We’re a predominantly Christian society and most people who are Christians are believers by default. They believe in Christianity because they just accept the faith they grew up in.
Non-believers, by contrast, are often people who grew up as Christians and then started asking questions and thinking about the tenets of their religion. Questioning your faith like this can lead to a strengthening of that faith - or it can lead to a change in faith. But even if you end up abandoning Christianity, you’ll still have the legacy of the questioning.
Or it could just be non-believers know how to relate to non-believers and are at least working with the same tools. For a certain person The Bible is truth itself, they say so many times every Sunday, quoting truth is all that’s necessary in a debate about the deity and those that disagree simply deny truth. For another person the Bible is like using Green Eggs and Ham as a citation and so other angles are used to persuade.
Which is why I tried to explain why that notion is a misrepresentation.
The main point of my analogy was to show that there can be situations in which you have to trust someone in order for them to save you, and thus that “Jesus saves” and “belief in Jesus saves” aren’t mutually exclusive.
I don’t think it is a misrepresentation. Sure, there are some liberal Christians who think it is. But they are the minority. Most Christians believe that it is the belief in Jesus is what saves you, not merely the fact that he died for your sins. If they believed in the latter, they would believe all of us would be going to heaven, whether we have faith or not.
There is a very old tradition in Christianity - much more prevalent in the early church than the modern - that believes that they are. In other words, Jesus’ sacrifice made salvation (reconciliation with God) and forgiveness not only available to everyone, but applicable to everyone. God’s already forgiven all humanity for their moral failures. No one is sent into eternal torment and damnation, but some people do continue to exist outside of God’s loving embrace as long as they choose to. What this existence apart from God looks like is debated, but universalists argue that the only thing holding people there is their own will, and that eventually the love of God will prove irresistible to the most stubborn soul.
Interesting, thanks. To add to this, many if not most non-believers come to non-belief through reason, as opposed to irrationally hating god or some other nonsense. To do this we must construct a logical argument for belief to refute. So we at least have a logical argument. Believers often don’t have to, which is why we see drive-by witnesses thinking quoting Bible verses is an argument. They’ve never figure out otherwise.
BTW our reasons usually apply only to the religion we grew up with or maybe the dominant religion, if that is different. There are tons of gods I don’t believe in by default, not because I’ve ever come up with an argument against them.
A central tenet of Christianity is that God is omnipotent and can do anything he wants. So obviously he could choose to let everyone into Heaven if he wanted to.
So it’s still a matter of God choosing to condemn some people. God originally condemned people to eternal damnation for original sin. Now God condemns people to eternal damnation for not believing in him. Maybe at some future point, God will make a third ruling and change the rules again on who gets damned.
Where can we find out about these rulings? Who is the clerk of the court of God who announces these things? I don’t have much faith in humans who believe they can speak for God.
I suppose I’ll believe in such ruling when God comes and tells me himself. And also goes on the Beeb and makes a proclamation.
Jesus contradicts that statement when a woman asked him to heal her child and he told her ( a non Jew) that he came only for the lost sheep of Israel, he helped her child but it wasn’t his purpose in coming. The Pharisees we Jews but he treated them with contempt.
Who are you finding who says that Jesus’ sacrifice by itself saves you? That’s what I think is a misinterpretation. That’s not what they are saying at all. IF so, the next words out of their mouth wouldn’t be that you need to believe in him.
The idea is that Jesus’ sacrifice provides you a means of salvation, but you have to accept it. Jesus provides the net, but you have to choose to jump. You’re right to say that the net can’t save you by itself. But neither can the jump.
Most people would not say “I saved myself by jumping.” But they might say “The net saved me, allowing me to jump.”
As for why it is this way–it’s the old dichotomy of justice vs. mercy. They are opposites. Having rules you must follow to get mercy, however, allows them to coexist.
Christians believe that was his purpose at that time. Why else does Jesus tell them after his death to preach to all creation? Why else did Peter get that vision saying that he needs to preach to the Gentiles?
This is pretty much a textbook case of seeing one verse and taking it out of context. You’re not even supposed to do that with literalism.
There are many verses that back that up. Like Psalm 81 or 82 depending on what Bible you use. John 10 seems to suggest that Jesus didn’t seem to think of himself anymore God than any other person. If indeed he came to save all men of their sins it would also taken in nonbelievers. But of course if one believes the Bible is the word of God because some human stated that it is, then of course they are going to put their own spin on it.Belief in any thing taught written or thought all comes from another human that is a fact. Belief is usually a desire for what wants to be true. Some things are some are not but truth can be proven in many cases.
Muslims have just as strong a belief as Christians and other people that they are right and all others are wrong. some even state that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian even though the Roman and Orthodox bishops decided what was of God and what was not.and they use the same book.
a) he would/could have corrected the pharisees misunderstanding of the exact meaning of his statement
b) they wouldn’t have started to stone or accuse him for blasphemy.
Further, the words he stated earlier (John 8) were an exact response of God’s “I am” @ the burning bush - which is a much more powerful statement of identity at the time - and hence the stoning/charges of blasphemy.
I was driving on the highway today and saw a new billboard (well, new to me anyway) that simply said “Try Jesus”. The jokes just write themselves with that one.
Because it would wreak havoc upon the social order if people believed that, plainly.
And in fact, there has been many heretic groups, starting very early in the history of Christianism, that believed exactly that, because it makes complete sense. Quite often, their members fornicated a lot, not surprisingly.