Answers these questions to see if you are a Good Person

[Draka]

Your "God" is but one of many gods. You just happen to capitalize because it is your god of choice.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Your "God" is but one of many gods. You just happen to capitalize because it is your god of choice.

I'd like to know who actually claimed the name before Yahweh who is certainly a groundbreaker when it comes to monotheism. How could the name "God" even occur to a polytheist? The very name itself implies monotheism.

 

[waitasec]

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever lusted after another person?
Have you ever coveted something owned by another person?
Have you ever used God’s name in vain?

pretentious non sense.

 

[Draka]

I'd like to know who actually claimed the name before Yahweh who is certainly a groundbreaker when it comes to monotheism. How could the name "God" even occur to a polytheist? The very name itself implies monotheism.

"god" is just another word used for deity, usually a male deity. "God" isn't a name...it's a title. Just like other religions use "God" or even "Goddess" when referring to their major deities. God and Goddess are easily interchangeable with Lord and Lady with many Pagans, with god and goddess usually referring to minor deities.

 

[Tonix]

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever lusted after another person?
Have you ever coveted something owned by another person?

Have you ever used God’s name in vain?

Yes
Yes
Hell yes
Yes.
Every day.

If my faith in Lord Enki means I go to hell, then so be it. At least I know my god.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I'd like to know who actually claimed the name before Yahweh who is certainly a groundbreaker when it comes to monotheism. How could the name "God" even occur to a polytheist? The very name itself implies monotheism.

Wow.

The gender neutral Germanic ǥuđán referred to many aspects of the spirit world, and is the origin of the English word god.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Wow.

The gender neutral Germanic ǥuđán referred to many aspects of the spirit world, and is the origin of the English word god.

For Heavens sakes. I'm not an ancient Hebrew scholar and I won't pretend to be. I have little doubt that there is a corresponding equivalent in the OT's original language

 

[Draka]

For Heavens sakes. I'm not an ancient Hebrew scholar and I won't pretend to be. I have little doubt that there is a corresponding equivalent in the OT's original language

What is your point? Doesn't make what you said here any less wrong.

I'd like to know who actually claimed the name before Yahweh who is certainly a groundbreaker when it comes to monotheism. How could the name "God" even occur to a polytheist? The very name itself implies monotheism.

Nor does it defeat my earlier assertion that your god is but one of many gods. Just because you believe yours to be greater doesn't make it so, it just defines your belief is all.

 

[Me Myself]

I'd like to know who actually claimed the name before Yahweh who is certainly a groundbreaker when it comes to monotheism. How could the name "God" even occur to a polytheist? The very name itself implies monotheism.

Saying "god" is a name is like saying "animal" or "human" is a name.

It may very well be, but it would be a confusing one.

Let´s remember, you have 3, and so on Check John 10: 34

 

[Kerr]

Have you ever lied?

Yes, but I prefer not to.

Have you ever stolen anything?

Cant remember, but I am bound to at least have taken something that wasnt mine as a child.

Have you ever lusted after another person?

Yes.

Have you ever coveted something owned by another person?

Yes.

Have you ever used God’s name in vain?

Probably.

None of these questions are a good sign of if you are a good person or not. Everyone makes mistakes, but that doesnt mean you are a bad person. Just a flawed person, which everyone else on the entire planet happen to be. I would even say that being able to learn from your mistakes is more important then not making them in the first place.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, but I prefer not to.

Cant remember, but I am bound to at least have taken something that wasnt mine as a child.

Yes.

Yes.

Probably.

None of these questions are a good sign of if you are a good person or not. Everyone makes mistakes, but that doesnt mean you are a bad person. Just a flawed person, which everyone else on the entire planet happen to be. I would even say that being able to learn from your mistakes is more important then not making them in the first place.*

*Emphasis mine.

I agree with the above, especially the bolded part. It brings to mind a quote by Einstein:

"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new."

So you've made a mistake or mistakes in the past? Good for you! Another potential opportunity to learn and improve. :yes:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Man of Faith, is it your contention that anyone who can honestly answer all of your questions with "no" is necessarily a good person?

 

[tumbleweed41]

For Heavens sakes. I'm not an ancient Hebrew scholar and I won't pretend to be. I have little doubt that there is a corresponding equivalent in the OT's original language

Hebrew?

You made claims about a Germanic word.

I'd like to know who actually claimed the name before Yahweh who is certainly a groundbreaker when it comes to monotheism. How could the name "God" even occur to a polytheist? The very name itself implies monotheism.

But if you want to look at the Hebrew, i would suggest an in depth study of the progression from polytheism to henotheism to monolotry and the eventual monotheistic beliefs of the Israelites.

 

[Rocky S]

Been looking through all of the replies on here, I do agree and understand why and what my Brother is trying to do when he started this thread. I also agree with what Ray comfort and what he tries to do when he asks these questions as well. However an explanation for this is needed. First of all there really is no formula when sharing your faith, but thees questions are biblical for the most part. The questions used here are about the law, or the Decalogue, specifically the 10 commandments. Those of you that have seen Ray and Kurt on TV probably already know that. Theses question are about bringing someone who does not believe in Gods redemptive plan for man, to a place to where they can see that no one is good enough to go to heaven or have a relationship with God in themselves, which is true. And see there need for a savior, ie Christ and the cross. See because of our infallibility as human beings, we are unable to keep the 10 commandments to perfection. Because the 10 commandment only gives the knowledge of sin, as the bible states. Because the breaking of these laws show us what sin is. The "good person" thing is about the self righteousness and the inability for individuals to see the need for Jesus. A simple explanation of the relationship between Gods Law and these question is this; in a sense the bible describes Gods plan for mans' redemption is one from Judaical standpoint. We all guilty of braking Gods Law and are in danger of a sentenced being carried out for the Law that we broke. Now because of the law that we broke we are in a dilemma with our Creator. There will be a sentence carried out, because as a whole we all have lied, blasphemed, stolen something, the bible says if you hate someone you are a murder. Jesus even said that if you lust after someone you have committed adultery. Now what Jesus did was come by and paid the sin debt because of the law that we broke , he paid for it on the Cross, were sin was dealt with. And, faith in that fact is what saves a person from Gods judgment. Its like this, man sinned Jesus paid for sin. Now I am not saying I agree with everything Ray teaches. But he is right about this subject, and in certain cases, witnessing in this way is biblical....

 

[waitasec]

First of all there really is no formula when sharing your faith, but thees questions are biblical for the most part.

right. is there a formula to determine objective empirical evidence?

being good is subjective. the entire premise of the OP is based on a subjective understanding of what "good" means.

it's just fluff.

 

[Me Myself]

Theses question are about bringing someone who does not believe in Gods redemptive plan for man, to a place to where they can see that no one is good enough to go to heaven or have a relationship with God in themselves, which is true. And see there need for a savior, ie Christ and the cross. See because of our infallibility as human beings, we are unable to keep the 10 commandments to perfection.

1) you meant to say falibility not infalibility

2) exactly because of that falibility we cannot diserve hell simply for telling a lie. Specially if it was our great great great great grandparents fault that we have such falibility. If you want to say we diserve hell because of it to someone who does not have the catastrofically low self image of a self loathing christian (notice that by this I am not saying all christians. I am a christian, but I am not a self loathing one (which means I don´t believe I am "unworthy" of not being tortured for ever to the very least) ) you will not convince them that checking out the girl´s next door butt cheeks will make them diserve eternity of suffering in hell. It´s a pathetic argument really.

Because the 10 commandment only gives the knowledge of sin, as the bible states. Because the breaking of these laws show us what sin is.

Non christians wont even agree with the 10 commandments. Most of us don´t even think lust has anything wrong with it, and a book that claims divine inspiration is not going to change it, and if it would, there are a lot of books that claim divine inspiration.

The "good person" thing is about the self righteousness and the inability for individuals to see the need for Jesus. A simple explanation of the relationship between Gods Law and these question is this; in a sense the bible describes Gods plan for mans' redemption is one from Judaical standpoint. We all guilty of braking Gods Law and are in danger of a sentenced being carried out for the Law that we broke. Now because of the law that we broke we are in a dilemma with our Creator. There will be a sentence carried out, because as a whole we all have lied, blasphemed, stolen something, the bible says if you hate someone you are a murder. Jesus even said that if you lust after someone you have committed adultery. Now what Jesus did was come by and paid the sin debt because of the law that we broke , he paid for it on the Cross, were sin was dealt with. And, faith in that fact is what saves a person from Gods judgment. Its like this, man sinned Jesus paid for sin. Now I am not saying I agree with everything Ray teaches. But he is right about this subject, and in certain cases, witnessing in this way is biblical....

Tghe purpose of law in a society is to mantain order, in other words, to prevent people from hurting each other. The same goes for the judicial system. If people are already dead, there is no need to send them to hell so that they wont hurt people in heaven. Also , making the punishment eternal is ridiculous for any offense. You may want to put the example of Life senence but that is laughable. If we lived 300 hundreds years, life sentence would still be *literaly* *infinitely* worse than "life" sentence.

You are promoting a law with no purpose, and human sacrifice as an okay way to solve problems.

Its truly truly pathetic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Been looking through all of the replies on here, I do agree and understand why and what my Brother is trying to do when he started this thread. I also agree with what Ray comfort and what he tries to do when he asks these questions as well. However an explanation for this is needed. First of all there really is no formula when sharing your faith, but thees questions are biblical for the most part. The questions used here are about the law, or the Decalogue, specifically the 10 commandments. Those of you that have seen Ray and Kurt on TV probably already know that. Theses question are about bringing someone who does not believe in Gods redemptive plan for man, to a place to where they can see that no one is good enough to go to heaven or have a relationship with God in themselves, which is true. And see there need for a savior, ie Christ and the cross.

If that's the purpose of this sort of approach, then you should know that it's astoundingly poor.

As a standard of morality, the Ten Commandments are awful. Only a few of them (e.g. don't murder, don't steal) have anything to do with morality at all. It doesn't condemn many immoral acts, such as slavery, rape, other forms of assault, or taking advantage of a person. It doesn't provide any instruction on any moral acts that a person should follow - it doesn't say anything like "be kind" or "be charitable".

When I see this approach used, it immediately brings a question to my mind: "what does this standard you're saying I don't meet have to do with morality?" As far as I'm concerned, it's arbitrary.

See because of our infallibility as human beings, we are unable to keep the 10 commandments to perfection. Because the 10 commandment only gives the knowledge of sin, as the bible states. Because the breaking of these laws show us what sin is.

If that's the standard that we're supposed to meet, then it points to God being unreasonable. It's unreasonable to demand that an imperfect person meet a perfect standard.

If we're God's creation, and if God's creation is meant to meet this "standard", then the fact that nobody can meet it indicates that God has failed.

The "good person" thing is about the self righteousness and the inability for individuals to see the need for Jesus. A simple explanation of the relationship between Gods Law and these question is this; in a sense the bible describes Gods plan for mans' redemption is one from Judaical standpoint. We all guilty of braking Gods Law and are in danger of a sentenced being carried out for the Law that we broke. Now because of the law that we broke we are in a dilemma with our Creator.

"Judaical" or "judicial"?

So you reject the principle that legitimacy of authority is derived from the consent of the governed, do you? I mean, I sure never agreed to a "law" where if I say "God damn it" or covet something of my neighbour's, I get tortured forever. Did you? Would you?

There will be a sentence carried out, because as a whole we all have lied, blasphemed, stolen something, the bible says if you hate someone you are a murder. Jesus even said that if you lust after someone you have committed adultery. Now what Jesus did was come by and paid the sin debt because of the law that we broke , he paid for it on the Cross, were sin was dealt with.

This suggests an unjust arrangement: "rather than simply set aside this sentence, I'll carry it out on an innocent person and that will make everything okay." That's awful. It's abhorrent.

And, faith in that fact is what saves a person from Gods judgment. Its like this, man sinned Jesus paid for sin. Now I am not saying I agree with everything Ray teaches. But he is right about this subject, and in certain cases, witnessing in this way is biblical....[/B][/COLOR]

It may be Biblical, but it doesn't make much sense at all. This is probably why you see so many non-Christians reject this approach.

 

[Rocky S]

1) you meant to say falibility not infalibility

2) exactly because of that falibility we cannot diserve hell simply for telling a lie. Specially if it was our great great great great grandparents fault that we have such falibility. If you want to say we diserve hell because of it to someone who does not have the catastrofically low self image of a self loathing christian (notice that by this I am not saying all christians. I am a christian, but I am not a self loathing one (which means I don´t believe I am "unworthy" of not being tortured for ever to the very least) ) you will not convince them that checking out the girl´s next door butt cheeks will make them diserve eternity of suffering in hell. It´s a pathetic argument really.




Non christians wont even agree with the 10 commandments. Most of us don´t even think lust has anything wrong with it, and a book that claims divine inspiration is not going to change it, and if it would, there are a lot of books that claim divine inspiration.



Tghe purpose of law in a society is to mantain order, in other words, to prevent people from hurting each other. The same goes for the judicial system. If people are already dead, there is no need to send them to hell so that they wont hurt people in heaven. Also , making the punishment eternal is ridiculous for any offense. You may want to put the example of Life senence but that is laughable. If we lived 300 hundreds years, life sentence would still be *literaly* *infinitely* worse than "life" sentence.

You are promoting a law with no purpose, and human sacrifice as an okay way to solve problems.

Its truly truly pathetic.

Well, ok thx for the facetious and rhetorical response. and for saying I am pathetic or that my reply was pathetic, saying that does not help a debate or to help to prove a point. Wow, there are so many things I want to address about this response, but don't know were to begin. Ok, before I go any further. Could you answer a few question?; so I know were you are coming from. Because I do not want to offend you. But these questions might offend anyway.
Question 1-Are you saying the bible is not divinely inspired?
2- are you denying the existence of a literal hell?
3-do you believe there is no such thing as sin or right or wrong that it is all subjective?
You did say you are a christian. I am just curious to your response. Also you seem hostile towards any guilt as a human you may have in front of a Holy God. Usually Christians, and I am one as well ,believe we are nothing with the Cross of Christ and we need his grace and his justification, which is the Cross. As the apostle Paul said "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? What you call self loathing I call humility before a Holy God.I deserve death and Hell, I am guilty of braking his Law. And I am and a wretch without Jesus and his sacrifice. That's why he is my Lord and Savior. That is what Christianity is all about. If you are a christian, you do need to study and read your bible because the things you have stated is against scripture.

 

[ChristineES]

What I said about this thread is that approach doesn't work with nonbelievers. When you witness, you want to draw people to you, not repel them, and those questions might repel people not only against you, but the whole faith as well. On top of that, witnessing on the RF is against the rules.

(We Christians already know the 10 commandments, so it is useless to believers.)

 

[Cassiopia]

Have you ever lied?
Have you ever stolen anything?
Have you ever lusted after another person?
Have you ever coveted something owned by another person?
Have you ever used God’s name in vain?


I have done all those things. I'm a sinner, but I'm honest about it. And I like sin. I also try to be a good person.
What was your point?