Non-believer go to hell, who's fault?

[Politesse]

Or because our beliefs are fuel for his actions.

That would also come down to who he desires to save, unless you mean fuel as in literal energy production.

 

[JoStories]

I think it goes without saying that humans are evil. This is nothing new. The rapes, murders, adultery, lies, greed, envy etc. that proliferates in the world are ample evidence of this. So in any organisation, no matter how good the intentions behind its formation, so long as there are human beings there will be these evils.
So it is irrelevant how many people who claimed to be Christian in word were actually not in deed. What matters, ultimately, is the message that people receive.

Suppose, for example, the person who introduced you to Buddhism had kidnapped you and forcefully taught you all its precepts. And suppose he released you afterwards. Would you have refused to follow the Buddhist teachings simply because you didn't receive it in the ideal way?
I'm not trying to justify the evils committed by Christian missionaries I am merely trying to show you that truth is truth no matter how evil the conveyor of it may be.

I cannot, in truth, answer you about the forcefully introduced to Buddhism. I simply don't know. That said, however, when you say truth is truth, when it comes to faith, truth varies from person to person. Whether the conveyor is evil or not has no bearing on that. So for someone who lives in the remote parts of Zimbabwe, your version of truth might not be theirs.

 

[Willamena]

That would also come down to who he desires to save, unless you mean fuel as in literal energy production.

Only if you mean he desires to save only some.

 

[JoStories]

Your position on this makes very little sense to me. Were you born Buddhist? Didn't you learn about Buddhism because of people who were willing to share their beliefs? Even if you researched it yourself by going to the net, the information you found was written by people who, unlike you, believed the good they had found in their beliefs would be good for others too. The desire to share is one of the most basic and beautiful of human attributes.

And anyone who is offended by someone who is simply sharing something they believe can help others has maturity issues honestly.

As for a discussion about trying to to convert to Buddhism, I would personally welcome a discussion on it. One of the tenets of my faith is that the Spirit of God has gone forth throughout the Earth and has spread as much knowledge and truth as people were able to receive. So I very much believe I would learn many valuable things from Buddhism. Whether I would eventually convert would obviously depend on how I feel about what I learn.

brah
Your attitude about learning about Buddhism is just like mine about all faiths and why I ended up with a PhD in theology! As for how I became Buddhist, it was a journey, I did learn from my studies but also from spiritual experiences that differed so strongly from monotheistic faiths and Abrahamic in particular that I could not stay with those. Buddhism made the most sense to me, including a belief in God. Many Buddhists don't believe in God but IMO, what I am striving toward; Enlightenment. can only include a belief in God.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I have this thing of advising the people I care for; people like you. Believe me, how you treat people helps in conveying your message better.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude. I have this thing of advising the people I care for; people like you. Believe me, how you treat people helps in conveying your message better.

Um, thanks. But this is rather unnecessary. I'm not a child and don't need to be condescended to. Can we stop this now? It's derailing the thread.

 

[Thanda]

I cannot, in truth, answer you about the forcefully introduced to Buddhism. I simply don't know. That said, however, when you say truth is truth, when it comes to faith, truth varies from person to person. Whether the conveyor is evil or not has no bearing on that. So for someone who lives in the remote parts of Zimbabwe, your version of truth might not be theirs.

What exactly do you mean by "version of truth"? What do you understand the truth to be if you believe there are versions of it?

 

[Smart_Guy]

Um, thanks. But this is rather unnecessary. I'm not a child and don't need to be condescended to. Can we stop this now? It's derailing the thread.

Understood. Sorry again.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I agree. If you are going to ask someone not to misrepresent a religion, then you are responsible to provide an explanation as to why it was, in fact, a misrepresentation or you aren't doing anyone any good.

For starters, the Aztecs had a completely different cosmology. There is no such thing as "original sin" or whatever in Aztec cosmology. Sure, they had the concept of what we'd call "sin" (offenses in the eyes of the Gods), but the main focus was their extreme sense of gratitude and indebtedness to the Gods.

"To the Aztecs, death was instrumental in the perpetuation of creation, and gods and humans alike had the responsibility of sacrificing themselves in order to allow life to continue. This worldview is best described in the myth of the five suns recorded in the Codex Chimalpopoca, which recounts how Quetzalcoatl stole the bones of the previous generation in the underworld, and how later the gods created four successive worlds or "suns" for their subjects to live in, all of which were destroyed. Then by an act of self-sacrifice one of the gods, Nanahuatzin ("the pimpled one") caused a fifth and final sun to rise where the first humans, made out of maize dough, could live thanks to his sacrifice. Humans were responsible for the sun's continued revival. Blood sacrifice in various forms were conducted. Both humans and animals were sacrificed, depending on the god to be placated and the ceremony being conducted, and priests of some gods were sometimes required to provide their own blood through self-mutilation.

Sacrificial rituals among the Aztecs and in Mesoamerica in general must be seen in the context of religious cosmology: sacrifice and death was necessary for the continued existence of the world. Likewise each part of life had one or more deities associated with it and these had to be paid their dues in order to achieve success. Gods were paid with sacrificial offerings of food, flowers, effigies, and quail. But the larger the effort required of the god, the greater the sacrifice had to be. Blood fed the gods and kept the sun from falling. For some of the most important rites, a priest would offer his own blood, by cutting his ears, arms, tongue, thighs, chest or genitals, or offer a human life, or even a god's life. The people who were sacrificed came from many segments of society, and might be a war captive, slave, or a member of Aztec society; the sacrifice might also be man or woman, adult or child, noble or commoner."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_religion#Sacrifice

"Sacrifice was a common theme in Mesoamerican cultures. In the Aztec "Legend of the Five Suns", all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live. Some years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a body of Franciscans confronted the remaining Aztec priesthood and demanded, under threat of death, that they desist from this traditional practice. The Aztec priests defended themselves as follows:

“ Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life.... They produce our sustenance... which nourishes life.[8] ”

What the Aztec priests were referring to was a central Mesoamerican belief: that a great, on-going sacrifice sustains the Universe. Everything is tonacayotl: the "spiritual flesh-hood" on earth. Everything —earth, crops, moon, stars and people— springs from the severed or buried bodies, fingers, blood or the heads of the sacrificed gods. Humanity itself is macehualli, "those deserved and brought back to life through penance".[9] A strong sense of indebtedness was connected with this worldview. Indeed, nextlahualli (debt-payment) was a commonly used metaphor for human sacrifice, and, as Bernardino de Sahagún reported, it was said that the victim was someone who "gave his service"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

I don't like it when people misrepresent little-understood cultures, as if they all believed the same thing. Plus, there was an element of shaming Aztec culture in his comment as if Aztecs were just stupid, primitive barbarians (implicit racism?) and so a Christian should be even more ashamed of having anything in common with them.

 

[Intojoy]

So Jesus can reverse this, but only for believers? Is this because he needs our belief to save us, or because he does not desire to save others?

This is a valid question. And it is one that the scriptures do not answer.

“The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is longsuffering to you-ward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”
‭‭2 Peter‬ ‭3:9‬ ‭ASV‬‬
http://bible.com/12/2pe.3.9.asv

I take the above literally. However, there is also a doctrine called election. And within that study I am left with the same question that you have asked.

Now I would not argue as many of my fellow believers do about this because I am a strict literalist and I let the bible say what it says and I don't try to say what it doesn't say. Because I know not all will be saved as your question points out, I can only provide you with my attitude towards the idea that God is unfair in who is and is not saved.

I have to (by default) say that this question is asked from the created being's viewpoint based upon human emotions and human understanding of right vs wrong. And that the proper attitude from the creation's standpoint is that salvation for God's elect is the evidence and the outworking of the grace and love of Jehovah.

In love, Joy

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

This question is a non sequitur. That someone who professes to follow a particular religion is a liar doesn't mean that religion is false.

True, but The Truth is also supposed to transform us into better people, so if it DOESN'T ...

Truth is truth even if some people consider it nothing but "a set of dogmas".

If a dogma says that cats and dogs will never play together, and I can come up with THOUSANDS of videos saying they CAN, then ...

There are people in this world who are without patience. They cannot wait for a good thing. Some when presented with a choice of receiving temporary but immediate satisfaction or long-lasting but delayed satisfaction, they will choose the former. They value the happiness / or satisfaction they can receive now high above that which they will receive later, even when they know the happiness they receive now is likely to be followed by heartache later.

Another peculiarity about human beings is their ability to rationalise or justify themselves. So even when a person if faced with a choice they have been faced with before; and even if in that earlier scenario, upon choosing to do the wrong thing, they felt pain afterwards - human beings have the ability to convince themselves that this time it will be different. Kind of like a criminal who spends ten years in prison for robbery and does it again. Often they have convinced themselves they won't get caught again.

But if you are irrational and impulsive, you are mentally ill, not "evil". Yes, we may have to protect ourselves from such a person, but heaven won't view such acts the same way for rational but evil people.

 

[Thanda]

True, but The Truth is also supposed to transform us into better people, so if it DOESN'T ...

The truth is supposed to transform us if we live by it. But if we DON'T...

If a dogma says that cats and dogs will never play together, and I can come up with THOUSANDS of videos saying they CAN, then ...

I don't understand how this is relevant though?

But if you are irrational and impulsive, you are mentally ill, not "evil". Yes, we may have to protect ourselves from such a person, but heaven won't view such acts the same way for rational but evil people.

Please cite me the study that proves that being irrational is the domain of the mentally ill alone?

 

[Thanda]

So Jesus can reverse this, but only for believers? Is this because he needs our belief to save us, or because he does not desire to save others?

Because he needs our belief to save us. No one can be dragged into heaven unwillingly.

 

[serp777]

Not quite. Don't misrepresent the beliefs of other cultures to make your anti-Christian point.

The aztecs thought a human sacrifice would appease the Gods and cause the sun to rise whereas in Christianity the sacrifice of someone who was allegedly the son of God was enough to appease God for the sins of humanity. The parallels are quite obvious because they're both about appeasing deities through human sacrifice. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The logic of the Aztecs is just like the logic of the Christians. They aren't identical and I never said they were.

Also before you point it out there's a typo in my post, it should say sun God, not son God.

 

[serp777]

Huh? I did "advise" him. I told him not to misrepresent the beliefs of other cultures.

Well your advice was worthless and misplaced since i never misrepresented the beliefs of other cultures. I simply brought up the fact that both religions defend human sacrifice and use a similar kind of logic to justify the morality behind it.

 

[serp777]

Or because our beliefs are fuel for his actions.

A deity needs fuel? That's laughable. So God/Jesus is comparable to a 5 mpg SUV. Also if no one believed then he would have no fuel? That sounds more like Hollywood movies surrounding the greek Gods where the Gods get their powers when people believe in them.

 

[Willamena]

A deity needs fuel? That's laughable.

No, of course not. Actions need fuel.

 

[serp777]

No, of course not. Actions need fuel.

Why would God's actions need fuel? He has unlimited power. If his actions need fuel then he doesn't have unlimited power since its limited by the amount of fuel he has.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The aztecs thought a human sacrifice would appease the Gods and cause the sun to rise whereas in Christianity the sacrifice of someone who was allegedly the son of God was enough to appease God for the sins of humanity. The parallels are quite obvious because they're both about appeasing deities through human sacrifice. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The logic of the Aztecs is just like the logic of the Christians. They aren't identical and I never said they were.

No, they're not "quite obvious". The thinking behind both was very different. To the Aztecs, sacrifice was a way of expressing gratitude to the Gods since They sacrificed Themselves to create and sustain the cosmos and to create humanity. It had nothing to do with sin offerings or making reparations, really. The Gods were also nourished and empowered by the blood of the sacrifice, especially that of the heart. It was reciprocity. (The thinking is much the same in my religion, except human sacrifice isn't called for.)

http://nyx.meccahosting.com/~a00001f1/cuezali/blood.html

Well your advice was worthless and misplaced since i never misrepresented the beliefs of other cultures. I simply brought up the fact that both religions defend human sacrifice and use a similar kind of logic to justify the morality behind it.

Explain how Aztec thinking about sacrifice is so similar to Semitic ideas of sacrifice, given the info I provided.

 

[Willamena]

Why would God's actions need fuel? He has unlimited power. If his actions need fuel then he doesn't have unlimited power since its limited by the amount of fuel he has.

Actions need fuel. If he "has" or "does" actions, fuel is implied.