Now that's interesting, you know Christianity well, and for the whole time you knew what I meant to say. Then why was the discussion/"debate" about? -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel) @华人论坛:枫下论坛 The Rolia Forum of

枫下拾英 / 心灵感悟 / 与牧师的部分对话：小议Judgement Day的公平性 -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-9 {2513} (#3791694@0)

嗯，看出来了，你就是想把牧师绕晕 -meat_head(_); 2007-7-9 (#3792688@0)
人连自己这一关都过不了，也就是说活着的事儿都顾不过来，死后的审判爱咋地就咋地吧。我这样理解对吗？ -x888(你真诚且厚道吗？); 2007-7-9 (#3792746@0)

A hundred viewers probably have a hundred different opinions. In this article, my pastor raised a point that, we failed even our conscience, not to mention God's (if there is a God). -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-9 (#3793475@0)

所以基督徒和非基督徒是50步百步的差别？我这样理解对吗？ -x888(你真诚且厚道吗？); 2007-7-9 (#3794452@0)

基督徒与非基督徒之间的差别在于愿不愿意接受基督耶稣为生命的救主，而并非五十步与百步的差别。 -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-9 (#3794664@0)

有没有这样的经历? 有时候发现忙忙碌碌自以为做了不少事情,最后发现是白忙一场, 甚至做了还不如不做. -aloha2u(工夫茶); 2007-7-9 (#3794420@0)

偶尔吧。俺习惯性地忘记负面的东西，所以不好的俺都不记得了，嫌累。 -x888(你真诚且厚道吗？); 2007-7-9 (#3794461@0)

大多数人都自认是好人，标准是平均60分；一个坏经理如果在家是好丈夫/爸爸，就可以算是好人。但基督教的标准是每门都及格。所以即使及格线降低到60分，还是达不到。这点以上讨论中没有深入，特此指出。 -smallwhale(喝不了咖啡); 2007-7-9 (#3792754@0)

The thing is, even the passing grade is lowered down to 1, we might still fail! And that's why we (Christians) need Jesus Christ, who makes us holy. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-9 (#3793484@0)

do you mean that Jesus Christ is similar to a wild card, no matter how many good you do, if you don't believe it, you are doomed to be in Hell; but no matter how many bad you do, if you believe it, you are guaranteed to be in heaven? -can362(can362); 2007-7-9 (#3794694@0)

Let Bible answer this question: "(John 3: 16) God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life." -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-10 (#3795070@0)

So YOUR answer is YES: no matter how many good you do, if you don't believe it, you are doomed to be in Hell; but no matter how many bad you do, if you believe it, you are guaranteed to be in heaven? -can362(can362); 2007-7-10 (#3796133@0)

If this question demands an answer of either YES or NO, then I think you are right it's a YES. Of course, there are things deeper than that. For example, what is "believe", how to judge whether one "believe"s or not, and so forth. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-10 (#3796163@0)

Then you have to define the term "believe in" first, I am sure that Christian's definition is different from the one on any dictionary. Can you share Christian definition of "believe in" with us, so our non-Christian won't get misled?
-can362(can362); 2007-7-10 (#3796329@0)

It's not that complicated in a sense that if one is truthful to oneself, he/she just knows (whether one believes or not). It's simply a matter between one and God. And of course, this topic could be rather big too Biblically. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-10 {41} (#3796488@0)
The definition you found is close enough.

So, do you mean that if a person, as evil as Hitler, believe in God, he will goto heaven even though he murdered millions of innocent people; meanwhile, those millions of people he murdered will go directly to Hell just because they are not Christian? -can362(can362); 2007-7-10 (#3796576@0)

The short answer is, yes if Hitler really repented and believed in God. That's what God promised, no matter how you look at it, it's what it is. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-10 {1296} (#3796907@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛In order to understand this, you have to put yourself in my shoes for a bit, (I will try to be concise.)

1. How evil is more evil than others? Killing one or killing millions?

None of them is more severe than the other in terms that they are all evil to God, and the penalty is of the same if both parties don't repent. And of course killing of millions sounds much more terrible than killing of one, upon contemporary moral standards or laws.

2. Who is innocent?

Are killers innocent, not very likely. Are those killed? Paul has spoken, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)". In a word, we are not innocent.

3. Is it fair?

Well, is any piece of law fair, to everybody? I don't think so. That's part of the reasons why I believe in God, in his perfect righteousness and judgement.

4. Again, is it really fair?

God knows our hearts, I don't. So I am not going to pretend I do. There are a lot of things we don't understand, there are also a lot of things we don't need to understand, at least for the time being. When a Christian's relationship with God becomes stronger, he/she will understand better. The same way if one talks to one's father more, one will have a better chance to understand the father and his ways.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

What if Hitler believe in God but rather than repented, he choose to do it because he know he will be in heaven anyway, and he is very proud of what he do. Would he still be granted free pass to heaven? -can362(can362); 2007-7-11 (#3797304@0)

That's a good question, yes and no. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-11 {575} (#3797411@0)
I don't know the answer for sure, because I don't truly know his heart, only God does.

If, if Hitler really repented, YES.

If Hitler is only using God by thinking he will be in Heaven no matter what, then he is wrong, and he is not gonna be in Heaven. Because in this case, I am almost sure that he doesn't really believe in God, rather, he is using the concept of God.

So again, only God knows our hearts. He knows whether we believe or not. It's hard for us to judge others by their appearances or a short-term fruits. Only God's judgement is holy and just.

We are actually talking about a situation here. Let's just assume he truly believes in God from bottom of his heart but still choose to do evil thing, he may even pray to let God know his action plan, Would he still be granted free pass to heaven? -can362(can362); 2007-7-11 {1849} (#3798870@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛>> If Hitler is only using God by thinking he will be in Heaven no matter what, then he is wrong, and he is not gonna be in Heaven. Because in this case, I am almost sure that he doesn't really believe in God, rather, he is using the concept of God.

I don't think this is 100% true. For example, a parents (God) promise to give unconditional love (free ticket to heaven) to his kid (Christian), and the kid (Christian) truly believes in his parents (God). When he grows up, he realized that he can abuse this unconditional love (free ticket to heaven), choose to do so and becomes the most evil person (Hitler or any other evil man in past and future).

Just because he is the most evil person, doesn't mean he refuse to believe in his parents (God). On the contrary, the 100% true believing in the parents (God) and the promise of the parents (God) are in fact the root of his true believe that no consequence (disqualify to the free ticket to heaven) to his action.

The example might not be 100% accurate but I believe you get the point and we don't want to waste time on trivial details. The point is, you can't deny the existence of such evil person I described just because he doesn't fit in your regular Christian profile.

So if we both agree that such person qualify for the term "believe in God", then (John 3: 16) should apply to him also: "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him might not perish but have everlasting life." Then he should be issued free ticket to heaven.

Go back to the question on subject line: We are actually talking about a situation here. Let's just assume he truly believes in God from bottom of his heart but still choose to do evil thing, he may even pray to let God know his action plan, Would he still be granted free pass to heaven?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

That's actually a good example, and I like that. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-11 {1931} (#3799233@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Let's make a safe assumption here that we all agree lying is wrong. We believe it. However, it doesn't mean we won't go against it. We still lie from time to time for unjustified reasons, don't we? Or sometime we purposely violate it because there is a "good" reason to, for example, to conceal the terrible fact from a dying patient, or unwilling to confront/upset other people.

Apply the same principle to answering your question, one believes in one's father (God) doesn't mean he agrees with what his father does, or his ways.

Allow me to illustrate, I recall an example that will probably make my point.

. Does Satan know God? Of course, God created him.
. Does Satan agree that there is a God? Yes, God created him.
. Does Satan know God's almighty power? I guess so, he has seen it.
. Does Satan know what his end will be? I guess so, but he believes he knows enough to fight God. (He has learned a lot from serving God in the past.)
. Does Satan agrees with God's ways? Obviously not, Satan wants to be God.
. Does Satan believe in God? Yes, he does!

Consider the above listed facts. My point comes as naturely as this, to Believe in God doesn't make one a Christian. Instead, one has to accept God (as one's personal savor). That's what I meant when I said we had to define what "Believe" really is.

Biblically speaking, believing in God implies to repent, to accept, and to rely on God. Again, it's hard for us to judge whether one truly believes in God. We have to look at one's fruits, which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. If you see these traits in a person, you have convincing reasons to believe that he/she believes in God.

If I had to summarized what "believe" really is biblically, I will have to say believe is more of an action, instead of just a mental activity.

I wish this helps.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Since Satan is an angel, not in human race, I don't think Satan is a proper example. You do raise a interest question: once you are in heaven, can you still use your free will to against God? But I have no interest to discuss it here. -can362(can362); 2007-7-12 {1145} (#3799896@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛>> Consider the above listed facts. My point comes as naturally as this, to Believe in God doesn't make one a Christian. Instead, one has to accept God as one's personal savor.

This does not answer my question. I don't care if you call a person who Believe in God a "Christian', Catholic, or anything else. We can even call him PBG (Person who Believes in God), or PAGS (Person who Accept God as Savor).

Even by your own definition: to be a Christian, one has to accept God as one's personal savor; you still can't deny the existence of such evil person I described. Such evil person is fully capable of believing in God and accepting God as his personal savor and he does believe in God and accept God as his personal savor.

Satan definitely does not accept God as his personal savor, he wants to be God. To make perfect clear, the evil person I described believes in God and accepts God as his personal savor, 120%. Such person has no intention to replace God whatsoever, on the contrary, he kiss God's ass everyday, even more sincere than Pope 500.

So the question remains: would he still be granted free pass to heaven?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

As a matter of fact, I have answered your question. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-12 {2400} (#3800362@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛A Christian will be granted pass to heaven, yes as God's promised. So is Hitler if as you put it, he really believes in God, repents his sins, and accepts God as his personal savior. That's what Bible tells us, and there is no alternative I can put it another way.

Yes, Hitler continues to sin against God. But as far as I know, as long as he repents, he still has a chance (I am unwilling to say 100%, only God knows his heart, and only God judges.).

Isn't it unfair? yes and no. Take myself as an example. Have I sinned constantly against God even after being converted? Yes I have, again and again. Is it because I purposely want to abuse God's Grace? No, I don't. Then why have I kept sinning? I don't know! But Paul's spoken that kinda inspires me: flesh is weak. So shall I deprive myself of my pass to Heaven? I am afraid not. It's not what I've done get me to Heaven, but God's promise and His Grace.

To summarize, I twist your question a bit, and break it down to the followings. It can be further broken down, as long as it makes easier to address your concerns.

1. Why would Christians still sin against God?
2. Why would a pass still be granted to a Christian who keeps sinning?
3. Being a Christian means one can sin freely, afterward, one's sins will be forgiven.

Obviously, the answer to question 1 is easy and well unknown (after all, we are all sinners).

I guess your focus is on question 2. And I have to say, all I know is what Bible tells me. Allow me to stress a point I previously made, that being a Christian is more of taking actions (to repent, to fight sins, and to build a personal relationship with God.). So if Hitler only babbling that how much he loves God but take no actions. I will take that as he doesn't really believe in God.

About question 3, a short answer is, everybody can sin freely, not just Christians. Grace should be the focus, not what we do. Eventually, it's God's Grace get us to Heaven, not what we've done. When Christians set focus on Grace, they will grow, and less likely to sin. After all, living a Christian life is a long-term process like others.

Get back to Satan's case, his belief in God is more of an acknowledgment that there is a God, not that he believes in (accepts) God and His ways. So I would rather say Hitler in his way as you put it, acknowledges God instead of believing in God.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

No you didn't. You changed my question and answered your own version, but you never answer mine. I repeat: My Hitler believes in God, accepts God as his personal savior but never REPENTS his sins. -can362(can362); 2007-7-12 {72} (#3801451@0)
This thread is too long, I will post another one to the root. See below.

For those victims who knew God, but didn't choose to believe in God, when they died, they probably ended up in Hell, yes. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-10 {154} (#3796918@0)
But for those who didn't have a chance to know God before death, there are some controversies where they will be. I have to say I don't have the answer.

神的标准已经降到很低，只要信就行了。不过他老人家有一高招，会让圣灵陪着你，让你做坏事的时候感到非常羞愧难当，慢慢地，坏毛病就少了。但如果滥用这个恩典，坏到极端情况下一旦圣灵离开了你，就相当于把耶稣再次钉在十字架上，就相当危险了。 -aloha2u(工夫茶); 2007-7-9 (#3794450@0)

一旦受洗，圣灵永不离开；连这点基本道理都不懂。 -dulululu(dulululu); 2007-7-10 (#3796245@0)

神就是再拉客户。你信我，我给你摆平一切，你的过去，你的未来。你不信我，你就等审判吧。销售常用的一招就是吓唬客户。卖保险的说，天有不测风云。买电器的说，promotion明天就没有了。卖房子地说：赶快下offer，不然就叫别人抢去了。 -surgein(New Start); 2007-7-11 (#3797305@0)

嗯，有趣的比较。唯一不同的是，销售的，卖保险的，买电器的，卖房子的是为了从你身上获得他们需要的，或是为了满足他们所需要的。而神给你的，是白白给的，不带强迫性，不要求回报的。你所需要做的只是一个选择。 -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-11 {96} (#3799195@0)
如果你选择不相信神，那么审判的说法对你来说本身就是荒谬而虚无的，所以你也不要太介怀圣经上怎么说。

No you didn't. You changed my question and answered your own version, but you never answer mine. I repeat: My Hitler believes in God, accepts God as his personal savior but never REPENTS his sins. -can362(can362); 2007-7-12 {3740} (#3801453@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛>> A Christian will be granted pass to heaven, yes as God's promised. So is Hitler if as you put it, he really believes in God, repents his sins, and accepts God as his personal savior.

I repeat: My Hitler believes in God, accepts God as his personal savior but never REPENTS his sins. Even if he continues to sin, if he did what you said and repents his sin, yes, according to bible, he will be granted free pass to heaven. I don't like that but I never argue about that, did I? I also never argue about the "unfair" either. I did imply "unfair" in early post, but I never argue about it even though I don't agree with you, did I? So let's stop wasting time on addressing them over and over again because it contributes nothing to this discussion.

>> Get back to Satan's case, his belief in God is more of an acknowledgment that there is a God, not that he believes in (accepts) God and His ways. So I would rather say Hitler in his way as you put it, acknowledges God instead of believing in God.

I already agreed with you on Satan's not accepting God as his personal savor and state that your Satan example is not a proper example to my question. It is you who said he believe in God: "Does Satan believe in God? Yes, he does! ". You don't have to explain the conflicting, let's just stop wasting time on Satan because Satan doesn't offer any help to solve the issue of my Hitler.

I also already clarified that the evil person I described believes in God and accepts God as his personal savor. He kisses God's ass everyday, even more sincere than Pope 500.

My Hitler repents everyday to sins such as forgetting opening door for ladies at lunch time, or didn't help an elder crossing the street, or didn't say thanks to someone who helped him, or he lied to his wife because he doesn't want to wash dishes, but he never repents the evil thing he did.

If you want to ask me the reason why he never repents his evil sins? Well, I don't know but I can find hundreds of reasons, maybe because in his mind, what he do is not evil, or maybe because he believe that it is what God ordered him to do. God did order killing in bible so you can't deny the possibility.

Q3: Being a Christian means one can sin freely without consequence, after all, his sins will be forgiven and he will be granted free pass to heaven, guaranteed by Jesus. By consequence I mean disqualifying to the free ticket to heaven, and by guarantee I mean even Jesus can not revoke this ticket.

Actually my focus is not Q2 but above elaborated version of Q3, but your comment on Q3 doesn't offer anything to either confirm or deny this statement. Following your comment, my Hitler is also fully capable of setting focus on Grace and as I said, he kisses God's ass everyday, even more sincere than Pope 500.

Is Crusade in our history wrong? Of course, even Vatican admits it; does the Pope who starts Crusade treat Crusade a sin? Of course not, otherwise he won't start it; does the Crusade starter repent Crusade as sin when he prays? Of course not, he sure is proud of helping God to remove non-believer physically.

As you can see from above, repent is not a hard requirement to the qualification of Christian, it is just an optional bonus, not a "must". If the Crusade Pope who didn't repents his sin on Crusade qualified to be a Christian, you have to admit that repent is not a hard requirement and, if my Hitler still can't be qualified as a Christian, it is not because of repenting but some other reason that you want to put on him.

So the question still remains: If my Hitler believes in God, accepts God as his personal savior but never repents his sins, would he still be granted free pass to heaven?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Sorry, I misunderstood your point thinking your Hitler actually repents. I am having dinner right now, will get back to you ASAP. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-12 (#3801632@0)
Sorry again for my previous misunderstanding, let's continue. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-12 {3305} (#3801784@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Please allow me to list a typical prayer toward salvation (becoming a Christian) first, for it is the guideline toward distinguish a Christian.

“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.”

Now we have a Hitler, as you put it, who is a Christian. Rationally, it implies that, at one point, he truly repented, accepted God, and asked Jesus to come into his heart, all of which make him ready to be a Christian. (God's Grace and acceptance makes him a Christian.)

However, it is a bit ambiguous to me when you said that Hitler never repented, but that's fine, we can easily rule one of the two possibilities out,

1. Hitler never ever repented. Then he is not a Christian. I will quote some Bible verses to back me up,

(Luke 13:3) - Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
(Acts 2:38) - (Peter replied) Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

2. Hitler did repent so as to become a Christian, but stopped doing so after conversion. In such case, the answer is, YES, he can still hold onto his pass to Heaven.

Let me elaborate, When Jesus forgives someone and comes into one's heart, He forgives all one's sins and gives one eternal life, and one shall never perish (John 10:28). It would not be eternal life if Jesus (God) only gives one "temporary eternal" life.

I would like to talk a little bit about repentance here since it plays the key role to our discussion, any misunderstandings would be devastating and leading this topic astray. What is repentance Biblically? My understanding is that it at least involves,

(A) To acknowledge one's sin (so one can repent).
(B) To turn from one's evil ways/sins.
(C) To make up one's mind to cease practicing sins.
(B) To be obedient to God.

Now, if Hitler has truly repented, even only once (plus other qualifications such as believing Jesus died for his sins, and asking Jesus into his heart as the prayer listed above), he became a Christian, received Jesus's forgiveness, and HAS eternal life.

There are, however, some conditions that he could possibly lose his pass, (I don't fully understand the following verse yet, but I am willing to remain open for discussions.)

(Matthew 12:32) Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I wish this helps, and sorry again for my previous misunderstanding.

[BTW: thank you for pointing out one of my mistakes: when I said Satan believes in God too, I meant to say, Satan't believing in God doesn't make him a Christian. (Because he didn't repent and accept God.) ]更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

No problem. One more point then we can wrap this up. -can362(can362); 2007-7-13 {3865} (#3802535@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛In terms of my "never", what I mean is your Possibility #2: My Hitler stopped after he did repent. According to bible and you agree: he then can sin freely without any consequence. Given the fact that my Hitler never intent to speaks against the Son of Man, let alone Holy Spirit, his free pass to heaven can never be revoked.

And actually the real Hitler WAS born in Catholic family, brought up and confirmed as a Catholic. I guess at one point when he was young, he truly repented, accepted God, and asked Jesus to come into his heart, all of which make him a "real Christian" (not just ready to be, he WAS a real Christian), at least before he was in control of Germany and started WW2.

So you agree with the comment that being a Christian means one can sin freely without consequence, after all, his sins will be forgiven and he will be granted free pass to heaven, guaranteed by Jesus. By consequence I mean disqualifying to the free ticket to heaven, and by guarantee I mean even Jesus can not revoke this ticket.

Following this fact, there is one conclusion that sounds very funny:
C1. Suppose a person becomes/converts to Christian at a point; or a person born, brought up in Christian family and become a Christian at early age, let's say 10 to be extreme. After that, he can actually do anything he want, God or Bible can not offer any prevention and punishment, thus if he want, he can violate anything he want without any need for repentment, he can even embrace Satan's evil action, God or Bible mean nothing to him. And yet, God still have to grant him a free ticket to heaven.

C2. We all know that in human society, secular moral standard or secular law should offer some type of enforceable mean, either by force (law) or serious consequence (moral standard). So that when you violate it, you should receive some form of punishment. But once you become a Christian, since secular law doesn't revoke your pass to heaven, to Christian's ultimate goal of going to heaven, secular law doesn't matter anymore, of course secular moral standard doesn't matter to you either.

Funny conclusion: In terms of moral standard, obviously Christian is holding a different holly moral standard (set by God) than secular moral standard and the holly standard is supposed to be higher and harder than secular standard. But according to 1 and 2, when you apply the holly moral standard to your secular life, you will find that the holly moral standard is actually way lower than secular moral standard..

As you can imagine that for example: lying is wrong, sex outside the marriage is wrong, in secular world, if you do that, you will be grounded, or lose job, or divorced, or some other punishment that affect your life in a negative maner; but in holly world, since you are a Christian already, nothing will affect your ultimate goal, what affects you is the punishment offered by secular standard, not by the holly one.

Christian always says: my moral bar is higher than yours. But based on our discussion, this bar actually doesn't offer anything meaningful. Well, just because you set your moral bar to 1km above sea level doesn't mean you can jump over it and declare winner, moreover, after you sign on to jump, you still want to declar winner even if you refuse to jump?...

It sounds funny and I might be wrong on this, but a more serious question is: Did you ever hear the latter part of C1 (see below) from your church? Why not? Why do they hide this from you?

"After you become a Christian, you can actually do anything you want, God or Bible can not offer any prevention and punishment, thus if you like, you can violate anything you want without any need for repentment, you can even embrace Satan's evil action, God or Bible mean nothing to you. And yet, God still have to grant you a free ticket to heaven."更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Grace is greater than all our sins. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-15 {4877} (#3808431@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Sorry for the long delay, in order to make sure that I didn't present you the wrong ideas, I talked to my pastor today with everything we exchanged. Fortunately, I didn't misrepresent the Bible teachings (yet). :)

A quick recap for what we have agreed on, if Hitler really repented and accepted God when he was young, then, YES, he is saved, and his pass to Heaven will never ever be revoked.

Now you are concerned that, "After you become a Christian, you can actually do anything you want, God or Bible can not offer any prevention and punishment, thus if you like, you can violate anything you want without any need for repentment, you can even embrace Satan's evil action, God or Bible mean nothing to you. And yet, God still have to grant you a free ticket to heaven."

This concern doesn't only come particularly from non-Christians, even Christians such as I find myself bringing this up to my pastor from time to time. I will have to break down the big MAC into serveral pieces and tackle them in order, so that we might understand God's Grace deeper.

1. First of all, Christians can sin freely, yes, and so do other people in the world. There are always consequences when you do something wrong. However, Biblically, a Christian won't lose his pass to Heaven because one's wrongdoings (after being converted). This we already reached common ground.

2. Secondly, we MUST realize that everybody sins, even a Christian. I will illustrate,

No-sin = Perfection
Perfection = God (Only God is the perfect one)
Human != God

In a word, human sins! It's not an excuse, nor is it a pass to freely sin. It onlys reveals the horrible truth.

3. Christian can sin freely, yes, but it's not because Bible encourages it, nor does it endorse it. It's just that, it's still a personal choice. Most importantly,

4. As Christians, we have to understand God's Grace. Do we deserve salavation? No! But God freely gives to whoever repents and accepts (Jesus Christ). That's Grace, it means you are given what you don't deserve. Roman 5:20 says,

...But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The above Bible verse says this, the more we sin, the more Grace God sends to cover it up. So that life always overshadows death. It's God's Grace that saves us, no what we do or have done.

5: A question that comes naturally is like one of yours, that Christians can sin freely. Roman 6 also says,

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?

It means this, after converted, a Christian doesn't love sins! Why? because God cut the cord between the Christian and sins. We still sin, but not because we love to so. Just because what I have illustrated in point 2.

Back to Hitler, He hates Jewish, and he loves killing them. I have to say either he has mental disease, or he is not a Christian! Because it's impossible for a Christian to love sins according to what Paul said. It's just impossible!

6. James 2:14 says this, What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deed? Can such faith save him?

What does James mean when he says that? It's impossible for a Christian not to love! Because God has changed a Christian from inside, I am no longer my old self, instead, Jesus lives in me, so that I bear the likeness of him, so that I will (try to) love as He does. How does Jesus love us? He loves us by actions/deeds. So that we also love by deeds.

This also implies that, in order to judge whether one is a Christian, judge by his love and deeds. But don't get confused, not that I get myself saved by what I do and have done (but by Grace), but that God's love drives me to love as He does.

In Hitler's case, he doesn't love Jewish as obviously as it is. If he doesn't love Jewish, how could he say that he loves God? I am sorry to stress this point again, the either he has mental disease, or he is not a Christian!

A quick recap, there are two fundamental things about being a Christian,

1. A Christina doesn't sin because he loves it.
2. It's impossible for a Christina not to love (take actions, do good deeds).

Please bear in mind that,

1. A Christian is still a "sinner".
2. A Christian needs to grow by building up a deep personal relationship with God.
3. It's a misfortune for one to reject God without experiencing God's love oneself.

After all, it's God who gives Grace, as long as we make our hearts open, the Holy Spirit will talk to us and convince us, in person.

God bless!更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

I am not saying the 1/2/3/4 in big MAC, 1 in recap, and all in "bear in mind" are wrong, but they have nothing to do with my comment, so I will just skip them. for 5/6 in big MAC and 2 in recap, they are actually talking about the same thing: -can362(can362); 2007-7-16 {1819} (#3809234@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛> 5: It's impossible for a Christian to love sins.
> 6. It's impossible for a Christian not to love!
> A quick recap 2. It's impossible for a Christina not to love (take actions, do good deeds).

A short summary of above three points: It is impossible for a Christian to love sins. It is impossible for a Christian not to love (do good deeds).

According to the logic we all learned in class, the equivalent saying of above summary: If a person loves sins, he is not a Christian. If a person can't love (do good deeds), he is not a Christian.

I know this is coming because it is the only way to attack my point. But I don't believe you actually use that. This is too easy for me:

Is the launching of Crusade a sin? Y
Do the Crusade participants think Crusade is right and love Crusade? Y
Are they all having mental disease? N
Are they Christian? Y

If this Crusade example is debatable, how about this one:

Is the Inquisition's BBQ-ing Bruno, toturing Galileo, or doing any other similar thing a sin? Y
Do the BBQ-ers think BBQing Bruno is right and love it? Y
Are they all having mental disease? N
Are they Christian? Y

Do I really need to list all sins Inquisition did during the middle age?

As you can see from above, just because my Hitler loves sins, doesn't mean that he is not qualified as a Christian, he still has his free ticket to heaven.

You have to explain to me that according to bible, if a person loves sins, he is not a Christian, then why in human history, some Christian do love sins and still be Christian? To this fact that bible and human history does not match with each other, which one do you believe is correct, bible or human history?

To disqualify my Hitler's free ticket to heaven, your pastors have to do better than that, don't you think?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Remember the two desciplines: 1. Trust God. 2. Love your neigbor, Even Hitler love God but doesnt love his enemy, He is not qualified in heaven. Hitler select sucide, he absolutely can not get into heaven cause he doesnt even perish himself -mildcoffee(Mild Coffee); 2007-7-17 (#3812776@0)

1. "my Hitler" is a virtual person, not the real one, even collapsar know that. 2. Do you mean that if a person doesn't love his enemy, he is not a Christian. Then tell me which one is true: a. Inquisition ppl love Bruno; b. They love BBQing Bruno. -can362(can362); 2007-7-17 (#3812880@0)

If we were to get literal, then I have to focus on the part of "LOVE TO SIN". -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-17 {2036} (#3813387@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Apart from other things. Just talk about the single instance of BBQing Bruno alone. It's not that the old churches loved to do that, just that they thought it was right to do so or they wanted to protect themselves (or Christianity). Was it a sin? I myself tend to believe that it was anyway. But again, everyone of us sins, even Christian. This is not an excuse. I am just making a point here.

Get back to what I mentioned before, did the old churches love to do so? probably not, otherwise, they would have done that again and again, like Hitler.

So what it was MIGHT be a one time deal sin. The same way as I lied once in a while (talk about the least sin I have). The core part of "LOVE TO DO SO" is, take myself as an example, when I lied, did I feel good about it? No! I felt terrible after that. Otherwise, I will take it as I love to do so.

I will give you another example, a chubby person on diet, he knows it's right to eat less/healthy, and he wants to keep doing it until he gets back to his healthy old self. Yet once in a while, he can't resist the unhealthy food and violates his own plans. When he is indulging himself on garbage food, does he feel good about it? Probably yes, physically. But after all, his conscience suffers, so does his body. You can imagine how regretted he could be and everything.

The same idea applies for Christians who sinned against God. I assure you Christians who sinned do not feel good about it, although they might be doing it again, and again, and again. What I am saying is, Christians don't love to sin (to feel good about doing it). And yes, if a person loves sinning, I don't think he is a Christian, which accentuates my point previously made that it is impossible for a Christian to love sins.

Again, if you asked me why I sin when I don't love/enjoy it. I don't know! Paul said it's my weak flesh. Also I believe it's also because of my weak personal relationship with God. As the bond gets stronger, I will be less likely to sin, that I am sure.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

You didn't get my point. The reason I use Crusade/Inquisition as example is that AT THAT TIME, to majority of Christian, Crusade/Inquisition are tasks given by God (at least in their mind) thus it is ABSOLUTE right thing to follow. -can362(can362); 2007-7-17 {4356} (#3813649@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛And they feel good about doing it, they ABSOLUTELY love to do it. There is no way for them to not feel good, hesitate, question or even repent this God given task. Let me put it in another way that you can understand better: Christians who hesitated or questioned the holiness of Crusade/Inquisition were labeled heretics and BBQed, only "true believer" survived.

Unfortunately Crusade/Inquisition turned out to be sins. And you don't need just "tend to" believe it is sin, the whole Christian community, including Vatican and Pope, acknowledged and apologized for these sins already.

I won't ask you why you sin when you don't love/enjoy it, I totally understand. And I totally understand the meaning of your example also, but they are no where close to the comparison with Inquisition's BBQing Bruno.

As for your assumption of the reason of BBQing Bruno:

>> It's not that the old churches loved to do that, just that they thought it was right to do so or they wanted to protect themselves (or Christianity).
>> Get back to what I mentioned before; did the old churches love to do so? Probably not, otherwise, they would have done that again and again, like Hitler.

You have to resort to human history to understand it: in middle age, Church is so dominate that it has absolute right and power to do ANYTHING, this is when the Inquisition happened. You must know another name of "middle age" is "dark age", this is a reason for that...

After that people fought back and broke church's absolute dominating status, and then there is a Reformation, a period when human civilization grown dramatically. After that, the constant growth of science and technology, human civilization and decline of church's power led us to modern life.

Get back to the Inquisition case, old churches' not able to launch Inquisition again and again is not because they don't love to do so but because they don't have such dominating power anymore.

Why I say they love to do so? Turn your head to the south of Border then you will know. Even at present time when church doesn't have power over secular society any more, they are still trying to stop woman from the choice of abortion, stop gay from the choice of marriage, stop patient from the choice of euthanasia, stop woman from the choice of using pregnant protection, etc etc...

You can be sure that once church is in power again, they will try to get into other people's private life; once church is in absolute power again, they will try to purify the human race by Crusade, Inquisition or other mean. Oh, I forget, Mr. Bush just tried that for God, do you remember? Bush once said that the current war is a new Crusade, and God told him to do so?

And by the way, for your information, church did launch Inquisition again and again, total 4 of them. Church also DID launch Crusade again and again: 10 major ones and 6 small ones.

I want to have a request if I may. In terms of the definition of Christian (or non-Christian), to define who is or is not Christian, at the beginning you agree to use the dictionary's definition of "believe in" as Christian's version of "believe in":
1. If a person doesn't "believe in" God, he is not a Christian. Then the "repent" is added to the definition:
2. If a person doesn't repent God, he is not a Christian. Then the "personal savior" is added:
3. If a person doesn't accept God as his personal savior, he is not a Christian. Then the "love sin" is added,
4. If a person loves sins, he is not a Christian. Then the "can't love" is added:
5. If a person can't love (do good deeds), he is not a Christian. Then the "love enemy" is added:
6. If a person doesn't love his enemy, he is not a Christian. Then the "suicide" is added:
7. If a person commits suicide, he is not a Christian.

Look, as much as I enjoy the debate, you or your church sisters can not continue adding stuff like this. Now I ask you again and we will debate within the range of this well defined domain:

What is the exact definition of Christian? and/or,
What is the exact definition of non-Christian?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

It is my fault to assume that you knew Christianity well enough. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-18 {1871} (#3814424@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛I didn't mean to "add" new items to what "believe" or what "Christian" is. I just wanted you to understand what they really were as discussion went on. However, I admit it's my mistake not able to define it properly in the first place (I still can't). That's why I also mentioned at the very beginning that it's deeper than what it seems to be, also the dictionary definition is close enough in defining "Believe". However, "Believe in God" brings it to a deeper level than just "Believe" itself.

Apart from all things, the prayer (I listed before) demonstrated

“Father, I know that I have broken your laws and my sins have separated me from you. I am truly sorry, and now I want to turn away from my past sinful life toward you. Please forgive me, and help me avoid sinning again. I believe that your son, Jesus Christ died for my sins, was resurrected from the dead, is alive, and hears my prayer. I invite Jesus to become the Lord of my life, to rule and reign in my heart from this day forward. Please send your Holy Spirit to help me obey You, and to do Your will for the rest of my life. In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.”

The meanings behind the prayer define what "Believe (in God)" and "Christian" really are. I shall warn you that there are still stuff a lot deeper behind it.

Regarding the Crusade event, I have already admitted that I didn't have an answer. But I don't really think it is a "SIN" if I had to be completely honest with you. And that's why I didn't want to answer this question. It will be unwise to look at something with ripping off its context, and I am hesitated to base our discussions on my own opinions only. Please allow me to consult my pastor first.

Last but not least, I never take this as a debate. Because I can't prove God. I am just trying to tell the truth I know.

Thanks.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

I learned from your original post that your parents are not Christians, now I want you to be "completely honest". Is killing them a "SIN"? -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2007-7-18 {66} (#3814701@0)
Or you may need to consult someone to know the answer? I can wait.

Of course it is a sin, because I am aware of it in my heart (God didn't tell me to kill them), in this context. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-18 (#3814745@0)

I didn't say you to do it. -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2007-7-18 (#3814763@0)

Oh, my bad. OK, so if the killer doesn't have justified reasons to do so, yes, it's a sin. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-18 (#3814849@0)

To make the world a better place to live, religion wise. -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2007-7-18 (#3815099@0)

:) I would say, this world is not a good place to live, religion wise. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-18 (#3816224@0)

not a "SIN" though, if "completely honest". Thanks for sharing. -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2007-7-19 (#3817244@0)
Since there is no question on this, I would like to ask you a question you accidentally brought up by telling me why you haven't done it by yourself - because God didn't tell you to do so. -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2007-7-20 {362} (#3820076@0)
Just for my curiosity, why didn't you do that for God's sake? As we all know, you are a grown up adult, and you don't have to ask permission from your parents for everything you need to do. same principle applies, you don't have to ask God everything you can do.

God didn't ask you to do this ! = You can't do this for God's sake.

Right?

Good question! -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-20 {172} (#3820567@0)
>>> God didn't ask you to do this != You can't do this for God's sake.

Now that you "allow" me to do this for God's sake, please allow me to choose when to do it.

首先，你没有回答我的问题。我问的是“why not”。可是你确把你的想法先放到我的嘴里，说我“allow”你这样做。不过有意思的是，你无意中透露了你杀你父母其实不是可不可以，而只是时间问题，这个很令人吃惊。 -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2008-1-16 {82} (#4192739@0)
既然如此，我的“why not”问题就变成“why”了。能告诉大家你为什么要杀死你的父母呢？

尘封的帖子也被你翻出来了。：） -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2008-1-16 {258} (#4193687@0)
你没有完全理解我的回答，你原先问的是为什么我不这么做。我回答你说，如果你允许我这么做（或我被允许这么做），那么至少请让我决定什么时候做。隐藏的含义就是，也可以在父母自然死亡以后再做（其实也就是不用做了）。

总而言之，原意只是小小的揶隃而已，可惜你没看出来。

噢，原来是死后再杀啊。是鞭尸么？到时候一定要代上你的女儿，教育她这就是不信主的下场。 -tomduntcom(dotcom); 2008-1-17 {26} (#4195109@0)
顺便问下，你女儿受洗了么？

You still don't get it, do you? You "allow" me to do it, it's your business. But whenever I do it, however I do it, it's my own business. Leave me alone (to my own choices). -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2008-1-17 (#4195421@0)

Regarding your question: if a person loves sins, he is not a Christian... -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-17 {646} (#3813000@0)
I have answered that already in my last post:

Roman 6 says,

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death?

Jesus has already cut the connection between sins and a Christian, there is no way for a Christian to love sins, there is just no connections!

As for Crusade, Bruno, and Galileo. I am sorry that I am not ready to give an answer yet. I will consult my pastor for more insights (although there are already tons of comments in the Internet).

My "if..not" is not a Q but a summary of yours Roman 6, so nothing needs to be answered. I'm a bit confused by your last sentence coz the tons of comments you mentioned on Internet seems all on my side. Oh, the link is for you to ask your pastor. -can362(can362); 2007-7-17 (#3813116@0)

Right, I should have said there are also tons of comments on "your" side. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-18 (#3814751@0)

OK. claim should be backed by evidence, so my quote is from theology professors, Church historians, especially Vatican and Pope himself. So show us your reference please. -can362(can362); 2007-7-18 {1161} (#3815914@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Sorry for not knowing Christianity well enough, but I guess my view of Christianity is deeper enough to question most of Christian in this forum. To the fact that only Christian in pastor level can better understand/answer my Q, it is a great approval and hornor to my knowledge of Christianity.

As for the Crusade and Inquisition. Thanks for the honesty; I can tell that you don't really treat them as sins, that's why I keep pushing on this issue.

http://www.ushmm.org/newsfeed2/viewstory2.php?storyid=26D689AE-E1EC-45D4-AA7C-1D8E38C5407A%20target=
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
List of Church's past sin, including Crusade and Inquisition. All fact, a lot more supporting document can be found from Vatican official publication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Apologies
wikipedia, biography of Pope John Paul II
apologies to various peoples that had been wronged by the Catholic Church, including Crusade and Inquisition

http://www.evangelist.org/year2000/0699fait.htm
The Official Publication of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany
Church's failures of two millennia include repression, Crusades, Inquisition更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Now that's interesting, you know Christianity well, and for the whole time you knew what I meant to say. Then why was the discussion/"debate" about? -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-18 {2754} (#3816116@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Again, for the Crusade events, it's just my own opinion, not what the Bible teaches. It makes no sense to discuss my personal perspectives. That's the reason why I preferred to present you what my pastor would say instead. After all, he knows Bible/Christianity far more than I do.

Regarding evidence to "back" me up, I would rather skip. It doesn't matter how I look at it. And it doesn't matter to me as well how others (such as Pope) look at it. The fact is, I don't know the hearts of the people who were involved in the Crusade events, nor am I aware of any Bible verses to justify such actions.

However, now that you admitted that you were "pushing" me on this issue (and Thank you for being honest). It'll be quite a disappointment for you if I kept my silence. I will level with you, but I will not discuss it further.

Here is what I think:

Basically, if I sinned without being aware of it, is it still a sin? Of course, a sin is always a sin. But since I didn't do it on purpose, does it make me less guilty? Probably YES (now that is where it's arguable). Let's bring this further, if I sinned without being aware of it but thought that I was doing something good for God, does it justify my wrongdoings? YES and NO (again, arguable).

Let me give you a concrete example. Is raising pets a sin? "What?! are you crazy?!" that's the answer from one of my friends (a Christian). Well, it doesn't look like a sin, does it? But it is, in the context that millions of people are starving to death while we are feeding our pets with the best food we can afford. Now do you think it's a sin? I don't think it isn't.

Now if raising pets is a sin, why don't we put a stop to it? Well, slavery is a sin, why didn't Paul put on a campaign to stop it hundreds of years ago? Instead, Paul told the masters to treat their (Christians) slaves with love and fairness, and slaves to obey their masters. Why didn't he just tell the master to free all their slaves? The short answer is, the time just wasn't right to do so, the social and political environment just weren't ready for slavery abolishment. The same idea applies: it's just not the time to fight the sin of raising pets now. Because, there are so many (important) other sins worth of working on (for a Christian). It's not exaggerating to say that a Christian might have 1000 sins. Before a Christian dies, it would not be a small achievement that he/she had ceased doing 20 of them.

Wish it helps. But again, I have nothing to back me up, and I don't need anything to back me up. For it doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. It matters what my relationship with God is. And God will reveal it to me when the time is right, that I am sure.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Thx for the reply. It could save us a lot of trouble if u think thru before reply. Like this time, if u tell us the pets example and tell us not repenting sin won't disqualify your ticket to heaven, we don't even need Hitler, Crusade or Inquisition. -can362(can362); 2007-7-19 {1345} (#3816751@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Of course I admit the pushing, nothing to be denied about and never wanted to.

From your pets example, you clearly proposed that not repenting sin doesn't disqualify your Christian status and doesn't disqualify your free ticket to heaven. Contradicts to your previous post, but nevertheless, get to the right path to Bible. I agree to this proposal long time ago, so as you wish, we don't need to discuss it further.

>> For it doesn't matter if I am right or wrong. It matters what my relationship with God is. And God will reveal it to me when the time is right, that I am sure.

I can give you another reason why you have to take repenting off the list: If repenting is still on the list, you can never be sure coz this sentence of yours alone constituted a sin already, and you didn't even realize this sin and no way for you to repent it. Your sin is not that you can or can't recognize sins; your sin is your refusing to care about the recognition, as if these sins have nothing to do with you.

It is not your fault not being able to find anything to back you up, but refuse to care?? refuse to acknowledge?? refuse to repent?? So much for the so called Christian moral standard.

If there is nothing else, we can wrap this up and go directly to the disagreement on moral standard which is listed in previous discussion.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Sorry to keep dragging on, but there is one thing I don't think you fully understand. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-19 {525} (#3817099@0)
>>> From your pets example, you clearly proposed that not repenting sin doesn't disqualify your Christian status and doesn't disqualify your free ticket to heaven. Contradicts to your previous post.

I have stated that repentance is vital in order to get saved (to become a Christian). After salvation, not repenting doesn't revoke one's pass to Heaven, true. I believe I have made this point clear previously. If not, here it's again. I think you have purposely or unintentionally forgotten the important timing here.

Thanks for the clarification, exactly what we want to hear. Now can we take "love to sin" off the "if...not" list too? and go directly to the discussion of "once u r Christian, you can do anything you want"? -can362(can362); 2007-7-19 {1137} (#3818285@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Even though previously you quote Roman 6 to show that after converted, it's impossible for a Christian to love sins, you yourself proved that after converted, it is quite common for a Christian to love sins. This way of falsification of Roman 6 is quite a scientific approach.

You actually single-handedly proved that after converted, you can sin freely, you can love to sin, and you don't have to repent without losing the free ticket to heaven. Then is there any reason you don't agree to the below summary of your above finding?

"After you become a Christian, you can actually do anything you want, God or Bible can not offer any prevention and punishment, thus if you like, you can violate anything you want without any need for repenting, you can even embrace Satan's evil action. And yet, God still have to grant you a free ticket to heaven."

This summary is just a straight-forward way of revealing what you proved. You may feel uncomfortable due to the lack of flowers and leaves to make your finding prettier and more acceptable, but Christian is for Truth right? Even though sometimes truth is bloody and cold.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Dude, you started up strong, now your performance is a bit... -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-19 {1696} (#3818393@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛>>> Even though previously you quote Roman 6 to show that after converted, it's impossible for a Christian to love sins, you yourself proved that after converted, it is quite common for a Christian to love sins. This way of falsification of Roman 6 is quite a scientific approach.

You might have misunderstood, but that's fine, I will stress it again: it is quite common for a Christian to sin. But it's impossible for a Christian to love sins. You are just twisting what I said here, I am quite surprised that you didn't even realize.

>>> You actually single-handedly proved that after converted, you can sin freely, you can love to sin, and you don't have to repent without losing the free ticket to heaven. Then is there any reason you don't agree to the below summary of your above finding?

Again, it's impossible for a Christian to love sins (based on Roman 6).

>>> "After you become a Christian, you can actually do anything you want, God or Bible can not offer any prevention and punishment, thus if you like, you can violate anything you want without any need for repenting, you can even embrace Satan's evil action. And yet, God still have to grant you a free ticket to heaven."

Yes, you can do whatever you want JUST AS before conversion. But it's not that you are encouraged to sin. Again, it's still a personal choice.

>>> This summary is just a straight-forward way of revealing what you proved. You may feel uncomfortable due to the lack of flowers and leaves to make your finding prettier and more acceptable, but Christian is for Truth right? Even though sometimes truth is bloody and cold.

Sorry, you have to do better than that.更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Too easy for me. it's impossible for a Christian to love sins? In your pets example, does your Christian friend "love" to raise a pet if you don't tell her it is a sin? Do I really need to quote again? -can362(can362); 2007-7-19 {1416} (#3818468@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛>> You might have misunderstood, but that's fine, I will stress it again: it is quite common for a Christian to sin. But it's impossible for a Christian to love sins. You are just twisting what I said here, I am quite surprised that you didn't even realize.

Nono, sorry for the misunderstanding. I am not twisting, I understand the "common...sin" part perfectly and never disagreed. What I challenge is the "impossible...sin" part.

This is from your own mouth:

>> Let me give you a concrete example. Is raising pets a sin? "What?! are you crazy?!" that's the answer from one of my friends (a Christian). Well, it doesn't look like a sin, does it? But it is, in the context that millions of people are starving to death while we are feeding our pets with the best food we can afford. Now do you think it's a sin? I don't think it isn't.

So, let's break it down:

1. Do you think it (raising pet) is a sin? Y
quote: Now do you think it's a sin? I don't think it isn't.

2. Does your Christian friend realize it is a sin before you tell her? N
quote: Is raising pets a sin? "What?! are you crazy?!" that's the answer from one of my friends (a Christian)

3. Following 2, assume she is not a pet-hater, or allergic to pet, or something like that, before you tell her, does she "love" to raise a pet if she has a chance?
This is the question you need to answer carefully..更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Easy for me too, most of Christians don't realize it's a sin yet (raising pets). When they do, I am sure they won't feel good about it. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-19 {1381} (#3818552@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛When we say one "loves to sin", it means one enjoys doing it, and by so doing, it brings one happiness or satisfaction. "Love to sin" also implies (Biblically speaking) that there is not regret or fear involved. After all, if doing something brings fear, I am sure one can't really enjoy it (arguable, but you know what I mean). Plus, "In perfect love, there is no fear.". If one loves doing something, there shouldn't be any fears (of consequences, punishment).

Take myself as an example, again. It won't be surprised for you to find out that I lie from time to time. And it will be reasonable for you to construe that I "love" lying. But do I really love lying? only myself and God truly know. Well, one would argue, if you don't enjoy it, why on earth do you keep doing it? You know the answer, don't you?

Allow me to put it this way, our flesh might enjoy sinning (like the example of a diet person indulging himself on garbage food), but our soul and spirit suffer. I guess that's what I meant to say: it's impossible for a Christian (a new born person spiritually) to love sins. After all, "Roman 6:3, ...we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death, We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.".更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

Don't use "when they realize" here, please. During last 2000 years the majority, if not all of Christians died before they had chance to realize, otherwise the bible study would spread this and majority of Christian should have realize it already. -can362(can362); 2007-7-19 {1837} (#3818804@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Don't go back to your lying and diet example again also please. You know the key difference among these examples so re-addressing them won't help a bit.

>> When we say one "loves to sin", it means one enjoys doing it, and by so doing, it brings one happiness or satisfaction. "Love to sin" also implies (Biblically speaking) that there is not regret or fear involved. After all, if doing something brings fear, I am sure one can't really enjoy it (arguable, but you know what I mean). Plus, "In perfect love, there is no fear.” If one loves doing something, there shouldn't be any fears (of consequences, punishment).

Exactly, your words totally described why she (or other Christian who died in last 2000 years and never have chance to know or think raising pet is a sin, let's call them Reba) "love to raise a pet":

When we say one "loves to raise a pet", it means one enjoys doing it, and by so doing, it brings one happiness or satisfaction. "Love to raise a pet" also implies (Biblically speaking) that there is not regret or fear involved. After all, if doing something brings fear, I am sure one can't really enjoy it (arguable, but you know what I mean). Plus, "In perfect love, there is no fear.” If one loves doing something, there shouldn't be any fears (of consequences, punishment).

1. Reba "loves to raise a pet", coz
2. Reba enjoys raising a pet
3. By raising a pet, it brings Reba happiness or satisfaction.
4. Reba doesn't regret or fear
5. Reba loves raising a pet; Reba has no reason to think of any fears (of consequences, punishment).

From what you said and Reba's "raising pet" status, it indicates that you totally agree on Reba's "love to raise a pet". So if you still don't think Reba "love to raise a pet", Is there any new reason that you want us to know?更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net

About what I want you to know, I have stated in my last post. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-20 {555} (#3819168@0)
>>>> Allow me to put it this way, our flesh might enjoy sinning (like the example of a diet person indulging himself on garbage food), but our soul and spirit suffer. I guess that's what I meant to say: it's impossible for a Christian (a new born person spiritually) to love sins. After all, "Roman 6:3, ...we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death, We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.".

Thread is getting very deep again; check #3820771 at bottom root please. -can362(can362); 2007-7-20 (#3820762@0)

既然你没其他借口不把"love to sin"拿掉，那你提出的这个总结也没有理由不成立：在你成为教徒后，如果你愿意，你可以为所欲为，可以违犯任何法律道德而不需要任何忏悔，上帝和圣经也提供不了任何预防和惩罚手段。同时，上帝还必须给你上天堂的免费门票。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-20 {384} (#3820771@0)
请讲一下逻辑，从节食和撒谎的例子推不到所有的教徒都不love sins，你自己提出的宠物例子已经证明了至少有些教徒love sins，凭什么还抓住“所有的教徒都不love sins”不放呢？圣经没有教过教徒“坚持错误”也是sin吗？

如果没什么其他借口来反对 http://www.rolia.net/forum/forum_post.php?tno=453980&pno=3818285& ，我们可以结束这个，开始讨论Christian，作为一个整体，这个整体的道德水平到底是高还是低。
http://www.rolia.net/forum/forum_post.php?tno=453980&pno=3818285&

翻译一下文献结论吧：世界范围内，高自发无神论化国家社会健康程度最好，高宗教化国家社会健康程度最差。前者拥有这些品质：谋杀率/婴儿死亡率/贫困指数/文盲率最低；富裕程度/生活期望指数/教育程度/性别平等程度最高。高宗教化国家只在一个领域胜出：自杀率。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 {1828} (#3822267@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns
Phil Zuckerman

"In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide. "

高比率自发无神论群体的国家是地球上社会健康程度最好的国家，低比率自发无神论群体(高宗教化)的国家是地球上社会健康程度最差的国家。高比率自发无神论群体的国家拥有这些品质：谋杀率最低；婴儿死亡率最低，贫困指数最低；文盲率最低；富裕程度最高；生活期望指数最高；教育程度最高；性别平等程度最高。宗教化程度高的国家只在一个领域胜出：自杀率。

要怪就怪你们教徒不争气，跟non-believer无关。既然大家都知道法律是道德的最低标准，从上面这个世界范围内的调查数据摘一个和法律有关的看看：一个国家如果宗教信仰化程度越高，这个国家的谋杀率就越高。

这个数据的有趣之处在于它从事实上再次印证了你的总结：“教徒可以为所欲为，上帝和圣经也提供不了任何预防和惩罚手段”。圣经上宣称的那么高的Moral bar原来真的只是个摆设，现实生活中你们的通过率原来真的比non-believer低多了。

我们尊重你们Christian的信仰，即使你们Christian的道德水平距离non-believer的道德水平还有一段距离，我们还是尊重你们Christian莫名其妙的道德优越感。But, for your own sake, keep it to yourself, please. It is not good to show it to public and embarrass yourself.

如果要反驳这个结论，去联合国投诉他们的调查数据有误。如果挑不出调查数据的错，引用经文1000遍也不解决任何问题，没任何意义，我们就到这里结束吧。更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

Thank you for your kindness. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-21 {107} (#3822316@0)
也谢谢你尊重Christian的信仰，不过你不需要这么做。我尊重执着于其它宗教信仰人，但我从来不尊重其它的宗教信仰。

理解，圣经道德还没有高到尊重其他宗教嘛。我们Atheist道德高，虽然可能不认同，我们尊重任何宗教诠释的世界，即使它是颠倒黑白。这次介绍一下Christian道德水平低的事实，省得Christian show off 道德优越感时又自己羞辱自己。这是圣经道德的局限，不怪你们Christian个人。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822380@0)

I only speak for myself. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-21 (#3822439@0)

I understand, that's why I said that it is not your fault. -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822448@0)

Good, that's exactly what I wanted to know. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-21 (#3822478@0)

很有意思的文章，也就是说谋杀率/婴儿死亡率/贫困指数/文盲率低；富裕程度/生活期望指数/教育程度/性别平等程度高的国家最多人选择自杀。为什么呢？ -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822433@0)

更有意思的是这个数据的分析方法,根据这篇文章的算法,加拿大属于top fifty countries containing the largest percentage of people who identify as atheist, agnostic, or non-believer in God 中的第20位. 然而 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 {338} (#3822469@0)
我刚刚根据加拿大统计局的统计数字算了一下(将佛教人后排除后) 非宗教人数只占20%左右.我们就按这篇文章的算法19%-30%,那么究竟加拿大算做atheist, agnostic, or non-believer人口多的国家还是highly religious nation?

不会把highly religious nation的谋杀率/婴儿死亡率/贫困指数/文盲率低；富裕程度/生活期望指数/教育程度/性别平等程度高算成atheist的了吧?
没研究过所以没法下结论。不过作者解释了自杀率最高的10个国家里有9个是前苏联成员国，他提了“coercive atheism” 和“organic atheism”的区别，我想你也看到了。不管怎么样，杀自己比杀别人应该更道德些，这点没什么可反对的吧。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822487@0)

你的这位作者的分析方法本身就有问题，结论更有问题。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822503@0)

问个问题：在你说“多”或者“少”的时候是在跟谁比？ -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822506@0)

占本国总人口比例 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822507@0)

不同的数据处理方法回答不同的研究问题。作者在研究Atheism和Societal Health的关系，你用的这个比例可以回答一个国家内部不同信仰族群现在的社会健康表现，但不能回答他的问题，用你说的这个比例在世界所有国家之间比较趋势才可以。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 {648} (#3822543@0)
作者的研究问题是：Atheism和Societal Health的关系。你用的这个比例可以回答现在国内不同信仰族群的社会健康表现，但是一个孤立时间点+孤立地点的数据不能回答任何有关“趋势”的问题。如果要研究国内Atheism和Societal Health的关系，你可以根据一个国家的历史统计数据，根据年代或标志性事件划分开然后统计趋势。如果你有这方面的研究结果，我非常愿意学习。

>>那么究竟加拿大算做atheist, agnostic, or non-believer人口多的国家还是highly religious nation?
差点忘了回答：如果跟占本国总人口比例比，加拿大是highly religious nation；如果跟世界其他国家的这个比例比，加拿大是atheist, agnostic, or non-believer人口多的国家。作者作研究是时候用的是后一个比例，原因在上面解释了。

跟世界其他国家的这个比例比?so funny. 这样比的结论有意义吗?像加拿大美国这样highly religious nation的国家社会健康程度算organic atheism的还是religious groups?您就是据此得出Atheist道德高的结论的? -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822562@0)

甲村有20户人，有18位信上帝，2位是自发无神论者。乙村有30户人，3位信上帝者，26位不可知论者，1位无神论。甲村比乙村生活富足，受教育程度高。于是有人得出结论，与乙村相比，自发无神论者比例高的甲村要生活富足，受教育程度高。因此Atheist道德高。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822575@0)

你没提乙村的谋杀率比甲村高吧。把这个加上再讨论 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 {158} (#3822593@0)
#3822267@0：既然大家都知道法律是道德的最低标准，从上面这个世界范围内的调查数据摘一个和法律有关的看看：一个国家如果宗教信仰化程度越高，这个国家的谋杀率就越高。

可问题是你说宗教信仰化程度高的国家是Atheism化程度高的国家，既然你要把社会健康算作是atheism和religious的共同贡献那么这谋杀率该算谁身上呢？ -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822606@0)

谋杀率当然也是共同贡献，所以你的比法没有意义。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822614@0)

所以我当然就没必要提乙村的谋杀率喽，呵呵。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822618@0)

不提谋杀率，就不要谈道德呀。法律是道德的底线，谈道德，你难道不把谋杀率算上？ -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822625@0)
如果这样的比法没意义，那么去炫耀无神论只占10-20%甚至更低的国家社会健康程度更没意义。除非你能证明这些社会健康的好指标都是无神论者创造的。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822631@0)

抱歉；弄错了。“你的比法没有意义”和“共同贡献”没有关系。你的比法没有意义是因为你比的都是和道德无关的东西，和道德有关的你拒绝比。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822635@0)

我讲的是分析数据的方法问题。您转的这作者的分析方法本身破绽百出，这是最致命的。分析方法本身有问题，结论就更有问题。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822649@0)

只说结论不给理由？prove it please. -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822656@0)

你顺着这个贴子往前找，就看到了。没有什么可绕弯的东西，此问题就结束吧。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822671@0)

看到了。然后你顺着#3822503往后找，包括分叉，还有什么不理解的地方？ -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822680@0)

我很理解，这是一篇在错误分析方法基础上得出错误结论的文章，呵呵。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822684@0)

你让我证明“ 除非你能证明这些社会健康的好指标都是无神论者创造的。”? 我以为你在搞笑。OK. 调查数据显示的是如果无神论比例A, B，社会健康指标C, D，(A-B)和(C-D)高度正相关。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-22 {813} (#3822769@0)
调查数据显示的是如果无神论比例A, B，社会健康指标C, D，(A-B)和(C-D)高度正相关。
正相关的意思相信你明白：假设C>D，那么A>B。假设A>B，那么C>D。C比D多的那部分(C-D) 正比于 A比B多的那部分(A-B)
C-D = 社会健康指标的增加，A-B = 无神论人口比例的增加。
也就是：社会健康指标是所有人共同贡献的，但是社会健康指标的增加和无神论人口比例的增加成正比。

如果非要区分。我们把问题简单化：假设 1 总人口不变，2 每个人的对社会健康指标的贡献大小不变。
推论a. 无神论人口比例的增加=宗教人口比例的减少，因为假设2，所以宗教族群贡献的社会健康指标减小。
推论b. 无神论人口比例的增加=社会健康指标的增加。但是根据a，宗教族群贡献的社会健康指标减小，所以
证明：社会健康指标增加的那部分都是由无神论族群贡献的。

Good enough? Anything else?

BTW：论文中的Atheist是Atheist/Agnostic/Non-believer的总称。你的村庄的例子有点乱，不过无关大碍。

搞笑的是您，任何一个受过高等教育的人都不会搞出这种推论来的。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-22 {617} (#3822823@0)
您需要的是确切证明"无神论人口的增加确实促进Societal Health的好指标.否则没有意义.因为存在无神论人口增加,但Societal Health的好指标多数由有神论者创造这样的可能.

举个简单例子。
甲村有18个信神的，2个不信的。18个信神的人均收入10万，2个不信的人均收入2万。因此信神的人对税收和以此而形成的教育卫生体系贡献远远高过不信的。5年后，不信的人又增加了2个，18个信神的人均收入增到15万，不信的人均收入增到3万。实际上，尽管无神论人口比例增加了，但真正对税收指标贡献多的是18个信神的。这里我们没有抹煞无神论者的供献，但据此将无神论人口比例的增加与甲村税收总数的增加来试图说明无神论者如何如何好没有任何意义。Good enough? Anything else?

如果你把无神论的年收入降到0更能证明你对。问题是，你这假设太离谱了吧。我只知道性别和种族有同工不同酬现象，报酬差5倍这么大？ -can362(can362); 2007-7-22 (#3822858@0)

Oops. my bad, I shouldn't compare viretically within one country and among different years, The author doesn't have this kind of data. I should compare between countries. Sorry. -can362(can362); 2007-7-22 (#3822873@0)

No problem. 如果你承认社会健康程度不是由单一宗教信仰因素决定的或是主要由宗教信仰因素决定的话，那么就已经足够证明这种结论的片面。因为存在太多其它因素。这就好像我年龄的增长与地球变暖的关系一样。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-22 {64} (#3822908@0)
在两个数据完全正确的前提下，可以说有联系，也可以说没有必然联系。

再举个例子 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-22 {390} (#3822880@0)
一个村子有个百万富翁是有神论者，在他有生之年白手起家创造了知名企业。收入颇丰，纳税也颇丰。20年后，他的两个儿子继承了产业，但两个儿子是无神论者。继承后企业继续在原有轨道上发展，收入颇丰，纳税也颇丰。20年后统计表明，有神论者减少了，无神论者比例增加了，企业比先前发展了。
那么，简单地把无神论者的增加与企业的发展纳税的增加联系起来以说明无神论者对社会的贡献，任何有常识的人都能看出来是片面的。

#3822873 这些数据没法证明这些社会健康的好指标都是无神论者创造的(not possible)，这些数据的意义在于它发现了一个国家Atheism化程度越高，这个国家的Societal Health就越好。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-22 (#3822888@0)

#3822908 同样的数据可以有完全不同的解读。看你需要什么了。早上还要去教会，失陪了。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-22 (#3822910@0)

实际上作者和你意见一致："I am simply seeking to clearly establish that high degrees of non-belief in God in a given society clearly do not result in societal ruin, and high levels of belief in God do not ensure societal well-being." -can362(can362); 2007-7-22 {1824} (#3822937@0)
本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛作者是在防守，我用成了进攻，不应该用一个无关的证据来试图证明3820771&。抱歉在这个跑题的讨论上耽误你的时间。

"Of course, it is essential to clearly state that I am in no way arguing that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. If anything, the opposite argument should be made: societal health causes widespread atheism, and societal insecurity causes widespread belief in God, as discussed by Norris and Inglehart (2004) above.

The causes of the glaring differences in societal well being among the world’s rich and poor nations are numerous (Diamond, 1999; Landes, 1999). Certainly among them include the birth and development of the industrial revolution, the lingering residue of colonialism and international conquests, and international trade policies that heavily favor the interests of wealthy/first world nations and their multi-national corporations over the interests of developing/third world nations. Again, to suggest that widespread belief or non-belief in God is the cause of societal health or societal pathology is not my intention. Rather, I am simply seeking to clearly establish that high degrees of non-belief in God in a given society clearly do not result in societal ruin, and high levels of belief in God do not ensure societal well-being. This is an important fact to stress because politically-active theists often equate atheism with crime, immorality, and societal disintegration. From Muslim fundamentalists in Iran to Christian fundamentalists in Indiana, the argument is loudly trumpeted that belief in God is “good for society” – an ultimate panacea -- while rejection of the belief in God is bad for society. The above discussion reveals that this thesis is baldly incorrect."更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

我是很擅长马拉松贴的，但车轱辘话就算了。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822677@0)

意义在于他发现了一个国家Atheism化程度越高，它的Societal Health就越好。你觉得这个结论没有意义？FYI：加拿大美国的社会健康是atheism和religious的共同贡献，所以上篇就说了据此没法得出Atheist道德高的结论，加拿大和美国之间比较才可能。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822586@0)

"翻译一下文献结论吧：世界范围内，高自发无神论化国家社会健康程度最好，高宗教化国家社会健康程度最差--can362(can362)". 实际上,这里某些所谓“高自发无神论化国家”其实恰恰正是highly religious nation。因此结论其实证明highly religious nation社会健康程度最好。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822595@0)

你摘的这句话没提“道德”吧。提道德的在这里：“既然大家都知道法律是道德的最低标准，从上面这个世界范围内的调查数据摘一个和法律有关的看看：一个国家如果宗教信仰化程度越高，这个国家的谋杀率就越高。 ” -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822602@0)

“我们Atheist道德高，虽然可能不认同，我们尊重任何宗教诠释的世界，即使它是颠倒黑白。这次介绍一下Christian道德水平低的事实，省得Christian show off 道德优越感时又自己羞辱自己--can362(can362)” 这是您后面的结论吧，呵呵。 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822609@0)

提道德的这段话还要我再引用几遍？“既然大家都知道法律是道德的最低标准，从上面这个世界范围内的调查数据摘一个和法律有关的看看：一个国家如果宗教信仰化程度越高，这个国家的谋杀率就越高。 ” -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822630@0)

#3822606 #3822614 -happy_boy(远山红尘); 2007-7-21 (#3822654@0)

#3822635 -can362(can362); 2007-7-21 (#3822660@0)

高宗教化国家是中东那些吧？别张冠李戴哈 -firetrain(火车头); 2007-7-21 (#3822565@0)

You are right, I went overboard... not that my argument of the Christian moral is proven wrong, but this paper has nothing to do with it. Sorry everybody -can362(can362); 2007-7-22 (#3822948@0)

题外话：我以前对Crusade的看法是错误的，详情请见：#3823944。谢谢。 -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-22 (#3823950@0)

感觉跟牧师谈话的时候，你从不质疑牧师的话，总是被他带跑题。国内管这种对话叫“托儿”。 -can362(can362); 2007-7-23 {984} (#3824340@0)
你对牧师提的问题实在是太软，我是以为你问Crusade是否是sin的时候，会把这些sinner是否上天堂的问题也确定了。估计当时你被牧师带跑了。

你牧师对Crusade/Inquisition运动中人的分类的解释有问题。你要清楚这一点：这三种人在加入运动前都已经是基督徒，非基督徒在当时是Crusade/Inquisition的对象。如果你你稍微质疑牧师的分类，你的牧师根本没有可能开始下面一大套的说教。

第一种人：积极推动者和积极参加者。分类这种人的理由应该正好和你牧师的理解相反，现在我们管这类人叫Fundamentalist，是绝对信仰狂热派，他们杀穆斯林或者异教徒不是为了得救而是为了保护基督教的势力范围和维护基督教的正统性。在他们眼里，第二种人和第三种人都不是真正的基督徒。

牧师也忽略了向你介绍Crusade的历史背景：
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%AD%97%E8%BB%8D%E6%9D%B1%E5%BE%81
跟你理解的相反，“这场战争被罗马教廷赋予了宗教战争的性质，号召从异教徒（穆斯林）手中夺回圣城耶路撒冷。”在这个背景下，认为诛杀穆斯林是神的旨意是完全讲的通的。

你的牧师完全是在糊弄你。推荐happy_boy的church，至少能保证问题看的准，逻辑不含糊。

It wasn't meant for answering your questions or for kicking off the discussion again. It only meant to tell you that I was wrong at one point. And again, I won't discuss this further. -collapsar(笨笨和旦旦.Emmanuel); 2007-7-23 (#3824477@0)
他的牧师说得很好狠对! -redrivervalley(空谷回音); 2007-8-16 {312} (#3873369@0)
你的意思是你认为诛杀穆斯林是神的旨意吗?这样的认识是可怕的,就好像现在的人要打着神的旗号去朱砂不信者一样.

神的法则是:万事福相较力,让爱神的人得益处.

或者说:虽是坏事,却让爱神的人的益处.十字军东征,没少干坏事,比如,甚至天主教和东正教干起来,然而,众多的恶行却让人们看到了罗马教廷的腐败,从而催生了新教改革运动的产生.

@

Now that's interesting, you know Christianity well, and for the whole time you knew what I meant to say. Then why was the discussion/"debate" about?

Replies, comments and Discussions:

More Topics