American Christians Cave on Core Beliefs Only 40% say hell is for those who reject Jesus

World Net Daily ^ | October 29, 2016 | WND Exclusive

[Maudeen]

The number of professing Christians is declining in America. And it’s not just because of the media, the public schools or even activism by atheists. It’s because Christians themselves are genuinely ignorant about the tenets of their faith, according to a new study. . . . .

[Elsie]

My relative goes to hell and they don’t?

Ya either believe what the book says or you don't - freely make up your OWN rules.

[Elsie]

If they dont know it’s a sin, is it?

Sin is a transgressing of the LAW...

---

Again the Book says:

Romans 2:12

All those who sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all those who sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

[CodeToad]

Those 40% have no idea what Christianity is if they think those that have not heard the word go to Hell.

[Elsie]

Remember, your relative can repent on his deathbed, as well.

So can ART!

[Elsie]

Belief in Jesus in itself is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition to gain entrance to heaven.

Mission Statement of every cult out there!

[Elsie]

Beware of false prophets,

[Future Snake Eater]

It’s because Christians themselves are genuinely ignorant about the tenets of their faith

Because "organized religion" has been thoroughly demonized, so people don't go to church, and, as a result, they don't know anything about the Bible or what He says in it.

[Elsie]

Nothing you have posted in any way supports your ignorant, absurd belief.

 

#5

 

 

---

 

 

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply.

These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the conspiracy or  coverup.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's  argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger'  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs',  'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics',  'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other  empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

How to spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

 

 

[editor-surveyor]

.
Yes, everyone here knows you to be a master of disinformation.

Relax.

[Elsie]

But religious education FAILED my relative, and according to standard scriptural interpretation his soul is now in peril due to RELIGIOUS education.

Many of our FR Catholic readily admit that teaching of their CCC is not been very effective.

[Elsie]

He walked in a Christian and walked out an agnostic.

---

Are you going to leave me as well?

Too whom who we go? Only you have the words of life.

[Elsie]

He walked in a Christian and walked out an agnostic.

---

Are you going to leave me as well?

Too whom who we go?

Only you have the words of life.

[Elsie]

Close to election day. I was foolish to start this up at this time. Impulsive of me.

Not really...

---

Jeremiah 2:5-8, 13

⁵ This is what the Lord says:

“What fault did your ancestors find in me,
    that they strayed so far from me?
They followed worthless idols
    and became worthless themselves.
⁶ They did not ask, ‘Where is the Lord,
    who brought us up out of Egypt
and led us through the barren wilderness,
    through a land of deserts and ravines,
a land of drought and utter darkness,
    a land where no one travels and no one lives?’
⁷ I brought you into a fertile land
    to eat its fruit and rich produce.
But you came and defiled my land
    and made my inheritance detestable.
⁸ The priests did not ask,
    ‘Where is the Lord?’
Those who deal with the law did not know me;
    the leaders rebelled against me.
The prophets prophesied by Baal,
    following worthless idols.

13 “My people have committed two sins:
 They have forsaken me, the spring of living water,
and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water.

 

We; like Judah; have clamored for a KING!

POLITICs and POLITICIANs are NOT our Savior!

 

[Elsie]

Because "organized religion" has been thoroughly demonized, so people don't go to church, and, as a result, they don't know anything about the Bible or what He says in it.

But they DO go to motels and hotels.

Sometimes in the night a little voice will say...

Open the drawer and open the Book.

[Elsie]

Yes, everyone here knows you to be a master of disinformation.

#18

[metmom]

Yes, Jesus plus.....

Whatever we claim you REALLY need to depend on since Jesus isn’t enough.

[daniel1212]

But religious education FAILED my relative, and according to standard scriptural interpretation his soul is now in peril due to RELIGIOUS education.

No, i simply do not buy that, nor is that what i said, for while we all have negative things happen to us, we still can obey the light we have (unless by sinning we become unable to, if not always terminally), and so can your relative. But instead what often occurs is that a person uses the wrongs done by those in authority to justify his own rebellion. And which, believe it or not, can include doing wonderful works. For the fundamental rebellion of man is to reject the personal submission to the Lord Jesus Christ, "But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us," (Luke 19:14) because it means giving up one's own sovereignty.

Man will do anything to justify himself in this, even much humanitarian work, for thereby he think he can remove the claim that he needs salvation. And sometimes, since they justify their unbelief because (in their omniscience) they have a problem with God's justice, or with the Bible in some way, then by doing good works they present themselves as more moral.

If i were to rebel against God then i think that is what i would do, as well as allowing myself some sinful pleasures i otherwise would reject.

I would ask your relative if he has such a problem with God and or the Bible. Maybe we can help him if he truly wants to believe, and if not, how can he justify rejecting the Lord Jesus?

[daniel1212]

In the meantime, some folks sin and scheme and repent on their deathbeds. I’m glad they get saved, don’t get me wrong. Eternal damnation is infinitely longer than a billion years. I don’t wish that on anyone. NO one. But something is ‘off’ here, and I think it’s some kind of cookie pressed doctrine that misses the mark of God’s perfect plan. Or maybe God intentially hides aspects of His mercy so that we are spurred to better ourselves.

Sorry i missed this. Very very few do so and rare are deathbed conversions. I remember reading that a long term pastors said he knew of conversions over the years in which the subjects did not die, and none of them turned out to be genuine. But if they happen, is the mild damnable sinner who was saved on Christ's account cannot point fingers at a greater sinner who also was saved, and charge him with getting off too easy. Or charge God with being too gracious. But broad is the gate that leads to damnation, and real conversions are out of a pentitent, contrite heart, like the so-called "good thief."

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

[Biting my tongue here. Focus on the election, Arthur. Election.]

Sorry to disturb everyone here.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Bless you. I’ll make a note of responding to this after the election. And BTW, after the election we should really consider an ‘Under God’ amendment to the Constitution. [In my profile.]

I’m sick of education and the system failing people.

FRegards for now ....