Viewing Thread:
"Being a Christian"

I am sharing a simple message of the love of Jesus and the sacrifice He paid for sin, in this post. Jesus

Jesus is going to return one day, soon and will judge the world, on account of all its sins. Revelation (the last book of the bible) gives a vivid prophetic view on the return of Christ, stating "every eye shall see". Jesus will decide who is allowed unto the Kingdom of God for all eternity through the straight and narrow path and who passes through the gates of the broad and wide path.

The Kingdom of God is heaven which is described as a place of no more tears, or pains, night or day or hunger or famin. We are told he has the best mansions lined up for his people and has glories beyond our human interpretation.

He also tells us about Hell, a place of weeping and nashing of teeth, a place of eternal punishment and terrible suffering. He also says some will have few stripes and some who reject the word of Lord will have many stripes.

My friends in order to pass from death until life you must allow in the Holy Spirit and must pray for God to come into your life. No amount of charity money or giving or helping will enter you into the Kingdom of God for all eternity except by this way; excepting the Lord Jesus into your life, the same man that took away all man's sins on the cross. John 3:16 "For God so loved the World that he sent his one and only son, for who ever believeth in him may not perish but have everlasting life" Jesus was the perfect sacrifice. He paid the price for sin, in order to get the burden of sin off your shoulders and with you for all eternity in Hell, you need to trust in the Lord Jesus, who died for sin. This is the most important decision you will ever make, either accept you are a sinner and Jesus has taken away your sin or reject Jesus and face Him one day and all eternity in Hell.

God bless and thankyou for your time. If you are interested in any of the points raised in this article or you would like to ask Jesus into your life please feel free to write to me at [email protected]

Cong_Woman wrote:
> Stuff
>
> *Steps off soap box*

Mm, no-one deserves to be bullied just for being a particular religion or for not being religious.

Which means I should clarify just why I give Mary such a hard time; he's a bully. He does (or did, being as how he seems to have stopped making proclamations on how people MUST live their life) who tries to frighten people into following his own way of thinking. His faith in itself, I couldn't really care about; if it gets him through the night then he's welcome to it. But when part of that faith seems to involve attempting to subjugate the faith of others and insist that they're somehow lesser people...well, that's the red rag that gets me started.

I was brought up as a Catholic. went to church regulary went to a catholic school.. my parents were really strict regarding to certain things.. like having to go to confesstion every week. Not good as i was confessing for like a hour at a time. As i was a naughty girl..I kinda understood where they were coming from. However they cant force a religion on me. Thats seriously how it felt. However when i went to high school (which was just a normal high school not a catholic high school) i was bullied because of it. Its not as though other peoples religion is important to other people. Everyone has a choice whether to be religious.

However when i moved over to the UK in 2002 its totally different people dont care what religion you are.. Kind of makes me not to miss home. Must admit though i dont now class myself as a catholic come to think of it i dont class myself as anything

Dunno why i am really posting this as it really has no point however ive seen the thread for a while and wanted to post,

*Steps off soap box*

> Archangel wrote:
>
>
> It's obvious you haven't heard of when "spirit agrees with
> spirit." Those who have the same views would agree on certain
> points,
Heard of it, and seen it used and abused by so many fundamentalists who say that no-one else is allowed to do anything other than follow the bible literally, apart from when the leaders of that particular sect give an interpretation, in which case they're doing so "in the spirit of the bible". Essentially, the "spirit agrees..." argument is no different then saying "I think what God meant to say was...", and that is nothing more than arrogance and egomania.
My point is that you spend so long saying that man is fallible and his judgement cannot be trusted, and only the Bible gives the true word of God. Then you allow your leaders to re-interpret the word of God according to their needs. And if you don't like what that leader says? Well, there are hundreds of alternative church's offering their own interpretation that your spirit might find more agreeable.



>Sorry. the original post didn't take. Let me be the first to apologize. I guess I can't remember every post. But Originally I said that religion (man's) didn't START at the tower. >Then I said it is, however, about religion, just not the beginning of it. Do some historical research outside the Bible. It points to it being about religion. Man's attempt at
>reaching God.
Hmm...okay, I'll accept that as an interpretation of the Bible. Seems more than valid, and is backed up by some good reasoning. But it's not a literal view, is it? It's one possible meaning of the Bible. And where there is one possible meaning, there are more. In other words, the Bible stops becoming an instruction manual on living ones life, because there are so many inerpretations of those instructions. You can say that "when spirit agrees with spirit, then one knows it is correct". But what if someone else's spirit does not agree? At that point, the only reason you have for agreeing with an interpretation rather than the literal word is that a particular interpretation suits your personal feelings. And from that time onwards, the Bible is no longer about your relationship with God. It's just a tool to justify your own beliefs and attempt to give them additional weight.

>Excuse me for seeming "irritated." But I haven't double-talked myself. It's just that sometimes, Light, you seem to read more into a post than is actually there. I can agree
>with you and Pande, and agree with FF, too. It's two different agreements on the same argument. Oh, I'm sorry. DISCUSSION.
>I've been away quite a bit. Lots to do. Just popped in after a long absence. Expect me back again sometime. Probably not soon, though.

Well, when you agree with 2 contradictory statements and don't elaborate, you'll pardon me for seeing that as doublethink. Do I read too much into a post? I'll agree I read more in than perhaps you intend me to. But then (and I don't mean this as a condescending comment), I'm guessing I question your religion an awful lot more than you do, and so a lot more questions get thrown up in my mind. Thus far, the only answers I'm generally offered by Christians are "It's a matter of faith" (which is entirely fair enough; the best Christians in my experience are the ones who realise that they don't have all the answers to everything. They tend to be genuine when they say they have faith in God), or "don't ask that question" (the favourite of fundamentalists who's faith is nothing more than self-aggrandisement) or some evasive point or other that makes no attempt to address the question (Mary's favourite approach, being as he is the poster boy for using religion entirely as a method of making himself feel special).

Now that you've elaborated what you meant, then I do see your point. Thanks for you (quite unnecessary) apology, and accept my own for any offence caused by my aggressive approach to debate.

Thanks Archangel. How's it all going?

Light wrote:
> Archangel wrote:
>
>
> It's obvious you haven't heard of when "spirit agrees with
> spirit." Those who have the same views would agree on certain
> points,
>
> I see; so essentially it's alright to listen to other people's views
> and interpretations of the bible when they happen to agree with your
> own, but anything else is simply incorrect? Yet as you've already
> said, one should take a literal view of the bible. So in other words,
> according to your logic, there should be no need for commentaries on
> the bible because there should only be one correct view of it. Or if
> there is a need for a commentary, they shouldn't contradict each
> other in any way, correct?
>
> I don't agree with everyone; neither do you (as we well
> know). I never said they weren't fallible. We all fallible. People
> make mistakes. Deal with it.
>
> Heh. Mistakes such as what? Throwing your life away on meaningless
> ritual and empty rhetoric? Attempting to force other people to live
> the life that you personally think is ideal?
>
> I don't have a problem with mistakes being made, not by anyone. If
> you were to actually read through the posts by your little disciple,
> Mary, you might see that he never once admits to being in same area
> code as mistaken. Strange isn't it, how you're ever so tolerant of
> that failing in him yet you seem to want to lambast me for it, even
> though it's not one of my faults. Were you to criticise me for being
> arrogant, or overly florid, or too aggressive then you'd have a
> point. Alas, like many evangelists, you seem to have decided to
> ignore the actuality of a situation and concentrate on how you would
> like things to be.
>
> I do. I still don't see where I've
> double-talked myself.
>
> I believe the phrase here is "there are none so blind as those
> who will not see". If you can't see where you've double talked
> yourself when, in one post you tell Mary that you agree with
> Pandaemonium and myself (with whom Mary 100% disagreed), and in the
> next you say that you agree with Mary...well, then like I said
> previously, we shall have to agree to disagree.
>
> And while we're on this point, why must you
> pick apart every comment? I will compliment you, though: you are
> consistent. And you're fair. You just don't pick apart one or two of
> us; you get all the ones you can.
>
> Why must I pick apart every comment? It's called 'questioning'. It's
> purely and simply about getting you to clarify arguments that you've
> used. Now admittedly this is something that christianity in general
> isn't used to; it wasn't so long ago that people were burnt alive for
> having the temerity to ask questions about faith. Now the worst that
> can happen is somebody will make ill-veiled complaints about being
> picked on solely for being a christian. I'm

Sorry. the original post didn't take. Let me be the first to apologize. I guess I can't remember every post. But Originally I said that religion (man's) didn't START at the tower. Then I said it is, however, about religion, just not the beginning of it. Do some historical research outside the Bible. It points to it being about religion. Man's attempt at reaching God.
Excuse me for seeming "irritated." But I haven't double-talked myself. It's just that sometimes, Light, you seem to read more into a post than is actually there. I can agree with you and Pande, and agree with FF, too. It's two different agreements on the same argument. Oh, I'm sorry. DISCUSSION.
I've been away quite a bit. Lots to do. Just popped in after a long absence. Expect me back again sometime. Probably not soon, though.

zxv wrote:
> "too late they made one in Brazil 125ft high except it's not
> made of gold"

My gold Jesus would smash your sh*tty aluminium Jesus any day of the week...except Sunday - he's busy then, and so should yours be.

cRaCkHeAd wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Yeah, Einstein was into Creation.
>
> he was also into nature

So what if he wanted to walk about naked all the time? What you got to hide?

true! If not for him we would still believe that adam and eve was true.

Nah; Darwin was a natural historian and scientist. He generally never debated theology as the only reason evolution was brought up as an issue was that sad, unimaginative creationists couldn't get their heads round the idea that the bible might not be the literal truth. Not only that, but he was a genius.


Oh, incidentally Mary; lets see some proof about Einstein being a creationist. Because it looks to me like you're telling another little lie.
C'mon you lying, evasive, coward; proof please!

zxv wrote:
> light - wannabe Einstien

*chages*

light - wannabe Charles Darwin