Who said that Ghandi or any Hindu can't get to heaven?

 

Uh, Jesus. "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

 

While Ghandi looked up to Jesus and seen a lot of good in the man - he rejected the dogmatism he seen in Christianity and thus was never "born again through Christ." By this logic, is it not fair to say that poor Ghandi's name was not on the book of life.

 

If not, then explain.

 

I feel like, once again, you are putting words in my mouth. I believe Christianity (specifically Catholicism) is the path that the savior of the world created to get to heaven (and without it no one would get to heaven) but God wouldn't send a good person to hell- unless they consistently rejected God or Jesus and His message. A peasant farmer in China who has never heard of Jesus won't be condemned for not being Christian.

 

Is there any biblical evidence (I can't believe I just said that) to support your claim? Its one thing to tell me you "believe" God would not do this - it's another to tell me why.

 

Also I am not sure what you mean about an equal opposite or what you are trying to prove there- explain more.

 

 

I was simply saying that I agree with you - there probably is not a human alive who deserves eternal salvation. On the other hand though, if we are to use Hitler as the epitome of someone who may deserve eternal torment (and many, many people do) - then we have to logically purpose that if Hitler is evil enough to deserve eternal torment than there are humans good enough to deserve eternal salvation.

In what you and Ace are promoting though, evil is NEVER punished. Is that justice?

 

No, not at all.

 

The problem is that the punishment is not justified, and many of the "punished" by an all knowing God is hardly "evil."

 

LBBC - address this. Point blank. No beating around the bush. Address this:

 

Is the punishment by God justifieable and why?

Uh, Jesus. "I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." -- Jesus Christ (John 14:6)

 

While Ghandi looked up to Jesus and seen a lot of good in the man - he rejected the dogmatism he seen in Christianity and thus was never "born again through Christ." By this logic, is it not fair to say that poor Ghandi's name was not on the book of life.

 

If not, then explain.

 

 

 

Is there any biblical evidence (I can't believe I just said that) to support your claim? Its one thing to tell me you "believe" God would not do this - it's another to tell me why.

Well, I believe the bible, but my faith has more to it than that. I guess if you want a verse than John 10:16 is the best I can give you. I can't imagine the Christian God as I know Him sending a good person to hell, unless that person consistently rejected Jesus Christ (more importantly his word and his message) and did not repent. And I have no idea if Ghandi is going to heaven.

 

On a side note, why do you seem to especially despise Christianity? Is there something in particular that Christians (more than Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc.) have done to you? I debated with a man who ran a large internet Atheist blog who's site particularly ridiculed Christianity and asked him on the same subject.

 

I was simply saying that I agree with you - there probably is not a human alive who deserves eternal salvation. On the other hand though, if we are to use Hitler as the epitome of someone who may deserve eternal torment (and many, many people do) - then we have to logically purpose that if Hitler is evil enough to deserve eternal torment than there are humans good enough to deserve eternal salvation.

 

I am not sure if I necessarily agree with every evil having a equal opposite but I have really thought about it, doesn't seem very important.

The topic is Separation of Church and State. Please stay on topic.

And you can?

 

From what you type here, what you profess to believe is YOUR VERSION. You have picked out the verses of the Bible that you think are warm and cuddly and fits what you WANT to believe while dismissing the parts that you don't agree with.

 

I can't do that. I either take the full message or none of it. I don't take the full message and it does become LBBC's version of Christianity and now you guys have full right to rip me on it.

 

But, instead, I take the Bible, or try to take the Bible, I am still learning and don't know it 100% front cover to back cover, so am learning on issues:thumb:, for it's entirety.

 

Some parts, I have problem with and am trying to understand.

Some parts I don't agree with, but I ain't God either.

 

Honest question Ace, what qualifications do you use to determine which part of the Bible you will agree with and which part you won't?

 

I agree with all of it, I just don't take it literally. Ancient writers did not report news they told stories, so I read it as a story. It does not mean that I don't believe it.

 

You are the one who said isn't it strange that people don't believe in Hell, but Jesus does (paraphrase) - That is not a maybe statement, it implied fact - not simply what you believe.

To get back on topic (we shall attempt to carry on our conversations in some of the more appropriate threads) let me ask a discussion starting question to which I would like some thoughts:

 

In a Nation that prides itself on being religious tolerant - is it ok for a politician to base his policies on his religious beliefs?

To get back on topic (we shall attempt to carry on our conversations in some of the more appropriate threads) let me ask a discussion starting question to which I would like some thoughts:

 

In a Nation that prides itself on being religious tolerant - is it ok for a politician to base his policies on his religious beliefs?

I think it is. Religious beliefs are no different than any other belief system. We all make decisions based upon what we believe to be right and wrong, false and true. Our belief system determines if we are narcissistic or empathetic. Religious beliefs don't always make you right, but they also don't make you always wrong. But our beliefs are who we are.

To get back on topic (we shall attempt to carry on our conversations in some of the more appropriate threads) let me ask a discussion starting question to which I would like some thoughts:

 

In a Nation that prides itself on being religious tolerant - is it ok for a politician to base his policies on his religious beliefs?

Absolutely - provided that those religious beliefs do not infringe on our constitutional rights. The US Constitution prohibits our government from establishing a religion - it does not grant freedom from religion.

 

Laws originate from the moral compasses of elected men and women. Whether those compasses point toward "right" because of religious beliefs or some secular understanding of the concept of right and wrong does not matter to me.

I think it is. Religious beliefs are no different than any other belief system. We all make decisions based upon what we believe to be right and wrong, false and true. Our belief system determines if we are narcissistic or empathetic. Religious beliefs don't always make you right, but they also don't make you always wrong. But our beliefs are who we are.

 

I agree. Well thought out post; and one I can respect. Do you find, however, that certain beliefs when mandated (or even attempted to be mandated) can be seen as oppressive to some Americans and untolerant?

 

For example: Many conservatives wish to place a Constitutional ban on Gay Marriage. If a politican decides to back such legislation based on biblical reference - do you see a problem with that?

 

 

 

Absolutely - provided that those religious beliefs do not infringe on our constitutional rights. The US Constitution prohibits our government from establishing a religion - it does not grant freedom from religion.

 

Laws originate from the moral compasses of elected men and women. Whether those compasses point toward "right" because of religious beliefs or some secular understanding of the concept of right and wrong does not matter to me.

 

 

How would you feel if America took an upswing in Islam and somewhere down the road we became a Sharian nation? I would never attempt to compare our current way of doing government to some of the Islamic extremist nations in the world: but if a politican bases his ideas fully on interpretations of religious texts (i.e. The Bible, The Qu'ran) there is a fundamental problem when the government is supposedly seperate of state.

I agree. Well thought out post; and one I can respect. Do you find, however, that certain beliefs when mandated (or even attempted to be mandated) can be seen as oppressive to some Americans and untolerant?

 

For example: Many conservatives wish to place a Constitutional ban on Gay Marriage. If a politician decides to back such legislation based on biblical reference - do you see a problem with that?

I think in the example you gave, its wrong for a politician to state that whatever religious writings he subscribes to is the reason for passing a law. That smells of a 1st amendment violation. I think the politician needs to be able to justify his vote outside of the religion argument.

I think in the example you gave, its wrong for a politician to state that whatever religious writings he subscribes to is the reason for passing a law. That smells of a 1st amendment violation. I think the politician needs to be able to justify his vote outside of the religion argument.

 

Agreeing with you thus far.

 

In another thread, in which I said that I was against the banning of gay marriage, you said I stood for everything you disagree with or something to that effect.

 

What argument, outside of a religious one, do you have for the banning of gay marriage?

Agreeing with you thus far.

 

In another thread, in which I said that I was against the banning of gay marriage, you said I stood for everything you disagree with or something to that effect.

 

What argument, outside of a religious one, do you have for the banning of gay marriage?

I think gay marriage will further break down the family, which is a primary building block of civilization. Collapse of many civilizations seem to ho hand-in hand with growth of homosexual relationships, along with other self-indulgent behaviors that are embraced by that civilization. I think that's exactly where we are today with the acceptance of abortion and the push for gay rights, the high percentage of the population that uses narcotics, etc.

 

And I said you support everything I disagree with.

I think gay marriage will further break down the family, which is a primary building block of civilization. Collapse of many civilizations seem to ho hand-in hand with growth of homosexual relationships, along with other self-indulgent behaviors that are embraced by that civilization. I think that's exactly where we are today with the acceptance of abortion and the push for gay rights, the high percentage of the population that uses narcotics, etc.

 

How does Gay marriage threaten the family? More people will get divorced so they can marry their gay/lesbian lover?

 

It would seem to me that potentially the opposite is true - that if people were allowed to come together in a legally recognized monogamous relationship that it would strengthen the family. 2 ladies I know in my community have a much stronger relationship and HEALTHY homelife than male/female couples I know. They also have a 20 something daughter who is healthy and hetero. Their gayness has not broken down their family.

 

Most great societies actually declined when a weak ruler replaced and long-standing and strong (sometime autocratic) ruler. They also were more likely to decline because of economic issues and military issues rather than social ones.

 

Rome, for example, met its demise when its trade deficit became so high that it hardly had any money left in its couffers (sp). It also over-extended itself military and spent too much time in other people's countries.

 

The deficit situation with our budget is much more concerning to me than whether or not two loving individuals have a recognized legal union. Let them get married as long as they buy American:ylsuper:

I think gay marriage will further break down the family, which is a primary building block of civilization. Collapse of many civilizations seem to ho hand-in hand with growth of homosexual relationships, along with other self-indulgent behaviors that are embraced by that civilization. I think that's exactly where we are today with the acceptance of abortion and the push for gay rights, the high percentage of the population that uses narcotics, etc.

 

And I said you support everything I disagree with.

 

I respect you for having an argument that is not completely based in your faith. While not trying to get us back off topic - I will counter that with my own thoughts:

 

1) An amendment to ban gay marriage does nothing to protect heterosexual marriage. You claim that gay marriage will break down the family? How so? Being unable to marry has done nothing to slow down homosexuality. Any homosexual that I know would not base his decision on rather or not he can get married. You may be more thinking of adoption by gays and in that issue - I need more time to think and research before I would make my own opinion.

 

2) It would be contrary to basic human rights. Who is to say that gays should not be given every right we are? I often compare the prejudice that we see towards gays and lesbians today to that of African Americans in the 60's. While it is clearly not as bad as a whole - many Americans feel threatened and scared of the change. The change which will come just as it did with the civil rights movement.

 

3) Homosexual Marriage does not harm heterosexual marriage. I know this a bit repetitive but its true. In this world there are a few homosexuals, and the vast majority of us are heterosexual. To paraphrase someone on TV, "If gays want to experience the torture and sadness that is being married, I say let them."

 

4) Quite simply - it would recognize the legitmacy of same sex relationships. Again, it's there - i see no problem in recognizing it. Not allowing the same benefits to a gay couple that a heterosexual couple is oppressive.

Let's not get tied up in the gay rights issue. It's not the sole issue between Church and State. I think the much bigger issue is that our founding fathers didn't envision a nation made up of religions outside of the Judeo-Christian influences.