And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. Matthew 11:23-24. Also Mark 6:11 and Luke 10 :12 and Matthew 10: 14-15
This scripture seems to indicate to me differing punishments.
As to formal conversion processes, I never said one needed a formal conversion. Each person can accept Christ into their heart anytime, anywhere. They don’t need a priest or have to be in a church. God hears the heart and silent prayers of people who cry out to Him.
Given that the judgment of Sodom is pretty obviously your standard fire, brimstone and agony, It seems more likely that this ‘worse than Sodom’ statement is just a flowery way of saying “boy, you have no idea how much trouble you’re in” - in any case, all you would have established here is that there is a scale of punishment where fire, brimstone and agony are at the moderate end.
Can a person accept Christ in his heart without ever having heard of him?
I don’t see how a person can accept Christ if they’ve never heard of Him. Why do you think there are people in about every country of the world working to tell people about Him and win people to Him? “Go unto all the world…” Don’t know what else I can say. Everyone has their own view on this subject.
And since Jehovah is a weird transliteration of YHVH, which in turn is derived from the Hebrew for “I AM” or “THE ONE WHO IS” (I’m not sure of the exact pronunciation or the precise translation since I don’t know Hebrew grammar, but I believe “Hoveh” is the Hebrew word for the first person present tense of “to be”), it makes perfect sense to say that God said his name is Jehovah, insofar as Jehovah is the current English way of pronouncing it.
So are you saying that you feel that the kind, helpful man would be saved, and the uncaring one would not, regardless of whether either of them believed in Christ? In that case, we are saved only works, not by faith, and so it doesn’t really matter whether someone is a Christian (believes that Jesus redeems human sin), only whether they act “Christian” (are kind to others). (Faith might still be very important, of course, but compared to the destination of our eternal souls, nothing “really matters”.)
His4Ever, I once again challenge you to justify your beliefs. Otherwise I simply cannot take them seriously. You only seem to back what you say up with Bible quotes, and the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. I am not convinced of the veracity of that claim. You seem intent on convincing others of the truth of your beliefs; well, in order to do that, you have to make a convincing case for the literal truth of the Bible.
If you have done that before, please direct me to where, and I’ll stop pestering you. Otherwise, if you don’t say anything on the topic, I’ll have to assume that you have nothing to say.
It’s not that I think you’re stupid. A person can be very smart and still hold irrational beliefs (or so it seems to me). Although if you think that “God’s truth” should obvious to anyone, even in retrospect, you would seem to me to have a certain mental blind spot, to say the least (again, barring any heretofore unrevealed evidence).
[quote]
But I do believe that’s it’s His word and the final authority as to what is true and what isn’t.
[quote]
His4Ever, if I understand you correctly, you believe what is said in the Bible because it is the holy word of God. And you believe that it is the holy word of God because the Bible says it is. Is that correct?
Are you really concerned about our acceptance of the Christ or are you more concerned with doing what the Bible tells you to do?
What do you think Jesus meant when he said that he has many who are not of this flock (or fold)?
What do you do about the starving in the world? Do you visit shut-ins? Do you visit people in jail to comfort them? Let your light shine forth a little bit. You’ve been open about mistakes that you think that you have made. Let us see your good works by telling us about them. The Bible says to let your light shine before men.
I think that theory is that everyone deserves to go to hell, but God mercifully decides to let devout Christians off the hook. Which in my mind raises all sorts of questions, such as: If justice and mercy can be in direct opposition to one another, which one is better? Isn’t a person’s faith in Christ, or lack thereof, an arbitrary basis on which to make that decision? Why is it better for God to save Christians than anyone else, if Christians are just as deserving of hell? And aren’t many people’s sins shy of warranting eternal damnation, anyway? Et cetera.
So anyways, I think the response to your objection is that it’s not unjust for non-Christians to go to hell, but rather unjust for Christians to go to heaven. Basically, this explanation says that God is not always just. Personally, I think it seems strange to say that we deserve eternal damnation for any sin, no matter how minor, and no matter how many good deeds we perform.
Ah, well; I’ve long since stopped expecting religion to make either logical or intuitive sense.
Well, IMHO, the one who accepts Christ as his savior will be so happy about it, that he or she will show that faith by doing good works, in other words, What Would Jesus Do?
Like someone who loves cats would naturally want to help them and work with them.
Its by grace only, but still, if you love Him, show it!
IMHO, that is.
Well, I do support a child throught the Food for the Hungry ministry. I also give to a few various ministries as well as to my church. I’m only mentionins that because you asked. I don’t wish to toot my own horn so to speak.
Devil’s Advocate I doubt that I could ever prove to you the validity of the Bible even if I had the time to do a bunch of research or whatever. Have you read the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel? Perhaps that would help. In the end, you either beleive it or you don’t. I have a feeling that no one would ever be able to prove it 100% to your satisfaction.
Ah, so it’s not just belief in Christ that’s important, but loving Christ? Well, that changes things quite a bit. After all, someone could believe that Jesus is the messiah, and believe his moral teachings (that is, think that what he said is right is in fact right) without actually following them. Unless you assume that belief in Christianity alters a person’s personality. After all, people may still do things even knowing that they’re wrong. People may not love Jesus even if they know they should. Similarly, someone can love Jesus and embrace his moral philosophy and still be an atheist.
So what do you think are the requirements for salvation? Faith in Christ, love of Christ, love of one’s neighbor? And is that “love” in the sense of genuinely caring about someone, being nice (or faithful) to someone, or both? Only one or all of the above? What really matters: what we believe, how we feel, or how we act?
If an atheist helps people because he thinks it’s the right thing to do, does that make him better than a Christian who only helps others to get into heaven? And if so, does the Christian deserve to be penalized for that, since whether he really wants to help people is out of his control? These are important distinctions, and by no means simple.
Well, you’ve got that much right; I’m not 100% convinced of anything, including, say, that water is wet. But I’m not asking for proof, just evidence. Heck, I’m actually a fairly gullible individual, but it just seems to me that there’s so much evidence against the literal truth of the Bible and none for it – at least none that I’ve seen, which was why I was wondering if you or someone else might have some that I’m not aware of. I mean, you seem like a reasonably intelligent person, so I can’t help but think that you must question your beliefs when and if you’re faced with evidence against them. And then you think, “No, I still believe what I did before, because…” I’d just like to know what comes after the “because”. Out of personal curiosity, you understand, and more importantly, a desire to know the truth. If you don’t have to say anything to yourself when your beliefs are questioned… well, then you don’t even try to reconcile your beliefs with reality, and I’m amazed that you have that option. I sure don’t, although I probably wouldn’t exercise it if I did. The bottom line is that I want to believe what you say, if it’s true. But I don’t want to believe it if it isn’t. And I’ve yet to see a reason to think that it is, you see!
I’ll consider looking at that book you mentioned. But in the meantime, is there any evidence for Literalism that’s just as obvious as the points I raised against it, even in retrospect? That’s all I was looking for. Or I thought that maybe you could summarize some important points for me. If they defy summarization, I understand; I’ve never really bought into Occam’s Razor (that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one), so no biggie.
Oh, and I ask the same things of amazonian and others with the same beliefs, not just His4ever. C’mon, you guys. I’m getting worried, because I find it a little disturbing that so much devotion on the part of so many people would be based on blind faith alone. Is there any chance of you allaying this concern? Any at all…?
Firstly, accepting that Jesus was(is) God and that He died for your sins and thanking Him for it is what makes one a christian IMHO.
Demons know that Jesus is the messiah, and they aren’t “saved”, so just belieivng isn’t enough.
If you had cancer, and someone came along and said," I have the cure", then Healed you, wouldn’t you love them??
Hi, vanilla! Devil’s Advocate, I guess you could consider me to have “blind faith” if you wish. You probably know by now that I don’t have good debating skills. In spite of whatever evidence you believe shows the Bible to be untrue, yes I still believe it because…that’s not as easy to put into words on a page as you might think.
I can’t give you scientific proof. I was raised in church, taught the Bible, and have believed it’s truth ever since I can remember although I didn’t get saved till I was about 20. What can I tell you? It has the ring of truth down deep in my heart and soul.
As to it’s literal interpetation, as I’ve said before I believe when I read it that I should take if for what it says just as if I were reading a newspaper or story in a magazine or book or whatever. Unless, of course, the context indicates that there’s symbolism involved. If you spiritualize or symbolize everything it says then you can pretty much make it say whatever you want, right?
I know this isn’t scientific or evidence or proof to you, but I simply believe in my heart that when we read it, take it for what it says just like you would anything else. Usually if symbolism is meant, we can identify that, such as passages in Revelation and some of Jesus’ parables. And most of the time the Bible will interpet itself and tell us what the symbols mean.
I think that if is says something is wrong, then it means what it says. If it says something is right and good, it means what it says.
I think I’ll do a net search and see if I can find anything about interpetation of the Bible. I probably haven’t answered anything to your satisfaction but it’s the best I can do.
I don’t think that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Jesus is God; from what I’ve read of their literature, they don’t believe in the Trinity (but maybe I’m thinking of another group). I would still classify them as “Christian”, but that’s just a semantic distinction anyway. The real question is, does someone have to be a Christian by your definition to be saved? If so, is that all that’s required for salvation? And is that just?
I would, but some people are right bastards. Heck, behaving selfishly doesn’t even require that you not love others, just that you love yourself more. If you love yourself a lot more, you may not even be willing to make a small sacrifice to greatly help someone else. But at least you wouldn’t be malicious, which is more than I can say for some people, sadly.
Then I suppose this is where we must part company. When it comes down to a battle between critical thinking and intuition, my money is on critical thinking. Not that intuition is never right or that critical thinking always leads to the correct conclusions; it’s a matter of probability, not certainty. In this case, however, I think that the available evidence strongly favors my own position. Pascal’s gambit does not apply, because, as I explained, faith is not a matter of vocation. While I think that the existence of some sort of Higher Power is feasible, even probable, I can’t believe the same things about one that you do.
So what, by the way, other than belief in the Bible’s truth is required for salvation, in your opinion? Or can one be saved without believing in the literal truth of the whole Bible?
Well,
[list=1]
[li]The Bible is composed of several books written by different authors for different purposes. It’s not clear to me that they were all intended to be taken literally.[/li][li]The stories in the Bible were presumably handed down through many generations. The stories in the other media you mention are presumably based on recently collected data.[/li][li]While I generally assume that a magazine or newspaper article is mostly true, I would be willing to believe otherwise if faced with evidence to the contrary. Certainly I wouldn’t assume that every sentence is infallible.[/li][li]Some would say that a talking snake, for example, is a context that clearly indicates symbolism.[/li][/list=1]
I think that there are a lot of people who take most of Revelation quite seriously. More importantly, though, nothing “interprets itself”. Words only have the meanings we give them, no more and no less. Which means that belief in what you read in the Bible requires a sort of faith in your ability to read it accurately. Granted, in most cases that’s not a huge task; the literal meaning seems so evident that it would be foolish to question it. But there are instances where it might be wise to question one’s own judgement. Remember, also, that any translation of the original texts is itself an interpretation.
Yeah, but what about commandments? Is that the same thing as saying what’s right and wrong? Doesn’t Leviticus say not to wear garments made from two different fabrics? Very few Christians would argue that anyone’s going to hell for that, I think. Yet another commandment from Leviticus is used by many to condemn homosexuality. And didn’t Jesus himself contradict dietary laws? (I’m working off of memory here, so I may have something wrong.) If you’re going to say that any commandment in the Bible only applies to the group it was given to, then you’ve got to write off all sorts of commandments as not applicable to most people. If you’re not going to say that, then we’re all required to keep kosher and all sorts of things. You can pick and choose which commandments are relevant, but that’s the infallible authority of human beings, not the infallible authority of God, and that kind of defeats the whole purpose of having the Bible as ultimate authority.
I mean, we have fossil evidence, and cosmology, and all sorts of things that indicate the universe began millions of years ago. Heck, look at the simple unlikelihood that a census would require each man’s family to register in his ancestor’s hometown. Then throw in apparent internal contradictions in the Bible like the differing accounts of Judas’ death (if I recall correctly), and it amazes me that seemingly intelligent and (otherwise) sane people who know all these things still believe in Biblical literalism without any real evidence for it. I mean, if I came up to you and whacked you upside the head, you wouldn’t ever deny that, would you? It just seems to me that we’re talking about something here that’s equally obvious, in retrospect. To me it just seems so blatantly obvious, in light of the available evidence, that the Bible is the infallible words of men.
Pardon me if I’m venting my frustration a little harshly here, but I feel that denying the truth is dangerous. False beliefs can cause otherwise good people to do bad things. I think everyone here would agree that the Inquisition was bad – very bad – if Christianity is really a false religion, and that it was due in part to people’s religious beliefs. (In fact, I would say that it was bad regardless, since torture and oppression are a lot more likely to get people to lie about their beliefs than to change them.) The basic principle still applies today. A willingness to blindly follow any authority endangers humanity, as I see it. So sorry if I got a little carried away in my indictment.
“I’m not questioning God’s wisdom. I am questioning yours.”
I wish, and try, to love all beings, equally, with all my heart. Though I may fall far below my own highest standards, that still ought to be enough to get anyone into heaven.
Devil’s Advocate, I guess you could consider me to have “blind faith” if you wish. You probably know by now that I don’t have good debating skills. In spite of whatever evidence you believe shows the Bible to be untrue, yes I still believe it because…that’s not as easy to put into words on a page as you might think.
I think I’m missing a reference here. Could you clarify?