God, Allah, and YHWH

[nastynice]

But it’s not inconsequential because it is an example that WILL happen, and the Bible teaches us for that scenario there will be a particular outcome.

According to the Bible, you can only get into Heaven if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior (among other things). There are good people who do not, so according to the Bible they will not go to Heaven. Unless you’re saying there’s no such thing as a good person who doesn’t believe Jesus is our Lord and Savior (in which case you and I are screwed)...

Me and you are not Christian, so from mine and your perspective it is inconsequential. That book is for Christian's, not Muslim or atheists.

Their book lays out their path to god, if that works then good for them.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

Me and you are not Christian, so from mine and your perspective it is inconsequential. That book is for Christian's, not Muslim or atheists.

Their book lays out their path to god, if that works then good for them.

Well it’s be pretty consequential for us if they’re book turned out to be right lol.

But yes, this was more a discussion on the philosophical and moral implications of a perfect being’s requirement you believe in him to ascend to Heaven.

[fanofclendennon]

No, but requiring a belief in Jesus seems pretty arbitrary since it has nothing to do with being a good person or not.



So Jesus paid for our sin but only if you believe he did?

Right. And in the case of non believers, does he get some sort of refund, maybe in the form of a Visa Card or something? I mean, how does that even work?

[Crovash]

Good people do not get to go to Heaven. Heaven is for perfect people only. Either you have to be perfect (impossible to do) or you have to have someone pay the judge for the crimes you commit. We all commit sin. That disqualifies us from perfection. The only way to enter is to have someone pay our price. Jesus did just that.

Strikes me as an easy way to do whatever you want because the heavy lifting has already been done for you and on your behalf.

I think its power comes via the vicarious experience, which is, after all, what makes fiction entertaining.

[SiteWolf]

I don’t know of anyone, but I am wondering why specifically, other than God said it was, is not believing in him a sin?

Who said it was?

[SiteWolf]

Well it’s be pretty consequential for us if they’re book turned out to be right lol.

But yes, this was more a discussion on the philosophical and moral implications of a perfect being’s requirement you believe in him to ascend to Heaven.

So, then....do you believe in Heaven?
If not, then it's inconsequential to you whether a belief in Him is required to get to heaven, right?
And if someone believes in Him, they also believe in heaven.
So where's the rub? If you believe in one you believe in the other. If you don't believe one, you don't believe the other.

[SiteWolf]

Right. And in the case of non believers, does he get some sort of refund, maybe in the form of a Visa Card or something? I mean, how does that even work?

really, that's what this is getting reduced to? monetary compensation where no money needs to change hands?

[SiteWolf]

Strikes me as an easy way to do whatever you want because the heavy lifting has already been done for you and on your behalf.

And therein lies a problem within the church....people I refer to as social Christians- people who seem to think that going to church on Sundays allows them to do what they want the rest of the week. But people who assume His death and resurrection paying their debt means their books are clean are in for some harsh realities come judgement day. We still have to answer for our sins.

I think its power comes via the vicarious experience, which is, after all, what makes fiction entertaining.

See before you thought I was mocking you for taking an academic view of sin. How should I view your comments about this all being fiction?

[Crovash]

See before you thought I was mocking you for taking an academic view of sin. How should I view your comments about this all being fiction?

I’m sorry if it offends you, but I’d ask that you view my description as the truth — at least the truth as I see it.

To me the New Testament is historical fiction (as is much of the Old Testament too). Yes, the NT is centered around the life of one historical figure (Jesus) with a supporting cast of several others (Pontius Pilate, Herod, Paul). Much of what is written, however, is what I believe to be embellishment, intended, I presume, to give the central character greater gravitas, attractiveness, and charisma.

But, here’s where it is (to me) different from, say, Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall” or her “Bring Up the Bodies”: it is written in an effort to convince us that the character was not just human but also divine (unlike Cromwell).

[SiteWolf]

I’m sorry if it offends you, but I’d ask that you view my description as the truth — at least the truth as I see it.

To me the New Testament is historical fiction (as is much of the Old Testament too). Yes, the NT is centered around the life of one historical figure (Jesus) with a supporting cast of several others (Pontius Pilate, Herod, Paul). Much of what is written, however, is what I believe to be embellishment, intended, I presume, to give the central character greater gravitas, attractiveness, and charisma.

But, here’s where it is (to me) different from, say, Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall” or her “Bring Up the Bodies”: it is written in an effort to convince us that the character was not just human but also divine (unlike Cromwell).

Didn't say it offended me, I was referring to your thought I mocked you before...while referring to the book I follow as fiction. Of course it's your opinion and you have a right to it, we all have that right. Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on what and how much is embellished.

[Crovash]

Didn't say it offended me, I was referring to your thought I mocked you before...while referring to the book I follow as fiction. Of course it's your opinion and you have a right to it, we all have that right. Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on what and how much is embellished.

For sure. And believe me when I say that I honor what you believe to be the truth, even if I do not understand it fully.

I admit that my interest in the Bible — and religion in general — is purely academic. I enjoy literature, and there is some great stuff in the Bible, especially in the King James translation (“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” — what a powerful description). And then there is the Book of Job, a masterpiece in its own right.

[valade16]

Who said it was?

If it's not then why is it a requirement to get into Heaven?

[valade16]

So, then....do you believe in Heaven?
If not, then it's inconsequential to you whether a belief in Him is required to get to heaven, right?
And if someone believes in Him, they also believe in heaven.
So where's the rub? If you believe in one you believe in the other. If you don't believe one, you don't believe the other.

You're right, it's inconsequential to me. I'm just seeking to understand the logic of someone's belief in God and Heaven. One need not believe in something to have a conversation about it.

It is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought without believing it. Theoretically, my belief of Heaven is inconsequential to the logic of how and why one ascends to Heaven, because the logic should hold up regardless of ones beliefs.

[PackerBum9786]

I’m sorry if it offends you, but I’d ask that you view my description as the truth — at least the truth as I see it.

To me the New Testament is historical fiction (as is much of the Old Testament too). Yes, the NT is centered around the life of one historical figure (Jesus) with a supporting cast of several others (Pontius Pilate, Herod, Paul). Much of what is written, however, is what I believe to be embellishment, intended, I presume, to give the central character greater gravitas, attractiveness, and charisma.

But, here’s where it is (to me) different from, say, Hilary Mantel’s “Wolf Hall” or her “Bring Up the Bodies”: it is written in an effort to convince us that the character was not just human but also divine (unlike Cromwell).

thats a possibility. I do know that the council of Nicea was formed in 325 by Emperor Constantine and at the Council the Christian Bishops were brought in to decide what was going to be in or wasn't going to be in the Bible. Many have said it wasn't until this council that Jesus become Divine.

[SiteWolf]

You're right, it's inconsequential to me. I'm just seeking to understand the logic of someone's belief in God and Heaven. One need not believe in something to have a conversation about it.

It is the mark of an educated man to entertain a thought without believing it. Theoretically, my belief of Heaven is inconsequential to the logic of how and why one ascends to Heaven, because the logic should hold up regardless of ones beliefs.

If you're such an educated man, why are you struggling with the idea that one can't get to a place they don't believe exists without believing in an entity you don't believe exists? Why would someone believe in one without believing in the other?