By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What do you think you have to do to get to Heaven?

Million on 20 March 2008
kazadoom said:
superchunk said:
kazadoom said:
That is not true superchunk. The book of James defines what true faith is. Salvation is only by Grace through faith, but James defines what that faith looks like. James states that faith without works is a dead faith, in other words non-existent. That does not contradict anything. It is merely the Bible defining itself. You need faith to be saved, and works are the evidence of that faith. You are not saved because you do good things, you do good things because you are saved.

I would generally agree with you. However, I know for a fact there is a part where Paul/Saul says specifically that works get you no where and only, I repeat only faith in Jesus is needed.

To me there is an obvious contradiction between what Paul and James said.

Here is a decent discussion on the matter. Here they suggest that James and Paul are mearly choosing their words based on their audiences. i.e. telling them what they want to hear rather than the absolute truth. This also suggest that God is not the author, as God would have one way not a few essentially different ways.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/FaithWorks.htm

Again, you may see it as a contradiction, but it is not. Paul is right in saying that you cannot be saved by works and James is right in saying that true faith is backed up by works. There is no contradiction there. This is why someone can be saved on their death bed when there is no chance of works, and why someone cannot say that they are a Christian and live in deliberate sin against God. Once again, You are not saved by doing good, you do good because you are saved. Righteousness cannot be gained by doing good things, it can only be obtained through faith in Christ. That faith will result in doing good works. That is what James is saying, if you are not obeying the scripture and then say you are saved, you are not, because saving faith results in obedience. You ought to be able to see this.

The thing is with the bible you'll find contradictions and incosistencies if that's what your looking for , they may not actualy be incosistencies but as long as you have information in your mind which you believe to be true then it is a good as it being a fact to you , If I set my heart on believing that for example 2+2=5 you could try various methods and techniques to demonstrate that it is in fact four however if I firmly believed this to be true i'd be able to challenge you endlessly even arguing the whole numerical system is incorrect.

 




Around the Network
superchunk on 20 March 2008

On that note... I am so done with this thread.



rocketpig on 20 March 2008
tuoyo said:
Why so much noise about this topic? Jesus is the only way to heaven. The bible says it and everything the bible says is the truth. You can choose to ignore it but that doesn't make it any less true just like PS3 fanboys refusing to accept Wii is next gen does not change the fact that Wii is currently kicking PS3's butt.

And if anyone thinks the bible is inconsistent it is because he doesn't understand it.

And if anyone believes the Bible is 100% accurate, they don't understand the history of the book. It was a collection of writings that were compiled by a politically-motivated group and has been translated and edited more times than we even realize. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig on 20 March 2008
Profcrab said:
The bible cannot be used as the basis for any scientific research since it requires faith at a certain point.

Personally, I believe the bible was written at a time when people when came up with mystical reasons for natural phenomena.

As for Noah's Ark, the world was simply not covered in water for 40 days and 40 nights. The mass extinction that would have ensued would not have been recovered from to this day. Not only that, there is simply no record for it. There are records of many parts of many continents being covered at some point, but we are talking about geologic time here. Nothing like that has existed since the end of the last ice age (and a long time before that). Humans and close genetic cousins have been around for a pretty long time, far longer than many creationists believe that even the earth had been around.

Life has been on earth for a few billion years, most of that being single celled organisms whom we have to thank for pumping oxygen it the atmosphere. Complex life pops up about 600 million years ago.

No, man did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs. They are separated by several million years. First of all, the conditions are completely wrong for dinosaurs to exist. All the flora and fauna at that time of the dinosaurs was suited to the same very warm wet environment in which they lived. So, even if you want to say that they were created to be next to man, God would have to have been a complete retard with no understanding of the environment he created. It would be on the level of buying a bowling ball sized fishbowl filling it with saltwater and tossing a koi from a big pond in it. The fact of the matter is that when people from that time saw something they didn't understand, the stories of the creature grew to be far larger than the creature. If man had lived in an environment of any other era than the one we exist in today, they would have either been food for something else or would have had nothing to eat. The reasons you don't see big reptiles around today is that the world is simply just not warm enough for them. Mammals are much better suited to this generally colder climate.

It is a copout argument to say that the earth was created with a history. It is a child-like response to someone bringing you evidence that the past wasn't the way you think it is.

If that's the case, explain this:

Fred Flintstone says "suck it", you evolution-loving man-ape.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

The Ghost of RubangB on 20 March 2008

If G-d was so good, why didn't he get it right the first time? He screwed it up once, so he made a flood, and then he screwed it up again, so he did the Jesus thing. So far he's lost credibility with me, and I don't see why he isn't gonna screw everything up all over again because he still can't get it right. He's like the G-d who Cried Wolf.

Sounds like we're all a pretty shitty work in progress at some idiot 6th grade G-d's science fair.

Also, I'd like some documentation on whether the Flintstones and the Jesus knew each other, and whether the dragons in the Bible were fire-breathing western-style dragons or the friendlier wiser moustachioed (sometimes living in the water) eastern-style dragons.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Around the Network
rocketpig on 20 March 2008
The Ghost of RubangB said:
If G-d was so good, why didn't he get it right the first time? He screwed it up once, so he made a flood, and then he screwed it up again, so he did the Jesus thing. So far he's lost credibility with me, and I don't see why he isn't gonna screw everything up all over again because he still can't get it right. He's like the G-d who Cried Wolf.

Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

The Ghost of RubangB on 20 March 2008
rocketpig said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
If G-d was so good, why didn't he get it right the first time? He screwed it up once, so he made a flood, and then he screwed it up again, so he did the Jesus thing. So far he's lost credibility with me, and I don't see why he isn't gonna screw everything up all over again because he still can't get it right. He's like the G-d who Cried Wolf.

Trick me once, shame on you. Trick me twice, shame on me.


 Holy shit!  I just laughed so hard in this lab at school.  Ok, damn, wow, I'm late to class.  I gotta go before some immaculate milk materializes in my virgin nose and squirts all over the keyboard.

Touche sir. 



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Paul on 20 March 2008

Serious question though... Kazadoom, what do you believe happens to people when they die, who are brought up in an area of the world where they never have access to any christian teachings and are thus completely ignorant to Jesus?



kazadoom on 20 March 2008

You lied Ghost, you said you were leaving and you are still here.



My Tag: 2 Timothy 3:1

Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to Heaven! (John14:6)

Every second 2 people die . . . What if this is your second? 

www.goodpersontest.com

Profcrab on 20 March 2008
rocketpig said:
Profcrab said:
The bible cannot be used as the basis for any scientific research since it requires faith at a certain point.

Personally, I believe the bible was written at a time when people when came up with mystical reasons for natural phenomena.

As for Noah's Ark, the world was simply not covered in water for 40 days and 40 nights. The mass extinction that would have ensued would not have been recovered from to this day. Not only that, there is simply no record for it. There are records of many parts of many continents being covered at some point, but we are talking about geologic time here. Nothing like that has existed since the end of the last ice age (and a long time before that). Humans and close genetic cousins have been around for a pretty long time, far longer than many creationists believe that even the earth had been around.

Life has been on earth for a few billion years, most of that being single celled organisms whom we have to thank for pumping oxygen it the atmosphere. Complex life pops up about 600 million years ago.

No, man did not exist at the same time as dinosaurs. They are separated by several million years. First of all, the conditions are completely wrong for dinosaurs to exist. All the flora and fauna at that time of the dinosaurs was suited to the same very warm wet environment in which they lived. So, even if you want to say that they were created to be next to man, God would have to have been a complete retard with no understanding of the environment he created. It would be on the level of buying a bowling ball sized fishbowl filling it with saltwater and tossing a koi from a big pond in it. The fact of the matter is that when people from that time saw something they didn't understand, the stories of the creature grew to be far larger than the creature. If man had lived in an environment of any other era than the one we exist in today, they would have either been food for something else or would have had nothing to eat. The reasons you don't see big reptiles around today is that the world is simply just not warm enough for them. Mammals are much better suited to this generally colder climate.

It is a copout argument to say that the earth was created with a history. It is a child-like response to someone bringing you evidence that the past wasn't the way you think it is.

If that's the case, explain this:

Fred Flintstone says "suck it", you evolution-loving man-ape.


You're going to get in trouble if you keep stealing pictures from the Liberty College science books. 



Thank god for the disable signatures option.