Almost Every Christian Going To Hell According To Bible

[waitasec]

YES -but I would not object to others doing so.

would you object to changing the pledge to 'one nation under allah/buddha ...'
how about in a federal court room where the session begins with a prayer?
that is unconstitutional and it's happening...
are they praying to allah or buddha? don't think so. they are praying to the christian god.
our forefathers did not want a state religion to rule over other religions...it's in the constitution.

I'm just not that interested in the subject. Corporations have rights as persons under the law -but i don't think that's right

i agree...

Why? Why does it bother you so much? What if they tried to make you take whatever you believed in out of the classroom? It has happened before. Will you err likewise? Why does it bother you if they are openly religious in your proximity? Because you think they are wrong? Because you think you are right?

you didn't read what i said...here, read what i said.

any religious person has the right to practice their religion.
you can pray in school, not in an assembly but you can have bible studies and such.

what else do you want?

Where, then, does the subdividing end? Why not let them be themselves -and you just study while they are facing Mecca? Just don't freak about it. If you wanna chant -or draw pentagrams -I don't care -I'll go about MY own business -unless you start drawing pentagrams on my head while I snooze and drool on my desk in class.

as i said before, i am open to that. it is when the religious beliefs infringe on the inalienable rights of others i call foul ball.

 

[Etritonakin]

I know what you said and understand it. I'll pray wherever and whenever I please. It doesn't matter what you said. I can understand some not wanting to be forced to pray, but if I were a muslim and in the middle of an assembly when it was time to pray toward Mecca, I'd do it -and you could deal with it any way you saw fit. I'm not, and wouldn't -but the same principle applies. It's your issue -deal with it as you see fit. My beliefs are more important than your policy, and if you, say, chose to suspend me for praying during an assembly, I would take my homework home and pray there. If my religion required assembly when it was deemed inconvenient for you, I'd do what I needed to do and, again -you could deal with it any way you saw fit.

I don't want anything. You apparently do.

 

[waitasec]

I know what you said and understand it. I'll pray wherever and whenever I please. It doesn't matter what you said. I can understand some not wanting to be forced to pray, but if I were a muslim and in the middle of an assembly when it was time to pray toward Mecca, I'd do it -and you could deal with it any way you saw fit. I'm not, and wouldn't -but the same principle applies. It's your issue -deal with it as you see fit. My beliefs are more important than your policy, and if you, say, chose to suspend me for praying during an assembly, I would take my homework home and pray there. If my religion required assembly when it was deemed inconvenient for you, I'd do what I needed to do and, again -you could deal with it any way you saw fit.

I don't want anything. You apparently do.

maybe you don't understand by what i mean when i say assembly...
i mean leading the school assembly in prayer... or starting a session in court in prayer, which happens and it is unconstitutional
if you will...

[youtube]GLvn5p2Ztdo[/youtube]
YouTube - Court Acquits Protestor of Unconstitutional Prayer at Hawaii Senate

 

[waitasec]

I know what you said and understand it. I'll pray wherever and whenever I please. It doesn't matter what you said. I can understand some not wanting to be forced to pray, but if I were a muslim and in the middle of an assembly when it was time to pray toward Mecca, I'd do it -and you could deal with it any way you saw fit. I'm not, and wouldn't -but the same principle applies. It's your issue -deal with it as you see fit. My beliefs are more important than your policy, and if you, say, chose to suspend me for praying during an assembly, I would take my homework home and pray there. If my religion required assembly when it was deemed inconvenient for you, I'd do what I needed to do and, again -you could deal with it any way you saw fit.

I don't want anything. You apparently do.

are you saying you're beliefs are superior to mine?
never did i say you DIDN'T have the right to worship as you please, it's when you IMPOSE your beliefs on others. do you understand now?

 

[free spirit]

i just realized you are an aussie

i agree. however, it's not just a window dressing it's the religious right trying to re-write history.

this nation was not founded as a christian nation, but there are christians and christian organizations attempting to make it so. our founding fathers were against having one religion over other. george washington, benjamin franklin, thomas jefferson, james madison and thomas payne.

"onto God" is not necessarely a Christian God

its the religious who believe they are morally superior and hide behind the false notion that they have the superiority to infringe on the inalienable rights of others.

moral laws are universaly understood to be the will of God and most of us try to obey them; for if we do not obey them there will be violence,confusion and chaos in our lives, they exist only for the good of the innocents, and to curtail the inmorality of others.

 

[waitasec]

"onto God" is not necessarely a Christian God

the knights of columbus is a catholic organization, so yes i would think the christian god is the insinuation.

moral laws are universaly understood to be the will of God and most of us try to obey them; for if we do not obey them there will be violence,confusion and chaos in our lives, they exist only for the good of the innocents, and to curtail the inmorality of others.

no. i think you are mistaken.
tell me what moral act can a believer in god do that an unbeliever can't?

common decency is not a law mandated by god.
do you think the israelites were killing themselves in the wilderness until god told them it was wrong? give the human species some credit.

 

[Etritonakin]

are you saying you're beliefs are superior to mine?
never did i say you DIDN'T have the right to worship as you please, it's when you IMPOSE your beliefs on others. do you understand now?

Honestly? No. and.. No. I once thought I knew what you were talking about, but now I'm not trying to.
I think some things I believe are more correct -superior, if you will -than some things you believe ...and vice-versa.
If the official pledge included "Allah" or "Jah" or "Beelzebub", I'd just say "God" instead.
I believe people should have free speech and freedom of religion even in courtrooms, etc... and that THEIR praying is not imposing THEIR beliefs on YOU at all -not one little bit -even if you have to suffer and bear with them for the whole entire minute or so (sarcasm). It seems much more efficient than all the time you spend considering the matter. Take one for the freedom team, dude! If they start expounding or breaking out into a long sermon directed at yourself -that'd be another story. If they tell you to swear on the bible, that'd be another story. As for me, the bible says not to swear by anything. I'd place my hand on the bible when asked, but if they asked me if I swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I'd probably have to simply say "No." -as it doesn't seem that our justice system usually allows for it -and most really don't want the whole truth -though there might be a situation which would allow for it, but I still wouldn't swear -I might say "No. However, I agree to do so". Swearing on the bible doesn't guarantee honesty or make God any more opposed to lies. I don't have contempt for our courts, but we might as well start as we mean to go on.

When Christ rules earth, he will impose peace and rule with a rod of iron -rebuke nations afar off, etc.., but, still, people will WANT to learn from him -and will understand why this "imposition" is necessary (after we almost completely nuke each other to kingdome come [pun intended]). If people don't want to now, It's not my responsibility to make them -as if that's even possible.

I don't impose my beliefs, and normally wait upon the Lord, but do appropriately exert my will at times when others have exerted their will maliciously -though vengeance is God's.

common decency is not a law mandated by god.

Yes. It is.

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

as yourself=common

Love=decency

 

[waitasec]

I think some things I believe are more correct -superior, if you will -than some things you believe ...and vice-versa.

let me ask you this then, do you think the emancipation proclamation, civil rights and equal rights for women were rightly subjected to religious belief?

Yes. It is.

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

as yourself=common

Love=decency

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."

-wiki

before leviticus in 1440 BC

please consider what moral act can a believer do that an unbeliever can't

 

[free spirit]

the knights of columbus is a catholic organization, so yes i would think the christian god is the insinuation.

"onto God" has no denomination, God is universal unless Christ is mentioned.

no. i think you are mistaken.
tell me what moral act can a believer in god do that an unbeliever can't?

We all can do good or evil is up to the individual, believer or unbeliever.

common decency is not a law mandated by god.
do you think the israelites were killing themselves in the wilderness until god told them it was wrong? give the human species some credit.

Strange as it may seem, it is a fact that deep within the heart, all of humanity knows “what the Gospel is” in other words what Godly character and behaviour is, because whether we like it or not, God put it there. The scriptures confirm this by saying in Romans 1:19-20: “Because that which is pleasing to God is evident within us; for God made it evident to all of us. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they all of us are without excuse.”

 

[Etritonakin]

The ultimate purpose of a "moral" act is to ensure the longevity and well-being of others.

The non-believer is ill-equipped -as are believers in the false.

The non-believer cannot see the necessity in doing that which is required for eternal life and universal happiness -and perhaps does not even believe in either of these things.

God does exist, so the non-believer is not acting on accurate information.

I undertstand some disagree.

 

[free spirit]

maybe you don't understand by what i mean when i say assembly...
i mean leading the school assembly in prayer... or starting a session in court in prayer, which happens and it is unconstitutional
if you will...

only an evil person would want to stop a good thing happening

You look upon your founding fathers as gods, and their words as the bible; iven if some of them were killers of men and merderes; shame on all of you. To be gullible is a sin, you all need to grow up.

 

[Etritonakin]

Also, the absence of a belief in God does not does not make non-believers innocent of forcing their beliefs on others. Trying to keep people from praying in assemblies is exactly that.

The absence of belief in God does not equate to an absence of belief.

 

[waitasec]

only an evil person would want to stop a good thing happening

You look upon your founding fathers as gods, and their words as the bible; iven if some of them were killers of men and merderes; shame on all of you. To be gullible is a sin, you all need to grow up.

i agree. only someone who is so concerned with their personal opinion would stop a good thing from happening; a general consensus...which is the opposite of what religion offers.

Also, the absence of a belief in God does not does not make non-believers innocent of forcing their beliefs on others. Trying to keep people from praying in assemblies is exactly that.

The absence of belief in God does not equate to an absence of belief.

if you were to have an assembly that started with prayer, would it be an orderly assembly? you would have chaos unless you have a uniform god... but that is never the case, is it?
the jews, muslims, buddhist and christians all have a different ways of praying to their gods.
the problem i have with that is, it is focusing on the differences rather than focusing on our common cause, the reason for the assembly.

 

[Etritonakin]

So a bunch of people being free to do as they believe is right is chaos (caution -loaded question)? It could be done in an orderly fashion -and expediently -and they could even provide refreshments for those who did not want to participate.

It's usually not a huge slice of time -and the controversy stirred up by those who have problems with it is far more disruptive than allowing it -not to mention that many find it very important to ask God to consider what is about to take place -and that should be respected. Non-praying people might even be given the option to show up 5 minutes later than praying people -or praying people 5 minutes earlier than non-praying.

 

[waitasec]

So a bunch of people being free to do as they believe is right is chaos (caution -loaded question)? It could be done in an orderly fashion -and expediently -and they could even provide refreshments for those who did not want to participate.

It's usually not a huge slice of time -and the controversy stirred up by those who have problems with it is far more disruptive than allowing it -not to mention that many find it very important to ask God to consider what is about to take place -and that should be respected. Non-praying people might even be given the option to show up 5 minutes later than praying people -or praying people 5 minutes earlier than non-praying.

you are side stepping my entire point
that would be focusing on the differences rather than on what we have in common.
do you follow?

 

[Etritonakin]

What we have in common SHOULD be freedom. It is WHY we have such places to assemble -courtrooms, government buildings, etc.... to protect FREEDOM.
We do not all have your view or opinion on the subject -we do not have THAT in common. Freedom -as it was intended in America -was to allow the belief in and expression of what we do NOT have in common. In a perfect world, we will all have common beliefs in that which can and should be agreed upon -leaving much more time for creativity without conflict. Meanwhile, American "freedom" is intended to allow for differences -even fundamental ones -while minimizing conflict.

I believe America has many more religious people than non-religious (have done very little research). Since America is supposed to be a democracy, would a vote on the subject satisfy? What do you think the outcome might be? I have no clue, but it would be interesting. Do you think that sort of thing should be put to a vote? Has it? I haven't watched much news recently.

 

[waitasec]

What we have in common SHOULD be freedom. It is WHY we have such places to assemble -courtrooms, government buildings, etc.... to protect FREEDOM.
We do not all have your view or opinion on the subject -we do not have THAT in common. Freedom -as it was intended in America -was to allow the belief in and expression of what we do NOT have in common. In a perfect world, we will all have common beliefs in that which can and should be agreed upon -leaving much more time for creativity without conflict. Meanwhile, American "freedom" is intended to allow for differences -even fundamental ones -while minimizing conflict.

I believe America has many more religious people than non-religious (have done very little research). Since America is supposed to be a democracy, would a vote on the subject satisfy? What do you think the outcome might be? I have no clue, but it would be interesting. Do you think that sort of thing should be put to a vote? Has it? I haven't watched much news recently.

because whites were considered to be the supreme race it was right to subject africans as slaves?
because women were understood as the "weaker" sex they shouldn't vote??
that was the opinion of the day, so if i understand you...these things were supported by the constitution.

is that what you're saying?

 

[Etritonakin]

Yes!

However, if you'll notice.... Blacks are no longer slaves. Women now vote.

It is difficult to keep ignorance out of the halls of power (boy, and how!) -but we have the freedom to grow as a nation.

Some religious and non-religious people are ignorant, and they will abuse their freedom -taking it from others. That exists now. I see it every day -and I am thankful I live in a country which allows me to do something about it -even though such ignorant people try to maintain control in a very non-democratic way. I see them as enemies of the state.

 

[waitasec]

Yes!

However, if you'll notice.... Blacks are no longer slaves. Women now vote.

have you considered the reason why that is?

 

[waitasec]

Some religious and non-religious people are ignorant, and they will abuse their freedom -taking it from others. That exists now. I see it every day -and I am thankful I live in a country which allows me to do something about it -even though such ignorant people try to maintain control in a very non-democratic way. I see them as enemies of the state.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/108258-we-have-more-common.html#post2273435