1
   

Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 10:27 pm
Man, if Little Boot is saved, i don't want nothin' to do with Heaven.

(LTX, i cannot now see your avatar without recalling Little Boot, and crackin' up big time. First rate, Boss, first rate.)
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Aug, 2005 11:26 pm
baddog1 wrote:
ebrown_p:

I agree with husker in your situation as it's been described. Since you've "known" Jesus at a younger age and for whatever reason are turning your back on him now, it is my belief (and hope) that you will find your way back one day. If/when you do, he will no doubt welcome you back with open arms.

BD1


Give me a break....find their way back where? To the "light"? To the "right" path?

First, explain to me why your way is the "right" way and then I'll consider traveling your path? I really want you to try. No "because the bible says so" responses please. I want some real reasons to join the Theory of Christianity.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 04:36 am
maporsche wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
ebrown_p:

I agree with husker in your situation as it's been described. Since you've "known" Jesus at a younger age and for whatever reason are turning your back on him now, it is my belief (and hope) that you will find your way back one day. If/when you do, he will no doubt welcome you back with open arms.

BD1


Give me a break....find their way back where? To the "light"? To the "right" path?

First, explain to me why your way is the "right" way and then I'll consider traveling your path? I really want you to try. No "because the bible says so" responses please. I want some real reasons to join the Theory of Christianity.
maporsche:
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 04:42 am
.BD1[/quote]

Give me a break....find their way back where? To the "light"? To the "right" path?

First, explain to me why your way is the "right" way and then I'll consider traveling your path? I really want you to try. No "because the bible says so" responses please. I want some real reasons to join the Theory of Christianity.[/QUOTE]

maporsche:

OK, I'll play. However since you brought it up, let's do it this way: First, you tell me why God's way is not the "right" way. Please, some "real reasons" why someone should not join Christ, not theories. After you offer compelling reasons, I will happily offer what you ask. Very Happy

BD1
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 04:59 am
That was a thoroughly pathetic post.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 05:47 am
Quote:
That was a thoroughly pathetic post.


Which post?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 07:18 am
baddog1 wrote:
Quote:
That was a thoroughly pathetic post.


Which post?


Your last post.

I wouldn't actually say it was pathetic, because sometimes I do that. However, I only do that because I'm a weak debater, which kind of proves the fact that that was a rather pathetic post.

Let me put his question in another way for you?

Why do you think every other religion is wrong?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 08:17 am
To Wolf:

I have to disagree with you on the weak-debater statement. Certainly whenever a person asks a poignant question about their position on any subject, they should be equally prepared and be happy to state their own case. It has more to do with fairness than weak-debating. maporsche clearly has a strong opinion about christianity, theory, etc. and in the interest of reasonable debating about this (or any) topic, he/she should be more than willing to plead his own case if he desires this from another.

As to your question: "Why do I think every other religion is wrong?"

I never said or implied that every (or any) other religion is wrong. I do feel however that Christianity is right for me.

BD1
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 09:35 am
Well, if Christianity is the right way, then every other religion must be the wrong way, surely?
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 09:37 am
I have always wondered about the millions of folk who have either never heard of, or know little of Jesus. Are the entire lot of them condemned to hell? :wink:
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 10:50 am
Phoenix Wrote:

Quote:
I have always wondered about the millions of folk who have either never heard of, or know little of Jesus. Are the entire lot of them condemned to hell?


A very good question, Phoenix. And no, those that have never heard of or had the chance of hearing of Jesus, will not be condemned, for they are as little children that do not know.

And I would really like to hear some answers to BD1's question. I too feel it is a valid question. We, with the Christian faith, have been asked continually our thoughts on this and that, so isn't it just asking for a fair exchange?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 11:23 am
How can I determine if any other religion is the "wrong" way w/o evaluating it/them?

That's like saying one who adds words to another person's comments for personal reasons is the "right" way to act, and not adding words to other's comments is "surely" wrong! :wink:

I choose Christianity because I believe it is right for me. I also choose to hope that others do the same. However it is surely
their choice to do as they please.

BD1
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 05:36 pm
baddog1 wrote:
...First, you tell me why God's way is not the "right" way.

This is probably the source of confusion. You state that you don't know whether or not other religions are wrong, but you assume your way is God's way and that, since maporsche disagrees with you, that she isn't following God's way. This implies that any religion in disagreement with Christianity/your beliefs is in disagreement with God.

Quote:
Please, some "real reasons" why someone should not join Christ, not theories.

1. He's been dead for 2,000 years.
2. Everything he allegedly said is hearsay.
3. When someone claims to be God or the son of God today, we assume the reason is insanity, not divinity. Why should we assume differently regarding someone who lived 2,000 years ago?
4. The Bible wasn't compiled until Rome became Christian (400 years after Jesus and his disciples' deaths).
5. We don't know what criteria the official Roman clergy used in picking and choosing from among the many, many Christian gospels in existence at that time.
6. The Bible used by most protestant sects was translated and pared down by commission of the King of England and we don't really know what criteria the clergy used when translating and deciding what to keep from the Catholic version of the Bible.

There are plenty of facts casting doubt on the veracity, much less the divinity, of the teachings attributed to Christ. This doesn't mean there isn't any value in the Bible and the teachings of Christ, but there's no persuasive reason why we should assume it's the "word of God."
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Aug, 2005 11:02 pm
Quote:
This is probably the source of confusion. You state that you don't know whether or not other religions are wrong, but you assume your way is God's way and that, since maporsche disagrees with you, that she isn't following God's way. This implies that any religion in disagreement with Christianity/your beliefs is in disagreement with God.


Now Mills - you're doing the same thing as others. Why do you feel the need to alter my message? Your assessment of an assumption by me is incorrect. I make no implication about maporsche or that any religion in disagreement w/my beliefs is in disagreement with God. That would clearly be judgmental!

Please re-read your statement and then re-read my posts. There is a big difference in what you're saying and what I'm saying! Until you decide to take me at my word(s); I will not debate any subject with you. If/when you leave my word(s)/message unaltered and as it's written; I will gladly join you in any debate that I find interesting. However attempting to say that I implied or assumed something simply won't work with me. If you do not understand what I've written, ask me where I'm coming from - don't tell me.

BD1
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 07:45 am
baddog1 wrote:
Now Mills - you're doing the same thing as others. Why do you feel the need to alter my message? Your assessment of an assumption by me is incorrect. I make no implication about maporsche or that any religion in disagreement w/my beliefs is in disagreement with God. That would clearly be judgmental!

Please re-read your statement and then re-read my posts. There is a big difference in what you're saying and what I'm saying! Until you decide to take me at my word(s); I will not debate any subject with you. If/when you leave my word(s)/message unaltered and as it's written; I will gladly join you in any debate that I find interesting. However attempting to say that I implied or assumed something simply won't work with me. If you do not understand what I've written, ask me where I'm coming from - don't tell me.

BD1

This is the paragraph from which I took that question so whether or not I quoted you out of context won't be an issue:
baddog1 wrote:
OK, I'll play. However since you brought it up, let's do it this way: First, you tell me why God's way is not the "right" way. Please, some "real reasons" why someone should not join Christ, not theories. After you offer compelling reasons, I will happily offer what you ask.


Since this question was asked as way of retort to maporsche's request that you explain why "your way is the 'right" way," it clearly implies, as a matter of semantics, that your way is God's way.

Add to this the sentence directly following your question and we can logically come to no other conclusion than you feel any person or religion who disagrees with your religious beliefs is in disagreement with God. Since you have indicated that you believe in Christ's teachings, and you have equated Christ's teachings with God's, then it logically follows that anyone or any set of ideas that disagrees with your religious views also disagrees with God.

You may be inadvertently misrepresenting your beliefs, but you have clearly implied what I have stated you imply.

Now I have supplied six valid facts in support of the position that one should not adopt Christianity. Your response if you please.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 09:51 am
Mills: We remain on vastly different positions as to my "messages". Therefore rather than debate over implications and assumptions, (and since this is a spirituality/religion forum and not semantics) please allow me to be as clear as I have the capability of being.

maporsche, you, setante, and anyone else are as free to make your own choice concerning God et al, as I am. There is no judgment on my part! I have no concern whatsoever about how anyone may feel about my choice of religion and/or prayer, other than a reasonable hope related to overall humanitarianism and to offer my daughter the ability to make her own choices when she is able and ready.

As to your six statements; I will review each and get back to you. Thanks.

BD1
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 01:47 pm
Mills:

My comments to your statements:

1. He's been dead for 2,000 years. What difference does this make? What if the number were 200 years? How about 20? 2?

2. Everything he allegedly said is hearsay. You are certainly entitled to believe this. As I am entitled to believe it is not hearsay, but authentic. Rather than butt heads about this subject - let me ask you: What proof would be sufficient enough for you to declare that God's word is not hearsay?

3. When someone claims to be God or the son of God today, we assume the reason is insanity, not divinity. Why should we assume differently regarding someone who lived 2,000 years ago? I agree. We should not assume insanity, and you're right - most do. And there were probably many others who claimed to be God 2000 years ago. The world is full of skepticism, and assuredly always has been. Again, it goes back to my "proof" question from #2.

4. The Bible wasn't compiled until Rome became Christian (400 years after Jesus and his disciples' deaths). My historical readings indicate otherwise, with initial compilation beginning in BC. However as you know, this timeline is a bit controversial, rendering it hard to prove. To be honest though Mills - it doesn't matter to me. Attempting to prove or disprove a timeline from 1000+ years ago seems pointless to me. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy studying all the claims, stories, etc. related to Biblical history, but it's not a priority of mine and has no relevant bearing on how I choose to live my life.

5. We don't know what criteria the official Roman clergy used in picking and choosing from among the many, many Christian gospels in existence at that time. Although it makes no difference to me, I liken that situation to what is now happening in many 3rd world countries as Christianity makes it's way through the ranks. I have no idea who the official Roman clergy was as the Roman Empire split several times during that era. The plague visited them and civil war pressed on for a long time. It seems that many Christian gospels kept being eliminated and/or altered until the basis of Christianity, as we know it today was the one left standing. Obviously, my summary is extremely simplified, but I'm sure you get the picture. However, once again I have to ask; what difference does all this make in today's world?

6. The Bible used by most protestant sects was translated and pared down by commission of the King of England and we don't really know what criteria the clergy used when translating and deciding what to keep from the Catholic version of the Bible. And we'll probably never know the exactness of the criteria you speak of. The King James Version was preceded by the Geneva version and I have no idea what changed immediately before or after the Geneva version that affected the Catholic version. The antichrist/pope uproar was included along with other issues. Nevertheless, how does that affect Christians now?

There are plenty of facts casting doubt on the veracity, much less the divinity, of the teachings attributed to Christ. This doesn't mean there isn't any value in the Bible and the teachings of Christ, but there's no persuasive reason why we should assume it's the "word of God."

And there are plenty of facts that support the authenticity and religion of Christianity. You and I could play "one here - one there" for centuries - if we chose to put that much time into it. I don't. And I agree with you that there is value in the Bible and teachings of Christ, just as there is value in learning about Satan or atheism. And if we were to base your opinion strictly on history; there is no persuasive reason why we should assume the Bible is not the "word of God".

As I'm sure you're aware, our differences are basically about where we place our faith. I read about your life-experiences on another topic and can honestly say that we are not that far apart. In fact, we are alike in many areas (nature, being one with the surroundings, studying the scriptures & forming conclusions, living through adolescence & troubled family times, and so on. And you clearly believe in God.

But the big issue still comes down to faith - and it always will, because none of us knows for sure the tangible truths of 2000 years ago! We have strong beliefs and opinions based on our studies, our own history and emotions - but that is all we really have. From there it's all about our faith(s).

BD1
0 Replies
 
Mills75
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 08:24 pm
baddog1 wrote:
Mills: We remain on vastly different positions as to my "messages". Therefore rather than debate over implications and assumptions, (and since this is a spirituality/religion forum and not semantics) please allow me to be as clear as I have the capability of being.

Well, I'd debate you in your native tongue, but I'm fluent only in English.

As for your replies to my reason's for not joining Christ:

Quote:
1. He's been dead for 2,000 years. What difference does this make? What if the number were 200 years? How about 20? 2?

You're right. The time elapsed since he expired doesn't really matter since you really can't join a dead guy. As for following his teachings, we don't know for sure what they were because of fact #2 and, since he is dead, we can't ask him.

Quote:
2. Everything he allegedly said is hearsay. You are certainly entitled to believe this. As I am entitled to believe it is not hearsay, but authentic. Rather than butt heads about this subject - let me ask you: What proof would be sufficient enough for you to declare that God's word is not hearsay?

When one party informs you of what another party said, that is, by definition, hearsay. That everything we know of Jesus is hearsay isn't a belief, it's a fact. As to what proof would be sufficient for me "to declare that God's word is not hearsay": if I heard it myself, then it wouldn't, by definition, be hearsay. With regard to what evidence I'd require to believe Christian doctrine is the word of God (which I take to be the question you meant to ask), it would certainly have to be greater evidence than that supporting religions we've largely abandoned or dismiss; for example, the evidence supporting the divinity of Jesus and/or his teachings isn't any more compelling than the evidence supporting the veracity of Greek or Roman mythology.

Quote:
3. When someone claims to be God or the son of God today, we assume the reason is insanity, not divinity. Why should we assume differently regarding someone who lived 2,000 years ago? I agree. We should not assume insanity, and you're right - most do. And there were probably many others who claimed to be God 2000 years ago. The world is full of skepticism, and assuredly always has been. Again, it goes back to my "proof" question from #2.

When people sincerely claim to be God (in the supreme being sense, not the pantheistic sense), they are probably suffering from either a schizoid or bipolar disorder. See #2 regarding question of proof.

Quote:
4. The Bible wasn't compiled until Rome became Christian (400 years after Jesus and his disciples' deaths). My historical readings indicate otherwise, with initial compilation beginning in BC. However as you know, this timeline is a bit controversial, rendering it hard to prove. To be honest though Mills - it doesn't matter to me. Attempting to prove or disprove a timeline from 1000+ years ago seems pointless to me. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy studying all the claims, stories, etc. related to Biblical history, but it's not a priority of mine and has no relevant bearing on how I choose to live my life.

The point is that the people who compiled the Bible didn't know Jesus or anybody who did to many degrees of separation. What evidence did they possess that the gospels they used were the right ones? (If you're talking about the Old Testament, which was derived from Hebrew scripture, then yes, the Hebrew scriptures from which the Old Testament was derived had been compiled in BC. However, the Bible as we know it [or, at least, the Catholics know it] wasn't compiled until after Constantine converted and made Christianity the official religion of Rome.)

Quote:
5. We don't know what criteria the official Roman clergy used in picking and choosing from among the many, many Christian gospels in existence at that time. Although it makes no difference to me, I liken that situation to what is now happening in many 3rd world countries as Christianity makes it's way through the ranks. I have no idea who the official Roman clergy was as the Roman Empire split several times during that era. The plague visited them and civil war pressed on for a long time. It seems that many Christian gospels kept being eliminated and/or altered until the basis of Christianity, as we know it today was the one left standing. Obviously, my summary is extremely simplified, but I'm sure you get the picture. However, once again I have to ask; what difference does all this make in today's world?

Again, you're right. It doesn't make a great deal of difference. Given the above fact, what we have in Christianity is a man-made religion created either by men seeking to spread their beliefs, men seeking to bolster Constantine (their benefactor), or men seeking to bolster their own power and prestige. Either way, it's a man-made religion.

Quote:
6. The Bible used by most protestant sects was translated and pared down by commission of the King of England and we don't really know what criteria the clergy used when translating and deciding what to keep from the Catholic version of the Bible. And we'll probably never know the exactness of the criteria you speak of. The King James Version was preceded by the Geneva version and I have no idea what changed immediately before or after the Geneva version that affected the Catholic version. The antichrist/pope uproar was included along with other issues. Nevertheless, how does that affect Christians now?

We're then left with the same problem as #5 (just change 'Constantine' to
King James).

Quote:
There are plenty of facts casting doubt on the veracity, much less the divinity, of the teachings attributed to Christ. This doesn't mean there isn't any value in the Bible and the teachings of Christ, but there's no persuasive reason why we should assume it's the "word of God."

And there are plenty of facts that support the authenticity and religion of Christianity.

Aside from some archeological evidence demonstrating that the Bible is completely fabricated, what facts support the religion of Christianity?

Quote:
You and I could play "one here - one there" for centuries - if we chose to put that much time into it. I don't. And I agree with you that there is value in the Bible and teachings of Christ, just as there is value in learning about Satan or atheism. And if we were to base your opinion strictly on history; there is no persuasive reason why we should assume the Bible is not the "word of God".

The burden of proof must rest with the one arguing for a religious doctrine. By your criteria, there's no persuasive reason to believe there aren't, in fact, gods and that the Greeks and pre-Christian Romans were right.

Quote:
As I'm sure you're aware, our differences are basically about where we place our faith. I read about your life-experiences on another topic and can honestly say that we are not that far apart. In fact, we are alike in many areas (nature, being one with the surroundings, studying the scriptures & forming conclusions, living through adolescence & troubled family times, and so on. And you clearly believe in God.

But the big issue still comes down to faith - and it always will, because none of us knows for sure the tangible truths of 2000 years ago! We have strong beliefs and opinions based on our studies, our own history and emotions - but that is all we really have. From there it's all about our faith(s).

Actually, I've endeavored to base my arguments on logic and facts; rather the opposite of faith.

You asked for facts refuting the notion that Christian doctrine is the word of God, and I provided them. Your retort, essentially, is you'll believe what you want to believe because that's what you want to believe. In what other aspect of human life is that considered compelling reasoning?
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 10:28 pm
Mills:

Quote:
"When one party informs you of what another party said, that is, by definition, hearsay".


Therefore; when I re-read your statements in question, clearly #'s 1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 are by definition, hearsay as you have no proof of any of those events happening other than learning about them through another party. (Note: There is a compelling thought that #3 is also hearsay.) And logically speaking - all of history, religious or not would be hearsay as well, unless you were present and viewed said events for yourself.

Quote:
"Actually, I've endeavored to base my arguments on logic and facts; rather the opposite of faith." This further reinforces the fact that all 6 of your statements can only be hearsay?



I make my living from logic and facts as related to physics and finally realize that the more I learn about science, the more important "faith" becomes to me.

Quote:
"You asked for facts refuting the notion that Christian doctrine is the word of God, and I provided them. Your retort, essentially, is you'll believe what you want to believe because that's what you want to believe. In what other aspect of human life is that considered compelling reasoning?


You produced no facts, only hearsay, as confirmed by your own definition. Your definition of my retort is exactly right. As to what aspect of human life is that considered a compelling reason? My aspect sir.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Aug, 2005 10:30 pm
you guys can work at ripping this apart link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 11:21:51