible "gain later,") are fully dependent upon the premise that there is a "hereafter," beyond the death of our bodies.

          I do not accept such a premise, therefore no gain for me later.

          1. Iamsam profile image65
            Iamsamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Bible says “The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire” (Revelations 20:13-15). Throughout the Gospels and the book of Revelation, Jesus was careful to tell us about the horrors of hell.

            The flames would leap out unexpectedly from all directions. People would move away, and then as soon as they seemed to think that they were safe, another fire would burst forth. There was no rest for these unfortunate victims of sin; they were doomed to spend all eternity being scorched and burned as they endeavored to escape the flames of hell.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              All that and yet..... you still include this statement in your Profile:    "Wish and pray for me so that I may reach my goal at the earliest."  (You have said that it's a financial goal).
              How many lives will you press into the ground with your steam-roller zeal, in order to reach that goal?

              You can believe what you want and lead the life as you wish, but I see all that as rubbish, designed to control the lives of others for YOUR own purposes.

              Just supposing you decided to relinquish all of your ambitions; all of your material possessions; all of your beliefs ---- then, when you are on rock bottom, come back to me with some kind of advice that will genuinely help me.   Until that time, I wish you well but suspect your life will not be easy.

          2. Chris Neal profile image84
            Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is certainly your choice, but the hereafter is not theoretical.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh, Chris.... sorry, but that is beyond logic!

              1. Chris Neal profile image84
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not if it's true!

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No one can prove that the "Hereafter" is for real.   Same as no one can prove that there is NO "hereafter."   Either proposition remains a theory until proven beyond reasonable doubt.

                  However, reasonable logic tells us that to have a "life" beyond the death of our bodies would not be possible in the nature of the life we have now.   After death we will have none of the 5 senses working (visual, auditory, olfactory, taste and touch).   So any "life" without those would have to be un-recognisable by us from this state of existence and strictly speaking any imagination will be just that.

                  It's all theoretical.   You can believe it or not, your choice.   A theory remains a theory.

                  1. Iamsam profile image65
                    Iamsamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Many Near Death Experience prove without any doubt that senses (visual, auditory, olfactory, taste and touch) are more active than we currently have in this world.  Moreover Telepathic communication will be activated in the other world.

                    The only time most people think about eternity is at funerals, and then it's often shallow, sentimental thinking, based on ignorance. You may feel it's morbid to think about death, but actually it's unhealthy to live in denial of death and not consider what is inevitable. Only a fool would go through life unprepared for what we all know will eventually happen. You need to think more about eternity, not less.

                       Just as the nine months you spent in your mother's womb were not an end in themselves but preparation for life, so this life is preparation for the next. If you have a relationship with God through Jesus, you don't need to fear death. It is the door to eternity. It will be the last hour of your time on earth, but it won't be the last of you. Rather than being the end of your life, it will be your birthday into eternal life. The Bible says, "This world is not our home; we are looking forward to our everlasting home in heaven."

  7. PaulGoodman67 profile image90
    PaulGoodman67posted 3 years ago

    Unfortunately, I personally find that a lot of free stuff is shoddy and doesn't work properly.  The best stuff in life, you generally have to work for, and that usually means using your brain!  smile

  8. Disappearinghead profile image88
    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago

    Spot on Rad Man. Which although I believe in our Father in Heaven, I have a completely different view of him to Chris. Simply put what kind of father wilfully sets their child on fire?

    1. Chris Neal profile image84
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      A more pertinent question might be, knowing that being set on fire is the end result, what kid willingly goes through their life saying, "Don't believe it. Just because it's there for me to see doesn't mean anything. Up yours, big guy!"

      (The answer, of course, is human ones.)

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What's the most likely scenario?

        An invisible undetectable loving forgiving God tells us in a book written by his favourite people that if we don't believe in him and follow his rules he will burn us in fire for eternity. Do as I say, not as I do.

        Or..

        Some people wrote some stories that were used to inspire their people and give them a sense of entitlement for war. To make sure everyone got in line they threatened the people with hell fire.

        1. Chris Neal profile image84
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Are you asking me which is the more likely to happen or which I'm more likely to believe? Because neither one of those is the actual existing scenario.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Okay, how would you right the scenario?

            1. Chris Neal profile image84
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A loving, forgiving God who reveals Himself in many different ways, sometimes directly but often not, tells us in a book written by people He has chosen that if we believe in Him and follow His rules, we can spend eternity in His presence unfiltered, which is better than the best thing you can think of multiplied by a thousand and then squared a thousand more times. If we don't then we will burn in fire for eternity. But it is a choice that we make. And He is Holy, and wholly different from humans. He cannot have sin in His presence in Heaven, therefore we must show that we truly desire to be in Heaven with Him, and even though we are not able to be sinless on our own we can accept the gift of His son's sacrifice to take away our sins. To the best of you ability, be as I AM, not as you are.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So we should follow his example and burn people for eternity if they don't do as we ask. I should write an anonymous book asking for devotion from all and threaten to burn people if they don't do as I ask. How is that loving and how is that forgiving. He's not forgiving anyone and only loving those who are afraid that his threat may be valid.

                Sorry Chris it's just not making any sense.

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You keep ignoring the main point, which is that man IS NOT God. The insistence of some in equating the actions of God with the actions of man is what does not make sense.

                  And again, for the sake of this discussion, the actual existence of God is not the point. The point is in defining the terms the way they should be defined, clearly and according to the available data and criteria. You writing an anonymous book in no way, no how, is analogous to a book that is actually a collection of books written over thousands of years.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not sure why you keep coming back to the Man Is Not God part. I'm aware of that, but it makes no difference. According to you he made us in his image and wants us to follow his rules and worship him and is completely unable and can't be around sin, but if we don't follow his rules even though there is no evidence of his existence he will burn us for eternity. There is nothing fair, loving or forgiving in that statement and claiming that he is not human doesn't make it okay. He's doing what the mafia has been doing only they make themselves available. "Give me money (worship) to protect you and your store (healing) or I'll break your legs (hell fire)."

                    Does he give us different rules then his own? Do as I say not as I do?

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It makes sense, of course, but you will deny or reject the comparison simply because you know as well as we do that God's acts are reprehensible, not matter what.

              2. Disappearinghead profile image88
                Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Chris Rad Man doesn't believe precisely because God has not revealed himself either directly or indirectly, and no Christian to date has been able to offer a sufficiently brilliant argument to convince him otherwise. The onus is on the one threatening the eternal fire. Rad Man is the customer and he has not been convinced of the sale offer. At the end of the day a loving father would not set him on fire anymore than you or I would.

                You say God will not have sin in his presence. Do you believe Jesus was God? If so why did he not have a problem with being surrounded by sin and sinful people? Does God have a personality change after we die? Does not Jesus blood cover the sin anymore?

                1. Chris Neal profile image84
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I understand that, what I keep trying to point out is that what is actually being "bought or rejected" (in sales parlance) has not been properly defined. And no offense to you or to Rad but the rebuttal for my points seems to be resoundingly "We're just going to ignore that and stick to what we were saying before."

                  Of course I believe that Jesus is both fully God and fully man. And I believe that God's presence does come to people on Earth, which means that in that respect, and when Jesus walked the Earth, He was in the presence of sin. But in Heaven we will be in his presence all the time, not just experiencing it here and there, now and then like we do on Earth. And the Bible says several times that He cannot be in the presence of sin, meaning in Heaven. Yes, Jesus' blood does cover us and our sin but the Bible makes clear that we must accept that gift. God does not change but He changes us if we accept Jesus' gift here on Earth. When He was here on Earth, Jesus was surrounded by sinful people but He also showed them how to overcome sin and continually admonished them to do so. The Kingdom of Heaven is advancing forcefully and forceful people will grab hold of it. I know many people subscribe to universalism (I don't remember if you are one of them) because it seems more humane, and I fully understand that. But God has made it pretty clear that if we reject Him on Earth, He doesn't feel any compulsion to drag us into Heaven.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    What Disappearinghead says makes much more common sense then the scenario you give. Doesn't it have to make sense for you?

  9. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    Imagine if our brains were a brand new computer with nothing except a program to logicaly examine statements to determine its true meaning.  I think it would be important as to what statements of fact was first entered into the program as to establish a foundation upon which all other statements would have to be maintained?  Biblically speaking, I think that I would first enter in the book of Genesis …  "In the beginning God said let us make man in our image".    And then I would enter all scripture thought to be prophetic.   
    If this computer program properly diagnosed a final conclusion; I don’t think the answer would be found to be acceptable by very many Christian institutions, because most or all religions have come to rely upon interpretations of scripture much more than we do the words which are actually written in scripture. And we have been doing this for as long as we have had access to the scriptures themselves.

  10. youcanwin profile image36
    youcanwinposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/7957493_f248.jpg

  11. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    These things I do know
    The bible does NOT say that Adam was the very first human to live on the face of the earth.
    The bible does not say how many times civilization may have flourished on earth and ended.
    The bible does give a family tree back to this one man ADAM.
    It is written that God walked and talked to Adam.  According to the family tree, most of these Patriarchs were still alive when Noah was born.   The bible does say that this family tree and many stories, as we know them, were passed along by word of mouth  originating from at least one of 8 people who report being on an arch.

    Noah had recently died when Abraham was born. So it could be true that these stories were only handed down four times. And then it was copied how many times because the scrolls had deteriorated and translated how many times, So I'm not going to swear that each and every word as it is written today is straight out of the mouth of God.  I do think there is some truth to the story as long as we do not read more into them than what is written there.

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree we shouldn't read more into it than what's there.    Barring context of course.   Sometimes when people think something's been "left out" of the Bible, it's simply that there was nothing there in the first place to leave out;   the facts speak for themselves in their total simplicity.

      Are you saying that you're not sure Adam was the first human?
      Genesis gives no hint of any previous formation of humans.  And 2: 8 kinda seals the fact that Adam was the first human.   No reason to read anything else into it.

      1. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe that there is a LOT of truth that is not written down in the bible. This is why we should not read anything into it that isn't written.  I don't think it is necessary for us to put our faith in what the bible says.
        Ny faith is in God only. I do not have faith that man has the ability to translate "THE ORIGIONAL" writings if they were avaliable.   And even if they could ? I do not have faith in man enough to know that he has not either on purpose or by accident, manipulated the bible for their own purposes.

        I think the bible is good for giving us a general Idea as to who or what God Is. The bible itself tells us that there will come a religion that is so good of a counterfit that many of the most rightious will be fooled into believing some false doctrines.  Depending upon what these doctrines are ...    ???  How would we know if this hasn't already happened?   Because the book that I am reading says that it is the real one?

        As I've said 100's of times, I believe in the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob.  And I believe that Jesus was the Messiah spoken of in the NT.  And I follow the ten commandments to the best of my ability.
        I believe I have a good relationship with God.   And I don't think he wants me to have total faith in every word that is written in a book, especially when it is written that there will be a false one. One that is so close to the truth that it fools many of the elect if that is possible and I'm not even one of the elect. This was written 1900 years ago.     How do I know I'm not reading that one it was speaking of now.  Because the book that I am reading says that it is true. Well I believe it is 99% true. Depending upon what that 1% is, it could be a really big deal while not being recognized as such.
            I think I've rambled enough     may God bless you Brenda

            The Lord said that he will write his laws in our hearts. If this is true?  ...?

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Until the Land of Nod suddenly appears out of nowhere bearing people. What would you be reading into that?

  12. jacobkuttyta profile image46
    jacobkuttytaposted 3 years ago

    Interesting discussions

  13. youcanwin profile image36
    youcanwinposted 3 years ago

    There is a God who made you for a reason, and your life has profound meaning! We discover that meaning and purpose only when we make God the reference point of our lives. The Message paraphrase of Romans 12:3 says, "The only accurate way to understand ourselves is by what God is and by what he does for us."

 
working