Re: A real question - alternative
I have never in my life seen so many misconceptions about Christianity than from this forum.
Honestly, any non-Christians who say they don't believe in it should really ask themselves if they know what *it* is first, and not Rusell or anyone else's version of it.
God is the ultimate realist, a monastic/mother teresea life is not required per se.
God wants your soul, that is it.
What you do on earth without giving him your soul means [censored]. (ephesians - all works are as filthy rags)
If you do good things you can get 1-5 crowns (I won't go into it here for those that don't know, the Bible is your friend and online) as testament to your deeds.
But anyway, the way I understand Christianity is, underneath it all is the simple premise that:
You are [censored].
But ... I will help you.
Take my hand or slap it away, the choice is yours.
But ... the choice is eternal.
No, things are this way. Don't ask why, I'm God, where were you when the world was made?
I'm offering to help you out because I love you, that's all you need to know, call it 'faith'.
Accept or reject, choice is yours, either way I'm fine, its your decision.
That being said, believing and accepting seems sufficent for the bare minimum if you genuinely give your life and soul to Christ.
Christians often debate over 'once saved, always saved' - ie- David Sklansky (for example) has a near death experience, gives his life to Christ, but a few days later rejects it and says he is an atheist.
In God's eyes is Sklansky saved because he accepted at one point in time and truly mean't it then, or is there a 'deal-breaker' other than the Mark of the Beast?
I've encountered many people who hold the view that 'once saved, always saved', and there seem to be many verses that support it, but who knows.
Cheers,
SDM
|