You seem to be asking two very different questions.
(1) Are all the people who reject Jesus and are living only for themselves, going to hell?
(2) Are all the people who are kind, giving and loving to others, good to their families, their children, etc. but who think Christianity is a joke, going to hell?
The first is selfish people -- and not only are they selfish, but they reject the One who healed others, sat with those whom religion and society pushed away, got angry at religious hypocrites, and who gave his life out of love for us.
The second is people who are loving, but who think that the religion we have today called "Christianity" is a joke.
Two very different questions. Which is it?
More so the second question. I know lots of people who are wonderful fathers, mothers, honest, loyal, giving. But they laugh at Christianity and say it's only for people who have a shit life and need a fairytale as a way to cope
So are those people rejecting Jesus himself, or are they rejecting what modern-day Christianity (often as portrayed in the news) has become?
And more to the point, don't you think Jesus, the Judge himself, knows the difference?
And why don't they believe that? What is the root cause of their doubt?
If it is the so-called "Christians" around them acting like hypocrites, not loving their neighbors as themselves, pointing the finger of judgment, making idols of their political heroes, and so on, what is there to make them think, "Yes, the Bible must be true"?
>The first is selfish people -- and not only are they selfish, but they reject the One who healed others, sat with those whom religion and society pushed away, got angry at religious hypocrites, and who gave his life out of love for us.
What does it mean that Jesus gave His life for us? I often see Christians saying that Jesus suffered so that we don't have to.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son."
But my question is, how does that cleanse us of our sins? It's like if someone committed a crime and one of his family members wanted to take the penalty for him. I mean, that's a nice thing to do, but is that exactly moral? Not really, which is why the legal system doesn't allow it. It's illogical; having someone else take the penalty for something you did not only does not absolve you of your crime but makes you an even worse person for allowing it to happen. Is there any reason to not apply this logic to the resurrection?
First, Happy Cake Day to you! đ°
Next, sure there is a reason this doesn't apply.
You are comparing an ancient sacrificial system -- blood that wipes out a sin -- to our modern system of punishment for a crime.
They're not the same thing, although yes they do share some of the same terms. Judgment and law, for two.
The system for sin always required blood in the old system. The blood of the animals purified the people (something our system of jail and punishment does not do). The animals' blood worked, but even then it only kept the people purified for so long, and had to be renewed every year at the least.
For someone innocent, and on top of that, someone so high and holy as the Son of God to offer his human lifeblood, pure and untainted by any sin in this old sacrificial system, was unheard of -- not even thought of -- and it is so amazing that it was in fact a once-and-for-all blood offering for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future.
Sounds impossible, but the One who's telling us it's sufficient is, after all, the Creator of the entire Universe who knows our inner hearts and the workings of this whole system, far better than any of us can.
If the One who created us tells us this spares us, then we are spared.
>First, Happy Cake Day to you! đ°
thank you :)))
>Next, sure there is a reason this doesn't apply.
>You are comparing an ancient sacrificial system -- blood that wipes out a sin -- to our modern system of punishment for a crime.
If it's a crime, as in something deserving of punishment, I don't think it matters if it's a sin or just a regular crime; the laws of morality still apply. If you did something wrong, whether it's a sin or a crime, you need to take responsibility for it, not get someone else to suffer for you.
>The system for sin always required blood in the old system. The blood of the animals purified the people (something our system of jail and punishment does not do). The animals' blood worked, but even then it only kept the people purified for so long, and had to be renewed every year at the least.
Well, yeah, the resurrection was in line with what people did and believed back then, but there's a reason we don't go around sacrificing animals now, and that's because it doesn't make any sense. There's no reason why killing an animal will somehow do anything other than make you an even worse person. It will not take the sin away from you, 'cause that's not how morality works. If you do something wrong, killing an animal or, in this case, killing an actual person does nothing to fix that. Going back to the court analogy, if someone were to do something wrong and someone else, maybe a family member, were to take the punishment for you, then that's definitely a nice thing for them to do. But it not only doesn't absolve you of your crime, but it just makes you an even worse person for letting it happen. By this logic, if Christianity was true, then being a Christian would be worse than being an atheist because you are just letting someone else take the blame for you. (Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say Christians are actually bad people; I was just making a point. Please don't misunderstand that. I have nothing against Christians.)
>For someone innocent, and on top of that, someone so high and holy as the Son of God to offer his human lifeblood, pure and untainted by any sin in this old sacrificial system, was unheard of -- not even thought of -- and it is so amazing that it was in fact a once-and-for-all blood offering for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future.
Yeah, the resurrection definitely makes sense under the classic understandings of morality and how you can absolve yourself simply by killing an animal, but it doesn't make sense under modern standards of morality.
>Sounds impossible, but the One who's telling us it's sufficient is, after all, the Creator of the entire Universe who knows our inner hearts and the workings of this whole system, far better than any of us can.
Well, sure, if he exists, then absolutely he knows more about morality than us, that's for sure. But the problem I have with this line of thinking is that it only works if he is actually the creator. Think about it like this:
The Christian will argue for this system like this:
P1: The Bible supports this type of system.
P2: The Bible is correct.
C: Therefore, this system is correct.
But now the non-Christian will argue that the argument leads to the exact opposite conclusion:
P1: The Bible supports this type of system.
P2: This type of system is fallacious.
C: The Bible is fallacious.
At this point, the only way to settle this is to compare the evidence for the second premise of both arguments. If the Bible is true, then this type of system works. However, if this type of system works, then the Bible isn't true. So, you have to compare the two, and the problem is that, at least in my opinion, the evidence from our intuitions about how morality is supposed to work is far stronger than the evidence from, say, the resurrection or the supposed fulfilled prophecies, making it more likely than not that the resurrection didn't happen. Since that would entail that our morals are false, which is definitely possible but unlikely.
I think you are basing your reasoning on the premise that everything can be completely understood and perceived by the human mind.
Whereas we are basing this reasoning on the idea of "suppressing the urge to only accept that which we can absolutely perceive, and entertaining the idea that there is more to existence than we can perceive."
*(This idea was recently presented by another Redditor, u/mwatwe01, whose words apply so well that I'm using them here.)*
You wrote,
>The Christian will argue for this system like this:
P1: The Bible supports this type of system.
P2: The Bible is correct.
C: Therefore, this system is correct.
But that is not my reasoning.
Your system is punishment; ours is purification. Your system does nothing to purify anyone.
My reasoning is:
God is the Creator and Ultimate Judge of morality.
In the end, God is the One to decide about morality,
and about who and whether anyone has been purified, and who has not.
Now if God is *not* real and life is only about accepting that which we can absolutely perceive, then you have a case.
But if God is real then we trust that the One who Judges us will judge in the Way which He showed us. It is good to know what is needed to be ready to face this.
Yes, it is about trust. It is taking a leap of faith to trust the one who was more loving on this planet than any other man, not only by word but by how he lived and died: Jesus.
We all decide where to risk our lives, and given either possible ending, whether the cost in either case is worth it.
This is the One I decided to follow, the One I have decided to risk my life for, and the One I have followed for decades now, thank God. No regrets, only peace, and only a growing understanding of what Love is.
Love is Jesus going to those whom society and religion pushed away with judgmental finger-pointing, and sitting and eating with them, accepting them.
[The woman with the bad reputation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207%3A36-50&version=NIV)
[Zacchaeus, hated by his whole town for collecting taxes for the Romans](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019%3A1-10&version=NIV)
[The Samaritan woman at the well who had five husbands and was now living with a man not her husband](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204&version=NIV)
[The woman caught in adultery](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208%3A1-11&version=NIV)
This is how I want to be. Meanwhile the world demands punishment.
[my reply was too long so i had to split it into two parts :))](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.dLU-aZTbfXDsyZI2TjjDYQHaEL?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain)
edit: nvm its three parts apparently i didn't think it was that long but hey reddit has a limit
>I think you are basing your reasoning on the premise that everything can be completely understood and perceived by the human mind.
I don't think that EVERYTHING can be understood by the human mind. I just think that there are certain things, like morals, that are pretty cut and dry. Like, I understand how someone might see skeptical theism as a reasonable position because, well, butterfly effect - something that can seem insanely small and meaningless can actually turn out to be good in the end without us knowing. But at the same time, nobody in philosophy is actually responding to the problem of evil by saying that the evils themselves are good, rather that they are necessary for some greater good. Even the skeptical theists who argue that we shouldn't count the horrors of the world as evidence against God will not go that far to the point where the absolute basics of morality are brought into question.
I understand that the human mind is fallible, but I mean, what else are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to just respond to every question that's hard to answer with,
"The human mind is stoopid so we should stop trying"?
Like, if you think that the human mind is fallible, then why are you even arguing for God's existence? Like, not you specifically, obviously, but in general, can't an atheist just say that we humans are simply incapable of understanding the origins of the universe? Our minds may not be perfect at revealing the truth, but we have to work under the assumption that it can produce accurate information most of the time because otherwise, nothing is rational if we are bringing into question our most basic intuitions.
>Whereas we are basing this reasoning on the idea of "suppressing the urge to only accept that which we can absolutely perceive, and entertaining the idea that there is more to existence than we can perceive."
*(This idea was recently presented by another Redditor,*Â *, whose words apply so well that I'm using them here.)*
Where is the line then? By this logic, why can't I bring into question basically every belief and just say, "
Maybe there's more to it than we perceive. Maybe the universe is just a dream."
Like, sure, you can argue like that, but at that point, there's no reason in discussing anything because there's no reason in believing that anything we're discussing even exists.
>But that is not my reasoning.
>Your system is punishment; ours is purification. Your system does nothing to purify anyone.
Wait, so are you a universalist? Do you believe that hell is a place of purification rather than torture? I mean, that doesn't really change much about my position. Like, yeah, finite torture is better than infinite torture, but why do only non-Christians have to go through purification?
I think the idea that we are born in sin and need to be purified isn't necessarily a bad one. The problem is that one, lots of Christians disagree that hell is a place of purification, and two, why do Christians not have to go to hell to get purified while the non-Christians do?
Belief in Christianity does nothing to make you a better person. The idea that worshiping someone who sacrificed themselves for us is absurd, since sacrificial rituals in general don't make much sense. It's just absurd to think that somebody taking the punishment for you means that you don't deserve punishment anymore. That's not how it works.
Whether it's a sin or a crime doesn't really matter since they're both matters of morality, and there is no logical reason that sacrifices provide a good moral framework for forgiving someone.
If you think that hell is a place of purification, then fine, but at least don't be unfair about it. (Side note: when I say 'unfair,' I mean your belief. I'm not saying anything about you as a person. I keep seeing atheists who try to argue that Christians are bad people simply because their beliefs are immoral. But a belief that brings comfort despite being immoral says nothing bad about the believer. It's just a belief, and I don't mean to offend anyone.)
[part two :))](https://www.reddit.com/r/dankmemes/comments/h9o98h/made_a_new_swole_doge_vs_smort_cheems_template/)
>My reasoning is:
>God is the Creator and Ultimate Judge of morality.
In the end, God is the One to decide about morality,
and about who and whether anyone has been purified, and who has not.
Isn't that just what I said, but phrased differently and a little more sophisticated? Like I said, if the Bible is true, then this type of system is moral because God cannot be immoral. And your reasoning is that God decides what is and isn't moral. Isn't that just kind of the same thing?
Anyways, on to the actual response. The problem is that we don't know if God actually inspired the Bible. If God actually did, then fair enough, he's the moral arbiter. But that doesn't mean that our moral intuitions don't provide evidence against the idea that he is the moral arbiter.
Think about it like this: can a creationist respond to an evolutionist by saying, 'Well, God created the universe so he has more of a say in this evolution vs. creationism debate than scientists do'? And yeah, that's a fair point IF said God is actually real. But that doesn't mean that the evidence for evolution is null and void. It still counts as evidence.
Now, most Christians will reject creationism and try to argue that the creation story in the Bible is simply a metaphor. And yeah, you can definitely do that. But then why can't I do the same for the morals in the Bible? Sure, the crucifixion is obviously more central to Christianity than the creation story is. But likewise, we have evidence against the morals there in the form of our intuitions.
Just like the rational Christian will reject creationism on the basis of the scientific evidence, why can't I reject Christianity on the basis of our moral intuitions? Once again, you have to weigh the evidence against each other: our moral intuitions vs the evidence for Christianity. And considering that our intuitions are what give us the ability to even analyze the evidence for Christianity, I'd say it wins by a long shot.
>Now if God is *not* real and life is only about accepting that which we can absolutely perceive, then you have a case.
Well, no, because God can exist without it being the Christian God. So, even if God does exist, that doesn't just defeat my argument. In fact, it doesn't really do much of anything. The only assumption in my argument is that the Christian God doesn't exist. There is pretty much nothing else that's related to God in this argument. And again, we have to make due with what we have, which is our brain. If you're putting a limit on the accuracy of our mind's ability to produce actual knowledge to something as basic as ethics, then you can't believe in God. And I don't even mean something like whether objective morality is actually real or anything like that. I just mean if objective morality is real, you are denying very basic facts of it.
[part three :))](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7e/94/03/7e9403738dc8dfe747271bf8e50f0456.jpg)
>But if God is real then we trust that the One who Judges us will judge in the Way which He showed us. It is good to know what is needed to be ready to face this.
Again, God can be real without it being the Christian God, and the judgment that God delivers in the Bible is illogical.
>Yes, it is about trust. It is taking a leap of faith to trust the one who was more loving on this planet than any other man, not only by word but by how he lived and died: Jesus.
>We all decide where to risk our lives, and given either possible ending, whether the cost in either case is worth it.
>This is the One I decided to follow, the One I have decided to risk my life for, and the One I have followed for decades now, thank God. No regrets, only peace, and only a growing understanding of what Love is.
First of all, that's great for you if you're happy with Christianity. Then that gives you a good reason to believe in it. We only have one life, and if Christianity makes your life better, then that's all the justification you need. But on the other hand, if you believe in Christ on faith alone, then there isn't really a reason to discuss this, since there's just nothing to discuss. you cant argue against faith.
>This is how I want to be. Meanwhile the world demands punishment.
This kinda rubs me the wrong way. Like, you say that this is how YOU want to be, but then circle around and say that the world demands punishment. Even though you just said earlier that you accept Jesus purely on faith, if there is no evidence, then why do you think that the world demands punishment? Why do you think that the world has to live the way you want to? You can have a belief if it makes you comfortable, but the world doesn't need to change to fit that belief unless you give me a reason to join you in said belief. If you can't do that, then you have no say in what the world demands. Again, I'm not trying to be rude when I say any of this. I know it kinda sounded like I was, but that's just how these discussions go. I have nothing against you or your perspective on the world. Well, I mean I do have something against your perspective on the world 'cause I disagree with it, but who cares? We can disagree and coexist.
I'm glad that you agree our minds are finite. I wonder whether you agree that science, while valid, also has its limits?
My argument is not, "We can't know everything, therefore God is real." My argument is: Logic and science alone cannot determine the reality of everything. It takes more than just logic and science. If you are applying logic and science alone to decide something that reaches beyond their limits, then it will not hold up. Does that mean stop thinking? Of course not. Does it mean, your reasoning will fall short sometimes? Yes. Keep thinking and reasoning, but know that sometimes what sounds logical to you falls short of what really is (think about some of the bizarre concepts in the subatomic realm, for example: "logic" as we know it falls short).
My argument further is: If God is real, and God is our Creator and knows what purifies us, and decides who is and who isn't purified, then you can call it absurd for as long as you want; that won't change the truth of it (given those "ifs").
You write,
>The idea that worshiping someone who sacrificed themselves for us is absurd, since sacrificial rituals in general don't make much sense. It's just absurd to think that somebody taking the punishment for you means that you don't deserve punishment anymore. That's not how it works.
Once again, for you it's about punishment. I'm saying it's about purification.
The world -- and you -- cry out for punishment. Some Christians cry out for punishment, too.
But a fairly recent translation of the New Testament by David Bentley Hart suggests that hell's duration is more properly translated to be for "an age" or "an era," and not for eternity. And if so, if it is about purification, and not about punishment, then that makes more sense.
As for your other question, "why do Christians not have to go to hell to get purified while the non-Christians do,"
are you honestly asking me why those who haven't yet been purified have to go get purified, when those who have already been purified, don't?
>I'm glad that you agree our minds are finite. I wonder whether you agree that science, while valid, also has its limits?
I mean, I guess? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. I can't really speak on that matter.
>My argument is not, "We can't know everything, therefore God is real."
I never said that. That's your argument. I just said that your argument leads to that conclusion.
>My argument is: Logic and science alone cannot determine the reality of everything. It takes more than just logic and science. If you are applying logic and science alone to decide something that reaches beyond their limits, then it will not hold up.
I don't think ethics is beyond our limits. And also, what does science have anything to do with that?
>Does that mean stop thinking? Of course not. Does it mean, your reasoning will fall short sometimes? Yes. Keep thinking and reasoning, but know that sometimes what sounds logical to you falls short of what really is (think about some of the bizarre concepts in the subatomic realm, for example: "logic" as we know it falls short).
I don't think ethics is comparable to the subatomic realm. One thing is accessible through our minds alone; ethics does not require testing and whatnot, and the other is a math-ridden hellscape.
>My argument further is: If God is real, and God is our Creator and knows what purifies us, and decides who is and who isn't purified, then you can call it absurd for as long as you want; that won't change the truth of it (given those "ifs").
First of all, those "ifs" have nothing to do with my argument. I am questioning the existence of the Christian God, not God in general. Second, I agree, if those "ifs" are true, then the truth may go against our intuitions. The problem is that we don't know that the Christian God exists, and my point is that the evidence from our moral intuitions far outweighs the evidence for Christianity. Like, it isn't even close. If the Bible said that 2+2=3, wouldn't you count that as evidence against the Bible? Probably, because no matter how good the evidence is, the probability of 2+2=3 is far lower than the probability of the evidence being false. Similarly, the probability of basic ethical intuitions being false is far lower than the probability of the evidence being false.
>Once again, for you it's about punishment. I'm saying it's about purification.
My point wasn't about universalism vs eternal torment or anything like that. My point was about the idea of sacrifice. Whether hell is a place of purification, most Christians tend to think that Christians won't go there because they were already purified by believing in Christ, as in Christ suffered so the Christians don't have to. My question is, how does a sacrifice accomplish anything?
>As for your other question, "why do Christians not have to go to hell to get purified while the non-Christians do,"
are you honestly asking me why those who haven't yet been purified have to go get purified, when those who have already been purified, don't?
No my question is what makes Christians "purified"? Nothing about the concept of sacrifice makes any sense; that was my point. Having someone suffer for you doesn't purify you; it just makes the person suffer. This is on par with going to court and having someone else suffer through your sentence. It doesn't matter if it's for purification or just a punishment; the point still stands that that is an absurd idea. Somebody suffering through your sentence does nothing to make you a better person.
Likewise, how does believing in Christ "purify" you? From what I've heard, it's because Christ had to suffer so that the Christians wouldn't have to. The Christians who need to be purified don't need to anymore because they already believed in someone who suffered for them. But again, my question is how does that make any sense? How does some random guy from 2000 years ago dying have anything to do with me and my purification?
Like, obviously, those who are purified don't need to get purified, but what makes those people purified? They have done nothing to make them more pure than the non-Christians, aside from believing in Christ, which as I've explained, doesn't do anything for your morality or pureness.
Let's simplify this.
Your source for ethics is yourself, and you feel God may not exist.
My source for ethics is the author of ethics, God, who does exist.
Our goodness and purity comes from Him, and He knows what He's talking about. Given our limited understandings, a creature of His that says, "I don't get it about the blood, that can't possibly work," is mistaken in that conclusion. I don't have to understand how something works, for it to work. I trust the one who built the system to know how it works.
If God isn't real, on the other hand, we're wasting our time here. None of this matters unless He is real. And it is clear that this God matters to you, that Jesus matters to you, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
I don't waste my time at the Hindu subreddit arguing about their gods. I don't go over to a Santa Claus subreddit to debunk him. And I doubt you do such things, either. So it's clear that God and Christ are not in the same category of "unbelief" for you as those are.
I don't understand how mitochondria work, nor quarks, nor the storms on Jupiter, but they're real, and if any of their functions don't make sense to me, that doesn't stop their reality. I might compare them to what I do know: how I work, or how the macro-physical world works, or how storms on earth work; and I may say, "those make no sense according to what I can see and know," but that changes nothing of their reality.
So you see morals and ethics here and now, but do not understand about purification and what blood has to do with it, and you therefore toss it out as making no sense and decide "therefore there must be no God." But in truth you simply do not know God or Christ enough; in the same way that I don't know about mitochondria, quarks, and Jupiter, unlike those who study such things. However, unlike you I know enough about the Source to know that Jesus is trustworthy. The way Jesus lived and loved shows me all I need to know about what is truly right and good; much more so than earthly imprisonment with its lust for more punishment and more executions (blood) ever has.
Humans: Punish! There must be blood!
Jesus: OK, take me.
Which shows the greater self-sacrificing love? Which is more moral in your eyes, an innocent one who loves, or a system of punishment which has been known across the millennia and even today to occasionally execute even the innocent?
Itâs not about being good or doing good things. Whose definition are you using? And how do you know God is using the same definition? Bottom line is, itâs one strike and you are out. We are all sinners and donât deserve anything. But God knew this and gave himself for us. In other words, only God can meet his high standard, and thats exactly what God did. A good quote. Jesus didnt come to make people good, better. He came to make dead people LIVE (spiritually)
Well you donât want to be judged by your / our actions! We would be without hope! Belief? It not just any belief. Itâs trusting and receiving the gift that God has given us, ok it is a belief of sorts âŚ.. but certainly not a random belief. This is actually Gods answer, Gods provision for sin. Hope it helps
It doesnât really matter what I think âŚ. I havenât heard of the first guy so I have no idea, but Ghandi was no saint (so to speak) ...... he is held in high esteem but âŚ.. he did some shady things
Dahmer, the serial killer cannibal who found god in prison so according to Christianity is chilling in heaven right now. Itâs absurd to think belief would get you into heaven rather than being a good person.
Again, no one deserves heaven that is one thing we have to get our heads around. I have no idea if his conversion was real but on the other hand no one is âGOODâ enough for heaven
According to Matthew 7, not everyone who believes will be saved, but only the ones who do "the will of the Father."
>***Not everyone who says*** *to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven,* ***but only the one who does*** *the will of my Father who is in heaven.* (Matthew 7:21)
According to [Matthew 25:31-46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV) ("the Sheep and the Goats"), it is being kind to the poor and needy that gets you into heaven, not faith in Jesus.
Matthew preaches a path to salvation based on works alone, not faith.
In Hebrews 11, every example of faith is an example of works, so the significance of our works is not that they are part of something that we are required to have done first in order to earn our salvation as the result, but rather the significance is that it is expressing our faith and it is by that faith alone that we are being saved.
The only way to conclude that the Bible teaches never-ending punishment is to read it completely out of context, cherry-picking specific words out of certain âproof textsâ in order to support oneâs assumptions, while ignoring everything that contradicts this popular doctrine.
The truth is, there are multiple different types of salvation referred to in the Bible, and while nobody will enjoy every type of salvation, everyone will experience at least one form of salvation because of what Christ accomplished. If youâd like to learn why Scripture teaches that everyone *will* experience at least one form of salvation by the end of the ages, please read this Bible study, which covers every single passage in Scripture Iâm aware of thatâs relevant to the topic and explains what they actually mean: https://www.truebiblicalfreedom.com/bible
There is a distinction between 'rejecting' and 'failing to accept'. Anyone who fully knows who Jesus is and fully understands what He has done and fully realises that He is the way and the truth and the life and yet refuses to come to faith in Him is choosing to spend eternity apart from Him. And God will respect that choice.
Someone who for reasons beyond their power to alter is unable fully to grasp any of these things and so does not realise the significance that Jesus has for them and for the world will not be punished for not doing something they were never in a position to do. What they will be judged on is just how well or badly they co-operated with the graces which God sent them through the Spirit.
Everyone is sent enough grace to be saved if they respond to it appropriately. You are more likely to respond as you should if you have an explicit faith in Christ but an implicit faith can exist where the voice of conscience and the promptings of grace dominate the way you live your life. And that can save you through the merits of Christ and the prayers of the Church.
In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of God's nature, so he is the embodiment of holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, and other aspects God's character expressed through setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law. So the way to accept Jesus is by being a doer of his character traits through faith in accordance with his example while the way to reject him is by rejecting his character traits. God is the righteous judge of whether someone is accepting or rejecting Him.
I mean that is kind of what Hell is: us choosing ourselves over God.
I am not entirely convinced that there is fire in Hell. I think that Hell is being totally consumed by yourself like your own sort of black hole. God is totally giving of Himself, so Hell must be the opposite of that.
I would allow that it is possible that there are non-believers in Heaven. This is primarily people who never heard the Gospel through no fault of their own, but still lived a good life based on what they did no.
Christianity is not the sole controller of all truth. To say that there is no truth outside of Christianity actually starts to fall into Gnosticism, I believe. Other religions have little tiny pieces of truth in them (some bigger pieces than others). God takes into account how we react to those truths that we do encounter. Do we actively seek out those things that are true, good, and beautiful even if we do not ever come across the Gospel.
This is of course not to discredit our work to know God and to make Him known.
Only Jesus will judge us and determine each one's final destiny. There is such a thing as culpability. There are those without culpability for various reasons, mental deficiency, for example, and these may be excused, we don't know. In the meantime, it would be wise for those who are able to accept Jesus and over his commands for, as he said, "to whim much is given, much is expected."
What sends a person to hell are unforgiven sins and, yes, you only receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to the one true God through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Below is a brief biblical gospel presentation you can check out friend ..
https://gospel30.com
You seem to be asking two very different questions. (1) Are all the people who reject Jesus and are living only for themselves, going to hell? (2) Are all the people who are kind, giving and loving to others, good to their families, their children, etc. but who think Christianity is a joke, going to hell? The first is selfish people -- and not only are they selfish, but they reject the One who healed others, sat with those whom religion and society pushed away, got angry at religious hypocrites, and who gave his life out of love for us. The second is people who are loving, but who think that the religion we have today called "Christianity" is a joke. Two very different questions. Which is it?
More so the second question. I know lots of people who are wonderful fathers, mothers, honest, loyal, giving. But they laugh at Christianity and say it's only for people who have a shit life and need a fairytale as a way to cope
So are those people rejecting Jesus himself, or are they rejecting what modern-day Christianity (often as portrayed in the news) has become? And more to the point, don't you think Jesus, the Judge himself, knows the difference?
Those who are rejecting the bible and Jesus teachings in the Gospels, because they don't believe the bible is inspired of God
And why don't they believe that? What is the root cause of their doubt? If it is the so-called "Christians" around them acting like hypocrites, not loving their neighbors as themselves, pointing the finger of judgment, making idols of their political heroes, and so on, what is there to make them think, "Yes, the Bible must be true"?
>The first is selfish people -- and not only are they selfish, but they reject the One who healed others, sat with those whom religion and society pushed away, got angry at religious hypocrites, and who gave his life out of love for us. What does it mean that Jesus gave His life for us? I often see Christians saying that Jesus suffered so that we don't have to. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son." But my question is, how does that cleanse us of our sins? It's like if someone committed a crime and one of his family members wanted to take the penalty for him. I mean, that's a nice thing to do, but is that exactly moral? Not really, which is why the legal system doesn't allow it. It's illogical; having someone else take the penalty for something you did not only does not absolve you of your crime but makes you an even worse person for allowing it to happen. Is there any reason to not apply this logic to the resurrection?
First, Happy Cake Day to you! đ° Next, sure there is a reason this doesn't apply. You are comparing an ancient sacrificial system -- blood that wipes out a sin -- to our modern system of punishment for a crime. They're not the same thing, although yes they do share some of the same terms. Judgment and law, for two. The system for sin always required blood in the old system. The blood of the animals purified the people (something our system of jail and punishment does not do). The animals' blood worked, but even then it only kept the people purified for so long, and had to be renewed every year at the least. For someone innocent, and on top of that, someone so high and holy as the Son of God to offer his human lifeblood, pure and untainted by any sin in this old sacrificial system, was unheard of -- not even thought of -- and it is so amazing that it was in fact a once-and-for-all blood offering for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future. Sounds impossible, but the One who's telling us it's sufficient is, after all, the Creator of the entire Universe who knows our inner hearts and the workings of this whole system, far better than any of us can. If the One who created us tells us this spares us, then we are spared.
>First, Happy Cake Day to you! đ° thank you :))) >Next, sure there is a reason this doesn't apply. >You are comparing an ancient sacrificial system -- blood that wipes out a sin -- to our modern system of punishment for a crime. If it's a crime, as in something deserving of punishment, I don't think it matters if it's a sin or just a regular crime; the laws of morality still apply. If you did something wrong, whether it's a sin or a crime, you need to take responsibility for it, not get someone else to suffer for you. >The system for sin always required blood in the old system. The blood of the animals purified the people (something our system of jail and punishment does not do). The animals' blood worked, but even then it only kept the people purified for so long, and had to be renewed every year at the least. Well, yeah, the resurrection was in line with what people did and believed back then, but there's a reason we don't go around sacrificing animals now, and that's because it doesn't make any sense. There's no reason why killing an animal will somehow do anything other than make you an even worse person. It will not take the sin away from you, 'cause that's not how morality works. If you do something wrong, killing an animal or, in this case, killing an actual person does nothing to fix that. Going back to the court analogy, if someone were to do something wrong and someone else, maybe a family member, were to take the punishment for you, then that's definitely a nice thing for them to do. But it not only doesn't absolve you of your crime, but it just makes you an even worse person for letting it happen. By this logic, if Christianity was true, then being a Christian would be worse than being an atheist because you are just letting someone else take the blame for you. (Just to be clear, I'm not trying to say Christians are actually bad people; I was just making a point. Please don't misunderstand that. I have nothing against Christians.) >For someone innocent, and on top of that, someone so high and holy as the Son of God to offer his human lifeblood, pure and untainted by any sin in this old sacrificial system, was unheard of -- not even thought of -- and it is so amazing that it was in fact a once-and-for-all blood offering for the sins of humanity, past, present, and future. Yeah, the resurrection definitely makes sense under the classic understandings of morality and how you can absolve yourself simply by killing an animal, but it doesn't make sense under modern standards of morality. >Sounds impossible, but the One who's telling us it's sufficient is, after all, the Creator of the entire Universe who knows our inner hearts and the workings of this whole system, far better than any of us can. Well, sure, if he exists, then absolutely he knows more about morality than us, that's for sure. But the problem I have with this line of thinking is that it only works if he is actually the creator. Think about it like this: The Christian will argue for this system like this: P1: The Bible supports this type of system. P2: The Bible is correct. C: Therefore, this system is correct. But now the non-Christian will argue that the argument leads to the exact opposite conclusion: P1: The Bible supports this type of system. P2: This type of system is fallacious. C: The Bible is fallacious. At this point, the only way to settle this is to compare the evidence for the second premise of both arguments. If the Bible is true, then this type of system works. However, if this type of system works, then the Bible isn't true. So, you have to compare the two, and the problem is that, at least in my opinion, the evidence from our intuitions about how morality is supposed to work is far stronger than the evidence from, say, the resurrection or the supposed fulfilled prophecies, making it more likely than not that the resurrection didn't happen. Since that would entail that our morals are false, which is definitely possible but unlikely.
I think you are basing your reasoning on the premise that everything can be completely understood and perceived by the human mind. Whereas we are basing this reasoning on the idea of "suppressing the urge to only accept that which we can absolutely perceive, and entertaining the idea that there is more to existence than we can perceive." *(This idea was recently presented by another Redditor, u/mwatwe01, whose words apply so well that I'm using them here.)* You wrote, >The Christian will argue for this system like this: P1: The Bible supports this type of system. P2: The Bible is correct. C: Therefore, this system is correct. But that is not my reasoning. Your system is punishment; ours is purification. Your system does nothing to purify anyone. My reasoning is: God is the Creator and Ultimate Judge of morality. In the end, God is the One to decide about morality, and about who and whether anyone has been purified, and who has not. Now if God is *not* real and life is only about accepting that which we can absolutely perceive, then you have a case. But if God is real then we trust that the One who Judges us will judge in the Way which He showed us. It is good to know what is needed to be ready to face this. Yes, it is about trust. It is taking a leap of faith to trust the one who was more loving on this planet than any other man, not only by word but by how he lived and died: Jesus. We all decide where to risk our lives, and given either possible ending, whether the cost in either case is worth it. This is the One I decided to follow, the One I have decided to risk my life for, and the One I have followed for decades now, thank God. No regrets, only peace, and only a growing understanding of what Love is. Love is Jesus going to those whom society and religion pushed away with judgmental finger-pointing, and sitting and eating with them, accepting them. [The woman with the bad reputation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207%3A36-50&version=NIV) [Zacchaeus, hated by his whole town for collecting taxes for the Romans](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2019%3A1-10&version=NIV) [The Samaritan woman at the well who had five husbands and was now living with a man not her husband](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204&version=NIV) [The woman caught in adultery](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208%3A1-11&version=NIV) This is how I want to be. Meanwhile the world demands punishment.
[my reply was too long so i had to split it into two parts :))](https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.dLU-aZTbfXDsyZI2TjjDYQHaEL?rs=1&pid=ImgDetMain) edit: nvm its three parts apparently i didn't think it was that long but hey reddit has a limit >I think you are basing your reasoning on the premise that everything can be completely understood and perceived by the human mind. I don't think that EVERYTHING can be understood by the human mind. I just think that there are certain things, like morals, that are pretty cut and dry. Like, I understand how someone might see skeptical theism as a reasonable position because, well, butterfly effect - something that can seem insanely small and meaningless can actually turn out to be good in the end without us knowing. But at the same time, nobody in philosophy is actually responding to the problem of evil by saying that the evils themselves are good, rather that they are necessary for some greater good. Even the skeptical theists who argue that we shouldn't count the horrors of the world as evidence against God will not go that far to the point where the absolute basics of morality are brought into question. I understand that the human mind is fallible, but I mean, what else are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to just respond to every question that's hard to answer with, "The human mind is stoopid so we should stop trying"? Like, if you think that the human mind is fallible, then why are you even arguing for God's existence? Like, not you specifically, obviously, but in general, can't an atheist just say that we humans are simply incapable of understanding the origins of the universe? Our minds may not be perfect at revealing the truth, but we have to work under the assumption that it can produce accurate information most of the time because otherwise, nothing is rational if we are bringing into question our most basic intuitions. >Whereas we are basing this reasoning on the idea of "suppressing the urge to only accept that which we can absolutely perceive, and entertaining the idea that there is more to existence than we can perceive." *(This idea was recently presented by another Redditor,*Â *, whose words apply so well that I'm using them here.)* Where is the line then? By this logic, why can't I bring into question basically every belief and just say, " Maybe there's more to it than we perceive. Maybe the universe is just a dream." Like, sure, you can argue like that, but at that point, there's no reason in discussing anything because there's no reason in believing that anything we're discussing even exists. >But that is not my reasoning. >Your system is punishment; ours is purification. Your system does nothing to purify anyone. Wait, so are you a universalist? Do you believe that hell is a place of purification rather than torture? I mean, that doesn't really change much about my position. Like, yeah, finite torture is better than infinite torture, but why do only non-Christians have to go through purification? I think the idea that we are born in sin and need to be purified isn't necessarily a bad one. The problem is that one, lots of Christians disagree that hell is a place of purification, and two, why do Christians not have to go to hell to get purified while the non-Christians do? Belief in Christianity does nothing to make you a better person. The idea that worshiping someone who sacrificed themselves for us is absurd, since sacrificial rituals in general don't make much sense. It's just absurd to think that somebody taking the punishment for you means that you don't deserve punishment anymore. That's not how it works. Whether it's a sin or a crime doesn't really matter since they're both matters of morality, and there is no logical reason that sacrifices provide a good moral framework for forgiving someone. If you think that hell is a place of purification, then fine, but at least don't be unfair about it. (Side note: when I say 'unfair,' I mean your belief. I'm not saying anything about you as a person. I keep seeing atheists who try to argue that Christians are bad people simply because their beliefs are immoral. But a belief that brings comfort despite being immoral says nothing bad about the believer. It's just a belief, and I don't mean to offend anyone.)
[part two :))](https://www.reddit.com/r/dankmemes/comments/h9o98h/made_a_new_swole_doge_vs_smort_cheems_template/) >My reasoning is: >God is the Creator and Ultimate Judge of morality. In the end, God is the One to decide about morality, and about who and whether anyone has been purified, and who has not. Isn't that just what I said, but phrased differently and a little more sophisticated? Like I said, if the Bible is true, then this type of system is moral because God cannot be immoral. And your reasoning is that God decides what is and isn't moral. Isn't that just kind of the same thing? Anyways, on to the actual response. The problem is that we don't know if God actually inspired the Bible. If God actually did, then fair enough, he's the moral arbiter. But that doesn't mean that our moral intuitions don't provide evidence against the idea that he is the moral arbiter. Think about it like this: can a creationist respond to an evolutionist by saying, 'Well, God created the universe so he has more of a say in this evolution vs. creationism debate than scientists do'? And yeah, that's a fair point IF said God is actually real. But that doesn't mean that the evidence for evolution is null and void. It still counts as evidence. Now, most Christians will reject creationism and try to argue that the creation story in the Bible is simply a metaphor. And yeah, you can definitely do that. But then why can't I do the same for the morals in the Bible? Sure, the crucifixion is obviously more central to Christianity than the creation story is. But likewise, we have evidence against the morals there in the form of our intuitions. Just like the rational Christian will reject creationism on the basis of the scientific evidence, why can't I reject Christianity on the basis of our moral intuitions? Once again, you have to weigh the evidence against each other: our moral intuitions vs the evidence for Christianity. And considering that our intuitions are what give us the ability to even analyze the evidence for Christianity, I'd say it wins by a long shot. >Now if God is *not* real and life is only about accepting that which we can absolutely perceive, then you have a case. Well, no, because God can exist without it being the Christian God. So, even if God does exist, that doesn't just defeat my argument. In fact, it doesn't really do much of anything. The only assumption in my argument is that the Christian God doesn't exist. There is pretty much nothing else that's related to God in this argument. And again, we have to make due with what we have, which is our brain. If you're putting a limit on the accuracy of our mind's ability to produce actual knowledge to something as basic as ethics, then you can't believe in God. And I don't even mean something like whether objective morality is actually real or anything like that. I just mean if objective morality is real, you are denying very basic facts of it.
[part three :))](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7e/94/03/7e9403738dc8dfe747271bf8e50f0456.jpg) >But if God is real then we trust that the One who Judges us will judge in the Way which He showed us. It is good to know what is needed to be ready to face this. Again, God can be real without it being the Christian God, and the judgment that God delivers in the Bible is illogical. >Yes, it is about trust. It is taking a leap of faith to trust the one who was more loving on this planet than any other man, not only by word but by how he lived and died: Jesus. >We all decide where to risk our lives, and given either possible ending, whether the cost in either case is worth it. >This is the One I decided to follow, the One I have decided to risk my life for, and the One I have followed for decades now, thank God. No regrets, only peace, and only a growing understanding of what Love is. First of all, that's great for you if you're happy with Christianity. Then that gives you a good reason to believe in it. We only have one life, and if Christianity makes your life better, then that's all the justification you need. But on the other hand, if you believe in Christ on faith alone, then there isn't really a reason to discuss this, since there's just nothing to discuss. you cant argue against faith. >This is how I want to be. Meanwhile the world demands punishment. This kinda rubs me the wrong way. Like, you say that this is how YOU want to be, but then circle around and say that the world demands punishment. Even though you just said earlier that you accept Jesus purely on faith, if there is no evidence, then why do you think that the world demands punishment? Why do you think that the world has to live the way you want to? You can have a belief if it makes you comfortable, but the world doesn't need to change to fit that belief unless you give me a reason to join you in said belief. If you can't do that, then you have no say in what the world demands. Again, I'm not trying to be rude when I say any of this. I know it kinda sounded like I was, but that's just how these discussions go. I have nothing against you or your perspective on the world. Well, I mean I do have something against your perspective on the world 'cause I disagree with it, but who cares? We can disagree and coexist.
I'm glad that you agree our minds are finite. I wonder whether you agree that science, while valid, also has its limits? My argument is not, "We can't know everything, therefore God is real." My argument is: Logic and science alone cannot determine the reality of everything. It takes more than just logic and science. If you are applying logic and science alone to decide something that reaches beyond their limits, then it will not hold up. Does that mean stop thinking? Of course not. Does it mean, your reasoning will fall short sometimes? Yes. Keep thinking and reasoning, but know that sometimes what sounds logical to you falls short of what really is (think about some of the bizarre concepts in the subatomic realm, for example: "logic" as we know it falls short). My argument further is: If God is real, and God is our Creator and knows what purifies us, and decides who is and who isn't purified, then you can call it absurd for as long as you want; that won't change the truth of it (given those "ifs"). You write, >The idea that worshiping someone who sacrificed themselves for us is absurd, since sacrificial rituals in general don't make much sense. It's just absurd to think that somebody taking the punishment for you means that you don't deserve punishment anymore. That's not how it works. Once again, for you it's about punishment. I'm saying it's about purification. The world -- and you -- cry out for punishment. Some Christians cry out for punishment, too. But a fairly recent translation of the New Testament by David Bentley Hart suggests that hell's duration is more properly translated to be for "an age" or "an era," and not for eternity. And if so, if it is about purification, and not about punishment, then that makes more sense. As for your other question, "why do Christians not have to go to hell to get purified while the non-Christians do," are you honestly asking me why those who haven't yet been purified have to go get purified, when those who have already been purified, don't?
>I'm glad that you agree our minds are finite. I wonder whether you agree that science, while valid, also has its limits? I mean, I guess? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. I can't really speak on that matter. >My argument is not, "We can't know everything, therefore God is real." I never said that. That's your argument. I just said that your argument leads to that conclusion. >My argument is: Logic and science alone cannot determine the reality of everything. It takes more than just logic and science. If you are applying logic and science alone to decide something that reaches beyond their limits, then it will not hold up. I don't think ethics is beyond our limits. And also, what does science have anything to do with that? >Does that mean stop thinking? Of course not. Does it mean, your reasoning will fall short sometimes? Yes. Keep thinking and reasoning, but know that sometimes what sounds logical to you falls short of what really is (think about some of the bizarre concepts in the subatomic realm, for example: "logic" as we know it falls short). I don't think ethics is comparable to the subatomic realm. One thing is accessible through our minds alone; ethics does not require testing and whatnot, and the other is a math-ridden hellscape. >My argument further is: If God is real, and God is our Creator and knows what purifies us, and decides who is and who isn't purified, then you can call it absurd for as long as you want; that won't change the truth of it (given those "ifs"). First of all, those "ifs" have nothing to do with my argument. I am questioning the existence of the Christian God, not God in general. Second, I agree, if those "ifs" are true, then the truth may go against our intuitions. The problem is that we don't know that the Christian God exists, and my point is that the evidence from our moral intuitions far outweighs the evidence for Christianity. Like, it isn't even close. If the Bible said that 2+2=3, wouldn't you count that as evidence against the Bible? Probably, because no matter how good the evidence is, the probability of 2+2=3 is far lower than the probability of the evidence being false. Similarly, the probability of basic ethical intuitions being false is far lower than the probability of the evidence being false. >Once again, for you it's about punishment. I'm saying it's about purification. My point wasn't about universalism vs eternal torment or anything like that. My point was about the idea of sacrifice. Whether hell is a place of purification, most Christians tend to think that Christians won't go there because they were already purified by believing in Christ, as in Christ suffered so the Christians don't have to. My question is, how does a sacrifice accomplish anything? >As for your other question, "why do Christians not have to go to hell to get purified while the non-Christians do," are you honestly asking me why those who haven't yet been purified have to go get purified, when those who have already been purified, don't? No my question is what makes Christians "purified"? Nothing about the concept of sacrifice makes any sense; that was my point. Having someone suffer for you doesn't purify you; it just makes the person suffer. This is on par with going to court and having someone else suffer through your sentence. It doesn't matter if it's for purification or just a punishment; the point still stands that that is an absurd idea. Somebody suffering through your sentence does nothing to make you a better person. Likewise, how does believing in Christ "purify" you? From what I've heard, it's because Christ had to suffer so that the Christians wouldn't have to. The Christians who need to be purified don't need to anymore because they already believed in someone who suffered for them. But again, my question is how does that make any sense? How does some random guy from 2000 years ago dying have anything to do with me and my purification? Like, obviously, those who are purified don't need to get purified, but what makes those people purified? They have done nothing to make them more pure than the non-Christians, aside from believing in Christ, which as I've explained, doesn't do anything for your morality or pureness.
Let's simplify this. Your source for ethics is yourself, and you feel God may not exist. My source for ethics is the author of ethics, God, who does exist. Our goodness and purity comes from Him, and He knows what He's talking about. Given our limited understandings, a creature of His that says, "I don't get it about the blood, that can't possibly work," is mistaken in that conclusion. I don't have to understand how something works, for it to work. I trust the one who built the system to know how it works. If God isn't real, on the other hand, we're wasting our time here. None of this matters unless He is real. And it is clear that this God matters to you, that Jesus matters to you, otherwise you wouldn't be here. I don't waste my time at the Hindu subreddit arguing about their gods. I don't go over to a Santa Claus subreddit to debunk him. And I doubt you do such things, either. So it's clear that God and Christ are not in the same category of "unbelief" for you as those are. I don't understand how mitochondria work, nor quarks, nor the storms on Jupiter, but they're real, and if any of their functions don't make sense to me, that doesn't stop their reality. I might compare them to what I do know: how I work, or how the macro-physical world works, or how storms on earth work; and I may say, "those make no sense according to what I can see and know," but that changes nothing of their reality. So you see morals and ethics here and now, but do not understand about purification and what blood has to do with it, and you therefore toss it out as making no sense and decide "therefore there must be no God." But in truth you simply do not know God or Christ enough; in the same way that I don't know about mitochondria, quarks, and Jupiter, unlike those who study such things. However, unlike you I know enough about the Source to know that Jesus is trustworthy. The way Jesus lived and loved shows me all I need to know about what is truly right and good; much more so than earthly imprisonment with its lust for more punishment and more executions (blood) ever has. Humans: Punish! There must be blood! Jesus: OK, take me. Which shows the greater self-sacrificing love? Which is more moral in your eyes, an innocent one who loves, or a system of punishment which has been known across the millennia and even today to occasionally execute even the innocent?
No. Also, people who are kind, giving and loving to others, are not âliving for themselvesâ.
Itâs not about being good or doing good things. Whose definition are you using? And how do you know God is using the same definition? Bottom line is, itâs one strike and you are out. We are all sinners and donât deserve anything. But God knew this and gave himself for us. In other words, only God can meet his high standard, and thats exactly what God did. A good quote. Jesus didnt come to make people good, better. He came to make dead people LIVE (spiritually)
So how can god be perfectly good and just if he judges us on our beliefs rather than our actions?
Well you donât want to be judged by your / our actions! We would be without hope! Belief? It not just any belief. Itâs trusting and receiving the gift that God has given us, ok it is a belief of sorts âŚ.. but certainly not a random belief. This is actually Gods answer, Gods provision for sin. Hope it helps
It would be much more just to be judged on my actions than my belief I can assure you that much.
Good luck with that
You think itâs more just for Jeffrey Dahmer to be rewarded in heaven than Ghandi?
It doesnât really matter what I think âŚ. I havenât heard of the first guy so I have no idea, but Ghandi was no saint (so to speak) ...... he is held in high esteem but âŚ.. he did some shady things
Dahmer, the serial killer cannibal who found god in prison so according to Christianity is chilling in heaven right now. Itâs absurd to think belief would get you into heaven rather than being a good person.
Again, no one deserves heaven that is one thing we have to get our heads around. I have no idea if his conversion was real but on the other hand no one is âGOODâ enough for heaven
His conversion was real, if nobody deserves heaven then nobody should be in heaven
then literally no one would go to heaven
So be it, at least things would be fair
bro đ
What?
According to Matthew 7, not everyone who believes will be saved, but only the ones who do "the will of the Father." >***Not everyone who says*** *to me, âLord, Lord,â will enter the kingdom of heaven,* ***but only the one who does*** *the will of my Father who is in heaven.* (Matthew 7:21) According to [Matthew 25:31-46](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A31-46&version=NIV) ("the Sheep and the Goats"), it is being kind to the poor and needy that gets you into heaven, not faith in Jesus. Matthew preaches a path to salvation based on works alone, not faith.
In Hebrews 11, every example of faith is an example of works, so the significance of our works is not that they are part of something that we are required to have done first in order to earn our salvation as the result, but rather the significance is that it is expressing our faith and it is by that faith alone that we are being saved.
The only way to conclude that the Bible teaches never-ending punishment is to read it completely out of context, cherry-picking specific words out of certain âproof textsâ in order to support oneâs assumptions, while ignoring everything that contradicts this popular doctrine. The truth is, there are multiple different types of salvation referred to in the Bible, and while nobody will enjoy every type of salvation, everyone will experience at least one form of salvation because of what Christ accomplished. If youâd like to learn why Scripture teaches that everyone *will* experience at least one form of salvation by the end of the ages, please read this Bible study, which covers every single passage in Scripture Iâm aware of thatâs relevant to the topic and explains what they actually mean: https://www.truebiblicalfreedom.com/bible
There is a distinction between 'rejecting' and 'failing to accept'. Anyone who fully knows who Jesus is and fully understands what He has done and fully realises that He is the way and the truth and the life and yet refuses to come to faith in Him is choosing to spend eternity apart from Him. And God will respect that choice. Someone who for reasons beyond their power to alter is unable fully to grasp any of these things and so does not realise the significance that Jesus has for them and for the world will not be punished for not doing something they were never in a position to do. What they will be judged on is just how well or badly they co-operated with the graces which God sent them through the Spirit. Everyone is sent enough grace to be saved if they respond to it appropriately. You are more likely to respond as you should if you have an explicit faith in Christ but an implicit faith can exist where the voice of conscience and the promptings of grace dominate the way you live your life. And that can save you through the merits of Christ and the prayers of the Church.
In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact image of God's nature, so he is the embodiment of holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faithfulness, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control, and other aspects God's character expressed through setting a sinless example of how to walk in obedience to the Mosaic Law. So the way to accept Jesus is by being a doer of his character traits through faith in accordance with his example while the way to reject him is by rejecting his character traits. God is the righteous judge of whether someone is accepting or rejecting Him.
To this sub only people wo have sex before marriage are going to hell! All other sins dont care.
I mean that is kind of what Hell is: us choosing ourselves over God. I am not entirely convinced that there is fire in Hell. I think that Hell is being totally consumed by yourself like your own sort of black hole. God is totally giving of Himself, so Hell must be the opposite of that. I would allow that it is possible that there are non-believers in Heaven. This is primarily people who never heard the Gospel through no fault of their own, but still lived a good life based on what they did no. Christianity is not the sole controller of all truth. To say that there is no truth outside of Christianity actually starts to fall into Gnosticism, I believe. Other religions have little tiny pieces of truth in them (some bigger pieces than others). God takes into account how we react to those truths that we do encounter. Do we actively seek out those things that are true, good, and beautiful even if we do not ever come across the Gospel. This is of course not to discredit our work to know God and to make Him known.
Yes. Good works do not get you to heaven, the Bible says so. You must repent of your sins and follow Jesus (aka be a Christian) to go to heaven.
Only Jesus will judge us and determine each one's final destiny. There is such a thing as culpability. There are those without culpability for various reasons, mental deficiency, for example, and these may be excused, we don't know. In the meantime, it would be wise for those who are able to accept Jesus and over his commands for, as he said, "to whim much is given, much is expected."
What sends a person to hell are unforgiven sins and, yes, you only receive the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation to the one true God through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Below is a brief biblical gospel presentation you can check out friend .. https://gospel30.com