Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If it indeed turns out that it is simply the 'righteous' who are to receive salvation, and unbelievers (and followers of other religions) are included among those 'saved,' would this be something you would personally welcome, as a Christian?

Or would you feel short changed?

I have no issue with people making it to heaven under their own steam if that turns out to be a route. Of course none of them will be atheists at that point and I dosuspect the "eternal suffering" Christians will feel cheated out of their blood.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Again Kelly, that's not really answering the question. I understand that you believe only those who come to Jesus will be saved. However, heaven forbid you're wrong, and when you get to heaven you discover non-believers, would you be pleased to see them or feel short changed?

Nope, I'd be delighted, just don't believe it is going to occur.

Ghost of a Duke: Again Kelly, that's not really answering the question. I understand that you believe only those who come to Jesus will be saved. However, heaven forbid you're wrong, and when you get to heaven you discover non-believers, would you be pleased to see them or feel short changed?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope, I'd be delighted, just don't believe it is going to occur.

Would you be willing to pray that you're wrong?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
It's strange to me that you have time to post in every thread, apart from the one where you asked me to provide an example of your diminutive name calling.

Did you not read the example i provided, or are you just pretending you didn't?!

Did you not read the example i provided, or are you just pretending you didn't?!

Did you get an example? I'll look. Didn't see it yet today.

Always ASSUME you are being treated underhandedly by someone you disagree with.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Again Kelly, that's not really answering the question. I understand that you believe only those who come to Jesus will be saved. However, heaven forbid you're wrong, and when you get to heaven you discover non-believers, would you be pleased to see them or feel short changed?

Will you feel cheated that you were warned and didn't heed the warnings if you go some
place else?

Originally posted by sonship

Did you not read the example i provided, or are you just pretending you didn't?!

Did you get an example? I'll look. Didn't see it yet today.

Always ASSUME you are being treated underhandedly by someone you disagree with.

Yes, I linked to the recent case of you calling another poster stupid. (There have been others). I think personally that qualifies as diminutive name calling, something you said shouldn't happen when Christs abides in someone.

I tend to have more faith in people. Even those I disagree with.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes, I linked to the recent case of you calling another poster stupid. (There have been others). I think personally that qualifies as diminutive name calling, something you said shouldn't happen when Christs abides in someone.

I tend to have more faith in people. Even those I disagree with.

Okay Sonship, I'll drop this now. Clearly you think it is alright to call another poster stupid.

Good to know.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Again Kelly, that's not really answering the question. I understand that you believe only those who come to Jesus will be saved. However, heaven forbid you're wrong, and when you get to heaven you discover non-believers, would you be pleased to see them or feel short changed?

Do infants who die before they even can talk then get a by and go straight to heaven? I wouldn't think so, since they would be with the crowd of unknown affiliation.

Also, what about infants conjoined where they sometimes die, if they indeed went to heaven, would they remain conjoined?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay Sonship, I'll drop this now. Clearly you think it is alright to call another poster stupid.

Good to know.

Okay Sonship, I'll drop this now. Clearly you think it is alright to call another poster stupid.

I take your word for it that I used the word for either someone's action in some specific matter. I recall using the word. So your point is taken to that extent.

What point is not taken is that I used the word "stupid" with such a wide scope as to include the entire personhood of any poster. That's not me. I mean a general all-encompassing diminutive denouncement of one as entirely stupid, wouldn't serve anything useful to me.

But that someone said something specific and I attached the description of "stupid" to either the specific matter or a specific failure of intelligence that leads to THAT specific erroneous statement made, YES, "stupid" was used by me.

I don't have your paste or quote. But I recall the general circumstances.

Yes, something was said and I probably said the poster was stupid to say that.
The word "foolish" or "fool-hearty" may have been more etiquettely correct.

Originally posted by sonship

Okay Sonship, I'll drop this now. Clearly you think it is alright to call another poster stupid.

I take your word for it that I used the word for either someone's action in some [b] specific matter. I recall using the word. So your point is taken to that extent.

What point is not taken is that I used the word "stupid" with such a w ...[text shortened]... upid to say that.
The word "foolish" or "fool-hearty" may have been more etiquettely correct.[/b]

What do you mean you have to take my word for it? I told you exactly what thread you said it in. Read it with your own eyes. No need to take my word for anything.

You used the word stupid in precisely the diminutive name calling manner you said should not be made by someone who God abides in. Instead of trying to wriggle out of it, why not take ownership and perhaps show Christian humility and offer Rajk an apology?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
What do you mean you have to take my word for it? I told you exactly what thread you said it in. Read it with your own eyes. No need to take my word for anything.

You used the word stupid in precisely the diminutive name calling manner you said should not be made by someone who God abides in. Instead of trying to wriggle out of it, why not take ownership and perhaps show Christian humility and offer Rajk an apology?

So no demonstration of Christian humility and apology, hey?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
So no demonstration of Christian humility and apology, hey?

Replying to your own post, did you pi$$ yourself off or something? 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay
Replying to your own post, did you pi$$ yourself off or something? 🙂

I should have added, it is okay to talk to yourself, as long as you don't say, "what did you say?" 🙂

Originally posted by KellyJay to Ghost of a Duke
Replying to your own post, did you pi$$ yourself off or something? 🙂

It's interesting how you query Ghost of a Duke's (commonplace) way of bumping an ignored message to sonship rather than query the lack of common decency that sonship is exhibiting.

Originally posted by FMF
It's interesting how you query Ghost of a Duke's (commonplace) way of bumping an ignored message to sonship rather than query the lack of common decency that sonship is exhibiting.

Interesting what you DON"T talk about, like my example of conjoined infants, do they go to heaven conjoined forever as gods little pet or do they go to hell because they have not had time to understand religion?