Will Hillary Clinton go to Heaven? [solved]

GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

How close is Hillary Clinton to make it to Heaven?

Francis Chan solves the mystery.

«1

Comments

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    That's an interesting video. Who's the closest to heaven? Jesus says drunks and prostitutes are closer than the good guys, because they know how sinful they are.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    By now, Stephen Hawking knows the truth. I wonder what he would say if he could come back for just 1 minute? Who would believe him?

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @GaoLu said:
    By now, Stephen Hawking knows the truth. I wonder what he would say if he could come back for just 1 minute? Who would believe him?

    I think Hawking misinterpreted the bible based on contemporary religious thought, never realizing how in line it was with his thinking. Even Einstein made claims the Westminster Confession made nearly 400 years ago. I think one day we will see more harmony between science and the bible.

  • JanJan Posts: 250

    @GaoLu said:
    By now, Stephen Hawking knows the truth. I wonder what he would say if he could come back for just 1 minute? Who would believe him?

    "If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone rises from the dead."

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    @Dave_L said:

    I think one day we will see more harmony between science and the bible.

    Dave, that day is now. Science and the Bible are in harmony.

    “The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. ‘The Lord’s throne is in heaven’ (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit, He is everywhere present.”

    “The book of nature and the written word do not disagree; each sheds light on the other.” The creation account is unparalleled in the ancient world point to the unique nature of this text.

    "Everything we see, feel or handle, is a composition— a mixture of different elements...The soil and the rocks, and even the water, the air, and the light are compounds," (Science and the Bible, by Herbert W. Morris, A. M., p. 27).

    "It is now demonstrated, therefore, that every known substance ance existing in nature is a compound, and therefore cannot be eternal. And the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. No number of finite substances can be eternal. The universe, then, cannot be eternal." -- Fables of Infidelity, by Robert Patterson, p. 12.

    But every elementary particle of inorganic matter is non-living and inert, therefore they could not have united themselves to form compound substances. Hence there must have been a compounder or a Creator; "for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." Rom. 1:20.

    There are now known to be about eighty-one elementary substances, and we do not lack evidence to prove that these "elementary substances themselves had a beginning. The ultimate... atoms composing each of them are endowed with properties that have reference and adaptation to those of others--properties that qualify them to attract or repel, to unite or coalesce with those of others, so as to produce the endlessly diversified combinations and organisms of nature." Science and the Bible, by Prof. Herbert W. Morris, Cincinnati, 1875, p. 28.

    The science of chemistry, therefore, confirms the following inspired declaration about creation: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that that which are not seen were not made of things which do appear." Heb. 11:3. Until next time--Happy reading! CM

    Sources:
    --Schroeder, Gerald L., Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible (Bantam Books). This is a book that takes on skeptics from both sides of the cosmological debate, arguing that science and the Bible are not at odds concerning the origin of the universe.

    -- Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science and the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 216.

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    I think one day we will see more harmony between science and the bible.

    Dave, that day is now. Science and the Bible are in harmony.

    “The greatness of God is to us incomprehensible. ‘The Lord’s throne is in heaven’ (Psalm 11:4); yet by His Spirit, He is everywhere present.”

    “The book of nature and the written word do not disagree; each sheds light on the other.” The creation account is unparalleled in the ancient world point to the unique nature of this text.

    "Everything we see, feel or handle, is a composition— a mixture of different elements...The soil and the rocks, and even the water, the air, and the light are compounds," (Science and the Bible, by Herbert W. Morris, A. M., p. 27).

    "It is now demonstrated, therefore, that every known substance ance existing in nature is a compound, and therefore cannot be eternal. And the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. No number of finite substances can be eternal. The universe, then, cannot be eternal." -- Fables of Infidelity, by Robert Patterson, p. 12.

    But every elementary particle of inorganic matter is non-living and inert, therefore they could not have united themselves to form compound substances. Hence there must have been a compounder or a Creator; "for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." Rom. 1:20.

    There are now known to be about eighty-one elementary substances, and we do not lack evidence to prove that these "elementary substances themselves had a beginning. The ultimate... atoms composing each of them are endowed with properties that have reference and adaptation to those of others--properties that qualify them to attract or repel, to unite or coalesce with those of others, so as to produce the endlessly diversified combinations and organisms of nature." Science and the Bible, by Prof. Herbert W. Morris, Cincinnati, 1875, p. 28.

    The science of chemistry, therefore, confirms the following inspired declaration about creation: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God so that that which are not seen were not made of things which do appear." Heb. 11:3. Until next time--Happy reading! CM

    Sources:
    --Schroeder, Gerald L., Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible (Bantam Books). This is a book that takes on skeptics from both sides of the cosmological debate, arguing that science and the Bible are not at odds concerning the origin of the universe.

    -- Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science and the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 216.

    Thanks C. I think Scripture and Science are closer to each other in the area of Predestination than most Christians allow for today. I even use the Big Bang as a model for explaining chapter three of the Westminster Confession written nearly four hundred years ago. But lost in the shuffle of contemporary Christian thought. I think we'll see more harmony between the Church and that area of science in the future. But the point is, the Church was there first centuries before science even began looking.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Dave,
    I don't know what you are trying to say with your various points.
    If I say, I do. I don't agree. CM

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” (John 3:36)

    God's wrath is behind all of the chaos and suffering we see in the world. This includes 911 and the recent school shootings. All of the wars and suffering the planet has endured. If things are this bad in the midst of earth's beauty and good pleasures, how bad will God's wrath be in Hell, where none of the good things of life offset it?

    In the end it is Jesus who in God's love, saves us from God in his wrath, by taking the wrath due to us, in his own body on the cross. And by clothing us in his infinite righteousness, just as he originally clothed us in Adam's unrighteousness.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    @Dave_L said:
    God's wrath is behind all of the chaos and suffering we see in the world. This includes 911 and the recent school shootings. All of the wars and suffering the planet has endured. If things are this bad in the midst of earth's beauty and good pleasures, how bad will God's wrath be in Hell, where none of the good things of life offset it?

    Bro. Dave,
    You may want to re-think your views on "God's Wrath." Your views seem to make God and Satan co-workers, a partnership for the disbursement of evil. CM

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328
    edited March 2018

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:
    God's wrath is behind all of the chaos and suffering we see in the world. This includes 911 and the recent school shootings. All of the wars and suffering the planet has endured. If things are this bad in the midst of earth's beauty and good pleasures, how bad will God's wrath be in Hell, where none of the good things of life offset it?

    Bro. Dave,
    You may want to re-think your views on "God's Wrath." Your views seem to make God and Satan co-workers, a partnership for the disbursement of evil. CM

    God created Satan and uses him to carry out his wrath. He placed all of the nations under his control. He also keeps Satan alive to serve his ends. And he will send him to hell when he finishes with him.

    “Now the serpent [Satan] was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” (Genesis 3:1)

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Dave, Dave,
    May I suggest, strongly, you look up the name or word "Satan". God didn't create Satan.
    I think this has been discussed someway in these forums. If not, just remember, our God is One-- In Purpose, Power, and Redemption! CM

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave, Dave,
    May I suggest, strongly, you look up the name or word "Satan". God didn't create Satan.
    I think this has been discussed someway in these forums. If not, just remember, our God is One-- In Purpose, Power, and Redemption! CM

    There are no other Gods. If God did not create him, who did?

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave, Dave,
    May I suggest, strongly, you look up the name or word "Satan". God didn't create Satan.
    I think this has been discussed someway in these forums. If not, just remember, our God is One-- In Purpose, Power, and Redemption! CM

    There are no other Gods. If God did not create him, who did?

    A big part of the answer to your question is looking up the word or name, "Satan." CM

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave, Dave,
    May I suggest, strongly, you look up the name or word "Satan". God didn't create Satan.
    I think this has been discussed someway in these forums. If not, just remember, our God is One-- In Purpose, Power, and Redemption! CM

    There are no other Gods. If God did not create him, who did?

    A big part of the answer to your question is looking up the word or name, "Satan." CM

    Satan = 1. שָׂטָן adversary, opponent: —a. in the military and political sphere 1S 294 1K 518 1114.23.25; —b. in jurisprudence Ps 1096, שָׂטָן meaning accuser, or opposing party; for the latter see THAT 2:822; cf. Horst BK 16/1: 14; —c. שָׂ׳ the one

    Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 1317). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Genesis says the serpent was more subtil than any of God's creation. And everyone in the bible calls the old serpent Satan. So God created Satan to do what you see him doing.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave, Dave,
    May I suggest, strongly, you look up the name or word "Satan". God didn't create Satan.
    I think this has been discussed someway in these forums. If not, just remember, our God is One-- In Purpose, Power, and Redemption! CM

    There are no other Gods. If God did not create him, who did?

    A big part of the answer to your question is looking up the word or name, "Satan." CM

    Satan = 1. שָׂטָן adversary, opponent: —a. in the military and political sphere 1S 294 1K 518 1114.23.25; —b. in jurisprudence Ps 1096, שָׂטָן meaning accuser, or opposing party; for the latter see THAT 2:822; cf. Horst BK 16/1: 14; —c. שָׂ׳ the one

    Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 1317). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Genesis says the serpent was more subtle than any of God's creation. And everyone in the Bible calls the old serpent Satan. So God created Satan to do what you see him doing.

    Thanks, very well, Dave!

    Now, look at the verse you're referring and read it in its context-- chapter/book.
    In your reading, see if you can find or discern how Lucifer became Satan ["adversary", "opponent", "accuser", or "opposing party."], other than you currently believe? CM

  • Dave_LDave_L Posts: 2,328

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:

    @Dave_L said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Dave, Dave,
    May I suggest, strongly, you look up the name or word "Satan". God didn't create Satan.
    I think this has been discussed someway in these forums. If not, just remember, our God is One-- In Purpose, Power, and Redemption! CM

    There are no other Gods. If God did not create him, who did?

    A big part of the answer to your question is looking up the word or name, "Satan." CM

    Satan = 1. שָׂטָן adversary, opponent: —a. in the military and political sphere 1S 294 1K 518 1114.23.25; —b. in jurisprudence Ps 1096, שָׂטָן meaning accuser, or opposing party; for the latter see THAT 2:822; cf. Horst BK 16/1: 14; —c. שָׂ׳ the one

    Koehler, L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M. E. J., & Stamm, J. J. (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (electronic ed., p. 1317). Leiden: E.J. Brill.

    Genesis says the serpent was more subtle than any of God's creation. And everyone in the Bible calls the old serpent Satan. So God created Satan to do what you see him doing.

    Thanks, very well, Dave!

    Now, look at the verse you're referring and read it in its context-- chapter/book.
    In your reading, see if you can find or discern how Lucifer became Satan ["adversary", "opponent", "accuser", or "opposing party."], other than you currently believe? CM

    Lucifer did not become Satan. That's a reading into Isaiah and Ezekiel substituting satan for the King of Tyre and the King of Babylon.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    Found on the Internet: (Gift for Bill)

    I still havent figured out why she lost. Was it the Russian's? or was it wikileaks ? or was it Podesta ? Or Comey ? or was it a sexual predator husband ? or was it a staff's husband, Wiener immoral pictures ? was it supeona vilolation ? or was it the corrupt foundation ? or was it the congressional lies ? or was it the Bengazi bungle ? or was it pay for play ? or was it travel gate scandal ? or was it whitewater scandal ? or the cattlegate scandal ? Or the TrooperGate scandal ? Or was it the $15 million for Chelseas apt bought with foundation money ? Or Comey's investigation ? Or her husbands interference with Loretta Lynch and the investigation ? Or was it stealing debate questions ? Was it forensically deleting 30,000 emails ? Was it the Seth Rich murder ? Was it calling half the USA deplorable ? Was it the underhanded treatment of Bernie Sanders ? Was it the Vince Foster murder ? The Gennifer Flowers assault ? The Gennifer Flowers settlement ? The Paula Jones law suit ? The $800,000 Paula Jones settlement ? The lie about taking on sniper fire ? The impeachment ? The 6 billion $ she "lost" when in charge of the state dept ? The 10 million she took for the pardon of Marc Rich ? The quote, "We are going to put lots of coal miners out of work". ? The uranium deal ? Russian speaking fees ? false campaign disclosure reports ? Dossier funding ? Rigging the DNC ? Ignoring the sexual harassment of Burns Strider ? Gee, I just cant quite put my finger on it, but it seems to be right in front of me.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Who will Compile Such A Thing?

    Someone who doesn't understand America.
    Someone who is unhappy and obsessed with the Clintons.
    Someone who is trying to deflect from Mr. Trump's "messy" Life and Administration.
    Someone who is sorry they voted for Trump.
    Someone who is trying to justify and normalize extramarital affairs, paying off porn stars to keep silent, etc.
    Someone who knows Mueller is closing in on Trump.
    Someone who knows that this the most shameful and investigated administration.
    Someone who is this presidency needs to come to an end or Trump be removed.
    Someone who is fearful about the future.
    Someone who is angry Mr. Trump misdeeds will not be given a pass.
    Someone who is afraid Trump is going to start a war.
    Someone who has seen the handwriting on the wall, Republicans are going to lose the house and Senate and Trump is going lose in a landslide in 2020.
    Someone wishing for the days of Obama.
    Someone who hopes Melania doesn't leave Trump too soon.
    Someone who hopes that Mr. Trump will be successful as the Clintons in accomplishments and in misdeeds.
    Someone who needs to get a life and professional help. Mr. Trump is President now! CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,496

    @C_M_ said:
    Who will Compile Such A Thing?

    I think many of your possible explanations for the list's compilation are spot-on, CM. Thanks.

    It's been a source of continuing wonder and amusement for me that while most of the Clinton supporters I know or hear from on media outlets have moved on from the 2016 election - Donald Trump is, and since election day has been, the duly elected president of the United States - Trumpsters, as a group, have been far LESS willing/able to move on. Multiple times a month, I read or hear a Trumpster-friendly media pundit raise Secretary Clinton's name and election loss, often, very obviously for one or more the reasons cited in your list.

    In my view, there are lots of reasons for this behavior, principal among them, likely, the Trumpster man himself, and his refusal to accept "yes" for an answer when it comes to whether he won the election. Given the magnitude of his emotional immaturity and need for approval, I think it highly unlikely he will ever stop fighting Hillary. Given the depth and irrationality of Trumpsters' loyalty to the president, I think it also highly unlikely that we will ever stop encountering lists such as the one Gao Lu posted... even after Mr. Trump is impeached and removed from office.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005
    edited March 2018

    @Bill_Coley said:

    @C_M_ said:
    Who will Compile Such A Thing?

    I think many of your possible explanations for the list's compilation are spot-on, CM. Thanks.
    I think it highly unlikely he will ever stop fighting Hillary. Given the depth and irrationality of Trumpsters' loyalty to the president, I think it also highly unlikely that we will ever stop encountering lists such as the one Gao Lu posted... even after Mr. Trump is impeached and removed from office.

    Bill, you made me laugh.

    If the truth is told, I think Mr. Trump has some kind of unresolved issues within; about strong, assertive, independent woman. It appears to me women must be totally submissive like, oh, you know... (why she needs prayer). Trump can't get over Hillary almost winning the presidency. Nor can he accept the fact that she actually won the popular vote. Mr. Trump is gearing up to fight with Oprah and she has not declared or is running for the Presidency. I am not a feminist ideologue, but what is it with Mr. Trump and women? CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,496

    @C_M_ said:
    If the truth is told, I think Mr. Trump has some kind of unresolved issues within; about strong, assertive, independent woman. It appears to me women must be totally submissive like, oh, you know... (why she needs prayer). Trump can't get over Hillary almost winning the presidency. Nor can he accept the fact that she actually won the popular vote. Mr. Trump is gearing up to fight with Oprah and she has not declared or is running for the Presidency. I am not a feminist ideologue, but what is it with Mr. Trump and women? CM

    Mr. Trump has issues. I think that great understatement explains most of his behaviors, including his relationships with women.

    I agree with your suggestion that among those issues are objections to strong, assertive women. But the larger issue, in my view, is his objectification of women. Remember the Access Hollywood tape in which he boasted that women allowed him at will to kiss and grab them by their genitals. I call that ATM sexual assault, drive-through gratification of his deeply troubled soul, fueled, I propose, by his view that women are objects/sources of pleasure, not co-equal members of the human race.

    Sad. Even sadder is the reality that Mr Trump's profound dysfunction was evident from the moment he announced his candidacy. That we elected him anyway is witness to a dysfunction within the American electorate.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    Goodness! Such a strong reaction to Clinton's history! Makes me laugh.

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    Bill said: Mr. Trump's profound dysfunction was evident from the moment he announced his candidacy. That we elected him anyway is witness to a dysfunction within the American electorate.

    "... we elected him anyway..."? Is it possible America needs direction to the nearest confessional? ;) CM

  • Bill_ColeyBill_Coley Posts: 1,496

    @C_M_ said:
    we elected him anyway..."? Is it possible America needs direction to the nearest confessional? ;) CM

    My hope is that the "confessional" America needs will arrive in November, and will look a lot like a voting booth. Across the country, people will acknowledge their sin, and as penance, elect a Democratic Congress: the House, to atone for their venial sins (the current GOP Congress); and the Senate, to repent of the sin most Americans now consider mortal (Donald Trump).

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    What can I say? The "handwriting" may be on the wall. CM

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,856

    what happened to American white males, also called "MEN" ???` seems like the racism of today in the USA is racism against white heterosexual males ...

    Some here seem so engulfed in "women" problems that they are blind to (at least hardly ever mention something critical about) the evils of radical feminism, and other evils ...

  • C_M_C_M_ Posts: 3,005

    @Wolfgang said:
    what happened to American white males, also called "MEN" ???` seems like the racism of today in the USA is racism against white heterosexual males ...

    The ones who wrote the Constitution? They are a dying breed.
    Wolfgang, are you making "dog whistle" sounds to some here in CD?

    Some here seem so engulfed in "women" problems that they are blind to (at least hardly ever mention something critical about) the evils of radical feminism, and other evils ...

    I am sure you are prepared to answer, at a minimum, if not prove, the "evils of radical feminism, and other evils ...", in Mr. Trump's USA. As Shakespeare used the phrase in The Merchant of Venice, we wait "with bated breath." CM

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    I think the case would first have to be made that radical feminism is not evil. Because the starting point is that it is.

  • WolfgangWolfgang Posts: 1,856

    @C_M_ said:
    Wolfgang, are you making "dog whistle" sounds to some here in CD?

    Actually, I am quite busy these days teaching my young labrador retriever some "dog whistle" commands .... and he is doing fairly well learning what it is all about.

    Some here seem so engulfed in "women" problems that they are blind to (at least hardly ever mention something critical about) the evils of radical feminism, and other evils ...

    I am sure you are prepared to answer, at a minimum, if not prove, the "evils of radical feminism, and other evils ...", in Mr. Trump's USA. As Shakespeare used the phrase in The Merchant of Venice, we wait "with bated breath." CM

    Well, the proofs are right in front of your eyes if you care to take a careful look and evaluate the supposed "achievements" of the radical views and gender politics promoted and pushed on others by the feminist movement.

  • GaoLuGaoLu Posts: 1,367

    @Wolfgang - I have an Israeli friend (she is a very real, authentic Jew) who also raises seeing-eye dogs from puppyhood. She doesn't train them, just prepares them for training. Her last dog, a lovely golden retriever was apparently too lively and got second-rated and is now a child's comfort dog or something like that. Maybe it went to the Democratic Party to comfort disgruntled Hillary losers, but I hope not :smile: Anyway, I told her about your work which I think at least partially inspired her to do similar work.

Sign In or Register to comment.