Thread: Through a lot of thinking...

I've realized that is it right God to put people in hell because they weren't saved? (according to baptists, penacostol, or the other's that think a person MUST be saved to go to heaven)

well what about those who are Buddhist, or something different? they don't believe in salvation. They've grown up with there religion and wont change their views just because some Christian says "you'll go to Hell".

If I grew up Muslim and some Christian was like,"become christian, get saved, or you'l go to hell" i would laugh in their face because i think MY religion is correct, I'm not going to change it.

So my point is. why punish those who aren't christian? I mean if someone HAD to be saved to go to heaven, like 95% of the world would go to hell. does that seem fair?

(sorry if this is confusing, it's hard for me to write this ad make sense of it)

Originally Posted by CHiKA

So my point is. why punish those who aren't christian? I mean if someone HAD to be saved to go to heaven, like 95% of the world would go to hell. does that seem fair?

(sorry if this is confusing, it's hard for me to write this ad make sense of it)

Why punish those who refuse to kiss your royal ring?

Originally Posted by CHiKA

I've realized that is it right God to put people in hell because they weren't saved? (according to baptists, penacostol, or the other's that think a person MUST be saved to go to heaven)

well what about those who are Buddhist, or something different? they don't believe in salvation. They've grown up with there religion and wont change their views just because some Christian says "you'll go to Hell".

If I grew up Muslim and some Christian was like,"become christian, get saved, or you'l go to hell" i would laugh in their face because i think MY religion is correct, I'm not going to change it.

So my point is. why punish those who aren't christian? I mean if someone HAD to be saved to go to heaven, like 95% of the world would go to hell. does that seem fair?

(sorry if this is confusing, it's hard for me to write this ad make sense of it)

Or, to put it another way, either:

1) You can get to heaven without becoming a Christian, in which case evangelism is unnecessary

or

2) You have to be a Christian to get to heaven, in which case everyone who died without having heard of Christianity, or who never meant a convincing evangelist, is condemned to hell through no fault of their own, and God's an arbitrary twat undeserving of worship.

Originally Posted by CHiKA

I've realized that is it right God to put people in hell because they weren't saved? (according to baptists, penacostol, or the other's that think a person MUST be saved to go to heaven)

Being saved is going to heaven and being lost is not. It's a tautology. So yes one needs to be saved.

well what about those who are Buddhist, or something different? they don't believe in salvation. They've grown up with there religion and wont change their views just because some Christian says "you'll go to Hell".

They don't need to know the words to be saved. They just need to recognize God and trust Him. Everyone lost person on the planet has the ability to do that.

Nevertheless, some Buddhist, etc. do get saved through the route of becoming Christians and as a result of some Christian asking them to follow Christ.

If I grew up Muslim and some Christian was like,"become christian, get saved, or you'l go to hell" i would laugh in their face because i think MY religion is correct, I'm not going to change it.

Then perhaps more dialogue is needed.

So my point is. why punish those who aren't christian? I mean if someone HAD to be saved to go to heaven, like 95% of the world would go to hell. does that seem fair?

People are not punished for not being Christian they experience consequences for the wrong they have done in life. But they do have a million second chances to see their own wrong and to change - to love God and to respond to that love.

When one does something wrong they are put in the position of being out of communion with God, or separated from God. This is the definition of Hell. Hell is just a description of the person's position of separation. It is not an actual place since the spiritual world is without length, width, or height.

That would make sense if that were it Lakemeister... but it aint. For evangelicals you've got to accept Christ - not God. ANd unless you've got Christ you aren't getting into heaven.

Which is pretty injust considering there was a good thousand or so years when it would have been geographically impossible for the Americas or Asians to hear about a guy in Jerusalem.

It doesn't add up. Why would God send his one and only path to him to a tiny fraction of his people and then punish everyone who was just too unlucky to be born in any area except the right one.

The only answer is the real answer that these people believe but would never admit. That God chose white Europeans only and doesn't give a rat shit about anyone else.

[quote=Dr.Knuckles;543226]

That would make sense if that were it Lakemeister... but it aint. For evangelicals you've got to accept Christ - not God. ANd unless you've got Christ you aren't getting into heaven.

I think my church is evangelical. I never checked.

No doubt I disagree with a lot of evagelicals. I have examined this particular question and am pretty sure that it is they (the ones who think that Christ alone means the actual title) who are wrong according to what the bible says.

Which is pretty injust considering there was a good thousand or so years when it would have been geographically impossible for the Americas or Asians to hear about a guy in Jerusalem.

I suppose the same could be said for Abraham who lived before Jesus' time. But his faith was credited to him as righteousness. What did he have faith in? He had faith in the Father providing his salvation. The title of Father or Christ or the name Jesus are incidental. The person of God is not. And God makes himself known to all.

It doesn't add up. Why would God send his one and only path to him to a tiny fraction of his people and then punish everyone who was just too unlucky to be born in any area except the right one.

He wouldn't or in any case He didn't.

The only answer is the real answer that these people believe but would never admit. That God chose white Europeans only and doesn't give a rat shit about anyone else.

Let's ask some of them. All you who think that faith in Christ alone saves: what do you mean?

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

That would make sense if that were it Lakemeister... but it aint. For evangelicals you've got to accept Christ - not God. ANd unless you've got Christ you aren't getting into heaven.

Which is pretty injust considering there was a good thousand or so years when it would have been geographically impossible for the Americas or Asians to hear about a guy in Jerusalem.

It doesn't add up. Why would God send his one and only path to him to a tiny fraction of his people and then punish everyone who was just too unlucky to be born in any area except the right one.

The only answer is the real answer that these people believe but would never admit. That God chose white Europeans only and doesn't give a rat shit about anyone else.

I'll take it a step further - why would God chose to have someone born in the americas or china during that time? Then burn them in hell for being born there?

But Knuck - Christ came to the mideast - crossroads f the world, not to white europe. Though I do have to say that all the blondes jesus pics are kind of a giggle - you know what race the Holy Ghost is if that guy was blonde!

[quote=lakeman;543299]

Originally Posted by Dr.Knuckles

I think my church is evangelical. I never checked.

No doubt I disagree with a lot of evagelicals. I have examined this particular question and am pretty sure that it is they (the ones who think that Christ alone means the actual title) who are wrong according to what the bible says.

I suppose the same could be said for Abraham who lived before Jesus' time. But his faith was credited to him as righteousness. What did he have faith in? He had faith in the Father providing his salvation. The title of Father or Christ or the name Jesus are incidental. The person of God is not. And God makes himself known to all.


He wouldn't or in any case He didn't.


Let's ask some of them. All you who think that faith in Christ alone saves: what do you mean?

Lake - only Christians (and Muslims) would believe in salvation because those are the only two religions that believe in personal salvation. There is no salvation and no original sin in Judaism - if anything kabbalah would support reincarnation. Buddhists and Hindus also believe in reincarnation. That alone creates a bias.

My question would be - salvation from what?

Originally Posted by CHiKA

I've realized that is it right God to put people in hell because they weren't saved? (according to baptists, penacostol, or the other's that think a person MUST be saved to go to heaven)

well what about those who are Buddhist, or something different? they don't believe in salvation. They've grown up with there religion and wont change their views just because some Christian says "you'll go to Hell".

If I grew up Muslim and some Christian was like,"become christian, get saved, or you'l go to hell" i would laugh in their face because i think MY religion is correct, I'm not going to change it.

So my point is. why punish those who aren't christian? I mean if someone HAD to be saved to go to heaven, like 95% of the world would go to hell. does that seem fair?

(sorry if this is confusing, it's hard for me to write this ad make sense of it)

I agree, Chika - good point!

the punishment that a none believer is supposed to receive is meant to scare them into it and scare those who are part of the religion to follow

its kinda of like being told what to do by someone with a gun