Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

Let's start with the fact that we are all sinners and in need of salvation, even from the womb. Scripture tells us that once we reach the reason, God reveals himself to each of us, and that we are all without excuse before Him (Romans 1) I believe that God holds us responsible for what we have received. I would have to believe that by age 14 she would have heard about Jesus and what He did. Weather she accepted or rejected what she received is a matter between her and God alone, and there is no clear cut answer to your question. Above all God is just, and we can only trust Him in matter of this sort.

This probably belongs on a separate thread, but I'd hate to open up yet another can of theological worms.

My granddaughter lives with me. Last Saturday we had a dust storm like I've never seen (except in Arizona and West Texas). They closed D/FW airport and cancelled 564 flights. Two of my granddaughter's school chums were walking down a busy thoroughfare during the peak of the storm and were struck by a car. One girl will recover; the other will not. She is on life support only until her organs are harvested for transplant.

Here's the question, for all you theologians. "Kate" is 14 and has never been "churched". Will she go to heaven? That was the question Cheyenne asked me this morning, on the ride to school.

Let me add that Kate was known for her gentle spirit and her kind ways.

[wavydaby 1]

But maybe he did at 12 -14 or until he was married?

I was saved at one point. I do good works.

For a very long time I didnt believe in God, in between that time frame of being saved and coming back to God, i still did good works, I still acted as a good woman. Granted I did some stupid crap, but that not withstanding, Did I lose my salvation in that time? I did I get it back? Had I died in that time, would I have gone to hell?

Would that period of unsaving meant I lost my grace?

The point is, I believe that yes, you can lose your grace where you once had it.

I know at the time before I had my issues, I was VERY believing, I did do good works!

I know when I was not believing I still did do good works, just not because God wanted me to, but because I knew they were the right thing to do.

I came back to God, cause he showed me the way.

And trust me, I was pretty far away from God in my dark days.

So you are saying that even if I had died during that time, I would have gone to heave because at one time I did believe in God?

[Carlene 12]

Carlene,

I never said salvation was a gradual process. I said a changed life was a gradual process. You keep twisting everything I say and putting words in my mouth to make points that are not accurate.

The only one who know who had a real salvation experience is God who knows out hearts. Certainly not your sister or me. You keep playing these childish word games instead of considering weather they are valid or not.

Again, for the upteenth time, good works are a sign of a changed life through the salvation experience. Good works do not bring about a salvation experience. I can't make it any plainer than that.

I will use your own words here, just so we are clear on this.

If you REALLY coem to Believe, the Holy Spirit indwells you and you are changed. It's a gradualy, growing change, but you are never the same. The fruits, or good works are the indication that the change is happening within you. Once you truly believe, nothing can pluck you out of the Lords hands.

This sounds, to me, like good works are the measuring stick of salvation. If they are present, you are in the process of being saved. If they are absent, you aren't really saved. So.....does this mean you have to keep performing good works all the rest of your life? If you stop after, say, 20 years and start cheating, drinking, etc, does that mean salvation has slipped away? Does it mean you were never really saved in the first place?

In my dad's case, he was a pretty nice guy until age 30 or so. He did not drink prior to that, held a job, and was a respected member of society (and the Baptist church).

[wavydaby 1]

Carlene, I hope your granddaughter will be ok.

Goodness knows I couldnt answer that question.

I still think that at that age, a child is still too easily swayed in one way or another to have to burn in hell over not having gone to church.

But, again, that is for God to decide.

BUT I will pray that HE take in to account her age and innocence and let her in to heaven.

[Ron Cusano 0]

No problem on the name thing. I thought you were trying to be condesending.

The mention of slavery was addressing a custom of the time, which was different that today's idea of slavery, and was addressing it in a manner of how Believers treat others, rather that condoning owning another person.

Regarding women, the Bible does not demean women, but rather hold them in high esteem. Within the church God has different roles for men and women, both of equal value and importance. Because our liberal society and the womens movement has changed womens roles in the world does not mean ther are right by God's standards. If anything, I think society demeans women today.

Divorce was permitted under Mosic Law under certain conditions, and even in the New Testament for the cause of adultry.

To try to infer that the Bible condons and permits owning another person, that women are second class citizens or that divorce means going to Hell is taking things out of context.

I asked you not to call me "Charlene" because it's not my name, or a diminutive of my name. There is no "h" in Carlene. Had you addressed me as "Carly" I would not have taken offense. Ronnie was good enough for President Reagan, so I thought you might even be flattered. Sorry for the implied intimacy, Mr. Cusano.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to us the "proper context" of the scriptures I quoted regarding slavery, a woman's "place", divorce, etc.

[wavydaby 1]

So divorce is ok in case of adultry, what if I simply realised, I hated the man who I thought I could change?

I married for stupid reasons, (My love can save him) am I to be stuck with the jerk????

He didnt cheat on me. He was just in general an ass in other areas of life.

I speak from experience.

[Carlene 12]

Let's start with the fact that we are all sinners and in need of salvation, even from the womb. Scripture tells us that once we reach the reason, God reveals himself to each of us, and that we are all without excuse before Him (Romans 1) I believe that God holds us responsible for what we have received. I would have to believe that by age 14 she would have heard about Jesus and what He did. Weather she accepted or rejected what she received is a matter between her and God alone, and there is no clear cut answer to your question. Above all God is just, and we can only trust Him in matter of this sort.

So you think that Kate might go to hell, because she never made an overt act of acceptance of Christ as her savior? The same punishment for her as (we presume) God meted out to Hitler. Eternal damnation.

The very idea that anyone would even entertain those thoughts makes me ill, let alone a so-called Christian. God is love. God is just. A just and loving God would not do that.

[Ron Cusano 0]

In a sense, yes, good works are an indicator of salvation. But only an indicator and not proof positive. Somepeople experience salvation, and because of weakness, they backslide into an old lifestyle, as did the nation of Israel. Could that be what you father experienced? I don't know. I don't know what he really believed in his heart and neither do you, so neither of us know for a fact weather he was truly saved or not. Again, good works are an indicator of salvation, but there are other circumstances of the heart and life that come into play. That is why only God can judge men's hearts! The one thing that I do know for a fact is that once you are truly saved, you never can become "unsaved"! Jesus said of those who are saved, "no man can pluck them out of mine hand"! No man even included ourselves.

uote=Carlene;401662]I will use your own words here, just so we are clear on this.

This sounds, to me, like good works are the measuring stick of salvation. If they are present, you are in the process of being saved. If they are absent, you aren't really saved. So.....does this mean you have to keep performing good works all the rest of your life? If you stop after, say, 20 years and start cheating, drinking, etc, does that mean salvation has slipped away? Does it mean you were never really saved in the first place?

In my dad's case, he was a pretty nice guy until age 30 or so. He did not drink prior to that, held a job, and was a respected member of society (and the Baptist church).

[Ron Cusano 0]

The Bible tells us that marriage is a covenant for life and you would be obligated to try to make your marriage work. You would be suprised at how God can change marriage even when we marry "jerks"! That is if you put God in the center of the marriage and have the willingness.

If you marriage became unbearable because you were being abused, harmed, immorality, etc., I believe it wouold be permissible to leave, but not remarry. This is why we should not enter into marriage lightly.

So divorce is ok in case of adultry, what if I simply realised, I hated the man who I thought I could change?

I married for stupid reasons, (My love can save him) am I to be stuck with the jerk????

He didnt cheat on me. He was just in general an ass in other areas of life.

I speak from experience.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is just what it is, opinion. We are all sinners, even Kate, and in need of salvation. God cannot have any fellowship with sin, so unless our sin problem is dealt with, we cannot enter Heaven.

I don't know Kate's heart or what she may or may not have learned about the Lord, but I have to trust Him to do things according to His will and righteousness.

You know, 14 year olds are capable of murder, rape, robbery and all manner of things. Should they not be responsible before God because they are 14?? I am not saying Kate did any of these things, but at 14, we are responsible for our relationship to God. This may not sit well with your feeling and emotions, but you ned to trust God to judge righteously.

So you think that Kate might go to hell, because she never made an overt act of acceptance of Christ as her savior? The same punishment for her as (we presume) God meted out to Hitler. Eternal damnation.

The very idea that anyone would even entertain those thoughts makes me ill, let alone a so-called Christian. God is love. God is just. A just and loving God would not do that.

[Carlene 12]

The mention of slavery was addressing a custom of the time, which was different that today's idea of slavery, and was addressing it in a manner of how Believers treat others, rather that condoning owning another person.

How was slavery in Biblical times "different" than say, slavery in the US - pre Civil War? It was a "custom" of the mid-1800's, was it not?

Regarding women, the Bible does not demean women, but rather hold them in high esteem.

The Bible often does NOT hold women "in high esteem".

Ephesians 5:22-24 (American Standard Version)

22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

"Subjection" is a pretty strong word. It means, literally, subject to the rule of.

Within the church God has different roles for men and women, both of equal value and importance.

Within the church, women were forbidden to teach, or even to speak. How is that "of equal value and importance"? Not motherhood and biology, but WITHIN THE CHURCH.

To try to infer that the Bible condons and permits owning another person, that women are second class citizens or that divorce means going to Hell is taking things out of context.

I did not say that the Bible condones slavery - merely that it does not speak AGAINST it. Nor did I say that the Bible condemns divorced people to hell. I said the Bible, if taken literally, says divorced/re-married people are adulterers.

[Ron Cusano 0]

EXACTLY!! Right on the money!

So, you are saying, if I'm understanding, that while good works aren't going to save or not save anyone, anyone who is saved will do them. That it's an outward sign of having been saved, a "side-effect" of sorts?

[BJean 16]

The same Southern Baptist Church that I mentioned earlier considers my first husband and me still married. Nevermind that we had our marriage annuled by the Catholic Church. (They do not recognize the doctrine or sacraments of other churches) (Which by the way, the Catholic Church does!) Nevermind that I have remarried and that my first husband's biological child was adopted (with biological father's consent) by my current husband. Nevermind that my first husband has remarried and had a daughter. Nevermind that both of us from our first marriage have lived happy married lives with subsequent spouses and have provided loving, Christian homes for our children. We are still married according to their doctrine. Period.

Makes about as much sense as saying that once saved, always saved, no matter how you behave. You can slide from grace, you can play cards, you can dance, you can fornicate, you can kill someone, but they believe that you will always be forgiven because you were saved and baptised according to that church's interpretation of the Bible and because of their doctrine which is based upon that interpretation. In their eyes, that's part of the beautiful package of being saved, having accepted fully that Jesus died for your sins, and that God is the one true God. Very very nice for believers of that doctrine. If you understand all of that, you might more easily understand why it is so important that some people believe that theirs is the only "literal" interpretation that is possible. Very sweet, very convenient, very liberating, very single-minded and to a degree very self-serving.

[Ron Cusano 0]

I explained this to you several times already and I am not going to keep repeating myself.

How was slavery in Biblical times "different" than say, slavery in the US - pre Civil War? It was a "custom" of the mid-1800's, was it not?

The Bible often does NOT hold women "in high esteem".

Ephesians 5:22-24 (American Standard Version)

22 Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being himself the saviour of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives also be to their husbands in everything.

"Subjection" is a pretty strong word. It means, literally, subject to the rule of.

Within the church, women were forbidden to teach, or even to speak. How is that "of equal value and importance"? Not motherhood and biology, but WITHIN THE CHURCH.

All of the above speaks to God's role for women within the church fulfilling their role that God gave to them. Women were permitted to teach, only not to teach men because men were to take their place as head of the household both at home and within the church.

I did not say that the Bible condones slavery - merely that it does not speak AGAINST it. Nor did I say that the Bible condemns divorced people to hell. I said the Bible, if taken literally, says divorced/re-married people are adulterers.

It didn't speak against it because having indentured servants, what you are calling slaves, was an accepted social practice. And yes, if you divorce without biblical cause and remarry, you are an adulterer. If that doesn't sit well with you, take it up with God and your own church!

[wavydaby 1]

I have never seen where it was written that creation by God was done in one day.

If we believe that the Bible is inspired by God, then we also have to believe that God handed it down to us accurately, since God is perfect and does not make mistakes. Yes it was written doen by men, but these men were under control of the Holy Spirit of God.

Jesus said to "search the scriptures" and that the scriptures were "good for doctrine and reproof"! Do you think Jesus would instruct us to use an imperfect testimony as the basis and foundation of our faith?

If you can't trust the accuracy of the Bible, then you cannot know who Jesus was and what He did!! It is his testimony!!

In the Bible God say's what He means and means what He says. If you can't accept the literal meaning of the Word of God, there is nothing on which to base the Christian faith except tradation, opinion and feelings, all of which mean nothing.

I am having trouble finding what I am looking for, but lets take Genesis for what its worth.

7 days. Who's days? My days here as measured by 24 hrs? God's days that Paul say are thousands of years?

Genesis says days. Paul says Gods days are 1000's of years.

Genesis does not say how long a day is. Paul made this assumption.

Am I to take Genesis literally or am I to believe Paul? IF this is the case, we are told in Genesis that the flood waters stayed for 150 days. There was no difference in the way that the author wrote day for creation as opposed to day for flood Water. I say Paul made an assumption.

I say that is an allegory of what happened in creation.

I say you can not take the words "day" as literal.

I say my faith tells me that God made the world.

I also say that I believe the bible storys are true of Jesus's death and resurection. Did he heal the sick, did he change Water to wine? yes!

I say that its translation and interpretation of scriptures that cause the bible not be able to be taken literally.

And I dont need resounding proof of God's existance in a book. Any book.

He has put his finger on my heart and I feel it. (except on Sunday when I tell Him to put His finger on the snooze bar)

I know what God has done for me. I know what has been done in the past.

I have faith. Maybe its blind faith. But I dont need resounding proof written somewhere to believe in God.

Maybe that is the difference between us. You demand the proof. I dont care if I have rock solid evidence that I can show people.

I dont care to have it. I can tell you by my experience what let me back to God. I can not show you or anyone "proof". Someone will always have "other proof" to unprove it.

Maybe I am being "holier than thou" by saying IMHO, its better if you believe if you dont have showable proof but still believe.

The more I write "proof" the more it looks wrong to me.

And if you think my humor is blasphemous, I say God has a since of humor.. look at the platopus.

Its a mammal.. it lays eggs, but milk feeds its young, It has webbed feet and a tail, yet has fur.