Not an hour later we are arguing about how not all the founding father were christians, that they were theists and most likely those that were christian would be theists in todays terms.
He asked, “and what does deist mean?”
I replied, “a belief in a god. not necessarily christian.”
With triumph he responded, “they believed in god. that’s good enough for me. call them christian.”
I paused and put a smirk on my face before replying, “muslims belive in god. can we call them christian, too??”

Dan,

I did state that both of you were correct. (see the post which you quoted) So, there is no need to beat the proverbial dead horse. In Acts 2:38, the apostle Peter tells a crowd “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..” They must have believed that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead or they wouldn’t be baptized in his name.

I’m from the school of thought that once saved, always saved. I also believe what the Bible says when it states that “by their fruits you will know them.” (Matthew 7:16, 20) What I am trying to say is that just because someone says they are a Christian does not mean they are. You must look at their actions and not just listen to their words. Even Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 7:22 that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.”

[rant finished]

Either that cleared up some things or just made a bunch of people mad.

Dan said,

August 1, 2007 at 10:17 pm

Let’s beat this horse a little.

Carlos wrote “Uh Dan, you and Lee are both correct. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9) Do a little more research before you throw stones at someone.”

So I ask you Carlos is that all that is required? Confess without repentance will still save you?

I was making the point without repentance you are not saved. Do you agree?

Dan, Dan, Dan…tsk, tsk.
You were SO intent upon making your point that you completely overlooked my point: You don’t have to be intelligent to repent. Conversely, you don’t have to be intelligent to be non-repentant. I have seen on this blog stupid comments from believers and nonbelievers alike.

The Bible is full of disclaimers about converts such as the ones you listed, but if you get down to the brass tacks, the Bible says believe and confess and you are saved… period. Obviously, staying saved is quite another matter, or else the Bible wouldn’t have to make excuses as to why said salvation does not neccessarily stick with a person for life.
If a person can’t stay saved, then surely they must have been a false convert, goat, tare, infidel, or whatever.

God forbid that a person believe at the time and then change their mind… why, such a thing simply cannot happen if you are for real (insert appropriate amount of sarcasm here).

Carlos wrote “Uh Dan, you and Lee are both correct. The Bible says that if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9) Do a little more research before you throw stones at someone.”

So I ask you Carlos is that all that is required? Confess without repentance will still save you?

I was making the point without repentance you are not saved. Do you agree?

My favorite animals are bunny rabbits. I’ve always wanted one. so a friend sent me a video of baby bunnies, and it was really cute so I posted in on myspace as “something cute to brighten your day”. I got a response from someone on my list who said “wow, you’re not the typical agnostic-most agnostics are allergic to things like cute, furry bunnies”. Yes, you read that right. Doubting the existence of the biblical God means you hate bunnies! Of course, why didn’t I see it before? After all, it follows very logically that if you doubt God, you must not like bunnies and be allergic to them. So, I ask the person who made the comment how he got this idea. His response: he met an agnostic once who sneezed around bunnies. I’m sure that was totally because of his agnosticism! ::sigh::…….the stupidity of some people really scares me….think I’ll go eat some bunnies along with the babies……

The usual sense of “2+2=5″ is (looking for a neutral term here…) mystical: in some circumstances, based on things we cannot understand, the scale will read more than it should; therefore, worship the unknown and unknowable force that tipped the scale.

The joke, on the other hand, relies on science: both in recognizing *and defining* the limitations of a measurement, and then using this to explain the apparently anomaly. Implicit in the joke is the notion that no miracle has occured; we simply couldn’t make accurate enough measurements to avoid an anomaly, but we can explain how it probably came about, and that explanation could be tested given mre precise instruments.

Also, my post works better if I use a scale to weigh two objects separately, and then weigh them together for a combined weight. The weights will add together, while pressures will average instead of adding, given constant volume and pressure. Oops!

I also will admit when I am wrong and I willingly admit that I do not know it all. I am not here for a fight but just happened to stumble upon this site. I mean that literally because I use this extension in Firefox called “Stumble!” You ought to check it out. Firefox is much more secure than Internet Explorer, by the way.