The New Testament Teaches That Everyone Will Be Saved.

Iella:

Divide and conquer works so well that we won't believe what you just said. I'm sorry, that makes absolutely no sense.

... I rest my case.

 

"Personally, I wouldn't want to. However, there are obviously people that would want to. "

And it's always been that way, bible or no bible. I guess i'm just confused as to why you feel hell needs to be involved for an incentive for people to just act normal.

 

Sure, God judges His people. But nowhere in the OT do we get God appearing physically, along with pagans, to destroy His people. If there is, please show me.

No. My point isn't that God killed them. He had every right to. It's God allowing pagan nations to destroy Israel vs. Christ Himself taking up the sword, fighting with the pagans to destroy the Jews. There is a huge difference.

We must be misunderstanding one another.

1. In both 586 B.C. and A.D. 70 pagan armies destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.

2. Both destructions were prophesied by servants of God.

3. In both cases the destructions were God's judgments on rebellious Israel.

4. In neither case did God, his angels, or Jesus physically take swords and chop up Israelites.


Hell isn't unending torment. Hell is eternal separation from God.

Nothing is anywhere near as bad as being separated from God.

 

I guess i'm just confused as to why you feel hell needs to be involved for an incentive for people to just act normal.

Sorry if I'm being confusing. Hell is not the incentive for doing anything "normal"... it's just that if there was no hell, no consequence for your actions, then there wouldn't really be any point in resisting doing bad.


4. In neither case did God, his angels, or Jesus physically take swords and chop up Israelites.

Right, so what was the point of Jesus showing up with His angels when Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70?


Nothing is anywhere near as bad as being separated from God.

So your point, then, is that there is no free will. Either way, you're going to heaven. What's the point of life?

 

"it's just that if there was no hell, no consequence for your actions, then there wouldn't really be any point in resisting doing bad."

Perhaps. My answer would probably do what your conscious tells you. Even without law and hell, if you attack someone's wife or something, you're gonna get whipped by them if they can get to you.

 

Well... if you bring it down a level in intensity. I'm not even talking about killing people and other really indecent stuff... if there is no punishment, why can't I lie? Why is that wrong? Why can't I take the $5 that's sitting on my brother's desk? He wouldn't miss it, right? I mean... no consequences, I can pretty much do whatever I want.

 

"So your point, then, is that there is no free will. Either way, you're going to heaven. What's the point of life?"

If there is no hell, that doesn't have anything to do with free will from my perspective, if it's not an option then it's not an option. I want to fly through outer space right now and meditate with jupiter filling my window, but that's not going to happen. If i could choose that to happen, i would. But i still have free will.

 

"I mean... no consequences, I can pretty much do whatever I want."

The consequences would be guilt and your conscious, unless you want to rip off your brother. The conscious is what keeps most of us in check. Again, all these things are things i don't think you are likely to do to begin with.

 

If there is no hell, that doesn't have anything to do with free will from my perspective, if it's not an option then it's not an option.

Ok... free will, as in, you can choose whether you want to spend eternity with God or away from Him, as opposed to being forced to spend eternity with Him. Free will to choose to go to heaven or hell as opposed to being forced into heaven (as weird as that might seem). Saying that the existence of hell denies free will is like saying America should have no jails, because what we have is free will - I should be able to do whatever I want, with no consequences, right?


The conscious is what keeps most of us in check.

I assume you mean conscience Sure, my conscience might keep me in check, but do you think the terrorists felt guilty about what they were going to do?

Again, all these things are things i don't think you are likely to do to begin with.

Well, there are some pretty depraved people.

 

I never said i could spel.

Those terrorists didn't feel guilty because they thought they were doing god's will. (why would they die for something if they thought it wasn't true,remember?)

If you asked most people if they would like paradise, maybe some would say "no, man i can't wait to go to hell. Bring it on, baby!" But i can't speak for them. I want to fly in outer space right now, it's not an option, i still have free will. Or do i not have free will becasue i can't fly thru space right now?

Another thing about consequences, karma could explain it, but not even in a metaphysical sense. If you violate someone's rights, good chance they are going to attempt to violate yours as well, that's a consequence. There's no law saying i can't go into a sports bar and call all the guys pansies, but i think there would be consequences none the less.

 

Ok... no terrorists, use another example. Serial killers? Pathological liars? Do they feel guilty? Conscience can be numbed or otherwise affected by repeated injuries to morality.


It's easy to avoid physical consequences - but not spiritual ones.


EDIT: anyway, it's my bedtime... hopefully we can continue tomorrow?

 

Karma baby yeah! I think karma makes more sense, for whatever wrong you do to someone it comes back to you, much more easy to stomach than buddhists or jews separated from god for eternity for having different opinions on spiritual issues.

But i think we're talking about seperate things now. My point is: even without the concept of a biblical afterlife, most people would behave the same way.

talk to you later.

 

Ever hear of a self-justifying principle?

That's what the ideas of "free will" and "words speaking louder than actions" are.

They conveniently serve as instant excuses for the inevitable wrongs that man will succumb to... so the men of institutions who pretend to be so lofty can avoid having to admit they're wrong, and avoid having to take responsibility for their actions, and avoid having to at least try to do the right thing... ultimately, these principles help the selfish bury their conscience under heaps of dogma. Also, they love to blame Satan and not their own lack of moderation for everything that goes wrong or is wrong. On the other hand, if they experience a stroke of blind luck... HEY! It must be God!

These self-justifying principles were dogmatically introduced to keep the congregations in line with the institution's wishes... On the other hand, they are a convenient self-justified escape route for greedy men (who generally tend to be at the heart of religious and political institutions... both of which were inseparable back in the old days... *ahem*Anglican Church*ahem*Holy Roman Empire...).

Because of free will, because of actions not being what gets you into heaven, because of unconditional forgiveness without karma (work)... the dirty men who abused Christ's beliefs for centuries have been able to pat themselves on the back whenever they get caught... a-la Jimmy Lee Swaggart and Jim Bakker... and receive a magical "get out of jail free" card.

They don't have to feel guilt... because the rules of righteousness and fairness somehow do not apply to them. We, however, the masses... have to feel guilt because we have this thing called a conscience. Even though we may be forgiven, we are gullible... and the powers that be know this pretty damn well.

In the interest of keeping the playing field uneven, the "orthodox" Christian institutions have deliberately confused their followers into believing that the idea of karma has the potential to be abused... as if you karma means buying your way into heaven.

First, karma doesn't have anything to do with material wealth. The notion in the west is that "works" can include, for example, a rich guy who contributes a few hundred thousand of his bazillions to charity. This is a completely false perception of what it means to follow karma, the path of action.

Second, karma doesn't get you to heaven. There is no concept of heaven in modern hinduism. This is also a matter of divisiveness on the part of the Christian Church... dangling the grand "reward" of the "kingdom" of heaven before its followers... If one is so righteous, what does one NEED a kingdom for? Isn't it a bit selfish to do everything in this life only because of a) The possiblity of the grandest reward ever, and b) fear of the alternative? I think these ideas were introduced later by dogmatic theocratic rulers who abused Christ's teachings... and unfortunately these carrots the institutions dangle for the masses to foolishly chase have been there ever since.

I will, however, note there are many Christians today who do believe that good things should be done for the sake of doing good... and no reward is necessary to motivate them. I applaud them for their use of their own thinking, their own logic, when it comes to understanding the truth behind Christ's teachings.

The idea of being saved without having to work for your own redemption is twofold... it is the only thread upon which Jesus' martyrdom can be backwards-justified. In other words, its two purposes are to act as a self-justifying principle... it lends credibility to dogmatic minutiae designed to thrust enough guilt upon the masses to compel them to join the club (e.g. "Why would Jesus have died for our sins if we weren't sinners to begin with?"). Second, it Why must this one act be the one aspect upon which a Christian's faith hinges? Didn't Christ attempt to do anything else with his life, or did he just say "screw it" and irresponsibly off himself like Kurt Cobain. I'd like to think Christ was a

 

Snowdog isn't pulling any punches today!

I agree with the majority of your post, but here's one of the lines that really spoke to me:

"It would really threaten institutions of power if people realized they could think for themselves like Christ did."

And the one thing that everyone says separates us from the animals is our ability to observe ourselves and our thoughts. The one thing that truly makes us human, is owned by Satan, and it's so subtle that even if you think you're doing the right thing, you must be careful because Satan is trying to deceive you even then. If thinking for yourself, and being open to new ideas(this is how civilization started) is something you cherish, it's a no win situation, and it's a concept the church has had plenty of years of practice to scare the ....out of us.

"I will, however, note there are many Christians today who do believe that good things should be done for the sake of doing good... and no reward is necessary to motivate them. I applaud them for their use of their own thinking, their own logic, when it comes to understanding the truth behind Christ's teachings."

Absolutely.

 

Interesting discussion. Interesting discussion indeed, although I don't at present feel any inclination to add anything to it considering it's not "proper" religious debate, but rather nitpicking of a single religious text (and I don't have much interest in going over the NT point-by-point).

HOWEVER I would like to ask two people two questions (or should I say ask two people one question each):

cydonia, what religion do you consider yourself to be? Are you a liberal Christian, a general believer in a theistic god, or a general believer in a deistic god? (Not to criticise, but your devils-advocate comments don't help things much )

Darth_SnowDog, am I correct in thinking that you are an atheist, but with some respect for Jesus' moral code? If I'm wrong, what do you consider yourself to be?

Answers would be much appreciated and would aid greatly in my understanding of not just this thread, but many religious threads, since cydonia and SnowDog are avid participants in many topics of that nature.

 

Because of free will, because of actions not being what gets you into heaven, because of unconditional forgiveness without karma (work)... the dirty men who abused Christ's beliefs for centuries have been able to pat themselves on the back whenever they get caught... a-la Jimmy Lee Swaggart and Jim Bakker... and receive a magical "get out of jail free" card.

Sure... I agree, there were definitely people who abused the idea. But that doesn't make it any less the truth.


They don't have to feel guilt... because the rules of righteousness and fairness somehow do not apply to them.

You're grossly generalizing here. Again, there are people that will abuse the principles. That doesn't make the principles any less valid. Romans 6:11-12 sums up the idea of what sin is to a Christian pretty nicely: "In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires."

The fact that we have received grace isn't an excuse to keep on sinning. Instead, we are encouraged to acknowledge our forgiveness, and then try to follow Christ's example.


Why must this one act be the one aspect upon which a Christian's faith hinges?

I assume you're talking about salvation by faith. Largely, this is because it is acknowledgement that no matter how hard we try to be perfect and do good things, we'd never really meet up to God's standards. Therefore, we rely on His grace and mercy to save us from eternal separation from Him. The fact that He has bestowed grace and mercy on us is in no way saying, "Look, I forgave you, you can go out and sin without punishment now." Regardless of whether or not you are saved, you will still be accountable to God for what you did while on earth.



Ultimately, if they realize that, they'll ask themselves why they need to keep coughing up dough to the church for Instant Salvation-in-a-Box when what they really should be doing is living their lives, doing right by their actions, and not by their meaningless words.

The principle of paying the church to receive salvation describes the Roman Catholic Church's selling of indulgences during the 1500's. It wasn't right then, and it's not widely practiced now.


The basic Biblical principle concerning the relationship between faith and works is found in James 2:14-26.

(NIV)
What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such a faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder.

You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is ueless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in different directions? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

 

Darkside Spirit, i don't have a religion i belong to. I'm more interested in the good points of all the religions. I believe there is a god, but that word could mean anything. I used to believe in the sin and punishment model of the biblical god, but it just doesn't match my own sense of what's right and wrong. I'm an idea guy.

 

You are correct in part but there is more, though it is true that all of humanity will be resurected from the dead, there are many who will not necessarily go to "heavan".

(this is speaking in my point of view)

 

Darkside_Spirit: By ethnicity, I consider myself a Hindu. Hinduism is as much a culture and philosophy as it is a religion. By faith, I consider myself an agnostic.

I believe in the core philosophy of all religions... that there is an ultimate truth that links all things together... What that ultimate truth is, or how it is defined... I do not believe any one person or religion has the complete answer. I also don't believe the answer is anywhere near as important as the question.

In almost every major religion, God seems to be defined indirectly as existence itself. The Hebrew name for god, YHWH... "I am", is identical to a passage in the Upanishads of Hindu scripture that describes god in Sanskrit, in the third person, "TAT TVAM ASI", or, "That thou art!" These passages seem to do two things... define god as being the very state of being, of existence; and they are used in contexts of reassurance to us that no matter what happens in your life, there is a truth that binds it all together.

I believe that there are many facets to truth, and life's purpose is to take the journey of discovery... living life and uncovering these truths one by one. I also believe that all paths ultimately lead to the same truth... even if one takes a path of destruction, there is truth in that path... because it exemplifies what that person was driven to do, meant to do. Sure, they could have done perceivably "better" things with their life, from a purely egocentric standpoint, but who's to say their destructiveness didn't serve a purpose in the grand balancing act of the universe? It certainly isn't for me to say... all I can do is focus on what my part is.

Life is a condition of metastability, not absolutes... to actively spend one's life actively seeking absolute truth is to fail to understand life's purpose. Do your part, and the truth will work itself out and reveal itself to you in the end.

 

Where has Binary_Sunset gone? ?

 

I'm still here, and I've read everybody's posts. I haven't had the time the last couple of days to post good posts. I'll do so soon, though.

 

Hi, Binary. I'll take the "The Bible says there is no Hell" challenge. (You'll pardon me if I don't go back through several hundred posts to see if my points have already been covered). First, I'll start with Jude 1:7. Notice the use of the word "eternal" in reference to fire. OK, I can think of other instances, but not the exact verses, so let me do some digging and I'll be back.

 

Okay well if you want some direct quotes about hell. Check these out...

Matthew 5:21-23 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, `Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, `You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:28-30 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Matthew 10:27-29 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 16:17-19 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 23:14-16 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

Matthew 23:32-34 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Okay so if you believe that Jesus is the son of God, and that he would not lie or make up eternal places that don't exist, then this should be some good proof of Hell.

By the way that is the references only from Matthew. There are more.

 

Thanks, Jedilane. Oddly enough, you didn't cover the ones I was thinking of. They must not be in Matthew.