...by the 'rules' of god as layed out in the oft quoted book...

Living in such a way as to be the perfect example of a christian but for one small thing.

They do not accept Jesus...

Are they damned?

Would god allow them in his 'heaven'?

Would they be denied eternal life?

...by the 'rules' of god as layed out in the oft quoted book...

Living in such a way as to be the perfect example of a christian but for one small thing.

They do not accept Jesus...

Are they damned?

Would god allow them in his 'heaven'?

Would they be denied eternal life?

Well, most "Christians" as well as others would use the "doctrines of men" to condemm others.

Read Romans 2 and make up your own mind.

...by the 'rules' of god as layed out in the oft quoted book...

Living in such a way as to be the perfect example of a christian but for one small thing.

They do not accept Jesus...

Are they damned?

Would god allow them in his 'heaven'?

Would they be denied eternal life?

Well, if Romans 2 is in contradiction with the scriptures of John then they only thing I can suggest is the hearsay rumors called the "New Testament" are inconsistent and in contradiction with themselves:

[color=blue
John 3:

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


"but he that believeth not is condemned already"

If it says otherwise in Romans 2 then these hearsay rumors are clearly ambiguous and cannot be trusted to speak truth.

In fact, this is indeed my conclusion of this whole collection of fables from the beginning of the Old Testament to the revelations of John at the end of the New Testament. It's just contradictions and inconsistencies at every turn of the page the whole way through the cannon of stories.

You're more than welcome to continue believe the lies (as always). Just please stop responding to me until you are willing to admit that you still believe the Roman Moronic fallacies.

Well, if Romans 2 is in contradiction with the scriptures of John then they only thing I can suggest is the hearsay rumors called the "New Testament" are inconsistent and in contradiction with themselves:

[color=blue
John 3:

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
[17] For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
[18] He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


"but he that believeth not is condemned already"

If it says otherwise in Romans 2 then these hearsay rumors are clearly ambiguous and cannot be trusted to speak truth.

In fact, this is indeed my conclusion of this whole collection of fables from the beginning of the Old Testament to the revelations of John at the end of the New Testament. It's just contradictions and inconsistencies at every turn of the page the whole way through the cannon of stories.

I wasn't "responding" to you specifically. I was simply bouncing off your public thoughts on a public form. You even challenged people to make up their own mind. I did.

Also, what "lies" are you talking about? The scriptures of John?

I was just pointing out the fact that if the Bible says in Romans that it's not important to believe in Jesus, and it says in John that those who do not believe in Jesus are already condemned, then these ancient fables contain conflicting messages and contradictions and therefore represent untrustworthy hearsay rumors and certainly not the unambiguous wisdom of any supposed "god".

My comments are offered just food for thought.

Take'em or leave'em, but please don't become offended by them for that is not their purpose.

It does not say differently in Romans 2. Romans 2 is talking about being judged by our father for our sins. And the wrath of our father on the unrighteous. That's where Jesus comes in. Who so ever believes on him is not condemned. That is because Jesus sacrificed himself to die in your place for your sins. That is why who ever does not accept Jesus is condemned already, for their sins stay with them and are not forgiven cause they did not accept the sacrifice for them.

No conflict.

But Jesus didn't die a spiritual death. He was supposedly resurrected thus surviving death (thus he received the REWARD for being righteous and did not pay the penalty for "sin" which is permanent spiritual death.

So don't try to tell me that there are no contradictions in your interpretations of these convoluted and contradicting rumors.

Your so-called explanations and "theories" do not solve any of the contradictions.

Sorry, but you haven't solved anything.

You can't even get the main theme of the story to make any sense much less worry about any of the details.

Trust me, I've studied this my entire life, there simply is no way to make this fable logically consistent.

Isaac Newton came to the same conclusions, as did many other great minds. It just isn't a workable fable.

These guys who wrote these rumors tried to make out like Jesus was the sacrificial demigod of the God of Abraham, but that story doesn't make any sense at all. Clearly they were wrong.

A far more reasonable and sound theory is that Jesus was attempting to teach the views of Mahayana Buddhism and was simply misunderstood, misquoted, and basically misrepresented entirely by the hearsay rumors that we now call the "New Testament"

It's an unworkable rumor. It just doesn't work. Face it.

He died so that you wouldn't have to. He was resurrected from the death, he came back to life. But nevertheless he did originally die. He was the ultimate sacrifice for your sins so that they may be forgiven.

I fully understand that this is what the authors of the New Testament were attempting to claim. I don't question that at all.

What I'm saying is that their claims are clearly false and are not workable. Jesus could not have "paid" for anyone sins if he did not die a spiritual death. Physical death is utterly meaningless in this context.

So you're just continuing to blow hot air into the wind by just repeating the nonsense that the authors of the New Testament made up in their imaginations.

It's simply nonsense. (i.e. it makes no sense)

Trying to pass Jesus off as some sort of sacrificial demigod just doesn't work. Period. So that clearly has to be false.

The New Testament is false hearsay rumors.

He sacrificed himself to go through the pain of death. He didn't have to do this, he sacrificed himself. He sacrificed his ENTIRE life for us, he lived for us teaching us of the laws. The crucifixion was only part of his sacrifice for us. But if you are not willing to accept this great gift, that is fine. That is your choice. It's right there on the table ready for you to pick this gift up, if you wish to turn away again that is your choice.

You're being silly now by talking about "turning away a gift".

That's not the point we're discussing. The point we're discussing is whether or not the story makes any sense.

And once again, you have failed to make any sense out of this story. You're speaking here in terms of sacrificing pain, etc. However, that flies in the face of what you consistently preach. You preach that the only reward for sin is death.

There's nothing anywhere in this fable from the beginning of Genesis to John's Revelations where it claims that sins can be atoned for via pain and suffering.

If they only penalty (or reward as you prefer to call it) is spiritual death, then nothing short of spiritual death can pay for sins.

So there's no 'gift' being offered here. No one spiritually died to pay for anyone else's sins. Pain and suffering are irrelevant and simply don't fit into this fable as a valid means of paying for sins.

Face it, the fable is simply a fraud.

The guys who wrote this may very well have "believed" it themselves just as much as you do. I'm not saying that they purposefully made up intentional "lies". They were probably just rambling on like you do with good intentions but clearly not paying much attention to the details of their delusions.

They believed the rumors of Jesus' resurrection and that he was a demigod. I don't doubt that they actually believed this stuff themselves. That doesn't change the fact that it's still all just hearsay rumors that aren't even logically consistent.

I'm, sure that many of the authors of other mythologies believed what they wrote too.

It does not say differently in Romans 2. Romans 2 is talking about being judged by our father for our sins. And the wrath of our father on the unrighteous. That's where Jesus comes in. Who so ever believes on him is not condemned. That is because Jesus sacrificed himself to die in your place for your sins. That is why who ever does not accept Jesus is condemned already, for their sins stay with them and are not forgiven cause they did not accept the sacrifice for them.

=======================================
And once again, you have failed to make any sense out of this story. You're speaking here in terms of sacrificing pain, etc. However, that flies in the face of what you consistently preach. You preach that the only reward for sin is death
========================================

To be forgiven for sins, people have to sacrifice something. Not particularly a "blood" sacrifice. But that was the most worthy sacrifice for it is a needed source, eg., food. Forgiveness is earned, not freely given. If it was freely given people could steal something and then say oh lord forgive me, thus they would be forgiven. Then the next day do the same exact thing.

With something being sacrificed it shows sincerity to their asking for forgiveness. Or again, as the saying goes "Actions speak louder then words."

No conflict. Again, Romans is talking about the judgement of our father and the wrath on the unrighteous. Through Jesus we are righteous, thus Who ever believes in Jesus shall not parish but have ever lasting life. The two go hand in hand. Romans is only telling the fate of those who do not accept Jesus as lord and saviour. Again, you have to take the ENTIRE bible into account to understand what it is saying.