Here is a interesting thought

[Drich]

what part?

The words.

Which ones specifically?

---

What if you were being consumed by Hell fire?? Don't think you'd ask for a second chance...

Things like this make me wonder if the "Hell dream" I had was a dream and not a memory.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-15622.html

Certainly seems like just a dream. And what's the point of having a second chance when I became a damned atheist anyway? Back to hellfire, right? Not really much of a chance, thanks God's plan!

A second chance to prove who you really are.

Meaning if you were taken out of the original situation completely 'reset'/mind wiped. Would you again separate yourself from God or would you seek Him out despite what your 'peers' thought, said and did?

[Bad Writer]

I don't see why you're offended that I compared your ideas to Mormon doctrines, or why you tried to argue it. If your idea is miles apart from what they believe, then the OP didn't show that. You're an being an ass for the sake of being an ass, and I don't care anymore.

[Minimalist]

He thinks mormon bullshit smells worse than his bullshit. Seems like a rather silly argument.

[Foxaèr]

He thinks mormon bullshit smells worse than his bullshit. Seems like a rather silly argument.

I still keep thinking Drich is female.

[javafinch]

All fine and good to contemplate the question as an adult - what about all the aborted fetuses and children who die? Some second chance that was.

[Minimalist]

He thinks mormon bullshit smells worse than his bullshit. Seems like a rather silly argument.

I still keep thinking Drich is female.

The issue is almost irrelevant.

[max-greece]

Drich,

Interesting that you should identify the prodigal son story as not really fitting in with Christian traditional interpretation. I did much the same thing, but I came up with a rather different story.

I desperately want this not to be a long post so I will be as brief as possible.

Several years ago I read Mark's gospel for reasons that do not really matter now. This took a whole lot longer than I had expected and I ended up with a large amount of cross-referencing to the other gospels along the way. In the end I read the whole of Mark, 70 odd % of Matthew and chunks of Luke - very little John.

I came to the conclusion that Christianity made no sense whatsoever. This depressed me no-end. About 2 billion people call themselves Christian and, having read what I had, I couldn't see a single reason as to why.

It took me a long time to come up with any version of Xtianity that even could make sense. Once I did I felt rather better but it differed from the more traditional Xtian message I knew of.

This looks like a fine opportunity to share that with you now:

Xtianity is based on both the OT and the NT.

The OT is, essentially, the Jewish text.

For the NT to make any sense the OT had to be correct at the time.

Jesus comes to offer a new covenant to the Jews - who had already received a covenant of their own through Abraham.

Abraham's covenant was essentially a rather dodgy real estate deal and a promise. The promise was - follow the rules and your descendants will continue. This is an agreement without end. It is a contract (covenant in biblical speak). Even God cannot unilaterally change its terms (or his word means nothing).

So when Jesus comes to offer a new covenant he is saying to the Jews (only the Jews at this stage): Look at this new deal - its better than the existing one (personal salvation and so on) - why not switch?

Some do. Some don't. Those that don't, however, have to still be covered by the existing covenant (Abraham's) by definition.

Therefore, once Jesus dies (and establishes the new covenant by doing so) we have 2 valid covenants with God - the Jewish covenant and the brand new one with Christ. Jews follow the old one and Christians, once Christ himself has died, can follow the new one. Both, in the logic of the framework, have to be correct for Christianity to be correct.

If we can have 2.......we could have more.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Islam was a third, valid, covenant.

Were this the case then one would expect the second covenant to mention the possibility, although in an abstract way.

For me the story of the Prodigal Son is that mention:

The father is God.
The father's servants are probably the Jews.
The elder Son is Jesus.
The younger son - the Johny come lately to the party, is Mohamed.

Islam supposedly descend from Ishmael. That puts them "in da house"
Ishmael's descendants wander off only to come back later.

When the younger son returns he does so expecting that he can only do it through becoming a servant in the house (rejoining the Jews). When he returns, however, the father (God) rushes out to greet and welcome him. Note how he bypasses the older son, Jesus. Jesus is actually rather pissed off about the whole thing. When he complains to the father it is explained to him that the younger son's inheritance in no way diminishes his own. Everyone can get a place in heaven if they are on one of the 3 paths.

The above explanation, for me, was the best I could come up with that could actually stand. It does mean, however, that there are several paths to God and one is not necessarily better than the other.

It makes the idea of one group attacking another ludicrous - which means a whole lot of history is the story of how wrong man gets it sometimes.

I would be interested in your reaction but please note - this is not actually my belief - merely an academic exercise to try to make sense of any of it, starting from the premise of God.

[Cyberman]

The words.

Which ones specifically?

The ones you wrote. Look, I'm sick of spoonfeeding you guys. It's ok for you to be as vague as you like, that's being all mystical and deep. But the instant, the actual moment, someone makes a comment on it that doesn't lick your arse, your brain immediately bluescreens and suddenly you need book, chapter and verse. It's obtuse in the extreme and monumentally annoying, which of course is presumably the intention as a stalling tactic. Do what you want me to do; go back to the start and read what you wrote for yourself. I am not my brother's keeper. I'm most definitely not yours.

[Bad Writer]

Which ones specifically?

The ones you wrote. Look, I'm sick of spoonfeeding you guys. It's ok for you to be as vague as you like, that's being all mystical and deep. But the instant, the actual moment, someone makes a comment on it that doesn't lick your arse, your brain immediately bluescreens and suddenly you need book, chapter and verse. It's obtuse in the extreme and monumentally annoying, which of course is presumably the intention as a stalling tactic. Do what you want me to do; go back to the start and read what you wrote for yourself. I am not my brother's keeper. I'm most definitely not yours.

My sentiments. Kudos, Stimbo.

[Drich]

I don't see why you're offended that I compared your ideas to Mormon doctrines, or why you tried to argue it. If your idea is miles apart from what they believe, then the OP didn't show that. You're an being an ass for the sake of being an ass, and I don't care anymore.

I'm not offended. Your reading too much into it. I am simply looking to honestly compare what the mormons teach and what I have said here.

---

He thinks mormon bullshit smells worse than his bullshit. Seems like a rather silly argument.

I still keep thinking Drich is female.

It must be my Avatar pic with long dirty blinde hair that is confusing you.. Oh wait, I don't have a pic of an ugly girl for my avatar. I think your confusing me with someone else.

---

All fine and good to contemplate the question as an adult - what about all the aborted fetuses and children who die? Some second chance that was.

Maybe that soul gets 'plugged' into another chance.