who said the exact opposite?

wasn't the question Jibninjas asked, which I was responding to, was "would Bundy's family think Bundy was equally or more deserving of heaven then Gandhi?"

you're attributing blame on his family. Which is irrelevent to the question. Regardless of what his parents did, when asked if their son who kidnapped, mutilated, raped and murdered at least 30 women, committed necrophilia, etc.... was as deserving of heaven as Gandhi... I'm willing to bet they say he is not deserving of heaven.

For my part, I have no idea where Bundy is now. I do believe that if at the moment of his death, he was truly repentant it is possible that the outcome for him was favorable, whatever that means. If not, it may not have gone so well. For us though, I do not see how it is important. It is not our part to make that judgement. As for Gandhi, I would be very surprised if it turned out badly for him, but again not my part to make a judgement. How could I say anything else?

I have no idea what they'd say. But families are made up of individuals and individuals are frequently divided in their opinions.

Look at Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the former head of "American Atheists" magazine. She had a son that disagreed with her and he ended up as both an evangelical and Baptist.

And sorry Paco, I didn't mean for that post to be insulting. But I think you might find something if you look over your thoughts on what "through Jesus" means.

Speaking of ignores... I don't believe you addressed my questions about your earlier post and the conclusions you drew from it.

Specifically, earlier you said:
I ask again, how familiar are you with the writings of the hundreds of religions that mankind has followed over the years? What can you tell us about the development of the religions based on the Greek Gods? How about Chinese Gods that date back to 12 centuries before Christ? Have you read all the material on Scientology? The book of Mormon? How familiar are you with the traces of worship that indicate that early mankind 70K years ago worshipped serpents? It is believed that 40K years before christ mankind believe in fertility goddesses. How long did it take to develop that beleif system?

Have you read the Pyramid Texts? Arguably the oldest known religious texts. Since they're so old, aren't they extra truthful?

I'm betting you know next to nothing about how unique the development of Christianity is. And here's the most important part.... Nor does its uniqueness have any bearing on its truth.

I was curious to hear you explain your knowledge about the above and hundreds of other Gods and how their uniqueness is not as special as Christianity. Then why logically, the Bible developing for 1500 years, as you said it, has any relevence to its truthfullness.

Exactly.

I don't have the time to do justice to this question nor does anyone else in this forum I presume and I'd rather not present my opinion since we all know how ubiquitious opinions can be....

But feel free to research it yourself since you show such an interest in the question. It should only take several years of research for you to answer it. Since that's much too long for a forum post may I suggest you publish it in a scholarly journal. At least you could get some professional recognition for all the time you are investing since there's probably no money in it unless you can interest a publisher in it.

If you're interested this might help:

I think you are emphasizing the word through. Point taken.

But how does a tree or vine flourish without its' roots?

40. Jesus said, "A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father. Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish."

From the Gospel of Thomas

And yes I am emphasizing the word through.

there have been many discussions on this forum and many have asserted that the only way to heaven is through Jesus and they pointed out that God makes it so that everyone can learn about God.

To search every religious thread would waste a lot of time. There are plenty of regulars here who have been around before your recent arrival who I'm sure can support that this has been said here.

True, actual sin is liable to condemnation, but we can't accuse others of being guilty of Original Sin which I think you did here to Andy: "Sin entered the world because of Adam's sin. People are judged because they reject Christ, the provision God graciously provided for YOUR sin." Andyfox did not commit Original Sin, only Adam did. We are all in the stateof Original Sin, but we are not guilty of actual sin in this case. It's the human condition.

We agree on merit and punishment, but certainly there are people who are not guilty of any sin, such as children, or people incapable of making moral decisions due to their mental state. They should not be punished for anything.

As andyfox later made clear, he was calling a characterization of God a prick, not the actual God, and he wasn't being personal. It is up to us to show whether his characterization is correct or incorrect.

I don't think you're a fundamentalist and I wasn't attacking you. My point here was that some non-believers like to set up straw-men of what they think believers believe. However, as Our House said, certain conceptions about the nature of sin are a recipe for fundamentalism.

I'm willing to bet that if you had to guess if they thought their mass murderer son was as deserving of heaven as Gandhi, you know what the likely answer is.

As I said, I know what side I'd bet on.

What does that have to do with the question about Bundy? Its virtually a non sequitor.

Parents thoughts about a mass murderer son's moral equivalency to Gandhi has no bearing on an atheists child becoming religous. sigh.

fair enough

your lack of an answer says volumes. You post some irrational statements and then refuse to address questions about it. Now perhaps you understand why I ranted against the quality of recent theistic posts.

It seems quite clear that you DON'T have familiarity with the religions or their texts... therefore you can't authoritatively declare "Yes I believe the bible. Because of the unique way in which it was delivered to us. I don't know of any other books that took more than 1500 years to write do you? "

You don't even know if its unique. You don't know the substance of the majority of other religious texts (or religious figures throughout history) yet you pretend that the Bible's uniqueness is reason to believe it?

And I'll ask you again... this doesn't require any more research. You said that because it "took more then 1500 years to write" that it was unique and therefore to be believed. Explain in a rational argument how that is compelling with respect to the truth. If I found another document that took 10 years longer to develop, would it automatically be more true?

Do you understand my problem with quotes above? There is nothing rational about them.

my point was never really about bundy himself, but the idea of perspective. You were using two extreme examples, but what happens when we do not use such extreme examples?

Our individual perspectives of people means absolutely nothing when it comes to the final judgement. so just because you feel one person is more worthly than another does not make it true.

You also have to look at this from another perspective. Using the example before of bundy and ghandi.

Now it is very well know that bundy did many terrible unspeakable things and caused many people great pain. that much we know.

Now lets look at ghandi. on the surface he seems to be a great guy. now my knowledge of him is limited so if i say anything that is wrong simply correct me. So ghandi's teaching was that away from God and the bible and that we should not worship Jesus or the bible but man. we are our own salvation is basically the teaching from what i rememeber.

Now with this said i am sure that many people trusted ghandi and followed his teachings. probably millions of people. now if the salvation is only found in God and all others will be cast into hell and eventually destroyed and will not recieve eternal life,

then isnt ghandi responible for the destructions of millions of people and caused much more suffering than bundy ever did?

just another perspective.

I don't think most of us will agree that our individual perspectives mean nothing. If we are to have any understanding of morality, right and wrong, and there is any real truth to it, we should be able to answer pretty easily in the extreme cases.

Notready argues that he would rathar spend time with Bundy who makes a deathbed conversion then a man who dedicated his life to helping others but just wasn't convinced that Jesus was the son of God.

I have no problem saying that Notready's position is gross. And that his characterization of a God is not moral by our standards. And any God that would prefer a serial killer over a virtual saint on the basis of whether they were convinced Jesus was really the son of God is far from "All loving."

Once again, your argument is an idictment of your god, not Gandhi. If Gandhi made a compelling argument that was more real and convincing then the Bible or local christian missionary... and God then had those millions of people suffer for eternity simply for being convinced by Gandhi, then that is a cruel and sadistic God. Gandhi is teaching what he believes in his heart is right. And for simply being wrong (as a human with human limitations, surely God realizes that he has made people wrong and that because of their minds, they will not believe he is real), he will punish them for eternity.

And you want us to believe this is a god who loves everyone?

Also- I have a broad understanding of Gandhi's history- I'm not certain he advocated anything like worshipping man. I believe he simply sought truth.


and btw - let's pretend that this is truth. You're putting a moral equivalence on a person promoting a philosophy of love and peace but NOT teaching the Bible because the person believes its the right thing to do.... with kidnapping, mutilating, raping and murdering people. You really think that's just another perspective?

i never said that people spend an eternity in hell. in fact i specifically said that they would be destroyed. I do not believe that people spend an eternity in hell, nor have i seen this teaching in the bible.

you are mixing the arguement up. either God exists or he doesnt, and he is either the final judge or he isnt.

If we are talking about him existing and that he is the final judge, then i am saying that what ghandi did, in theory, was drive people away from God. by driving people away from God ghandi essentially sent them into eternal destruction.

so the torment and destruction that bundy caused was few in comparision to how many people that ghandi sent to destruction by turning them away from God.

I am already a Christian although I cringe at being put in the same category as you. I will say this though, if I were not and I was developing an opinion of the religion, you would be doing more to drive me away on this forum than Bundy, Gandhi, or anything else I have encountered in recent memory.

this is sort of the frustrating part of this forum... because depending on which Christian you are debating, they will contradict each other here for instance. I grew up Lutheran and my pastor definitely spoke of hell and eternal suffering. I'm sure you're aware that there are many Christians and Christian leaders who speak regularly about hell and eternal suffering. We've seen it enough on this forum as well.

By the way- changing it from eternal torment to merely destroying the millions (actually - its billions) of people who don't worship him doesn't really make him more loving.

And I'm saying that if God exists and he destroys millions of people for being convinced by Gandhi to be peaceful, loving people who just don't happen to believe in him - then that is not a very loving or just God. And the god you describe is evil.. NOT Gandhi. God is the one that decides to destroy these people, not Gandhi. Let's point the blame where its due. Gandhi is merely sharing ideas of what he thinks is good. And God is the killer here.

Again - you're ignoring motive and intent. You're also absolving the real destroyer here. Gandhi doesn't believe in God. Gandhi is trying to help people. Because people believe in the kind words of Gandhi, your "loving God" is destroying millions of people. Your God sounds pretty cruel and evil. Its very odd that you're blaming Gandhi for God's evil destruction of people whose minds (who apparently are flawed because the evidence they were exposed to led them to believe there was no God - and your God would be aware that this is through no fault of their own. He's aware of their flaws and what will become of them) Yet he still punishes them for something that is HIS OWN FAULT.

I'm not trying to be a smartass. This is a very evil and unjust God. I find it appalling that you think this is good.

But it illustrates the fact that individuals disagree within families. sigh

It seems you mean to be deliberately contentious...bigger sigh

you act like christians are the only ones that disagree with each other. have you met the rest of the world?

as a christian on this forum, i deal with the same thing that you do. everyone has their own oppinion and everyones seems to be different.

you think that there is no difference? WOW

so you are saying that a just God would do what? either condem everyone to eternal destruction for being sinners, as we all are including ghandi, or everyone should go to heaven even hitler?

so which is it?

please let me know with your eternal wisdom what is just.

No one has said that family members can't disagree on things. That's not what we're discussing and adds virtually nothing to the discussion.

I ask,
and your answer is that family members sometimes disagree?? What is your point? Are you saying that if you asked the mom and dad if their serial killer son was as deserving of heaven as Gandhi that they would likely split right down the middle? You don't think that most people would probably easily agree that Gandhi, a man who dedicated his life to peace and the pursuit of truth, was more deserving of heaven then their son who happened to murder 30+ women, torture and mutilate them and screw their corpses?

Your answer is nothing better then "some people in families disagree"?

I'm not being contentious. I just wish you'd respond to a post with some substative and on subject.

So far you failed to back up any of your earlier posts when I probed. You've still failed to explain how 1500 years of development (as you characterize it) has any bearing on truthfulness. You know--- try to make sense of your posts.