Left Behind Christians.

[Mr. Blah]

Would there be left-behind Christians?

What are the criteria of left-behind Christians?
Doctrinal errors?
Unresolved sins?
Fleshly living (materialism, hedonism, prosperity gospel, etc.)?

Would I be left-behind if I'm continuously posting threads who favors rationalism/atheism?

 

[floss]

Very simple, anyone who doesn't put 100% faith in Jesus as their savior. Doesn't matter what you post here, as long as you realized this flesh is weak and needed higher power to save you. Don't rely on yourself and put all your chips on Jesus is all I can say.

 

[Kung Fu]

Very simple, anyone who doesn't put 100% faith in Jesus as their savior. Doesn't matter what you post here, as long as you realized this flesh is weak and needed higher power to save you. Don't rely on yourself and put all your chips on Jesus is all I can say.

What about indigenous groups living on isolated islands who have never heard of Jesus, are they going to be saved?

 

[floss]

Re-read what I said, my answer is in there.

 

[Haich]

I don't think Christianity touches upon indigenous people on remote lands. If the word of Jesus hasn't reached you how can you be condemned ?

 

[Haich]

Would I be left-behind if I'm continuously posting threads who favors rationalism/atheism?

Are you Christian or an atheist ? You seem to post a lot of threads directed at Christianity. Were you an ex Christian or something ?

 

[Kung Fu]

Re-read what I said, my answer is in there.

You say higher power and then in the next sentence say put all your "chips" on Jesus. You inconsistency is duly noted. Now if you don't mind please answer the question.

 

[Kung Fu]

I don't think Christianity touches upon indigenous people on remote lands. If the word of Jesus hasn't reached you how can you be condemned ?

Under Christine doctrine if you don't believe Jesus to be your Lord and Savior you're considered condemned.

 

[Etagloc]

Would I be left-behind if I'm continuously posting threads who favors rationalism/atheism?

It certainly wouldn't help. Also, I really don't like the loaded language that you use. So someone who opposes belief in God is a "rationalist"? And therefore, by that logic, someone who believes in God is unrational- not based on some argument or evidence but based on the manipulation of language. If atheism truly lived up to its scientific pretensions, it would only need arguments and evidence rather than such cheap psychological tricks that would manipulate the weak-minded.

 

[Lady]

What about indigenous groups living on isolated islands who have never heard of Jesus, are they going to be saved?

You bring this up so often. Do you have a friend or relative hiding on a remote island?

 

[Kung Fu]

You bring this up so often. Do you have a friend or relative hiding on a remote island?

I bring it up because not one of you Christians have answered the question. Perhaps you could tell me. People that haven't heard of Jesus and die not knowing Jesus what's to happen to them?

 

[Mr. Blah]

Are you Christian or an atheist ? You seem to post a lot of threads directed at Christianity. Were you an ex Christian or something ?

It's complicated.

 

[Mr. Blah]

What about indigenous groups living on isolated islands who have never heard of Jesus, are they going to be saved?

You should ask this directly to Jesus.

The safest answer: I don't know.
It's not my problem after all. It's theirs.

 

[floss]

You say higher power and then in the next sentence say put all your "chips" on Jesus. You inconsistency is duly noted. Now if you don't mind please answer the question.

What do you think I mean when I said put all your chips on Jesus?
I already give my answer but you just don't want to accept it. No one is saved unless they have a savior, that is not simple enough?

 

[Haich]

What do you think I mean when I said put all your chips on Jesus?
I already give my answer but you just don't want to accept it. No one is saved unless they have a savior, that is not simple enough?

So you're saying people on remote islands and indigenous people who haven't heard of Jesus won't be saved?

 

[Kung Fu]

What do you think I mean when I said put all your chips on Jesus?
I already give my answer but you just don't want to accept it. No one is saved unless they have a savior, that is not simple enough?

What I don't accept is you beating around the bush but I think with this post we can put together what you're trying to say. Your god isn't kind and or fair. According to you these indigenous people who have never heard of Jesus are condemned because they never had a chance to put all their chips on a human. By that same logic babies and kids are also condemned. Floss, you're not a very good missionary lol.

 

[Mr. Blah]

It certainly wouldn't help. Also, I really don't like the loaded language that you use. So someone who opposes belief in God is a "rationalist"? And therefore, by that logic, someone who believes in God is unrational- not based on some argument or evidence but based on the manipulation of language. If atheism truly lived up to its scientific pretensions, it would only need arguments and evidence rather than such cheap psychological tricks that would manipulate the weak-minded.

Yes, I agree with you in some points.

The Christian apologists use some degree of rationalistic explanations (e.g. laws of logic) in their defenses.
I have read some of them.

 

[floss]

What I don't accept is you beating around the bush but I think with this post we can put together what you're trying to say. Your god isn't kind and or fair. According to you these indigenous people who have never heard of Jesus are condemned because they never had a chance to put all their chips on a human. By that same logic babies and kids are also condemned. Floss, you're not a very good missionary lol.

The path is pretty narrow. I didn't make the rules. Babies and kids goes to heaven. My God love little children.
You probably get tired of hearing this but Jesus is the only path to the Father. You don't have to like what I believe.

 

[Etagloc]

What I don't accept is you beating around the bush but I think with this post we can put together what you're trying to say. Your god isn't kind and or fair. According to you these indigenous people who have never heard of Jesus are condemned because they never had a chance to put all their chips on a human. By that same logic babies and kids are also condemned. Floss, you're not a very good missionary lol.

I don't think the Bible answers everything. For example, I think the Bible basically leaves you with no idea what exactly heaven is like. And I think you've brought up another unanswered question- what about people who never heard about Jesus? I have no idea. My guess would be that maybe God decides on a case-by-case basis regarding them.

I don't necessarily think that we have all the answers regarding who goes where in the afterlife. For example, if someone is a sincere follower of another religion and they honestly don't realize that Christianity is the truth, I don't necessarily think they go to hell.

I do believe Christianity is the true religion but I don't think anyone really knows exactly what happens after we leave. But if I'm on my deathbed and I have to put my chips on anyone, I'm putting all my chips on Jesus. As I do now.

 

[Kung Fu]

The path is pretty narrow. I didn't make the rules. Babies and kids goes to heaven. My God love little children.
You probably get tired of hearing this but Jesus is the only path to the Father. You don't have to like what I believe.

So 10 year old Muslim, atheist, Hindu, Buddhist, and etc. kids go to Heaven? I thought you have to believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savior to get into Heaven?

You're not making sense. In the first sentence you say babies and kids are going to Heaven but yet in the next sentence you state that to get to the Father and, therefore, Heaven you have to believe in Jesus. You're contradicting posts are getting confusing. So which is it?