Question For The Christians

[Guest Valk0010]

Pretty much shows how little you know about the Bible LK. It would be a no.

 

Okay why not. I was always taught, if you don't believe Jesus was the son of god and died for your sins at calvary, your going to hell. No if and or buts about it.

[bdp]

If you were God would you send Anne Frank to Hell where she would suffer forever for being Jewish?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes or No

 

 

Pretty much shows how little you know about the Bible LK. It would be a no.

 

...according to your interpretation - not according to LNC's. 'god' couldn't be bothered to speak plainly?

[par4dcourse]

I mean, it's all about "licking God's boots", regardless of my "atrocities" or wretched character?

 

 

That always bothered me too. Kirk once said "why does god need a starship?" I wonder why a god seems to want/need worship over all else?

[FiddlingAround]

Let's simplify things a little for a second.

 

LNC, what does cause/result in a person being sent/ending up in/earning hell?

[Vigile]

No I'm not. Your whole history is one equivocation after another.

 

If this guy has been like this for some time (historically), I really can't imagine why anyone here still gives him the time of day. If my suspicions are correct, he is, in the end, just a Bruce Metzger parrot and not that smart. I think he has been given far too much credit for not much of anything and he is void of any type of intellectual integrity, which makes him worthless as far as a forum such as this is concerned - IMHO that is.

 

Intellectual finesse is always in question, IMO, when one is a believer. He is, however, one of the few xians who visit who can string together a grammatically correct sentence and he does have a good vocabulary and a reasonably good understanding of logic. Unfortunately, his use of logic is self-serving and by definition intellectually dishonest. My best guess is the guy is above average in intelligence but below average in emotional intelligence as he lacks integrity and empathy. At least that's what I get from this thread. I've pretty much ignored his earlier posts.

[Crazy Donna]

I thought it was all the divine word of god, and now you're saying that it's part bullshit and part the glorious word of god.Could you please post an LNC annotated bible, to show we reprobates which parts of the buy-bull is usable?

 

You don't need my versions, you simply need to read a good English version of the Bible. If you read in any English Bible you will find that that section has been footnoted or bracketed with an indication that it is not found in the original. Take a look at BibleGateway

NIV (bracketed comment)

NASB (footnote)

ESV (bracketed comment)

NKJV (footnote)

 

It is because we have such a rich manuscript history that we know that this was a later addition. It is another reason that we can be confident of what was in the originals.

 

LNC

Since I can conveniently read Attic Greek, the parent language to the Koine Greek of the New Testament, would you mind posting the SPECIFIC verse or verses that you say were not found in the original? I would like to see how this material was rendered in it's original greek.

 

From my cursory examination of Mark 16:16 in the original Koine Greek, it is evident that the exact meaning of that verse is that belief is the criteria for salvation, and without belief, there is no salvation. Do you have any other verses to back up your interpretation of the bible? I would also like to examine them in the original Koine Greek.

 

I don't need a "good English translation", as I am quite competent with the original Greek. And for the record, I was a christian for decades, and I have never met a christian who would not accept belief as the SOLE criteria for salvation. According to standard christian doctrine, as I am aware of it, Anne Frank would burn in hell, because she did not believe in jesus christ as her lord and saviour. The question is not whether she was an ethnic jew, but whether she was a practicing jew, and it is her identity as a practicing jew that precludes her from salvation. If she accepted jesus christ as her lord and saviour, she would no longer be a jew, but a christian.

[LNC]

The problem with questions directed generally to Christians like the one posed in the OP is the bible. One can read just about anything they want into the bible, and the great number of Christian denominations, many of whose adherents condemn those in other denominations as not being "true" Christians, proves this point. The only way to make such a point as the question attempts, is to determine the specific beliefs about hell that the target audience has and then ask the question in terms of their beliefs. Otherwise, the bible gives Christians so much wiggle room, you can never pin down a skilled debater like LNC. And I would be quite surprised if LNC would actually tell us his beliefs concerning the criteria by which god will condemn someone to hell. Rather, he will only respond to our interpretations of the bible leaving us to guess through question after question what his beliefs on the subject are, thus avoiding responding to the true intent of the question.

 

Would you say that this is true of all written communication or do you single out the Bible into a special category? What you are proposing is a postmodern epistemology, one in which we cannot understand a text as the author intended it, but all is understood through interpretation. If that is true of the Bible, is it not also true of your post. Cannot I interpret the words of your post to mean that you agree with me completely? If not, why not? I mean one can read just about anything they want from your post. The fact that there are a great number of denominations within Christianity is not necessarily a result of interpreting the Bible differently, most agree on the core issues, or at least did at one time before presuppositional positions led to divisions. However, the issue is whether there is a proper understanding of the Bible and whether we can get to that understanding, and I see no reason why we cannot as it is written in languages that are still viable today and we can look back at the history and culture to put it in proper context. In other words, we have the tools to do this and the fact that some people choose not to use those tools or apply them in a faulty manner has nothing to do with whether the Bible can be properly understood.

 

We have different people interpreting the U.S. Constitution in different and vastly divergent ways, does that mean that there is no proper way of understanding it or that we cannot, 200+ years later, properly understand and interpret it. It shouldn't give license to people to simply read whatever interpretation of the document they want to accomplish this end, although that seems to be happening in our country. However, I am curious about your understanding of epistemology (how we know what we know) as to whether you are a committed postmodern (one who believes that there is no Truth, but only perspectival truths)?

 

And that intent, it seems obvious to me, was will bible god condemn a person to hell for not believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior, despite the fact that the person at issue was unmercifully brutalized and murdered during this life though they had done nothing wrong to deserve such horrible treatment?

 

The question sets up a very difficult situation. Not only was the person unjustly treated in this life, but the question forces one to consider whether god will have no mercy on such a person with his eternal judgment simply for their lack of belief. There is a sort of double jeopardy in which a person who is treated with no mercy during life must stand before a god who also will show that person no mercy. Ultimately, then, the question forces one to consider what is the difference between the Nazis and god when it comes to mercy.

 

 

I wonder where you get the idea that the Bible condemns a person to hell for not believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior? That is an infidel meme that seems to be propagated on sites like this. The Bible doesn't say or indicate that a person is condemned for that reason; however, it does say that trusting in Jesus' death and resurrection can bring eternal life, but that is a different issue. Let me put it this way. Suppose a person (P) commits a crime and is convicted and fined as a result. Then another person (S) comes along and offers to pay the fine of P, which the P rejects. In that case, it isn't the S who has condemned the P to pay the penalty, that has already been established before the fact. You cannot blame S for P's condemnation or the penalty that follows, that is illogical. Now, suppose further that the crime committed was against S, yet S chooses to forgive P and pay the fine that the law has assessed against him for breaking the law, it is still illogical to blame S if P rejects that offer. That is what has happened in our world. We have rebelled against God and he has sent his Son to pay the penalty that we rightly owe. If we reject that offer, it is not Jesus who is to blame for our just condemnation, we have earned that apart from what Jesus did in coming to pay for that sin of rebellion.

 

We may have led a very difficult life and yet rejected God's offer of forgiveness, but that has nothing to do with the fact that we have rebelled and rejected the offer of forgiveness. I don't see what the two have to do with one another. The courts may take into account circumstances like that and give a reduced sentence, but they won't necessarily find the person not guilty. It is apparent in the Bible that God has different levels of judgment for people (as well as different levels of reward), but he simply cannot excuse a rebellious and unrepentant person, and neither would a human judge for that matter.

 

So again, it is not lack of belief that condemns a person; however, lack of repentance and trust can prevent them from receiving forgiveness. I hope that helps clarify the situation.

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

At least LNC would make a more compassionate God than the psycho-monster we've been presented with.

 

What's always bothered me is that one's personal conduct and works and character are never mentioned as "means of salvation". Even when I was a Christian that bothered me the most.

 

I mean, it's all about "licking God's boots", regardless of my "atrocities" or wretched character?

 

To philosophical people, this has never made sense. The whole idea of "worship" to me has been warped through the centuries of Christian theology. Yeah, as in worshiping the clerical establishment and their elitism is more like it.

 

I think eventually Christianity will have to become a more philosophically logical system or it will die out as a "childish cult" of the Shallow.

 

No "Universal Mind" of exquisite enlightened consciousness would torture humans for eternity. The whole premise is absurd. Created by barbarians, to frighten barbarians, devalue those who were different, and bully people into accepting submission to the religious-military complex of the middle ages and beyond.

I enjoy your posts. I share in your thoughts expressed here. I'll add that "works" is a double-edged sword that cuts through what I experience coming from those voices of the Christian faith who uphold doctrinal correctness and adherence as indications of salvation. They are correct that works don't save, but incorrect in not recognizing that doctrinal correctness and adherence as the judge of salvation is itself a salvation by works. It's "what" you believe. It's "what you don't do" that makes you "saved", in how it is expressed through their perceptions.

 

Then there are those who say that works are evidence of salvation (to use that word as an indication of an active relationship, or connection with the "divine", or the higher, transcendent state of ultimate Being - tough language to express). And I would agree that one who is living in connection with higher Truth (however you wish to speak of that in terms of higher love), will in fact express in their actions that very nature.

 

The double-edged sword is that in the religion that says we aren't saved by works, they are cut by it when that exclaim on one hand this truth, but then fail to show the fruits of it themselves. They are who they attempt to judge, and by that are themselves condemned by their own words applied to them exposing their carnal-minded hearts which manifests in their imaginations, attitudes, words, and actions.

 

I've come to see that Christianity in the way it is being expressed in modern apologetic is focused on the system as being true, and not a way to Truth that transcends not only its' own system it seeks to defend, but all systems. It trades that higher, transcendent truth that manifests itself through humans - everywhere, for a system of religion as the truth itself. It's literalism is an attempt to reduce it, to reduce "God", to scientific terms, and thus negating and destroying its nature in so doing and supplanting it with the argument as that truth. And so the double-edged sword comes back to cut them as they "wrongfully divide".

 

What's helpful for me to understand about Christianity is that it can, or rather should be understood in a greater context of human evolution, part of a process of our evolution, and not a singular static system that can be evaluated in binary, two-dimensional terms. It's a multifaceted, non-singular system in a minimally, four-dimensional space, just as any system of religion or society or philosophy is. The questions then become not questions of right/wrong, but of value to growth and deeper and higher truth. To be literalistic with it, or any other system of human truth (which transcends, but includes science alone), is to disallow its effectiveness in the human life and the world.

 

Nobody goes to some barbaric hell, but plenty live in unawareness. And the fruits of their lives show their hearts. It's not about doctrinal correctness. It's about life, as evolving beings.

 

 

Sorry LNC I've been occupied elsewhere. Maybe at some point we can have that discussion beyond your apologetic.

[LNC]

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

 

I do not thing the bible specifies any exception to this.

 

 

Well, maybe the baptism thing, but not the requirement of belief.

 

That passage is commonly understood to be a later addition and not a part of the original text, therefore, it is not a passage from which I would use to argue. Can you make your case from another passage?

 

LNC

 

If it is commonly understood, why does it remain in printed Bibles?

 

Welcome back!

 

Phanta

 

 

Hey Phanta, sorry for the long absence, the Summer was very busy, as is the Fall right now, but I wanted to jump in on this question as I think it is important and a commonly misunderstood point. I am taking an ethics class now, which requires a ton of reading, so I may be limited in my responses, but I will stick with it as long as I can.

 

To answer your question, and it is a good question, I think it is probably a combination of reasons. First, people have gotten used to those verses (as well as a few other places in the Bible where this has happened) being there, so to take them out would cause some Christians problems. Second, by bracketing them or footnoting them, Bible publishers believe that they have found a way to placate both sides (traditionalists vs. purists). Third, human nature, and I will expose the fact that Christians are still sinful people here. I think that Bible publishers thought it would hurt their sales if they took it out. Yes, it's true, publishers are trying to make a profit and not trying to do what would lead them to lose sales. Is it a good reason to keep it in? No. Does it mean that they are evil for trying to make a profit? No, that is what all business need to do to keep the doors open and people employed. Would I take it out if it was up to me? Yes, I think I would work on an education campaign so that Christians knew that these were not in the original text and work toward getting them out.

 

I taught a class this Summer and although I wasn't there the week that Biblical inerrancy was taught, I made sure that the person who substituted for me clearly taught that these passages were in our English Bibles but not in the original. I think it is important for teachers to make this clear. It is unfortunate that guys like Bart Ehrman can print this stuff in books like Misquoting Jesus and actually take Christians by surprise by this information. Shame on us in the church for that.

 

Hope you are doing well.

 

LNC

 

 

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Suppose a person (P) commits a crime and is convicted and fined as a result. Then another person (S) comes along and offers to pay the fine of P, which the P rejects. In that case, it isn't the S who has condemned the P to pay the penalty, that has already been established before the fact. You cannot blame S for P's condemnation or the penalty that follows, that is illogical. Now, suppose further that the crime committed was against S, yet S chooses to forgive P and pay the fine that the law has assessed against him for breaking the law, it is still illogical to blame S if P rejects that offer.

 

 

Of course, you didn't bother to mention that S set up the law and the fine to begin with. And that P is either condemned because of things his ancestors did and/or that he has no option of not breaking the law because he was born a sinner.

 

 

So, S makes the law and makes sure P breaks it, then imposes a drastic fine of eternal damnation, then comes along and offers P the option of accepting the forgiveness from someone invisible for crimes against someone invisible (which would be illogical in any other aspect of P's life). Sounds like S is running a pretty rigged game. Or, more likely, doesn't exist in the first place.

[florduh]

Maybe I missed it in the thousands of words of obfuscation. Was the answer YES or was it NO?

[LNC]

While the question is directed at christians, and the only one to respond, skirted the issue very well, I thought that I would put in the scriptures that, during the time that I was a christian (20 odd years) were always with out exception used to say that - unless you accept jesus as your lord and saviour (jesus -,not god, yahweh etc)you would spent eternity without god, in hell, punishment etc to me they are pretty clear, anyone, jew, muslin, atheist, etc, they are doomed forever, no mercy,no second chance, whatever you call it,

 

there is no way around it according to scripture - Anne would be in hell -

John 1:12

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

 

John 3:15

that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

 

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

 

John 5:24

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

 

John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

 

Thanks for your note. Let me try to address your point and the verses that you quoted. Again, there is a difference between what condemns a person and what can save a person. I pointed this out in an earlier post, so let me refer you to that.

 

John 1:12 - speaks about how a person can become a child of God, but says nothing about judgment or its cause.

 

John 3:36 - again talks about how one can have eternal life, but also indicates that the person was already condemned (the wrath remains on him).

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

John 8:24 - here is the clearest statement that a person dies for (or in) his or her sins, not because they didn't believe or trust in Jesus. Trusting in Jesus will provide salvation from that condemnation and death, but it isn't the reason for the penalty, that is based upon our sins.

 

 

Thanks for posting these, I think it makes the distinction clearer between the means of salvation and the reason for condemnation. Now, I'm sure some will think that I am splitting hairs here, but it is not the case. As I explained in a prior post, this is an important and clear distinction in the Bible and should not be conflated or confused (the reason for condemnation vs. the means of salvation).

 

 

LNC

[LNC]

I am very familiar with the term and those who engage in these diversion tactics, such as yourself. I have very little use for these types, since their game is "win or stale mate". It simply isn't worth my time. Belief in Christ (his sacrifice & resurrection) is the hallmark requirement for salvation. Study it yourself, you are the Christian. If you would like to play on words a bit longer, do it alone.

e·quiv·o·ca·tion

–noun1.the use of equivocal or ambiguous expressions, esp. in orderto mislead or hedge; prevarication.

 

Then it should be clear that I am not equivocating as I am not using ambiguous expressions. Rather, I am being very clear and distinct as to the terms that I use. You are the one who seems to be clearly equivocating as you say that belief in Jesus is the hallmark requirement of salvation (I would say that even this isn't a precise explanation as it is not belief, but trust that is called for), but you seem to be conflating (confusing) this with the reason for condemnation. There is a difference, as I have explained in earlier posts, between what leads to condemnation and what leads to salvation - they are two different issues and should not be conflated together. I have studied this for many years and continue to do so and I would recommend that you continue to do so as well. Thanks for the note.

 

LNC

[florduh]

I'll take that as a "Yes."

 

Whew! That wasn't easy!

 

It was a simple question. The sermon about original sin, man's culpability, God's way out for us if we can only believe, accepted and unaccepted verses, the ignorance of the people here, proper translations, etc., etc. was totally unnecessary. It was a Yes or No question.

[MagickMonkey]

The problem with questions directed generally to Christians like the one posed in the OP is the bible. One can read just about anything they want into the bible, and the great number of Christian denominations, many of whose adherents condemn those in other denominations as not being "true" Christians, proves this point. The only way to make such a point as the question attempts, is to determine the specific beliefs about hell that the target audience has and then ask the question in terms of their beliefs. Otherwise, the bible gives Christians so much wiggle room, you can never pin down a skilled debater like LNC. And I would be quite surprised if LNC would actually tell us his beliefs concerning the criteria by which god will condemn someone to hell. Rather, he will only respond to our interpretations of the bible leaving us to guess through question after question what his beliefs on the subject are, thus avoiding responding to the true intent of the question.

 

Would you say that this is true of all written communication or do you single out the Bible into a special category? What you are proposing is a postmodern epistemology, one in which we cannot understand a text as the author intended it, but all is understood through interpretation. If that is true of the Bible, is it not also true of your post. Cannot I interpret the words of your post to mean that you agree with me completely? If not, why not? I mean one can read just about anything they want from your post. The fact that there are a great number of denominations within Christianity is not necessarily a result of interpreting the Bible differently, most agree on the core issues, or at least did at one time before presuppositional positions led to divisions. However, the issue is whether there is a proper understanding of the Bible and whether we can get to that understanding, and I see no reason why we cannot as it is written in languages that are still viable today and we can look back at the history and culture to put it in proper context. In other words, we have the tools to do this and the fact that some people choose not to use those tools or apply them in a faulty manner has nothing to do with whether the Bible can be properly understood.

 

We have different people interpreting the U.S. Constitution in different and vastly divergent ways, does that mean that there is no proper way of understanding it or that we cannot, 200+ years later, properly understand and interpret it. It shouldn't give license to people to simply read whatever interpretation of the document they want to accomplish this end, although that seems to be happening in our country. However, I am curious about your understanding of epistemology (how we know what we know) as to whether you are a committed postmodern (one who believes that there is no Truth, but only perspectival truths)?

 

 

Considering most of us on this site believe the bible to be a work of fiction, I think most of us are more concerned with what christians actually believe than weather or not christians properly interpret the bible in a manner that gives them its intended meaning. However, different writings have various degrees of ambiguity, and even the best experts may not know with absolute certainty what the bible says. One may find ambiguity in the constitution. I think the constitution should be as strictly interpreted as possible, but I'm not sure we can know its intended meaning perfectly. I wish the judicial system did a better job of trying than they seem to do. Unfortunately, the constitution is an important document, and understanding its meaning is much more important than understanding works of fiction, like the bible (no disrespect intended, but we(well many of us on this site) do view the bible as fiction).

 

 

And that intent, it seems obvious to me, was will bible god condemn a person to hell for not believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior, despite the fact that the person at issue was unmercifully brutalized and murdered during this life though they had done nothing wrong to deserve such horrible treatment?

 

The question sets up a very difficult situation. Not only was the person unjustly treated in this life, but the question forces one to consider whether god will have no mercy on such a person with his eternal judgment simply for their lack of belief. There is a sort of double jeopardy in which a person who is treated with no mercy during life must stand before a god who also will show that person no mercy. Ultimately, then, the question forces one to consider what is the difference between the Nazis and god when it comes to mercy.

 

 

I wonder where you get the idea that the Bible condemns a person to hell for not believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior? That is an infidel meme that seems to be propagated on sites like this. The Bible doesn't say or indicate that a person is condemned for that reason; however, it does say that trusting in Jesus' death and resurrection can bring eternal life, but that is a different issue. Let me put it this way. Suppose a person (P) commits a crime and is convicted and fined as a result. Then another person (S) comes along and offers to pay the fine of P, which the P rejects. In that case, it isn't the S who has condemned the P to pay the penalty, that has already been established before the fact. You cannot blame S for P's condemnation or the penalty that follows, that is illogical. Now, suppose further that the crime committed was against S, yet S chooses to forgive P and pay the fine that the law has assessed against him for breaking the law, it is still illogical to blame S if P rejects that offer. That is what has happened in our world. We have rebelled against God and he has sent his Son to pay the penalty that we rightly owe. If we reject that offer, it is not Jesus who is to blame for our just condemnation, we have earned that apart from what Jesus did in coming to pay for that sin of rebellion.

 

We may have led a very difficult life and yet rejected God's offer of forgiveness, but that has nothing to do with the fact that we have rebelled and rejected the offer of forgiveness. I don't see what the two have to do with one another. The courts may take into account circumstances like that and give a reduced sentence, but they won't necessarily find the person not guilty. It is apparent in the Bible that God has different levels of judgment for people (as well as different levels of reward), but he simply cannot excuse a rebellious and unrepentant person, and neither would a human judge for that matter.

 

So again, it is not lack of belief that condemns a person; however, lack of repentance and trust can prevent them from receiving forgiveness. I hope that helps clarify the situation.

 

LNC

 

I thought this might have been what you were getting at. But that means it is still essentially true that, according to christianity, one must believe in jesus to be saved considering, according to christianity, every one has sinned. So Anne Frank, who is theoretically a sinner who no doubt has not accepted jesus's sacrifice, would have gone to hell. And god would have sent her there, regardless of weather or not he's to blame for her being there. You can say she sent herself there by rebelling against god, but only in a indirect sense. According to christian theory, it was god who decided she has to go there based on her supposed rebellion. The original post had nothing to do with where to place the blame for her damnation.

 

 

But, I'll give you my opinion about who would have the blame, assuming for the sake of argument that the basic beliefs of christianity are true. If god created people who are inherently imperfect, held them to a perfect standard, condemned them to hell for being imperfect, and created a way to escape damnation, but made the information for finding that escape extremely obscure, then god would be to blame for their damnation. I know you believe the bible to be the truth, and you think it's message is not obscure. For the vast majority of people on this planet, who are born without knowledge of god's supposed word, and with so many other competing religions out there, none of which have more or less credibility than christianity, it cannot be obvious that bible god's message is the only true one. If god did exist, and jesus came to every person at whatever age they were old enough to understand and said, "I'm jesus, my message is xyz, and you need to do xyz to be saved. I will not violate your free will, but your choices have consequences. If you choose to follow me, you get to go to heaven. If not, you go to hell", then maybe such a god could be excused for sending people to hell.

[oddbird1963]

While the question is directed at christians, and the only one to respond, skirted the issue very well, I thought that I would put in the scriptures that, during the time that I was a christian (20 odd years) were always with out exception used to say that - unless you accept jesus as your lord and saviour (jesus -,not god, yahweh etc)you would spent eternity without god, in hell, punishment etc to me they are pretty clear, anyone, jew, muslin, atheist, etc, they are doomed forever, no mercy,no second chance, whatever you call it,

 

there is no way around it according to scripture - Anne would be in hell -

John 1:12

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

 

John 3:15

that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

 

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

 

John 5:24

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

 

John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

 

Thanks for your note. Let me try to address your point and the verses that you quoted. Again, there is a difference between what condemns a person and what can save a person. I pointed this out in an earlier post, so let me refer you to that.

 

John 1:12 - speaks about how a person can become a child of God, but says nothing about judgment or its cause.

 

John 3:36 - again talks about how one can have eternal life, but also indicates that the person was already condemned (the wrath remains on him).

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

John 8:24 - here is the clearest statement that a person dies for (or in) his or her sins, not because they didn't believe or trust in Jesus. Trusting in Jesus will provide salvation from that condemnation and death, but it isn't the reason for the penalty, that is based upon our sins.

 

 

Thanks for posting these, I think it makes the distinction clearer between the means of salvation and the reason for condemnation. Now, I'm sure some will think that I am splitting hairs here, but it is not the case. As I explained in a prior post, this is an important and clear distinction in the Bible and should not be conflated or confused (the reason for condemnation vs. the means of salvation).

 

 

LNC

LNC,

 

You seem to have totally skipped over John 3:18 (with no explanation) which totally contradicts your position. I put it in bold for you above.

 

Why is the person who does not believe condemned? Jesus answers : BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED .

 

Yet you have the brashness to state (underline added by me):

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

Two quotes prior, in 3:18, the character Jesus contradicts you. You simply ignored the verse.

 

You tend to do that a lot. Ignore the things which people say , even the biblical Jesus, which do not fit tidily into your positions.

 

EDIT ***

And, in case you try to deny you never said a person was NOT condemned for not believing, here's another place where you state it:

I wonder where you get the idea that the Bible condemns a person to hell for not believing in Jesus as Lord and Savior? That is an infidel meme that seems to be propagated on sites like this. The Bible doesn't say or indicate that a person is condemned for that reason;

 

 

***** END EDIT

[Sconnor]

While the question is directed at christians, and the only one to respond, skirted the issue very well, I thought that I would put in the scriptures that, during the time that I was a christian (20 odd years) were always with out exception used to say that - unless you accept jesus as your lord and saviour (jesus -,not god, yahweh etc)you would spent eternity without god, in hell, punishment etc to me they are pretty clear, anyone, jew, muslin, atheist, etc, they are doomed forever, no mercy,no second chance, whatever you call it,

 

there is no way around it according to scripture - Anne would be in hell -

John 1:12

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

 

John 3:15

that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

 

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

 

John 5:24

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

 

John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

 

Thanks for your note. Let me try to address your point and the verses that you quoted. Again, there is a difference between what condemns a person and what can save a person. I pointed this out in an earlier post, so let me refer you to that.

 

John 1:12 - speaks about how a person can become a child of God, but says nothing about judgment or its cause.

 

John 3:36 - again talks about how one can have eternal life, but also indicates that the person was already condemned (the wrath remains on him).

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

John 8:24 - here is the clearest statement that a person dies for (or in) his or her sins, not because they didn't believe or trust in Jesus. Trusting in Jesus will provide salvation from that condemnation and death, but it isn't the reason for the penalty, that is based upon our sins.

 

 

Thanks for posting these, I think it makes the distinction clearer between the means of salvation and the reason for condemnation. Now, I'm sure some will think that I am splitting hairs here, but it is not the case. As I explained in a prior post, this is an important and clear distinction in the Bible and should not be conflated or confused (the reason for condemnation vs. the means of salvation).

 

 

LNC

 

Regardless, god’s convoluted plan for salvation – which you took years of study to supposedly comprehend – relegates the majority of his earthly children to an eternity of suffering in hell.

 

This would include people like Anne Frank, Albert Einstein, Gandhi, American Indians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, primitive cultures, and so on.

 

It would also include the six million Jews of the holocaust – which was their virtual hell on earth.

 

ALL because they didn’t have your understanding of salvation.

 

The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation

 

God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, (himself) to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, fallible, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus,(Or LNC’s convoluted; interpretive “trusting” explanation of salvation) so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the fallible humans, who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing.

 

--S.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe I missed it in the thousands of words of obfuscation. Was the answer YES or was it NO?

You would have to come to that conclusion by using a post-modernistic view of written text and interpret it instead of understanding it as it was intended--and you would be wrong either way.

[Sconnor]

While the question is directed at christians, and the only one to respond, skirted the issue very well, I thought that I would put in the scriptures that, during the time that I was a christian (20 odd years) were always with out exception used to say that - unless you accept jesus as your lord and saviour (jesus -,not god, yahweh etc)you would spent eternity without god, in hell, punishment etc to me they are pretty clear, anyone, jew, muslin, atheist, etc, they are doomed forever, no mercy,no second chance, whatever you call it,

 

there is no way around it according to scripture - Anne would be in hell -

John 1:12

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—

 

John 3:15

that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

 

John 3:18

Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

 

John 3:36

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

 

John 5:24

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

 

John 8:24

I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

 

Thanks for your note. Let me try to address your point and the verses that you quoted. Again, there is a difference between what condemns a person and what can save a person. I pointed this out in an earlier post, so let me refer you to that.

 

John 1:12 - speaks about how a person can become a child of God, but says nothing about judgment or its cause.

 

John 3:36 - again talks about how one can have eternal life, but also indicates that the person was already condemned (the wrath remains on him).

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

John 8:24 - here is the clearest statement that a person dies for (or in) his or her sins, not because they didn't believe or trust in Jesus. Trusting in Jesus will provide salvation from that condemnation and death, but it isn't the reason for the penalty, that is based upon our sins.

 

 

Thanks for posting these, I think it makes the distinction clearer between the means of salvation and the reason for condemnation. Now, I'm sure some will think that I am splitting hairs here, but it is not the case. As I explained in a prior post, this is an important and clear distinction in the Bible and should not be conflated or confused (the reason for condemnation vs. the means of salvation).

 

 

LNC

LNC,

 

You seem to have totally skipped over John 3:18 (with no explanation) which totally contradicts your position. I put it in bold for you above.

 

Why is the person who does not believe condemned? Jesus answers : BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED .

 

Yet you have the brashness to state (underline added by me):

 

John 5:24 - again, this speaks about how to avoid being condemned (something Jesus assumes we will face apart from trusting him); however, it does not say that one will be condemned for not believing in Jesus, only that we will be apart from trusting in him.

 

Two quotes prior, in 3:18, the character Jesus contradicts you. You simply ignored the verse.

 

You tend to do that a lot. Ignore the things which people say , even the biblical Jesus, which do not fit tidily into your positions.

 

How about these bits of scripture too, LNC?

 

Acts 16:30-31 Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

 

Romans 1:16-17 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God salvation to every one that believeth.... As it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

Romans 10:9 If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

 

--S.

[Ouroboros]

Then it should be clear that I am not equivocating as I am not using ambiguous expressions. Rather, I am being very clear and distinct as to the terms that I use. You are the one who seems to be clearly equivocating as you say that belief in Jesus is the hallmark requirement of salvation (I would say that even this isn't a precise explanation as it is not belief, but trust that is called for), but you seem to be conflating (confusing) this with the reason for condemnation. There is a difference, as I have explained in earlier posts, between what leads to condemnation and what leads to salvation - they are two different issues and should not be conflated together. I have studied this for many years and continue to do so and I would recommend that you continue to do so as well. Thanks for the note.

I think I get what you're saying. The Bible is clear of what is required to be saved and go to Heaven, which is that you have to believe. Agreed? But the Bible doesn't specifically say that people will go to Hell for not believing. Am I correct that this is your standpoint? If it is, what happens then to the people who does not believe? Is there some limbo they go to, or are they just plainly destroyed?

[MagickMonkey]

EDIT: aborted attempt to post what is in the next post. Trying to write c++ in one of these forum text boxes is a real bitch.

[MagickMonkey]

Let's write this out in c++ (Yes, I'm being silly here)

 

 

#include <christianBullshit.h>

 

 

int main()

{

...

...

..

 

If(person.isASinner() && !person.acceptsJesusAsHisSavior())

person.goToHell();

else

person.goToHeaven();

 

....

...

...

 

}

[Guest end3]

I'll take that as a "Yes."

 

Whew! That wasn't easy!

 

It was a simple question. The sermon about original sin, man's culpability, God's way out for us if we can only believe, accepted and unaccepted verses, the ignorance of the people here, proper translations, etc., etc. was totally unnecessary. It was a Yes or No question.

 

The point is, the OP makes a statement about a view that has no defined answer. The bible alludes to an answer, natural braches vs. grafted branches, but doesn't specifically say what will happen to the natural braches. And it is my opinion that Last King's intent with the OP is evil. Have a nice day.

[florduh]

The point is, the OP makes a statement about a view that has no defined answer.

At least there is no defined answer in this thread.

[Guest danny64]

The bible endorses slavery, chavanism, racial discrimination, discrimination against the handicapped, and the death penalty for adultery, disrespectful children, homosexuals, atheists, worshipping the wrong god, working on Saturday, being a witch or doing magic, having sex with an animal, or being a preacher’s daughter and a prostitute. If any Christian denies this, I can provide chapter and verse and we can look at the context all day too. I think Twain sums up the argument quite well…

The Christian’s Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes …The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession – and take the credit of the correction.

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry … There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.The bible is outdated. Modern Christians are morally superior to the book they claim they follow. Most modern Christians believe in equal rights for women and do not support slavery. Most modern Christians do not believe that atheists or prostitutes or bad kids or magicians or people of other religions should be given the death penalty. Most modern Christians do no believe a rape victim should have to marry the man that raped them as the bible required. Christians ignore or don’t know what the bible says. As should we all.