|
|
|
|
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 8:04:48 PM | If we are to believe the adam and eve story, and believe the effect of that one sin, then we should accept the rest of the sins commited in the bible as well. I think this is good reasoning mak68...
I'm not sure if the planet could have survived this, maybe even the solar system for that matter. It would stand to reason that this would be our destiny, wouldn't it?
Plus the added ripple effect of every wrong, or good done in the bible. What about your comment on the good done in the Bible having its ripple or domino effect? Maybe countermand the effect of the ever increasing sin?
The affect of good can also be concluded from extra-biblical reasoning as well. For instance, all the charitable things that I read you've done... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 8:54:27 PM | Heavens, this one's moving on without me. Even while I'm trying to read it! Anyway, I'm trying something different. Still gonna feralise, but I'll try to keep it to a minimum. Here we go.
Now that I have infuriated all my detractors... Seeing as how I'm the first one addressed, I'm going to hold out hope I'm not considered a "detractor". I do appreciate the response, but I'd ask in future that you consider actually answering the questions posed.
Can you choose to do anything that is truly good? Gotta address this one, first. Yes. Yes, I can. Unless, of course, the definitions move around beneath me. I assume that is the tactic to be used, yes?
That's a valid question. That touches the issue of election. Regarding your "answer", then, I don't consider it to be a valid answer. I'm interpreting it to say, "it's not fair, it's God." If that's your belief, dice, but it certainly doesn't speak to any definition of justice that I've ever seen. Now, to get back to the actual topic...
I believe... No, you don’t. If the world truly functions as you have portrayed, and you honestly accept that to be the case, then you have no option whatsoever than to concede that neither you nor I have any basis for the capacity for individual thought. Without volition, without tendering some possibility of freedom of will in making decisions, your argument reduces humanity to nothing more than automatons, elaborat dolls to echo back whatever the deity wishes to hear, be it pious abasement or willful defiance. In fact, given that you have in essence argued that humanity has no capacity to make decisions in its own right, and as you’ve implicitly intimated that any and all decisions that can or could be made have a moral dimension, these are the only stances available, and cannot be taken by autonomous, sovereign beings but must be taken through us by God Himself. Essentially, my contention is that there is no faith without free will. Faith is belief, and we make a choice to believe. We have to have that freedom to make that choice, or we're nothing more than puppets on a string, living our lives as God ordains, quite literally every second of every day, and, while we can be discarded or saved, we cannot be truly punished for transgressions we could not help but make. That, my beloved fishies, is the necessity of the Reality of Choice.
Regarding transgressions. As I pointed out neither you nor I can know the effect and limits of even the smallest sin or transgression.
In which case, the argument is illogical. How, seriously, is someone to be held accountable for something they could not possibly predict? However, as it’s not actually conducive to the topic, I suggest we take it elsewhere and return here to the discussion at hand, yes?
Having touched on that, though, it does tie in. We've talked (okay, you guys have) about the apparent impropriety of eternal punishment for finite sins, the "rippling" effects of which a sinner cannot predict (but for which, it seems it is just to still punish him/her). We've also touched on the insane expecation of waiting for someone to change themselves when they've done "wrong", do "wrong", and ought to logically be expected to continue doing "wrong". Where, then, is the answer, the key to getting us out of this crazy eternity/faith/free will/sin trap? I submit two potential answers.
First, that which was downplayed in favour of an oppressive system of apparent justice now shown to partake of none. I give you: Love. If, as Jesus claimed, "God is Love", then we really ought to know where we stand, as even the kinds of ridiculous dogmatic interpretations of tradition that insist hell must be eternal punishment for admittedly cumulative, but finite sins cannot stand against that power.
And second, and ironically proceeding from the one person who argued against anyone having the power to choose, is the one thing that, through love, makes the kind of fundamental change we really are talking about possible. "...[W]what I believe and why I believe it... ...to ask questions and challenge... ...an open dialogue." Once upon a time, both Jewish and Christian religion would have us believe, humanity could talk to God, could ask why, and could understand the point behind sin and its detrimental effects. This is why I love the gods, and follow them, including Jesus Christ. We have a dialogue, we understand one another, and I can be taught right from wrong. Instead of "because I said so", I get a solid, logical and acceptable answer. Would only that more folks would talk to their gods, rather than simply interpreting what they said, oh, so long ago. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 78 | |
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 9:14:29 PM |
What about your comment on the good done in the Bible having its ripple or domino effect? Maybe countermand the effect of the ever increasing sin?
The affect of good can also be concluded from extra-biblical reasoning as well. For instance, all the charitable things that I read you've done...
Those that do good works, yet do not believe in jesus being the christ, or a god for that matter, are rooted in evil. Therefore, those good deeds, as well as mine, are considered sinful. Funny how doctrine works...
I quote (ACIB):
Feral asks, "How does one know whether they have free will?" Can you choose to do anything that is truly good? NO--everything you choose to do is tainted by sin because you are a sinner living in a fallen world. I believe your will can only choose to do evil. Remember the Christian doctrine of original sin. God imputes to all of mankind Adam's sin so that no one is born pure and innocent. That is why our wills are in bondage to sin.
I quote again (yourself):
In many ways I agree with "And can it be?" that God chooses his elect...
If you buy into christian doctrine, then no matter what the good deed, or how many, it is still sinful unless you believe that jesus is the christ. Whatever good deed I did, is considered sinful, and I suppose anything else from that is also considered sinful. Then according to christian doctrine, anything a non-believer does would contribute to the domino effect of sin, not good deeds.
Aside from the esoteric question..
One would have to count the number of sins against the number of good deeds done in the bible, and the exponential effect of those deeds. One could say that the difference left over would determine whether we live in paradise or a hell, depending on which has the edge (please feel free to correct the math or thinking on this one).
Seeing as we don't live in either, as described by the bible, I put to you that the domino effect of sin and/or good is moot. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 9:51:25 PM |
If you buy into christian doctrine, then no matter what the good deed, or how many, it is still sinful unless you believe that jesus is the christ. Point of clarification, here. This is only applicable to the strict Calvinist interpretation of Scripture that espouses the tenet of "total depravity". Most Christian denominations realise that humanity is more than a weak charicature of itself. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:23:48 PM |
Only for some of us... You seem to comprehend it just fine.
"If I am wise, it is only because I know that I do not know." ~ Socrates
I understand that everything is changing, but I do not pretend to know how or why. I'm just a mere human, after all, and it would be impossible for me to understand every change that occurred everywhere on the planet. But thanks for the compliment. ^_^
Trippy: I don't care for some of your posts but I actually liked this one. It made pretty good sense. Thanks for explaining some of your comments.
You're quite welcome. I'm glad to see that there are some who do not immediately equate disagreement with hostility, and I'm certainly glad for it. Moving on:
Regarding transgressions. As I pointed out neither you nor I can know the effect and limits of even the smallest sin or transgression. IMO we are shown and instructed as to what is and is not acceptable to God. When we choose to do our own thing God takes into consideration the generational effect of the sin as well as weighs your rebellious heart. And no repentence = no forgiveness. For no repentence means you will continue to be a repeat offender.
However, that requires someone to repeat the offense: if every offense is a Hell sentence, then there is no opportunity to learn from them. Granted, every transgression has effects we cannot begin to imagine, but so too does every noble deed. There is, simply put, no such thing as a selfless deed (I call this the "Tribbiani Principle"), and every action requires a reaction.... sometimes the action can be good (firemen rushing into the towers on 9-11) and have bad results (many of them die, and some that don't end up shagging the wives of some that do). The result of this noble deed is quite negative. And sometimes cruel deeds have positive results: the long, slow, cruel torture of living in hiding then dying in the camps was unspeakably cruel to Anne Frank and her family... but without that sequence of events, her diary would not have been published: and there are many hundreds of cases where people's lives have improved noticeably after reading it.
So, then, which deed can be considered 'good' and which is 'bad'? The deeds can certainly be categorized at the time they are performed, but the long-term effects can be quite drastically different. Case in point:
A sick and twisted man molests a young boy, age 7. The boy remains silent about this abuse, yet it festers within him for a decade. This boy later tracks down his molester and murders him. In the pedophile's posession are maps, photos, and careful obervations of six other little boys.
Murder is a sin. But, in murdering the pedophile, the boy ensured that those six little boys would not have to endure the same horrors he himself endured. His motivation was revenge, his action violent: yet, the outcome was positive. He in effect saved the childhoods of six people, at the expense of his own.
Another case in point: warfare.
Murder is still wrong. A marine on patrol sees a suspicious person moving in the direction of the marine post. He follows the man, and a few blocks later, sees him running towards a marine convy. He fires, and kills the runner. Seconds later, the runner's body explodes. An examination of the remains shows that, had this hostile made it to the convy, he could have killed or injured a dozen or more. But the marine has still taken a life. Is that, then, murder? Would he go to Hell for taking a life, even though he saved many more?
See, the world is not black and white, despite what n8 would like to claim. There are no absolutes, there is only uncertainty and change. The trick is to realize what level of uncertainty one is willing to accept. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 81 | |
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:40:32 PM | Point of clarification, here. This is only applicable to the strict Calvinist interpretation of Scripture that espouses the tenet of "total depravity". Most Christian denominations realise that humanity is more than a weak charicature of itself
Not so.
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
According to Christian theology, original sin (also called ancestral sin, hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin) is the fallen state of humanity. Western Christian tradition regards it as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born. In the history of Christian dogma this condition has been characterized as something as insignificant as a slight deficiency to something as drastic as total depravity. Eastern Christian Tradition identifies Original Sin as physical and spiritual mortality[1], which in turn leads people to commit actual sins.
from the catholic encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
Modern protestants (mainline):
from here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_8.shtml
Many modern Protestants would not take quite such a gloomy view of humanity as Calvin, and would not regard humankind as evil in essence, without any trace of the divine image.
They would still teach that human beings are 'fallen' and need to 'get right with God', by believing that Christ's death 'atoned' for their sin, accepting that they can only be 'saved' by God's freely given 'grace', and being baptised.
The last quote about the protestants I take to mean is that we are still sinful, but there is a glint of good in us somewhere. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:50:38 PM |
The last quote about the protestants I take to mean is that we are still sinful, but there is a glint of good in us somewhere. Precisely my point. My argument was that, in the more modern, effectively liberal interpretation of "original sin", while mankind is still "corrupt", they are still capable of good works. Your point above with which I disagreed was only applicable to the strict Calvinist interpretation, in that it referenced "good" works as "sinful". Only someone convinced of the "total depravity" of humanity would make that logic-defying leap. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 10:57:16 PM |
understand that everything is changing, but I do not pretend to know how or why. I'm just a mere human, after all, and it would be impossible for me to understand every change that occurred everywhere on the planet. But thanks for the compliment. ^_^
You don't have to understand every change to understand that everything changes and if you don't mind the paradox, knowing you can't understand change is the first part to understanding...
Meh... I lost myself.
I'll be back! | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 84 | |
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 11:07:20 PM |
My argument was that, in the more modern, effectively liberal interpretation of "original sin", while mankind is still "corrupt", they are still capable of good works.
Then I ask you to show me something that will confirm this. If most of the christian faiths still consider us to be of original sin, show me where any christian sect thinks that our works are still good though we haven't accepted christ. You mention liberal sects of protestantism, trhat may very well be even. The reform jews also think that original sin is nul, but mainstream jews would disagree.
The catholics still think we are nothing but sinners:
from here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/originalsin_8.shtml
It is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin.
We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature 'not by imitation, but by propagation' and that it is thus 'proper to everyone.'
The catholic church is the largest group of christians, if I'm not mistaken. They are more along the lines of the calvinists. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/12/2007 11:23:23 PM |
Precisely my point. My argument was that, in the more modern, effectively liberal interpretation of "original sin", while mankind is still "corrupt", they are still capable of good works. Your point above with which I disagreed was only applicable to the strict Calvinist interpretation, in that it referenced "good" works as "sinful". Only someone convinced of the "total depravity" of humanity would make that logic-defying leap.
Exactly. Calvinists belief in "predeterminism" explains the "logic-defying leap" while other denominations who believe in "free will" may choose a "glint of good" or not, although both believe in the "corruption of man". I think ..... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 12:05:27 AM | Loon's got my back, at least. 
Deal is, it's not so much that the doctrine of original sin as endemic to human nature is not embraced by Christianity. As far as I know all sects accept that. It's the basis for the Fall and the necessity of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.
My point is that it is only those who choose a stance of total corruption of humanity that refuse to see the benefits of works, even when performed by an unrepentant sinner. Your quote was to the effect that "giving alms" and volunteer work would be considered sinful, and my point in attempting to clarify this was that it's only Calvinists (in my experience) that maintain that the corruption of the doer makes the deeds sinful. There is no sin in doing good works, whatever the self-proclaimed "elect" might want others to think. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 12:16:27 AM |
My point is that it is only those who choose a stance of total corruption of humanity that refuse to see the benefits of works, even when performed by an unrepentant sinner.
very witty .... although they choose a stance, "predeterminisn" offers no choice, it has already been chosen. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:55:23 AM | When I discuss free will and automatons, I ask questions like this... Would an automaton know that it is an automaton?
Most everyone should recognize this concept as a biblical teaching... When the lion one day lays down with the lamb, are they THEN automatons? When the lions diet turns to that of grass instead of lamb, will it then be an automaton? When a being starts operating outside of its nature, wouldn't that mean it's less of an automaton than before, and has more freedom of will??
How about this other biblical example... When a dog returns to it's vomit, or a sow that has been washed returns back to the mire, does it have any freedom of choice except to follow its nature? Were these examples included into the bible to teach that people are constrained by their human nature too?
What if we are the automatons??? In a different forum, GE+H said that he was envious of a persons ability to have faith, and admitted that he is not able to believe. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 6:05:40 AM | When I discuss free will and automatons, I ask questions like this... Would an automaton know that it is an automaton?
No, unless it had been pre-programmed to have self-awareness. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 6:40:21 AM | No, unless it had been pre-programmed to have self-awareness...
By using the word unless, are you saying that it is possible for a self aware being to be an automaton?
Thanks for being a critical thinker... | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 8:23:31 AM | Re: self-awareness
Yes, Matt, I am. What I am also saying is that we are biological machines. So in this sense we are pre-programmed, i.e. instilled with our ancestors genes to do just that. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 10:42:29 PM |
You don't have to understand every change to understand that everything changes and if you don't mind the paradox, knowing you can't understand change is the first part to understanding...
Meh... I lost myself.
Yeah, that'll happen. :-P
I'll be back!
Yay! And look at it this way: once you've gotten yourself lost once, you'll always know how to get that lost again, so it's not entirely getting lost. :D
Speaking of which...
_> | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/13/2007 11:27:53 PM |
very witty .... although they choose a stance, "predeterminisn" offers no choice, it has already been chosen. While it wasn't intended as wit, I see the irony. Sad point, though, is that it is a choice to take that stance, to interpret one thing or another a given way, etc. What really gets me, though, is that folks who embrace this interpretation either never realise or conveniently overlook the fact that holding the position invalidates the position.
Would an automaton know that it is an automaton? Why not? How could one test for this, anyway? Essentially my first question to ACIB: How can one know if one has free will?
When the lion one day lays down with the lamb, are they THEN automatons? When the lions diet turns to that of grass instead of lamb, will it then be an automaton? When a being starts operating outside of its nature, wouldn't that mean it's less of an automaton than before, and has more freedom of will? Just by operation off the assumptions in the book from whence the examples come, one can conclude that these are automata whose creator/designer has the power to alter their programming, yes? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 12:09:18 AM | So at what age was she required to go to church with you? at what age did you actually start telling her about god and religion and christianity? also did you allow your daughter to stay home on sundays? or was it mandatory?
Not trying to pick a fight i just feel like a debate really because i consider it rude to teach a child christianity due to the fact that they cannot fully comprehend nor understand what god religion or christianity means to this world or what the words mean in general.
But yeah i wonder how many parents even realize they are brainwashing their kids? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 12:11:56 AM | | Btw the above post was meant for and it can be or whatever your name is. | |
|
mak68
|
Joined: 4/14/2007
Msg: 96 | |
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 9:28:22 AM | Loon's got my back, at least
Stop, you'll hurt my feelings.
Deal is, it's not so much that the doctrine of original sin as endemic to human nature is not embraced by Christianity. As far as I know all sects accept that. It's the basis for the Fall and the necessity of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross.
Yes, I got that one too. It seems what we are butting heads about is despite this original sin, can our good deeds be considered as such by christians if we have not come to believe in jesus? It seems there are differing opinions between sects of christianity. But does their opinion on whether a work is "good" or not really count when considering the hypothetical question of good deeds cancelling out evil deeds, or vice versa? Not in the least. Deeds don't really cancel out each other as far as I'm concerned, once a deed is done, it's done. It can't really be undone or "cancelled out" by another.
Your quote was to the effect that "giving alms" and volunteer work would be considered sinful, and my point in attempting to clarify this was that it's only Calvinists (in my experience) that maintain that the corruption of the doer makes the deeds sinful.
I would go so far as to say that christian sects would consider good deeds performed by non-christains to be of no value, unless the faith was there. Perhaps not a hard-line stance like calvinists, perhaps more of a nuetral one. Good deeds don't count for anything unless there is faith in jesus. I'll even go so far as to say that those sects that consider any deed done, without faith in jesus, is rooted in evil may be in direct relation to how predetermined the believe us to be.
But I would still like you to point out a few christian sects that would still consider a good deed done by a none christian as recognized for what it is. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:07:10 AM |
But does their opinion on whether a work is "good" or not really count when considering the hypothetical question of good deeds cancelling out evil deeds, or vice versa? Not in the least. Deeds don't really cancel out each other as far as I'm concerned, once a deed is done, it's done. It can't really be undone or "cancelled out" by another. Exactly. In fact, I think the earlier discussion of this (the""ripple theory", as it were) is the first imt I've ever seen it seriously considered. Most Christians, in my experience, stress "works through faith", since anyone can do good works (and, therefore, faith is "necessary to make a distinction), and "faith without works is dead."
I would go so far as to say that christian sects would consider good deeds performed by non-christains to be of no value, unless the faith was there. I wouldn't go to that extent, myself, but as far as maintaining the sense of moral and religious superiority, yes, most Christians do seem to tend toward a viewpoint of "that's all very well, but faith is more important." More marginalising than anything, really.
I'll even go so far as to say that those sects that consider any deed done, without faith in jesus, is rooted in evil may be in direct relation to how predetermined the believe us to be. Well, that certainly appears to be the example set for us by our Calvinist contemporaries, yes? I just don't see that mindset in any prevalence among Protestants (yet another argument for it, eh?), and haven't had much contact with others.
But I would still like you to point out a few christian sects that would still consider a good deed done by a none christian as recognized for what it is. Maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but I just don't seem to get what you're asking. I've known plenty of followers, even leaders of small congregations of Baptists, Evangelicals, Catholics, and others that will concede that a deed doesn't have to be blatantly inspired by the Holy Spirit (or whatever -- although a lot of them did try to argue that God can work through nonbelievers) for it to be good. Does this mean that that's a doctrinal position for the sect or faith as a whole? I seriously doubt it, but the recognition's there, if only from individuals | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 11:41:07 AM | The man said unto God,
Man: God, I want to walk down this path"
God: Well, ok.... but on that path, I will be swinging my fists of holy fury. If you should get hit, and be banished to eternal suffering while on that path... it's your OOOOOWN fault".
A parody from the Simpsons...
Lisa: Get out, get out!
Bart: OK, but on my way, I'm going to be doing this. (windmills arms) If you get hit, it's your own fault.
Lisa: OK, then I'm going to start kicking air like this. (kicks) And if any part of you should fill that air, (kicks) it's your own fault.
(They walk towards each other, then start fighting)
I think the original posters analogy is flawed. According to my religious teachings, people don't just choose a path that sends them to hell.... God is the one who judges people and actively banishes them to hell. Using the original poster's analogy, one could argue that women who get raped are at fault. ie: you wore sexy clothes and walked in a bad neighborhood, knowing that there are bad people there. You chose the path of being raped, therefore, you are at fault, and not the one who ACTIVELY raped you. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 1:27:40 PM |
trippy_hare: As an infant, you shit yourself constantly. As a toddler, chances are you still shit yourself. By your "logic", it is reasonable to assume that you've been shitting yourself since then, and that you will shit yourself in the future. Anyone who met you as a toddler and used your logic would see nothing wrong with that assumption.
I think the op did shit himself - that's how this thread came into being.
Your ridiculous analogies do nothing to support your argument N8. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/14/2007 3:21:06 PM | OK, here goes... Luke 10: 25-37... On one occasion an expert in the law (bible) stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
He answered: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and, Love your neighbor as your self"
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away leaving him half dead.
A priest happened to be going down the road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was: and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an Inn and took care of him. The next day he took out 2 silver coins and gave them to the Inn keeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense that you have.'
"Which of these 3 men do you think was the neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."
Jesus wants everyone to do good, wether they be his followers or not. The injured man in this parable is most likely a jewish man, and so are the 2 men that went out of their way to bypass him on the street; they would be considered to be his neighbor logistically. But the man that helped him was an alien, a foreigner; not of the religious sect of the day...
Jesus often preached for people to do good works, and often he condemned bad works too.
P.S. Maybe we ought to discuss this on a different thread, but when we talk about the above... "Teacher," he asked, "What must I do to inherit eternal life?"
"What is written in the law?" He replied, "How do you read it?"
He answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind, and, love your neighbor as yourself."
"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."...
I would say that Jesus would agree that this is true because he did it... But I don't think that anyone else has earned eternal life this way... | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
