How is faith in God attained?

[Adstar]

Adstar, Jesus says in the NT that Moses wrote of him in the OT. Can you point me out any verse in the OT which would suggest Moses was talking about Jesus?

I will have to do some reading on this question nds1. At the presant time i do not have an answer for you. Hopefully i will get one.

Also, you have stated that Cain and Abel made plant and animal (blood) offerings to God, not with Jesus in mind, or not to Jesus. At what point exactly did these offerings of animals, or blood sacrifices, turn into offerings related to Jesus?

Their sacrifice was related to Jesus. But they did not know it. God was establishing a sign for the future one of many. A sign that was fully revealed upon the death of Jesus.

Have you ever read about the concept of the plans of God being revealed through the stories of the OT that many of the OT stories have an uncanny resemblance to the life and doings of Jesus?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Have you ever read about the concept of the plans of God being revealed through the stories of the OT that many of the OT stories have an uncanny resemblance to the life and doings of Jesus?

The bad parts? Some stories have an uncanny resemblance to the life and doings of Hitler and a few other bad dudes also. You could make a case for anybody. I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find Osama Bin Laden in there.

 

[Adstar]

Does this concept apply to other areas of life as well, such as, say, having 14 beautiful wives like David did?

I would leave it to ones conscience. If ones conscience is guided by the Holy Spirit they will be convicted of the good or otherwise on each individual issue you may think to raise.

I mean, the better your faith is, the more things you can have, because the more you understand what God does and doesn't care about.

Well God can care about something without Him caring about it to the extent that He will take away the salvation of a Believer in Jesus over the matter.

God gave good dietary laws for the benefit of human beings so that they would better look after their bodies and live long and healthy lives. God cares about our health. The biblical Kosher diet is the best diet ever devised for humans and a wise person will follow its concepts. But a wise person will also know that they can eat any kind of food without that causing them to loose their salvation. The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, eating clean food does not make us morally perfect. And that was the trap that many jews fell into. The belief that keeping the dietary laws made them morally righteous people. The dietary laws where given for the benefit of the Jews but some of them believed that keeping the dietary law justified them.

So eating all things is lawful for me but it would be better for my health to follow the kosher dietary laws. As Paul said "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful."

So it seems like any decision we make can be either:

A) Positive - Something extra required by God at a given time
B) Negative - A sin which displeases God
C)Neutral - Choices or actions God doesn't care about, meaning he doesn't count it against you in approving you for heavenly access. Choosing whether to eat McDonalds or BK, Taco bell or KFC, etc. Choosing what brand of cereal to buy.

Well i would say there are positive things and negative things and things that while negative do not have a bearing on ones eternal salvation.

I think you would agree Adstar that most decisions we make or actions we take are of the Neutral variety. God doesn't care about neutral choices. He doesn't care what we eat, what brand of cereal we buy, etc.

Well in relation to our salvation No. But in relation to our wellbeing and quality of life yes He does care about it.

The Bible says David had 14 beautiful wives who he had sex with on a constant basis. I'm guessing then that how many women one has sex with is also of the "neutral" variety of choices. Any thoughts?

Jesus made it clear that we are only to have sexual relations with our wife.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[nds1]

I will have to do some reading on this question nds1. At the presant time i do not have an answer for you. Hopefully i will get one.

Okay, because it seems odd that Jesus would say, "Moses wrote of me," when there seems to be no references to Jesus in Genesis through Deuteronomy.

You would think that Moses, being as spiritually enlightened as he was, would have made it pretty clear that a "Savior or Messiah of all Men would be coming to earth and he would be the Son of God." He maybe would have even predicted that his name would be "Jesus." But no reference to Jesus seems to be found in Moses's writings.

 

[nds1]

Jesus made it clear that we are only to have sexual relations with our wife.

I think you should have rephrased your above response to:
Jesus made it clear that we are only to have sexual relations with our wives. This way we can safely integrate David and many other old testament people to the teachings of Jesus.

And St. Paul seemed to argue that if you are not married, you should not get married unless you lack self-control, or ability to control your sexual desires.

1 Cor 7:8-9
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So if one lacks the self discipline to control their sexual desires, they should attain a legal document binding them in marriage with a person of the opposite sex so they can fulfill this sexual desire. In this sense, marriage is basically a license to have sex for people with no self-control.

It's hard for me to see the difference between having sex with someone and not being married to them, and having sex with someone while being legally married to each other.

Of course, if everyone took Paul's advice and if everyone had Paul's self-control, then the human race would fail to exist, meaning that God relies on mankinds lack of self-control in order to continue the existence of mankind.

But all that is a whole other issue in itself.

 

[ashura]

Adstar,

Can I ask that, in the future, you put your replies to me in one post? You splitting it made it very difficult for me to put together my reply as I like to see everything in one place. Not to mention getting together the proper quotes and such.

With that being said...

Hello ashura

Here is the answer that you chose to not accept.

So there you have it. The answer to your question was given. But you simply refused to accept it.

First off, you combined two of my questions and gave me one blanket answer for both of them. There were two completely separate questions!

One asked you why you personally felt Hell is hard to digest. You've still failed to answer this even after I went back and painstakingly quoted every relevant post regarding that specific discussion. wtf?

The other asked you about the whole men fearing God bit. And rereading your quote, I went ahead and did something that I should've done the first time you said it; I read 1 John 4 myself. This is my conclusion:

In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

By reading this in context, the driving out of fear that you are referring to is only for the day of judgment, where those who love god will have no fear of being punished. The fear this passage is referring to is specifically that fear of being punished, not fear of God.

I say this because of the quote above and also because after 1 John 4, there is this quote:

Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water."

This is after 1 John 4. It's not a relic of the OT. And it very clearly says fear God to ALL humans. All of them. Thus, your lack of fear in god seems to be blasphemy.

well thank for the clarification but i still disagree with your conclusion.

For a threat to be a threat a person must believe in the threat that it is real.

As SnakeLord very clearly pointed out, what you're stating is simply not true. I don't have to believe your threat is real for it to be a threat.

You call eternity in the lake of fire mere oppression? I would call it absolute terror.

Ahhh He is not an oppressor he is a perfect Judge.

Definition of oppression is "the exercise of authority or power in a cruel manner." The lake of fire might be absolute terror, but it is still oppression. Just like how water coming from the tap and water flowing down the river is still water. And god being a judge doesn't change the definition of oppressor. He is still exercising power in a cruel manner.

This is where the illogical mindset your trapped in is revealed.

If an atheist treated the bible as fact they would no longer be an atheist. They would be a true Christian and would have no fear of the lake of fire.

Same for non-Christians caught up in the bondage of false religion. If they believed That the bible was fact they too would have no fear.

:bugeye: Wow. I thought it was fairly obvious that when I said "if we treat the bible as fact", the we was you and I, and by fact was by fact for the sake of the discussion. In fact, I stated this earlier before here:

In this discussion, we are treating what the bible has to say as fact.

As i said before fear takes belief but the progression of faith leads to the knowledge of the Love of God through the Messiah Jesus and thus all fear is dispelled.

And due to what I've noted earlier, this reasoning seems to be wrong.

Ohh there is an immense difference.
Your statement proposes that a person will be condemned for not accepting the Messiah Jesus. Anyone who is not a Christian or who has not ended their lives on earth as a Christian.

My statement proposes that a person will be condemned for rejecting the Messiah Jesus. This leaves open the door for those who have never heard the true Gospel Message and therefore have never rejected The Messiah Jesus.

So, from what I can gather from your reply, you're stating that a Muslim living in Iran who has never heard the true message has the door to heaven open for him?

This was your reasoning
those who have never heard the true Gospel message -> never rejected the messiah -> door to heaven open

Oh and you somehow managed to COMPLETELY ignore this one:

Your question is worded differently here to my mind. Therefore i will answer this question.

God has provided His will. The two paths are either acceptance or rejection of His will. those who reject His will shall have eternity in the Lake of fire those who accept His will shall have eternity with God. We humans have a Choice to either accept the Salvation on offer by the atoning act of the Messiah Jesus or we can reject the gift of God provided by the Messiah Jesus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this completely agree with what I said: "ultimately God has only laid down two paths for us, one to heaven and one to hell? And we humans have no choice but to go to either or"?

 

[nds1]

Well God can care about something without Him caring about it to the extent that He will take away the salvation of a Believer in Jesus over the matter.

So God can care about David stealing his neighbors wife, commiting adultery with her, and then murdering here husband after he got her pregnant, but he doesn't care about all that to the extent that he would take David's salvation away, right?

And when you say "believer in Jesus", do you also include "believers in God?"

I mention this because people before Jesus and the prophesies could not "believe that Jesus saved them from their sins."

I'm guessing Pre-Jesus people became saved by:

1) Having faith that a God exists

That's it. After that they could murder, steal people's wives, etc. but as long as they were Believers in God they were all set.

After Jesus, in order be labeled a Believer, according to you, you must:

1) Have faith that a God exists
2) Have faith that Jesus existed
3) Have faith Jesus was the Son of God
4) Have faith that Jesus saved you from your sins

The only difference between being saved now and then is that now you have to believe three more things. That's it.

Well i would say there are positive things and negative things and things that while negative do not have a bearing on ones eternal salvation.

You've layed out three types of actions:
1) Positive Things
2) Negative Things
3) Things that while negative do not have a bearing on ones eternal salvation

Apparently you don't believe in a middle ground. You believe every decision we make is either positive or negative. Again, I fully disagree with this logic.

Let's say I have to drive somewhere. There are three routes which all get there at pretty much the same exact time. Which route shall I choose? Does God care whether I choose route A, route B, or route C? Apparently, it is a negative decision no matter what route I choose. This makes no sense.

Let's say I am out of milk and need to buy some. Should I go to the local convenient store which is 5 minutes away or should I take that extra 3 minutes to go to the grocery store where the milk is cheaper? It is hard for me to believe the "Holy Spirit" (aka God) is guiding me during these decisions. I don't think God could care less which store I go to in order to get milk.

So Adstar, do you believe that there are neutral decisions which God literally doesn't look at as negatvie or positive?

 

[Dinosaur]

The original topic of this tread was: "How is faith in god attained?" It seems to have degenerated into a discussion of Christian theology, which is very interesting so drifting off topic does not seem so bad.

BTW: I am an atheist originally raised by one Catholic & one Quaker parent. If it is not obvious, I believe a person should provide some background when posting to certain threads. It lets others know their particular bias.

On the issue of Jesus being a descendant of David, the cultural context should be considered. Think about the Leverite Law (I think this is the name of it) from the old testament. If a man died without having children, his closest male relative (normally a brother) was required to marry the widow.

Any children of this marriage were considered to be the children of the dead man. You can check this out by looking for the story of Onan, who was killed by god for spilling his seed on the ground. Some Catholic priests/nuns use this story as the basis for their views on birth control (it might be or have been offical Catholic doctrine). The story makes it clear that Onan was punished for denying children to his brother, not for practicing birth control.

Thus in the cultural context, Jesus could be considered a descendant of David through Joseph even if Joseph was not his biological father. In that era, they might have intellectually understood the consequences of sex and paternity, but they also had some mystical (magical?) concepts associated with the concept.

On the original topic: Is it not obvious that almost all attain their initial faith (if any) due to early indoctrination by parents and other elders? The children of Catholics are almost always Catholic. The children of Baptists are almost always Baptists. The children of Hindus & Islamics are hardly ever Christians.

While many might not develop strong beliefs and drift away from the church, few adopt beliefs other than those from initial indoctrination by parents and other elders.

 

[SnakeLord]

Thus in the cultural context, Jesus could be considered a descendant of David through Joseph even if Joseph was not his biological father.

Well no, because joseph didn't fill in for his dead brother. You can see from reading the beginning of matthew and indeed most of the NT that god clearly considers himself as jesus' father, (and god is not a descendant of david). joseph on the other hand wanted nothing to do with it, indeed setting out to divorce mary until an angel interceded and said he must stay with her. If it had have been anyone else that bonked his missus, he would have abandoned both mary and her child - and would have been the first person here saying the child was no descendant of his. Alas if god wants to impregnate your wife there's very little you can do about it.

Again of course, if jesus is god then he's not a descendant of anyone.

 

[Adstar]

So God can care about David stealing his neighbors wife, commiting adultery with her, and then murdering here husband after he got her pregnant, but he doesn't care about all that to the extent that he would take David's salvation away, right?

And when you say "believer in Jesus", do you also include "believers in God?"

I mention this because people before Jesus and the prophesies could not "believe that Jesus saved them from their sins."

Oh dear Oh dear. Nds1 how soon you forget. Did we not discuss this very issue at lengh before? Did i not provide you with the scriptures that show that Jesus went to those who where formerly against Him and preached to them the message of salvation?

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

I'm guessing Pre-Jesus people became saved by:

1) Having faith that a God exists

That's it. After that they could murder, steal people's wives, etc. but as long as they were Believers in God they were all set.

After Jesus, in order be labeled a Believer, according to you, you must:

1) Have faith that a God exists
2) Have faith that Jesus existed
3) Have faith Jesus was the Son of God
4) Have faith that Jesus saved you from your sins

The only difference between being saved now and then is that now you have to believe three more things. That's it.

Nooooo There is no differenace. Its not about believing in God or believing in Jesus it is about Believing God and Believing Jesus.

You've layed out three types of actions:
1) Positive Things
2) Negative Things
3) Things that while negative do not have a bearing on ones eternal salvation

Apparently you don't believe in a middle ground. You believe every decision we make is either positive or negative. Again, I fully disagree with this logic.

Let's say I have to drive somewhere. There are three routes which all get there at pretty much the same exact time. Which route shall I choose? Does God care whether I choose route A, route B, or route C? Apparently, it is a negative decision no matter what route I choose. This makes no sense.

Let's say I am out of milk and need to buy some. Should I go to the local convenient store which is 5 minutes away or should I take that extra 3 minutes to go to the grocery store where the milk is cheaper? It is hard for me to believe the "Holy Spirit" (aka God) is guiding me during these decisions. I don't think God could care less which store I go to in order to get milk.

So Adstar, do you believe that there are neutral decisions which God literally doesn't look at as negatvie or positive?

Now your being padantic.

Of cource God does not care if you buy your milk at a grocery store or a convenient store.

But God does care about your response to His will. In that response there is no neutrality.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

I think you should have rephrased your above response to:
Jesus made it clear that we are only to have sexual relations with our wives. This way we can safely integrate David and many other old testament people to the teachings of Jesus.

And St. Paul seemed to argue that if you are not married, you should not get married unless you lack self-control, or ability to control your sexual desires.

1 Cor 7:8-9
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So if one lacks the self discipline to control their sexual desires, they should attain a legal document binding them in marriage with a person of the opposite sex so they can fulfill this sexual desire. In this sense, marriage is basically a license to have sex for people with no self-control.

It's hard for me to see the difference between having sex with someone and not being married to them, and having sex with someone while being legally married to each other.

Of course, if everyone took Paul's advice and if everyone had Paul's self-control, then the human race would fail to exist, meaning that God relies on mankinds lack of self-control in order to continue the existence of mankind.

But all that is a whole other issue in itself.

Thats a wierd way of looking at it. I wonder what it is within you that leads you to these conclusions.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

So, from what I can gather from your reply, you're stating that a Muslim living in Iran who has never heard the true message has the door to heaven open for him?

This was your reasoning
those who have never heard the true Gospel message -> never rejected the messiah -> door to heaven open

Don't tell me what my reasoning was. I know what my reasoning was and you don't, because you are blinded by your hatred for the will of God.

Salvation is not granted to those who have never recieved the message of Jesus. But the offer of salvation is still open to those who have never recieved the message of Jesus. One must still accept the Message of Jesus to have salvation.

Oh and you somehow managed to COMPLETELY ignore this one:

“ Originally Posted by ashura

“ Originally Posted by Adstar
Your question is worded differently here to my mind. Therefore i will answer this question.

God has provided His will. The two paths are either acceptance or rejection of His will. those who reject His will shall have eternity in the Lake of fire those who accept His will shall have eternity with God. We humans have a Choice to either accept the Salvation on offer by the atoning act of the Messiah Jesus or we can reject the gift of God provided by the Messiah Jesus. ”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this completely agree with what I said: "ultimately God has only laid down two paths for us, one to heaven and one to hell? And we humans have no choice but to go to either or"?

What was your request? Did you read your own statement? Isn't it amazing that i can read your statement better than you can understand what you said :bugeye:

Lets break it down: What did you say at the start of your statement Now i will put it in big black righting so you can read it nice and slow and let it sink in.

"Correct me if I'm wrong"​

See i actually read what you said and because your conclusion is right then there is no need for me to correct you. Therefore no answer was required to be given. So i did not ignore your request at all you only wanted correction "if" your conclusion was wrong.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

PS: Your so blinded you cannot even read your own posts.

 

[Adstar]

The original topic of this tread was: "How is faith in god attained?" It seems to have degenerated into a discussion of Christian theology, which is very interesting so drifting off topic does not seem so bad.

BTW: I am an atheist originally raised by one Catholic & one Quaker parent. If it is not obvious, I believe a person should provide some background when posting to certain threads. It lets others know their particular bias.

On the issue of Jesus being a descendant of David, the cultural context should be considered. Think about the Leverite Law (I think this is the name of it) from the old testament. If a man died without having children, his closest male relative (normally a brother) was required to marry the widow.

Any children of this marriage were considered to be the children of the dead man. You can check this out by looking for the story of Onan, who was killed by god for spilling his seed on the ground. Some Catholic priests/nuns use this story as the basis for their views on birth control (it might be or have been offical Catholic doctrine). The story makes it clear that Onan was punished for denying children to his brother, not for practicing birth control.

Thus in the cultural context, Jesus could be considered a descendant of David through Joseph even if Joseph was not his biological father. In that era, they might have intellectually understood the consequences of sex and paternity, but they also had some mystical (magical?) concepts associated with the concept.

On the original topic: Is it not obvious that almost all attain their initial faith (if any) due to early indoctrination by parents and other elders? The children of Catholics are almost always Catholic. The children of Baptists are almost always Baptists. The children of Hindus & Islamics are hardly ever Christians.

While many might not develop strong beliefs and drift away from the church, few adopt beliefs other than those from initial indoctrination by parents and other elders.

Like most long running discussions in forums the topic always changes from the original. Its not good but it is the way it is.

BTW I am a Christian but i was formerly raised in the catholic religion. So i did not go from a religion into disbelief. I went from a religion into a follower of the Messiah Jesus.

Your conclusions on Onan (another topic other than the original you have introduced ) are better than the catholic conclusions for sure. I believe Onan died not just for denying children to His dead brother but for denying children from His brothers wife. This was motivated by greed, to take His brothers inheritance for himself and his Children. So there was more to the story of Onan than you reveal.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[ashura]

Don't tell me what my reasoning was. I know what my reasoning was and you don't, because you are blinded by your hatred for the will of God.

Salvation is not granted to those who have never recieved the message of Jesus. But the offer of salvation is still open to those who have never recieved the message of Jesus. One must still accept the Message of Jesus to have salvation.

First off, thanks for the personal attack. Second off, what the fuck are you talking about? YOU told ME what your reasoning was, and I merely put it in a linear train of thought.

What you said: This leaves open the door for those who have never heard the true Gospel Message and therefore have never rejected The Messiah Jesus.

What I said: those who have never heard the true Gospel message -> never rejected the messiah -> door to heaven open

EDIT: WOW, I just took a sec to reread what you wrote.

"Salvation is still an option for those who have never received the message of Jesus, but one must still accept the message of Jesus to get salvation."

Adstar, how can that possibly still be considered an option?? How can one obtain Salvation by accepting the message of Jesus.. if they've never received the message in the first place?? I can't believe I failed to notice this absolutely strange logic of yours.

What was your request? Did you read your own statement? Isn't it amazing that i can read your statement better than you can understand what you said :bugeye:

Lets break it down: What did you say at the start of your statement Now i will put it in big black righting so you can read it nice and slow and let it sink in.

"Correct me if I'm wrong"​

See i actually read what you said and because your conclusion is right then there is no need for me to correct you. Therefore no answer was required to be given. So i did not ignore your request at all you only wanted correction "if" your conclusion was wrong.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

PS: Your so blinded you cannot even read your own posts.

Another personal attack, nice. You're not being a very good Christian now Adstar.

I'll admit though that you're right about this one, my request was poorly worded. I'll reconstruct it to show you exactly what I meant with my next reply, once you fully respond to the entirety of my last post.

 

[nds1]

Oh dear Oh dear. Nds1 how soon you forget. Did we not discuss this very issue at lengh before? Did i not provide you with the scriptures that show that Jesus went to those who where formerly against Him and preached to them the message of salvation?

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.

I realize that the "bad" people, or descdendants of Cain, went to this spiritual prison. But "bad" or "disobedient" people doesn't include Noah, meaning Noah and his family did not go the prison. They were "saved."

Did Noah and family accept Jesus as their personal savior? Nope. So explain to me how Noah became saved.

Also, this verse includes people before Noah. I am talking about people after Noah and before Jesus.

It is referring to the descendents of Cain. I am referring to the descendents of Abel.

Of cource God does not care if you buy your milk at a grocery store or a convenient store.

But God does care about your response to His will. In that response there is no neutrality.

Okay, that's what I figured. Getting milk would be a neutral decision and responding to a request would be a positive, or extra decision.

 

[SnakeLord]

This was motivated by greed, to take His brothers inheritance for himself and his Children. So there was more to the story of Onan than you reveal.

Or, to be more accurate - you have added more to the story than is actually there.

I would warn you about the consequences of adding to or taking away from the bible but I wont bother because I wouldn't want to deprive someone of their choice to go against the word of god.

 

[nds1]

"Salvation is still an option for those who have never received the message of Jesus, but one must still accept the message of Jesus to get salvation."

Adstar, how can that possibly still be considered an option?? How can one obtain Salvation by accepting the message of Jesus.. if they've never received the message in the first place?? I can't believe I failed to notice this absolutely strange logic of yours.

Exactly my point Ashura. How did people before Jesus hear this "Message of Jesus" in order to accept it? And to be more specific:

How did the descendents of Noah and Noah himself hear the Message of Jesus in order to analyze, ponder, and agree with it?

Well clearly, that Message hadn't been given yet. There was no NT to read.

So how then did Noah and his family attain the status of "saved."

 

[nds1]

Adstar, we agree that there are three types of thoughts or actions of a person:

1) Postive - responding to a specific task God orders you to do

2) Neutral - A thought or action which God is not concerned about (where to buy milk, 2 + 2 - 6 x 8 =, which physcial road to take, etc.)

3) Negative - A thought or action which displeases God (stealing, committing adultery, murdering, etc.)

Now if someone commits a Negative Action, then it seems that no matter how bad that negative action is they can be forgiven if they repent.

Is there a negative action or an amount of negative actions someone could commit which could ban them from heaven no matter how much they repented, or does simply believing in Jesus erase every sin?

 

[ashura]

Adstar, we agree that there are three types of thoughts or actions of a person:

1) Postive - responding to a specific task God orders you to do

2) Neutral - A thought or action which God is not concerned about (where to buy milk, 2 + 2 - 6 x 8 =, which physcial road to take, etc.)

3) Negative - A thought or action which displeases God (stealing, committing adultery, murdering, etc.)

Now if someone commits a Negative Action, then it seems that no matter how bad that negative action is they can be forgiven if they repent.

Is there a negative action or an amount of negative actions someone could commit which could ban them from heaven no matter how much they repented, or does simply believing in Jesus erase every sin?

I think suicide would be the ticket straight to hell, as you're sinning and after the sin is complete, it's literally impossible for you to repent.

But, I admit, I can't remember if suicide is a sin or not. I'd have to look it up.

 

[nds1]

I think suicide would be the ticket straight to hell, as you're sinning and after the sin is complete, it's literally impossible for you to repent.

But, I admit, I can't remember if suicide is a sin or not. I'd have to look it up.

Yeah, I heard about the suicide thing too. I'll say this though, if I had a disease in which I felt incredible physical pain or discomfort every second of every day, I could see how God would make some exceptions.

What we need is to form a Uniform Sin Code which lays out what is a sin, what isn't, and what is neither a sin or a positive action.

On the issue of Commiting Adultery, Murder, and Stealing your neighbor's wife, there would have to be a David Clause:

Article 3

§ 1-104. The David Clause

(a) One can commit adultery and steal their neighbor's wife, along with killing that neighbor as a result of the pregnancy of the neighbor's wife, as long as that person repents and is really sorry.