Are you saved?

[Levite]

First, why are you shouting?

Let me say that I am not attempting to disparage your beliefs. When I was a Baptist, and later a Catholic, I could quote scripture almost as well as anyone, and as a young adult I taught Bible study lessons to other young adults. However, as I began to delve more deeply into where scripture came from, and how it came to be assembled into othodoxy, it slowly became apparent that scripture is, for the most part, unreliable at best.

I am not saying we need to throw the baby Jesus out with the baptismal water. Scripture has much to teach us in terms of morals, and in terms of teaching us to show compassion for fellow human beings. But using scripture to condemn others, or to to inspire in others the fear of hell and damnation, is little more than "carrot and stick" salvation. If I only love God and show compassion for others out of fear of God's retribution, am I really any better off, other than betting on being a "good Christian" so I will achieve my reward in heaven?

It's all well and good to study scripture, and I do, but not just scripture from Christianity, but also from Buddhism and Hinduism. God is not a Christian, nor a Muslim, nor a Jew, nor a Hindu. God is the God of all - regardless of how we worship him.

QFT. In Judaism also, the Rabbis warn us not to serve God out of fear of His wrath, but out of love for Him and His many gifts and kindnesses to us. And while we certainly encourage the study of Torah and the embracing of appropriate theologies, even more we prioritize doing the things that we believe God wishes from all people, regardless of theology or scriptural understanding:

לכו בנים שמעו לי יראת ה' אלמדכם. מי האיש החפץ חיים אהב ימים לראות טוב. נצר לשונך מרע ושפתיך מדבר מרמה. סור מרע ועשה טוב בקש שלום ורדפהו
"Come lads, listen to me, and I shall teach you of holding YHVH in awe: what man among you desires life, loves his days, and would see good things? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from speaking hatefulness; turn away from doing evil and do good: seek peace and pursue that." (Ps. 34:12-15)

And, BTW:

Yes, I'm having difficulty controlling the volume of my voice!

 

[Reverend Richard]

QFT. ...............we prioritize doing the things that we believe God wishes from all people, regardless of theology or scriptural understanding:

לכו בנים שמעו לי יראת ה' אלמדכם. מי האיש החפץ חיים אהב ימים לראות טוב. נצר לשונך מרע ושפתיך מדבר מרמה. סור מרע ועשה טוב בקש שלום ורדפהו
"Come lads, listen to me, and I shall teach you of holding YHVH in awe: what man among you desires life, loves his days, and would see good things? Guard your tongue from evil, your lips from speaking hatefulness; turn away from doing evil and do good: seek peace and pursue that." (Ps. 34:12-15)

And, BTW:

Originally Posted by Austin Powers:
Yes, I'm having difficulty controlling the volume of my voice!

I wish more "religions" did the same.

 

[Astravalon]

Well to that individual who believes in the assurance of his salvation, yet continues to sin excessively, should that not still then remain a good enough reason to keep the threat of future repercussions as part of the teaching? Or do you think God will not care about his sins, since he believed and accepted Christ as savior?

I think God cares enough about human behavior that He made sure certain activities come with their own consequences built right in.

Therefore, the teaching of infinite post-mortem punishment for finite wrongdoing really isn't necessary, nor do I believe (any more) that it's even true. As far as which soteriological belief system produces better behavior in its adherents goes, it seems there are rambunctious personality-types across the spectrum, which is why I think it has more to do with individual responses to those teachings and less to do with the teachings themselves.


-

 

[thau]

I think God cares enough about human behavior that He made sure certain activities come with their own consequences built right in.

Therefore, the teaching of infinite post-mortem punishment for finite wrongdoing really isn't necessary, nor do I believe (any more) that it's even true. As far as which soteriological belief system produces better behavior in its adherents goes, it seems there are rambunctious personality-types across the spectrum, which is why I think it has more to do with individual responses to those teachings and less to do with the teachings themselves.


-

Ok, I respect your sincere opinion. As comforting as that may sound, I beg to differ.

The response to any teaching (be it right or wrong) does count for something to be sure, but the teachings themselves must surely be even more critical, else why would God have sent His only Son to be tortured and crucified on a cross?

No, everything changed for man once Christ appeared on the scene. “No man comes to Father except through me” says Jesus. That does not mean you have to be a Christian or consciously accept Christ as your Savior to attain heaven, but it means that Jesus judges every person who ever lived.

It is not surprising that man cannot, even will not, accept the concept of an eternal hell for certain sinners, but should that prevent adherence to that which we do know? Does anyone have the right to say “God it seems pretty apparent you are real and the creator of all life and the ultimate one in charge of the future as well. But because you cannot reconcile into my mind how there can be an eternal hell for some of the less fortunate humans --- until you answer that satisfactorily for me I have no interest in paying attention to anything else you might be saying.” This is a pride statement to me and I will stay far clear of such a position.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Ok, I respect your sincere opinion. As comforting as that may sound, I beg to differ.

The response to any teaching (be it right or wrong) does count for something to be sure, but the teachings themselves must surely be even more critical, else why would God have sent His only Son to be tortured and crucified on a cross?

No, everything changed for man once Christ appeared on the scene. “No man comes to Father except through me” says Jesus. That does not mean you have to be a Christian or consciously accept Christ as your Savior to attain heaven, but it means that Jesus judges every person who ever lived.

It is not surprising that man cannot, even will not, accept the concept of an eternal hell for certain sinners, but should that prevent adherence to that which we do know? Does anyone have the right to say “God it seems pretty apparent you are real and the creator of all life and the ultimate one in charge of the future as well. But because you cannot reconcile into my mind how there can be an eternal hell for some of the less fortunate humans --- until you answer that satisfactorily for me I have no interest in paying attention to anything else you might be saying.” This is a pride statement to me and I will stay far clear of such a position.

Unfortunately, if your whole argument rests with believing in scripture that is unproveable and unverifiable in terms of being both accurate and true, then you have already capitulated.

You are the only one who has used the "pride" statement highlighted above, so it is disingenuous to state it, and then walk away from it. I ask you with all respect, is it your pride that compels your to argue in favor of scripture as inerrent? Is it fear?

As human beings, God gave us the most valuable gifts in all of the animal kingdom, and those are the gifts of intellect and curiosity (and I would argue perhaps opposable thumbs ). But when man begins to question what has been handed down to us from other fallible humans, including scripture, I hardly see it as pride to question our forefathers' motives and accuracy.

The apostles were fallible, they had agendas, they had pride, they had weaknesses. Jesus himself even highlights those weaknesses when he told Peter he would deny him three times before the rooster crows (Matt. 26:34, and stated again in the books of Mark in Luke). So, it is difficult to imagine that none of those weaknesses crept into the scripture they wrote - even when it is declared as "divinely inspired."

Was scripture divinely inspired? Indeed it was! Is it without error? Not so much...

 

[kjw47]

if you could answer the question...
wouldn't observing how man kind has dealt with one another be a better way of learning how to get along and ultimately save us from ourselves?

Man( 99%) has learned nothing but how to be puppets of the ruler of this world( satan) They put their reliance on the god of fortresses( war supplies) the #1 seller on the earth. Its their desperate treacherous hearts that lead them. They have proved they will pollute the water,land,air for the allmighty $$$ -- they sell the human race cancer 7 days a week for the allmighty $$$-- They do not know God, same as in Noahs day. They stand outside of the ark jeering and laughing. The door is about to be shut.

 

[1robin]

Unfortunately, if your whole argument rests with believing in scripture that is unproveable and unverifiable in terms of being both accurate and true, then you have already capitulated.

You are the only one who has used the "pride" statement highlighted above, so it is disingenuous to state it, and then walk away from it. I ask you with all respect, is it your pride that compels your to argue in favor of scripture as inerrent? Is it fear?

As human beings, God gave us the most valuable gifts in all of the animal kingdom, and those are the gifts of intellect and curiosity (and I would argue perhaps opposable thumbs ). But when man begins to question what has been handed down to us from other fallible humans, including scripture, I hardly see it as pride to question our forefathers' motives and accuracy.

The apostles were fallible, they had agendas, they had pride, they had weaknesses. Jesus himself even highlights those weaknesses when he told Peter he would deny him three times before the rooster crows (Matt. 26:34, and stated again in the books of Mark in Luke). So, it is difficult to imagine that none of those weaknesses crept into the scripture they wrote - even when it is declared as "divinely inspired."

Was scripture divinely inspired? Indeed it was! Is it without error? Not so much...

I agree that scripture has not been passed down perfectly. It was not guaranteed that it would be. The original revelations were assured as accurate and true. This is stated in the Chicago statement of faith. My issue is to what extent you allow for corruption. In my studies I have concluded as have scholars such as Dr James White that as Bart Ehrman says there are approx 400,000 errors in the total textual tradition of the bible. Most people mistakenly assume that means every bible contains 400,000 errors. The numbers work out to less than approx 100,000 errors in a respected and accepted major version of the bible. Since even Ehrman admits that 95% of these are meaningless and trivial and none effect doctrine then that only leaves somewhere around 5000 meaningful errors in a single bible version. Since a bible has somewhere around 800,000 words then this is only a .00625 error percentage. Since computers exist they know where the errors are, most are indicated in moderbn bibles, and since scholars believe all the original revelation exists in the textual tradition then I find this virtually supernaturally accurate. The bible has a vastly more reliable textual tradition than any other work of ancient history and many of modern history.

My question is do you find the bible roughly as accurate or do assert a significantly different degree of accuracy concerning the bible?

Shalom,

 

[Shermana]

95% of these are meaningless and trivial and none effect doctrine then that only leaves somewhere around 5000 meaningful errors in a single bible version. Since a bible has somewhere around 800,000 words then this is only a .00625 error percentage.

Whether it's a .6% significant error ratio or not, those 5,000 "meaningful" errors are in fact very meaningful, some of those errors and interpolations are foundations of entire doctrines. While 99.4% of the errors may be unimportant, the .6% that aren't are very important, so important that entire versions and sects arise out of different interpretations of those passages in question. Several key disputed passages that may represent a tiny fraction of the overall text are among the most decisive in terms of how to interpret much of the rest of the writ. The context can be entirely changed based on whether a passage is interpolated or incorrectly copied. In fact, some of these little errors that many take for granted are dead give aways that much of the NT may not have originally been written in Greek, fuelling the argument of Aramaic Primacists.

 

[waitasec]

opcorn:

 

[Astravalon]

The response to any teaching (be it right or wrong) does count for something to be sure, but the teachings themselves must surely be even more critical, else why would God have sent His only Son to be tortured and crucified on a cross?

Well, that’s just it -- Jesus is said to have gone through quite a bit for the salvation of mankind, so to add to that teaching something which suggests that His efforts will ultimately fall short of their goal just seems to downplay that.

It is not surprising that man cannot, even will not, accept the concept of an eternal hell for certain sinners, but should that prevent adherence to that which we do know?

Part of the problem with that concept is that it's something that a lesser god might need in order to fix the problem, but not one that an omniscient and omnipotent one would. His ways are higher -- not lower -- than ours. The concept of eternal torment for those we think deserve it is a very natural one for humans to conjure up. However, once God's infinite power and knowledge enter into the equation, suddenly the notion of endless torment seems unworthy of Him, not to mention just plain unnecessary. It may serve as a quick, handy solution for a lesser deity who realized he bit off more than he could chew, but not for the God I'm familiar with.

Does anyone have the right to say “God it seems pretty apparent you are real and the creator of all life and the ultimate one in charge of the future as well. But because you cannot reconcile into my mind how there can be an eternal hell for some of the less fortunate humans --- until you answer that satisfactorily for me I have no interest in paying attention to anything else you might be saying.”

Just as much right as anyone would have to say, "... because You cannot reconcile into my mind how there can be salvation for all mankind -- until You answer that satisfactorily for me I haven no interest in paying attention to anything else You might be saying."

But of course we don't automatically assume that someone of a differing belief has no interest in anything else God might be saying. That would be a bit hasty, no?

By the way, as a Roman Catholic you might be interested in some things Pope John Paul II said about universal salvation (if you're not already familiar with them): Pope John Paul II and Universal Salvation



-

 

[1robin]

Whether it's a .6% significant error ratio or not, those 5,000 "meaningful" errors are in fact very meaningful, some of those errors and interpolations are foundations of entire doctrines. While 99.4% of the errors may be unimportant, the .6% that aren't are very important, so important that entire versions and sects arise out of different interpretations of those passages in question. Several key disputed passages that may represent a tiny fraction of the overall text are among the most decisive in terms of how to interpret much of the rest of the writ. The context can be entirely changed based on whether a passage is interpolated or incorrectly copied. In fact, some of these little errors that many take for granted are dead give aways that much of the NT may not have originally been written in Greek, fuelling the argument of Aramaic Primacists.

I didn't say they were not meaningful. In fact I said they were specifically meaningful. I was not looking to debate this issue at this time. I wanted the Reverends opinion. I am not complaining about your post I am just short on time.

 

[1robin]

opcorn:

Have you just abandoned words alltogether? Does your entire position consist of emoticons at this time?

 

[thau]

Unfortunately, if your whole argument rests with believing in scripture that is unproveable and unverifiable in terms of being both accurate and true, then you have already capitulated.

You are the only one who has used the "pride" statement highlighted above, so it is disingenuous to state it, and then walk away from it. I ask you with all respect, is it your pride that compels your to argue in favor of scripture as inerrent? Is it fear?

As human beings, God gave us the most valuable gifts in all of the animal kingdom, and those are the gifts of intellect and curiosity (and I would argue perhaps opposable thumbs ). But when man begins to question what has been handed down to us from other fallible humans, including scripture, I hardly see it as pride to question our forefathers' motives and accuracy.

The apostles were fallible, they had agendas, they had pride, they had weaknesses. Jesus himself even highlights those weaknesses when he told Peter he would deny him three times before the rooster crows (Matt. 26:34, and stated again in the books of Mark in Luke). So, it is difficult to imagine that none of those weaknesses crept into the scripture they wrote - even when it is declared as "divinely inspired."

Was scripture divinely inspired? Indeed it was! Is it without error? Not so much...

Fine, have it your way. Here is what I interpret from your words above: “We cannot know anything about God for certain, therefore we are not under any obligation to observe any morals or laws. The Bible may very well be inspired, but who is to say which parts and what did man do to alter it’s meaning?”

How appealing. One can live their life however they please and if there is a God and an eternal life after death, surely we are deserving as anyone else to be allowed in since God did nothing verifiable to tell us otherwise.

 

[Father Heathen]

Man( 99%) has learned nothing but how to be puppets of the ruler of this world( satan) They put their reliance on the god of fortresses( war supplies) the #1 seller on the earth. Its their desperate treacherous hearts that lead them. They have proved they will pollute the water,land,air for the allmighty $$$ -- they sell the human race cancer 7 days a week for the allmighty $$$-- They do not know God, same as in Noahs day. They stand outside of the ark jeering and laughing. The door is about to be shut.

Ironic, considering that anti-war, anti-smoking and pro-environmentalism stances are usually associated with the secular left.

 

[thau]

Well, that’s just it -- Jesus is said to have gone through quite a bit for the salvation of mankind, so to add to that teaching something which suggests that His efforts will ultimately fall short of their goal just seems to downplay that.

Well for starters, you have to accept this gift. So there is a requirement on our part, not just on what Jesus has done. It grows from there with obvious purpose. Our gratitude is a mockery if we do not live it.

Part of the problem with that concept is that it's something that a lesser god might need in order to fix the problem, but not one that an omniscient and omnipotent one would. His ways are higher -- not lower -- than ours. The concept of eternal torment for those we think deserve it is a very natural one for humans to conjure up. However, once God's infinite power and knowledge enter into the equation, suddenly the notion of endless torment seems unworthy of Him, not to mention just plain unnecessary. It may serve as a quick, handy solution for a lesser deity who realized he bit off more than he could chew, but not for the God I'm familiar with.

If endless torment seems unworthy of Him, then why would temporal earthly torment make any sense? Like you said, God’s ways are not our ways, but you assume one of His ways cannot be an eternal hell. You are judging by “our ways.” I prefer to accept His words in human terms and leave it at that. It seems the safest path. I am sure it will be made clear what is meant when we hopefully assume heavenly bodies and minds.

I might add, nowhere have I been taught that we are to judge eternal destinies of any man. In other words, we are never to say that “this person deserves to go to hell.” Forbidden. Consider the verse “to which you have measured others will be measured back to you.”

Just as much right as anyone would have to say, "... because You cannot reconcile into my mind how there can be salvation for all mankind -- until You answer that satisfactorily for me I haven no interest in paying attention to anything else You might be saying."

You are right. That position is equally faulty and pride forsaken.

But of course we don't automatically assume that someone of a differing belief has no interest in anything else God might be saying. That would be a bit hasty, no?

Yes, hasty. I did not mean to imply it that way. I was more in reference to those of really no strong belief in any deity; I do believe it is often maintained out of a motive of convenience. At least so many I have met in this Western culture. They might be interested in all things religious, but always at the ready to strike down the certitude of any of it as it applies to their requirements.

Finally, thank you very much for that link to John Paul II quotes or writings. I completely agree with the first one, so not sure why you and I are even arguing? As to all the others, I have not gotten to them yet. He’s hard to argue with, for me.

Ps – your blue picture is very cool.

 

[McBell]

Does one really believe that they are in a saved position because a mortal tells you so? Isnt God the one who writes the names in the book of life? Is mortal man elevating themselves into Gods position by telling another that they are saved?

Does one really think they are not Christians because a mortal tells them so? Isn't god the one who decides who is and who is not a Christian? Are mortal men elevating themselves into Gods position by telling others they are not Christians?

 

[Me Myself]

The concept of eternal torment for those we think deserve it is a very natural one for humans to conjure up.

Not even that natural. Most humans I know naturaly deem eternal hell to be demonic.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not even that natural. Most humans I know naturaly deem eternal hell to be demonic.

I think that is a good point ^above^ about a certain amount of humans deem eternal hell to be demonic.

What loving father as punishment would place their child on a hot stove ?
Who that had a vicious dog as punishment would roast him slowly over a fire?

Under the Constitution of the Mosaic law the punishment should fit the crime.
For example: eve for eye; tooth for tooth.

What crime [sin] could a person commit that would equal burning forever ?

If biblical hell [gravedom] was an eternal burning place what would be the point of Jesus having the keys to unlock the gates of hell [Rev. 1 v 18] ?

 

[McBell]

What crime [sin] could a person commit that would equal burning forever ?

that's easy.
Rejecting god.
Or Jesus.

Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit..

According to some people...

smoking
drinking
sex with someone you are not married to
masturbation
telling a lie at any point in your life
taking something that is not yours without the owners permission at any point in your life
asking your religious superior any question said superior is uncomfortable with
​

Interesting how some powers to be believe that it is perfectly fine to molest little children....

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How would rejecting God or Jesus equal burning forever ?

God forces No one to worship him so how could that equal burning forever.

No one has asked to be born. Life is a gift from our Heavenly Father.
However, Adam could live forever only if obedient.
Adam was taught disobedience meant death not eternal burning.
From dust back to dust. [equal]

Those committing the unforgivable sin [Matthew 12 v 32; Hebrews 6 vs 4-6; 10 v 26]
will be destroyed forever, Not burnt forever. -Psalm 92 v 7; Proverbs 2 vs 21,22; 10 v 30
Destroyed as Acts [3 v 23] and Ezekiel [22 v 27 B] mentions.