posted
I don't think JB was expressing disbelief in that statement. I think he was saying, basically, "Yes, Jesus didn't mention baptism as a requirement for salvation in that quote. But I think there are quotes where he talks about salvation without mentioning belief in himself too - this doens't make the belief in him part less essential."
posted
Right. I'm questioning the assertion that because Jesus didn't mention baptism every time he mentioned salvation, baptism isn't required. I'm sure that Jesus didn't mention every single requirement for salvation every time he talked about it.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello Belle! I just taught a Sunday School lesson yesterday on baptism, so it’s fresh in my mind. Let me give you a different way to look at the LDS perspective. I do realize that this is not what you believe; my purpose is only to help you understand out beliefs a little better.
First I want to put baptism into the context of what we call the “plan of salvation,” God’s plan and design for His children. This is a rough outline of the Plan: (This outline was distilled from LDS scripture by Elder Boyd K. Packer, August 10, 1993 at the CES educator fireside. The outline is his; the baptism analysis is not, but I think it’s sound.).
1-Pre-earth life –we lived before we were born A- Spiritual creation–God created our spirits. He also created the earth spiritually before it was created physically. B-Agency – He gave us the ability to choose good or evil C-Council in Heaven – Father in Heaven presented us with a plan: He wanted us to be like Him. We wanted to be like Him, too. In order to be like Him, we needed to have a body. Thus He created the earth. He knew that we would sin, and so in this Council He asked for someone to come and be our Savior. Christ volunteered to take upon himself our sins. Satan also wanted to save us, but He wanted to force us to obey, and destroy our agency. He persuaded one third of the spirits to follow him. All of them were cast out together. The rest of us, everyone alive, chose to come to this earth. We all knew that it would be difficult, but we also wanted more than anything else to have a body.
2-Mortality A-Physical creation – God created the earth physically. He also created Adam and Eve. B-Adam and Even partook of the fruit and thus were cast out of Eden. As Mormons we believe that this was an essential part of the plan, so that they could know could and evil and be able to choose having been influenced by both. a-The Fall introduced Spiritual Death–separation from God b-As well as Physical Death–Adam and Eve could now die, whereas before the Fall they could not. C-Atonement–Christ overcame the effects of the Fall. This means that He conquered a-Sin, and b-Physical Death 3-Life after Death –when we die, out bodies and spirits separate A-Spirit World–all spirits go here, good spirits to paradise and bad spirits to spirit prison. This is a kind of hell, but in LDS theology it’s not permanent. B-Judgment C-Resurrection–we will each be resurrected, and at that point our spirits and bodies will reunite.
Okay, with that as background, let’s talk about baptism. This is a scripture taken from our book The Pearl of Great Price. It’s God talking to Adam about why he needs to be baptized:
quote:Moses 6:58-59 : Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:
59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;
At birth our spirits enter our bodies. It’s the reason we came to earth, the reason we shouted for joy at the chance of being born. We wanted to gain a body.
At death our spirits leave our bodies. Our bodies are buried beneath the earth. They will rise again in the Resurrection, when our spirits enter them again. This is, in a way, a second physical birth: the birth of our eternal, resurrected bodies.
So, the Resurrection overcomes physical death.
But there’s still spiritual death to account for. In order to live with God and Jesus Christ forever, we must overcome that second death. When we are baptized, we are completely immersed beneath the water, as though it were a grave, and then we leave the water, spiritually reborn. Baptism symbolizes both birth and the resurrection. After we are baptized we can receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. That’s why baptism is the essential first step, the gateway to overcoming spiritual death–our Spirits must be cleansed from the effects of the Fall.
Birth happens to everyone. So will Resurrection. But baptism happens only to those who choose it. But for all who wish to “be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come,” baptism is an essential ordinance.
That’s why, in our theology, baptism isn’t optional. It’s part of the order of things – spirit enters body at birth, spirit needs cleansing because of the effects of the Fall, body dies because of the Fall, spirit is cleansed through baptism and the Holy Ghost, body is renewed in the Resurrection.
Seeing it this way helped me understand for the first time why baptism isn’t an arbitrary rule, but an essential element of salvation.
Again, this is only to help you see the LDS perspective. I know that your feelings are tender on this subject, and I do not want to offend in any way. Take care! –Emily
[Edit for clarifying outline format, which didn't work too well. How do you get it to indent when you need it to? Sorry!]
posted
Beverly- The quotes about not procrastinating the day of your repentance don't meant death bed conversion isn't possible. They mean you shouldn't live a sinful life planning to convert at some latter date. I think this is something Belle would pretty much agree with.
I'm reminded of The Chamber . I don't know if it came across in the movie, but in the book the criminal really did seem to turn his life around as death approached. And he realized what he had done was terrible.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, in my post I said that those examples were specific to those willingly putting off what they know is right and that the theif on the cross is a good example of it being possible. I was trying to find all the scriptural references I could on the subject. I also mentioned the parable in D&C that I couldn't find.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the Jewish groups were willing to give some resources towards removing the names and ensuring that they stay removed?
I know that I would be willing to give almost anything to ensure that my grandparents are not baptized. Are they only baptizing people who were killed in the camps, or were they baptizing survivors too?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy I'm still not thinking you understand me. When Jesus talks about salvation, he mentions belief in him, acceptance of him as the Son of the Father, etc. So, he IS stating what is necessary for salvation. What do you think he's leaving out? What other requirement is there?
My position is Jesus stated exactly what was required for salvation, and there is no ambiguity that belief in Him is a necessity. What I'm also certain of (and where we disagree) is that anything else is just superfluous - it's nice to do, it doesn't hurt anything to be baptized or to try and do good works for the church, but they aren't requirements and they can't earn you a spot in heaven. In fact, we are told specifically that we cannot earn our way into heaven, all our good deeds are like filthy rags.
Emily, thanks for the information. I'm afraid that it comes down to the exact same thing though - you are using sources to back up your belief that I don't believe are divinely inspired. Therefore, I cannot accept them as scripture, and they cannot help sway my position.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have an ongoing project in my scriptures that someday I'll make a thread about. Go through the scriptures (or just the Bible), and mark every scripture that says, "Do this, and you'll be saved" or some variation thereof.
There are about five variations on "you'll be saved.", and so far I've found almost thirty version of "Do this."
I don't think we can pick one and say its the only one that counts.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would any of you consider as valid the complaints of a Muslim in regards to the Christian belief that Christ enabled salvation for him, regardless of his particular religion?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would consider it a valid complaint if a Muslim complained about a Christian telling him, "You can be Muslim all you want in this world, because it won't really matter; we're going to baptize you after you die to fix that mistake, so it's no sweat."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Whether or not the Muslim chooses to accept the baptism after his death -- and he'd be pretty stupid NOT to, really, since the afterlife he'd be experiencing by that point would clearly not be the Muslim one; I reject utterly the bizarre Mormon claim that dead people sit around going, "Oh, looks like the Mormons were right -- but you know, I just don't feel like being a Mormon, so I'd rather hang out here" -- is irrelevant.
The issue is that people are TELLING him that his decision is neither final nor respected. It's like saying, "Sure, honey, I trust you to stay home alone. And just in case, I've arranged for a babysitter to drop by after dark in case you get lonely."
posted
Tom, it isn't. If you think that is what happens, then you don't understand and you're not listening to the explanations.
I'm all for accomodating neighbors, but if someone is determined to be offended, there's not much anyone can do.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
The Mormons, second-guessing that religious choice, baptize that person after they die (assuming they have the right to do so, depending on circumstances).
Mormons believe that this person has the freedom to decide whether or not to accept the baptism after death. Nifty. But leaving aside the fact that refusing the baptism is a darn stupid thing to do (and would never in fact be done by anyone of more than rudimentary intelligence, in that situation), the issue is whether the Mormons have, in THIS world, respected that person's decision to belong to another faith.
Clearly, they have not. They do not. And, by their own scriptures, they CANNOT.
Now, I understand the dilemma. Inherently, by their very understanding of the universe, they HAVE to do these things. But they should then expect to routinely be called on the carpet for it, because these things are, by their very nature, offensive.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I do understand what you're saying. You're saying that you believe that Jesus gave one requirement for salvation, and that requirement is belief in him. I'm saying that throughout Jesus' entire ministry, he gave a lot more requirements than that. It's illogical to say that they aren't really requirements just because he didn't mention every requirement every time he talked about salvation.
But really, it's just coming down to our fundamental disagreement about what Jesus said. I believe that when he said that he was the only way to get to heaven, he didn't mean that belief in him was the only thing needed. In other words, no matter how many other commandments you keep, if you don't believe in Christ, it's all for naught.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a lot of things offensive to others about the LDS faith. And yeah, most of us are pretty used to it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think you're assuming that the afterlife will be a distinctly and indisputably Mormon afterlife. If you have some sort of advanced knowledge about what the afterlife will be like, please share.
quote:Someone makes a religious choice.
What about people who don't make a religious choice, or those who didn't have access to all the different options?
[ April 13, 2004, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle asked whether baptism is really necessary for salvation or not. She linked this to deathbed repentance:
quote: wish a mormon member here would address my example about the deathbed conversion without a baptism being possible.
quote: I trust God. I don't think Jesus would mislead us. If baptism were necessary for eternal life, in other words if he required something other than belief in Him, he would have stated so, and clearly.
I don't find that statement clearly found in the Bible, and references to the Book of Mormon of course cannot convince me, since I don't accept it as scripture.
Belle- you cited John 3:16 but I think you meant John 3:5 which has been mentioned which was given as clarification of John 3:3 (Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.)
what does christ mean by "born again"? Born again Christians believe, as it appears you do, that one is born again when one accepts Christ as savior. Mormons believe that verse 5 of John 3 is the clear and unambiguous answer: (Nicodemus asked " How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother?s womb, and be born?"- clearly he didn't understand what Christ meant by "born again".
To us, this is the answer: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To us it couldn't be clearer that baptism is required.
In other places in the NT the purpose of baptism is taught. Paul taught the Romans that those who are baptized are the ones who will rise up like Christ in a glorious resurrection (Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:)
And Peter taught that baptism is indeed an ordinance of salvation (1Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.)
So from our point of view even the Bible alone lays a firm foundation for the necessity of baptism, and it is even clearer in our other scriptures. However, as is always the case there are alternative readings and understanding of these same scriptures and so starting from a different point of view there is no real way to arrive at agreement by referring to scriptures.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happens to people who are baptized after death, but unable to make the decision about accepting it (dementia, mental illness, etc)?
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it necessary to admire someone else's wrong choices?
Everyone has freedom to do whatever they want, but if you watch someone choose to, say, walk out on a highway with their eyes shut, is it really necessary to admire them for it?
quote:What happens to people who are baptized after death, but unable to make the decision about accepting it (dementia, mental illness, etc)?
After death? I don't think those will be a factor.
For this life, we are only accountable for as much as we are able to understand. In other words, if you don't have the capacity to make the choice, free pass.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But leaving aside the fact that refusing the baptism is a darn stupid thing to do (and would never in fact be done by anyone of more than rudimentary intelligence, in that situation)
Tom, without speaking to the merits of posthemous baptism, I think you are assuming a lot when you assume no one with complete knowledge would reject God. Christians hold that Adam and Eve did just that, as did Satan and the angels that rebelled with him.
The knowing, willing decision to reject God's will is at the heart of Christian doctrine. The seemingly "unintelligent" choice is the reason such extraordinary steps were needed to correct the problem.
If it were a simple matter of showing people Hell and showing them Heaven ans daying choose, the Atonement would have been unnecessary.
posted
"Tom, I think you're assuming that the afterlife will be a distinctly and indisputably Mormon afterlife. If you have some sort of advanced knowledge about what the afterlife will be like, please share."
Well, assuming the afterlife DOESN'T look like what any other major religion thinks it'll look like, I think it's highly likely that dead people are going to be taking stock of their situations. I'm acting under the assumption that most people, confronted with actual life after death, will have brains.
"Are there no such thing as wrong decisions?"
Sure there are. Except that, with no more proof than I have about the nature of the universe, you're assuming that you're going to get the last word about it after I'm dead. That's offensive, period.
"Christians hold that Adam and Eve did just that, as did Satan and the angels that rebelled with him."
Ah. But it's rather a different type of choice, isn't it?
posted
So, is the consensus that there are religions that believe offering posthumous baptism does have a spiritual impact on the person it is offered to? I can understand that, and would not perform such an action to one who belonged to that religion. Nor would I do so to someone who says, "Don't do this when I'm dead." One of the primary reasons I joined up was because of an emphasis on Free Agency, and I'm stickin' to that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle--You're welcome--I realize that I used scriptures not in your canon, and that this doesn't change your views. I wanted to help you understand ours better, and I hope I succeeded in that. Emily
Posts: 189 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not until my funny gets acknolwedged, it only pokes its head out of the dark every few weeks and it would be nice if there were someone there to great it.
quote:Ah. But it's rather a different type of choice, isn't it?
Tom, what does this mean? My post was explicitly not an attempt to justify posthemous baptism but rather an attempt to discuss your working assumption that someone with knowledge of what's coming will always choose heaven. So I'm not sure what your question means.
posted
You know, baiting Katie could grow into a full-time diversion
I converted (from theism) to the LDS church partially due to an emphasis on Free Agency. I love the idea that we are responsible for our own choices, (though we get some help) even when we're wrong. It's just both more natural and more comforting to me-the blame is mine, and the credit is mine, for decisions I make.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
It means that it's one thing to actively choose to rebel against God, and another thing to actively disobey Him, and another to decide to belong to another religion -- or no religion at all -- in the afterlife.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:To us it couldn't be clearer that baptism is required
To me it couldn't be clearer that he was delineating flesh from spirit, and that the very next verse confirms this when he clarifies that flesh can only give birth to flesh and spirit gives birth to spirit. I think he's saying the first birth is of the flesh, but unless the man is born again of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom. Therefore, it's quite easy to accept "born of water" as meaning born of a woman, physical birth of the flesh. And born of spirit, refers to being born again, which happens when one accepts Christ. I've already explained my interpretation of this verse, and it hasn't changed from yesterday.
As for the statement in Peter's epistle, that one is much more ambiguous and I can easily see why many interpret it as baptism being necessary for salvation. It follows the verse about Christ preaching to the prisoners which is a cause of much debate also. Peter liked to keep commentators busy, I suppose.
Let me state that I don't deny the powerful symbol that baptism is and I hold it sacred. I don't think the process should be stopped and I think it's something every believer should do because it is a symbolic representation and a public declaration.
That said, I see the baptism referred to here by Peter as referring to the symbol. The flood symbolizes baptism, and the baptism symbolizes salvation. But it is not the baptism that saves - it is what the baptism symbolizes. The death and resurrection of Christ. Peter continues in the last part of the verse to say "It saves you in the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
The baptism alone cannot save you, it is only what the baptism symbolizes.
From this I contend that baptism cannot save you - if you are baptized and you do not do so as a symbolic representation of your faith in the resurrection, then you've accomplished nothing but getting your hair wet. From that, it logically flows that belief in the resurrection and Christ's forgiveness of our sins is what is necessary.
Some people interpret this verse as saying that baptism MUST accompany the belief in order for salvation to be achieved, I contend that it does not, and Peter is pointing out instead the symbology and then pointing the readers toward the truth - you are saved by the resurrection not the "removal of dirt from the body" The physical is downplayed here, the spiritual is emphasized. Baptism is a physical act. Peter seems to be stressing the spiritual baptism, that which is accomplished by the Holy Spirit (the baptism of fire, which John the Baptist said Jesus would bring) when one is saved.
I just don't think an actual physical ritual is required.
quote:However, as is always the case there are alternative readings and understanding of these same scriptures and so starting from a different point of view there is no real way to arrive at agreement by referring to scriptures.
No, there may not be a way to arrive at agreement, but unfortunately many people think they can use scriptures to hurt people and say very painful things to them. Please note I am not questioning your salvation. I am not telling you that your children are going to hell. (not that any hatracker has said that, but it is something I've heard in connection with this argument) I am not trying to use the scriptures to tell you that only those people who walk lock-step with my churches' rituals and requirements makes it into heaven.
My version of the Gospel is so simple and beautiful. Jesus is waiting for you, just believe in him. That's it. No hoops to jump through, no papers to sign no complicated ceremonies. Just believe, just follow John 3:16, the "Gospel in a Nutshell".
I don't understand why this version of the Gospel is so disparaged and looked down upon. How does my view threaten you? I'm not saying that baptism prevents you from being saved, I'm just saying it's a great thing to do but not necessary.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It means that it's one thing to actively choose to rebel against God, and another thing to actively disobey Him, and another to decide to belong to another religion -- or no religion at all -- in the afterlife.
Any differences between the three situations are trivial.
posted
Before I get shouted down I haven't had time to read all this but I'd like to add my two pennies.
I am of Jewish descent - my grandfather was Jewish but my father was raised by his mother who wasn't. I am LDS - surely I have a right to decide whether I wish my direct ancestors to be baptised for the dead.
If they're not happy about it they can take it up with me when I'm dead too. No-one is making them accept the ordinances - but they have the choice - its the same as if they were Catholic, Muslim or any other faith.
I would not be submitting random names to the temple for jews killed in the holocaust but would only those directly related to me (and by directly related I mean grandparents, great grandparents etc not third cousins 14 times removed).
Posts: 394 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any differences between the three situations are trivial."
I strongly disagree. A conscious decision to rebel against God stems from a decision to question God's authority; a decision to disobey God stems from a doubt of His capacity for punishment. I would wager that the number of people who could do either when faced with the existence of God is in fact vanishingly small.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Tom and Dag are saying basically the same thing but for different outcomes.
Because of free will, both outcomes are still possible.
And my thoughts on this are that if one wants to be offended by something, nobody's gonna convince them they shouldn't be offended. Works that way all the time.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The baptism alone cannot save you, it is only what the baptism symbolizes.
From this I contend that baptism cannot save you - if you are baptized and you do not do so as a symbolic representation of your faith in the resurrection, then you've accomplished nothing but getting your hair wet. From that, it logically flows that belief in the resurrection and Christ's forgiveness of our sins is what is necessary.
Well, I would certainly sgree with what you said here. However, this kind of leads into another old christian debate which is the works vs faith thing. I won't go into that, but to me this is the same issue. Is it the works that save you or the faith that the works are the outward symbol of? To me they are one and the same- if you have the faith then you will do the works and if you simply do the works with no accompanying faith then the works are meaningless (which, as I understand it is basically your position). However, to me there is one more component which is the faith without the works. Can such a thing exist? I don't think so. If one is really trying to follow christ then their works will show that it is so. Now, it could be debated whether baptism is really one of the fruits of conversion in the same way that say, not committing adultery or honoring your parents are, but I think that is ancillary to the primary idea that faith without works isn't faith at all.
quote:I don't understand why this version of the Gospel is so disparaged and looked down upon. How does my view threaten you? I'm not saying that baptism prevents you from being saved, I'm just saying it's a great thing to do but not necessary.
Well, if this view is disparaged then I would guess it would be because of the natural hypocrisy of humans. It is an easy thing to say "I accept Christ so I am saved," it is much more difficult for a person to say "I accept Christ so I will try to do as he did". I am not saying that this is the view that you support, quite the opposite I am sure. But experience indicates that talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.
As far as why I feel threatened by your viewpoint- I don't fell the least bit threatened. You are of course perfectly free to believe that way. The reason that I disagree with you is because my view of the purpose of this life is much different than yours. Basically as I see it everyone who comes to earth and lives has already done what you said- they say that they accept Christ and will follow him. The purpose of this life is to back up that claim by how you live and how you treat others.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For this life, we are only accountable for as much as we are able to understand. In other words, if you don't have the capacity to make the choice, free pass.
This is where you lose me. If we are accountable in this life for our actions, then baptising those who already rejected the LDS version of Christianity is pointless. They should be held accountable for their own situation. If they never heard about it in the first place, then they should be given the free pass, as they didn't have the capacity to choose in the first place. So, why baptise the dead?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capacity, as I understand Kat's point, doesn't mean ability to choose-- but refers to mental status.
As in, a baby does not have the capacity to understand right and wrong, and cannot be held accountable.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I also don't understand why so many churches add things to the gospel.
Isn't the idea that the grace of Christ covers your sins and belief on him is all that is required such a beautiful thought?
I think it's human nature to try and add things to it, to try and insert certain rituals and things that you "have to do". We like to fill our life with works, because true grace is so foreign to us, it's hard to accept. But the works profit us nothing, the Bible is very clear about that.
Someone I really admire talked about the grace of Christ and said that he took all our sin and suffering and gave us all his grace. It was the most unequal transaction in the history of the universe, but love is like that.
I accept Christ's love, and I accept his grace, and I fight against the tendency to want to justify myself through works. I think it's human nature to rebel against true grace, because it's not something our flesh natures can understand.
I know you disagree, but I think the idea of requiring things for salvation is just another way of trying to justify things through our own works. Baptism cannot save you. We agree on that - baptism alone is not sufficient. I contend that nothing IS sufficient, nothing but the blood of Christ that was shed for our sins. And if you have that - why would you need anything else?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle:"I guess I also don't understand why so many churches add things to the gospel."
Now really, do you think those churches believe they are adding things to the gospel? Of course not. Instead, they might believe that you are ignoring parts of the gospel. (I'm not saying you are, just what they might say.)
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"The purpose of this life is to back up that claim by how you live and how you treat others. " Where in my views do you find that I wouldn't support this statement?
I hope that I am not depicting your stance unfairly here. I know that you believe that being Christian also involves living in a certain way. However, in a previous post you said this:
quote: My version of the Gospel is so simple and beautiful. Jesus is waiting for you, just believe in him. That's it. No hoops to jump through, no papers to sign no complicated ceremonies. Just believe, just follow John 3:16, the "Gospel in a Nutshell".
To me this indicates that you believe that the purpose of this life is primarily to come to the realization that one needs to follow Christ.
To me that isn't the case at all, rather, the purpose of this life is to experience the difference between following Christ and not following Christ. The difference between these two ideas is subtle, and maybe I have mischaracterized your position. Please let me know if this is the case.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
