Luke 13:23-28 is NOT a damnation passage, the salvation of ALL (Leviticus, believe)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Need more examples...Its not necessarily God being are judged here, its illogical (and biblically questionable) ideas about him. Sometimes the illogical part makes Christians search deeper in the bible or understand something a different way...Thank God our ancestors did that so we don't still have Dark Ages Christianity. I'm sure those Dark Ages Priests would want to burn most of today's fundamentalists at the stake.
Dark age priests made up their own religion, which could not be backed by the Bible, much like the universalists do today. I have seen them go as far as calling God a monster.
I struggle with the recurring notion on the CD Christian forum that God either condemns people to eternal condemnation ... or saves everyone. That is simply human reasoning born out of an unwillingness to 'let God be the God of scripture.'
Luke 13:23-28, for example, simply says that not everyone who imagines themselves 'religious or good enough' for the Kingdom of God .... truly is. Nor is everyone who imagines themselves 'far from God or not good enough' for the Kingdom of God ... truly is.
Another conjecture of the "UR vs ET" controversy that puzzles me (beyond the mis-characterization of one position as "ET"), is the notion that "Every knee shall bow" passage is a future claim on Salvation that may or may not occur during this lifetime. The suggestion is always that this is an acknowledged 'future' submission to the Lord, but, absolutely NOT one required during THIS lifetime.' Inevitably, the rational in seems to come down to a "this is what I would do if I were a loving God" -- rather than scripture.
Dark age priests made up their own religion, which could not be backed by the Bible, much like the universalists do today. I have seen them go as far as calling God a monster.
(as Dark Ages Priest) Sayeth thou, blasphemer! I would challenge thy knowledge of the bible any morrow of the week!
Even the ones who "call God a monster" are usually referring to a particular idea of him they find both biblically and logically questionable. You might even call that Dark Ages Priests idea of him a monster as well after a few hours in the dungeon.
Last edited by Jrhockney; 12-25-2013 at 05:59 PM..
(as Dark Ages Priest) Sayeth thou, blasphemer! I will challenge thy knowledge of the bible any morrow of the week!
No, actually there was no challenge as ordinary people did not have Bibles, they only had the word of the false teachers. Thank God that is not the case today, and everyone can read for themselves.
Quote:
Even the ones who "call God a monster" are usually referring to a particular idea of him they find both biblically and logically questionable. You might even call that Dark Ages Priests idea of him a monster as well after a few hours in
the dungeon.
The dark age priests put themselves in place of God, and judged people to death. Again, this is not what the Bible teaches, and had nothing to do with God.
I struggle with the perpetuated notion on the CD Christian forum that God either condemns people to eternal condemnation ... or saves everyone. That is simply human reasoning born out of an unwillingness to simply 'let God be the God of scripture.'
Luke 13:23-28, for example, simply says that not everyone who imagines themselves 'religious or good enough' for the Kingdom of God .... truly is. Nor is everyone who imagines themselves 'far from God or not good enough' for the Kingdom of God ... truly is.
Another conjecture of the constant "UR vs ET" controversy that puzzles me, is the notion that "Every knee shall bow" passage is a future claim on Salvation that may or may not occur during this lifetime. The suggestion is always that the timing of this submission to the Lord --- really doesn't matter, EXCEPT for the 'certainty' that it does not have to occur in the 'future, ... during THIS lifetime.' Inevitably, the rational in favor of UR seems to come down to a "this is what I would do if I was God" -- rather than scripture.
What it comes down to me personally is he is able,that he is the savior, not a potential savior,accomplishes his desires, which is to save all men and for them to come to a knowledge of the truth,his mercy triumphs over judgement, that if he marked our transgressions who could stand(including bible believers)?.
That love covers a multitudes of sin,that Jesus said if he was lifted up he would draw all men to himself,(now how you interpret this is up to you,but if lifting him helps in the drawing, start lifting him up in faith instead of condemning in your unbelief of the saving ability of God.
That his arm is not short to save all men in time from their sin(not eternal torment) , whether it be this life as we know or the next. I could give you a million reasons why all men will be saved from their error of missing the mark, but your knowledge of the bible and lack of it in God would never allow you to reason.
I struggle with the recurring notion on the CD Christian forum that God either condemns people to eternal condemnation ... or saves everyone. That is simply human reasoning born out of an unwillingness to 'let God be the God of scripture.'
Luke 13:23-28, for example, simply says that not everyone who imagines themselves 'religious or good enough' for the Kingdom of God .... truly is. Nor is everyone who imagines themselves 'far from God or not good enough' for the Kingdom of God ... truly is.
Another conjecture of the "UR vs ET" controversy that puzzles me (beyond the mis-characterization of one position as "ET"), is the notion that "Every knee shall bow" passage is a future claim on Salvation that may or may not occur during this lifetime. The suggestion is always that this is an acknowledged 'future' submission to the Lord, but, absolutely NOT one required during THIS lifetime.' Inevitably, the rational in seems to come down to a "this is what I would do if I were a loving God" -- rather than scripture.
To restrict God to the ideologies of human justice without mercy; and to the parameters of this life is not Scriptural.
To restrict God to the ideologies of human justice without mercy; and to the parameters of this life is not Scriptural.
Honestly, not to be contentious, but, that sounds like something out of a fortune cookie. What in the world are you referring to or trying to say ... in English please. Thanks.
I have developed an immunity to certain snakes, after being bitten-several times.
That is how the "snake handlers" do it also. No gift from God or they would ask to be bitten by a Black Momba to prove it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
