Non christians...
-
...then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Acts 4:10-12
Taken from Acts chapter 4, the religious authorities approached Peter and John because these 2 were preaching to the people and proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The religious people also heard that Peter actually healed a crippled beggar and restored his ability to walk.
They finally decided to summon the disciples before them and question them. Peter answer to their interrogation follows and the verse 10-12 talks about Jesus being rejected and crucified by people and ironically that very name of Jesus is the power which enables the healing of the crippled beggar.
Peter further emphasise that the only way that a person can be saved is none other than the name of Jesus Christ. -
And your point being? Especially with regards to the words highlighted. I dont challenge the fact Peter said that, but the fact you use them with reference to the topic here.Originally posted by NeonTetra:...then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone. 'Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Acts 4:10-12
Taken from Acts chapter 4, the religious authorities approached Peter and John because these 2 were preaching to the people and proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The religious people also heard that Peter actually healed a crippled beggar and restored his ability to walk.
They finally decided to summon the disciples before them and question them. Peter answer to their interrogation follows and the verse 10-12 talks about Jesus being rejected and crucified by people and ironically that very name of Jesus is the power which enables the healing of the crippled beggar.
Peter further emphasise that the only way that a person can be saved is none other than the name of Jesus Christ. -
Originally posted by laurence82:And your point being? Especially with regards to the words highlighted. I dont challenge the fact Peter said that, but the fact you use them with reference to the topic here.
let's continue to read in context:
Acts 4
13When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. 14But since they could see the man who had been healed standing there with them, there was nothing they could say. 15So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16"What are we going to do with these men?" they asked. "Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name."
18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. 20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."
21After further threats they let them go. They could not decide how to punish them, because all the people were praising God for what had happened. 22For the man who was miraculously healed was over forty years old.
-----------
The preaching of salvation through Jesus and the proclamation of Him being raised from the dead is unwelcomed by the Jewish religious because they see it as a threat to them. They repeatedly attempted to stop the disciples from speaking in that name but obviously the disciples didnt stop doing that.
Regarding this passage being relevant to this topic, I address the issue concerning Christians preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and also on the emphasis that it is only through Christ can a person be saved. And why dun Christians just mind their own business and stop preaching to people the saving grace. I guess by reading the passage with a open-mind, one can discern the whole idea. -
First of all, I come in peace.
I feel after everything I have read I should share this:
1. I was born Catholic. Thought "gao dim" already, no need to worry.
2. I grew up thinking I already know God but actually I didn't. So I went the way of the desperate — try this try that try the other thing. I am not joking: witchcraft, astrology, fortune telling (I can "read palms"), yoga, some Buddhism etc etc
3. The more I thought I knew the less I knew.
4. My mother has always loved Jesus. For some reason I thought, Know God can already. But I was wrong. My mother became terminally ill with cancer last year. She wanted me to know Jesus but she didn't say, she just prayed.
5. One month before her death I suddenly realised I didn't really know what it meant to be "saved". I thought Jesus is another Gandhi, big deal. Then I felt God make me ask a pastor in training. He showed me the history of time and how it is completely FACTUAL what happened in the Bible is true, every word. This excited and scared me. I have some VERY good friends who are Buddhist and wonderful people. I have very close Muslim friends. I thought, How can these people go to eternal fire if they love God so much? But when my pastor friend explained to me, it became VERY clear that Jesus is God's present to us. Free gift. Just accept. And it means we get to be with God forever.
I know it seems "too easy" but trust me, it is VERY difficult. It is probably the most difficult thing you will ever do in your life. Because it means you have to EXCLUDE all others. It's a marriage — you are married to Jesus and that's it. No affairs with all the other stuff. It means even if your parents disapprove of your heavenly "spouse" you have taken the vow and you must follow Him, not others, not even the ones who you love and are closest to. That's why it's hard.
6. When I finally accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and the only one capable of saving me, I cried and cried. Because I remembered the friends who had died without knowing or accepting Him. Because I think of my friends now who still don't know Him and realise I have so much work to do!
7. On my mother's death bed I received the fullness of the Holy Spirit. I knew it was a gift she wanted me to have. And I will share what the Holy Spirit has done for me: I now know the Truth, and the Truth has set me free. I am a completely different person today than I was 5 months ago, and I praise God and thank Him!
To answer some questions:
1. Why do Christians have to go and evangelise and bring people to Christ? Because that's our job. We come to Christ not to be happy happy joy joy but to do His work, to be a labourer in a ripe harvest. We have to follow instructions, He is our King. Don't play the fool.
2. What happens to people who don't hear the Good News and have a chance to accept Jesus as their personal saviour? the Bible says that Jesus will not come again UNTIL THE WORD IS PREACHED TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH. So until everybody knows, Judgment Day will not happen.
I honestly do not know about the "innocents" but I believe God is merciful and it is really beyond all human understanding and knowledge to second-guess what He has prepared for these innocents -- children who die from diseases early in life, aborted babies (which are souls, so it's not like they're not counted).
I can only say God needs harvest workers. If you have heard the Good NEws and God gives you the heart to accept it, do not turn away, because you are needed to save others. Too many people in this world die from desperation. I wept when I read about the 34-year-old woman with cancer who killed herself and her babies — there is nothing more terrible than to be hopeless, and in Jesus rests ALL hope. This world can really suck, but if you have Jesus, it really doesn't matter because if you believe, this world is only temporary. No matter what people do to our bodies (shoot us, kill us, eat us) they cannot touch our souls. Pain on earth is temporary, but pain in hell is forever. And actually quite unnecessary.
You are all blessed. Have a good and restful Sunday. -
Neon,
regarding your last post, do you see they can potentially add fuel to the flames?
DIsregarding whether such statements are uttered by the two disciples, putting out such post is tantamount to implicating the Jews, will this help in our present global conflicts? Already, the Jewish community have raised objections to the movie Passion.
Secondly, at that time this part of the Bible refers to situation between the Jews and Christians, which I do not want to dig up.
Now, its between Christians and non-believers, which include Buddhists, Taoist, Hindus and people of other beliefs.
Sure as hell, other beliefs would have some form of evangelism. What I meant is why would this topic come out, and such statements be uttered by you and other forumnites?
Spread the Gospels by our actions and thoughts would be better than reflecting on the actions of non believers, and what is God judgement on them.
Yes, I seriously agree such a scenario can be applied in the Palestine at that time, but you must consider our world now. Its no longer that simple. Therefore, its wise to consider and reflect upon our words and actions when spreading the teachings of Christ. -
Originally posted by laurence82:Neon,
regarding your last post, do you see they can potentially add fuel to the flames?
DIsregarding whether such statements are uttered by the two disciples, putting out such post is tantamount to implicating the Jews, will this help in our present global conflicts? Already, the Jewish community have raised objections to the movie Passion.
Secondly, at that time this part of the Bible refers to situation between the Jews and Christians, which I do not want to dig up.
Now, its between Christians and non-believers, which include Buddhists, Taoist, Hindus and people of other beliefs.
Sure as hell, other beliefs would have some form of evangelism. What I meant is why would this topic come out, and such statements be uttered by you and other forumnites?
Spread the Gospels by our actions and thoughts would be better than reflecting on the actions of non believers, and what is God judgement on them.
Yes, I seriously agree such a scenario can be applied in the Palestine at that time, but you must consider our world now. Its no longer that simple. Therefore, its wise to consider and reflect upon our words and actions when spreading the teachings of Christ.
I merely quote the scriptures and add explanations to them. That is the plainest i can and will want to do. Truths are offensive..no wonder God calls His Word the 'double- edged sword' in Hebrews 4:12-13
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-Âedged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account."
To repackage or change some words to suit the needs of people is not honoring the Word of God. To present scripture in its simplicity and allow the truths to speak for itself is what we at Eternal Hope believes in. The world will surely find God's Word offensive, insensitive or whatever reasons they can come up with and we cannot control what they say or think.
However, never did we (sillyme, M and myself from Eternal Hope) bad mouth other religions because that is a needless and foolish act to do. -
Yes, and I hope when I reject the words of Christ, people wont use the phrase 'zhong yan ni er' on me, or to call me sinful, unsaved, unrepentant on me.
-
Two points need to be noted:
1) Unity does not require uniformity.
2) Uniformity does not ensure Unity.
There is a very good story on this:-- the story of the six blind men and an elephant. Each blind man went to feel a different part of an elephant and came away with their own representation of it.
If they practised Unity, they can discuss everything and yet be united. If one tries to practise uniformity, it is akin to the blind man who felt the elephantÂ’s tail and declare it to be like a snake!
And this is the problem of Christianity, because it seeks uniformity as a solution. That is why Christians try to convert. They have been doing that for 2000 years and what have they achieve? How much time do Christians need to convert the entire world? Another 2000 years or 20,000 years?
Let me be optimistic and say Christians need 1000 years and succeed, then they may have solved the problem of uniformity but not the problem of Unity.
Even now, there are many denominations in Christianity, and some will even denounce others as “cults or breakaway fractions”. If the goal was one of Unity, then there will not be such troubles. Differences can be celebrated; similarities and also be celebrated.
And I have to agree with NeonTetra that Truth is very offensive: it is offensive because people seek uniformity. Most people are not interested in knowing what is true, but in asserting what they think is true. If one wants to know the truth, one must seek the global truth, because oneÂ’s viewpoint can only be relative truth. If the six blind men combine their description of the elephant, they may see an adequate representation, if they insist on their own viewpoint, what they see is gross misrepresentation!
And since we are on the issue of viewpoints, let us look a bit deeper:
1) Muslims hold Jesus in high regard as a Messenger of God, as opposed to ChristiansÂ’ belief that Jesus is the Son of God.
2) Hindus accept God in any form, in the Gita, Lord Krishna said that he would appear in any form that the devotee is comfortable with.
3) In the Taoist Tao De Jing, if one subsititute the word Tao with God, one can hardly feel any difference when reading it. Good and Evil are both in Tao, but Tao is also beyond Good and Evil (God and Devil?).
4) Buddhism asserts that all religions are true in a way, but are not necessary needed. And there is one little-known story that may be of interest / shockÂ… (more later)
So where does these leave us? Christian truth is inside the truth of other religions, but the truth of other religions is rejected by Christians. As what I like to say to Christian friends, “The fishes that swim in the ocean of Truth do not prefer to go back into the river of truth, because eventually the fishes in the river must arrive back in the ocean.”
As I said earlier, there is an Indian/Tibetian story that is of interest here. It is a record of the story of a man known as Issa (Arabic). It is for those who are interested in seeing different viewpoints, those who wish to stick only to their own viewpoint can forgo it without loss to what I typed about.
Go to: http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm -
You are right. Unity here is important, and differences and similarities can be celebrated. It doesn't really matter whether you're a Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Baptist or Catholic. However, you use the example of "cults or breakaway fractions" which I feel is problematic. Are you suggesting the mainstream church should celebrate these differences?Originally posted by talk_cock:Even now, there are many denominations in Christianity, and some will even denounce others as “cults or breakaway fractions”. If the goal was one of Unity, then there will not be such troubles. Differences can be celebrated; similarities and also be celebrated.So where does these leave us? Christian truth is inside the truth of other religions, but the truth of other religions is rejected by Christians.
You like talking in circles, but what's your point? You seem to advocate unity, that each of them reflects a part of the truth, and we should combine them to see the whole truth? Please correct my interpretation.
However, the problem here is that Christianity is an exclusive religion and preaches exclusive salvation through Jesus Christ. If you realize, this is the only "rule" in Christianity, that you must acknowledge the Lord as your saviour. Hence your analogy of the blind men touching the elephant is inappropriate. You're assuming they all touch a different part of the elephant and all religions reflect a different aspect of the truth or reality. But is this the case? If two blind men touch the tail and describe it differently, how do you 'unify'?
Hindus accept God in any form? Appear in any form devotee is comfortable with? So if the devotee is not comfortable, the 'form' is not God? So Jesus can be God or not God at the same time, depending on the 'mood' of the devotee?
And your Tao De Jing analogy is inappropriate. Good and Evil are both in Tao, but God is only good, no evil, so you can't substitute the word Tao with God.
All religions are true in a way. Such a vague statement cannot be argued to any satisfaction. -
Hi guys.. didn't realise my post would cause such an uproar.. really didn't mean to offend anybody. anyway. As Christian,we are not trying to practise elitism, we are not comparing which religion is better or which is more true. This really isn't an issue and it seldom crosses christian's mind.
I just hope i can explain to you the bottom line (even if it's a repetition of what you have heard a thousand times).
1. Man is sinful. (we can agree on that right.. we have sin at 1 time or another)
2. Jesus came to earth (this is a historical fact)
3. Who is Jesus? (To Christians - he is our saviour. To aethist- some say he is a good moral teacher, poitical matyr, etc..)
4. Jesus told us that he is the way and that no one comes through the father but through him. (from here the bottom-line is clear. He offers us salvation through him). Josh Mcdowell's, a famous christian author, states "either what Jesus say is true, or he is lunatic, no in-betweens" /he cannot be an upright, moral teacher, yet preech such a big lie.
5. Christians accept him and from then on.. we follow the preeching that Jesus tells us. one of that is to preech the gospel and be fishers of man.
6. Being Christians. thus, we try to share the gospel with others. Why do we bother?? we get ostrasized, laughed at and sometimes rebuked. We share because we believe and that we have experienced his love and grace. Thats why u sometimes see people crying in service, its a feeling undescribable. and we really want to share it with you.
7. We r not trying to put other religions down, we are trying to share the joy that we have found in Christ.
8. In the words of Bill bright, we evangelise for the love of man and for our love of Christ.
to lawrence82: i am not trying to make a quarrel or piss you off with the thread that i started. i just wanted to get the opinions of other Christians because i am doing my personal study of Christianity thats all. -
6. Being Christians. thus, we try to share the gospel with others. Why do we bother?? we get ostrasized, laughed at and sometimes rebuked. We share because we believe and that we have experienced his love and grace. Thats why u sometimes see people crying in service, its a feeling undescribable. and we really want to share it with you.
7. We r not trying to put other religions down, we are trying to share the joy that we have found in Christ.
8. In the words of Bill bright, we evangelise for the love of man and for our love of Christ.
And that's basically what the whole thing is about. Songs got it right. Christians just have to love others and serve others.
Songs -- you do know satan loves any public dispute over religion, so do not worry too much about the ruckus caused here. It's merely the work of the evil one, who uses pride and "philosophy" and "logic" to steal the truth, even the truth about Truth.
Continue to pray. "[be]
confident of this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to
completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6). -
Originally posted by cordof3strands:
You talking about me?
Songs -- you do know satan loves any public dispute over religion, so do not worry too much about the ruckus caused here. It's merely the work of the evil one, who uses pride and "philosophy" and "logic" to steal the truth, even the truth about Truth.
So i have become satan's henchman? -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
If you have understood that the situation is problematic, then it will help you see that how uniformity cannot be a solution, because uniformity cannot even be achieved by fractions within Christianity. And so what happens even if you can convert the whole world to Christianity? They will still be differences, perhaps magnified many times over. The smaller problem cannot be solved by this approach; do you think that the bigger problem can be solved by this approach? And so I am saying, use a different approach to solve the bigger problem first, then handle the smaller problem later.
You like talking in circles, but what's your point? You seem to advocate unity, that each of them reflects a part of the truth, and we should combine them to see the whole truth? Please correct my interpretation.
How can one be the First and the Last? On a circle, the first is also the last, because it has no beginning and no end. If you can see the global Truth, then see the Truth. If you cannot see the Truth, at least know that there are many relative truths.
However, the problem here is that Christianity is an exclusive religion and preaches exclusive salvation through Jesus Christ. If you realize, this is the only "rule" in Christianity, that you must acknowledge the Lord as your saviour. Hence your analogy of the blind men touching the elephant is inappropriate. You're assuming they all touch a different part of the elephant and all religions reflect a different aspect of the truth or reality. But is this the case? If two blind men touch the tail and describe it differently, how do you 'unify'?
Even in Christianity, there is ongoing debate about what it means to be saved. (see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savj.htm#deed). When you say “exclusive”, you have missed completely, the moral of the story is that there are “many”, because each of the blind man believes that his own representation of the elephant is “exclusive”. Blindness symbolises ignorance. And because the blind cannot see, he keeps saying the elephant is like a snake, to which those who can see knows that it is not true. And the two blind men who touch the tail can unify when their blindness is removed. Then they see the whole elephant. If they do not see the whole elephant, then two fools walk around saying that elephants look like a snake!
Hindus accept God in any form? Appear in any form devotee is comfortable with? So if the devotee is not comfortable, the 'form' is not God? So Jesus can be God or not God at the same time, depending on the 'mood' of the devotee?
Many Christians tell me that God is loving. Every year, the world is wrecked by natural and man-made disasters, there are the deformed, sick and homeless and Christians go on telling me that God is loving. A beautiful verse: “Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” Now, read it again and change it to “God is loving”, then it becomes ugly. If God is loving, and a person slaps you, then you can kill the person and God can forgive you, because God is loving.
No, God is Love. The Bible says so, and Christians misinterpret that God is loving. If a person slaps you, and you have Love in you, then you will at least ask for a reason. If you have no Love in you, you will fight without even asking for the reason. And it is more true to say Love is God, because God is not only Love, but also Light, Truth, etc. God is Love, but I never corrected Christians who keep telling me God is loving. What happens when Christians say God is loving? They take Love, personified it as a person God and say God is loving, they just stopped short of building a statue. Why would Christians do that? Because they are more comfortable with a particular form than a formless God. So if you can accept that God is loving, you can also accept statues of Virgin Mary, Buddha, Shiva, Guanyin, etc. They are just forms to represent the formless.
And your Tao De Jing analogy is inappropriate. Good and Evil are both in Tao, but God is only good, no evil, so you can't substitute the word Tao with God.
I would have thought that God is an ocean, Tao is also an ocean. But if you like, you can think of God as a sea, Tao as an ocean, and for me, both are Water.
All religions are true in a way. Such a vague statement cannot be argued to any satisfaction.
Everything can be argued. If I type vaguely, one can argue that I am not detailed enough. If I type in details, one can argue that I am beating around the bush. But what purpose does argument serve? I was looking for agreement, agreement brings me satisfaction. You were looking for argument, argument brings you satisfaction? -
No wayyyyy! you'd know if you were.Originally posted by talk_cock:You talking about me?
So i have become satan's henchman? -
Wah, perhaps it is my poor comprehension ability, but I find your reply hard to understand. You did a good job of separating my comments and your reply, but sometimes I don't know whether you're answering my question or just writing your own comment. Hence it is inevitable that I think you're beating around the bush, not answering the question, throwing red herrings etc. In fact, Jesus' parables are easier to understand than your reply. No offense
If you have understood that the situation is problematic, then it will help you see that how uniformity cannot be a solution, because uniformity cannot even be achieved by fractions within Christianity.
This is a strawman. Who says uniformity is a solution? Christians acknowledge that there is no uniformity within denominations, so they won't expect uniformity even if they can convert the whole world.And so what happens even if you can convert the whole world to Christianity? They will still be differences, perhaps magnified many times over.
Agree. Catholics and Protestants will still bicker over theology and the likes.The smaller problem cannot be solved by this approach; do you think that the bigger problem can be solved by this approach?
This is a potential fallacy of composition in logic.How can one be the First and the Last?
There's no need to use your circle to explain such common-sensical idea. Picture this. If a class has only 1 student, won't the student be first ... and yet last in class position?
At least there's a beginning and end for this example.Even in Christianity, there is ongoing debate about what it means to be saved. (see: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_savj.htm#deed).
But you can't ignore the fact, when christians evangelise, they only list down one "rule", that you open your heart and acknowledge the Lord as your saviour. Don't throw a red herring and lead us to bicker over the nuances of theology. While Catholics and Protestants may bicker over the nature of Mother Mary, or whether good works contributes to salvation, no one doubts that only acknowledging the Lord as your saviour is a necessary condition for salvation.When you say ¡°exclusive¡±, you have missed completely
My point is about Christianity being mutually incompatible with other religions. While Islam and Judaism are also mutually incompatible, Christianity is stricter since it preaches exclusive salvation through Christ., the moral of the story is that there are ¡°many¡±, because each of the blind man believes that his own representation of the elephant is ¡°exclusive¡±.
I don't see how the blind men in the analogy can represent the religions in the world. Buddhism, IMHO, doesn't believe itself to be exclusive. And it is surely not ignorant.And the two blind men who touch the tail can unify when their blindness is removed.
What do you suggest to remove the blindness?Many Christians tell me that God is loving. Every year, the world is wrecked by natural and man-made disasters, there are the deformed, sick and homeless and Christians go on telling me that God is loving.
Ah, the problem of evil. How to reconcile a loving God with the state of affairs now. Heehee.A beautiful verse: ¡°Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.¡± Now, read it again and change it to ¡°God is loving¡±, then it becomes ugly.
If God is loving, and a person slaps you, then you can kill the person and God can forgive you, because God is loving.
How does this relate to the verse (from 1 John?) you quoted? Or is this a sarcastic remark?No, God is Love. The Bible says so, and Christians misinterpret that God is loving.
Is this a nuance of the English language? The subtle differences between 'God is Love' and 'God is loving'?And it is more true to say Love is God, because God is not only Love, but also Light, Truth, etc.
This is stretching my logic. How do you arrive at the conclusion that Love is God? Surely God being Love, Light, Truth, and what you can think of, doesn't lead to that conclusion?Because they are more comfortable with a particular form than a formless God.
Do Christians think that God is formless without the personification that you suggested? This is not the God of philosophy but the God who leaves his mark in history.So if you can accept that God is loving, you can also accept statues of Virgin Mary, Buddha, Shiva, Guanyin, etc. They are just forms to represent the formless.
Wah, your argument makes big leap of reasoning. I need more time to ponder over it. Let's hope your next reply shed more light on the argument.I would have thought that God is an ocean, Tao is also an ocean. But if you like, you can think of God as a sea, Tao as an ocean, and for me, both are Water.
Interesting. Look at what the Gospel of John has to say:
1 Ì«³õÓ�µÀ£¬µÀÓëÉñ�¬ÔÚ£¬µÀ¾�ÊÇÉñ¡£
2 ÕâµÀÌ«³õÓëÉñ�¬ÔÚ¡£
3 �òÎïÊǽå×ÅËûÔìµÄ¡£·²±»ÔìµÄ£¬Ã»Ó�Ò»Ñù²»Êǽå×ÅËûÔìµÄ Everything can be argued. If I type vaguely, one can argue that I am not detailed enough.
True.If I type in details, one can argue that I am beating around the bush.
Well, you have to ask yourself, are you beating around the bush? Surely not everyone with detailed arguments are beating around the bush?But what purpose does argument serve? I was looking for agreement, agreement brings me satisfaction. You were looking for argument, argument brings you satisfaction?
I was looking for logical arguments, not the bickering and useless rhetoric that characterise some people. Not referring to you lah. -
Of course, there are and will be happy and good people.. christians and non-christians. I don't seek to outshine them in any way, I just live my life accordinglyOriginally posted by Icemoon:How, may I ask?
How do you use your lifestyle to convert strangers? I'm sure there're many good non-christians around anyway, so what makes your lifestyle shine over theirs, to warrant an interest in your faith?
I don't talk about my faith to strangers. I only share my faith, in appropriate times, with friends. But I won't expect a decision everytime I talk about Christianity. And of course, my friendship with them are based on how we enjoy each other's company and not on our religious beliefs. How do I do it? I just be their friend, and when they want/need to hear about Christ, I'll tell -
In what way do you think you're following the Great Commission then?
-
to preach the gospel to the nations?Originally posted by Icemoon:In what way do you think you're following the Great Commission then?
i've shared with friends about Christianity.. somewhere down the road they accepted the same faith too.. i plant, God reaps -
Please Leave us alone.Originally posted by songs:Hi guys. question.. as Christians we r told to spread the gospels rite. anyway.. what happens to those who never had a chance to ear about the good news.. what happens??
i dun thnk anyone knows .. but wad r ur views?
We dont spread Wicca in your Churches either. -
Originally posted by cool_ridge:
Usually in the Medical Waste Bin.
[b[ Its just the same with aborted babies...where do they go?[/b]