People who have not heard of Christ
-
as long as the repentance is real. There is a parable in the Bible where workers at the field are paid the same regardless of which point of the day they started working. Those who started in the morning were complaining about those who started later in the afternoon and were paid the same.Originally posted by Icemoon:That's not what SIS is fussing about.
His point is, you can be the greatest evil but truly repent at the last minute and you're still saved.
Point is, why should it matter? View salvation as a personal contract between God and one individual. Whether others think that it is fair or not is totally immaterial.
Of course, we can all argue and say that let's screw our life up and then repent at the last minute. The question of one's attitude during repentance can only be answered by the individual repenting. It is not for the rest of us to say. -
For the upteenth time, A Christian who does not repent cannot be saved, because he is rejecting God's mercy.
In the end has the religion really taught people to commit good deeds ? Hitler believes in christ and believes killing the jews is doing him glory. If u ask him whether does he repent or not, he probably feel tat he do not need to, as he is doing these tasks for god. Many of u will say he is crazy, but he is truly not rejecting the mercy of god and his intentions, according to himself, is pure. In the end he goes to heaven ? How effective has tis teach people to commit good deeds ? In fact, it seems to teach people tat there is no real punishment for any autrocities u commited. Christainity seems they placed a higher priority on just "believing" than doing good deeds. IMO I do not see why believing (thought) is more important than actions tat god intend people to do (good deeds).
Of course, there is the issue of fairness too. As said before, no matter how much good deeds u have done, u still end up in hell when u r a non believer. U don't care if he is fair or place emphasis on people doing good deeds or not ? Doesn't tat shows he is not a perfect god as u guys have thought of him before ? -
Believing in Christ is just as important as following his teachings. Otherwise, why did God come out with the 10 commandments? Also Christ did mention to obey the commandments.Originally posted by stupidissmart:In the end has the religion really taught people to commit good deeds ? Hitler believes in christ and believes killing the jews is doing him glory. If u ask him whether does he repent or not, he probably feel tat he do not need to, as he is doing these tasks for god. Many of u will say he is crazy, but he is truly not rejecting the mercy of god and his intentions, according to himself, is pure. In the end he goes to heaven ? How effective has tis teach people to commit good deeds ? In fact, it seems to teach people tat there is no real punishment for any autrocities u commited. Christainity seems they placed a higher priority on just "believing" than doing good deeds. IMO I do not see why believing (thought) is more important than actions tat god intend people to do (good deeds).
Of course, there is the issue of fairness too. As said before, no matter how much good deeds u have done, u still end up in hell when u r a non believer. U don't care if he is fair or place emphasis on people doing good deeds or not ? Doesn't tat shows he is not a perfect god as u guys have thought of him before ? -
It must be mentioned that Hitler was misled by his belief in the Aryan race. His beliefs are not in line with the Bible.
-
Believing in Christ is just as important as following his teachings. Otherwise, why did God come out with the 10 commandments? Also Christ did mention to obey the commandments.
But in the end, from revelation, it says tat peopel r judged whether do they believe in christ or not then after tat do they look at the actions he committed in his life. In other words if non believers commit no fault and lead a life helping others, they still had to go to hell. Isn't tat a sign tat belief in him has a much higher priority than following its teachings or 10 commandments ? it is not just as important, it it far more important. -
So wat do u say happened to the ancestors who had never heard of christ name ?
-
It must be mentioned that Hitler was misled by his belief in the Aryan race. His beliefs are not in line with the Bible.
just a question... wat is inline with the bible ? I mean there r christian, protestants, catholics, charismatic, methodists, presbysterians, anglican, Jehova witness, cults etc... So which one is the real teachings ? Will catholic and prebysterian be treated the same if it turned out tat catholics r more "true" ? -
Ethnic cleansing is definitely not in line with the Bible.
[add] read the Bible to find out more
-
I suspect the Crusaders never bothered to confess to their priests after they slaughtered the Jewish and Muslim civilians .. lolOriginally posted by stupidissmart:In fact, it seems to teach people tat there is no real punishment for any autrocities u commited.
Christainity seems they placed a higher priority on just "believing" than doing good deeds.
Not really .. salvation by faith is a Protestant position. Catholics emphasize very much of the 'works', the charity, to the point of being accused by Protestants as earning salvation by works. -
Why emphasize on Believing in Christ? You have to believe in him in order to know his teachings and follow them.
-
So Honeybunz suggests Christ is a mean to an end? What are Christ's teachings that are noticeably absent in other faiths?
-
SIS:Originally posted by sillyme:It must be mentioned that Hitler was misled by his belief in the Aryan race. His beliefs are not in line with the Bible.
To add on to what sillyme has said, if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well? -
That sounds like an idiotic reply.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:To add on to what sillyme has said, if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well?
I'm sorry, but Catholics, very devout believers in God, also persecute Christians. They exhumed/hung/burned people like Wycliff and Tyndale for something as harmless as bringing the bible to the plain folks.
Nothing to say liao right?
PS: Just to add, those so called 'believers in God' won't even let go the dead John Wycliff, they exhumed his corpse and burned it, scattering his ashes into the river. You can see the deep hatred in their heart. -
I would say Hitler did believe in God, but not as much as he believed in himself. But he chose to follow his own ways rather than God's.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:SIS:
To add on to what sillyme has said, if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well? -
What do you mean by that?Originally posted by Icemoon:So Honeybunz suggests Christ is a mean to an end? -
My posts are idiotic? So your posts are full of wisdom eh? What are you trying to prove by saying that we Catholics persecute Christians? Ar you trying to say Catholics are not Christians? I don't see you talking about Protestants persecuting Catholics. But that's not the point. I will set the record straight about these two men you are talking about.Originally posted by Icemoon:That sounds like an idiotic reply.
I'm sorry, but Catholics, very devout believers in God, also persecute Christians. They exhumed/hung/burned people like Wycliff and Tyndale for something as harmless as bringing the bible to the plain folks.
Nothing to say liao right?
PS: Just to add, those so called 'believers in God' won't even let go the dead John Wycliff, they exhumed his corpse and burned it, scattering his ashes into the river. You can see the deep hatred in their heart.
I beg your pardon if I sound uncharitable. I hope that I have not assasinated your character. I hope that we won't have a flame war.
As for Wycliff and Tyndale, I have plenty to say. So please, do not sound too smug and vindicated. -
Now read what I have to say. Wycliff died in 1384 of stroke. John WycliffÂ’s bones were burnt and ashes thrown into the Swift River in 1428. He was punished not for translating the bible, but for preaching heresy! John Wycliff 's version of the Bible was not a correct version, and he was using it as a means of corrupting the people's faith and of teaching them false doctrine! Catholic Church did condemn Wycliff's version, but at the same time allowed other versions of the Bible in English! He is not the first guy to translate the bible to English you know? Read the quote below.
"We shall . . . refute once more the common fallacy that John Wycliff was the first to place an English translation of the Scriptures in the hands of the English people in 1382. To anyone that has investigated the real facts of the case, this fondly-cherished notion must seem truly ridiculous; it is not only absolutely false, but stupidly so, inasmuch as it admits of such easy disproof . . .
To begin far back, we have a copy of the work of Caedmon, a monk of Whitby, in the end of the 7th century, consisting of great portions of the Bible in the common tongue. In the next century we have the well-known translations of the Venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow . . . In the same (8th) century we have the copies of Eadhelm . . . of Guthlac, . . . and of Egbert . . . these were all in Saxon, the language understood and spoken by the Christians of that time. Coming down a little later, we have the free translations of King Alfred the Great . . . and of Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury . . . After the Norman conquest of 1066, Anglo-Norman or Middle-English became the language of England, and consequently the next translations of the Bible we meet with are in that tongue . . . such as the paraphrase of Orm (about 1150) and the Salus Animae (1250), the translations of William Shoreham and Richard Rolle . . . (d.1349) . . .
The translators of the Authorised Version, in their 'Preface,' refer to previous translations . . . :
Much about that time [1360], even our King Richard the Second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen that divers translated, as it is very probable, in that age . . . So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up . . . but hath been . . . put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any nation."
{Graham, ibid., pp. 98-101}
Oh, all this took place in England. John Wycliffe was a Catholic priest.
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ508.HTM
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham12.html -
What about our friend Tyndale? William Tyndale was born in 1484. He studied at Oxford and became a priest, and was seized with the ambition of getting the Bible printed in England. But the church did not allow this. Why?
(I) Tyndale was not the man for the job. He says himself he was 'evil favoured in this world, and without grace in the sight of men, speechless and rude, dull and slow witted.' He had no special qualifications for the task of translation. Indeed, non-Catholic authors have admitted that the cause of Scripture reading in the vernacular was distinctly prejudiced by having been taken in hand by incapable men like Tyndale.
(2) He was acting entirely on his own account, and without authorisation from ecclesiastical superiors, either in England or in Rome; he was simply a private obscure priest, and was acting without commission and without sanction from higher quarters.
This guy was also teaching heresy and attacking the Catholic Church with his translation of the bible. About 1522 he had been suspected and tried for heresy; he had declared: 'I defy the Pope and all his laws'; and now he actually embodied in his English version Luther's notes and explanations of texts. It was full of mistranslations of sacred text and full of anti-Catholic notes.
Canon Dixon, the cultured Anglican historian, referring to the fact that copies of Tyndale's Bible were burnt, makes these striking remarks: 'If the clergy had acted thus simply because they would have the people kept ignorant of the word of God, they would have been without excuse. But it was not so. Every one of the little volumes, containing portions of the sacred text that was issued by Tyndale, contained also a prologue and notes written with such hot fury of vituperation against the prelates and clergy, the monks and friars, the rites and ceremonies of the Church, as was hardly likely to commend it to the favour of those who were attacked.'
Thomas More, Lord Chancellor of England, found it necessary to write a treatise against it, and asserted that to 'find errors in Tyndale's book were like studying to find water in the sea'.
But the most interesting point about the whole affair is that time has abundantly justified the action of the Catholic Church and proved that she did the proper thing in attempting to stamp out Tyndale's Bible. For the reading of this pernicious book produced most disastrous effects upon the morals of the people, who became rebellious, profane, and irreligious, and disaffected to the civil as well as to the spiritual authorities!
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/deuteros/graham13.html -
wow! SingaporeMacross, you're fast.
-
I was trying to show the sheer ridiculousy of your argument, when you asked the question "if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well"? Let's be honest about history. Did not the Crusades and Inquisition take place? Did Catholics not slaughter millions(?) of God's people? Did not the persecution of other christian groups take place?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:My posts are idiotic? So your posts are full of wisdom eh? What are you trying to prove by saying that we Catholics persecute Christians? Ar you trying to say Catholics are not Christians? I don't see you talking about Protestants persecuting Catholics. But that's not the point. I will set the record straight about these two men you are talking about.
I wouldn't defend Protestants like they're holy men without blemish either. Just read what the Puritans (whom we thought are good Protestants) did to the Native Americans ..
Other atrocities which the church never teach, I believe SIS can elaborate. -
I don't see how you show the ridiculousy of the argument in your previous message. In the first place, SingaporeMacross did not say that Catholics don't sin nor kill. But your argument brought up how some bad Catholics have killed good & holy Protestants.Originally posted by Icemoon:I was trying to show the sheer ridiculousy of your argument, when you asked the question "if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well"? Let's be honest about history. Did not the Crusades and Inquisition take place? Did Catholics not slaughter millions(?) of God's people? Did not the persecution of other christian groups take place?
I wouldn't defend Protestants like they're holy men without blemish either. Just read what the Puritans (whom we thought are good Protestants) did to the Native Americans .. and their famous witchhunt ..
Other atrocities which the church never teach, I believe SIS can elaborate. -
Oh, so what is a "correct" version?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:He was punished not for translating the bible, but for preaching heresy! John Wycliff 's version of the Bible was not a correct version, and he was using it as a means of corrupting the people's faith and of teaching them false doctrine!
My question to you, what's so incorrect and heretical about his translation?
At the end of the day, you still go back to the same old argument used by many totalitarian government - "if you don't follow party line , you DIE". -
I never said they are holy Protestants. Ok, I admit I was thinking of them in a good light, the innocent party. Whether they're good or bad, correct or wrong, we have to further investigate, so let's not go into that for the moment.Originally posted by JWorld:I don't see how you show the ridiculousy of the argument in your previous message. In the first place, SingaporeMacross did not say that Catholics don't sin nor kill. But your argument brought up how some bad Catholics have killed good & holy Protestants.
Read his contentious statement - if Hitler was a believer in God, why did he persecute Christians as well?
My challenge to you is, believers in God cannot persecute Christians issit? Haven't we seen enough such persecutions in history? -
Macham like the cardinals during Galileo's time. They believe in God definitely, but not as much as they believe in themselves.Originally posted by Honeybunz:I would say Hitler did believe in God, but not as much as he believed in himself. But he chose to follow his own ways rather than God's.
They believe they're right about scripture - the rest is history. -
Dun believe in anything lah. Juz believe ourselves.
C'mon. We know christ, christ dunno us.
Imagine someone u dunno believe in u, u sure kena find ridiculous, rite?
learn wat christ teaches, no need believe him one lah.