Heaven, I'm in heaven

[mpjh]

Once again, nappy, you resort to the low, very low, tactic of creating a quote from total fabrication. This is being done to irritate through trolling. Do it again and I will take it up with the mods.

[b.k. barunt]

I like silly. Much better than pompous. Your hubris is showing.

By hubris I'm going to assume you mean my ability to consistently dismantled any of the half-baked garblings you and your magic-circus of Che-Guevara shirted lisping mingers make about Christianity being a fairy tale simply by virtue of expounding part of it's doctrine in allegorical form and then try to pass of as the backbone of a rational and logically solid inter-connected statement list sufficient to the establishing of a clear conclusion.

Well, actually, no. What is hilarious is that you actually think that complex sentence structure = intellectually superior sheep herder.

Damn. Someone's running out of steam here. Every time i come back here i see less substance and more ineffectual, aimless meanderings. When you guys can't even raise a decent fuss out of backglass on a religious thread, i fear for the future of this sad excuse for a forum. MENE MENE TOKEL UPHARSIN.


Honibaz

[Napoleon Ier]

I'm mpjh. If you were to ask me what irony is, I'd say it's a special kind of alloy used to provide extra mechanical strength to materials in construction.

[porkenbeans]

I like silly. Much better than pompous. Your hubris is showing.

By hubris I'm going to assume you mean my ability to consistently dismantled any of the half-baked garblings you and your magic-circus of Che-Guevara shirted lisping mingers make about Christianity being a fairy tale simply by virtue of expounding part of it's doctrine in allegorical form and then try to pass of as the backbone of a rational and logically solid inter-connected statement list sufficient to the establishing of a clear conclusion.

Well, actually, no. What is hilarious is that you actually think that complex sentence structure = intellectually superior sheep herder.

No? Oh, fair enough, it's just another nonsensical statement from an internet monkey trying to avoid rational argument where he knows he's going to get his ass handed to him by the entire forum.

I mean you know Backglass, "them damn Christian assholes like got de complex sentence structuhs n' shit, dawg!". God forbid you run up against that now, you'd need to go out buy a dictionary and everything.

OK, I have heard too much self righteous, pampass bullshit from you. I will speak in a language that you profess to understand.
The fairy tale is this, Jesus was sent to pay for our sins. The wages of sin is death. Thats spiritual death. Meaning your soul goes to hell. He paid for our sins. so we could be saved from this spiritual death. Is that correct so far ?
- Good,
But jesus did not suffer the wages of sin. He did not pay those wages for us, as it goes on to state that he now sets at the right hand of God. His soul did not go to forever languish in hell. He only spent a six day vacation there.
So how in the "HELL" did he pay for our sins ? Oh he died on the cross. Everyone dies physically. THE WAGES WERE NOT, NOT, ... NOT, paid.

[john9blue]

I'm mpjh. If you were to ask me what irony is, I'd say it's a special kind of alloy used to provide extra mechanical strength to materials in construction.

Good point, however, you're starting to go ad hominem on him... which even I think is unfair.

The thing is, all Backglass ever does is use the FSM, Pink Unicorn, Russell's Teapot, or whatever ridiculous pseudo-simile he can come up with as if it was proof that there is no God. To put it simply, I believe God cannot be any of those things because I believe that God is necessary. I won't go into detail, but I know that most apologists would destroy Backglass in an actual debate. If the FSM analogy is the only reason that he became an atheist, then I count another crack in the atheists' wall of "logic and reason".

[CrazyAnglican]

Jesus was sent to pay for our sins. The wages of sin is death. Thats spiritual death. Meaning your soul goes to hell. He paid for our sins. so we could be saved from this spiritual death. Is that correct so far ?

Sent to pay for our sins (check, also to preach a message and provide an example for us)
The Wages of Sin is death (sure, but this is a completely different take on the verse. All it really says is that following a sinful life and being unrepentant will end up that way. It's through repentance and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice, example, and message that we are saved.
He paid for our sins (sure, but see the above statement about repentance; within the context of the civilization it was completely okay to show repentance by sacrificing an animal. Hence the animal paid for the sin of the penitent, but was not necessarily consigned to Hell for it.)
So we could be saved from eternal death (absolutely)

But jesus did not suffer the wages of sin. He did not pay those wages for us, as it goes on to state that he now sets at the right hand of God. His soul did not go to forever languish in hell. He only spent a six day vacation there.
So how in the "HELL" did he pay for our sins ? Oh he died on the cross. Everyone dies physically. THE WAGES WERE NOT, NOT, ... NOT, paid.

Not quite, more than any mere lamb to be sacrificed for the sin of an individual, Christ came down as God himself and was slain. He did not live to an old age, nor did he die a pleasant death. He gave himself up, telling his own followers not to resist on his behalf. With that he went to be beaten, scorned, scourged, humiliated and crucified. In exactly the same way the lamb was unwillingly slain to atone for his owner; The Lamb was slain to atone for His followers. No mention is made of anyone going to Hell for eternity, a physical death is enough, and Christ made a "Full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice" of himself.

[mpjh]

Don't you guys get it. People aren't buying this dogma. It would appear, at least from the poll, that people are a lot less rigid and more tolerant of variation in what their relationship to god, if any, is.

[CrazyAnglican]

In what way was I being intolerant? Like I stated earlier, I'd probably show up in your 52%.

[mpjh]

I didn't say you were intolerant, you should read the post. I said that ordinary people appeared to be more tolerant of flexibility in religious beliefs.

[Napoleon Ier]

Don't you guys get it. People aren't buying this dogma. It would appear, at least from the poll, that people are a lot less rigid and more tolerant of variation in what their relationship to god, if any, is.

No, don't you get it: the poll is so badly put together that it makes it look to respondents that by saying that they do think Jesus is necessary to salvation, they utterly reject the possibility of non-Christians going to heaven.

So, to then say, oh, look at this poll, Jesus isn't necessary to Salvation so most Christians don't buy the dogma of so-called theologians is absurd.

[mpjh]

No one on this thread has claimed that the poll is proof that you don't need Jesus for salvation. What the thread does address is the fact that a reputable poll shows that a significant number of people (70% of Americans) do not believe that any particular religion has a lock on getting its people into heaven.

I for one, don't frankly believe that heaven exists, but find it very refreshing to know how tolerant a god most people believe in.

[Napoleon Ier]

So, what you're saying is that in fact people are very much buying traditional dogma?

[mpjh]

Nope, never said that at all.

[Napoleon Ier]

OK...so, in other words, it must be that, if you're agreeing with the results of this poll being valid and rejecting the hypothesis that it signals a return to traditional dogma, it's just that people have a gut instinct that leads them to believe God is tolerant, and don't have the intellectual capacity to approach the traditional dogma that underlies this idea.

[mpjh]

Nope, never said that either.

[mpjh]

Well it is a vague survey.
There are many different kinds of Christians
Mormons, Evangelicals, Prodistants, Jehovah Witnesses etc
as long as they believe that Jesus is their lord and savior and have repented their sins then yes they can get into heaven

What about non-Christians, which was an important part of the poll, in fact the central focus?

[porkenbeans]

OK...so, in other words, it must be that, if you're agreeing with the results of this poll being valid and rejecting the hypothesis that it signals a return to traditional dogma, it's just that people have a gut instinct that leads them to believe God is tolerant, and don't have the intellectual capacity to approach the traditional dogma that underlies this idea.

Your "instincts" are more likely a result of, a combination of, fear and wishful thinking. Fear and wishful thinking has not been knocking down the walls of ignorance. Science on the other hand...

[Napoleon Ier]

OK...so, in other words, it must be that, if you're agreeing with the results of this poll being valid and rejecting the hypothesis that it signals a return to traditional dogma, it's just that people have a gut instinct that leads them to believe God is tolerant, and don't have the intellectual capacity to approach the traditional dogma that underlies this idea.

Your "instincts" are more likely a result of, a combination of, fear and wishful thinking. Fear and wishful thinking has not been knocking down the walls of ignorance. Science on the other hand...

Cute, but I never talked about my instincts, just the instincts of the poor honest people who took this poll and were duped by it's vicious fielders, mounting a vast Campaign of Hate against Christ's people.

[CrazyAnglican]

Fear and wishful thinking has not been knocking down the walls of ignorance. Science on the other hand...

.....has lead to nuclear weapons; and more fear and wishful thinking.

[mpjh]

...took us out of the dark ages and ended the reign of terror launched by Aristotle on humanity's development.

[CrazyAnglican]

Uh dude Reign of Terror....that's French Revolution stuff out of Enlightenment thinking (Humanism-having more to do with atheism than religion).

Please cite a source for your Aristotelian "reign of terror".

I mean, really, I'm as pro-science as the next guy. I'm just not blind to its flaws.

[mpjh]

Basically it is the period from his death until the mid 1600's when science began to gain in acceptance and help us understand the world.

[KoolBak]

lmao....I love watching the faithful argue their points Its FAITH...it is for YOU ALONE....why bother with those that dunna agree with you? Aaaahh....thats right....I am the idiot that doesnt enjoy a good "discussion".

I would have enoyed it being worded "If there IS an afterlife, one does NOT have to be a hypocrite to enjoy it" Just a good person......

And off we go!

[CrazyAnglican]

Ah yes, I'm familiar with basic history. However, I'm not certain as to the "reign of terror" part. Did you come up with that all by yourself, or was their some actual hard evidence?

Once again, I'm all for understanding the world and scientific method.

[porkenbeans]

Fear and wishful thinking has not been knocking down the walls of ignorance. Science on the other hand...

.....has lead to nuclear weapons; and more fear and wishful thinking.

I will believe your proclamation the day that you move in to a cave and give up every luxury that science has provided. You people are not unlike the vegetarian that rails against meat, while chicken salad is visibly crusted to the side of your mouths.