Do you believe in hell?

[mama cass]

So, are you saying you don't think there are any virtuous people who have never accepted Christ?

I'm still not seeing where I misinterpreted you. At all.

it's ok, i can't get my head around his/her comments either...

 

[PhilsFan]

Whether the bridge is out or not is irrelevant to my post. My point was what the two people in question believe about the bridge. My purpose was not to argue about whether the driver is ACTUALLY in mortal danger, but to point out the perspective of you who believes the bridge is out.

Well then your post isn't really representing your point well at all, because I'm still reading it as, "The driver is ignoring the warnings, and if only he'd listen, he'd avoid the bridge."

I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest. There are a number of posters that "know" with certainty that my beliefs are irrational, silly, and that my insistence upon believing them is foolish and perhaps even harmful. That's far worse than anything 80's has implied about those who are not believers, and yet, I don't take issue with people who feel that way. From my perspective, their view is just an opinion to which they are entitled. I take no offense, nor do I feel I need to.

Fair enough. Those are your thoughts, I suppose. I think I would be a jackass to tell you you've been fooled by your religious leaders, regardless of whether I think that are not. I personally believe many people get into religion for good reasons or for respectable reasons, and to sweep everyone into a generalization about being fools following a carrot and a stick would be logically irresponsible as well as foolishly misguided. Just as I think people saying virtuous men will eventually accept Christ are foolishly misguided.

No. He believes that all good ultimately resides with God in Christ. Therefore those who respond to Good, Truth, Love, whatever you want to call it, or responding to Christ whether they know it or not. It's condescending only in the sense that he believes that all goodness and virtue have one ultimate Source. It is the presence of Christ in someones life (whether recognized or not) that make someone virtuous. Of course no one is perfect, but that's where Christ's sacrifice covers us all, whether Christian or not. I don't know if I would go as far as 80s in assuming that everyone would eventually "become a Christian" but besides that point, I essentially agree with him.

But that is what he is saying. He is assuming everyone would accept Christ if they were truly virtuous. That's what he has said multiple times while saying he hasn't said it, which is confusing the hell out of me.

The essential question is that if I die a virtuous man who never accepted Christ, would I go to hell? That's what I want to know.

 

[the iron horse]

"The essential question is that if I die a virtuous man who never accepted Christ, would I go to hell? That's what I want to know."



My reply to this is based on my Christian faith.

"a virtuous man"

We are all failures. None of us are perfect. We have all done bad things and it is a battle that, those of us aware, struggle with daily.

The good news of Jesus is that he paid for our failures, our sins, with his life.

I'm not even going to try to explain what he had to go through to give us a way to be free from our wrongdoings, but I believe he did.

It is why I am a Christian.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It's odd that thinking and saying that somebodies beliefs are in all likelihood wrong is considered worse than believing who do no harm but don't have faith will go to hell.

I would like to know have I claimed absolute knowledge?

 

[Irvine511]

I would like to know have I claimed absolute knowledge?

agreed. there's an equivocation going on that i don't think holds any water. no atheist or agnostic is pretending to know the answers, but some believers certainly are. so to present this as "this is what you believe and this is what i believe" isn't quite accurate.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Just to interject.

I've always wondered how those who interpret the Bible even semi-literally do so seriously. Isn't it basically a centuries-long game of telephone, passing the Word of God farther and farther down the chain?

 

[deep]

sure there are a bunch of authors that wrote the gospels over a period of years
and yes they were compiled, translated, and edited by different groups for their own purposes
but keep in mind that there is an all powerful, loving God that had the ability to make sure wisdom and truth ended up on the pages to enlighten his greatest creation mankind, so they can know his love and have their chance for salvation.

 

[Caleb8844]

keep in mind that there is an all powerful, loving God that had the ability to make sure wisdom and truth ended up on the pages to enlighten his greatest creation mankind, so they can know his love and have their chance for salvation.

this

 

[PhilsFan]

God never wrote the Bible or had anything to do with it. Even if you believe in a God, there's no way he wrote the Bible. The only way you think he wrote the Bible is if you believe in an intervening God, and if you believe in an intervening God ... well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

 

[mama cass]

this

oh right?! i thought deep was being sarcastic!

 

[Vincent Vega]

From my perspective, their view is just an opinion to which they are entitled. I take no offense, nor do I feel I need to.

I think I can claim not to have approached the topic like that, and in respect to not taking offense I agree with you, just in that case the other way round, i.e. a poster saying as much as "I don't wish you going to hell, but I believe that for you as a non-believer you will be sent to hell."

No. He believes that all good ultimately resides with God in Christ. Therefore those who respond to Good, Truth, Love, whatever you want to call it, or responding to Christ whether they know it or not. It's condescending only in the sense that he believes that all goodness and virtue have one ultimate Source. It is the presence of Christ in someones life (whether recognized or not) that make someone virtuous. Of course no one is perfect, but that's where Christ's sacrifice covers us all, whether Christian or not. I don't know if I would go as far as 80s in assuming that everyone would eventually "become a Christian" but besides that point, I essentially agree with him.

That's the reason why I asked if it was for the here or for the afterlife. I think now it's become a bit obsolete, as 80s changed his perspective on it. If he believed that the truly virtuous person might only find out this "truth" after he had died, then it would be more easily understandable. If it's about the here, I think you need to understand that for me or PFan as people who do not believe (even though, in both cases, we have been exposed to the Chrisitian belief and therefore could make an informed decision* when we opted out), but also for people who come from another faith such a position is very problematic. And as Irvine pointed out, for us it's rather a strange concept that the billions of individuals roaming the earth should, in the end, come to the same, and the only one, insight, if they had been "truly virtuous".

In response to your first question, see above. In response to your second question, I don't think that 80's understanding (which, incidentally he maintains is merely his opinion) allows for such an option. For someone to be truly virtuous and yet reject the source of all virtue is an impossibility.

To be frank, I don't think 80's is pushing to convert anyone on this thread. I do think he would like to be correctly understood (even if in correctly understanding him,you still conclude he's wrong).

True, the difference was rather, for him the source would always be Christ, for me, the source depends on the person and what s/he believes in.
I never saw him as trying to convert anyone, just stating his position and arguing for what he believes to be ultimately true. As anyone should.
I don't think anyone in this thread so far actively attempted to convert anyone else, neither the believers nor the non-believers. We share our positions and try to understand why the other person comes to their belief on particular points. But of course that's not always such an easy process.

*May sound a bit confusing. Of course whether you believe or you do not believe is as little a matter of choice as is whether you are hetero- or homosexual. It is somewhere within you. But there is some sort of process involved in which you question your (non-)belief and then reconcile it with yourself.

 

[Irvine511]

oh right?! i thought deep was being sarcastic!

he was.

 

[mama cass]

he was.

ahh i knew it!

 

[Caleb8844]

oh right?! i thought deep was being sarcastic!

Well...I feel ridiculous now

 

[nathan1977]

God never wrote the Bible or had anything to do with it. Even if you believe in a God, there's no way he wrote the Bible. The only way you think he wrote the Bible is if you believe in an intervening God, and if you believe in an intervening God ... well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Um, actually, the whole basis of Christianity is rooted in the idea of an intervening God. So....

 

[PhilsFan]

In what way does God intervene?

 

[Irvine511]

In what way does God intervene?

my guess is that the only way the bible could be "true" is that God intervened through the power of the Holy Spirit with it's authors and made sure they wrote the truth because God wanted to make himself known to us and that's why he became incarnate and it was important to write all that down so we have a way of telling other people about it.

otherwise, it all kind of falls down. right?

(sorry, i know i wasn't asked ... )

 

[Canadiens1131]

Um, actually, the whole basis of Christianity is rooted in the idea of an intervening God. So....

Come on, be realistic. He can't help BOTH football teams win on Sunday night

 

[BonosSaint]

He could, but sometimes the answer is "No." My guess is he says yes to 50% of the prayers.

 

[Pearl]

Do you really think God cares about sports?

 

[nathan1977]

In what way does God intervene?

Jesus, for starters.

 

[nathan1977]

Do you really think God cares about sports?

Depending on which side of the MA state line you're on, God is either for or against the Yankees. (...he said, wearing a Red Sox cap.)

 

[nathan1977]

my guess is that the only way the bible could be "true" is that God intervened through the power of the Holy Spirit with it's authors and made sure they wrote the truth because God wanted to make himself known to us and that's why he became incarnate and it was important to write all that down so we have a way of telling other people about it.

I'll never forget a wedding where I was sitting with a conservative Christian. When she found out what I did, she told me flat-out that I lie for a living. It seemed -- then and now -- like a very small-minded way to live. Most people don't get particularly bent out of shape about Picasso's paintings not being a literal interpretation of reality, because they understand that there is a truth even in the abstraction. As C.S. Lewis said, just because something is a myth doesn't mean it's not true.

I take anything that is inspired as being from God; as a result, I think that God inspired the Scriptures the same way that (I believe) He inspires poetry, art, music, etc.

(From dictionary.com)
Inspiration - c.1300, "immediate influence of God or a god," especially that under which the holy books were written, from O.Fr. inspiration , from L.L. inspirationem (nom. inspiratio ), from L. inspiratus , pp. of inspirare "inspire, inflame, blow into," from in- "in" + spirare "to breathe" (see spirit).

 

[maycocksean]

Well then your post isn't really representing your point well at all, because I'm still reading it as, "The driver is ignoring the warnings, and if only he'd listen, he'd avoid the bridge."

You've ascribed some pretty dark motives to those who feel the need to evangelize; I felt this came from a misunderstanding about how 80's and other Christians view heaven and hell. You seemed to presume that this was just a "viewpoint" that Christians hold that they feel they must foist upon others in order to make themselves feel good, etc. I was simply arguing that if a person really believes "the bridge is out" then it's entirely possible that they might be trying to inform you of that out of sincerity and genuine concern for your well being.

The essential question is that if I die a virtuous man who never accepted Christ, would I go to hell? That's what I want to know.

I'm not going to answer for 80's on this one, but I can tell you my opinion. My opinion is no, you would not.

In general, I think it's unwise to speculate about the eternal fate of any person good or bad. I believe God judges the heart, not how we appear to be on the outside. That's something no person can do, and indeed have been warned not attempt: "Judge not. . ."

It's odd that thinking and saying that somebodies beliefs are in all likelihood wrong is considered worse than believing who do no harm but don't have faith will go to hell.

I would like to know have I claimed absolute knowledge?

In response to your first statement, why would you care if someone thinks you're going to hell, if you don't believe in it? After all if the believer's philosophy is based on your acceptance of a particular religious doctrine and not on whether you are a decent person, then they are not necessarily even impugning your character. On the other hand suggesting that those that desire to evangelize can only be motivated by self-interest etc is, to me, a worse accusation. It is "real-world" here and now suggestion about a person's character rather than about someone's fate in a nebulous afterlife that no one regardless of belief has any proof about.

In regards to your second question, no, you haven't used that type of language. But your implication in all of your posts is quite clear. There's nothing particularly questioning or doubtful about your point of view, or your summation of those who believe. You're not particuarly humble in promoting your point of view; you don't leave room for the possiblity that you might be wrong in any meaningful way. So while, you might not through around religious terms like "Absolute Knowledge" or "Truth", essentially you seem as much to have made up your mind as any fundamentalist Christian.

sure there are a bunch of authors that wrote the gospels over a period of years
and yes they were compiled, translated, and edited by different groups for their own purposes
but keep in mind that there is an all powerful, loving God that had the ability to make sure wisdom and truth ended up on the pages to enlighten his greatest creation mankind, so they can know his love and have their chance for salvation.

I knew deep was being sarcastic. Ironically, he pretty much summed up what I believe about the Bible. That's a remarkable level of disdain, to see a particular point of view as so ridiculous that it can be summed up accurately and presented as sarcasm.

Um, actually, the whole basis of Christianity is rooted in the idea of an intervening God. So....

I guess that can of worms has been opened. . .

Come on, be realistic. He can't help BOTH football teams win on Sunday night

Just because I believe in an intervening God doesn't mean I believe he intervenes in everything. Certainly not sports (or reality shows. . .).

 

[Irvine511]

I'll never forget a wedding where I was sitting with a conservative Christian. When she found out what I did, she told me flat-out that I lie for a living. It seemed -- then and now -- like a very small-minded way to live. Most people don't get particularly bent out of shape about Picasso's paintings not being a literal interpretation of reality, because they understand that there is a truth even in the abstraction. As C.S. Lewis said, just because something is a myth doesn't mean it's not true.

I take anything that is inspired as being from God; as a result, I think that God inspired the Scriptures the same way that (I believe) He inspires poetry, art, music, etc.

(From dictionary.com)
Inspiration - c.1300, "immediate influence of God or a god," especially that under which the holy books were written, from O.Fr. inspiration , from L.L. inspirationem (nom. inspiratio ), from L. inspiratus , pp. of inspirare "inspire, inflame, blow into," from in- "in" + spirare "to breathe" (see spirit).

and, to me, this makes much more sense than close textual analysis. "inspired by" is much different than "inerrant work of" -- i'd think the believer, as much as the skeptic, would appreciate at least some wiggle room. you'd go nuts if you tried to follow it like an Ikea manuel.

 

[Diemen]

Ikea manuel.

Have they already run out of Swedish names for their stuff?

 

[nathan1977]

and, to me, this makes much more sense than close textual analysis. "inspired by" is much different than "inerrant work of" -- i'd think the believer, as much as the skeptic, would appreciate at least some wiggle room. you'd go nuts if you tried to follow it like an Ikea manuel.

Nowhere in the Scriptures does it call itself "inerrant." That seems to be a human characteristic laid over the Scriptures. The closest is 2 Timothy 3:15-17, which says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

As a result, by the standard I shared above, I have no problem believing that the Scripture is inspired by God.

 

[Irvine511]

Nowhere in the Scriptures does it call itself "inerrant."

i agree, those aren't your words, but they are words that have been used by various FYM posters over the years.

As a result, by the standard I shared above, I have no problem believing that the Scripture is inspired by God.

so Scripture is inspired by God because Scripture says it is inspired by God?

while there's no way to prove that it isn't -- i.e., you can't prove that it's not not inspired by God -- do you see that this is pretty much the basis for skepticism/agnosticism/atheism?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Do you really think God cares about sports?

He didn't care about genocide (or he cries about it alone to himself and how his creations have run a muck), so I thought sports would keep the mood light.

 

[nathan1977]

so Scripture is inspired by God because Scripture says it is inspired by God?

The question at hand was the nature of the Scriptures and whether or not they were "true." Because I believe that most true things (regardless of their literal truth -- art, music, etc) are inspired by God, I include Scripture as well. But it isn't true simply because it says so; it's true because I have found myself on its pages -- both who I am and who I hope to be.