Paul speaks on Faith

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I approach scripture with my own mind. You are mistaken in your interpretation of the specified text.

The thing is you can tell who is relying on Christ and not something else. I can take no credit for my salvation, when I do good works, I am only doing what I am supposed to following the Holy Spirit and my heart. If Jesus is not what we are relying on, out of our own mouths we will confess, by declaring what sets us apart, the things we do. the things we are a part of, even bragging about our dedication to God, or our dedication to Jesus. It will not be our glory, but God's that matters.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Please learn your bible. It's embarrassing.

Wow,I suppose there are parts of the Bible you don't read.

Originally posted by FMF
Did some chewed banana come out of your nose in your haste to say this? 😛

It's not hard to convince Kelly - just throw in some bible verses and he will construe them into something positive. God bless his heart 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
Totally missing my point, as well as isolating and twisting the Word to try to make it mean what you want it to mean. I do understand why you've 'thrown in' with the Christians who bear false witness of their own brothers; because they also wrongly paint 'Gentiles' (whom we can call atheists or non-believers in this forum) as able to gain the kingdom of God even though they have NO faith. This is what is wrong and unbiblical here.

What about Hindus? Which deplorable basket do they get chucked in?
After all the Hindus had been around way before Jesus?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Thankfully, as an atheist, I am at liberty to dismiss those parts of the bible not to my liking. 😛

Did Elijah not get to heaven as a result of his own merit, from fulfilling his Earthly purpose?

"As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. (2 Kings 2:11).

You don't need to be an atheist to have freedom of thought.
I knew you weren't a Rajk convert.
Watch these Christians they are likely to find one or two words of here and there and turn it into ... you know, like you're the devil.
Such paranoia surging through these Christian ranks. If their faith was so solid they could handle criticism much more easily

Originally posted by karoly aczel
What about Hindus? Which deplorable basket do they get chucked in?
After all the Hindus had been around way before Jesus?

No, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, He created the universe so how could the
Hindus be before Him?

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, Jesus is the Word of God made flesh, He created the universe so how could the
Hindus be before Him?

I'm talking about the physical manifestation of the man who walked in our time and space. Yeah?
BTW the Hindus also have creation stories.
So following your flimsy argument , yeah the Hindus came first.
There are even many who claim that Jesus went to find a Hind guru in his missing 30 odd years.
There is nothing that you or anyone else had said about Christianity (or Jesus for that matter), that has made me think Jesus is in any way superior to the many gurus that have been in India for millennia.
The , all inclusiveness of Hinduism, trumps any black and white arguments that I've come across here.
Hindus, to my understanding, more or less accept that Jesus was a spiritual person who 'added' good to the world.
The Hindus made Gautama Buddha on of their Hindu avatars.
That shows flexibility, centuries before JC came along. Whereas Christianity has opposed and warred to keep their blood ideology alive.

Originally posted by Eladar
Wow,I suppose there are parts of the Bible you don't read.

I'm not particularly enamoured with Leviticus.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'm not particularly enamoured with Leviticus.

Why, I just went through it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why, I just went through it.

Were you enamoured by it?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Were you enamoured by it?

Parts of it yes, the restrictions about sexual relations between family members I thought
was something for that time. Since the claim in scripture was that a lot of the nations
around them practiced those things God was forbidding. There were other parts that I also
liked, and some do not apply to my life as it is. When there is no law, nothing to restrain
man, he is apt to do whatever he wants when he wants.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm talking about the physical manifestation of the man who walked in our time and space. Yeah?
BTW the Hindus also have creation stories.
So following your flimsy argument , yeah the Hindus came first.
There are even many who claim that Jesus went to find a Hind guru in his missing 30 odd years.
There is nothing that you or anyone else had said ab ...[text shortened]... e JC came along. Whereas Christianity has opposed and warred to keep their blood ideology alive.

Boils back to what is real, if you believe in other gods, so be it, you will rise or fall with that
as everyone will with those things they put their trust/faith in.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Parts of it yes, the restrictions about sexual relations between family members I thought
was something for that time. Since the claim in scripture was that a lot of the nations
around them practiced those things God was forbidding. There were other parts that I also
liked, and some do not apply to my life as it is. When there is no law, nothing to restrain
man, he is apt to do whatever he wants when he wants.

I'm not that familiar with Leviticus to be honest. I might just as easily have said Deuteronomy or Numbers.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'm not that familiar with Leviticus to be honest. I might just as easily have said Deuteronomy or Numbers.

As I said I just completed going through Leviticus again on my way through the scriptures
again. The thing that stood out to me as I was, was how God was calling them to live a
Holy life where they were not have sex with everyone around them. That God said the
people they were about to replace in the land were doing these things. He warned them
that their practices could be a snare to them. So the things He was telling them were
either *good for them* or *not*, I'd say there was no bad advice in the scriptures even by
today's standards, even medically. If there were you could use it as proof they didn't have
contact with God. He compared those things to what we know about with respect to what
the other nations did as the common views of what needed to be done to be healed.

There are of course practices that have to do with worship, and the Temple that I would
say we cannot relate too. We can when it comes to many of the "do this" and "do not do
that" type of things. You should read an old book by a medical doctor called "None of
these diseases" He looked all of those practices to see if they were really sound or not.
For that time frame, getting real good advice was something someone without God, (and
that being the real God) could get. Only God who is alive and real could have only been
able to say what He knew, if He was not real than some guy would rattled off what he
thought was good advice at the time, we would than have used that to debunk that God
really said it.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Boils back to what is real, if you believe in other gods, so be it, you will rise or fall with that
as everyone will with those things they put their trust/faith in.

But its all the same god(s) ...
It's only the Christians and Muslims not saying that. Fine believe what you will. Remain a separationist.