independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Do you think People Get Reprimended in the AfterWorld for taking The Lord's name in Vain?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 10/14/21 1:14pm

Astasheiks

avatar

Do you think People Get Reprimended in the AfterWorld for taking The Lord's name in Vain?

"Blowed Up" meaning severly disciplined or sent downstairs (kicked out of Heaven).

Taking The Lord's name in vain, Meaning saying "GD"???

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 10/14/21 2:33pm

onlyforaminute

avatar

Hard to answer because this sounds like it's referring to the long held roman/greek artistic view of the afterlife. I can play with it in a silly joking way but it doesn't reflect my beliefs. And in my belief taken seriously, this question don't compute. So, you know, are we being light-hearted or serious?
Time keeps on slipping into the future...


This moment is all there is...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 10/15/21 11:59am

Astasheiks

avatar

Well Group people I was around was trying to hip a homie dawg about this particular 10 Commandent. And it got Heated with how far would The Lord go with this:

One of the Ten Commandments are:
  • “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” ...

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 10/15/21 2:00pm

onlyforaminute

avatar

Astasheiks said:

Well Group people I was around was trying to hip a homie dawg about this particular 10 Commandent. And it got Heated with how far would The Lord go with this:



One of the Ten Commandments are:



  • “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” ...




That's cool. What were they saying it meant to them?
Time keeps on slipping into the future...


This moment is all there is...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 10/15/21 6:04pm

luv4u

Moderator

avatar

moderator

Astasheiks said:

"Blowed Up" meaning severly disciplined or sent downstairs (kicked out of Heaven).

Taking The Lord's name in vain, Meaning saying "GD"???

Ask when you get there lol

Edmonton, AB - canada
Mod Goddess of the SNIP & BAN Making Moves - OF4S
Ohh purple joy oh purple bliss oh purple rapture!
REAL MUSIC by REAL MUSICIANS - Prince
"I kind of wish there was a reason for Prince to make the site crash more" ~~ Ben
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 10/17/21 8:00pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

.

What exactly is the name of their "Lord/Master"?

.

Thank about it. You cannot take anyone's name in vain unless you know the name beforehand.

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 10/17/21 8:06pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

Astasheiks said:

"Blowed Up" meaning severly disciplined or sent downstairs (kicked out of Heaven).

Taking The Lord's name in vain, Meaning saying "GD"???

.

In the Book Of Genesis, did YHWH ["God"] not damned Sodom & Gomorrah?

.

In the Book Of Jonah, did YHWH not threaten to damn Nineveh?

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 10/17/21 8:08pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

luv4u said:

Astasheiks said:

"Blowed Up" meaning severly disciplined or sent downstairs (kicked out of Heaven).

Taking The Lord's name in vain, Meaning saying "GD"???

Ask when you get there lol

.

Atheist! no no no! [j/k wink ]

 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 10/18/21 4:12am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

No. Because God in the religious sense doesn't exist. And two, even if he did exist he wouldn't be nearly sensitive or capricious enough to ever give a damn what people think.


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 10/18/21 10:44am

onlyforaminute

avatar

Understanding cultural significance helps. Names in more cultures hold high importance, disrespect to a name held great significance.

“A person is called by three names: One that his father and mother gave him, one that people call him, and one that he acquires for himself. The best one is the one that he acquires for himself.” (Tanchuma, Vayakhel 1, ninth century CE)

The act of naming someone was a matter of great consequence in the Bible and in the ancient Near East. Indeed, it was widely believed that the name of a thing reflected its essence and very being; in other words, in some sense, the act of naming something meant creating it.

The same is implied in the opening creation story in Genesis (ch. 1), in which God names certain elements after creating them (vv. 5, 8, 10) and especially man and woman (Gen 5:2):

זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם. Male and female He created them. He blessed them and called them Man, on the day they were created.

The Egyptians believed that if you knew something’s name, you had power over it. If you wrote the name of a dangerous animal or evil spirit on pottery and smashed it you were symbolically killing the evil. So called “execration texts” have been discovered all over Egypt particularly near burial areas. According to one myth all Egyptians were given a secret name at birth by the goddess Renenutet which was never disclosed to protect them from harm.

To the Shakespearean question “What’s in a name?”, West Africa’s answer is “Everything”. In a world where even the act of speaking is infused with power, birth names ― whether protective or emboldening, proverbial or predictive, exalted or even seemingly indelicate ― are of the highest traditional significance. So, too, the ceremonies that surround them.
Time keeps on slipping into the future...


This moment is all there is...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 10/18/21 12:04pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

Understanding cultural significance helps. Names in more cultures hold high importance, disrespect to a name held great significance. “A person is called by three names: One that his father and mother gave him, one that people call him, and one that he acquires for himself. The best one is the one that he acquires for himself.” (Tanchuma, Vayakhel 1, ninth century CE) The act of naming someone was a matter of great consequence in the Bible and in the ancient Near East. Indeed, it was widely believed that the name of a thing reflected its essence and very being; in other words, in some sense, the act of naming something meant creating it. The same is implied in the opening creation story in Genesis (ch. 1), in which God names certain elements after creating them (vv. 5, 8, 10) and especially man and woman (Gen 5:2): זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם. Male and female He created them. He blessed them and called them Man, on the day they were created. The Egyptians believed that if you knew something’s name, you had power over it. If you wrote the name of a dangerous animal or evil spirit on pottery and smashed it you were symbolically killing the evil. So called “execration texts” have been discovered all over Egypt particularly near burial areas. According to one myth all Egyptians were given a secret name at birth by the goddess Renenutet which was never disclosed to protect them from harm. To the Shakespearean question “What’s in a name?”, West Africa’s answer is “Everything”. In a world where even the act of speaking is infused with power, birth names ― whether protective or emboldening, proverbial or predictive, exalted or even seemingly indelicate ― are of the highest traditional significance. So, too, the ceremonies that surround them.

.

And even with Shakespeare's Juliet asking "what's in name?" she knows what is in Romeo's surname and what it means. She asks that he doff his name and only then they can be together.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 10/18/21 1:46pm

toejam

avatar

No. I think when you die, you die, and that's all folks.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 10/18/21 2:16pm

lust

avatar

I hope not. I’m fucked if they do.

😂

Seriously though, I’d certainly hope and expect that an all powerful and all loving god would be less petty than the average human who you can insult and get forgiveness from.

And that’s without the impossibly large gap in the power dynamic.

My cat scratches me sometimes if I don’t feed her in time.
So, I feed her and give her a cuddle. I almost never throw her into a furnace at the offence.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 10/18/21 2:18pm

lust

avatar

But you know that God or GD or G—d isn’t actually its name though right?

It’s a job title.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 10/18/21 2:24pm

onlyforaminute

avatar

IanRG said:



onlyforaminute said:


Understanding cultural significance helps. Names in more cultures hold high importance, disrespect to a name held great significance. “A person is called by three names: One that his father and mother gave him, one that people call him, and one that he acquires for himself. The best one is the one that he acquires for himself.” (Tanchuma, Vayakhel 1, ninth century CE) The act of naming someone was a matter of great consequence in the Bible and in the ancient Near East. Indeed, it was widely believed that the name of a thing reflected its essence and very being; in other words, in some sense, the act of naming something meant creating it. The same is implied in the opening creation story in Genesis (ch. 1), in which God names certain elements after creating them (vv. 5, 8, 10) and especially man and woman (Gen 5:2): זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בְּרָאָם וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמָם אָדָם בְּיוֹם הִבָּרְאָם. Male and female He created them. He blessed them and called them Man, on the day they were created. The Egyptians believed that if you knew something’s name, you had power over it. If you wrote the name of a dangerous animal or evil spirit on pottery and smashed it you were symbolically killing the evil. So called “execration texts” have been discovered all over Egypt particularly near burial areas. According to one myth all Egyptians were given a secret name at birth by the goddess Renenutet which was never disclosed to protect them from harm. To the Shakespearean question “What’s in a name?”, West Africa’s answer is “Everything”. In a world where even the act of speaking is infused with power, birth names ― whether protective or emboldening, proverbial or predictive, exalted or even seemingly indelicate ― are of the highest traditional significance. So, too, the ceremonies that surround them.

.


And even with Shakespeare's Juliet asking "what's in name?" she knows what is in Romeo's surname and what it means. She asks that he doff his name and only then they can be together.


No jabs at Mr. Shakespeare. Anything more than juvenile knowledge realizes there was more to that conversation. Just noting that it's a general thing among all cultures actually, value in a name and how serious it can be taken.
Time keeps on slipping into the future...


This moment is all there is...
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 10/18/21 2:33pm

IanRG

onlyforaminute said:

IanRG said:

.

And even with Shakespeare's Juliet asking "what's in name?" she knows what is in Romeo's surname and what it means. She asks that he doff his name and only then they can be together.

No jabs at Mr. Shakespeare. Anything more than juvenile knowledge realizes there was more to that conversation. Just noting that it's a general thing among all cultures actually, value in a name and how serious it can be taken.

.

Agreed

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 10/18/21 3:00pm

IanRG

lust said:

I hope not. I’m fucked if they do. 😂 Seriously though, I’d certainly hope and expect that an all powerful and all loving god would be less petty than the average human who you can insult and get forgiveness from. And that’s without the impossibly large gap in the power dynamic. My cat scratches me sometimes if I don’t feed her in time. So, I feed her and give her a cuddle. I almost never throw her into a furnace at the offence.

.

As a non believer, I think you are less fucked than a believer.

.

If you blaspheme as a person who does not believe in God, you are not taking your Lord's name in vain. Whereas a believer who blasphemes is going against their beliefs.

.

So, as you say, it comes down to forgiveness. I believe that God knows what is in my heart and mind (and am not interested in seeing people take this thread off-topic to this point), so if I say something that does not show love and respect, I can be forgiven if I recognise that what I did was just an outburst that I did not truly mean (for example), then I know that I can be forgiven.

.

However, where this blasphemy is done by a believer and it causes others to loose faith and the believer is not repentant, has that person accepted their error and accepted the forgiveness through Christ? Here I am thinking that the sins allowed or done by the church are far more important and are figuratively taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see this as a power imbalance but as a choice that believers make in their thoughts, words and deeds.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 10/18/21 3:26pm

lust

avatar

IanRG said:



lust said:


I hope not. I’m fucked if they do. 😂 Seriously though, I’d certainly hope and expect that an all powerful and all loving god would be less petty than the average human who you can insult and get forgiveness from. And that’s without the impossibly large gap in the power dynamic. My cat scratches me sometimes if I don’t feed her in time. So, I feed her and give her a cuddle. I almost never throw her into a furnace at the offence.

.


As a non believer, I think you are less fucked than a believer.


.


If you blaspheme as a person who does not believe in God, you are not taking your Lord's name in vain. Whereas a believer who blasphemes is going against their beliefs.


.


So, as you say, it comes down to forgiveness. I believe that God knows what is in my heart and mind (and am not interested in seeing people take this thread off-topic to this point), so if I say something that does not show love and respect, I can be forgiven if I recognise that what I did was just an outburst that I did not truly mean (for example), then I know that I can be forgiven.


.


However, where this blasphemy is done by a believer and it causes others to loose faith and the believer is not repentant, has that person accepted their error and accepted the forgiveness through Christ? Here I am thinking that the sins allowed or done by the church are far more important and are figuratively taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see this as a power imbalance but as a choice that believers make in their thoughts, words and deeds.



But as a non believer I go straight to hell so it seems kinda moot that I’m not in trouble for a bit of name in vain stuff.
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 10/18/21 3:53pm

fortuneandsere
ndipity

"Your mother sucks cocks in hell, Karras, you faithless slime" is one of the best lines in all cinema.

But is it taking the Lord's name in vain, if indeed Pazuzu doesn't believe in him?

Do you have to be a believer to blaspheme? Does God take offense if somebody likens him to Santa Claus, aesthetically, that is, with the white beard and stuff.


Picturing God as a White Man Is Linked to Racial Stereotypes about Leaders  - Scientific American

The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 10/18/21 3:57pm

IanRG

lust said:

IanRG said:

.

As a non believer, I think you are less fucked than a believer.

.

If you blaspheme as a person who does not believe in God, you are not taking your Lord's name in vain. Whereas a believer who blasphemes is going against their beliefs.

.

So, as you say, it comes down to forgiveness. I believe that God knows what is in my heart and mind (and am not interested in seeing people take this thread off-topic to this point), so if I say something that does not show love and respect, I can be forgiven if I recognise that what I did was just an outburst that I did not truly mean (for example), then I know that I can be forgiven.

.

However, where this blasphemy is done by a believer and it causes others to loose faith and the believer is not repentant, has that person accepted their error and accepted the forgiveness through Christ? Here I am thinking that the sins allowed or done by the church are far more important and are figuratively taking the Lord's name in vain. I don't see this as a power imbalance but as a choice that believers make in their thoughts, words and deeds.

But as a non believer I go straight to hell so it seems kinda moot that I’m not in trouble for a bit of name in vain stuff.

.

Do you?

.

Perhaps, but I don't speak for God.

.

I do not believe that Indigenous Australians or Māori are damned to hell for not believing before colonisation. I do not believe that good Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc will be excluded. I have often said here that I believe that all being a Christian believer does is give you the inside running. This is assuming my beliefs are more correct than others' - as all people, including athiests, believe about their own beliefs - if they did not then their beliefs would change to the ones they believe are more likely to correct than other's.

.

Pope Benedict has said that he believes that non-believers and followers of other faiths can make it to heaven - it is up to God. What heaven is exactly and exactly how we get there is only at best obliquely known. As you said, it is all about forgiveness by God who loves us all. So much of what Jesus taught to the Apostles was to stop the Apostles thinking this is an exclusive club - James and John asking to sit on the right and left of Jesus, their mother standing up for them, the acceptance of others preaching, the rebuking of the Apostles, especially Peter who Jesus knew would be the rock on which Jesus' church would be built. And so much is as if it is an exclusive club.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 10/18/21 4:26pm

lust

avatar

“ I do not believe that Indigenous Australians or Māori are damned to hell for not believing before colonisation”

But they do now? So by spreading the word, Christians have dammed people to hell who don’t accept said word?

I mean, that’s consistent with mainstream Christianity isn’t it?
If the milk turns out to be sour, I aint the kinda pussy to drink it!
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 10/18/21 5:55pm

IanRG

lust said:

“ I do not believe that Indigenous Australians or Māori are damned to hell for not believing before colonisation” But they do now? So by spreading the word, Christians have dammed people to hell who don’t accept said word? I mean, that’s consistent with mainstream Christianity isn’t it?

.

You have to read the whole of my response and not just pull a bit out - This only leads you away from what I said as we have seen before. Crucially edited out comments followed on from this to say:

.

IanRG said:

I do not believe that Indigenous Australians or Māori are damned to hell for not believing before colonisation. I do not believe that good Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc will be excluded. I have often said here that I believe that all being a Christian believer does is give you the inside running. This is assuming my beliefs are more correct than others' - as all people, including athiests, believe about their own beliefs - if they did not then their beliefs would change to the ones they believe are more likely to correct than other's.

.

Pope Benedict has said that he believes that non-believers and followers of other faiths can make it to heaven - it is up to God.

.

.

My thought processes start from the fact that majority of people are not Christian and this is often circumstantial - they were before Christ's time on earth, they were in places where the word of God was unknowable or they were born in culture that has different beliefs. You don't get more mainstream than the Pope - half the world's Christians are Catholic. Many of Sacramental Christian churches (High Church Anglican, Orthodox etc) are closely related and in regular communion.

.

All your edit has done is allow you to create a misrepresentation of what I said and what "mainstream" Chistianity believes - Can you find a mainstream Christian document that says we must evangelise to all those Godless people round the world so that they can be condemned to hell because without this, they are not already condemned. Obviously not - it is not a mainstream Christian objective to conscript for hell.

.

Instead what is said is what I said - It is up to God and I see no reason to restrict God to excluding people that are good and loving who genuinely follow as much of Christ's teaching as Christians, just differently because their morals, ethics, spirituality, integrity, love and care come through a different upbringing and experience.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 10/19/21 5:00am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

lust said:

“ I do not believe that Indigenous Australians or Māori are damned to hell for not believing before colonisation” But they do now? So by spreading the word, Christians have dammed people to hell who don’t accept said word? I mean, that’s consistent with mainstream Christianity isn’t it?

.

You have to read the whole of my response and not just pull a bit out - This only leads you away from what I said as we have seen before. Crucially edited out comments followed on from this to say:

.

IanRG said:

I do not believe that Indigenous Australians or Māori are damned to hell for not believing before colonisation. I do not believe that good Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus etc will be excluded. I have often said here that I believe that all being a Christian believer does is give you the inside running. This is assuming my beliefs are more correct than others' - as all people, including athiests, believe about their own beliefs - if they did not then their beliefs would change to the ones they believe are more likely to correct than other's.

.

Pope Benedict has said that he believes that non-believers and followers of other faiths can make it to heaven - it is up to God.

.

.

My thought processes start from the fact that majority of people are not Christian and this is often circumstantial - they were before Christ's time on earth, they were in places where the word of God was unknowable or they were born in culture that has different beliefs. You don't get more mainstream than the Pope - half the world's Christians are Catholic. Many of Sacramental Christian churches (High Church Anglican, Orthodox etc) are closely related and in regular communion.

.

All your edit has done is allow you to create a misrepresentation of what I said and what "mainstream" Chistianity believes - Can you find a mainstream Christian document that says we must evangelise to all those Godless people round the world so that they can be condemned to hell because without this, they are not already condemned. Obviously not - it is not a mainstream Christian objective to conscript for hell.

.

Instead what is said is what I said - It is up to God and I see no reason to restrict God to excluding people that are good and loving who genuinely follow as much of Christ's teaching as Christians, just differently because their morals, ethics, spirituality, integrity, love and care come through a different upbringing and experience.


But lust's point was about what mainstream Christianity believes, not what you personally believe. And mainstream Christians believe that the only path to God is through Jesus. He died 'for our sins' so we can ask God for forgiveness, in order that we may have eternal life. No mention of any other way of reaching him, or being forgiven by him, other than to try and follow Jesus' example.

In other words, according to mainstream Christian thought and tradition, if you were born before Jesus came to earth, you're screwed.
If you live in a part of the world, after Jesus died, but unvisited by Christian missionaries, you're also screwed.
If you live somewhere Christianity is actually present, but decline to follow its message, in spite of which you're a really nice person, according to the Bible and mainstream Christian thought you're also royally screwed.
If you die at a very young age, too young to understand religion, again - unless perhaps the bible contains a disclaimer for that age group - you're screwed again.

Turns out God of the Bible is quite judgemental and can't wait for his chance to punish those who don't follow his egotistical ways (... do as I say not as I do/or did by wiping out the Canaanites) with eternal damnation.



The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 10/19/21 7:00am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

I believe the commandments were given only for the people of God to actually follow. So all the 'unbelievers' opinions wouldn't matter in this discussion etc etc

This would be for Hebrew-Jewish believers and disciples of Christ

Also "Every idle word shall be brought up again in the day of judgement"

.

The Old Testament identifies several ways in which the third commandment can be violated. Most obvious is to blaspheme or curse the name of God, which we saw already in Leviticus 24:16. But there’s more to the commandment than that. The third commandment also forbids empty or false oaths: “You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 19:12; cf. Hos. 10:4a). When you make a declaration, swearing by God’s name, it must not be a false promise or one you do not intend to keep.

.

.

How do you define the sin of taking the Lord's name in vain?

Well that's a quote from the Ten Commandments: "Don't take the name of the Lord your God in vain." The idea of vanity (and I think the Hebrew carries this connotation) is "don't empty the name."

So it doesn't just refer to a certain tone of voice or a certain use of the word. It's dealing with God and speaking of God in a way that empties him of his significance.

This includes both throw-away words—like "God!" or "Jesus!"—as well as speaking about him in trifling and flippant ways. Not just swear ways but cheap ways, low and insignificant ways that just treat him like a commodity. And when you hear them you sense that there is no weight to that sentence, no corresponding emotion to that statement. It seems to have just been gutted.

So I think taking the Lord's name in vain is more than "O my God!" or "Jesus Christ!" It is that plus more.

...

What Does It Mean To Take...anity.com)

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
That's what U want, TRANSCENDENCE. When that happens, O Boy -Prince 2015
https://www.youtube.com/w...nm2Qq6QTFs
#IDEFINEME
“Strong people define themselves; weak people allow others to define them.” ― Ken Poirot
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 10/19/21 11:57am

IanRG

fortuneandserendipity said:

IanRG said:

.

My thought processes start from the fact that majority of people are not Christian and this is often circumstantial - they were before Christ's time on earth, they were in places where the word of God was unknowable or they were born in culture that has different beliefs. You don't get more mainstream than the Pope - half the world's Christians are Catholic. Many of Sacramental Christian churches (High Church Anglican, Orthodox etc) are closely related and in regular communion.

.

All your edit has done is allow you to create a misrepresentation of what I said and what "mainstream" Chistianity believes - Can you find a mainstream Christian document that says we must evangelise to all those Godless people round the world so that they can be condemned to hell because without this, they are not already condemned. Obviously not - it is not a mainstream Christian objective to conscript for hell.

.

Instead what is said is what I said - It is up to God and I see no reason to restrict God to excluding people that are good and loving who genuinely follow as much of Christ's teaching as Christians, just differently because their morals, ethics, spirituality, integrity, love and care come through a different upbringing and experience.


And mainstream Christians believe that the only path to God is through Jesus. <blah> <blah> <blah>


.

There is so much wrong in this. However I will not feed the troll. This part of the reply is NOT for you, but is for others, so I will only say:

.

1 Lust said specifically in regard to my comment about Indigenous Australians and Māoris - "So by spreading the word, Christians have dammed people to hell who don’t accept said word? I mean, that’s consistent with mainstream Christianity isn’t it?" He imagined that the mainstream Christian positions was that people in Australia and New Zealand would have been able to go to heaven before Christians had a chance to spread the word but not after if they rejected this. He did not say what this poster said.

.

2 Mainstream Christians believe in the Triune God, so we, including me, believe that the only path to God, the Father is through Jesus, God, the Son with the help of God, the Holy Spirit - It is nonsense to say the only way to God is through Jesus. We believe that the path to God, the Father is through Jesus - I am not deciding for Jesus whom will be forgiven or how he will decide this, no matter how many others think they can.

.

The topic is about taking the Lord's name in vain, and whether people will be reprimanded for doing so: We will all be held responsible for all of our sins and recognsied for the good we have done, but we are also forgiven for our sins if we accept our failings, seek forgiveness for them and accept that they have been forgiven. The reprimanding is through the cleansing as in Isaiah 1:25-26, 4:4, 6:5-7, Micah 7:8-9, Malachi 3:2-4. 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 45-46 is about dead Jews who worshiped Jamnia - clearly they did more than just take the Lord's name in vain as they had a god before God - Yet they were prayed for by the Jews so that this sin could be forgiven after death ie whilst they where in Purgatory. So yes, we will be reprimanded but we can be forgiven and this "we" can include those who worshiped otherwise.

.

This part of the reply is for you. Please DO NOT respond to me ever.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will never seek to cancel you with an anti-free speech signature
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 10/20/21 9:01am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


And mainstream Christians believe that the only path to God is through Jesus. <blah> <blah> <blah>


.

There is so much wrong in this. However I will not feed the troll. This part of the reply is NOT for you, but is for others, so I will only say:

.

1 Lust said specifically in regard to my comment about Indigenous Australians and Māoris - "So by spreading the word, Christians have dammed people to hell who don’t accept said word? I mean, that’s consistent with mainstream Christianity isn’t it?" He imagined that the mainstream Christian positions was that people in Australia and New Zealand would have been able to go to heaven before Christians had a chance to spread the word but not after if they rejected this. He did not say what this poster said.

.

2 Mainstream Christians believe in the Triune God, so we, including me, believe that the only path to God, the Father is through Jesus, God, the Son with the help of God, the Holy Spirit - It is nonsense to say the only way to God is through Jesus. We believe that the path to God, the Father is through Jesus - I am not deciding for Jesus whom will be forgiven or how he will decide this, no matter how many others think they can.

.

The topic is about taking the Lord's name in vain, and whether people will be reprimanded for doing so: We will all be held responsible for all of our sins and recognsied for the good we have done, but we are also forgiven for our sins if we accept our failings, seek forgiveness for them and accept that they have been forgiven. The reprimanding is through the cleansing as in Isaiah 1:25-26, 4:4, 6:5-7, Micah 7:8-9, Malachi 3:2-4. 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 45-46 is about dead Jews who worshiped Jamnia - clearly they did more than just take the Lord's name in vain as they had a god before God - Yet they were prayed for by the Jews so that this sin could be forgiven after death ie whilst they where in Purgatory. So yes, we will be reprimanded but we can be forgiven and this "we" can include those who worshiped otherwise.

.

This part of the reply is for you. Please DO NOT respond to me ever.


Wut? lol


The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 10/20/21 9:10am

fortuneandsere
ndipity

IanRG said:

fortuneandserendipity said:


But lust's point was about what mainstream Christianity believes, not what you personally believe. And mainstream Christians believe that the only path to God is through Jesus. He died 'for our sins' so we can ask God for forgiveness, in order that we may have eternal life. No mention of any other way of reaching him, or being forgiven by him, other than to try and follow Jesus' example.

In other words, according to mainstream Christian thought and tradition, if you were born before Jesus came to earth, you're screwed.
If you live in a part of the world, after Jesus died, but unvisited by Christian missionaries, you're also screwed.
If you live somewhere Christianity is actually present, but decline to follow its message, in spite of which you're a really nice person, according to the Bible and mainstream Christian thought you're also royally screwed.
If you die at a very young age, too young to understand religion, again - unless perhaps the bible contains a disclaimer for that age group - you're screwed again.

Turns out God of the Bible is quite judgemental and can't wait for his chance to punish those who don't follow his egotistical ways (... do as I say not as I do/or did by wiping out the Canaanites) with eternal damnation.


.

There is so much wrong in this. However I will not feed the troll. <nonsense control freakery> but is for others, so I will only say:

.

1 Lust said specifically in regard to my comment about Indigenous Australians and Māoris - "So by spreading the word, Christians have dammed people to hell who don’t accept said word? I mean, that’s consistent with mainstream Christianity isn’t it?" He imagined that the mainstream Christian positions was that people in Australia and New Zealand would have been able to go to heaven before Christians had a chance to spread the word but not after if they rejected this. He did not say what this poster said.

.

2 Mainstream Christians believe in the Triune God, so we, including me, believe that the only path to God, the Father is through Jesus, God, the Son with the help of God, the Holy Spirit - It is nonsense to say the only way to God is through Jesus. We believe that the path to God, the Father is through Jesus - I am not deciding for Jesus whom will be forgiven or how he will decide this, no matter how many others think they can.

.

The topic is about taking the Lord's name in vain, and whether people will be reprimanded for doing so: We will all be held responsible for all of our sins and recognsied for the good we have done, but we are also forgiven for our sins if we accept our failings, seek forgiveness for them and accept that they have been forgiven. The reprimanding is through the cleansing as in Isaiah 1:25-26, 4:4, 6:5-7, Micah 7:8-9, Malachi 3:2-4. 2 Maccabees 12:39-42, 45-46 is about dead Jews who worshiped Jamnia - clearly they did more than just take the Lord's name in vain as they had a god before God - Yet they were prayed for by the Jews so that this sin could be forgiven after death ie whilst they where in Purgatory. So yes, we will be reprimanded but we can be forgiven and this "we" can include those who worshiped otherwise.

.

<nonsense control freakery>. Please DO NOT respond to me ever.



Wrong again, resident holy man. I am not trolling. I'm making serious points.


1) Lust was quoting your previous point, proposition. He was not agreeing with you. He doesn’t ‘imagine’, for instance, “that the mainstream Christian positions were that people in Australia and New Zealand would have been able to go to heaven before Christians had a chance to spread the word” - they’re your words.

He was merely using your words as a juxtaposition to another point about chances of going to hell if they decline Christian teaching – and then in his following third/final sentence, he referenced the mainstream Christian idea that people go to hell if presented with Christian teaching but choose to reject it. Many Christians believe this and accept it as a given, even if you and the Pope don’t.


2) Yes, mainstream Christians believe in the Trinity, but they also believe the only way to reach God/heaven/the hereafter is through Jesus. (This is mainstream Christian thought, so if you don’t believe this, Ian, then you’re the one deviating). In other words, follow Jesus’ teaching with particular emphasis on asking God to forgive us for our sins, because noone is perfect. As we all suffer from ‘original sin’. Jesus himself said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Are you choosing to ignore this verse, master Ian?

I attended two typical Christian churchs, one Anglican, another Baptist, and they made it very clear just being a good person, or endeavouring to be a very good person, was not enough if you wanted to make it to heaven. They also, seemingly, as appears the case with every mainstream Christian denomination, struggled to define exactly the ‘Holy Spirit’, when asked. No surprise, then, many Christians also struggle to define and elucidate the Trinity, or Triune God; how exactly it’s comprised. If so many followers are confused by it, you might think the Bible would be clearer about the concept. No wonder, then, other denominations have emerged that reject the Trinity idea entirely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml



[Edited 10/20/21 9:16am]

The hypocrisy of the far-left is something else.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - this is where all religions fall down.
 Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply   New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Do you think People Get Reprimended in the AfterWorld for taking The Lord's name in Vain?