Or better yet…
Hitler comitted suicide via cyanide if memory serves.
What if he repented AFTER to took the pill? Thus repenting AFTER the act taht actually killed him, and before he could do any other sinful act.
Whould his soul enter heaven prstine and perfect? :evil:
@ncscswitch:
Government Employees (including teachers) cannot espouse a religious faith at their place of business when dealing with minors.
Stop ignoring those important clauses when you debate Jen. That statement WITH the “dealing with minors” clause is there explicitly because of teh Equal Access Act, and the provisions thereof (signed by Ronald Reagan no less…)
Your actual statement on schools was somethign about the government building/establishing christian schools, but you also said that the government would not run them. It was a couple of days ago, but I remember the post.
I’m gunna need a quote. I don’t believe I’ve ever said the government should build religious schools. I think they are building religious schools with the religion being science, but that’s not the same as them building catholic schools. I know I said that schools that are defunct are usually sold to churches because they’re normally on teh worst land available and thus no one will actually pay market value for them.
Perhaps someone else said the government is/should be building religious schools.
Maddog/Switch:
From what I understand, 1 sin committed with full knowledge and with intent to committ sin will prevent you from entering the gates of heaven. I do not believe you can give lip service when it comes to confession and asking of absolution of your sins. So yes. If you took cyanide with the distinct plan to repent between the taking of the pill and death, then no, i don’t think it would count and you would still be committed of murdering yourself.
I don’t view this as any whackier then the American justice system where you can tell a priest you’re going to murder a little girl and then expect the priest not to turn you into the authorities - of when a cop give you a ticket, you fight it and win, but still have to pay the full fine to the courts.
I did not say he took it with intent to repent. I asked what if he repented immediately after taking the pill (one of those epiphanies?)
If he honestly and truthfully repented, even after he had started a chain of events that could not be undone and would eventually lead to his own death, then yes he would be forgiven in my opinion of what’s written. God extends to us every chance to repent before we die.
Catholic priests need to get laid!
But Jen, lets not forget that after one accepts salvation one cannot lose it, no matter how far they “backslide” afterwards. They are still a child of God.
After all, Saul, who also persecuted the Jews resulting in the torture and death of many was given redemption and became an evangelist himself (renamed Paul.)
Where do you get this from (the renamed Paul bit specifically)?
The Book of Acts.
Rob.
Yeah that is pretty obvious from actually READING the Bible before you comment on it. Your post didn’t make you seem very worthy to debate on subjects of the Bible, if you didn’t know something that obvious…… sorry if that sounds harsh… but it’s kinda common knowledge
Well hey, we have folks who want to disregard the reference to Lilith in the same book of the Bible… and that from someone who read the whole thing and has presented themselves as being very knowlegable about it…
@Shining:
But Jen, lets not forget that after one accepts salvation one cannot lose it, no matter how far they “backslide” afterwards. They are still a child of God.
I don’t think that’s true. And I definately don’t remember reading it in the New Testament (which I read extensively while being stuck in a hospital bed for 3 months after I got injurred in Iraq.)
If you accept God then reject God through your actions then he’ll reject you again. We are all born pure of sin, but fall into sin after our birth. We are thus required to be reborn into purity through Jesus Christ. If we decide to fall back into sin with premeditation and deliberate acts and do not later have a change of heart, then we are guilty of sin once again. Baptism isn’t a get out of jail free card.
It’s like the parabel of the brothers asked to work the field. One said he would and did not. The other said he would not and later obeyed his father and did. That’s similar to saying you’ll live a christian life then going out and sinning while the other goes out and sins then comes back and say’s s/he’s sorry and attempts to live the Christian life. (Wish I could take credit for that analogy, but it’s Jesus’ he was good at analogies!)
Well MauserBob, Shining Bowie, or Jennifer, if you are confident you can find that in the book of Acts, please enlighten me where it states that Saul was renamed Paul.
I guarantee that you won’t find it.
Saul continues to be called Saul after his encounter with Jesus… see all of Acts chapter 9. No mention of renaming to Paul.
Furthermore, Saul continues to be called Saul when he is sent on his first missionary Journey: see Acts 13:2.
Saul is called Paul for the rest of the book of Acts, and Paul refers to himself by that name in his letters, with no mention of being renamed, even though he recounts his history a couple times.
If you find a reference to him being renamed, I will concede the point but it looks to me like the Bible makes absolutely no reference to Saul being renamed at any point.
Rather the names Saul and Paul are really the same name: the Hebrew form is “Sha-ul”, which is Romanized to Saul, and the Greek form is “Paulos” which is Romanized to Paul. When you first meet him in Acts it is in the Hebrew context, but the bulk of his life he is seen in a Greek context. He is still both Saul and Paul. No renaming takes place.
I have a hard time reading this thread when defenders of the Bible get Biblical facts wrong.
Avin,
if you actually read the text instead of going to bible falisies.org to get tidbits you could use in your arguements, you’d see that it is very plain that Paul had lived his entire life as a Roman Citizen with the name Saul and after conversion renamed himself to Paul. Thus, he was renamed. By changing his name he in effect renounced his mortal ways, the ways of a Roman Citizen who worshipped as a Pharisee and accepted the Christian lifestyle.
It isn’t like you could go to the local magistrate and have your name legally changed back then. You were called by whatever name you wanted.
Sorry, but you’re picking at straws because you know no better. Read the book. You don’t have to believe it, but at least read it if you want to argue it. Or, if you MUST use blogs, at least read the Christian ones so you understand the context of the situation. He called himself Saul and persecuted Christians, later he called himself Paul and preached Christianity.
I ask you to read the Bible. Look at the verses I quoted. Saul was called Saul while he self-identified as a Christian according to Acts. I used absolutely no sources for my previous post other than the Bible itself. Don’t think that anyone who argues against you is using some sort of anti-Christian source. As I recall, you still have yet to give me a satisfactory answer to your claim that “God provides for those who provide for themselves” is a Biblical concept in the other Evolution thread after repeatedly ignoring me after I called you out for using a passage that actually demonstrates the opposite. I am not too impressed with your knowledge of the Bible at all and I am rather baffled therefore as to what is motivating you at all.
Furthermore your recent post seems to be even less based in historical reality. Saul was a Roman Citizen, true, but he certainly did not renounce this fact after becoming a Christian. In fact he was much more accomodating to the Roman empire once becoming a Christian than before. Prior to his encounter with Jesus, he was not only a Pharisee but one who would later self-describe himself as being zealous for his Judaism, echoing to Phinehas the former high priest (Numbers 25) or the Maccabees in that he was willing to kill deviant Jews (the Christians) in order to cleanse God’s people. As such, he would have despised the rule of the Romans, and his persecution of Christians would have been done as a way of bringing about God’s intervention to free the Jews from the Romans once and for all, via his messianic expectations.
However, after he became a Christian he continued to use his position as a Roman citizen (Acts 22 and onward), which was a far cry from renouncing the ways of a Roman Citizen as you suggest he did.
Popcorn time…
When y’all get around to areas that I enjoy (Lilith, “The Other People”, Elohim, etc.) I’ll chime back in.
In the mean time, I just LOVE watching Christians tear into each other over theology. It is so nice to see them point out the errors, contradictions, contrinuity errors, etc in the Bible for themselves :-)
I corrected you on the screech-owl earlier
And as I pointed out, your “correction” ignores the “she” reference, as well as corresponding additional documentation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Gnostic Tradition, and the Tora/Talmud.
Even “hard core” Christian theologians acknolwedge that the Screech Owl in Acts IS Lilith.
I think Catholic priests need to get laid. 8-)
I think Catholic priests need to get laid. 8-)
They already did. That is why the Catholic Church is paying out all that money to former Altar Boys.
Ooopppsss… was that my outside voice?
(Not a flame, documented fact covering scores of Priests in a large number of diocese)
@ncscswitch:
I honestly don’t think there are other options, Jerm. I only see two options for the after-life:
1) You go to heaven and live your days in bliss worshipping God.
2) You go to hell and live your days in torment because you realize that God no longer loves you.
And that my friend is the sign of a closed mind. Everyone else be damned, I have the one true and ONLY way.
Also, that second option above is in direct contradiction to Christian principles. I leave it to you to figure out why it is not consistent with Christianity (darn shame when the Pagan knows more about Christianity than half of the Christians).
I know this is from way back, but I have to comment on this. As a former Christian, I have to agree with Switch - a lot of Christians aren’t very Christian. Hell was the first Christian idea that I had to struggle with and eventually discard. It just doesn’t make sense:
So how do you reconcile #1 and #4? Especially in a western liberal democracy, where everyone otherwise believes that what you believe is the one thing you should never be punished for.
Our admittedly imperfect state will punish us for murder, arson, theft, etc. but you can have any faith or political view and as long as you are not hurting others, you have freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of expression.
Then on the other hand we have this supposedly all-loving Creator. If you fail to believe in him ON FAITH (ie, without solid, empirical evidence), then for that failing this loving God will sentence large hordes of his children to eternal torment. If that’s how it works, then God essentially created a universe the end result of which is untold suffering.
I was born a skeptic, and raised Christian. I spent decades in internal turmoil for my failure to “just believe.” I’ve finally let go of that and the last two years of my life have been the happiest, most fulfilling years of my life. I’m a little miffed that I had to spend 18 years feeling extremely guilty, inadequate and generally like a worthless Christian, but my glass is half full, and I have half my life left.
Finally, I just couldn’t believe in a God who would make so skeptical by nature and then condemn me for it for eternity. Now I’m no longer a worthless Christian, but a good and happy person, and at least the rest of my life won’t be wasted.
You just can’t have a loving God and also eternal punishment for such a harmless sin as expecting just a bit of evidence for what you are asked to believe. It’s not consistent.
I especially can’t believe in a God that would punish anyone who doesn’t fit Jennifer’s definition of what it takes to be saved.
