What are your religious views?
I'll finish this by asking you this question: Why would a loving God not let a non-Christian into heaven, simply because he doesn't follow the same religion? How is that truly loving? If a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or even an Atheist was a good person who followed all the basic commandments of Jesus, how is it loving or fair to not allow them into heaven?
No one, including Christians, is able to follow completely all the basic commandments of Jesus. God's standard is that if you have sinned in your life, then you desrve Hell. Christians deserve Hell. However, Christians have Jesus to take the punishment in their place. The second bold: If God was fair to his standards, he would send all Christians to Hell too.
I should have worded that better. I meant that if you followed Jesus' commandments to the best of your ability or, strived to follow them and ultimately did more good than bad in your life, then it is unfair for you to not get into heaven. And of course, this doesn't exempt Christians from going to hell either. If Hitler called himself a Christian, he would still go to hell anyway. And God's standard is that all sins can be forgiven, minus insulting the holy spirit, so I don't know where you got the idea that any sin would send you to hell.
In bold, you misinterpreted that verse. All sin sends you to Hell if it is not forgiven.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm not in the mood to write another post, as I think we're mostly just misunderstanding each other or not interpreting each other's words correctly.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
I agree almost completely with "what Christianity has turned into." That statement is dead on. Even those who still mock Christianity as being a political control device are expressing a view that, in my opinion, is horribly dated. Take THE Church (Roman Catholic), for example. In many impoverished areas of Latin America, you seem to have an almost unanimous claim for Christianity or Catholicism from the poorer populations. But what you REALLY find among those people is that it's more of a social obligation (if at all), they only really go on feast days, and it's the ONLY church they have available. They don't have any real faith for the most part, and the Church has very little actual influence on their day-to-day lives. Many nations around the world have some kind of "separation" clause within their government, and even if they don't, they still don't really interfere with the actual religious observances of the people. Religion is certainly not, with the exception of Middle Eastern theocracies and maybe some others, an integral part of controlling the population. I can't name a single country that is under the "control" of the RC church in any official way. And that's only ONE outdated view of Christianity! I'd keep going if I had time. Yes, I belong to a "name" denomination church (Southern Baptist Convention), but every pastor I've ever heard has only encouraged believers to actually read the Bible and try to understand what's actually in there. To that end, I do NOT agree with everything my fellow congregants say about Jesus and the Bible. But I can almost guarantee that I'm more theologically correct in my conclusions than they are! I don't mean to be arrogant here, but many people I know MIGHT open the Bible at MOST 3 times a week, and they aren't likely outside the church when they do.
Loving your neighbor: Here's the thing--loving your neighbor IS glorifying God whenever a believer does so in such a spirit. Those who love Jesus and want to keep His commandments aren't going to have much trouble at all loving their neighbors. We are called to do so genuinely and cheerfully. It's not like I wake up at 5:30 every morning and say, "Oh, CRAP, THAT student is coming to his lesson today. God, WHY do I have to love that kid? I mean, I will if I HAVE to..." It's not like that at all. We want to look at people through God's eyes, and we know that God loves all. If it is God's love that resides in my heart, I'm not going to feel any dread at all, nor should I have to go to any great effort, and I should never feel like complaining about it. If it doesn't feel natural to me, I should question why and seek to spiritually resolve that problem within myself.
I'm not saying that I'm perfect or that I'm consistent about this in my own life. I'm just saying it is an ideal that I work towards. And with time, it gets much easier. The thing is, human beings are made in the image of God. In scripture, the words "image" and "likeness" also refer to idols worshiped in other religions. We are not to worship other people any more than we should worship false gods. But if we ever wanted a physical "god" to show kindness to as though God were among us, all we have to do is show kindness to other people, as though that other person were God Himself. But it starts with faith. Otherwise the work that is done is empty and meaningless. You can argue otherwise, of course, but that is what the Bible says!
Fear of Hell should never be a motivation. If you love God (not to ignore faith in Christ, but I'm just trying to cut back on words), you need not fear Hell at all. One who does good deeds out of fear of staving off Hell is just trying to work his way into Heaven. That is not a very genuine attitude. The "fire insurance" is good to have, but it's not the end of the story. Remember, works flow from faith. People don't generally do things without some underlying reason. We love all people because God first loved us. Our deeds ought to flow from that source, not fear that our good deeds won't be enough in the final analysis.
That's a confusing statement. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. You can't love someone you don't believe in. There are those atheists/agnostics who are cool with Jesus because they think He was a great teacher. I don't buy into that. Yes, Jesus taught some really great stuff, but that was hardly unique in the world of religion. Jesus also made some seriously fantastic claims, which meant He could NOT have really been a good teacher. You have to take a side here: Either Jesus really was the Son of God sent to save the world from sin through His perfect sacrifice and atonement, or He was a lunatic. No sane person could make those claims unless they were actually true. That is the real problem we each have to make up our own minds about, the real question of faith.
Check your Bible--Luke doesn't have 49 chapters. Seriously, though, you're quoting 9:49 from Luke, and be careful that you keep it within context. Here's the problem: Jesus had earlier sent the disciples on a ministry tour with His authority and power to cast out demons. It makes perfect sense that those they ministered to would be able to do the same in the name of Jesus. All this means, that "he does not follow us," is that the person doing those things isn't literally a part of the inner circle, Jesus' immediate disciples. Nor should they have to be. John was suggesting that only people who followed Jesus around everywhere he went were the only ones allowed to cast out demons. Jesus is gently reminding John that is no concern of his, and by calling on the name of Jesus he is doing the right thing.
Therefore, there cannot be one religion that gets it all right or all wrong. It's too simplistic. This variety of different religions and the strict doctrines that go along with them has resulted in a lot of people nowadays basically saying that they're all useless because there's no way to know which one is right or wrong. I seriously doubt God would hold that against somebody if they were still a good person at heart.
Christianity makes the claim that it is right--to be more correct, Jesus made the claim that He IS right. I can't answer all your questions about that at this point. What I can say is that Christianity does something no other religion really claims to do: First, ALL people are sinners in need of atonement for their sins. Jesus IS that atonement, and faith alone is all that is needed to cleanse one's life of sin and enter the kingdom of Heaven. Second, most other religions I'm aware of had some kind of leader who said a lot of great things and then died. Jesus' death is documented and was witnessed by enough people to be regarded as fact at that point in time. The Bible informs us that Jesus was resurrected and appeared to His disciples before His ascension. No one else can make a reliable claim for any other religious leader. There are Christians all over the world, even in places that can STILL make Christians disappear if they are found out, and more and more people have access to information--including that about Christianity. It's becoming increasingly difficult to NOT know. So if they DO know, then the goodness of one's heart is no excuse. As to the rest, like I said, I don't have a good answer right now. I'll have to study up on that more and get back to you.
As to the permanence of hell, we seem to disagree on that. The Bible reveals that it is permanent. As to humane or loving, I've already stated my ideas on that.
Hey, I've gotten a lot more comfortable discussing this kind of thing lately, and I find myself way too eager to do so! You're the first voice of opposition who hasn't seemed downright hostile on certain issues. I hope you'll keep an open mind and keep learning. Any other issues, you know where to find me! I hope you'll continue to be active on the forums. Like I said, don't be nervous--just say what you gotta say.
Loving your neighbor: Here's the thing--loving your neighbor IS glorifying God whenever a believer does so in such a spirit. Those who love Jesus and want to keep His commandments aren't going to have much trouble at all loving their neighbors. We are called to do so genuinely and cheerfully. It's not like I wake up at 5:30 every morning and say, "Oh, CRAP, THAT student is coming to his lesson today. God, WHY do I have to love that kid? I mean, I will if I HAVE to..." It's not like that at all. We want to look at people through God's eyes, and we know that God loves all. If it is God's love that resides in my heart, I'm not going to feel any dread at all, nor should I have to go to any great effort, and I should never feel like complaining about it. If it doesn't feel natural to me, I should question why and seek to spiritually resolve that problem within myself.
I'm not saying that I'm perfect or that I'm consistent about this in my own life. I'm just saying it is an ideal that I work towards. And with time, it gets much easier. The thing is, human beings are made in the image of God. In scripture, the words "image" and "likeness" also refer to idols worshiped in other religions. We are not to worship other people any more than we should worship false gods. But if we ever wanted a physical "god" to show kindness to as though God were among us, all we have to do is show kindness to other people, as though that other person were God Himself. But it starts with faith. Otherwise the work that is done is empty and meaningless. You can argue otherwise, of course, but that is what the Bible says!
Fear of Hell should never be a motivation. If you love God (not to ignore faith in Christ, but I'm just trying to cut back on words), you need not fear Hell at all. One who does good deeds out of fear of staving off Hell is just trying to work his way into Heaven. That is not a very genuine attitude. The "fire insurance" is good to have, but it's not the end of the story. Remember, works flow from faith. People don't generally do things without some underlying reason. We love all people because God first loved us. Our deeds ought to flow from that source, not fear that our good deeds won't be enough in the final analysis.
That's a confusing statement. I'm not sure exactly what you mean. You can't love someone you don't believe in. There are those atheists/agnostics who are cool with Jesus because they think He was a great teacher. I don't buy into that. Yes, Jesus taught some really great stuff, but that was hardly unique in the world of religion. Jesus also made some seriously fantastic claims, which meant He could NOT have really been a good teacher. You have to take a side here: Either Jesus really was the Son of God sent to save the world from sin through His perfect sacrifice and atonement, or He was a lunatic. No sane person could make those claims unless they were actually true. That is the real problem we each have to make up our own minds about, the real question of faith.
Check your Bible--Luke doesn't have 49 chapters. Seriously, though, you're quoting 9:49 from Luke, and be careful that you keep it within context. Here's the problem: Jesus had earlier sent the disciples on a ministry tour with His authority and power to cast out demons. It makes perfect sense that those they ministered to would be able to do the same in the name of Jesus. All this means, that "he does not follow us," is that the person doing those things isn't literally a part of the inner circle, Jesus' immediate disciples. Nor should they have to be. John was suggesting that only people who followed Jesus around everywhere he went were the only ones allowed to cast out demons. Jesus is gently reminding John that is no concern of his, and by calling on the name of Jesus he is doing the right thing.
Therefore, there cannot be one religion that gets it all right or all wrong. It's too simplistic. This variety of different religions and the strict doctrines that go along with them has resulted in a lot of people nowadays basically saying that they're all useless because there's no way to know which one is right or wrong. I seriously doubt God would hold that against somebody if they were still a good person at heart.
Christianity makes the claim that it is right--to be more correct, Jesus made the claim that He IS right. I can't answer all your questions about that at this point. What I can say is that Christianity does something no other religion really claims to do: First, ALL people are sinners in need of atonement for their sins. Jesus IS that atonement, and faith alone is all that is needed to cleanse one's life of sin and enter the kingdom of Heaven. Second, most other religions I'm aware of had some kind of leader who said a lot of great things and then died. Jesus' death is documented and was witnessed by enough people to be regarded as fact at that point in time. The Bible informs us that Jesus was resurrected and appeared to His disciples before His ascension. No one else can make a reliable claim for any other religious leader. There are Christians all over the world, even in places that can STILL make Christians disappear if they are found out, and more and more people have access to information--including that about Christianity. It's becoming increasingly difficult to NOT know. So if they DO know, then the goodness of one's heart is no excuse. As to the rest, like I said, I don't have a good answer right now. I'll have to study up on that more and get back to you.
As to the permanence of hell, we seem to disagree on that. The Bible reveals that it is permanent. As to humane or loving, I've already stated my ideas on that.
Hey, I've gotten a lot more comfortable discussing this kind of thing lately, and I find myself way too eager to do so! You're the first voice of opposition who hasn't seemed downright hostile on certain issues. I hope you'll keep an open mind and keep learning. Any other issues, you know where to find me! I hope you'll continue to be active on the forums. Like I said, don't be nervous--just say what you gotta say.
I have to admit, I'm not nearly as familiar with the bible as you. I generally stopped reading it when I realized that 1. There were things written in there that I could not accept as part of my moral philosophy, and 2. When I realized that even the words of Jesus, which I placed the most importance on out of all the things in the bible, seemed to be slightly contradictory at times, particularly what we've been arguing about, i.e. whether faith or works is more important. I reasoned that this is because the bible was written by men, and thus could not be entirely accurate, non-contradictory, or consistent if it was written in this way. Plus, it was written by multiple authors over the course of hundreds of years. At the same time, I realized I couldn't credibly call myself a Christian anymore, because that would mean I found the bible entirely reliable as a source of religious truth. Of course, many people in my position still call themselves Christians despite this; I'd say most people are not biblical literalists or believe every single word of the bible. Still, I didn't feel comfortable putting myself under that label anymore.
I'm motivated by this discussion to pick up the bible again and see if I still feel the same way. I doubt much will change, but it will at least familiarize me more with it so I can see if it still seems as contradictory as it seemed before.
to clarify about what I meant when I said someone who doesn't believe in God could still love him: I admit, that came out a little muddled. My thoughts on this aren't exactly the most coherent, so I'll try to explain this the best I can:
If someone doesn't believe in something, that means they don't love it or hate it; it's simply not on their radar screen. Granted, sometimes you get atheists who say they "hate" God, but this never made sense to me, as how can you hate someone you don't even believe in? But if someone, for example, said they hated Muhammad because he's a terrorrist or pedophile, but died, went to heaven and found out that he wasn't, that means what he thought he hated was entirely wrong; Muhammad wasn't what he thought he was. Similarly, if someone says they don't believe in Jesus and that they hate him, based on the image of Jesus they have in their head, that doesn't mean their image of Jesus is right. If they don't know what Jesus is truly like, they could be hating him for an entirely false reason, such as the image of Him they were brought up to believe. IF, however, Jesus is actually someone they could concievably love, but don't because they have a false image of him, then if they died and met Him, they would probably accept him. Of course, technically this means that they didn't really love him in life, because they didn't believe he existed. But I think you could probably love him in spirit. I still think the words of Jesus place more emphasis on works than faith, so in a sense, by obeying him, they are loving him.
So I should have worded that differently. Yes, an atheist technically wouldn't love God or Jesus if they didn't believe in him. but that doesn't mean the image they have of Jesus in their head is correct. I hope that came out right.
As for 9:49 from Luke, I'll have to familiarize myself more with that verse. I don't really understand if I get the context you're referring to in your explanation. But I don't feel comfortable debating any more biblical verses until I read the bible more closely again. Like I said, I haven't picked it up in at least a year, but I remember the quotes I was citing for this argument, and they seemed like they were endorsing works over faith.
Thanks for the compliments. I feel more comfortable discussing this now than I did a couple days ago. And hostility is not really in my nature, even on forums and controversial subjects like this one.