|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| cionanian-cro wrote: |
| TheMrCul wrote: |
| The difference between these two is that Jeffery's debt has been payed, whereas Dahli Lama's hasn't. Which is sad. But may people have a misconception of how to get into heaven. It is not by our good works that we get into heaven. It doesn't matter how many good things we do, we still have sin, and a debt to God to be payed. Not a single person can say "we have kept the law", not even the Dahli Lama - because we all at some point in our lives have lied, stolen, etc. and time doesn't forgive sin. In the process of sinning, we anger God. He is so holy, so perfect, so righteous, that even our thought life matters to him, and will be brought out into the open on Judgement Day. If we stand alone on Judgment Day, we will have to pay the fine ourselves, which is hell. Jesus died and rose again so that we can be presented spotless in front of God on Judgement Day. If we don't recieve that gift, that's exactly it. We don't recieve it. And that's a terrible thought, and that's why Jesus last words before he ascended were: "Yes, it was written long ago that the Messiah must suffer and die and rise again from the dead on the third day. With my authority, take this message of repentance to all the nations, begining in Jerusalem: "There is forgiveness of sins for all who turn to me"." |
This is a religion that obliterates morality.
No, I should be fair--this particular interpretation, or strain, of this religion--obliterates morality.
What we do, how we treat each other, is of utterly no importance.
All that matters is whether we recognize Christ.
Your faith, sir, is monstrous. |
What is this site turning into, a sock festival? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheMrCul wrote: |
The difference between these two is that Jeffery's debt has been payed, whereas Dahli Lama's hasn't. |
Oh hello God, nice of you to drop by.
| Quote: |
1 Cor 4:3-5
It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheMrCul
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Korea, finally...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is only sad that you believe this. I cannot even begin to consider a religion so arrogant that it thinks that the Dalai Lama is condemned to hell. Funny thing, the Dalai Lama has a so much kinder view of Christianity. |
Well by our human standards, we are all good people. But by God's standards, which are of moral perfection (perfection in word thought and deed) we aren't. God's heaven is perfect, so naturally only perfect beings can exist in there, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect. We aren't perfect, so we need to be made perfect. Jesus says if you repent of your sins and trust in him you will have forgiveness for your sins (eg be made perfect) in God's sight.
| Quote: |
Just a couple Bible contradictions for you:
JESUS' POSITION
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
ORDER OF CREATION
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
NUMBER OF ANIMALS IN ARK
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
JESUS' FIRST SERMON (PLAIN or MOUNTAIN?)
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
LORD = SATAN?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.
WHO TEMPTS?
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
Do you want more? I have many. |
Jesus' Position:
Jesus is God. God is a trinity. God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is the meaning of the first quoted verse. But the Son only does what the Father tells him to do:
"I assure you, the Son can do nothing by himself. He does only what he sees the father doing. Whatever the Father does, the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and tells him everything he's doing, and the Son will do far greater things than healing [the lame man]. You will be astonished at what he does. He will even raise from the dead anyone he wants to, just as the Father does. And the Father leaves all judgement to his Son, so that everyone will honour the Son, just as they honour the Father. But if you refuse to honour the Son, then you are certainly not honouring the Father who sent him." John 5:19-23
Order of creation
A careful reading of the two chapters will show the solution for each of the supposed contradictions.
Genesis Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
Genesis Chaper 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
Genesis 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day six in the Garden of Eden.
Number of animals in the ark
"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female" = 7 pairs of clean animals
"and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." = 1 pair of unclean animals
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. = all the groups of animals went into the ark in pairs (consisting of 1 male and 1 female) - the seven pairs of clean, and the single pair of unclean. That is not a contradiction.
Jesus' first Sermon
Are these Scriptures contradictory? Did Jesus preach the sermon in the mountain or upon the plain? Which is correct?
The answer is simply this: There were TWO sermons - one preached in the mountain, the other preached upon the plain; the first one was preached to the disciples, the other to the crowd.
We should note that Matthew was not present at the Sermon on the Mount which is recorded in his Gospel, but he was present when Jesus repeated the sermon upon the plain. This becomes clear when we read the following Scriptures: Matthew 9:9 and Luke 6:15.
Lord = Satan?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel.
Poor translation of the King James. Satan inspired (provoked) David, the Lord permitted it.
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)
>GE 22:1-12, DT 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
>JG 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
>1CO 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
>JA 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
Note Hebrews 11:17. A better translation of the Greek ��peirazo�� is "tried" (or proved, tested). God examines us much like a master teacher...to demonstrate our faith (or lack thereof) and to mature us. James uses it in this sense earlier in the chapter (James 1:2-3). There is a very different Greek used in verse 13. ��Peirasmos�� means "a solicitation to do evil." It is based on our lusts or on Satanic seductions.
There are no contradictions in the Bible. A good website to go to for answers in "contradictions" is: http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/answered/answered.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheMrCul
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Korea, finally...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This is a religion that obliterates morality.
No, I should be fair--this particular interpretation, or strain, of this religion--obliterates morality.
What we do, how we treat each other, is of utterly no importance.
All that matters is whether we recognize Christ.
Your faith, sir, is monstrous. |
No it doesn't obliterate morality. The thing is though, we can never have enough morality as human beings to get into heaven because we have sin. When you become a Christian it doesn't mean you do whatever you want and you will magically go to heaven! No! When you become a Christian God takes your sin filled heart (and mine) and gives you a new one with new desires. That's what he promises! Doing good things is a natural outpouring of the gift we have received, but you don't need good works to get into heaven, in fact you can't use them to get into heaven.
It's like this: You're in front of a Judge and the evidence for a terrible crime (lets say murder) is all out on the table - you're guilty. And you say to the Judge, "Yes, but I washed your car before I came in here". The Judge is going to say. "Thankyou! But I'm still bound by the law to punish you for murder". It's the same with God. That is what I was getting at.
Please go here and read Romans Chapter 7, it explains it really well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheMrCul
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Korea, finally...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Jesus himself makes a point of contradicting much of the teaching contained in the OT.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and don't turn away him who desires to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42) |
That is not a contradiction. Many people interpret the verse to give people a license to take matters into their own hands and render evil for evil. In reality, it is referring to civil law concerning reconstitution. If someone steals your ox, he is to restore your ox. If someone steals and wrecks your car, he is to buy you another one. car for a car, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. The spirit of what Jesus is saying here is radically different from the "sue the shirt of your neighbour" society in which we live.
| Quote: |
| I think the Greek word in 2 Tim 3:16 was theopneustos - usually literally translated as "God breathed" or "inspired by God". However in the late 1800s there was a view that this meant not "God-inspired" but "God-inspiring" - completely altering the view of the meaning of the Bible! Either way, it's clear that the Bible is corrupted / imparted / limited by human hands and minds, inspiration being anyway somewhat different to dictation. The fundie view that the Bible is completely God's word is akin to the Islamic view of the Qur'an. |
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means "God-breathed," implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. And no, the Bible hasn't changed over the ages. God has preserved his Word. In the spring of 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These manuscripts were copies of large portions of the Old Testiment, 1000 years older than any other existing copies. Studys of the scrolls has revealed that the Bible hasn't changed in content down through the ages as many sceptics have surmised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheMrCul
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Korea, finally...
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| TheMrCul wrote: |
The difference between these two is that Jeffery's debt has been payed, whereas Dahli Lama's hasn't. |
Oh hello God, nice of you to drop by.
| Quote: |
1 Cor 4:3-5
It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God. |
|
Mith, I never said the Dahli Lama is going to hell. I was responding to a mock situation from JeJuJitsu. I merely said that if the Dahli Lama, like any of the rest of us, dies in his sins with no way to pay for it (and the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the only way) then he would go to hell.
I'm not here to tell you "you're all sinners you're going to hell!!" I'm merely pointing out what happens if you die in your sins, as is written in the Bible. I care for the eternal salvation of people here, that is why I'm writing this. I don't want anyone to go to Hell! I'm not asking for money, I'm not telling you to join a church, I don't get some strange feeling of joy in "proving people wrong" either. I'm just pointing out the truth as is in Scripture. If you don't want it that's fine, I can't force it on you. But at least you know now what the Bible says about people who die in their sins.
I will continue to try to answer questions as I can, but we could go on forever. And in the end, that is really what faith is about - we could debate and go on and on, but in the end you have to "put Jesus on" like you would a parachute before you jump. You may not yet have all the answers to your questions, but better to put on the parachute first and then ask questions, than to pass through the door unprepared, grasping for the parachute when it��s too late.
God bless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheMrCul wrote: |
Note Hebrews 11:17. A better translation of the Greek ��peirazo�� is "tried" (or proved, tested). God examines us much like a master teacher...to demonstrate our faith (or lack thereof) and to mature us. James uses it in this sense earlier in the chapter (James 1:2-3). There is a very different Greek used in verse 13. ��Peirasmos�� means "a solicitation to do evil." It is based on our lusts or on Satanic seductions.
|
Do me a favour. Peirazo is the verb form of peirasmos. Strong's does say that peirasmos "by impl." means "adversity" but that's pushing interpretation a bit. Peirasmos means 'trial' and peirazo means 'to put someone to the test'. Neither implies evil or Satanic seductions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheMrCul wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| TheMrCul wrote: |
The difference between these two is that Jeffery's debt has been payed, whereas Dahli Lama's hasn't. |
Oh hello God, nice of you to drop by.
| Quote: |
1 Cor 4:3-5
It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God. |
|
Mith, I never said the Dahli Lama is going to hell. I was responding to a mock situation from JeJuJitsu. I merely said that if the Dahli Lama, like any of the rest of us, dies in his sins with no way to pay for it (and the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the only way) then he would go to hell.
|
I have no problem with that then. The problem with the previous post was merely that you forgot to mention the word 'if'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hypnotist
Joined: 04 Dec 2004
Location: I wish I were a sock
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheMrCul wrote: |
| Quote: |
Jesus himself makes a point of contradicting much of the teaching contained in the OT.
(Matthew 5:38-42) |
That is not a contradiction. Many people interpret the verse to give people a license to take matters into their own hands and render evil for evil. In reality, it is referring to civil law concerning reconstitution. If someone steals your ox, he is to restore your ox. If someone steals and wrecks your car, he is to buy you another one. car for a car, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. The spirit of what Jesus is saying here is radically different from the "sue the shirt of your neighbour" society in which we live. |
Of course, and it's one of the reasons I'm a fan of the teachings of Jesus (though not a Christian). But still, you're wriggling. The issue here is contradictions in the Bible. "An eye for an eye" is clearly God's law in the OT (Deuteronomy 19:21, Exodus 21:22-25, Leviticus 24:17-21). It doesn't matter whether you're a literalist (lose an eye for causing another to lose an eye) or take an interpretative view (pay the value of an eye for causing another to lose an eye). The point is that Jesus expressly contradicts both the letter and the spirit of this law.
| Quote: |
| I think the Greek word in 2 Tim 3:16 was theopneustos - usually literally translated as "God breathed" or "inspired by God". However in the late 1800s there was a view that this meant not "God-inspired" but "God-inspiring" - completely altering the view of the meaning of the Bible! Either way, it's clear that the Bible is corrupted / imparted / limited by human hands and minds, inspiration being anyway somewhat different to dictation. The fundie view that the Bible is completely God's word is akin to the Islamic view of the Qur'an. |
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means "God-breathed," implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself.[/quote]
It is that implication which is difficult to accept.
| Dr Hermann Cremer, Herzog's Realencyklopaedie, 1880 wrote: |
| In theological usage, Inspiration denotes especially the influence of the Holy Spirit in the origination of the sacred Scriptures, by means of which they become the expression to us of the will of God, or the Word of God. The term comes from the Vulgate, which renders II Tim. iii. 16 'pasa graphe theopneustos', by omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirita. Whether the meaning of the Greek term is conveyed by this is at least questionable. It clearly belongs only to Hellenistic and Christian Greek. The notion that it was used also in classical Greek of poets and seers (Huther in his Commentary) and to express what Cicero says in his pro Archia, p. 8, nemo vir magnus sine aliquo afflatu divino unquam fuit, is certainly wrong. For 'theopneustos' does not occur at all in classical Greek or in profane Greek as a whole. In the unique passage, Plutarch, de placit. phil., 5, 2 (Mor. 904, 2): 'tous oneirous tous theopneustous kat anagken ginesthai'. 'Tous de phusikous aneidolopoioumenes psuches to sumtheron aute ktl'., it is very probably to be ascribed to the copyist, and stands, as Wyttenbach conjectures, in the place of 'theopemptous'. Besides this it occurs in Pseudo- Phocylides, v. 121: 'tes de theopneustou sophies logos estin aristos'-- unless the whole line is, with Bernays, to be deleted as disturbing to the sense--as well as in the fifth book of the "Sibyllines," v. 308: 'Kume d he mora sun namasi tois theopneustois', and v. 406, 'Alla megan genetera theon panton theopneuston En thusiais egerairon kai hagias ekatombas'. The Psuedo-Phocylides was, however, a Hellenist, and the author of the fifth book of the "Sibyllines" was, most probably, an Egyptian Jew living in the time of Hadrian. On Christian ground we find it in II Tim. iii. 16, which is possibly the earliest written employment of it to which we can point. Wetstein, on this passage, adduces the sentence from the Vita Sabae 16 ( Cotelerii Monum.): 'ephthase te tou Chu chariti he panton theopneuston, panton christophoron autou sunodia mechri ho onomaton' as well as the designation of Marcus Eremita as 'o theopneustos aner' That the term has a passive meaning = 'gifted with God's Spirit,' 'divinely spirited,' (not 'inspired' as Ewald rightly distinguishes) may be taken as indubitable from 'Sibyll.', v. 406 and the two passages last adduced. Nevertheless 'graphe theopneustos' does not seem easily capable of meaning 'inspired by God's Spirit' in the sense of the Vulgate; when connected with such conceptions as 'graphe' here, 'nama', 'fountain,' 'Sibyll.' v. 308, it would rather signify 'breathing a divine spirit,' in keeping with that ready transition of the passive into the active sense which we see in 'apneustos', 'eupneustos', 'ill- or well-breathed; = ' breathing ill or well.' Compare Nonnus, paraphr. ev Jo., i, 102: 'ou podos akrou andromeen palamen ouk axios eimi pelassas, lusai mounon himanta theopneustoio pedilou', with v. 129: 'baptizein apuroisi kai apneustoisi loetrois'. In harmony with this, it might be understood also in Phocyl. 121; the explanation, 'Wisdom gifted with the Divine Spirit,' at all events has in its favor the fact that 'theopneustos' is given the same sense as when it it connected with 'aner', 'anthropos'. Certainly a transition to the sense, 'breathed by God' = inspired by God' seems difficult to account for, and it would fit, without forcing, only Phocyl. 121, while in II Tim. iii. 16, on the assumption of this sense, there would be required a not altogether easy metonyme. The sense 'breathing God's Spirit' is moreover in keeping with the context, especially with the 'ophelimos pros didaskaliav ktl.' and the 'ta dunamena se sophisai', v. 15, as well as with the language employed elsewhere, e. g., in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where what the Scripture says is, as is well known, spoken of as saying, the word of the Holy Ghost. Cf. also Acts xxviii. 25. Origen also, in Hom. 21 in Jerem., seems so to understand it: sacra volumina Spiritus plenitudinem spirant. Let it be added that the expression 'breathed by God, inspired by God,' though an outgrowth of the Biblical idea, certainly, so far as it is referred to the prophecy which does not arise out of the human will (II Pet. i. 21), yet can scarcely be applied to the whole of the rest of the sacred Scriptures-- unless we are to find in II Tim. iii. 16 the expression of a conception of sacred Scripture similar to the Philonian. There is no doubt, however, that the Peshito understood it simply = 'inspired by God'--yet not differently than as in Matt. xxii. 43 we find: Dauid en pneumati lalei. It translates "etcatav cal catav ger cabodotah", 'for every Scripture which is written 'en pneumati''--certainly keeping prominently in the foreground the inspiration of the writer. Similarly the AEthiopic renders: 'And every Scripture is in the (by the) Spirit of the Lord and profits'; while the Arabic (deriving from the original text) reads: 'and every Scripture which is divinely of spiratio, divinam sapiens auram.' The rendering of the Peshito and the explanations of the Greek exegetes would certainly lend great weight to the divinitus inpirata, were not they explicable from the dominant idea of the time--for which, it was thought, a suitable term was found in II Tim. iii. 16, nowhere else used indeed and coined for the purpose--but which was itself more or less taken over from the Alexandrian Judaism, that is to say, from heathenism. |
And no, the Bible hasn't changed over the ages.[/quote]
Of course it has. Perhaps the overall message hasn't, but certainly the words used, their meanings and their interpretations have all changed over the ages. This can be seen simply by comparing what we have of (as close to as possible) the original Hebrew and Greek, the Vulgate, and the numerous English translations over the last few hundred years.
| Quote: |
| God has preserved his Word. In the spring of 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. These manuscripts were copies of large portions of the Old Testiment, 1000 years older than any other existing copies. Studys of the scrolls has revealed that the Bible hasn't changed in content down through the ages as many sceptics have surmised. |
But I've already demonstrated how Jesus contradicted the teaching in the OT. In addition, given the OT was probably first recorded around 600 years before Jesus, there would have been plenty of opportunity for it to have changed in that time.
In any case, the point is that God's Word is in places rather different between the OT, and as presented by Jesus in the NT. In addition, the NT itself has changed a great deal between 100AD and 2000AD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mithridates wrote: |
| TheMrCul wrote: |
| mithridates wrote: |
| TheMrCul wrote: |
The difference between these two is that Jeffery's debt has been payed, whereas Dahli Lama's hasn't. |
Oh hello God, nice of you to drop by.
| Quote: |
1 Cor 4:3-5
It does not concern me in the least that I be judged by you or any human tribunal; I do not even pass judgment on myself; I am not conscious of anything against me, but I do not thereby stand acquitted; the one who judges me is the Lord. Therefore, do not make any judgment before the appointed time, until the Lord comes, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will manifest the motives of our hearts, and then everyone will receive praise from God. |
|
Mith, I never said the Dahli Lama is going to hell. I was responding to a mock situation from JeJuJitsu. I merely said that if the Dahli Lama, like any of the rest of us, dies in his sins with no way to pay for it (and the Bible makes it clear that Jesus is the only way) then he would go to hell.
|
I have no problem with that then. The problem with the previous post was merely that you forgot to mention the word 'if'. |
Well, that is generous of you. 
So, to be sure I have this right, the Dalai Lama can spend his life with the express goal and the committed actions to relieve the suffering of humanity, but if he doesn't accept Jesus Christ as his savior, he will go to hell?
Yep, I have a big problem with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I have no problem with is his admittance that he doesn't know. Because I don't know either.
I'll let you know if I find out
The other thing I don't have a problem with is the fact that a person's outer appearance and deeds don't always show what kind of person they are on the inside. There are a lot of opinions on what it means to accept Jesus Christ, but I'm quite certain that the one that believes a simple recital of the fact is sufficient is quite full of shit. And unbiblical as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I've always wondered what the problem was in admitting contradictions in the Bible. Divinely inspired and perfectly non-contradictory don't always have to go hand in hand. It reminds me of the last election actually. John Kerry, what's it going to be? You can't have it both ways! That was really weird. Often a supposed contradiction is just a provider of further depth, or an update/reformation. Ido wouldn't have existed without Esperanto and jets wouldn't have existed without the Wright Brothers' invention but it doesn't mean that the first model was perfect, nor is a reform a complete denial of what came before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bible does not make it indisputably clear that Jesus is the "only way" because the Greek word erchetai (used in the John 14:6 verse) is extremely present tense and should be translated "no one is presently coming to the Father except through Me" indicating that it applies to the contemperary group of people that Jesus was preaching to. The fact that hundreds (if not thousands) of so-called Bible scholars disregard that detail does not speak well for their scholarship or spiritual realization. I'm not saying that a sincere Christian can't take shelter of Jesus today and be delivered - I'm only stating that Jesus - by this statement - did not really deny the legitimacy of other bona fide representatives of God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Demonicat
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Location: Suwon
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Theologians, please explain the story of Job to this poor cat. Is it what is seems in that God is making a bet with Satan to see how miserable he can make someone without them giving up? That seems pretty f'd up |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This theologian would respond by saying that the OT should be viewed as reference rather than literal fact and that the story of the bet was merely a way to stage the story. But then again I'm not a theologian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
