Extremism in favor of “a sound argument” is also flawed. All “sound” arguments must be based on premises, and if the premises are false, then the conclusions will be false–if the argument is sound! It is possible, at any given moment, to pick a time in our past wherein someone’s true experience (or at least experience that we would consider true today) would be defeatable by a “sound argument”, since the paradigm of that day essentially denied both the truth and any possibility of proof of the experience a priori
Consider the history of “racial science”, for example. During parts of our history, the “sound arguments” were, by our standards, in direct contradiction against many direct experiences.
True. But it seems that a sound argument tends to have a higher probability of being correct in most things, since it tempers experience with reasoning.
More importantly, if someone who bases their beliefs on “sound arguments” has reached an incorrect conclusion (because of faulty premises), then future information that corrects those premises will lead to the person reaching a “better” conclusion.
Someone who bases their beliefs solely on what they have experienced will keep believing something that is false no matter what new information (short of a conflicting experience) that they are presented with.
There is not a shred of evidence that Hell exists. And if it does, there is not a shred of evidence regarding what beliefs or behavior will land you there.
What differentiates this “experience” from the experience of those who have seen Krishna work in their lives, or who know with absolute certainty that there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is His prophet, or who have awakened from the illusion of the ego to the true realization of Nirvana? How can you prove that your experience is any more valid than the thousands of other experiences with completely different gods?
But a bit of a snob about prostitution. Do you really belive that some-one who ‘sins’ (different argument) just for a bit of fun is better than a hard-working working girl, trying to earn a living?
That’s the second time I’ve seen that heater bar parable from Svt4Him, and it’s as unconvincing as it was the last time. For the reasons Diogenes gives - why might the child not instead be burnt by the fire of Buddhist enlightenment, or indeed disbelief? It’s also presented with the usual self-referential Bible quoting that ain’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t already believe the bible is the inerrant word of God (I guess this might work on other Christians if you’re trying to move them towards your branch of Christianity), but to be honest, I could sling bits of the Bhagavad Gita at you to justify believe in Hindusim. It’s also unconvincing for the major fact that it’s such a weak analogy.
But finally, likening people who disagree with your religion to ‘corpses’ is not going to win you any friends. If I were to liken Christians to deluded clowns walking around with red noses and silly wigs until they embrace atheism - and atheism helps them out of their comedy car and takes off their oversized footwear for them - I’d be jumped on with howls of protest from all sides.
We cannot exclude the possibility that someone will be saved outside the Church. However, Orthdoxy offers most people a better chance than they would have on their own or with another group.
IANAC but does he need to regret any of those one-night stands and drug taking? I don’t think it’s clear from his post that he did. (Obviously God would know if does, but we wouldn’t.)
NightUK, as it’s been said before on here, we don’t really know by whose standard you’re asking us to measure. I will give you what I live by.
Also, as jjiimm said, there is way too much
in the world. Judging from this thread, you don’t accept the Bible that way. Nevertheless, you asked for our beliefs on the topic, so I’ll tell you what I’ve inferred from Biblical text - not because I believe it will make you believe anything you don’t now, but because you or someone else might find it interesting. Hopefully I can bring in a perspective a bit less biased toward any denomination.
I think I’m going to focus more on the question “who is going to heaven?” rather than the question “are you, specifically, going to hell?”, as definining hell is a whole nother issue that I’m not fully prepared to deal with at the moment. Hope that’s alright with you.
Perhaps the best place for me to begin is Mark 16. Verse 16 (NIV) says
Now might be a good time for me to point out that the greek word from which we derive “baptize” and “baptism” and the like, baptizo, if I’m remembering correctly, means “to immerse”. This verse basically excludes anyone who is not immersed and/or does not believe. Baptism apart from a knowledge of what one is doing, and why, and a desire to follow Christ, does no good.
Belief spreads much more than to “I believe,” as well. In the book of James, chapter 2, James says
Faith is not just a statement of “I believe” but a way of living that shows that you believe. It means avoiding sin, but fessing up when you do sin, and fleeing from doing it again the next time. In Matthew’s account of Mark chapter 16, Jesus says
Notice the “teaching them to obey everything.” Christianity is not a one night, one week, one month, or one year commitment - it is a commitment to an entire life of trying to be Christ-like.
A good Bible example of a conversion is in the book of Acts. I won’t quote the entire thing here, but I’m particularly looking at 2:14-47. In this passage, Peter preaches to people, and they are convicted that there must be some course of action appropriate to what they’ve heard. When they ask Peter, he tells them to “repent and be baptized.” (v. 38).
In v. 41, those who accepted what Peter preached were baptized, and 42-48 tells us that they continued in a changed lifestyle of selflessness, fellowship, and praise.
How does that translate to modern conversion? Well, the steps I see taking place in this account and in many others (some others that are very good to look at as an intro are Acts 8:26-40, 16:29-34, 22:16) are these. [list=1]
[li]First, the people heard the message.[/li][li]Then, they indicated their belief in it,[/li][li]then confessed - not every sin, but that they were sinners, and that Jesus is Lord.[/li][li]Next, they repented (literally: turned from) their old sins,[/li][li]were baptized into Christ,[/li][li]and continued as new people (2 Corinthians 5:17).[/li][/list=1]
This is by no means an exhaustive list of relevant scriptures, but I’d say it’s a pretty good start as to who the Bible says is a Christian/going to heaven.
I’m guessing I opened another can of worms by bringing up the question of the necessity of baptism for salvation. I’m not intending to hijack here, but I won’t be at all surprised if this heads onto a tangent.
Hope I said that in a way that makes sense. I’m happy to clarify or expand anything.
[size=1]here’s hoping that I done good with my first GD post![/size=1]
Well, on a religion board it probably would have – but here among the heathens, it merely raises an eyebrow or two. More important to us is the question of why we should believe that salvation is necessary at all.
Very respectable, considering the position from which you start. Unfortunately, if history is any indication, your username hints of a future road that will be a bit…well…bumpy.
I assumed, from some things said earlier in the thread, that at least some of the posters adhered the the religions/denominations they spoke of. Now I’m seeing how I wasn’t necessarily right about that - sorry if my info was irrelevant.
Do you mean that my username itself will be a problem, or just that many who say they are Christians don’t fare so well in the GD area? If it is the latter, I hope to defy that tradition; if the former, I’ll change the name if it would help. I don’t think my name should affect the way any of my GD posts are received, but I do see how it could.
