What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (2 Viewers)

DO YOU PLACE YOUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST, BELIEVING THAT HE DIED N ROSE AGAIN AS A SACRIFICE FOR SIN?

  • YES

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • No

    Votes: 18 66.7%
  • I ALREADY PLACED MY FAITH IN JESUS & HIS SACRIFICE FOR MY SINS

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • OTHER

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Total voters
    27
For instance when it talks about hell it means that there's a literal place of Torment.
The Bible says over and over that "hell" is ANYWHERE God is not. Obviously, his absence has consequences. So, if I am a non believer and God leaves earth. Earth becomes "hell". I haven't found one single explanation/description of hell that isn't clearly a person attempting to describe what that might look like. Revelation is full of examples of this.
It doesn't say that in the Bible. The word that is translated hell is actually a few words. Hades is one such word which means the place of the dead. If you look at the context in which it is used it's very obvious that it is a place of torment. Gahanna is another one. The Lake of Fire is the final judgment for an unbelievers. It is very clear that it is eternal.

Revelation 20:10 NIV
[10] And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 20
[11] Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. [12] And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. [13] The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. [14] Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. [15] Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Luke 16:23-28 NIV
[23] In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ [25] “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ [27] “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, [28] for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment."

These passages of are a literal torment in literal flames. There's no allegory or it would tell you
All these are what I addressed in the bold above. Biblical scholars are mostly in agreement on this. One of the least controversial positions out there.
 
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS. IT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU COULD EVER DO AND IT ONLY TAKES A FEW MINUTES
ARE YOU 100% SURE THAT IF YOU DIED TODAY THAT YOU WOULD GO TO HEAVEN? (CLICK 'READ MORE')

There are some things that you should know:

1. Realize that you are a sinner and in need of a Savior:

Ro 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

Ro 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"

It all began when the first humans, Adam and Eve were created and God put them in the garden of Eden. God created them perfect to live in fellowship with Him. There was no death or sorrow. God told them not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They disobeyed God and as a result, sin entered into the world. The pain, which this world sees, is the result of sin.

2. Because of our sins, we die both spiritually and physically, but God sent His Son to die so that you can have a chance not to have to go to hell by accepting what He did on the cross:

Ro 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Ro 5:8 "But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Every person who has ever lived is a sinner and is not righteous because we do bad things. A sin is a crime against God, just as if you steal something at the store, it is punishable by going to jail. It's the same thing with sin. Lying, stealing, sex before marriage, pride, hatred, ect. are all sins. Hell is a prison for those who commit crimes against God. That's because you must be perfect in order to get to heaven. No matter how well you live your life from then on, you have already sinned, which will be punished if you are not pardoned. If you commit a crime, and then live as a good citizen you still will go to jail for the crime you committed. Right? Just as the President can pardon a crime so you won't go to jail, Jesus can pardon your sins so that you do not go to hell, and can go to heaven when you die. You won't have to pay for your own sins because Jesus already did that for you, But if you reject the pardon that He offers, you will have to pay for your own sins by going to hell. He is the only one qualified because He is the only one ever to live a sinless, perfect life.

3. If you will confess Jesus Christ as Your Lord, place your Faith in Him and Believe in your heart that He died, shed His blood and rose again as a sacrifice for your sins, you will be saved (to go to heaven)

Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

You cannot get to heaven by being a good person, going to church, baptism or any other way other than by turning to Jesus, believing in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins and placing your Faith in Him. While these are good things to do, some people believe that they will get to heaven, but your Faith must be in Christ and His sacrifice alone and nothing else, giving your life to Him.

Eph 2:8,9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Ro 10:9,10;13 "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved...For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

4. You must submit your life to Jesus Christ and His will in Faith, believing in your heart that He died and rose again shedding His blood to pay for your sins as a sacrifice to God. If you want to accept Jesus free gift of salvation, or if you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as a Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing church and follow in baptism.


Studying The Bible Is Essential To Christians Growth. Click Here To Walk Through The Bible Verse By Verse From The Beginning, In 25 Minute Lessons:

Shouldn’t you also give away most of your earthly possessions to the poor? Whole camel eye of the needle thing.
Does that apply to Joel Osteen Christians as well?
I'm not so sure that Joel Osteen preaches the gospel.
I believe he preaches it but lives his life by an entirely different code like most Christians
I don't think so. He was on local raidio near me and when the host asked him what one has to do to be saved, Osteen said that they must submit their lives to Christ. That is an incomplete Gospel. The Bible says you must have Faith in Jesus Christ, believing that He died and rose again, and that He shed His blood as a Sacrifice for your sins.

Most people who claim to be Christians aren't really, because they aren't really placing their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for their sins or they add extra things like good works ect.
 
No idea why this stuff is justified on technicality and allowed in these threads.
What are you talking about? What stuff? What technicality?
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort. You seem to be fine with gross generalizations from people like Paddington who have absolutely no way of knowing what an individual's relationship is with God. Passing judgement the way he does is gross and obvious.
 
No idea why this stuff is justified on technicality and allowed in these threads.
What are you talking about? What stuff? What technicality?
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort. You seem to be fine with gross generalizations from people like Paddington who have absolutely no way of knowing what an individual's relationship is with God. Passing judgement the way he does is gross and obvious.
Sparky, not that Joe needs me to defend him, but I'm not following you here. Joe has been clear that religion is okay and politics aren't. I haven't seen him be inconsistent with that. Here, we have a clear religion thread started by an OP who openly tells us that he is a born-again, fundamentalist evangelical Christian. With that in mind, I don't understand how you could not expect him to be judgmental and generalize all who don't agree with him. Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.

I do want to actually give some credit to Paddington and acknowledge that I've grown to appreciate him as this thread has grown. I expressed early on my distaste for his rigid message, his unwillingness to initially engage in discourse about the same, and his continuing errant use of capitalization (intentionally grammar errors just to stress a word is a pet peeve of mine). That said, where I now credit Paddington a ton is that the man is very consistent with his interpretation of the Bible. While I disagree with him about how his literal interpretation can still show a loving God (I believe a literal interpretation of the Bible paints God as a petulant, jealous *******), I nonetheless respect that he maintains that it is literal even through the good, the bad, and the ugly. I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
 
Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.
Primarily because he's assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue. That's not allowed is my understanding. Not any different than "putting words in people's mouths"
 
Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.
Primarily because he's assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue. That's not allowed is my understanding. Not any different than "putting words in people's mouths"

What are you talking about?

What exactly to you mean by "assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue."

What are the example quotes of that to back up an accusation like that?

What positions am I assigning? What reasons to action? What specifically here are you saying I don't have a clue about?"
 
Last edited:
Most people who claim to be Christians aren't really, because they aren't really placing their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for their sins or they add extra things like good works ect.
Sparky, respectfully, that's Padington's opinion (which he'll claim as fact but obviously we know that's just hot air and not supported by logic), it's consistent with his fundamental Biblical interpretation, and he's been consistent about it. I'm not sure why this makes Joe a hypocrite or why he needs to take action.

Seems to me the best way to approach this is by responding to Paddington and pointing out the errors in his statement.
 
I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I disagree pretty strongly on this. If we're to imagine the world in 100 years that still includes significant reference to the Bible, I'd want its theological aspects to be as watered down as possible. Keep the love thy neighbor. Keep the positive vibes. Get rid of the jealous God of Israel who sends those who don't follow him to hell.
 
I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I disagree pretty strongly on this. If we're to imagine the world in 100 years that still includes significant reference to the Bible, I'd want its theological aspects to be as watered down as possible. Keep the love thy neighbor. Keep the positive vibes. Get rid of the jealous God of Israel who sends those who don't follow him to hell.
I think we're talking about two different things here. I agree with you that the message 100 years of now should be what you say. I'd take that even a step further that we'd be better off with the Bible itself as obsolete and replaced by some other basis to encourage us to love our neighbors, keep positive vibes, etc.

What I'm saying is that I appreciate Paddington more and more from his consistency if we are assuming arguendo that the Bible is the focal point of the discussion.
 
I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I disagree pretty strongly on this. If we're to imagine the world in 100 years that still includes significant reference to the Bible, I'd want its theological aspects to be as watered down as possible. Keep the love thy neighbor. Keep the positive vibes. Get rid of the jealous God of Israel who sends those who don't follow him to hell.
I think we're talking about two different things here. I agree with you that the message 100 years of now should be what you say. I'd take that even a step further that we'd be better off with the Bible itself as obsolete and replaced by some other basis to encourage us to love our neighbors, keep positive vibes, etc.

What I'm saying is that I appreciate Paddington more and more from his consistency if we are assuming arguendo that the Bible is the focal point of the discussion.
OK, but I still find it odd to say you "find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen" who is effectively moving us down the path we'd both like to see for the future.
 
I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I disagree pretty strongly on this. If we're to imagine the world in 100 years that still includes significant reference to the Bible, I'd want its theological aspects to be as watered down as possible. Keep the love thy neighbor. Keep the positive vibes. Get rid of the jealous God of Israel who sends those who don't follow him to hell.
I think we're talking about two different things here. I agree with you that the message 100 years of now should be what you say. I'd take that even a step further that we'd be better off with the Bible itself as obsolete and replaced by some other basis to encourage us to love our neighbors, keep positive vibes, etc.

What I'm saying is that I appreciate Paddington more and more from his consistency if we are assuming arguendo that the Bible is the focal point of the discussion.
OK, but I still find it odd to say you "find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen" who is effectively moving us down the path we'd both like to see for the future.
Well, I can be an odd guy I suppose. :lmao:

(I don't see Osteen as moving us away from the Bible, though).
 
Most people who claim to be Christians aren't really, because they aren't really placing their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for their sins or they add extra things like good works ect.
Sparky, respectfully, that's Padington's opinion (which he'll claim as fact but obviously we know that's just hot air and not supported by logic), it's consistent with his fundamental Biblical interpretation, and he's been consistent about it. I'm not sure why this makes Joe a hypocrite or why he needs to take action.

Seems to me the best way to approach this is by responding to Paddington and pointing out the errors in his statement.
That's not how it's written. You may take it that way, I don't because that's not how it's written.

And I didn't call Joe a hypocrite either
 
While I disagree with him about how his literal interpretation can still show a loving God (I believe a literal interpretation of the Bible paints God as a petulant, jealous *******), I nonetheless respect that he maintains that it is literal even through the good, the bad, and the ugly. I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I mostly respect efforts to read it as the original author intended it to be read. If that's what we'd call "literal", then read it that way. If it's allegorical, then read it that way. If it's something else, then read it that way. We limit ourselves, and likely misunderstand the message, if we force their writings to be read by just a few of our modern literary styles. But, my posting in this thread has beat that horse way beyond dead.
 
Most people who claim to be Christians aren't really, because they aren't really placing their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for their sins or they add extra things like good works ect.
Sparky, respectfully, that's Padington's opinion (which he'll claim as fact but obviously we know that's just hot air and not supported by logic), it's consistent with his fundamental Biblical interpretation, and he's been consistent about it. I'm not sure why this makes Joe a hypocrite or why he needs to take action.

Seems to me the best way to approach this is by responding to Paddington and pointing out the errors in his statement.
That's not how it's written. You may take it that way, I don't because that's not how it's written.

And I didn't call Joe a hypocrite either
Okay, I'll back out of this now as Joe doesn't need me defending him.
 
While I disagree with him about how his literal interpretation can still show a loving God (I believe a literal interpretation of the Bible paints God as a petulant, jealous *******), I nonetheless respect that he maintains that it is literal even through the good, the bad, and the ugly. I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I mostly respect efforts to read it as the original author intended it to be read. If that's what we'd call "literal", then read it that way. If it's allegorical, then read it that way. If it's something else, then read it that way. We limit ourselves, and likely misunderstand the message, if we force their writings to be read by just a few of our modern literary styles. But, my posting in this thread has beat that horse way beyond dead.
I mainly respect Paddington's consistency and dedication to reading the Bible a clear way (even if it's a way I strongly disagree with).
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
I'm not sure how to define the bold. That may help others answer. But, yeah, I'd prefer it if he left out salvation in his ministry because his current use of it is akin to the selling of indulgences.

Osteen is a complex issue for me. On one hand, I find it despicable that he profits handsomely (and likely without being taxed on it) by preaching salvation to what are probably desperate people. On that same hand, I genuinely do not like watching anybody champion the Bible and following God as the only way to be good.

On the other hand, I am generally in favor of the free market controlling most situations and, as to religion, I approach it the same as Jefferson whereby it "neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." So, by my own personal belief, I should have no problem with a guy selling stories to masses in order to convince them to pay him enough to buy mansions, planes, and yachts. As such, I recognize I'm a bit hypocritical in my criticism of him and who am I to tell them they're fools for paying money to a modern day snake oil salesman.

The reality is that Osteen just gives me that ick factor akin to what I feel like when I watch The Jerry Springer Show - audience included. When I think abut him and his followers I just don't have fun.
 
Last edited:
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?

Well, let's not reinvent the guy to put him in a positive light. He's a grifter teaching generous giving (to him since he's teaching) is a path to your own financial success. Which is a lie. He's doing this treating his followers as rubes who think they're getting an evolved and superior Christianity. His theology is barely a shallow Christianity. He avoids discussing sin and repentance. He avoids almost every part of the discussion we're having. His preaching, if you can call it that, is never Christ-centered.

If he was doing the Tony Robbins thing teaching success through positive attitudes, then fine. But rolling the Tony Robbins thing into a tax free Christian thing is kind of disgusting.

Jesus and his followers lived modest lives and warned about the problems with materialism. They were taught to be humble and serve the poor. Osteens' message is in stark contrast to Christ's message. Last I checked anyway.

Also, no way humanity survives another 100 years. We're cooked. :)
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
How exactly are you defining ministry here? I don't think I've ever heard it used in a context outside of religion with the exception of "ministry of defense" sorta stuff.
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
I’d have a problem with a preacher if they only focus on any one thing. For example, many preachers only preach about salvation and I’m not a fan of that either.
 
Most people who claim to be Christians aren't really, because they aren't really placing their faith in Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for their sins or they add extra things like good works ect.
Sparky, respectfully, that's Padington's opinion (which he'll claim as fact but obviously we know that's just hot air and not supported by logic), it's consistent with his fundamental Biblical interpretation, and he's been consistent about it. I'm not sure why this makes Joe a hypocrite or why he needs to take action.

Seems to me the best way to approach this is by responding to Paddington and pointing out the errors in his statement.
What does this passage say?

Romans 10:9-10, 13 NIV
[9] If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. [10] For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.
[13] for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
 
No idea why this stuff is justified on technicality and allowed in these threads.
What are you talking about? What stuff? What technicality?
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort. You seem to be fine with gross generalizations from people like Paddington who have absolutely no way of knowing what an individual's relationship is with God. Passing judgement the way he does is gross and obvious.
This is a thread about "How To Get To Heaven". I believe that the Bible is God's Word and so I am going to form my opinions based on what it says. You are not obligated to come into this thread if you don't want to discuss this topic. You are free to give your opinion on this topic and I am free to give mine. So why are you trying to silence me? Just move on to a different thread if you don't want to discuss it, or be willing to give your opinions and the reasons for them.
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
Yes, because he's a grifter. His "ministry" is his vehicle for grifting money, nothing more.
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
Yes, because that is like going to the hungry & homeless and giving them ice cream, instead of addressing the root of the problem, that they need food and shelter. People need Salvation and that can only happen by a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ.
 
No idea why this stuff is justified on technicality and allowed in these threads.
What are you talking about? What stuff? What technicality?
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort. You seem to be fine with gross generalizations from people like Paddington who have absolutely no way of knowing what an individual's relationship is with God. Passing judgement the way he does is gross and obvious.
Sparky, not that Joe needs me to defend him, but I'm not following you here. Joe has been clear that religion is okay and politics aren't. I haven't seen him be inconsistent with that. Here, we have a clear religion thread started by an OP who openly tells us that he is a born-again, fundamentalist evangelical Christian. With that in mind, I don't understand how you could not expect him to be judgmental and generalize all who don't agree with him. Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.

I do want to actually give some credit to Paddington and acknowledge that I've grown to appreciate him as this thread has grown. I expressed early on my distaste for his rigid message, his unwillingness to initially engage in discourse about the same, and his continuing errant use of capitalization (intentionally grammar errors just to stress a word is a pet peeve of mine). That said, where I now credit Paddington a ton is that the man is very consistent with his interpretation of the Bible. While I disagree with him about how his literal interpretation can still show a loving God (I believe a literal interpretation of the Bible paints God as a petulant, jealous *******), I nonetheless respect that he maintains that it is literal even through the good, the bad, and the ugly. I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I appreciate much of your sentiment here. I would like to explain some things. I don't feel that I am being Judgemental, although I realize that I am percieved that way by some. I believe in being a truth seeker, no matter where the truth leads you. I have done extensive reasearch on these things for decades. I have studied both the Bible.and the Scientific Evidence supporting the Bible plus history around it. I was raised in Public Schools and a University and learned the same stuff most people learned, but I also studied the other side of the issues. It's easy to convince someone of a view point when it's the only one they have ever heard.

I am not sure why you think I am unwilling to engauge in discorse, but I have to say that there is a lot to engauge in here, so I apologize if I missed a question from you. I am a Business owner and work a lot, so sometimes I get busy also. As far as the Capitalization, yes, many times it is for emphasis and to get the attention of the reader. Not trying to offend you. Honest. But I do have a responsibility to tell you the honest truth, even if it offends you, although, like I said, it is not my intention.

Those who are truly 'born again' change their opinion of God because He changes their very nature. The non Christian has a negative view of the true and living God because he is separated by sin. Christ will change that nature to one that is in harmony with God. I base my opinions on these two verses and many more.

1 Corinthians 2:14-16 NIV
[14] The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. [15] The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, [16] for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of the Lord.


Romans 8:7-11 NIV
[7] The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. [8] Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God. [9] You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. [10] But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. [11] And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies because of his Spirit who lives in you.
 
Last edited:
If he was doing the Tony Robbins thing teaching success through positive attitudes, then fine. But rolling the Tony Robbins thing into a tax free Christian thing is kind of disgusting.
Yeah, this is what I was hinting at. So it's the tax free element that you would object to in my example?

In terms of grifting, is he like Pat Robertson/ Ken Copeland where he's always asking for money so he can expand his "ministry"? I saw that he sells reading materials which I see as no different than Tony Robbins.

With limited awareness of how Osteen operates, my feeling is that there's nothing wrong with getting paid to provide people with tools on how to get through life. I agree that hiding behind religion for tax breaks is scummy, but I think giving people a false sense of hope of an afterlife they themselves don't believe in is even scummier.
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
How exactly are you defining ministry here? I don't think I've ever heard it used in a context outside of religion with the exception of "ministry of defense" sorta stuff.
I hesitated to use the word here since it's strongly associated with religion. I mean it in a non-religious sense. Generic "teachings" or "life lessons" is more appropriate.
 
No idea why this stuff is justified on technicality and allowed in these threads.
What are you talking about? What stuff? What technicality?
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort. You seem to be fine with gross generalizations from people like Paddington who have absolutely no way of knowing what an individual's relationship is with God. Passing judgement the way he does is gross and obvious.
Sparky, not that Joe needs me to defend him, but I'm not following you here. Joe has been clear that religion is okay and politics aren't. I haven't seen him be inconsistent with that. Here, we have a clear religion thread started by an OP who openly tells us that he is a born-again, fundamentalist evangelical Christian. With that in mind, I don't understand how you could not expect him to be judgmental and generalize all who don't agree with him. Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.

I do want to actually give some credit to Paddington and acknowledge that I've grown to appreciate him as this thread has grown. I expressed early on my distaste for his rigid message, his unwillingness to initially engage in discourse about the same, and his continuing errant use of capitalization (intentionally grammar errors just to stress a word is a pet peeve of mine). That said, where I now credit Paddington a ton is that the man is very consistent with his interpretation of the Bible. While I disagree with him about how his literal interpretation can still show a loving God (I believe a literal interpretation of the Bible paints God as a petulant, jealous *******), I nonetheless respect that he maintains that it is literal even through the good, the bad, and the ugly. I frankly find this position more refreshing and commendable than Christians like Osteen who prefer to focus on (and profit from) just the good or the more mainstream Christian who defends the Biblical passages that do not paint God in the best of light by claiming that particular Bible passage or story is either allegorical or subject to human error.
I appreciate much of your sentiment here. I would like to explainsome things. I don't feel that I am being Judgemental, although I realize that I am percieved that way by some. I believe in being a truth seeker, no matter where the truth leads you. I have done extensive reasearch on these things for decades. I have studied both the Bible.and the Scientific Evidence supporting the Bible plus history around it. I was raised in Public Schools and a University and learned the same stuff most people learned, but I also studied the other side of the issues. It's easy to convince someone of a view point when it's the only one they have ever heard.

I am not sure why you think I am unwilling to engauge in discorse, but I have to say that there is a lot to engauge in here, so I apologize if I missed a question from you. I am a Business owner and work a lot, so sometimes I get busy also. As far as the Capitalization, yes, many times it is for emphasis and to get the attention of the reader. Not trying to offend you. Honest. But I do have a responsibility to tell you the honest truth, even if it offends you, although, like I said, it is not my intention.
The engaging comment was aimed more towards the earlier life of this thread and your other threads (where it seemed like you'd just post every few months the same thing). I have much appreciated the engagement you've made over the last few weeks to months.

I want to assure you that you don't "offend" me in anyway. That's extreme and, frankly, I shouldn't be (and am not) offended by anything you are posting here. Certainly not the religious stuff as you are proselytizing what you are convinced the truth to be and with your clear conviction and the strictness of that "truth" nobody should fault you for that. I look at it like if I knew that an asteroid was going to obliterate Earth next year and how I would very likely be telling anybody who would listen that such is happening.

The errant capitalization is a pet peeve, not offensive. It's comparable to somebody driving slowly in the left hand lane, not putting away his shopping cart, not keeping up with pace of play on the golf course, etc.
 
I think the “unwilling to engage in discourse” comments probably are a response to posts about others “not being real Christians” and “this is the truth”. I get that you’re convinced of that, but softening the language a little could go a long way.
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
How exactly are you defining ministry here? I don't think I've ever heard it used in a context outside of religion with the exception of "ministry of defense" sorta stuff.
I hesitated to use the word here since it's strongly associated with religion. I mean it in a non-religious sense. Generic "teachings" or "life lessons" is more appropriate.
So like a life coach or motivational speaker?
 
Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.
Primarily because he's assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue. That's not allowed is my understanding. Not any different than "putting words in people's mouths"

Sparky:

What are you talking about?

What exactly do you mean by "assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue."

What are the example quotes of that to back up an accusation like that?

What positions am I assigning? What reasons to action? What specifically here are you saying I don't have a clue about?"

If you're going to make accusations like that, explain what you mean.
 
Last edited:
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort.

Exactly what are you talking about here?

Moderators and I sometimes remove posts that are over the line for what we ask folks to post here.

Whether I agree with the point or not has zero to do with it. What exactly are you saying?
 
Last edited:
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
How exactly are you defining ministry here? I don't think I've ever heard it used in a context outside of religion with the exception of "ministry of defense" sorta stuff.
I hesitated to use the word here since it's strongly associated with religion. I mean it in a non-religious sense. Generic "teachings" or "life lessons" is more appropriate.
So like a life coach or motivational speaker?
Yeah. That part of Osteen's shtick seems ok and I have no problem with him profiting off his talents. I realize that's only one variable in the calculation we're doing to determine if he's a scumbag.
 
I think the “unwilling to engage in discourse” comments probably are a response to posts about others “not being real Christians” and “this is the truth”. I get that you’re convinced of that, but softening the language a little could go a long way.
That's not an unwillingness to engage in discorse. It's me engaging in discorse and giving my honest opinion. I can back up my opinions with reason & evidence. If you question my opinion, ask me for evidence or for my reason for that opinion.
 
Last edited:
I think the “unwilling to engage in discourse” comments probably are a response to posts about others “not being real Christians” and “this is the truth”. I get that you’re convinced of that, but softening the language a little could go a long way.
That's not an unwillingness to engage in discorse. It's me engaging in discorse and giving my honest opinion. I can back up my opinions with reason & evidence. If you question my opinion, ask me for evidence or for my reason for that opinion.
Since you're up for honest opinions, I think your standards of reason and evidence aren't respectable and I surmise are likely a function of having a conclusion and then searching for things that confirm that conclusion rather than objectively seeking the truth. It's fine if you believe you've found the truth, but I'd suggest having some humility about it.
 
Question for anyone. Would you have a problem with Joel Osteen's ministry if he only taught about love, kindness, patience, and self esteem and used biblical stories to convey his message, leaving out any talk of salvation?
How exactly are you defining ministry here? I don't think I've ever heard it used in a context outside of religion with the exception of "ministry of defense" sorta stuff.
I hesitated to use the word here since it's strongly associated with religion. I mean it in a non-religious sense. Generic "teachings" or "life lessons" is more appropriate.
In that sense, no I'd have no problem with him teaching those things. At that point you are describing just about any/all motivational speakers, which is basically what he is anyway.
 
Further, I'm not sure then why you expect Joe not to allow it given that Joe allows posters to then challenge the OP's posts.
Primarily because he's assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue. That's not allowed is my understanding. Not any different than "putting words in people's mouths"

Sparky:

What are you talking about?

What exactly do you mean by "assigning positions and reason to action without having a clue."

What are the example quotes of that to back up an accusation like that?

What positions am I assigning? What reasons to action? What specifically here are you saying I don't have a clue about?"

If you're going to make accusations like that, explain what you mean.
I already answered this question and "he" in the comment was about the Paddington person, not you. I gave Zow the quote already. He took it as opinion. I didn't as it wasn't written that way. It was written as statement of fact and honestly uncalled for especially on a site where it's preferred to not put words in people's mouths.
 
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort.

It's tiring when you drop accusations like this and don't clarify.

Exactly what are you talking about here?

Moderators and I sometimes remove posts that are over the line for what we ask folks to post here.

Whether I agree with the point or not has zero to do with it. What exactly are you saying?
 
Last edited:
I think the “unwilling to engage in discourse” comments probably are a response to posts about others “not being real Christians” and “this is the truth”. I get that you’re convinced of that, but softening the language a little could go a long way.

This is a good point. Something I think Christians can do better with is trying more to meet people where they are. I find a little humility goes a long ways in helping your side be heard.

That doesn't mean you have to "water down" what you believe in the least. It's more an understanding the other person may not believe what you believe at all and trying to see things from their perspective will allow your message to be heard more clearly.
 
I can appreciate that. Even the verses I cited seem at odds with Jesus' typical message.
I see those specific verses as part of the larger pep talk that is going on to get the disciples to go out and do something that they would naturally be apprensive about. But I also see "Matthew" sprinkling in Old Testament stuff out of context, at least out of the context I believe that quotation of scripture concerns. Isn't the Micah reference being quoted generally believed to be about sacrificing children?
For me when it pertains to organized religion and the claim of “knowing” is where I have lots of problems.
I know that the odds are I've got lots of this wrong. As long as I got the part right that being wrong doesn't matter, then that's okay. If I am wrong about that then it still doesn't matter, just for a different reason
I appreciate your sentiment here very much because it loops back to what I see as the common theme of this thread which is that logic and reason will never get one to believe but faith will.
It is good for my soul to just state "I believe in crazy stuff". Stuff that is foreign to what we experience. Stuff that it is a fools earrand to try to get you to believe. The only messages I try to get you to adopt is that things just work better when we take care of each other. And that I hope that religion (in this context not the same as faith) doesn't get in the way. If Jesus has already paid for all our sins then there should be no need to be telling you that you still have a bill to pay, but instead you are free to try without worry that you'll end up with more debt.
.
Logic and reason are rooted in facts/evidence/data. They don't cross paths with faith/belief as faith/belief are positions people take beyond what logic and reason require.
So a somewhat typical Christian proof of the form-

1) State some questioned story from the Bible
2) Speculate ways that it might have possibly happened loosely tied to the narrative
3) Claim that since it could have happened then it must have happened exactly as it says in the Bible

is invalid? I mostly agree with you, but I think that logic and reason should, often it doesn't help frame and shape a belief. I mean it is bad enough to believe in crazy stuff like God dying and spending three days in hell, to add logically stupid stuff on top of that. (Yes, I know what I did here.)
A absolutely agree on the macro. When talking specific verses at face value with no context of the time/conditions, that's where I struggle.

Like the passage cranks brought up. I don't see it problematic at all. It highlights the seriousness of "no other gods before me" in very real terms. To me, that's all that passage is highlighting.
“No other Gods before me” suggests that you can still worship other gods. Just not before Him.
 
Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.
This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What word is that? :ponder:

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,
the Lamb who was slain,
whose blood set us free
to be people of God. (a random link)
Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)
 
Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.
This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What word is that? :ponder:

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,
the Lamb who was slain,
whose blood set us free
to be people of God. (a random link)
Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)
I like the KJV translation of 1 Corinthians 13. Instead of "love", it used "charity". I think "charity" takes a relatively abstract idea like "love" and makes it a bit more concrete.
 
Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.
This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What word is that? :ponder:

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,
the Lamb who was slain,
whose blood set us free
to be people of God. (a random link)
Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)
Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.
 
Tomorrow is Sunday. Find a good Bible believing Church and attend. One that serves by grace through faith alone.
This Sunday continued through 1 Corinthians. Probably quite a bit of which most of you heard before (either in context or out.).

1 Corinthians 13:1-13 (Not sure which version, emphasis mine)​
If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.  If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant  or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;  it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end.  For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part;  but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.  When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways.  For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.  And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.
Loving each other, as in taking care of each other is what matters. There are other messages, of course but over and over through the book, especially the last third or so the message is love.

Romans 13:10 states: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Galatians 5:14 (even in KJV): “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

What word is that? :ponder:

A versus or two earlier in Galatians Paul is speaking of liberty, the liberty to love and take care of each other.

Worthy is Christ,
the Lamb who was slain,
whose blood set us free
to be people of God. (a random link)
Free to be people that Love, which is greater than hope and even faith! So says the word of God!

(Oh, and the Gospel was Luke 4:21-30. I guess I can believe that Jesus was run out of a town or two during his ministry.)
Yes but just remember that these instructions are given to those who are already members of the body of Christ not unbelievers. They are instructions for Christian living. They are not instructions for how to obtain eternal life. Tearing a life is by race through faith In Christ Alone believing that he died and rose from the dead as a sacrifice for your sins.
I believe it is odd that non-believers are more likely to be carrying out this commandment than 'believers'.
 
You're just going to remove the posts of mine that you disagree with. It's not worth the effort.

It's tiring when you drop accusations like this and don't clarify.

Exactly what are you talking about here?

Moderators and I sometimes remove posts that are over the line for what we ask folks to post here.

Whether I agree with the point or not has zero to do with it. What exactly are you saying?
You asked me to drop it, so I did, but you still keep bringing it up. What direction do you want to go? This particular comment comes from removing a post of mine saying I have no control over you accepting/rejecting the way I use the board. You said I was putting words in peoples' mouths merely because I put a post on the board as I was catching up on my readings (hadn't been here for a few days) and it was right under some post I hadn't even read yet. You jumped to a huge conclusion which (shocker) was wrong and accused me of doing something I wasn't. I attempted to explain how I use this board, you doubled down and I responded. That response got removed. There was nothing wrong with it other than me not allowing your version of events to go uncorrected. I wasn't calling people names. I wasn't talking politics. Nowhere near your "line".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top