Quote: @suncoastvike said:
Heavens immigration policy is not all that strict. All you have to do is two things ask forgiveness and accept Christ. Then even the worst among us get in. How is that strict?
Stricter than our current policy. 
Quote: @greediron said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Heavens immigration policy is not all that strict. All you have to do is two things ask forgiveness and accept Christ. Then even the worst among us get in. How is that strict?
Stricter than our current policy.
The extradition and deportation sucks whole lot more to.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
Heavens immigration policy is not all that strict. All you have to do is two things ask forgiveness and accept Christ. Then even the worst among us get in. How is that strict?
Well, I guess I'm going off of what Jesus said: that few will enter into His Kingdom; most will not. The fact is that- although you are correct- there are only a minority of people who get in. And those who do not like the "narrow path" (Jesus said that He-alone- was the Way; no once comes to the Father except through Him) erroneously believe that God must be evil if He allows so many to be condemned to Hell... OR they believe that the policy isn't "strict" at all. They believe that everyone will go there- regardless of what they believe, who they worship... or even if they don't worship anyone/anything at all. It is called "universalism"... and a number of "mainline" Christian groups believe it (including the ELCA).
So, although entrance is most definitely a free gift, very few are willing to accept those terms. They would prefer to "try" to get in on their own (as Jesus described in the Parable of the Wedding Feast).
Oh, and let me add one more thing: if a Christian actually tries to tell someone the Truth- in order that they might enter that heavenly Promised Land to come- they are characterized as "hateful". The prevailing sentiment among most Democrats seems to be (regarding Christianity): "You want to believe that stuff? Fine, but keep it to yourself."
Even Penn (from Penn and Teller) said, “I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”
Yet when Christians TRY to get the Word out there... calling people to repentance (as we- ourselves- repent)... so that they might hear the Good News and believe it: we are hated, called names and portrayed as every kind of "ist" that there is.
Quote: @pumpf said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Heavens immigration policy is not all that strict. All you have to do is two things ask forgiveness and accept Christ. Then even the worst among us get in. How is that strict?
Well, I guess I'm going off of what Jesus said: that few will enter into His Kingdom; most will not. The fact is that- although you are correct- there are only a minority of people who get in. And those who do not like the "narrow path" (Jesus said that He-alone- was the Way; no once comes to the Father except through Him) erroneously believe that God must be evil if He allows so many to be condemned to Hell... OR they believe that the policy isn't "strict" at all. They believe that everyone will go there- regardless of what they believe, who they worship... or even if they don't worship anyone/anything at all. It is called "universalism"... and a number of "mainline" Christian groups believe it (including the ELCA).
So, although entrance is most definitely a free gift, very few are willing to accept those terms. They would prefer to "try" to get in on their own (as Jesus described in the Parable of the Wedding Feast).
I will certainly not debate you on this. I guess the universalism part of it come into even believers minds. All do question if they come up short. As well as have known people who have passed that were believers but had less then Christian lives at time. Universalism makes it work. So the 2 things can't just be said you must mean it?
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ pumpf said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Heavens immigration policy is not all that strict. All you have to do is two things ask forgiveness and accept Christ. Then even the worst among us get in. How is that strict?
Well, I guess I'm going off of what Jesus said: that few will enter into His Kingdom; most will not. The fact is that- although you are correct- there are only a minority of people who get in. And those who do not like the "narrow path" (Jesus said that He-alone- was the Way; no once comes to the Father except through Him) erroneously believe that God must be evil if He allows so many to be condemned to Hell... OR they believe that the policy isn't "strict" at all. They believe that everyone will go there- regardless of what they believe, who they worship... or even if they don't worship anyone/anything at all. It is called "universalism"... and a number of "mainline" Christian groups believe it (including the ELCA).
So, although entrance is most definitely a free gift, very few are willing to accept those terms. They would prefer to "try" to get in on their own (as Jesus described in the Parable of the Wedding Feast).
I will certainly not debate you on this. I guess the universalism part of it come into even believers minds. All do question if they come up short. As well as have known people who have passed that were believers but had less then Christian lives at time. Universalism makes it work. So the 2 things can't just be said you must mean it?
I'm not sure if I understand what you wrote... so maybe I'm responding to a point you weren't trying to make. As for questioning if we "come up short", true believers SHOULD recognize that; because we do. That's why we needed a Savior. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... and are freely justified through faith in Jesus Christ" (a summary of Rom. 3:23-24). Living a "good life" is certainly expected of Christians- but there are plenty of non-Christians who live "good lives", too. But salvation is found in faith in Christ, alone (Acts 4:12). The righteous (those who have been made right with God) shall live by faith (not by any amount of good works that we try to do).
So, yes: it is a free gift. All you have to do is "believe" (an oversimplification); but most people- including some who call themselves Christians- do not rely on God or submit to His Word. Instead, they try to make God into their own image (rather than acknowledging that we have been made in His).
Well one is a fairy tale about a sky daddy (which you may choose to believe or not. No skin off my teeth)... And the other is an extremely wasteful use of taxpayers dollars which will never get built even if we appropriate billions of dollars and hand them off to a foreign steel manufacturer, because the ensuing legal battles brought on by land owners in the area will ensure that this thing doesn't get built anywhere in our life times. It also hasn't undergone any sort of feasibility study, environmental impact study, or actual cost analysis but let's start haphazardly pulling dollar amounts out of our asses, because???? It simply is a very large money transfer which was never really designed to be built in the first place. It does make for a lovely distraction while we argue about handing our money over to people that certainly do not need it. But I get off topic..... please explain to me how using ones religion to sell meat products is somehow in the same vein of "Go tell it on a mountain"..... Over the T-bones and ever-ee-way-yer? And then tell me how I must respect your religion.
Quote: @pumpf said:
Out of curiosity: why do you think that this is in, someway, contrary to "Christian values"?
Maybe a poor choice of words Pumpf. To me? It's clearly taking a religious shield to perpetuate a political POV. I hate that.
The most egregious thing? The damn price of red-meat this dude is peddling...
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ pumpf said:
Out of curiosity: why do you think that this is in, someway, contrary to "Christian values"?
Maybe a poor choice of words Pumpf. To me? It's clearly taking a religious shield to perpetuate a political POV. I hate that.
The most egregious thing? The damn price of red-meat this dude is peddling...
I agree with that. Faith should affect our life (including our political views) but it shouldn't be drug down to be used as a cudgel.
Quote: @greediron said:
@ purplefaithful said:
@ pumpf said:
Out of curiosity: why do you think that this is in, someway, contrary to "Christian values"?
Maybe a poor choice of words Pumpf. To me? It's clearly taking a religious shield to perpetuate a political POV. I hate that.
The most egregious thing? The damn price of red-meat this dude is peddling...
I agree with that. Faith should affect our life (including our political views) but it shouldn't be drug down to be used as a cudgel.
I agree with your general sentiment, but how can a person tell the
difference between someone trying to use their religion as an
explanation and metaphor for their morality and someone using their
religion as a weapon? I think that any true faith based person would be
committed to their viewpoint and their morality and want to share it
because they're expanding the "truth". To assert that someone is using
their religion as a "religious shield" or a cudgel is to imply that they don't believe their own beliefs, but are saying it anyway because their politics comes first. That's a pretty big accusation to me.
I think that a very close comparable example is the manmade global climate change issue. With climate change, you have a small number of experts who have created this theory. Then you have a very large number of people who understand a very simplified and incomplete version of the theory. If you press them to explain it further, you get something like "Well all the experts agree", which is a faith based argument. From a 3rd party perspective, this is equivalent to "A book was written by one who can't be questioned". These people with their incomplete knowledge, use their faith in a more knowledgeable expert, to "weaponize" their political POV. They call for higher taxes to fund these efforts, efforts like the Green New Deal, which in order to achieve would take more taxes than the people could afford to provide. They challenge the intelligence of those who question their beliefs, but the answer to any question is "Those that are too smart to be questioned agree ...", so you must be stupid.
I know that I used "climate change" above. I hope people don't get sidetracked by that, but I think people need to be more aware of when they themselves are trying to use things they don't really understand, but believe on faith anyway as a way to bully other people.
|
