Zone1 Why is Christianity True And Not The Faith Of The Hare Krishnas?

[ding]

No one chooses to go to hell for all eternity, so your comment is incoherent gobbledygook.

What if they can't accept God's love. What if their hearts were so hardened that God's love overwhelmed them and they asked God to remove it?

 

[ding]

You just had to push your luck until you forced me to call you a liar.

She's telling you what Catholics are taught and believe. She's no liar. Maybe you should be asking yourself why you don't want to accept what she said.

 

[ding]

the only way to avoid being tortured in hell for all eternity is by converting to Christianity.

Actually she was arguing the opposite. She's arguing that lip service won't cut it. There's no benefit from lip service. Benefit comes from transformation.

 

[Meriweather]

I clearly showed from the NT that one must have faith in Christ to be saved. Those who don't believe are damned. You can continue ignoring that evidence, but others won't. The good thing about the Catholic Church is that it really doesn't necessarily base its doctrines on the Bible. Sola Scriptura Evangelicals however, do at least try to base their doctrines on the NT Bible, and hence are more consistent with what the NT Bible says about salvation.

As noted before, too many follow the King James English which developed about fifteen hundred years after the Bible was written. "Condemned" is read as "damned", and "damned" is read as being in hell in the next life.

Not so. Think of all the things we are meant to enjoy: Scenic vistas, art, music, gardens, puppies. Those who do not enjoy things like these have condemned themselves to boredom and simply enduring when life brings these simple joys his/her way. Think about it. When someone doesn't enjoy the music you enjoy do you angrily turn on the music and blame it because there are some who don't like it?

Note how the paragraph begins. Love. God so loved the world that he sent Jesus with words of eternal (meaning now in this life and extending into the next) life. Those who don't love God, don't like kingdom living in this life, are already condemned to live without the love and the goodness/graces received in kingdom living. It's about this life and the way we choose to live. When we choose not to live in the love of grace of God, then we have chosen...have condemned ourselves...to a life without God's love, a life without God's graces. Some people choose to live an immoral life, to live for their own pleasure, to live selfish lives rather than to love God and/or fellow human beings.

 

[Meriweather]

No one chooses to go to hell for all eternity, so your comment is incoherent gobbledygook. Your god casts people into hell for all eternity, and refuses or simply can't conceive of a more compassionate and creative way of reforming that fallen soul. It's sadistic to leave human souls in hell, forever. You can define hell however you want, but it's still a place of torment.

You believe that, but it is not Catholic belief. Catholics define 'hell' as eternal separation from God, a choice some people make because they choose not to love or to be servants of God.

Isn't being angry at God because some choose not to be in his presence a little odd?

 

[Red Front]

You believe that, but it is not Catholic belief. Catholics define 'hell' as eternal separation from God, a choice some people make because they choose not to love or to be servants of God.

Isn't being angry at God because some choose not to be in his presence a little odd?

First of all, your god isn't God, so I'm not angry at God. According to the NT Bible, people go to hell for not believing in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as I already showed in a previous post and you continue to conveniently ignore. It doesn't matter how you define hell (eternal separation from God), it's a place of torment.

On what grounds are you assuming that a human being doesn't want to be in God's presence (we are all in God's presence all of the time anyways, even right now)? What do you mean by people choosing "not to love" or not to serve God? Define your terms. Are humans who live in this material world, with all of its struggles, pain and suffering, supposed to be like Care Bears for God to love them or try to help them?

Why would an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, unfathomably intelligent and creative God, abandon human souls forever in a place of torment and ignorance? You have a very limited, self-contradictory view of God.

God created the material world for souls that wanted to experience life selfishly, without serving or consecrating existence to Him. The material, divine energy that we are currently conditioned under, is a part of hell, but hell isn't eternal and there is always a way to return to God, even from hell (where we are now).

The physical world is a prison or hell, and just as in our own prisons here in the United States, there are different degrees and levels of incarceration, there are different levels of this hell-prison/material world. There are various states or conditions of hell/imprisonment.

Your version of "God", isn't God. God doesn't abandon His finite creatures in hell forever, not providing ways for them to return to the spiritual universe, where all lifeforms love and serve each other and God. This physical world conditions people to eventually wake up and return to God, but it can take a long period of time (eons), before the materially conditioned soul begins to ask the right questions and seeks to return to the divine, spirit universe, elevating itself to the divine, spiritual platform (order of life beyond the gross material world).

That is true theology, not your incomplete, incoherent, inconsistent Christian theology which has the compassionate, just, wise, infinite, omnipotent, super-intelligent and creative God just abandoning people (giving up on people), by leaving them in a state of ignorance and suffering forever, without recourse. Your view of God is inconsistent and irrational.

 

[GLASNOST]

According to the NT Bible, people go to hell for not believing in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as I already showed in a previous post and you continue to conveniently ignore.

Points one and two that prove Christianity is a croc of dog doody and that your antagonist is intentionally deaf and blind.

 

[Red Front]

As noted before, too many follow the King James English which developed about fifteen hundred years after the Bible was written. "Condemned" is read as "damned", and "damned" is read as being in hell in the next life.

Not so. Think of all the things we are meant to enjoy: Scenic vistas, art, music, gardens, puppies. Those who do not enjoy things like these have condemned themselves to boredom and simply enduring when life brings these simple joys his/her way. Think about it. When someone doesn't enjoy the music you enjoy do you angrily turn on the music and blame it because there are some who don't like it?

Note how the paragraph begins. Love. God so loved the world that he sent Jesus with words of eternal (meaning now in this life and extending into the next) life. Those who don't love God, don't like kingdom living in this life, are already condemned to live without the love and the goodness/graces received in kingdom living. It's about this life and the way we choose to live. When we choose not to live in the love of grace of God, then we have chosen...have condemned ourselves...to a life without God's love, a life without God's graces. Some people choose to live an immoral life, to live for their own pleasure, to live selfish lives rather than to love God and/or fellow human beings.

You're not reading John 3:16-18 in context and you're ignoring the Greek. I don't rely on English translations, I go to the Greek and of course, read verses in their proper context. According to the NT, a person has to believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, to be saved from an eternity in hell. You're being dishonest and projecting a meaning on biblical texts, that they don't have. You should stop twisting the NT and find another religious or spiritual paradigm, which fits your more eclectic, new age views.

Although I must admit with you it's hard to pinpoint, if exactly you're a liberal, eclectic, new ager or a Christian fundamentalist playing word games (playing silly games). You seem to also justify God abandoning people in hell forever, without any possibility of parole or rehabilitation. Your view of God seems to be of a heavenly, egotistical tyrant that abandons human beings in a state of eternal ignorance and torment, because they didn't "love" (vague, be more specific) or serve Him (again vague, define your terms and what you mean by not "choosing to love" or "serve God"). You're very sophistic, prone to sophistry and making disingenuous objections.

 

[Red Front]

Points one and two that prove Christianity is a croc of dog doody and that your antagonist is intentionally deaf and blind.

Yes, he/she continues to play silly games.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't rely on English translations, I go to the Greek

And I go to the Hebrew and Aramaic language and the culture. Add to that a God who loves all, and the true picture emerges.

 

[Red Front]

And I go to the Hebrew and Aramaic language and the culture. Add to that a God who loves all, and the true picture emerges.

The NT Christian scriptures weren't originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. My evidence is from the NT, showing that Christianity requires humanity to believe in Jesus to be saved. The God of the NT bible, even goes as far as to predestine who goes to heaven and who is tortured in hell for all eternity. I presented plenty of biblical evidence, which you flippantly and disingenuously ignore. You also refuse to define what you mean by "choosing not to love" or in what way people are choosing not to be with God Almighty and to spend eternity being tortured in your god's hell (the hell he created).

People stop interacting with you, not because they're losing a debate or unable to debunk your nonsense, but because it's a waste of time, after a few posts. Why continue to interact with someone who continually ignores the evidence that is presented and refuses to define his or her terms, speaking in generalities. You're not worth my precious time and effort. I'm sure at this point of our interaction, honest truth seekers, recognize what I'm saying is true. My concern is them, not you, because I know you're gone. A complete waste of my time and energy.

 

[GLASNOST]

People stop interacting with you, not because they're losing a debate or unable to debunk your nonsense, but because it's a waste of time, after a few posts. Why continue to interact with someone who continually ignores the evidence that is presented and refuses to define his or her terms, speaking in generalities. You're not worth my precious time and effort. I'm sure at this point of our interaction, honest truth seekers, recognize what I'm saying is true. My concern is them, not you, because I know you're gone. A complete waste of my time and energy.

 

[BothWings]

Correct. All we know is what Jesus' biographers said.

And for all we know it could be total fiction, just with some facts recorded in the mix to make it seem legit.

 

[Libby von H]

What makes Christianity the only true religion in the world, and a religion like that of the Hare Krishnas false? I would rather convert to the Hare Krishnas than become a Christian, due to how evil the Christians depict God. Evangelical Christianity is trying to kill God for people's sins and it claims that God will maintain the vast majority of people (99%+ of humanity), conscious, in a state of torment, being tortured in hell for all eternity, for not converting to Protestant Christianity. If anyone converts to the wrong half of Christianity (Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) they would've converted to the wrong brand of Christianity hence would be subject to God's wrath too, according to Evangelical Christians.

How more wicked could a religion be? Why not just chant Hare Krishna and be happy? Convert to Hare Krishna, reject the psychopathic theology of Evangelicals.

Evangelical, Protestant Christianity seems more like spiritual terrorism, than anything else.

You dishonestly changed your question by saying 'only true religion' AND you say you don't care what is true but rather want what you like !! Well that is not religion at all

You state 3 big lies
1) Catholic Church has NEVER affirmed the damnation of even one person.so even if many are eventually damned you have no data to support it.

2) You are terribly illogical . Your claim about wrong religion means that what you do after investigation and in reliance on God and moral living can damn you !! In almost all Christian theology that is wrong and cannot happen

3) Finally you pervert even the Jewish view
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:



Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

================
IF I had to guess, you would be damned but it would be because you are spreading error, you have not done your homework, and you are disparaging Jesus by accusing Him in the same way His enemies did.

 

[Libby von H]

The NT Christian scriptures weren't originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. My evidence is from the NT, showing that Christianity requires humanity to believe in Jesus to be saved. The God of the NT bible, even goes as far as to predestine who goes to heaven and who is tortured in hell for all eternity. I presented plenty of biblical evidence, which you flippantly and disingenuously ignore. You also refuse to define what you mean by "choosing not to love" or in what way people are choosing not to be with God Almighty and to spend eternity being tortured in your god's hell (the hell he created).

People stop interacting with you, not because they're losing a debate or unable to debunk your nonsense, but because it's a waste of time, after a few posts. Why continue to interact with someone who continually ignores the evidence that is presented and refuses to define his or her terms, speaking in generalities. You're not worth my precious time and effort. I'm sure at this point of our interaction, honest truth seekers, recognize what I'm saying is true. My concern is them, not you, because I know you're gone. A complete waste of my time and energy.

Again , 3 big errors in this.
1) Even if we had another letter from St Paul it would NOT automatically be Scripture. What is Scripture is what the Church canonizes. Prior versions, other languages, etc. have zero bearing. We are not called to be professional textual critics. IF a Catholic gets an approved translation, even though it is not perfect, it is Scripture and it is the Word of God insofar as we know grasp it.

2) Christianity requires that you do the best with what you have in regard to the message of Jesus. In your view a baby who is baptized and doens't have conscious understanding of Jesus is damned. That would make you an enemy of God in almost the whole history of Christianity, Catholic or not. That is NOT the teaching of Jesus

3) And you totally misjudge the nature of Hell... I am a convert so I won't mock you but you say the OPPOSITE. THis is the way to understand Hell
Hell is inability to be happy even in Heaven (!!) because you are an unholy person, and that is Hell, Super logical...

—it is fearful, but it is right to say it;—that if we wished to imagine a punishment for an unholy, reprobate soul, we perhaps could not fancy a greater than to summon it to heaven. Heaven would be hell to an irreligious man. We know how unhappy we are apt to feel at present, when alone in the midst of strangers, or of men of different tastes and habits from ourselves. How miserable, for example, would it be to have to live in a foreign land, among a people whose faces we never saw before, and whose language we could not learn. And this is but a faint illustration of the loneliness of a man of earthly dispositions and tastes, thrust into the society of saints and angels. How forlorn would he wander through the courts of heaven! He would find no one like himself; he would see in every direction the marks {8} of God's holiness, and these would make him shudder. He would feel himself always in His presence. He could no longer turn his thoughts another way, as he does now, when conscience reproaches him. He would know that the Eternal Eye was ever upon him; and that Eye of holiness, which is joy and life to holy creatures, would seem to him an Eye of wrath and punishment. God cannot change His nature. Holy He must ever be. But while He is holy, no unholy soul can be happy in heaven.

 

[Red Front]

You dishonestly changed your question by saying 'only true religion' AND you say you don't care what is true but rather want what you like !! Well that is not religion at all

You state 3 big lies
1) Catholic Church has NEVER affirmed the damnation of even one person.so even if many are eventually damned you have no data to support it.

2) You are terribly illogical . Your claim about wrong religion means that what you do after investigation and in reliance on God and moral living can damn you !! In almost all Christian theology that is wrong and cannot happen

3) Finally you pervert even the Jewish view
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:



Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.

================
IF I had to guess, you would be damned but it would be because you are spreading error, you have not done your homework, and you are disparaging Jesus by accusing Him in the same way His enemies did.

All those words, and you're essentially saying nothing. If your religion asserts that God is keeping people conscious in hell for all eternity, for not converting to Christianity or for committing "sin" in this life, then your version of God portrays him as a sadistic, evil psycho. That's not an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, loving or just God.

 

[Libby von H]

First of all, your god isn't God, so I'm not angry at God. According to the NT Bible, people go to hell for not believing in Jesus as their Lord and Savior, as I already showed in a previous post and you continue to conveniently ignore. It doesn't matter how you define hell (eternal separation from God), it's a place of torment.

On what grounds are you assuming that a human being doesn't want to be in God's presence (we are all in God's presence all of the time anyways, even right now)? What do you mean by people choosing "not to love" or not to serve God? Define your terms. Are humans who live in this material world, with all of its struggles, pain and suffering, supposed to be like Care Bears for God to love them or try to help them?

View attachment 912689​

Why would an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, unfathomably intelligent and creative God, abandon human souls forever in a place of torment and ignorance? You have a very limited, self-contradictory view of God.

God created the material world for souls that wanted to experience life selfishly, without serving or consecrating existence to Him. The material, divine energy that we are currently conditioned under, is a part of hell, but hell isn't eternal and there is always a way to return to God, even from hell (where we are now).

The physical world is a prison or hell, and just as in our own prisons here in the United States, there are different degrees and levels of incarceration, there are different levels of this hell-prison/material world. There are various states or conditions of hell/imprisonment.

Your version of "God", isn't God. God doesn't abandon His finite creatures in hell forever, not providing ways for them to return to the spiritual universe, where all lifeforms love and serve each other and God. This physical world conditions people to eventually wake up and return to God, but it can take a long period of time (eons), before the materially conditioned soul begins to ask the right questions and seeks to return to the divine, spirit universe, elevating itself to the divine, spiritual platform (order of life beyond the gross material world).

That is true theology, not your incomplete, incoherent, inconsistent Christian theology which has the compassionate, just, wise, infinite, omnipotent, super-intelligent and creative God just abandoning people (giving up on people), by leaving them in a state of ignorance and suffering forever, without recourse. Your view of God is inconsistent and irrational.

YOu completely contradict yourself.
Hell is YOU rejecting God and not the other way around. And Logic is irrefutable on this.

just tell me what you don't grasp here

—it is fearful, but it is right to say it;—that if we wished to imagine a punishment for an unholy, reprobate soul, we perhaps could not fancy a greater than to summon it to heaven. Heaven would be hell to an irreligious man. We know how unhappy we are apt to feel at present, when alone in the midst of strangers, or of men of different tastes and habits from ourselves. How miserable, for example, would it be to have to live in a foreign land, among a people whose faces we never saw before, and whose language we could not learn. And this is but a faint illustration of the loneliness of a man of earthly dispositions and tastes, thrust into the society of saints and angels. How forlorn would he wander through the courts of heaven! He would find no one like himself; he would see in every direction the marks {8} of God's holiness, and these would make him shudder. He would feel himself always in His presence. He could no longer turn his thoughts another way, as he does now, when conscience reproaches him. He would know that the Eternal Eye was ever upon him; and that Eye of holiness, which is joy and life to holy creatures, would seem to him an Eye of wrath and punishment. God cannot change His nature. Holy He must ever be. But while He is holy, no unholy soul can be happy in heaven.

 

[Red Front]

YOu completely contradict yourself.
Hell is YOU rejecting God and not the other way around. And Logic is irrefutable on this.

just tell me what you don't grasp here

—it is fearful, but it is right to say it;—that if we wished to imagine a punishment for an unholy, reprobate soul, we perhaps could not fancy a greater than to summon it to heaven. Heaven would be hell to an irreligious man. We know how unhappy we are apt to feel at present, when alone in the midst of strangers, or of men of different tastes and habits from ourselves. How miserable, for example, would it be to have to live in a foreign land, among a people whose faces we never saw before, and whose language we could not learn. And this is but a faint illustration of the loneliness of a man of earthly dispositions and tastes, thrust into the society of saints and angels. How forlorn would he wander through the courts of heaven! He would find no one like himself; he would see in every direction the marks {8} of God's holiness, and these would make him shudder. He would feel himself always in His presence. He could no longer turn his thoughts another way, as he does now, when conscience reproaches him. He would know that the Eternal Eye was ever upon him; and that Eye of holiness, which is joy and life to holy creatures, would seem to him an Eye of wrath and punishment. God cannot change His nature. Holy He must ever be. But while He is holy, no unholy soul can be happy in heaven.

I don't reject God, I reject your Christian opinions and pretensions about God. I don't believe your portrayal of God is accurate, it's actually inconsistent with His eternal, omnipotent, loving, and just nature. Rejecting your BS about God is not the equivalent of rejecting God.

 

[Invisibleflash]

What makes Christianity the only true religion in the world, and a religion like that of the Hare Krishnas false? I would rather convert to the Hare Krishnas than become a Christian, due to how evil the Christians depict God. Evangelical Christianity is trying to kill God for people's sins and it claims that God will maintain the vast majority of people (99%+ of humanity), conscious, in a state of torment, being tortured in hell for all eternity, for not converting to Protestant Christianity. If anyone converts to the wrong half of Christianity (Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) they would've converted to the wrong brand of Christianity hence would be subject to God's wrath too, according to Evangelical Christians.

How more wicked could a religion be? Why not just chant Hare Krishna and be happy? Convert to Hare Krishna, reject the psychopathic theology of Evangelicals.

Evangelical, Protestant Christianity seems more like spiritual terrorism, than anything else.

Every religion like to believe theirs is the only true path.

GodFinder >

Humans are predisposed to creating gods...tons of them.

 

[Invisibleflash]

I don't reject God, I reject your Christian opinions and pretensions about God. I don't believe your portrayal of God is accurate, it's actually inconsistent with His eternal, omnipotent, loving, and just nature. Rejecting your BS about God is not the equivalent of rejecting God.

There are no gods. Religion is all regional. All manmade lies made to control the masses and for others to get rich. But the commie dems have not taken over 100% as yet...so believe as you like. Does not matter to me. Just don't start killing people in the name of your god/s. You know I never lie to you...that's the score.