IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
How can you not understand that when I, for instance, used the school burning examples, God's purpose would in that case be to test us, and to make sure that we trust him, no matter what order he gives us? And that goes for every example that I mentioned, including being willing to leave your family.
Now, would you please discuss the actual topic? Most other users don't seem to have a problem with that, but I will give you a hand and ask you a concrete question: Is worshipping God necessary for people to go to heaven? Or is it possible for people to reject God while mainly being good (as in: follow the four points mentioned in the OP) throughout their lives and end up in heaven anyway? Remember; the answer is based on your personal beliefs, so there are no right or wrong answers. Several religious and non-religious posters have already answered that question and came up with different answers. |
Before I respond I want to point out two things!
""I clearly wrote that God eventually stopped Abraham from killing his son (and used the phrase "called it off" because that's how Abraham saw it), so why do you keep assuming that I thought he would let him do it? "
Do you know what call off means? Abraham knew there had to be some catch because he clearly stated he thought God would bring him back to life. I told you to read because I gave ACTUAL quotes.
""Hebrews 11.17-19
By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 19 [Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead], and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.- Me before quoting and giving examples disproving your obvious screw up.""
^ You never addressed this. Because it's not opinion you were wrong on what Abraham thought because Hebrews tells us clearly what he thought would happen. Will not drop this to you admit you screwed up on this. There is no twist you poorly used called off and tried to cover it up with how Abraham saw it. I showed no he didn't see it as that. He thought God would raise his son back to life becuase he knew God wouldn't do something outside of God's own code. This isn't debateable admit you screwed up. Please tell me how I mis-quoted this because I'm using exactly what you said.
Two,you avoided the only question I asked you.
"Why would he want to based on what? You just say he would ignoring the whole reason behind Abraham and Issac. This is how you can tell you have no clue what your talking about. Do you even know why he only did with one person who was specifically Abraham? I want to respond to this because you seem to know nothing about why this event specifically happened and only getting pieces of it because of me. If you knew the answer the response you made would make sense why it's incoherent. You're obviously way over your head."
"God's purpose would in that case be to test us, and to make sure that we trust him, no matter what order he gives us?"
This goes to the question I asked eailier why did he do this specific test on Abraham why him. He doesn't do a similar test on anyone but him why did you he do it on him specifically because that will answer your question and find out how the specific passage is more of a personal one and not general thing to happen from God. Answer the question because if you can't just tell and I will explain exactly why you don't understand why God gave this specific request.
"And that goes for every example that I mentioned, including being willing to leave your family."
You're giving a what if not based on the context of why. For example, you're not giving a reason why behind the reasoning the passage does with Abarham. You're just giving a pointless what if without and reasoning to why he would request based on how God works. For example, if you were to tell me that omni (all of God's omni) then like with Abarham I would trust God of course ebcause he isn't going to do wrong to me like with Abarham. You're using the worst example to defend your claims because it contradicts what your trying to say. Abarham showed if you trust God without doubt nothing but good will come. It in no way was about seeing if humans do whatever you ask it was the show the righteousness of God.
"Most other users don't seem to have a problem with that, but I will give you a hand and ask you a concrete question"
Most people on here are laymen on bible and it's history concepts. They know as much as you do with is very little doesn't mean they stupid it's just there not educated on the topic.
"Is worshipping God necessary for people to go to heaven? "
What do you mean by worshipping in what way? Like physically worshiping or mind/body/soul worshiping what? Do you mean living your life around God and always putting him first? You need to be specific. If you can answer that I can give clear answer. I do believe trying to follow God's teaching as best as humanly possible (meaning people will screw up) is necessary to degree. But there is much more to this like the atonement from Jesus. Much more too it.
"Or is it possible for people to reject God while mainly being good (as in: follow the four points mentioned in the OP) throughout their lives and end up in heaven anyway? "
What do you by reject were they Christians and why did they reject it. What was the reasons or causes. Were they never Christian and just heard of Christianity and rejected it? Be specific.
No one is "good" person based on certain deeds as everyone has sinned and no is "good".
Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."
As in Mark 10:18 no one is a "good" you or me. You have sinned just as much as I have. I may have sin less but doesn't make me any less guiltly then you.
"Remember; the answer is based on your personal beliefs, so there are no right or wrong answers. Several religious and non-religious posters have already answered that question and came up with different answers."
The argument if you are making one is an Argument of Ad populum because serveral people agree or disagree then x isn't/is true. just because serveal people disagree or agree with something it shows not base that the actual question is based on opinion. For example, some exterme religious groups believe the earth is 2000 years old just because people disagree or agree that are non-/religious doesn't mean the matter at hand is based on opinion. There answer could all be worthless because there false and one could be right or all are simiply false. Answer should be based on logic not what you feel because your topic becomes worthless as debating what color is best. Just my two cents.
"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen" ~ max
