How To Get To Heaven When You Die

Elohim - (Hebrew) "Plurality of attributes of God". The fanciful idea that it refters to a trinity (The heretical concept stating that three separate persons make up one Lord) in the Godhead hardly finds support. As Ryu said, it refers to God in three manifestations of himself = Father, Son, Spirit.

Ryu, I like your analogy. God, Jesus, Holy Spirit = Mind, Flesh, Soul.

 

And what a choice! "Love me OR suffer eternally in hell!" That's not a choice. That's what we free-thinking adults call "coercion." The threat of torture if one doen't conform to a particular standard. A most immoral act.

Yet another example of humanity being morally superior to the god of the OT.

 

Hey, it's your choice-
Go to Hell because you don't want Jesus, the free sacrifice to pay for your sins. Or Go to heaven because you love God and obey him.

By the Nazis it was simple: Go to concentration camps or we'll shoot you. This really prevents free will.

God gave us a free will to choose whether we obey him or do our own thing (obey Satan...).

 

there is no difference. The end was near for the ones going to concentration camps, the end is near for all of us. Whether we die tomorrow or in a couple years doesnt change the fact that God will punish us if we dont cooperate with him.

 

Actually the Hebrew word for the Holy Spirit, ruwach. Gramatically, it is female (perhaps the Catholics had it right when they started the whole "Cult of Mary " branch of Catholicism). It translates literally to "wind" (apparently the Christian deity is a sky god), "breath," and much the way the Chinese think of it, as "life" (though in this later case it is the rational aspect of life or "the mind." So if you are going to make such an analogy, the Holy Spirit would be "The mind of god" and not the soul of god.

 

Yeah. If he wouldn't, people would not believe his existance. And besides, Satan has legal ground to manifest if one doesn't believe. you can thank Adam for that.

Thanks!

 

As I have shown in previous arguments, god gave us free will so that he could force us (by action or by inaction) to beg him to take it back.

It's amazing that there are only two ways to use ones will according to you: god's way, or the way of the adversary ("Satan" means adversary). That would actually mean that there is no such thing as free will, because either way, we must serve another's will. It seems to me that if you are going to insist on the existaence of free will, then you have to admit to yet another alternative: the individuals way. I suppose that logic escapes you. Evangelical Christians aren't known for being particularly logical. Though they like to poretend to use logic, they drop it the moment it becomes inconvenient in favor of dogma. The whole "end times" thing is a perfect example of that.

 

He gave us free will because he wanted his image to be able to choose to obey him or not. It's a question of loyalty. If you don't serve God, you serve Satan, because satan does whatever he can to prevent us to have fellowship with him.

 

"thy kingdom come, THY will be done..."

 

Yep. Here comes the dogma.

Perhaps you can answer this little gem, then: WHich of these passages is the true word of god (and if both, please explain how that is done).

Note: in the first passage they are talking about a man who is working miracles, yet not a follower of Jesus. In the second, Jesus is defending himself agains the charges of the Pharasees, who claim his miracles come from the other side...

[size=-1]Mark 9:40 [/size]For he who is not against us is on *our side.
[size=-1]OR
[/size][size=-1]Matt 12:30[/size] He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

 

God is to Real and HE has Saved MY LIFE! ONe day You will see God and he will say "Colours or whatever ur name maybeI never knew you" and then you'll into hell....sad but true.

 

i still dont fully understand Origional Sin..how is it that one mans sin is passed to his children and so-forth....if thats true, would my kids inherit my un repented sins?

and then if no, because Jesus had sacrificed Himself, what abut all the people before Him, did their kids inherit their sins?

 

Yeah, unrepented sins *may* be passed on. What I mean is if you had a demon and didn't get it cast out before your death. Adultery, for instance, if you haven't repented, will leave you with a demon of lust, thus passed on to your child.

Now, Adam didn't have a demon. But he commited the first sin. He was the first to disobey,The Glory of God had fallen off him and his wife since that day.
He even knew God! Adam walked with God _Every_Day_, so he probably even saw his face (which none other in the flesh has seen so far). Adam knew God better then any Christian today, he was made in their (trinity) image.

But after disobeying God, we're stuck with his sin, - our nature. Our flesh (sin nature) is stupid, it leaves us with pride,lust, and whatever *feels* good. Meaning it just causes you trouble.

Adam (as well as Eve) was (were) most likely, atleast how it appears, at his spiritual max and physical max...but that's just my oppinion.


Yes, the people before Jesus' death inherited this as well.

 

I don't see how that needs an explenation, they don't seem to contradict each other, can you please formulate your question better?

And , yeah,they're true words of God.

 

they are not. that is not the Christian belief. Muslims belief the Quran is the exact word of Allah; this is not the Christian belief.

 

...What are you talking about? Where'd you hear that? Christians certainly see the New, and old, testament as being God's word. It's more like Muslims not believing. See, Muslims don't believe in the OT and NT, they believe it was altered, and that Muhammed set it right again.

 

It's just so disheartening when religions desecrate sacred knowledge with twisted fear-based non-intelligent supposition.
Here's my "bent" on original sin as a parent, grandparent, and therapist ~
we all, every one of us, are brought up by our parents, and our parents by their parents etc etc. Each of those kin inherit the psychological attributes and prejudices, biasses, preferences, methodologies etc of the parental generation prior. Some disturbing elements are individually rejected because they are not agreed with, and this happens a lot with inherited religious values and sometimes violence. But other elements of psychology are not so observable, yet dictate life trends. These invisible paradigmatic beliefs are the factors that create honesty/criminality, poverty/wealth, happiness/unhappiness, and all the other variations controlling life perspective. So the "sins" are in fact the psychological foibles of our forebears
that are passed on unto the generations until such time as someone clears the unwanted crap out of their mind and actively teaches their kids a whole new and beautiful way of thinking, being, and doing. I'm blessed that i can now do this with my grandchildren, but unfortunate (like almost every parent) that I didn't even know that I had "baggage' until after the damage was already done to my own kids. But at least I was able to break free of the psychological mind-set, show them how it works, and correct the future.
Know the truth and the truth will set you free.

 

Alright, perhaps it's my mistake for thinking that you might have learned something about critical thinking and logic, but then again, you are young and Christian, so chances are you haven't been taught it yet, or if you have, you have rejected it because it would mean you actually had to think...

Here's how this works:

"A" = All those not with Jesus (i.e. not among his followers)

"B" = All those with Jesus and his followers (i.e. among his followers)

"C" = All those not against Jesus and his followers

"D" = All those against Jesus and his followers

SO

NONE of A are B (none of those who are not among Jesus and his followers can be among Jesus and his followers).

NONE of C are D (i.e. no one who is not against Jesus and his followers can be against them)

SOME of B are C (i.e. some of those who are among Jesus' followers are not against them - Judas bears this out with his betrayal)

SOME of B are D (i.e. some of those who are among Jesus' followers are against them - again, Judas)

This is standard logic.

Here is bible logic:

[size=-1][Mark 9:40 [/size]For he who is not against us is on *our side] translates according to the rules of logic as: ALL of C are B - note that this is NOT the same as ALL of B are C but it does make C a sub-set of B

[size=-1][Matt 12:30[/size] He that is not with me is against me] translates according to the rules of logic as: ALL of A are D

NOW

If, as we have seen, NONE of A are B and (according to Mark 9:40) ALL of C are B, then NONE of A are C. (this already presents a problem, since it actually contradicts what is said in Mark 9:40, but Jesus fixes that, as we see below).

HOWEVER

The person being discussed in Mark 9:40 is not among Jesus' followers, in other words, he is an A, but according to Jesus, he is also a C, so we must come to the conclusion that SOME of A are C.

This is where the logic rears it's ugly head and shows that there is a problem with the bible.

If SOME of A are C and ALL of C are B, then SOME of A are B.

This would mean that SOME of those who are not among Jesus' followers are among Jesus' followers. A statement which makes absolutely no logical sense.

but it gets worse.

If SOME of A are C and (as we see in Matt 12:30) ALL of A are D, then SOME of C are D.

This leads to the following completely illogical statement:

SOME of those not against Jesus and his followers are against Jesus and his followers.

So, do you still fail to see how these statements contradict each other, or did my logical chain of reasoning cause your little Christian brain to explode?

 

hahaha... psychology rules.

 

see, i still dont get this...like errg, i dunno, thats probobly why i dont belive so much in the literal genisis

well we dont know if they are the true words, but i mean, even if you go back to the origional manuscripts you dont knwo if they had been changed or not, but, we wont be punished for it, the writers will