TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
Habit7 wrote:My belief sends no one to hell...
God is just in sending us all to Hell.
And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:1-10
Quran 98:6 says "Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures."Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:what of Muslims who do not believe Jesus is Christ,nor did he die on the cross or save the world of sin? They "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone"?
I never said maybe, but the Bible contempts that if Christianity is wrongDuane 3NE 2NR wrote:"maybe we are all wrong" seems a pretty agnostic statement to make
For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1 Corinthians 15:16-19
Slartibartfast wrote:Well it's what his parents would have drilled into him after their parents drilled it into them and so on and so forth all the way back his original Trinidadian ancestors in that got it beaten into them while they were slaves (just like my ancestors). You can't really hold Habit at fault for being wrong, when eternal pain and damnation are the punishments for him trying to break free and seek the truth. Any normal person in his situation without the strength of will would fear God. Hopefully his kids would be able to break the chain of abuse when they have kids.
I never said "no matter what." Hell is the predicament Christ is the solution. One is guilty before God because they have sinned, we all have sinned. Christ can save you through Him receiving your punishment on the cross. Repent of your sins, trust in Christ alone for your salvation, dont trust that your are good enough. That is message of the gospel. That is the message that has shaped the Western World. There is nothing novel about what I am saying.ABA Trading LTD wrote:Imagine habit constantly telling his kids or kids in his family that they have sinned and going to hell no matter what.
How Christianity invented children
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry
April 23, 2015
We have forgotten just how deep a cultural revolution Christianity wrought. In fact, we forget about it precisely because of how deep it was: There are many ideas that we simply take for granted as natural and obvious, when in fact they didn't exist until the arrival of Christianity changed things completely. Take, for instance, the idea of children.
Today, it is simply taken for granted that the innocence and vulnerability of children makes them beings of particular value, and entitled to particular care. We also romanticize children — their beauty, their joy, their liveliness. Our culture encourages us to let ourselves fall prey to our gooey feelings whenever we look at baby pictures. What could be more natural?
In fact, this view of children is a historical oddity. If you disagree, just go back to the view of children that prevailed in Europe's ancient pagan world.
As the historian O.M. Bakke points out in his invaluable book When Children Became People, in ancient Greece and Rome, children were considered nonpersons.
Back then, the entire social worldview was undergirded by a universally-held, if implicit, view: Society was organized in concentric circles, with the circle at the center containing the highest value people, and the people in the outside circles having little-to-no value. At the center was the freeborn, adult male, and other persons were valued depending on how similar they were to the freeborn, adult male. Such was the lot of foreigners, slaves, women...and children.
High infant mortality rates created a cultural pressure to not develop emotional attachments to children. This cultural pressure was exacerbated by the fact that women were more likely to develop emotional attachments to children — which, according to the worldview of the day, meant it had to be a sign of weakness and vulgarity.
Various pagan authors describe children as being more like plants than human beings. And this had concrete consequences.
Well-to-do parents typically did not interact with their children, leaving them up to the care of slaves. Children were rudely brought up, and very strong beatings were a normal part of education. In Rome, a child's father had the right to kill him for whatever reason until he came of age.
One of the most notorious ancient practices that Christianity rebelled against was the frequent practice of expositio, basically the abandonment of unwanted infants. (Of course, girls were abandoned much more often than boys, which meant, as the historical sociologist Rodney Stark has pointed out, that Roman society had an extremely lopsided gender ratio, contributing to its violence and permanent tension.)
Another notorious practice in the ancient world was the sexual exploitation of children. It is sometimes pointed to paganism's greater tolerance (though by no means full acceptance) of homosexuality than Christianity as evidence for its higher moral virtue. But this is to look at a very different world through distorting lenses. The key thing to understand about sexuality in the pagan world is the ever-present notion of concentric circles of worth. The ancient world did not have fewer taboos, it had different ones. Namely, most sexual acts were permissible, as long as they involved a person of higher status being active against or dominating a person of lower status. This meant that, according to all the evidence we have, the sexual abuse of children (particularly boys) was rife.
Think back on expositio. According to our sources, most abandoned children died — but some were "rescued," almost inevitably into slavery. And the most profitable way for a small child slave to earn money was as a sex slave. Brothels specializing in child sex slaves, particularly boys, were established, legal, and thriving businesses in ancient Rome. One source reports that sex with castrated boys was regarded as a particular delicacy, and that foundlings were castrated as infants for that purpose.
Of course, the rich didn't have to bother with brothels — they had all the rights to abuse their slaves (and even their children) as they pleased. And, again, this was perfectly licit. When Suetonius condemns Tiberius because he “taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his little fishes, to play between his legs while he was in his bath” and “those who had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio,” he is not writing with shock and horror; instead, he is essentially mocking the emperor for his lack of self-restraint and enjoying too much of a good thing.
This is the world into which Christianity came, condemning abortion and infanticide as loudly and as early as it could.
This is the world into which Christianity came, calling attention to children and ascribing special worth to them. Church leaders meditated on Jesus' instruction to imitate children and proposed ways that Christians should look up to and become more like them.
Like everything else about Christianity's revolution, it was incomplete. For example, Christians endorsed corporal punishment for far too long. (Though even in the fourth century, the great teacher St John Chrysostom preached against it, on the grounds of the victim's innocence and dignity, using language that would have been incomprehensible to, say, Cicero.)
But really, Christianity's invention of children — that is, its invention of the cultural idea of children as treasured human beings — was really an outgrowth of its most stupendous and revolutionary idea: the radical equality, and the infinite value, of every single human being as a beloved child of God. If the God who made heaven and Earth chose to reveal himself, not as an emperor, but as a slave punished on the cross, then no one could claim higher dignity than anyone else on the basis of earthly status.
That was indeed a revolutionary idea, and it changed our culture so much that we no longer even recognize it.
http://theweek.com/articles/551027/how- ... d-children
well that may be his opinion, but I don't think he believes you are going to hell or eternal damnation in a lake of fire for not believing what he believes.Habit7 wrote:Richard Dawkins said I am "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" for not believing in evolution.
So what?
wrong? where did I say you are wrong?Habit7 wrote:You keep repeating that as if it is wrong.
By who's authority I am wrong?
it doesn't change anything for whom? for them or for you?EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Most of the posts on this thread are between Duane and Habit?
Habit I have a genuine question what would it take for you not to believe in God? Is there anything in particular?
If we were to find life elsewhere, would that change anything about you?
Note I do not have a problem with a men believing in god eh cause all of this is just philosophical at the end of the day. Whether a man believe god real or not it really don't change anything so yeah.
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:wrong? where did I say you are wrong?
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:What is intolerant is saying ONLY my way is right and I will rewarded by God and your way is so wrong that you will be punished by God and be tortured by the devil, you heathen, infidel, sinner.
EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Habit I have a genuine question what would it take for you not to believe in God? Is there anything in particular?
If we were to find life elsewhere, would that change anything about you?
EF I am sure you have a strong opinion, it would be stronger if it were grounded in truth. Take a search through these key words you are using and see my views on them.EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:^ Both of us I would suspect.
Even though Habit does believe in a God, he dos not actually take it literally. For example he does not believe the word of the bible as absolute fact. He couldn't it, its impossible.
Most people even though religious just use god as some sort of comfort in the hope there is some sort of justice. Sure they may not admit it to us, but deep down they don't believe this literally.
For example if we were to believe everything in the Bible we would still be stoning people to death and if a child dies in a car accident we would be saying things like its all part of God's master plan.
I do not believe that anyone including Habit believes that all the bad things that happen is part of god's master plan. I don't think anyone really believes that.
But at the same time they believe there is some force in the universe that was responsible for all of this even I don't have a problem believing something like this. I believe there is something out there some unknown force greater than us and perhaps even more intelligent than us. Like alien life etc A civilization far far away on another planet and maybe even responsible for our very existence.
EFFECTIC DESIGNS, you obviously did not read his posts in this topic.EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:^ Both of us I would suspect.
Even though Habit does believe in a God, he dos not actually take it literally. For example he does not believe the word of the bible as absolute fact. He couldn't it, its impossible.
No I have not.Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:EFFECTIC DESIGNS, you obviously did not read his posts in this topic.EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:^ Both of us I would suspect.
Even though Habit does believe in a God, he dos not actually take it literally. For example he does not believe the word of the bible as absolute fact. He couldn't it, its impossible.
Habit7 has stated many times that he believes in the literal meaning of the Bible absolutely.
Habit7 wrote:Not quite.Slartibartfast wrote:Christians - Take the bible literally and believe the world is like 6,000 years old in which case yes... evolution does disprove the bible.
The same for the Big Bang theory (que accusations of Krauss worship)
Christians read the Bible in the way it was meant to be read. Literal where the author intends, figurative where it is clearly evident. The Bible doesn't state the age of the earth. Some Christians land on the side of a young earth through genealogies, others see it as an old earth by integrating modern estimates as being a form of natural revelation.
Nevertheless macroevolution is not a fact, it cannot disprove anything. It still lacks the observable, repeatable and quantifiable evidence by which we can call it a scientific law.
Big bang theory is actually under serious review right now.
I am not a pastor nor clergy nor do I have any formal theological training. I am a Christian, I represent a Christian worldview (with some distinctives on non-essentials). I try not to reference my profession qualifications because I want what I say to be scrutinised on whether it is true, not by my authority.EFFECTIC DESIGNS wrote:Do you know if in real life Habit might be a pastor?
How is your "god of the gaps" allegation of me any different than your 'nature of the gaps' faith? Where when science can't explain something you hope that someday there is a natural explanation for it.nareshseep wrote:So basically what habit7 is saying we don't know bout historee therfore gawd did it.
Habit7 wrote:What I am saying is that these observations point to an intelligent, powerful, eternal, immaterial being. Natural explanations only point to an infinite regress.
Habit7 wrote:How is your "god of the gaps" allegation of me any different than your 'nature of the gaps' faith?
Well if anything in this thread is that I have not shy away from arguments. Secondly you can't say I'm wrong unless you also claim absolute truth.Slartibartfast wrote:Habit7 wrote:How is your "god of the gaps" allegation of me any different than your 'nature of the gaps' faith?
Because you say "this is the absolute truth" and shy away from arguments that prove you wrong.
Habit7 wrote:Secondly you can't say I'm wrong unless you also claim absolute truth..
MG Man wrote:Habit7 wrote:Secondly you can't say I'm wrong unless you also claim absolute truth..
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests
