Good people in Hell.Bad people in heaven Subscribe   
  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/24/2001 1:26 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 26)  
 
  80.1  
 
Good people in Hell 
Ghandi: Was buddhist or hindu (I don't know) 
Ben Franklin: Praised beer (devil's drink) 
Moses: Never allowed to enter the promised land/paradise/Eden/heaven 
Julius Caesar: Pagan 
Hammurabi: Existed before Judiasm was even considered 
Martin Luther: Excommunicated 
Socrates: Pagan 

Bad People in Heaven 

Hitler: Christian, repented before dieing (I think) 
Pope Innocent II: Started the crusades 
Torquematta: Led the Spanish Inquisition 
Corrupt popes of the middle ages: They made the list of who got in. 
David Koresh: He WAS Christian in a sense

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Blood_Bought (RFI1965)   6/24/2001 2:31 am  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (2 of 26)  
 
  80.2 in reply to 80.1  
 
Thank you for reminding us all what an awesome God we have....That He forgives those who are repentant and gives them eternal life! 
There are a few errors in your post but no matter...Your post still provides us with a reminder of how great God is. 

Moses never entered the promised land, which was Israel but he sure did go to heaven. Hitler never actually confessed Jesus Christ as His savior although he did know the bible or at least parts of it, large portions, by memory....Personally, I think God sent him to a very special place considering what the bible says about those who persecute God's chosen people. The same is true for Martin Luther who was a Jew-hater at the very core...May he and Hitler live together in torment forever! 

David Koresh? Come on...Even if he did confess Jesus, he still went to hell. Jesus Himself said there would be those who call themselves Godly, that they would do wonders and say they were done in his name but at the time of their judgment, Jesus would say to these people, "I never knew you." 

It is people like yourself that remind me again, how awesome God is...why? Because before I came to know God, I was just like you...a cynical, religion hating basher of bible thumpers! God loved me then just as He loves you now. Maybe one day, just maybe, you will come to realize that....maybe not. Only you will be the one to make that choice.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
5.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   6/24/2001 9:06 am  
To:  Blood_Bought (RFI1965)   (3 of 26)  
 
  80.3 in reply to 80.2  
 
>Thank you for reminding us all what an awesome 
>God we have....That He forgives those who are 
>repentant and gives them eternal life! 
You got the message but I think you missed the boat. By what you have just agreed to then you are saying God cares more about if you believe something that might have been controversial or forced upon you but that being good regardless of making one mistake is not enough... reminds me of an old joke. 

Christians say Jesus is God 

God demands that you follow him before all others. 

Hitler demanded that eveyone follow him before any other. 

God puts people he doesn't like into hell, where he turns a blind eye to thier suffering. 

Hitler put people he didn't like into concentration camps, he then turned a blind eye to thier suffering. 

Billions have died in God's name. 

Millions died in Hitler's name. 

God is inconsistant in how he acts. 

Hitler was inconsistant in how he acted. 

(The joke can go on for pages, this makes the point though) 

Therefor Hitler either is God or is a close second. 

Does that mean that Hitler is Jesus or th Antichrist? 

Al Kupone 

Tweaking the nose of people who take themselves too seriously. (That's my job)
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Blood_Bought (RFI1965)   6/24/2001 9:09 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (4 of 26)  
 
  80.4 in reply to 80.3  
 
I might have missed the boat, but you most definitely missed the sarcasm....



In the name of Yeshua haMashiach,
God bless you,
Russ


 

 The
Spirit-Filled Christian
Forum  
Vsit My Family Website 
 
 

And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luke 3:22
 Vsit My MINISTRY Website 
 
 

  Watch this space for current promotions.
  
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   6/27/2001 3:15 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (5 of 26)  
 
  80.5 in reply to 80.1  
 
Kind of funny you mention Ghandi to buttress your argument and do not know if he was even a Hindu or Buddhist. As one very familiar with India, I can tell you he was a Hindu who knew very well the claims of Jesus Christ, but being a smart politician he also knew India to be 90% Hindu or greater and thus would not renounce Hinduism for Christianity. Recently (1999) one of his descendants lost an election there, despite the Ghandi name, for being a Roman Catholic. 
There is much to admire in a man like Ghandi and his nonviolent protests. But the bottom line is he believed (as a Hindu) that the rat, snake, cow and the like are all different gods deserving of worship. He rejected the one capable of forgiving his sins. If he is in hell (which he is unless he repented and sought forgiveness of sins through the blood of Jesus) it is due to his own choice and own sins - unless you want to argue (as some Hindus do) that Ghandi is deity and sinless. Of course he did not make this claim for himself nor did he rise from the dead to prove it - as Jesus did. 

By the way, the one known as Buddha was actually a disgruntled Hindu who left India when the people rejected his new religion and travelled to the far east where this new religion found a home. 

Where did you ever get the idea that going to heaven had anything to do with being good or bad?? Certainly not from the Bible, that is for sure.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/27/2001 5:12 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (6 of 26)  
 
  80.6 in reply to 80.5  
 
STEVENJN316 wrote:
I can tell you he [Ghandi] was a Hindu who knew very well the claims of Jesus Christ, but being a smart politician he also knew India to be 90% Hindu or greater and thus would not renounce Hinduism for Christianity.
  .
  .
  .
There is much to admire in a man like Ghandi and his nonviolent protests. But the bottom line is he believed (as a Hindu) that the rat, snake, cow and the like are all different gods deserving of worship. He rejected the one capable of forgiving his sins. If he is in hellit is due to his own choice and own sins
  .
  .
  .
Where did you ever get the idea that going to heaven had anything to do with being good or bad?
  It's rather universally agreed, is it not, that if Hell exists, it is a place of endless torment and punishment?  Would a just and loving God, such as the one in which we believe, send people there for no voluntary fault of their own?  Conceding that you've made the case for Ghandi to meet that fate, what of some primitive member of some aboriginal tribe somewhere, who might have been born, lived out his life to the best of his ability, and died, having never had any contact with Christianity, and having never heard of our God and having never had the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ.  Does he go to Heaven or to Hell?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   6/27/2001 8:51 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (7 of 26)  
 
  80.7 in reply to 80.1  
 
Dear DW, 
Got your facts messed up. Ghandii was a Hindu. Drinking Alchohol is not a sin unless like everything else, it is done to excess. Hitler did not repent before dieing. If he would have repented he would not have killed himself. He was baptised a Catholic, but never practiced his religion. He did practice beliefs from the east though. 

Now let us explore some of your mistaken concepts. Pope Innocent II started the crusaudes. The crusaudes were wrong? They were a response to the suffering Christian communities in the near east. It is true that some attrocities occoured in route, but these were met and taken care of. For instance, all of the leaders of the crusaude that sacked constantinopal were excommunicated. An excommunication is the most suvere punishment that the pope can give. This in essence says that they may not recieve the sacraments. Thus they cannot go to confession, nor recieve our blessed Lord in the appearence of bread and wine. This is a sentence of damnation. 

The Spanish inquisition lasted 500 years. I do not know anyone that lived that long. What you will find is that Toquematta was a very deeply religious man who was assigned to be the head Inquisitionor. He did it in obeydence to the bishops of Spain, but then you do not have the slightest idea of what the Inquisistion was about or what happened. The Inquisition was nothing more than a trial by the church to determine if something that one was teaching was orthodox Catholic teaching. The 3 religious groups in Spain were the Catholics, the Jews, and the Gypsies. The Inquisition was for the Catholics to the Catholics with one exception. When Jews were teaching heresy and labaling it as Christian. THis trial was held and if convicted the person had the chance to repent of his heresy and return to the Church. If they refused then they were handed over to the Spainish Government and the State would decided their fate. 

Corrupt Popes of the middle ages had a list of people getting to heaven? No Pope can declare anyone in heaven without proof. What is more the Catholic Church has never stated that only the Saints are in heaven. There is something called saints. Would it bother you if an immoral brain surgeon had to operate on you, but he had a clean record of recovery? Being Pope is not an inside tract to heaven. Being pope is a Job that Jesus picked for you. Popes can go to hell. This does not effect their judgement on Church doctrine or dogma. 

David Koresh was and did not follow christian teaching. He fathered several children from the members of his Church. This is as far away from Christian teaching as you can get. What one can decern from ones souls is the fruits of their labors. What came about from Davids teachings? 

Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/27/2001 9:13 pm  
To:  Corkybob   (8 of 26)  
 
  80.8 in reply to 80.7  
 
Your description of the Spanish Inquisition is a light one at best. Yes, they did have the option of converting to Christianity. However, this was so they could alledgedly get into heaven. If they did convert, many were killed immediately after. Also, many confessions of heresy, and conversions, were done at the hand of torture. 
Also, many of the popes WERE corrupt. Popes were not appointed by god, but by the government. Also, if you still believe that the popes were incorruptible, what was the main reason of Martin Luther leaving the church? 

And as to your excess thing... are you saying that I can kill, steal, plunder, swear, and rape as long as it is not done in excess?

---------------------------------- 

W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   6/28/2001 1:03 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (9 of 26)  
 
  80.9 in reply to 80.6  
 
Bob, is this an honest question. If it is I can provide some Biblical backing to explain it. 
However, it is my experience this is also often said to make a joke of Christ being the Savior of the world and those who personally reject Him, and are not looking for a Biblical answer. I do not know you enough to know your point of view on this question. 

I will make the time in the case of the first, don't have the time for insincere questions in the latter...I'm sure you understand. 

Let me know...
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   6/28/2001 1:44 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (10 of 26)  
 
  80.10 in reply to 80.9  
 
STEVENJN316 wrote:
Bob, is this an honest question. If it is I can provide some Biblical backing to explain it.

However, it is my experience this is also often said to make a joke of Christ being the Savior of the world and those who personally reject Him, and are not looking for a Biblical answer. I do not know you enough to know your point of view on this question.

I will make the time in the case of the first, don't have the time for insincere questions in the latter...I'm sure you understand.
  I think you're being evasive.  This is understandable, of course, for as far as I know, mainstream Christianity does not have a satisfactory answer to the question which I posed.  If I'm wrong, then I invite you to show me my error.  (Mormonism does have an answer, which I think, if believed, would satisfy any person's need to reconcile the notion of a just and loving God with the need to know and accept Christ in order to be saved.  I'll explain in more detail after I see your answer.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   6/28/2001 1:59 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (11 of 26)  
 
  80.11 in reply to 80.6  
 
what of some primitive member of some aboriginal tribe somewhere, who might have been born, lived out his life to the best of his ability, and died, having never had any contact with Christianity, and having never heard of our God and having never had the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ. Does he go to Heaven or to Hell? 
From what I have heard talking to a friend of mine that works at UPS after he did a stint for 2 years in Columbia as a missionary, this is the justification for the presence of missionaries. So that the "unknowing" won't be sentenced to an eternity of either damnation or purgatory (I've heard the case for both, but it basically means "no heaven") for being completely ignorant of what Jesus died for.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ManafterGod   6/28/2001 2:21 pm  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (12 of 26)  
 
  80.12 in reply to 80.1  
 
Good...God still loves you. 
Bad...you won't give Him a chance. And that's more than bad, that's sad. 



 Check out what the Holy Spirit is burning in the Holy Room! And see if you got the fire in you in my webpage!
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Rowan (POTIONS)    6/28/2001 9:13 pm  
To:  ALL   (13 of 26)  
 
  80.13 in reply to 80.12  
 
Is not the Protestant Faith, from which ALL the fundamental sects as well as the Baptists, Methodists, Episcapalians, etc. derive from, an off shoot from the Catholic Church? Did not disgruntled members decide that they did not like how the Catholic Church was being run and so break off to start their own Churches? Is not the Catholic Church [the church alledgedly begun by one of the Apostles] the original Christian church? 
If so................ 

Does it stand to reason that anyone not following the Catholic Faith, is not a true Christian but a "CULTIST"? 

I am not Catholic [nor many of the other things assumed by others here], nor do I believe this to be true, but found this question elsewhere [Author unknown ] and thought it to be applicable to a few of the posts and statements within posts here.


Contemplate the little things in life and then enjoy them all!..... Rowan





Many thanks to Valcali at Creative Signatures, who took my dream and made it real! 


Creative Signatures


For wonderful herbal products, please go to:


Medicine Song's Moon Lair

For you perfume or aroma items, please visit me at:


Common Scents Perfumes

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Corkybob   6/29/2001 6:25 am  
To:  DW (DeathWish123)   (14 of 26)  
 
  80.14 in reply to 80.8  
 
Dear DW, 
It had nothing to do with converting to Catholicism because the were already Catholic. Torture was only implimented when the person was being evasive with his answers. There was the rule of Gui. If the person was falsely accused the person or people making the false accusations would then have to suffer the consequences of the charges. Cohersion for an admission to heredical guilt was not wanted or needed. The persons accused were either guilty of heresy or they were not. It was the state of Spain that asked the Catholic Church to look into the heresy charges. It was the State and the people who wanted the Church to continue to have the inquisition in Spain. 

I never stated that there were no corrupt Popes. They were not, are are still not apointed by governments. In the past an emperor her or King there may have forced a man into the Papcy, but they would have to be elected by the college of cardinals. You have to remember that not all who claimed, nor all that forced themselves into the position were considered Popes. Many were called antipopes. As far as Martin Luther is concerned, it wasn't the Churches corruption of the time that lead him aay from the Church but a spiritual crisises. 

As far as the excess thing, it is your comments that are in excess, not the actions or supposed acions of those that you mentioned. 

Pax 
John
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   6/29/2001 8:16 am  
To:  Corkybob   (15 of 26)  
 
  80.15 in reply to 80.14  
 
This is so incorrect I don't even know where to begin! 
<Dear DW,> (Alright, nothing wrong with this so far) 

<It had nothing to do with converting to Catholicism because the were already Catholic.> 

Uh, actually, the Spanish inquisition targeted primarily Hebrew and Non-Christians, though they grabbed anyone who got in thier way with apposing viewpoints. 

<Torture was only implimented when the person was being evasive with his answers.> 

Torqyamata (SP) did make that statement, but if you READ other historical texts you'll find they considered even resisting being taken from home or work to be 'evasive' of the truth and but them to 'question' AKA torture! Also women were automatically assumed to be lieing unless they had both male witnesses AND/OR a powerful enough patron (Daddy, Hubby... generally being on the upper tier of the fudal system) 

<If the person was falsely accused the person or people making the false accusations would then have to suffer the consequences of the charges.> 

Usually this was only in the case where someone who was RICH or POWERFUL enough to petition the Pope refuted the charges. An example of this is that there was an entire village wipe out by the inquisition for supposedly hiding one person, count it, 1, not plural, a singular person. No consequences were ever administered for those actions other than being 'honored' by 'god' and bishop. (In the Au Sauce Lorain (SP) region quite a few villiages were wiped out actaully) 

<Cohersion for an admission to heredical guilt was not wanted or needed.> 

That one is half right, it was not needed, they killed you anyway. 

<The persons accused were either guilty of heresy or they were not.> 

Thus the fact that everyone was under the rule of guilty until proven innocent, eh? 

<It was the state of Spain that asked the Catholic Church to look into the heresy charges. It was the State and the people who wanted the Church to continue to have the inquisition in Spain.> 

The first part is true, that got the ball rolling on this bloody chapter, if you had more experience with history you would also know that it was mainly to take the jewish populace out of the picture as like Hitler they were accused of hoarding the money. Considering they were not allowed to own land in Europe (Holy Roman Empire, England, France and Spain as well as the other smaller countries) they did hoard money, but they did so because they couldn't hold land and had few rights. The inquisition itself went nuts and overboard though, it eventually died down after 100 years and dissappeared a little bit after 300 though it was on the books for another 75 after that, making it almost 450 years old when it was formally disbanded. 

<In the past an emperor her or King there may have forced a man into the Papcy, but they would have to be elected by the college of cardinals. You have to remember that not all who claimed, nor all that forced themselves into the position were considered Popes. Many were called antipopes.> 

For this I will start with a quote from father Malachi Martin, 'Money talks all over earth and up to the gates of hell'. This statement came from him on Art Bell and in this he said that even the Catholic Church took money for favors of a sort in this day. Even the Catholic Church admits that it had corruption problems in the Dark Ages, Middle Ages and Renisance. Antipopes are not Popes but people who took up the mantle of Pope, they are not considered as part of the Papal line. 

<As far as Martin Luther is concerned, it wasn't the Churches corruption of the time that lead him aay from the Church but a spiritual crisises. > 

Uh-huh. Then why did he post his problems with the Church, including the problem he had with the corruption from being able to buy your time out of purgatory with donations on that list, by nailing them onto the doors of a local Cathedral. 

Argue all you want, I still know my history. 

Al Kupone 

 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  DW (DeathWish123)   6/29/2001 10:07 am  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (16 of 26)  
 
  80.16 in reply to 80.15  
 
I was trying to get to that Martin Luther thing. The Indulgences. But it didn't buy you're way out of Purgatory. It bought your way out of hell. You could buy it with money you stole from a man you murdered, and it would still let you into heaven. Then you could buy them for people who were already dead (indulgence sellers we considered the first "ambulance chasers), and you could buy them for the future generations. So, in esscense, there WAS a list of who was getting into heaven.

---------------------------------- 
W.W.I.D 

What would I do? 

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, because I am the baddest mother in the valley.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/2/2001 1:17 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (17 of 26)  
 
  80.17 in reply to 80.10  
 
Bob, Can't you let a man's words stand. I said what I meant and why I said it. I am not being evasive for crying out loud. Here I am. Why so quick to allege 'mainstream' Christianity (what on Earth is that, non LDS??) has no answer??? 
You pose a serious question which I can provide a serious answer, and since I guess you wish to discuss it, here we go. But I insist on going in parts which we have to agree upon before we proceed to the next link of the chain of argument. So I will take small steps at a time, making sure we agree before we proceed. 

FIRST - To clarify the question. I assume you are speaking of the people in the world (past or present) who live in the undeveloped parts of the world, whether jungle or desert regions, who have NEVER even once heard of the name of Jesus Christ or the Christian religion. For example, that man living in a South American jungle community or that woman in a tribal African village. Are we only dealing with that issue and those people? YES?? 

SECOND - I am not being flippant, but can we agree that all people of whatever locale, are aware of the existence of the sun, moon and stars?? YES?? 

I won't always go this slow, but want to make sure the question is agreed upon.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/2/2001 10:35 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (18 of 26)  
 
  80.18 in reply to 80.17  
 
STEVENJN316 wrote:
FIRST - To clarify the question. I assume you are speaking of the people in the world (past or present) who live in the undeveloped parts of the world, whether jungle or desert regions, who have NEVER even once heard of the name of Jesus Christ or the Christian religion. For example, that man living in a South American jungle community or that woman in a tribal African village. Are we only dealing with that issue and those people? YES??
  Yes, for the most part.  Also people who may be yet to be born, to live, and to die, who will never hear of Jesus Christ or of Christianity.



SECOND - I am not being flippant, but can we agree that all people of whatever locale, are aware of the existence of the sun, moon and stars?? YES??
  With a few rare exceptions, yes.  I'm not sure how you think this is relevant, but once we've covered this, we can argue about those who, for example, might be born and die in a hospital or a prison or some other institution, without ever seeing the sky, as well as those who might be blind, and might somehow fail to be informed of these sights by others. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 10:58 am  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (19 of 26)  
 
  80.19 in reply to 80.18  
 
OK, so for now we are sticking to those who live in the more remote areas of the world AND who have a knowledge of the sun, moon etc. 
Now, can we agree on these things. 

1) Do you agree that people live in groups, call them tribes, villages or whatever, but even in the jungles it is not every man for himself. People naturally group themselves with other men and women and populate etc. 

2) Do you agree (remembering the people we are discussing) that it is natural for people to be "religious". What I mean is that even tribal villages in the Amazon have some sort of belief system in the supernatural, or spirit world. Maybe it comes out in a form of superstitions, traditions or the local witch doctor or medicine man, but all people in the general (that we are speaking of) are naturally religious. Again, I am not taking the leap of speaking of God or anything close to the Bible - just the supernatural or unexplained etc. You get the idea.... 

Finally, for my own interest, since you are LDS you must believe the King James Bible is God's Word as it is properly translated. My question is if you have read it cover to cover and know it well enough to understand some of its more general teachings. I ask this only so that I do not have to take the time to give references for GENERAL Biblical themes, though I will give them on the specific issues I will raise. 

So let me know on these three and we will go on.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
2.0 (1 vote) 
  
    
 


   From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/3/2001 1:48 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (20 of 26)  
 
  80.20 in reply to 80.19  
 
STEVENJN316 wrote:
1) Do you agree that people live in groups, call them tribes, villages or whatever, but even in the jungles it is not every man for himself. People naturally group themselves with other men and women and populate etc.
  Yes, I would agree with this.



2) Do you agree (remembering the people we are discussing) that it is natural for people to be "religious". What I mean is that even tribal villages in the Amazon have some sort of belief system in the supernatural, or spirit world. Maybe it comes out in a form of superstitions, traditions or the local witch doctor or medicine man, but all people in the general (that we are speaking of) are naturally religious. Again, I am not taking the leap of speaking of God or anything close to the Bible - just the supernatural or unexplained etc. You get the idea....
  I tend to think this, but not with great certainty.



Finally, for my own interest, since you are LDS you must believe the King James Bible is God's Word as it is properly translated. My question is if you have read it cover to cover and know it well enough to understand some of its more general teachings. I ask this only so that I do not have to take the time to give references for GENERAL Biblical themes, though I will give them on the specific issues I will raise.
  I've read through it, in its entirety, one or two times.  I'm afraid I can't honestly claim to have retained a good memory of most of the individual stories and details, but I think I have a pretty good general understanding.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 2:34 pm  
To:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   (21 of 26)  
 
  80.21 in reply to 80.20  
 
I kind of am going down a few paths but I promise to tie the strings together... 
Since we agree people live in individual tribes, villages, communitites and the like.... 
1) Would you agree that all tribes, villages etc. have a set of rules they self-govern themselves by? (otherwise it would be anarchy and the tribe would split into different tribes of similar rules). NOTE: I am not saying that there is an ordered system of government, or a special 'police like' force. Just that there is a certain 'code of living or conduct' which applies in every village. Would you agree? 

2) This is almost too foolish to ask, but will you grant that all those people who know of the existence of the moon, sun and stars ALSO are aware that they did not personally have anything to do with the creation of same? 

3) From your past knowledge of the Bible, would you agree that a consistent teaching of the Bible is that God is a JUST, FAIR judge. Meaning He is not a respecter of persons when it comes to judgment. That His character is not swayed. Again, this is ONLY in the context of judgment and not for example related to His choosing Israel as a special people to receive the Law, Temple worship details etc. and to be the nation which brought forth the Messiah. So the question is, do you agree the Bible says God DOES JUDGE, and is fair and just to all, in the area of judgment.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
1.5 (2 votes) 
  
    
 


  From:  Natureboy (Vamp_Rob)   7/3/2001 2:57 pm  
To:  StevenJn316 unread  (22 of 26)  
 
  80.22 in reply to 80.21  
 
how can god be fair in his judgement? according to you his motto is "Damn you all to hell, unless you believe in me, in which case you can comit mass genocide for all I care, you'll get into heaven anyway" 
Do you really call that fair? I don't. Also, your perception of 'fair' may not (and probably isn't) the same as mine.


 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   7/3/2001 3:15 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (23 of 26)  
 
  80.23 in reply to 80.21  
 
I, like most people, will have a little heartburn with #3. For the first point, not everyone is willing to CONCEDE there is a god in the first place, but I know you are addressing Bob and he does, so we'll leave it at that. But more importantly, your querry into the FAIRNESS of god is relative, and since we can only judge him by HUMAN standards, it seems that there is plenty of evidence (if you can call it that) in the bible that he is NOT fair, by our standards. 
A case that come to mind is that of the _____-tites (fill in the blank, my memory is failing me) where the OT god wiped out the decendents of an entire people simply because their ANCESTORS treated the Israelites with disregard during their flight from Egypt 100 years before. I don't care what rationale you use, this is hardly "fair and just" by any rational standard.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  StevenJn316   7/3/2001 3:31 pm  
To:  ))))====ffft!!=====--- ___ @___ (SeaBren)   (24 of 26)  
 
  80.24 in reply to 80.23  
 
Just to quickly clarify, the issue at hand is whether the Bible (and 'mainstream' Christianity [per Bob]) has an answer for the topic under discussion (people who never heard of Jesus and heaven/hell). 
Also, my point about the Bible saying God is a judge and is also just and fair is not about Earthly dealings, but about the issue of hell and eternal judgment/damnation - again the topic at hand. Actually God does as He pleases on Earth, for His purposes. Don't really want to sidetrack into the specifics you mention in this thread but we can discuss sometime if you are interested.
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


  From:  Bob Blaylock (Bob_Blaylock)   7/3/2001 7:21 pm  
To:  StevenJn316   (25 of 26)  
 
  80.25 in reply to 80.24  
 
STEVENJN316 wrote:
Just to quickly clarify, the issue at hand is whether the Bible (and 'mainstream' Christianity [per Bob]) has an answer for the topic under discussion (people who never heard of Jesus and heaven/hell).
  If you do have an answer, you're sure taking long enough to get to it.  Yes, I agree with your latest set of points, but I'm getting bored.  Please get to the main point, if there is one.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 To email me, remove the string .nospam from the email address which appears below.  DO NOT send me any form of advertising, chain letters, or other such garbage.  Spammers will be dealt with very harshly!

bob-blaylock.nospam@usa.net  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  Corkybob   7/7/2001 11:11 pm  
To:  Al Kupone (Kupone)   (26 of 26)  
 
  80.26 in reply to 80.15  
 
Dear Al, 
Actually it targeted herecy. Herecy is teachings that are said to be christian but are not. The Spanish inquisition targeted those Catholics that were teaching Manichism in the guiss of Albigensism and Waldencianism through Cathardism. They are all related. Yes there were a few Jews that taught this to disgruntled Catholics who in tern taught this to the uneducated Spainish population saying that it was Catholic (Christian) teaching. 

As far as Torqymata, he had to follow the guidelines set by Gui in the 13th century. To be guilty one has to have evidence that they indeed taught herecy. It wasn't a trial by ones peers by a long shot, but it was the best system of the day when trials were usually don by combat, or by fire, or by water, or some othe measure which did not included reason as for the verdict. 

The majority of those convicted of heresy were given light sentences. Very few recieved the death centence. Here is the kicker. Those that did recieve the death sentence were usually the rich for it was the rich middle class that were the most active in heresies because this would afford them to more priveledges. All heresies teach that sin of one sort or another is not sin at all, or that one need not bother themselves with sin. This means that someone could cheat, steal, or even murder their neighbor without guilt. This would mean that people in power would have the advantege and thus many of the rich middle class were the instigaters, but then the nobles also were involved. A popes word did not hold sway in a heresy trial. Galileo is an example of this. 

The Spainish inquesistion was nothing like Hitlers policy. If so the Inquisition would not have expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. Why expell them if they were the target? 

Problem is that Art Bell is not a theologian, nor did Malichi Martin write theological books. Malichi was an obscure teacher at the Univercity of Rome who became a sinsationalist by writting fiction. He had no inside knowledge of the Vatican nor did he even profess to have. I listen to one of his interviews with Art Bell and he was carefull not to comment yes or no but maybe. 

Martin Luther was upset that the Dominicans recieved the priveledge to accept indulgences of money instead of his order, the Benedictines. Read Thomas More on indugences. He felt that they were highly irregular, but were allowed. The idea of indulgences, all indugences, is sacrafice. The idea of money indugences was that the rich could suffer some discomfort by parting with their money that would be put to good use, in this case completeing St Peters Bacillica. If one did not have the money then they would or could recieve indugences by wearing sack cloth, by praying a specific number of prayers usually at a particular time or place. Money is but one of many ways one can sacrifice their comfort for the good of the world. What More was concerned about was that the poor may have felt that this is another injustice in that the rich would get to get off of suffering more than they. What Luther did was to vent his frrustrations, then continued to take down the articles and add new ones as he thought of them over a period of time until they reached the number of 95. 

Pax 
John 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited 7/8/01 8:20:24 PM ET by CORKYBOB 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
