Lycorth Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I have given you evidence of at least one very large Christian sect that teaches contrary to what you are saying, but maybe you still have some fundamental ideas entrenched in you, I recognize that some teach that humanity is inherently evil, but WHY can't you take your tinted glasses off and realize that your fundies are not the only ones out there. And I have given you evidence that both the Xian Bible and most major sects have traditionally taught precisely what I and the majority of everyone else here are saying - that humanity is evil because they are naturally prone to sin. If we are not evil, the need for a saviour evaporates. Don't lecture me, bitch - "my fundies" are every single traditional Xian sect. Far more than the actual fundamentalists, who didn't come about till roughly the 19th century, if I'm not mistaken. That's over 2000 fucking years - the entire length of time Xianity has existed. Furthermore, I have no "fundamental" ideas entrenched in me, you miserable little shit. Unlike you, I am not still knee-jerk defending a deranged cult of misanthropic spook-worshippers. You've got big balls to come here and preach to me that I'm wrong when you haven't done dick-squat to defend your position, save regurgitate verses from that book of man-made madness. You want to piss on me and my extensive knowledge of this sick ass religion, which I was a part of for 27 years - longer than you were alive? Piss on you, instead. Now I will do as Vigile is doing, and wash my hands of this time-wasting thread, before I spend one more minute fuming at a fucking computer screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 All I wanted was for someone to admit that a large number of Christians do not see humans as inherently evil. I mean, the largest group in Christianity teaches that we are not inherently evil. Very simple, it's very easy to figure out what Catholics main beliefs are since they are written down in the catechism. The only way you could deny this is if you denied that the catholics are Christians, and by doing that means that the fundie Christian influence still rests inside you and affects your views on other denominations. And, as I've said, those denominations that want to take the position that humans are not inherently evil can certainly do so. It would not matter to me. The catholics have their catechism, which was written by human scholars, but it is not biblical. Those catholics, they are mere apostates. The bible, from the fundamentalist POV, is complete, it needs no apologies nor human interpretation. Only the teaching of the holy ghost. It is the word of god. Any attempts at interpretation, explanation, or exegises that strays from the literal words is an open invitation to confounding of the human mind by the devil. "Doctrines of devils." That is what I was taught, and I know nothing else. (I do actually know something else, however, and that is one reason why I'm an atheist). It...is...all...bullshit. I don't care about any of those denominations, Kir...I simply think all of xianity is wrong. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirangel Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 All I wanted was for someone to admit that a large number of Christians do not see humans as inherently evil. I mean, the largest group in Christianity teaches that we are not inherently evil. Very simple, it's very easy to figure out what Catholics main beliefs are since they are written down in the catechism. The only way you could deny this is if you denied that the catholics are Christians, and by doing that means that the fundie Christian influence still rests inside you and affects your views on other denominations. And, as I've said, those denominations that want to take the position that humans are not inherently evil can certainly do so. It would not matter to me. The catholics have their catechism, which was written by human scholars, but it is not biblical. Those catholics, they are mere apostates. The bible, from the fundamentalist POV, is complete, it needs no apologies nor human interpretation. Only the teaching of the holy ghost. It is the word of god. Any attempts at interpretation, explanation, or exegises that strays from the literal words is an open invitation to confounding of the human mind by the devil. "Doctrines of devils." That is what I was taught, and I know nothing else. (I do actually know something else, however, and that is one reason why I'm an atheist). It...is...all...bullshit. I don't care about any of those denominations, Kir...I simply think all of xianity is wrong. That's it. That's one thing that we can agree on. I think it's wrong too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirangel Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Deleted post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piprus Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 All I wanted was for someone to admit that a large number of Christians do not see humans as inherently evil. I mean, the largest group in Christianity teaches that we are not inherently evil. Very simple, it's very easy to figure out what Catholics main beliefs are since they are written down in the catechism. The only way you could deny this is if you denied that the catholics are Christians, and by doing that means that the fundie Christian influence still rests inside you and affects your views on other denominations. And, as I've said, those denominations that want to take the position that humans are not inherently evil can certainly do so. It would not matter to me. The catholics have their catechism, which was written by human scholars, but it is not biblical. Those catholics, they are mere apostates. The bible, from the fundamentalist POV, is complete, it needs no apologies nor human interpretation. Only the teaching of the holy ghost. It is the word of god. Any attempts at interpretation, explanation, or exegises that strays from the literal words is an open invitation to confounding of the human mind by the devil. "Doctrines of devils." That is what I was taught, and I know nothing else. (I do actually know something else, however, and that is one reason why I'm an atheist). It...is...all...bullshit. I don't care about any of those denominations, Kir...I simply think all of xianity is wrong. That's it. That's one thing that we can agree on. I think it's wrong too. Well, then, OK, I think. ??? Just in passing, did we reach a consensus on anything in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I have given you evidence of at least one very large Christian sect that teaches contrary to what you are saying, but maybe you still have some fundamental ideas entrenched in you, I recognize that some teach that humanity is inherently evil, but WHY can't you take your tinted glasses off and realize that your fundies are not the only ones out there. And I have given you evidence that both the Xian Bible and most major sects have traditionally taught precisely what I and the majority of everyone else here are saying - that humanity is evil because they are naturally prone to sin. If we are not evil, the need for a saviour evaporates. Just because the majority of people here think that doesn't make it right... after all how many fundies in the US think Jesus was some blue eyed blonde haried dude? Anyways I was one of the people Kirangel talked to, and stupidly maybe I decided to take a look over here. Sure Man according to the Christian tradition is prone to sin, but that doesn't make Man evil only 'flawed' (ie. not perfect like God). It's a pretty basic philosophical arguement that predates Christianity even, at least in the Greek classical tradition. Don't lecture me, bitch - "my fundies" are every single traditional Xian sect. Far more than the actual fundamentalists, who didn't come about till roughly the 19th century, if I'm not mistaken. If by fundies you mean American Revivalist sects you'd be right, but the fundamentalist traditions reach all the way back to the birth of Christianity - heck one of the earliest records regarding arguements over doctrine deals with folks we'd label 'Fundies' now (the Donatists). That's over 2000 fucking years - the entire length of time Xianity has existed. Furthermore, I have no "fundamental" ideas entrenched in me, you miserable little shit. Unlike you, I am not still knee-jerk defending a deranged cult of misanthropic spook-worshippers. You've got big balls to come here and preach to me that I'm wrong when you haven't done dick-squat to defend your position, save regurgitate verses from that book of man-made madness. My aren't we special - swearing and acting like an ass doesn't make you right, only look like a bigger asshole... before accusing someone of not defending their position you might want to try doing so yourself. You want to piss on me and my extensive knowledge of this sick ass religion, which I was a part of for 27 years - longer than you were alive? Piss on you, instead. I'll take up that challenge - mostly because you sound like those fundie fucks I love to evicerate when they spout their shit (at least you'd be a 'fun' change of pace, I hope), but also for Chivalric reasons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Sure Man according to the Christian tradition is prone to sin, but that doesn't make Man evil only 'flawed' (ie. not perfect like God). It's a pretty basic philosophical arguement that predates Christianity even, at least in the Greek classical tradition. Oh lovely, another one. My only question: Then what the hell are they being saved from? Xianity is based on salvation, is it not? If you are following some other religion that doesn't make the salvation doctrine it's primary foundation, then you are not discussing xianity my friend, but some other cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknowing1 Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Kir, thanks for answering part of my question. My reason for asking was that I wanted to see your answer before I actually made up my mind regarding your pov. I was at one time where you seem to be. I saw some "good" points and therefore discounted or tried to find excuses for the bad so that the bad wasn't so bad. I discounted those bad parts and didn't focus on them as much because I was always taught that God was good. When I finally started to see the world around me and the suffering that has occured because of religion, I really had a change of heart. I do agree that the catechism does say in parts that God is good, it also says that man is inclined toward evil, it does not specifically state man is evil. However, when I take the whole catechism along with the baptism, along with confession, along with the need to worship a deity in order to get through the pearly gates the message is clear that that evil lurks within me. It's my pov that because the catechism doesn't point blank say man is evil that you take that literally and that is why you feel the Catholic Church doesn't teach man is evil. However, we were told to read the catechism figuratively, not literally and when in class were told what it means based on the beliefs of the catholic church. Perhaps the meaning the priests and nuns at my church had were different than what your priests and nuns have, plus this was many years ago and the Catholic Church could have watered down it's teaching from when I was involved with them. I know it was watered down from the time my mother and step mother in law went through catechism class. It appears to me that you get your pov's not so much from the doctrine but from people you talk with. It's my opinion that unless you actually read the doctrines of the denominations that you will not get a true picture of what they stand for. A lot of people go to church and haven't a clue what their church really believes because a lot of churches today play up the social aspects and the sermons barely touch on the nitty gritty of their belief. My own methodist minister said "I don't have all the answers and if (note she said if) I get to heaven I have a lot questions to ask". I switched from catholic to methodist because of the beliefs of the catholic church. I didn't like the catholic pov on woman, homosexuals and others not like them. After doing research on denominations I decided I could better deal with the methodist pov; however, after a year of going to church I found not much was different except for their stand on social issues and the social work that they did. I gave it up because I finally admitted to myself I didn't believe in jesus. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that; however, after being catholic for many years and doing research it's my opinion that the catholic church believes man is inclined toward evil and unless they continue to confess or be batised will definately go to Hell. Hell is for evil, heaven for good...that being the teaching I received from the catholic church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Ever get the feeling someone's put you on ignore...? I still want an answer to something... if, as you claim, Man isn't inherently evil, why the need for the Crucifixion? Why the need to Salvation in the form of Human Sacrifice?Why, if we aren't evil fuck-ups, are we told we are evil fuck-ups who are gonna burn for eternity unless we praise Jesus? Christianity needs Humanity to be evil fuck-ups to justify the Crucifixion... because if we ain't evil fuck-ups, we don't need to accept Jesus's sacrifice to get into heaven... but Christianity teaches that we MUST accept that sacrifice to get into heaven because we are evil fuck-ups that God is going to cast into hell. Still waiting for an answer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 And I have given you evidence that both the Xian Bible and most major sects have traditionally taught precisely what I and the majority of everyone else here are saying - that humanity is evil because they are naturally prone to sin. If we are not evil, the need for a saviour evaporates. Just because the majority of people here think that doesn't make it right... Hi Sceadugenga, First let me welcome you to ex-C, second welcome to the middle of the thread. I'd like to defend Varokhar first and give you a little more understanding why he used the word majority . If you read throughout this thread you will find that Kir will blindly defend the Catholic dogma due to the fact that the majority follows it. The majority are Catholic and so on. This thread is peppered with her giving us reasons to heed to the faith is because of the majority. Varokhar is saying it more so tongue and cheek. Those of us who have followed all 8 pages of this thread know that, those dropping in the middle who haven't bothered to catch up with the arguments perhaps will conclude that it's Varokahar using the majority as proof. I'm sure by now you've caught up with the thread and realize this. Sure Man according to the Christian tradition is prone to sin, but that doesn't make Man evil only 'flawed' (ie. not perfect like God). It's a pretty basic philosophical arguement that predates Christianity even, at least in the Greek classical tradition. Yes most of us know it predates Christianity. The Savior concept also predates Christianity. Christ is a redo of sun worship.. This is common knowledge here. Past gods were born of gods and mortals, died on crosses, resurrected from the dead and so forth. The populace as a whole needs to be controlled. What better way to do it then thru terror of eternity perhaps burning. To question the king/leaders was to question god himself and could be punishable by death. We aren't talking about pagan origins however, we're talking about the current blood/death cult called Christianity. Man without being saved is only worthy of burning forever. Man without god/christ is evil, hence man is evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Just because the majority of people here think that doesn't make it right... after all how many fundies in the US think Jesus was some blue eyed blonde haried dude? Anyways I was one of the people Kirangel talked to, and stupidly maybe I decided to take a look over here. And to follow your reasoning... just because the majority of Christians think or believe a certain thing, that doesn't make Christianity right. "Nice" or "different" Christians, regardless of version, does not deserve a free pass from critique just because they happen to be a bit nicer than the fundamentalists who happens to believe in the same Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Oh lovely, another one. My only question: Then what the hell are they being saved from? Xianity is based on salvation, is it not? If you are following some other religion that doesn't make the salvation doctrine it's primary foundation, then you are not discussing xianity my friend, but some other cult. In Christian (Abrahamic) theology? At the most basic Death, or the concept that death was either the end or that the afterlife was just a continuation of what life was for eternity; which is ulitmately was one of the big appeals of early Christianity. As for Salvation being the primary foundation... well it is, but it's not the singular foundation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 You are entitled to your opinion and I respect that; however, after being catholic for many years and doing research it's my opinion that the catholic church believes man is inclined toward evil and unless they continue to confess or be batised will definately go to Hell. Hell is for evil, heaven for good...that being the teaching I received from the catholic church. No offense but perhaps you should have done a little more research because that certainly isn't the case now or even back in the early Church... well excepting of course the stints with ultra-conservativism that hits the Church from time to time (and hides out in some dioceses). But yes the basic equation you have there at the end is right - Hell is for the Evil, Heaven is for the Good; it's just you seemed to differ on what constitutes evil and good (at least according to Catholicism). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 We aren't talking about pagan origins however, we're talking about the current blood/death cult called Christianity. Man without being saved is only worthy of burning forever. Man without god/christ is evil, hence man is evil. Sorry that last bit is a bit off, the fromula should read (at least according to most Christian theologies): Man who turns away from god/christ is outside of the 'church', Man without god/christ hasn't been 'saved', Man's actions determine whether Man is 'good' or 'evil'. Really the only folks that teach the formula the way you present it are the Billy Bob Biblethumper fundies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 And to follow your reasoning... just because the majority of Christians think or believe a certain thing, that doesn't make Christianity right. Technically to follow my reasoning it should read: "just because the majority of Christians think or believe a certain thing, that doesn't make those Christians right "Nice" or "different" Christians, regardless of version, does not deserve a free pass from critique just because they happen to be a bit nicer than the fundamentalists who happens to believe in the same Bible. Nor should they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm a bit confused here. Can someone bring me up to speed here and tell me if we're still talking about the topic "Offending Christians, They don't get a free pass from me", or is it something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirangel Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Hi Sceadugenga, First let me welcome you to ex-C, second welcome to the middle of the thread. I'd like to defend Varokhar first and give you a little more understanding why he used the word majority . If you read throughout this thread you will find that Kir will blindly defend the Catholic dogma due to the fact that the majority follows it. The majority are Catholic and so on. This thread is peppered with her giving us reasons to heed to the faith is because of the majority. Varokhar is saying it more so tongue and cheek. Those of us who have followed all 8 pages of this thread know that, those dropping in the middle who haven't bothered to catch up with the arguments perhaps will conclude that it's Varokahar using the majority as proof. I'm sure by now you've caught up with the thread and realize this. If that's what you believe then you've misconstrued my intentions, or maybe I just didn't make them clear. In this thread we have been discussing whether or not humans are inherently evil according to Christianity right? Where have I defended Catholic dogma, please show it too me and have fun trying to find it because I haven't, I've used it to illustrate a point (that a very large group of Christians believe man is not inherently evil, and I doubt that they are the only ones). I hope Sceadugenga does read through, then maybe he can tell me what I have said to make you get that impression because it's definitely not the point I was trying to get across. I defend no ones dogma, but I do try to understand it. I do agree that the catechism does say in parts that God is good, it also says that man is inclined toward evil, it does not specifically state man is evil. However, when I take the whole catechism along with the baptism, along with confession, along with the need to worship a deity in order to get through the pearly gates the message is clear that that evil lurks within me. It's my pov that because the catechism doesn't point blank say man is evil that you take that literally and that is why you feel the Catholic Church doesn't teach man is evil. However, we were told to read the catechism figuratively, not literally and when in class were told what it means based on the beliefs of the catholic church. Perhaps the meaning the priests and nuns at my church had were different than what your priests and nuns have, plus this was many years ago and the Catholic Church could have watered down it's teaching from when I was involved with them. I know it was watered down from the time my mother and step mother in law went through catechism class. First of all, thank you for responding to me and what I have said. I am not trying to defend catholicism, and I recognize how Christianity can have a negative impact on people. There are so many people just in this forum who have had very bad experiences with it, and it's sad that they have to go through what they did. So the nuns and priests told you that man is inherently evil? I don't know, when I look at the catechism and the bible, I don't get that impression, it talks more about the inclination to do evil and the necessity to repent our sins. That's why I maintain that that is the core belief. The bible is all about salvation for us because of our sins, not because we are inherently evil. Where in the bible does it give you the impression that we are all basically evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 And to follow your reasoning... just because the majority of Christians think or believe a certain thing, that doesn't make Christianity right. Technically to follow my reasoning it should read: "just because the majority of Christians think or believe a certain thing, that doesn't make those Christians right Fair enough. My opinion is that just because some Christians are nice, it doesn't make Christianity nice. And if a nice person is Christian, there's no obligation to avoid confrontation or offending that nice Christian. After all, Christians are mandated to be able to defend their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 If that's what you believe then you've misconstrued my intentions, or maybe I just didn't make them clear. In this thread we have been discussing whether or not humans are inherently evil according to Christianity right? AAAAH! Okay. Now I know what the current discussion is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm "He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401 "For our sake God made him to be sin" 602 Consequently, St. Peter can formulate the apostolic faith in the divine plan of salvation in this way: "You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers... with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake."402 Man's sins, following on original sin, are punishable by death.403 By sending his own Son in the form of a slave, in the form of a fallen humanity, on account of sin, God "made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."404 603 Jesus did not experience reprobation as if he himself had sinned.405 But in the redeeming love that always united him to the Father, he assumed us in the state of our waywardness of sin, to the point that he could say in our name from the cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"406 Having thus established him in solidarity with us sinners, God "did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all", so that we might be "reconciled to God by the death of his Son".407 Slave to sin, fallen humanity, sin punishible by death (do we commit the death penality on people we don't consider evil?), STATE of WAYWARDNESS (state is a consuming condition). I understand that not all sects teach the hell doctrine, but all do teach the salvation doctrine and whether we are being saved from death alone or death and then hell, we are taught that man is fallen. Man is wayward, man is a slave to his own sinful nature; evil; tomato; tomahto. As I stated before, even if the doctrine according to the catholics somehow considers sinful man less than evil by some ploy of word play, it considers him sinful according to their own definitions nonetheless. When sin is as petty as a flaw in Adam's seed, lust in one's heart (read natural evolutionary sexual impulses) and unbelief, to name but a few, then the doctrine is despicable even in its watered down form. This is not a religion of hope, but a religion of intollerable guilt and sometimes incapacitating self loathing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 We aren't talking about pagan origins however, we're talking about the current blood/death cult called Christianity. Man without being saved is only worthy of burning forever. Man without god/christ is evil, hence man is evil. Sorry that last bit is a bit off, the fromula should read (at least according to most Christian theologies): Man who turns away from god/christ is outside of the 'church', Man without god/christ hasn't been 'saved', Man's actions determine whether Man is 'good' or 'evil'. Really the only folks that teach the formula the way you present it are the Billy Bob Biblethumper fundies. Right. First here we go down the Most/majority road again... Which cults do you consider to be under this label? Men who are not saved but are good people go to heaven? Men who deny the existence of the holyspook and his schizophrenic counterparts but are good people go to heaven? Is this your claim? Where does the buybull and Christian Church doctrine (any) back up this claim?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garnet Posted July 2, 2007 Author Share Posted July 2, 2007 I'm a bit confused here. Can someone bring me up to speed here and tell me if we're still talking about the topic "Offending Christians, They don't get a free pass from me", or is it something else? The topic was de-railed a long time ago. As near as I can tell, it's turned into a pile onto Kirangel thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Slave to sin, fallen humanity, sin punishible by death (do we commit the death penality on people we don't consider evil?), STATE of WAYWARDNESS (state is a consuming condition). Oh come on if you claim such knowledge of Christianity how can you even suggest this? Afterall doesn't the basic premise of slavation promise 'eternal life' what does it logically follow happens to those 'not saved'? Man is wayward, man is a slave to his own sinful nature; evil; tomato; tomahto. What fundies brain-fucked you? Sin equals 'Evil'? No wonder you left or rejected Christianity if that was the shit they were feeding you. When sin is as petty as a flaw in Adam's seed, lust in one's heart (read natural evolutionary sexual impulses) Yep this confirms it - you're the victim of a fundamentalist ideology if 'lustful' thoughts is equated to sin... oh and before you go rattling around in the Vatican archives I can sumarize what it says for you. When the Commandments refers to that whole 'do not covet' thing it refers to an active or obsessive 'coveting' (and yes even in the orignal Hebrew). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sceadugenga Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 We aren't talking about pagan origins however, we're talking about the current blood/death cult called Christianity. Man without being saved is only worthy of burning forever. Man without god/christ is evil, hence man is evil. Sorry that last bit is a bit off, the fromula should read (at least according to most Christian theologies): Man who turns away from god/christ is outside of the 'church', Man without god/christ hasn't been 'saved', Man's actions determine whether Man is 'good' or 'evil'. Really the only folks that teach the formula the way you present it are the Billy Bob Biblethumper fundies. Right. First here we go down the Most/majority road again... Which cults do you consider to be under this label? Read the Catholic or Anglican theological doctine some time, or the writings of the early Christian theologians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japedo Posted July 2, 2007 Share Posted July 2, 2007 Can you please address the crux of what I asked, Thanks in advance. Men who are not saved but are good people go to heaven? Men who deny the existence of the holyspook and his schizophrenic counterparts but are good people go to heaven? Is this your claim? Where does the buybull and Christian Church doctrine (any) back up this claim?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts