s/o Christians have to do X to get to heaven?

[Caitilin]

Have you heard anyone say that? Or do you think that is the logical conclusion of what you have heard?

 

It seems to me that it is what follows from what you have been saying.:001_smile:

[silliness7]

I think that Christians who cry out to God to help them stop being a drunkards will stop being drunkards. He doesn't allow us to be tempted more than we can bear. We can do anything through Him that gives us strength. (Sorry, I am too busy to quote better)

I think Christians, commonly, are not very concerned with pleasing God. I haven't seen much crying out to the Lord to help them obey. I see a lot of people who think if they said the sinner's prayer, or were sprinkled as a baby, they are safe no matter what, so they can do what they want. I want people to think about whether or not God will accept "fire insurance policies."

 

I think you are definitely onto something. I believe that God's people do continually cry out to the Lord. It's not a one-time cry.

[Sputterduck]

If we don't meet His expectations and don't obey his commands, will be still be right with God and get into heaven?

 

Nobody manages to get through life without falling short of His expectations. Except for Jesus, of course.

[Caitilin]

Nobody manages to get through life without falling short of His expectations. Except for Jesus, of course.

 

I agree with this; I just do not think that this means everything we do is accompanied by evil.

[forty-two]

Ok, but explain how Christ was able to take upon Himself our humanity if there is no aspect of humanity untouched by sin. I cannot make these two ideas jive.

He burnt out all the sin from His humanity, just as He does for those He saves. He's God, and sin is separation from God - He can, and does, breach the gap, in Himself and in us. Only we are still affected by sin in this fallen world, just as He was, until the Second Coming and the new heaven and new earth.

[silliness7]

I know that we have very different opinions about the bolded. That is fine ;) I enjoy discussing these things, but since I do have a different belief's, it makes me curious about the post I originally quoted.

 

Because of your beliefs this fits together nicely. For me it doesn't and I am trying to understand. If I can only understand if I agree to the same concept of the bolded...then I may not ever be able to understand, and that is okay to. :D

 

I see. :001_smile: What part of meeting God's righteous requirements doesn't fit with your views? If you don't mind my asking. I am not being snarky.

 

There are those who think God doesn't have righteous requirements.

There are those who think that he does but that people have the ability to meet them.

Or is it something else?

[Spy Car]

Humanity *was* created good. But the fall so tainted everything that we can't do, think, even exist, without sinning - it's not *all* we are, but it *infects* all we are.

 

No, according to the story in Genesis man and woman were created without the capacity to distinguish good from evil. That made them amoral creatures.

 

What you call the "fall" was the moment in the story where mankind became more like the divine. They gained a moral discernment that made us fully human and capable of acting with moral consequences for either good or evil.

 

Bill

[silliness7]

Ok, but explain how Christ was able to take upon Himself our humanity if there is no aspect of humanity untouched by sin. I cannot make these two ideas jive.

 

Isn't this the significance of Jesus not being born of a human father?

[silliness7]

It seems to me that it is what follows from what you have been saying.:001_smile:

 

Oh dear.

 

:001_smile:

[forty-two]

I agree with this; I just do not think that this means everything we do is accompanied by evil.

Lots of people don't. The danger, though, of minimizing sin is that it likewise minimizes the impact of Jesus' death, and His forgiveness. If we are mostly good people who screw up a bit, then what happens when you feel like a rotten person who screws up a *lot*. Does that mean you aren't saved? Many people on this thread have argued as much. Sure, you can be as bad as you want and be saved - but then you'd better shape up and fly right. Jesus is just for people who can be mostly good - and if you can't be mostly good, then I guess you're SOL.

 

And that is a depressing bit of good news. Is that really all Jesus is good for - getting us over the hump - and now we'd better get cracking?

 

No! The good news of the Gospel is for Christians, too.

[silliness7]

Well, the Buddhist is not sinning *by* doing a good deed. Rather he is sinning *as* he does a good deed. And if it makes you feel any better, I also say that Christians are sinning as we do good deeds, too ;).

 

:iagree: This makes sense to my brain. It is not a sin for a Buddhist to feed the poor. It's a good thing to do. A Buddhist can do good deeds.

 

Do you think a Buddhist can do enough good deeds to earn heaven? Or is that beyond the scope of this discussion?

 

If we can establish that it is good for the Buddhist to feed the poor. Is that the end of the story or is there more?

[Sputterduck]

I am with Mrs. Mungo on this. Because we are saved, we want to do good. But I really liked C.S. Lewis's explanation in Mere Christianity. His view is that we all have different temptations, temperaments, and abilities. God looks to us in our entirety. So someone born with a quick temperament and raised in a bad environment may be doing God's work by simply controlling his temper. On the other hand, maybe someone blessed with lots of ability and a good temperament is called to do a lot more for God.

 

This is true. I didn't understand the dissonance of my neighbor calling himself Christian with the way he acts. Then my friend told me how he was before he was a Christian. :001_huh: He may act terribly and be an overall terrible person, but he has apparently improved greatly since becoming acquainted with God. He is doing great based on where he is coming from. He is actually trying and changing because God woke him up to the idea of right and wrong. Still, I hope nobody judges Christianity by him.

[forty-two]

No, according to the story in Genesis man and woman were created without the capacity to distinguish good from evil. That made them amoral creatures.

 

What you call the "fall" was the moment in the story where mankind became more like the divine. They gained a moral discernment that made us fully human and capable of acting with moral consequences for either good or evil.

 

Bill

Kind of depends if you see good and evil as opposites, or evil as corrupted good. I believe that God *is*, and God is good, and so that good *is*, and evil is what good isn't. Evil can't exist without good, but good exists on it's own.

[silliness7]

Lots of people don't. The danger, though, of minimizing sin is that it likewise minimizes the impact of Jesus' death, and His forgiveness. If we are mostly good people who screw up a bit, then what happens when you feel like a rotten person who screws up a *lot*. Does that mean you aren't saved? Many people on this thread have argued as much. Sure, you can be as bad as you want and be saved - but then you'd better shape up and fly right. Jesus is just for people who can be mostly good - and if you can't be mostly good, then I guess you're SOL.

 

And that is a depressing bit of good news. Is that really all Jesus is good for - getting us over the hump - and now we'd better get cracking?

 

No! The good news of the Gospel is for Christians, too.

 

I like how you put things. :D

[simka2]

I am not ignoring you. I just have to run to the hardware store, and these conversations are never fun from my phone. :tongue_smilie:

I see. :001_smile: What part of meeting God's righteous requirements doesn't fit with your views? If you don't mind my asking. I am not being snarky.

 

There are those who think God doesn't have righteous requirements.

There are those who think that he does but that people have the ability to meet them.

Or is it something else?

[Spy Car]

Kind of depends if you see good and evil as opposites, or evil as corrupted good. I believe that God *is*, and God is good, and so that good *is*, and evil is what good isn't. Evil can't exist without good, but good exists on it's own.

 

And, according to the story, when Adam and Eve gain the capacity to distinguish good from evil they (according to God) became more like him.

 

If God is "good" then how could man become all "bad" by becoming more like God?

 

And why would we be commanded to love beings who are intrinsically evil?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Back to the main question:

 

Christians have to do X to get to heaven?

 

Hypothetically speaking, they have to die. Which is not a very popular option.

 

Bill

[forty-two]

And, according to the story, when Adam and Eve gain the capacity to distinguish good from evil they (according to God) became more like him.

 

If God is "good" then how could man become all "bad" by becoming more like God?

 

And why would we be commanded to love beings who are intrinsically evil?

 

Bill

Knowing the difference b/w good and evil is different from *being* evil. And God is God, and we humans are humans - just b/c He can handle knowing what evil *is* without succumbing to it doesn't mean *we* can. And I submit that history shows that, by and large, we can't. Also, I believe that we were created by God to be in relationship with Him, that we were never meant to be *have* to deal with evil, and thus had no reason to be able to - that "being like God" was not what we were created to be, and that trying to do so was a bad, bad idea.

[forty-two]

Back to the main question:

 

Christians have to do X to get to heaven?

 

Hypothetically speaking, they have to die. Which is not a very popular option.

 

Bill

Well, if you are alive at the Second Coming, you could skip that nasty death stuff ;):lol:.

[Spy Car]

Knowing the difference b/w good and evil is different from *being* evil. And God is God, and we humans are humans - just b/c He can handle knowing what evil *is* without succumbing to it doesn't mean *we* can. And I submit that history shows that, by and large, we can't. Also, I believe that we were created by God to be in relationship with Him, that we were never meant to be *have* to deal with evil, and thus had no reason to be able to - that "being like God" was not what we were created to be, and that trying to do so was a bad, bad idea.

 

Of you don't know good from evil you can not be "good" either. And that was my point. In the opening of Genesis mankind is not "good" they are amoral. Not capable of moral discernment.

 

If an omniscient and omnipotent creator-being did not want his creations to gain moral capacity he surely would have been able to prevent such. Otherwise his parenting skills would be in deep question.

 

If a human parent told a toddler who had not reached the age of reason not to eat the shiny delicious looking (but posinious) fruit dangling in front of them, and said I'll be back in the breezy part of the day "be good", we would call it "neglect."

 

Bill

[elegantlion]

I just want to make sure I am understanding. No snark, this is just different to me. :001_smile:

 

If a Buddhist feeds the poor it is a sin, but if a Christian feeds the poor it is not? :confused:

 

I think we could be moving into morality choices vs. salvation/works choices.

 

I've seen and experienced many non-christians, or people who express no faith whatsoever, doing good deeds, because they believe it is the morally right thing to do. They don't feel obligated or called because of their faith, they feel led because they are human.

[Spy Car]

Well, if you are alive at the Second Coming, you could skip that nasty death stuff ;):lol:.

 

That plan hasn't worked out well for anyone thus far ;)

 

Bill

[elegantlion]

That plan hasn't worked out well for anyone thus far ;)

 

Bill

 

This could be the year though. :tongue_smilie:

[Lovedtodeath]

It doesn't matter if EVERYTHING you do is a sin. It only matters if you commit one teeny tiny sin. Just one. Sometimes I think it is easier for the really rotten to grasp the mercy of the Gospel because they know they are really rotten. But the good people can have a hard time understanding that their goodness is not good enough to meet God's righteous requirements.

:iagree:Isaiah 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;

Romans 3:9-10 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

[Lovedtodeath]

Back to the main question:

 

Christians have to do X to get to heaven?

 

Hypothetically speaking, they have to die. Which is not a very popular option.

 

Bill

Perhaps that should be more popular. Paul didn't seem to mind.

 

Philippians 1:21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22But if I am to live on in the flesh, this will mean fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which to choose. 23But I am hard-pressed from both directions, having the desire to depart and be with Christ, for that is very much better; 24yet to remain on in the flesh is more necessary for your sake. 25Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all for your progress and joy in the faith,

[Lovedtodeath]

I just want to make sure I am understanding. No snark, this is just different to me. :001_smile:

 

If a Buddhist feeds the poor it is a sin, but if a Christian feeds the poor it is not? :confused:

If I, as a Christian, feed the poor with the wrong motive then it is a sin for me. If I feed the poor so that I can say "See God, what I have done for you, now you should let me in your kingdom." If I feed the poor to say, "See Mom, how good I am, don't you see?" If I feed the poor because I can earn my badge for it, then it is a sin for me. If I feed the poor because God's Holy Spirit has moved me to do so out of generosity and pity, then it is not a sin.

[sweetbasil]

If I, as a Christian, feed the poor with the wrong motive then it is a sin for me. If I feed the poor so that I can say "See God, what I have done for you, now you should let me in your kingdom." If I feed the poor to say, "See Mom, how good I am, don't you see?" If I feed the poor because I can earn my badge for it, then it is a sin for me. If I feed the poor because God's Holy Spirit has moved me to do so out of generosity and pity, then it is not a sin.

 

I disagree -- feeding the poor is never a sin. Self righteousness, trying to gain glory for oneself, acting passively aggressively -- those are sins. Feeding the poor in and of itself can't be sinful. We're commanded to do it.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

No, according to the story in Genesis man and woman were created without the capacity to distinguish good from evil. That made them amoral creatures.

 

What you call the "fall" was the moment in the story where mankind became more like the divine. They gained a moral discernment that made us fully human and capable of acting with moral consequences for either good or evil.

 

Bill

 

No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall.

 

People had free will before the fall. According to the story they were free to name the animals on there own. People are free to sin or not to sin. They are also free to make cars or not make cars. God did not create evil anymore than He created cars. Man is responsible for both.

[Spy Car]

No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall.

 

I don't know why since that's what God, according to the story, very clearly says is the case in Genesis 3:22.

 

People had free will before the fall.

 

No they didn't. You can't have free will without having moral capacity. You can not have moral capacity without being able to discern good from evil. That capacity, according to Genesis, was absent prior to men becoming like the divine by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

Animals, to the best of our human understanding, do not have "free will" because their actions lack moral capacity. Mankind was in the same boat prior to becoming fully human in this act.

 

 

According to the story they were free to name the animals on there own.

 

Naming an animal is not an act of morality of ethics. It is an amoral act.

 

People are free to sin or not to sin.

 

Now they are. But one can not "sin" without moral capacity. Animals do not "sin" because they do not know right from wrong, good from evil, we—as humans—do because of what happened in the garden mythologically speaking.

 

They are also free to make cars or not make cars. God did not create evil anymore than He created cars. Man is responsible for both.

 

Man is responsible for making all the good stuff too. I like my car.

 

Bill

Edited January 18, 2012 by Spy Car

[meggie]

No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall.

 

People had free will before the fall. According to the story they were free to name the animals on there own. People are free to sin or not to sin. They are also free to make cars or not make cars. God did not create evil anymore than He created cars. Man is responsible for both.

 

Mormons do

[sewingmama]

just b/c He can handle knowing what evil *is* without succumbing to it doesn't mean *we* can.

 

Really - I know of plenty of evil things in this world that I have no inclination to get involved with. Of course people have the ability to resist evil otherwise why are we punishing those who don't resist. It would be truely unfair to send people to prison and punish them for something they have no control over.

 

No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall.

 

:seeya: I'd like to introduce myself to you - I'm LDS - so now you know a Christian who does believe that. :tongue_smilie:

 

People had free will before the fall. According to the story they were free to name the animals on there own.

 

God told them to name the animals - it was not an act of free will - they were not given a choice. An act of free will would have been God telling them to name the animals and Adam saying "Nah, do it yourself" ;)

 

Until Adam and Eve actively disobeyed God by doing what he told them not to do there was no free will - only obedience to God.

 

Adam and Eve were innocent -they didn't even know they were naked. They would have kept on obeying God perfectly in the Garden and doing everything he told them without question because they had no idea they could do otherwise. Satan ( a third person) had to come into the Garden and tempt them or in other words make them (Eve) aware that they could actually do something "of their own choice or free will". They simply didn't know until then that it was an option.

 

God knows good from evil and that is why LDS believe we became more like God after the fall. Man was no longer "innocent" but became aware of good and evil just like God.

Edited January 18, 2012 by sewingmama

[JenniferB]

I intend to go through and read this thread, though I haven't read it all yet. But, before I do that, I want to quote my priest, as this little rhetorical question he once asked in inquirer's class has changed my entire outlook on salvation. He said something like this, "in salvation, who changes: God or man?"

[Laurie4b]

Agree totally with paragraphs 1 and 3. Agree in para 2 that if we have no works, we should worry, but disagree that the presence/absence of works is what gives assurance of faith. We agree that if our works say, oh, there's a problem here, then our response is to turn to Christ. But what if you look at your works and think you're in good shape? Is that *assurance* of salvation? Most certainly not! Our works have *nothing* to do with our being saved. If you are looking to your works for *confirmation* of your salvation, you are in danger of *trusting* in those works for salvation.

 

While lack of works can indicate a problem, presence of works means *nothing*. Exhortations to look to our works are meant to turn us back to Jesus. Because our works will *never*, ever be good enough, and an honest appraisal will show that. We *all* have a lack of good works.

 

We need to look to Jesus for our salvation *and* our assurance of salvation. We are saved because of Jesus, and our assurance of salvation is in Him. Only someone who is saved can cry out to Jesus in the first place - we cry, we can be assured that not only *will* He answer, but that He *already has*.

 

Were you disputing or adding on? I never said anything about works being assurance, only about an absence of fruit being a good reason to examine. What Jesus did is our assurance.

[Lovedtodeath]

Were you disputing or adding on? I never said anything about works being assurance, only about an absence of fruit being a good reason to examine. What Jesus did is our assurance.

Ephesians 1:13-14 Ephesians 4:30 2 Corinthians 1:22

 

I haven't read every word here, but I was really enjoying both Laurie and forty two's posts.

Edited January 18, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[forty-two]

Were you disputing or adding on? I never said anything about works being assurance, only about an absence of fruit being a good reason to examine. What Jesus did is our assurance.

Clarifying, mostly.

[Lovedtodeath]

Clarifying, mostly.

Ah, I see.

[silliness7]

I don't know why since that's what God, according to the story, very clearly says is the case in Genesis 3:22.

 

 

 

No they didn't. You can't have free will without having moral capacity. You can not have moral capacity without being able to discern good from evil. That capacity, according to Genesis, was absent prior to men becoming like the divine by eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

Animals, to the best of our human understanding, do not have "free will" because their actions lack moral capacity. Mankind was in the same boat prior to becoming fully human in this act.

 

 

 

 

Naming an animal is not an act of morality of ethics. It is an amoral act.

 

 

 

Now they are. But one can not "sin" without moral capacity. Animals do not "sin" because they do not know right from wrong, good from evil, we—as humans—do because of what happened in the garden mythologically speaking.

 

 

 

Man is responsible for making all the good stuff too. I like my car.

 

Bill

 

I see what you are saying and I'm going to wonder out loud here.

 

God told Adam & Eve not to eat from the Tree. They had to understand that it was wrong to disobey. How can they be punished for doing something they did not understand was not to be done?

 

When the Bible says they would know good and evil I'm wondering if that "know" means something deeper than just "understand."

 

Kind of like when Adam lay with his wife and "knew" her. He obviously knew her before he lay with her. I usually think of "know" in this context as a euphemism for marital intimacy but what if "know" is more than a euphemism. It's a deeper understanding based on experience - actually touching and tasting as opposed to just seeing. Which kind of goes back to the whole tree thing. Eve was just looking at it and she did "know" that she wasn't supposed to touch it or taste it, but it was the touching and tasting that brought about this extra "knowing."

 

Just rambling.

[Lovedtodeath]

I see what you are saying and I'm going to wonder out loud here.

 

God told Adam & Eve not to eat from the Tree. They had to understand that it was wrong to disobey. How can they be punished for doing something they did not understand was not to be done?

 

When the Bible says they would know good and evil I'm wondering if that "know" means something deeper than just "understand."

 

Kind of like when Adam lay with his wife and "knew" her. He obviously knew her before he lay with her. I usually think of "know" in this context as a euphemism for marital intimacy but what if "know" is more than a euphemism. It's a deeper understanding based on experience - actually touching and tasting as opposed to just seeing. Which kind of goes back to the whole tree thing. Eve was just looking at it and she did "know" that she wasn't supposed to touch it or taste it, but it was the touching and tasting that brought about this extra "knowing."

 

Just rambling.

hmmm... time to get out the concordance, dictionary, etc.

 

No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall.

I don't know why since that's what God, according to the story, very clearly says is the case in Genesis 3:22.

A lot to learn.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[mommaduck]

I think that Christians who cry out to God to help them stop being a drunkards will stop being drunkards. He doesn't allow us to be tempted more than we can bear. We can do anything through Him that gives us strength. (Sorry, I am too busy to quote better)

I think Christians, commonly, are not very concerned with pleasing God. I haven't seen much crying out to the Lord to help them obey. I see a lot of people who think if they said the sinner's prayer, or were sprinkled as a baby, they are safe no matter what, so they can do what they want. I want people to think about whether or not God will accept "fire insurance policies."

Question, do you know these people's hearts? Are you a mind or heart reader? Are you with them through every personal event and intimate moment of their lives? Do you expect them to share every bit of when they cry out with you? Or are you just presuming upon them, because you see some of their more noticeable sins and you are judging them by that? You have sins also...yours just may not be as obvious to others. They are still sins. They still require repentance and forgiveness.

 

I'm sure there are those that thought that I thought I had "insurance"...because I said a prayer, because I was "elect", and not because I go to confession and partake in the Eucharist. Nope, I don't think that at all. I think that I'm God's child and I rely on His mercies daily. "Lord Jesus, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!" is my heart's prayer...daily and for every situation I find myself in. When I'm being judgmental towards others or having difficulty with another person, I prayer that prayer...every other time it's "have mercy on me" and every other time it's "have mercy on soandso". This reminds me that we are all in the same boat and reminds me to also have forgiveness and mercy and that I am subject to the same judgment.

[Aelwydd]

 

"No Christian group that I know of believes that man became more like God at the fall."

 

:seeya: I'd like to introduce myself to you - I'm LDS - so now you know a Christian who does believe that. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Well! And LDS would believe something like that, now wouldn't they? Just add it to the long list of Mistaken Mormons Beliefs--

 

--Wait. Um, y'know I actually agree with this. It totally makes sense. Cuz, you know, it's logical.

 

 

:D

[tmulcahy]

You get into heaven by believing in Christ as your savior. But, The Bible also talks about heavenly rewards. How would you describe that? As some people being more right than others?

 

That part has always confused me. I have never heard a good explanation for the rewards part of the bible. I guess I'll ask when I get there;)

[Lovedtodeath]

I think that Christians who cry out to God to help them stop being a drunkards will stop being drunkards. He doesn't allow us to be tempted more than we can bear. We can do anything through Him that gives us strength. (Sorry, I am too busy to quote better)

I think Christians, commonly, are not very concerned with pleasing God. I haven't seen much crying out to the Lord to help them obey. I see a lot of people who think if they said the sinner's prayer, or were sprinkled as a baby, they are safe no matter what, so they can do what they want. I want people to think about whether or not God will accept "fire insurance policies."

I know what you mean. But you know what? I am their friend anyway. And one of my friends said that she thought she was cursed because she went to church her whole life, but she could never really get it, but that is changing now, and it is because of two people, myself included, who reached out to her instead of judging. But I didn't reach out to her in order to preach to her. She is my friend too.

Question, do you know these people's hearts? Are you a mind or heart reader? Are you with them through every personal event and intimate moment of their lives? Do you expect them to share every bit of when they cry out with you? Or are you just presuming upon them, because you see some of their more noticeable sins and you are judging them by that? You have sins also...yours just may not be as obvious to others. They are still sins. They still require repentance and forgiveness.

Yes, I still struggle with my sins sometimes, so I know the ones who have more noticeable sins could be progressing, or will at some point, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a Christian, kwim?

 

You get into heaven by believing in Christ as your savior. But, The Bible also talks about heavenly rewards. How would you describe that? As some people being more right than others?

Jesus described it for us. (Matthew 25:13-30)

[Heidi]

Well! And LDS would believe something like that, now wouldn't they? Just add it to the long list of Mistaken Mormons Beliefs--

 

--Wait. Um, y'know I actually agree with this. It totally makes sense. Cuz, you know, it's logical.

 

 

:D

 

 

:lol:

 

Are LDS really the only religious group that believes this? :001_huh:

[AmericanMom]

(deep breath)

 

My 13yos had a football coach who really emphasized to the boys "will you get to heaven?" and so my son kept wanting to know who would make it and how could he know he would, etc. I told him, "Getting to heaven is NOT like getting a ticket to Six Flags -- whoever got a ticket gets to go in, and the rest of you are locked out. It's more like they are giving out free tickets but you actually have to accept your ticket and WALK INTO THE PARK!"

 

Why are we concerned about who will and who will not "get to heaven"? What is heaven? IMHO, heaven is being in constant communion with God. Who will be in constant communion with God? Jesus was clear (IMHO) that whoever really wants to be with God forever, will be. "Whoever comes to me I will not turn away," He said. No one will be left out who wants to be included. C.S. Lewis said there are 2 kinds of people. Those who (in the end) say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God (in the end) says, "thy will be done."

 

There is no way we can know what is in someone else's heart. That is between that person and God. We need to look at our own heart, and ask ourselves, am I seeking the Lord my God with all of my heart and soul and mind and strength, or am I seeking my own way? Do I mean it when I say I want God? Am I willing to do whatever I have to do to be near Him?

[mommaduck]

but that doesn't mean that they aren't a Christian, kwim?

 

 

Yes, I know...I never said they weren't ;)

[mommaduck]

Something a friend just posted on Facebook:

 

Never compare your journey with someone else's. Your journey is YOUR JOURNEY, not a competition

 

Or, as a Jewish friend once told me:

 

your mitzvah is your mitzvah, but it might not be mine...I might have something else that is my mitzvah.

[Lovedtodeath]

That is good advice!

Yes, I know...I never said they weren't ;)

Oh I know I was agreeing with you. lol

[mommaduck]

Oh I know I was agreeing with you. lol

Ah! :D

[Aelwydd]

:lol:

 

Are LDS really the only religious group that believes this? :001_huh:

 

 

Who knows? But the point is, once the LDS profess it, that means I'm constrained to scoff at them, then throw out eighteen contextually-tortured Bible verses at them, and then close with the argument, "And you guys believe that Jesus is totally the brother of Lucifer! As if!"

 

And then pity them for all pretty much being guaranteed to miss heaven (which in a zero-sum salvific plan equates to, "Yer goin' to hell!"), even while they consign me and my un-Mormon self to a Earthly paradise.

 

I don't make the rules. I just have them written in black ink on my forehead.

[Heidi]

Who knows? But the point is, once the LDS profess it, that means I'm constrained to scoff at them, then throw out eighteen contextually-tortured Bible verses at them, and then close with the argument, "And you guys believe that Jesus is totally the brother of Lucifer! As if!"

 

And then pity them for all pretty much being guaranteed to miss heaven (which in a zero-sum salvific plan equates to, "Yer goin' to hell!"), even while they consign me and my un-Mormon self to a Earthly paradise.

 

I don't make the rules. I just have them written in black ink on my forehead.

 

:lol::lol::lol: