February 2, 200719 yr Death is nothing really to laugh at. Why, because you've been taught that it's taboo? Read up on the Darwin awards dude :P . Its about respecting those who have died, but, even though I feel wrong doing it, I cannot help but laugh when reading the Darwin Awards lol. ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~
February 2, 200719 yr You don't understand religion at all. I would much rather die than deny God. You see, as a Christian I do not fear death. Religion breeding terrorists. :uhh:
February 2, 200719 yr You don't understand religion at all. I would much rather die than deny God. You see, as a Christian I do not fear death. Religion breeding terrorists. :uhh: ... I didn't say that I would kill in the name of God. I blatantly explained my statement as meaning that if someone put a gun to my head, I would not deny God. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley
February 2, 200719 yr You don't understand religion at all. I would much rather die than deny God. You see, as a Christian I do not fear death. Religion breeding terrorists. :uhh: ... I didn't say that I would kill in the name of God. I blatantly explained my statement as meaning that if someone put a gun to my head, I would not deny God. Even if you had a family to take care of? Strong faith you've got, but I'd vote for what I know I must do over what I believe I must do. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 2, 200719 yr Even if you had a family to take care of? Strong faith you've got, but I'd vote for what I know I must do over what I believe I must do. As a Christian, barihawk most likely believes that blasphemy is a terrible sin. Death, although an evil event in the Christian faith, would be much more welcomed than blasphemy. Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die.
February 2, 200719 yr Thanks Locke, spot on. My heart is broken by the terrible loss I have sustained in my old friends and companions and my poor soldiers. Believe me, nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won. -Sir Arthur Wellesley
February 2, 200719 yr Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die. Too bad God doesn't pay the bills if the father, the only working person of the family, rather dies after being kidnapped by a terrorist than temporarily lie. Everybody is allowed to have as much faith in anything as they want. Still, trusting your family to 'God' is naivety. God will not look after some children who starve to death on a daily basis, neither will he specificly help a family living in a first world country just because their living standard dropped a little. That wasn't a belief by the way, just looking at death statistics for starvation/thirst of children. Mustn't be important for God.
February 2, 200719 yr Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die. Too bad God doesn't pay the bills if the father, the only working person of the family, rather dies after being kidnapped by a terrorist than temporarily lie. Everybody is allowed to have as much faith in anything as they want. Still, trusting your family to 'God' is naivety. God will not look after some children who starve to death on a daily basis, neither will he specificly help a family living in a first world country just because their living standard dropped a little. That wasn't a belief by the way, just looking at death statistics for starvation/thirst of children. Mustn't be important for God. Hmm. That's basically what annoys me about the whole cyclone catrina fiasco. Christians saying things along the lines of 'my faith in god has been strengthened.' People can believe what they want, I could mind in the slightest, but I'd have to agree BlueLancer, people relying on god to help them is naieve and almost rejecting of the harsh reality we exist in.
February 2, 200719 yr Even if you had a family to take care of? Strong faith you've got, but I'd vote for what I know I must do over what I believe I must do. As a Christian, barihawk most likely believes that blasphemy is a terrible sin. Death, although an evil event in the Christian faith, would be much more welcomed than blasphemy. Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die. If he couldn't take care of you, how do you think hes going to take care of your family? :-$ ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~
February 2, 200719 yr Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die. Too bad God doesn't pay the bills if the father, the only working person of the family, rather dies after being kidnapped by a terrorist than temporarily lie. Everybody is allowed to have as much faith in anything as they want. Still, trusting your family to 'God' is naivety. God will not look after some children who starve to death on a daily bassi, neither will he specificly help a family living in a first world country just because their living standard dropped a little. That wasn't a belief by the way, just looking at death statistics for starvation/thirst of children. Mustn't be important for God. You are not looking at it from a Christian perspective, though. You're looking at it from a perspective that says Earthly life and comfort is vitally important, a Christian doesn't see it in exactly the same way you do. It's not to say that your point isn't logical, I'm only pointing out that it is secular. You view 'paying bills' as more important than salvation, because you do not believe in salvation. I think that it's just a point that Christians and non Christians will never be able to see eye to eye on.
February 2, 200719 yr Most Christians I know would rather die than commit blasphemy, knowing that God will take care of their family when they die. Too bad God doesn't pay the bills if the father, the only working person of the family, rather dies after being kidnapped by a terrorist than temporarily lie. Everybody is allowed to have as much faith in anything as they want. Still, trusting your family to 'God' is naivety. God will not look after some children who starve to death on a daily bassi, neither will he specificly help a family living in a first world country just because their living standard dropped a little. That wasn't a belief by the way, just looking at death statistics for starvation/thirst of children. Mustn't be important for God. You are not looking at it from a Christian perspective, though. You're looking at it from a perspective that says Earthly life and comfort is vitally important, a Christian doesn't see it in exactly the same way you do. It's not to say that your point isn't logical, I'm only pointing out that it is secular. You view 'paying bills' as more important than salvation, because you do not believe in salvation. I think that it's just a point that Christians and non Christians will never be able to see eye to eye on. How about this. Say the father of a family is the only Christian in that family and is posed with the gun example that Barihawk suggested. He dies for his faith and basically his family are in emotional and financial ruin. Justified? I'm not sure but I'm just throwing ideas around here. So do you think the father should show empathy towards his families situation if he dies or stay steadfast in his faith, which, if I'm not mistaken, is redeemable due to te salvation of Jesus Christ?
February 2, 200719 yr You are not looking at it from a Christian perspective, though. You're looking at it from a perspective that says Earthly life and comfort is vitally important, a Christian doesn't see it in exactly the same way you do. It's not to say that your point isn't logical, I'm only pointing out that it is secular. You view 'paying bills' as more important than salvation, because you do not believe in salvation. I think that it's just a point that Christians and non Christians will never be able to see eye to eye on. Most Christians I know have goten past the point of believing that God plays favorites. Also, most I know put earthly duties over standing up for their God, mind a few with strong faith and no families to worry about (i.e., most priests). Personally, faith is nothing to die over. Admitting you believe in God at gun point is basically committing suicide and hurting your close one's for something you're not even sure is true. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 2, 200719 yr Both of you all are still responding from secular viewpoints. You don't understand the Christians perspective which says that blasphemy is the unpardonable sin. Compare a finite earthly life with eternity in hell. To someone who believes hell is their fate for that sin, the situation isn't even a question. It's perfectly logical for you all to not understand that, because it is not your belief that blasphemy will send you to Hell for eternity like barihawk does. So try this thought experiment to try and understand the Christian perspective here. 1. Misery for a limited time 2. A far worse misery for eternity. If you are given the option to choose situation 1 or situation 2, which would you pick?
February 2, 200719 yr Both of you all are still responding from secular viewpoints. You don't understand the Christians perspective which says that blasphemy is the unpardonable sin. Compare a finite earthly life with eternity in hell. To someone who believes hell is their fate for that sin, the situation isn't even a question. It's perfectly logical for you all to not understand that, because it is not your belief that blasphemy will send you to Hell for eternity like barihawk does. So try this thought experiment to try and understand the Christian perspective here. 1. Misery for a limited time 2. A far worse misery for eternity. If you are given the option to choose situation 1 or situation 2, which would you pick? Guess I forgot to mention this, but most Christians I know also don't think they're going to Hell because they made a short lie to save their family. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 2, 200719 yr Both of you all are still responding from secular viewpoints. You don't understand the Christians perspective which says that blasphemy is the unpardonable sin. Compare a finite earthly life with eternity in hell. To someone who believes hell is their fate for that sin, the situation isn't even a question. It's perfectly logical for you all to not understand that, because it is not your belief that blasphemy will send you to Hell for eternity like barihawk does. So try this thought experiment to try and understand the Christian perspective here. 1. Misery for a limited time 2. A far worse misery for eternity. If you are given the option to choose situation 1 or situation 2, which would you pick? Guess I forgot to mention this, but most Christians I know also don't think they're going to Hell because they made a short lie to save their family. Your entire situation is fallacious in that you blame the Christian for dying and letting their family "starve", when the terrorist is clearly the primary cause of it. You place a terrorist in the situation but then somehow magically forget about the terrorist when placing blame.
February 2, 200719 yr Guess I forgot to mention this, but most Christians I know also don't think they're going to Hell because they made a short lie to save their family. Even I know that the Bible says but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come
February 2, 200719 yr Your entire situation is fallacious in that you blame the Christian for dying and letting their family "starve", when the terrorist is clearly the primary cause of it. You place a terrorist in the situation but then somehow magically forget about the terrorist when placing blame. If the terrorist tells the Christian that they'll live if they deny God, but they'll die if they stand firm in their faith, then even though the terrorist is the primary cause the Christian still has a choice to live or die. If the Christian stands firm, they die, and no matter how you spin it, it's still partially their fault. Locke, the Bible was written by Christians (and others, in the case of the Old Testament) thousands of years ago, it is not absolute. Time changes, religious views change. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 2, 200719 yr Both of you all are still responding from secular viewpoints. You don't understand the Christians perspective which says that blasphemy is the unpardonable sin. Compare a finite earthly life with eternity in hell. To someone who believes hell is their fate for that sin, the situation isn't even a question. It's perfectly logical for you all to not understand that, because it is not your belief that blasphemy will send you to Hell for eternity like barihawk does. So try this thought experiment to try and understand the Christian perspective here. 1. Misery for a limited time 2. A far worse misery for eternity. If you are given the option to choose situation 1 or situation 2, which would you pick? Guess I forgot to mention this, but most Christians I know also don't think they're going to Hell because they made a short lie to save their family. Your entire situation is fallacious in that you blame the Christian for dying and letting their family "starve", when the terrorist is clearly the primary cause of it. You place a terrorist in the situation but then somehow magically forget about the terrorist when placing blame. The point is not about the killer, its about the reason, this is about people that would rather die than commit blasphemy. It would be just plain stupid to let your overactive faith throw your only chance of living away rather than make a tiny lie about your belief. Edit:Misread lol ~^v^~Ex-Leader of the Divine Flames of Redemption~^v^~
February 2, 200719 yr Locke, that the Bible was written by Christians thousands of years ago, it is not absolute. Time changes, religious views change. 1. I am not arguing about the validity of the Bible. I don't care who thinks the Bible is correct or not. 2. If the people you are talking about are Christians, that means they believe what the Bible says. 3. Please logically explain to me, using your knowledge of Greek culture when that verse was written, why a verse that speaks not only until the end of this time, but also through all of eternity, would change over time. If a Christian who believes in the Bible reads a verse that says "this will never change," what culturally would make that Christian who believes in the Bible think that the verse is now irrelevant? What is the purpose of the Bible if a Christian doesn't even believe a verse that blatantly says it will never, ever, under any circumstances, change its meaning? Sure, I could see where some people might interpret different passages to mean different things. But how could you do it with a verse that specifically says it will not change over time?
February 2, 200719 yr Both of you all are still responding from secular viewpoints. You don't understand the Christians perspective which says that blasphemy is the unpardonable sin. Compare a finite earthly life with eternity in hell. To someone who believes hell is their fate for that sin, the situation isn't even a question. It's perfectly logical for you all to not understand that, because it is not your belief that blasphemy will send you to Hell for eternity like barihawk does. So try this thought experiment to try and understand the Christian perspective here. 1. Misery for a limited time 2. A far worse misery for eternity. If you are given the option to choose situation 1 or situation 2, which would you pick? It was my understanding that you could be forgiven for your sins and thus avoid an eternity in hell. Guess I was wrong huh?
February 2, 200719 yr It was my understanding that you could be forgiven for your sins and thus avoid an eternity in hell. Guess I was wrong huh? I'm not God, but Christian scripture seems to suggest all sins except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are forgivable.
February 2, 200719 yr Locke, that the Bible was written by Christians thousands of years ago, it is not absolute. Time changes, religious views change. 1. I am not arguing about the validity of the Bible. I don't care who thinks the Bible is correct or not. 2. If the people you are talking about are Christians, that means they believe what the Bible says. 3. Please logically explain to me, using your knowledge of Greek culture when that verse was written, why a verse that speaks not only until the end of this time, but also through all of eternity, would change over time. If a Christian who believes in the Bible reads a verse that says "this will never change," what culturally would make that Christian who believes in the Bible think that the verse is now irrelevant? That verse was written by MAN in a different age then ours, not God, it is not eternal. Technically, the Catholic Church may say that's true for all of eternity, but most Christians don't give a hoot for most of the Catholic Church's opinions (take the homosexuality argument, for example...). Practical Christians don't take every single word of the Bible as law and the Word of God. I'll admit some crazy Christians might though. Much of the Bible is written specifically to the people of the time, such as many of the rules it tells us of how to treat women, many of which are outdated. Another good example is Paul's belief that celibacy is the best thing to do. Wana know why he said that? It's because he believed Jesus was going to come back within his lifetime, so we don't need to reproduce. Well, obviously he was wrong. Too bad the idea of celibacy survived his error. Anyways, my point is that the Bible is not absolute, and not true in every case. Most Christians realize that not everything in the Bible is true, or the Word of God. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
February 2, 200719 yr It was my understanding that you could be forgiven for your sins and thus avoid an eternity in hell. Guess I was wrong huh? I'm not God, but Christian scripture seems to suggest all sins except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit are forgivable. I did a little research and it seems you are right. Interesting. I'd be interested to hear a Christians perspective on what they think about this unforgivable sin. So basically one sin and your out? No second chances? :ohnoes:
February 2, 200719 yr That verse was written by MAN in a different age then ours, not God, it is not eternal. It is a Christian belief, if I am not mistaken, that the book was inspired by God. That verse specifically says that it is eternal, contrary to your statement. Technically, the Catholic Church may say that's true for all of eternity, but most Christians don't give a hoot for most of the Catholic Church's opinions (take the homosexuality argument, for example...). Practical Christians don't take every single word of the Bible as law and the Word of God. I'll admit some crazy Christians might though. Irrelevant to the specific point at hand. Much of the Bible is written specifically to the people of the time, such as many of the rules it tells us of how to treat women, many of wh ich are outdated. Another good example is Paul's belief that celibacy is the best thing to do. Wana know why he said that? It's because he believed Jesus was going to come back within his lifetime, so we don't need to reproduce. Well, obviously he was wrong. Too bad the idea of celibacy survived his error. I'm quite aware the much of the Bible was written specifically to the people of the time. For instance, did you know in the New Testament Paul instructs women to not braid their hair? Someone who was reading that out of context would not realize that Paul was telling them to not dress like prostitutes, because he was speaking specifically to a hairstyle that only prostitutes wore in that age. What you have failed to account for though, is how a verse that was divinely inspired (since we are looking at it from a Christian perspective) that specifically states that it is an eternal verse, is not eternal. How can you logically and culturally show that a verse which states it's own eternal importance, actually is not eternal? For instance, Paul never says "for the rest of eternity, you should be celibate," therefore, it would be easy to say that the verse is not meant to be eternal. However, when the verse itself says it is eternal, you need some very strong evidence to say it was not meant to be eternal.
Create an account or sign in to comment