Author Topic: Question for religious people II  (Read 1015 times)

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Question for religious people II
« on: June 06, 2009, 10:12:03 AM »
Assuming there is a "Heaven" and "Hell" (I use quotations as not every religion will refer to it as Heaven and Hell), and assuming that one of the major motivations of religion is to make people better human beings. Why is it that a mass murderer who later turns their life over to Christ (or whichever God is yours) might be admitted into "Heaven" while a person who spends their entire life helping others, never hurting a fly, would not be admitted without becoming part of "the group".  To me that seems a bit contradictory to the message that many religions try to push.  That idea doesn't urge people to be better people, it teaches them that they can get away with murder...as long as God is in their life.

One more question. If in order to get into "Heaven", you must ask for forgiveness and turn your life over to whichever God it is you worship. What happens to people who are never contacted by the outside world and therefor never introduced to any of these religions? An uncontacted tribe in the middle of a South American jungle would never make it to "Heaven", because they never had the opportunity.
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

CantCme213

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • Karma: 2
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #1 on: June 06, 2009, 10:55:50 AM »
send your question to:   

someGOD@heaven.com
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2009, 11:00:16 AM »
send your question to:   

someGOD@heaven.com

lol

I dont wanna get that new heaven virus...
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

OchoCinco

  • Guest
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2009, 11:52:37 AM »
ive got a question. Assuming the bible and all that is true, this means we came from 2 ppl. So this means we are all inbred, so if thats true why is there inbred within separte families. Shouldnt there be none of that if we technically came from 2 ppl?

i cant seem to get the wording write but i hope what u know what im getting at.
 

Teddy Roosevelt

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7538
  • Karma: 179
  • The Trust-Buster
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #4 on: June 06, 2009, 01:40:03 PM »
ive got a question. Assuming the bible and all that is true, this means we came from 2 ppl. So this means we are all inbred, so if thats true why is there inbred within separte families. Shouldnt there be none of that if we technically came from 2 ppl?

i cant seem to get the wording write but i hope what u know what im getting at.
My only guess is that when we started becoming more genetically diverse inbreeding became undesirable. Also I don't think the Bible explicitly says we all came from 2 people, simply that we are all descendants of them. That means God could of created more people who had offspring with Adam and Eve's children, grandchildren, etc.
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #5 on: June 06, 2009, 04:06:30 PM »
ive got a question. Assuming the bible and all that is true, this means we came from 2 ppl.

This guarantees that you are born a sinner and therefor must turn your life over to Christ if you want to be saved...Christianity is great huh?
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

OchoCinco

  • Guest
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #6 on: June 06, 2009, 04:23:18 PM »
ive got a question. Assuming the bible and all that is true, this means we came from 2 ppl. So this means we are all inbred, so if thats true why is there inbred within separte families. Shouldnt there be none of that if we technically came from 2 ppl?

i cant seem to get the wording write but i hope what u know what im getting at.
My only guess is that when we started becoming more genetically diverse inbreeding became undesirable. Also I don't think the Bible explicitly says we all came from 2 people, simply that we are all descendants of them. That means God could of created more people who had offspring with Adam and Eve's children, grandchildren, etc.

ah i c, never really read to much into it all.

ive got a question. Assuming the bible and all that is true, this means we came from 2 ppl.

This guarantees that you are born a sinner and therefor must turn your life over to Christ if you want to be saved...Christianity is great huh?


??
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #7 on: June 06, 2009, 05:06:17 PM »
You could argue, from a Christian standpoint, that the good man not part of the group does get in just fine. Christ said that he came for the sinners not the righteous and that yoiu send a doctor to heal the sick, not the healthy. This means that the sick become healthy through Christ, but the already healthy are just fine the way they are. Thus, they get in anyway.
 

.:DaYg0sTyLz:.

Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #8 on: June 06, 2009, 05:14:15 PM »
You could argue, from a Christian standpoint, that the good man not part of the group does get in just fine. Christ said that he came for the sinners not the righteous and that yoiu send a doctor to heal the sick, not the healthy. This means that the sick become healthy through Christ, but the already healthy are just fine the way they are. Thus, they get in anyway.

That sounds good, but thats not the way its taught and thats not what Christians believe.
"...and these niggas gettin tattoo tears...industry Bloods that show fear, when the authentics are near"
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #9 on: June 06, 2009, 09:19:13 PM »
You could argue, from a Christian standpoint, that the good man not part of the group does get in just fine. Christ said that he came for the sinners not the righteous and that yoiu send a doctor to heal the sick, not the healthy. This means that the sick become healthy through Christ, but the already healthy are just fine the way they are. Thus, they get in anyway.

That sounds good, but thats not the way its taught and thats not what Christians believe.


That's what I believe.
 

Triple OG Rapsodie

Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2009, 09:48:19 PM »
You could argue, from a Christian standpoint, that the good man not part of the group does get in just fine. Christ said that he came for the sinners not the righteous and that yoiu send a doctor to heal the sick, not the healthy. This means that the sick become healthy through Christ, but the already healthy are just fine the way they are. Thus, they get in anyway.

That sounds good, but thats not the way its taught and thats not what Christians believe.

That's what I believe.

I find it funny how a lot of people call themselves Christians and Catholics and go to church but yet they disagree on what is taught by the heads of their religion. My mom being an example. She's a Catholic but she supports gay marriage and the right to abortion when the Catholic Church is against it. She also doesn't believe in the concept of Hell. I know that a lot of people are in the same situation, yet they still call themselves Christians. Why don't these people just go ahead and call themselves agnostic? Why do they insist on claiming membership of a group who's beliefs aren't in sync with their own?
 

The Overfiend

  • Guest
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2009, 10:22:01 PM »
^

IMO people like that have a much more healthier approach to religion by not taking it so seriously as to feel the need to compulsively align themselves with a religious label that embodies their political views: it is an acknowledgement that the political stance of the religious organization is peripheral to the deeper understanding the organization claims to uphold and the personal belief and understanding that the individual encapsulates in the symbolism of the organization...

....I once went to mass and sat next to a Sikh, and being young and inquistive I asked why he was here and he gave a reply as to the effect of 'its all the same'. That shit blew my mind open. BOOM! Epiphany.



Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, Look, the Kingdom
is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you.

If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather,
the Kingdom is inside you and outside you.


When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are
children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you
live in poverty...



-Saying 3, The Secret Book of Judas Thomas the Twin.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2009, 04:08:40 AM by Illuminati Clique/Annunaki Posse »
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2009, 10:40:05 PM »
You could argue, from a Christian standpoint, that the good man not part of the group does get in just fine. Christ said that he came for the sinners not the righteous and that yoiu send a doctor to heal the sick, not the healthy. This means that the sick become healthy through Christ, but the already healthy are just fine the way they are. Thus, they get in anyway.

That sounds good, but thats not the way its taught and thats not what Christians believe.

That's what I believe.

I find it funny how a lot of people call themselves Christians and Catholics and go to church but yet they disagree on what is taught by the heads of their religion. My mom being an example. She's a Catholic but she supports gay marriage and the right to abortion when the Catholic Church is against it. She also doesn't believe in the concept of Hell. I know that a lot of people are in the same situation, yet they still call themselves Christians. Why don't these people just go ahead and call themselves agnostic? Why do they insist on claiming membership of a group who's beliefs aren't in sync with their own?


The head of my Church is Jesus and I believe in what he had to say. That takes precidence over anything any high priest, pope or patriarch has to say as far as I'm concerned. So I'd never call myself agnostic.

Don't know what your mother's reasons are but politically I don't want a ban on abortion because all it would do is drive it underground. Until we have an alternative to it, (like ectogenesis), it has to stay. I am also a strong believer in the complete separation of Church and State. So absolutely disagree with Gay marriage being made legal or a State issue. Much like I am against straight marriage in the same regard.

 

Sikotic™

Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2009, 01:54:35 AM »
If heaven was really that great and people were so sure it existed, they would kill themselves. Of course, they don;t because they doubt their belief in a heaven.
My Chihuahuas Are Eternal

THA SAUCE HOUSE
 

Sofa_King_Awesome

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
  • Karma: -417
  • Five poppin' Six droppin'
Re: Question for religious people II
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2009, 03:56:38 AM »
I find it funny how a lot of people call themselves Christians and Catholics
Catholics are Christians u dumb fuck. Suck dick &  lol @ u trying to kick knowledge. Anything u said is null and voided, u dummy
are you people that dumb and slow...lol...
Tuff one...but quik is up there...put it on me is classic imo and on some detox shit...dj lethal>>dj quik....rza>>premo.....dre>>>quik....rza=dre....dre, rza, quik, dj lethal>>>>>timberland, rockwielder, EIMINEM, mannie fresh