No Hell

[NoJo]

The core of Christianity is obviously Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. But it's certainly not all there is to Christianity. Chistianity has survived because it adapts and changes with the times. I'm not saying that just because Jesus didn't talk about hell, it shouldn't be considered as an important and central driving concept in (some varieties of) Christianity.

Much of Christianity resonates strongly with my own socialist traditions, more so than Judaism, which I always feel is too austere and "harsh" a religion for me.
But I guess I show my Jewish background in finding Hell an alien idea.

 

[English Lady]

Thank God for google

Hades is mentioned more than hell,one half is where those who don't believe went to wait judgement in torment (Old testament belief) and the other half was "Paradise" in Abrahams bosom where the faithful wait the day of judgement.


Luke 16:19 onwards is a parable about a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus. Lazarus went to abrahams side and the rich fella went to hell. And basically, as much as Mr Rich wanted out of hell and wanted to warm his family, he was stuck there. He had his comfort in life, he ignored poor lazarus outside his door and suffered for it in the hereafter.

And this is a great link, lots of interesting info and some old testament references to hell, as well as explainations of all the different names and ideas of Hell (it's says Abs may be right in part about hell being expanded upon at least by the church later on)

http://www.gospelassemblyfree.com/facts/hell.htm

 

[mcopado]

Yesterday I did some digging for a history of Hell...I posted it yesterday on the Sex and Spirituality thread....

These links will take you right to the post, instead of having to dig through the whole thread. (I just figured out I could do that.)

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15751365&postcount=2477


This is an overview of a new book coverring the same subject.
https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15751261&postcount=2473

Here's the ones on the development of the Concepts of Satan.
Satan Prior to 300 BCE

Evolution of Christian Concepts of Satan

I warn you they are long...

 

[English Lady]

this is very interesting too, and well laid out, simple for simpletons like me to understand

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-believers.html


the last bit is interesting, about hades being emptied at the time of judgement then the occupants will be flung into the lake of fire. hmmmm...all found in revalations...

 

[NoJo]

Yesterday I did some digging for a history of Hell...I posted it yesterday on the Sex and Spirituality thread....

These links will take you right to the post, instead of having to dig through the whole thread. (I just figured out I could do that.)

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15751365&postcount=2477


This is an overview of a new book coverring the same subject.
https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15751261&postcount=2473

Here's the ones on the development of the Concepts of Satan.
Satan Prior to 300 BCE

Evolution of Christian Concepts of Satan

I warn you they are long...

Great links. Thanks, rev!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The core of Christianity is obviously Jesus' teachings in the New Testament. But it's certainly not all there is to Christianity. Chistianity has survived because it adapts and changes with the times. I'm not saying that just because Jesus didn't talk about hell, it shouldn't be considered as an important and central driving concept in (some varieties of) Christianity.

Much of Christianity resonates strongly with my own socialist traditions, more so than Judaism, which I always feel is too austere and "harsh" a religion for me.
But I guess I show my Jewish background in finding Hell an alien idea.

Honestly joe,

I'm not sure finding the concept of hell to be alien is a sign of any religious indoctrination.

It seems to me people with a liberal outlook have trouble with it, no matter what their affiliation. The concept as it is now has more resonance with people who have very strong ideas of good and evil and very strong ideas of justice and morality as retributive.

If your conception of good and evil isn't so stark or your conception of punishment isn't as deeply ingrained, then a loving god as creator of such a horrible place is a rather paradoxxical concept at best.

In my case, I used to get spankings and other disciplineary actions that were 'for my own good". I don't have any moral problems with someone who loves you having to punish you. My father loves me, but he did not spare the rod when he felt I needed it. So hell for me dosen't create a moral or ethical quandry.

There is right and wrong and if you choose to do wrong, you acept the punishment. That is a cogent thought to me, one without questionable moral or ethical application. I think that particular mindset is more common among conservatives than liberals, because liberals tend to see shades of grey in ethics better.

 

[NoJo]

Honestly joe,

I'm not sure finding the concept of hell to be alien is a sign of any religious indoctrination.

It seems to me people with a liberal outlook have trouble with it, no matter what their affiliation. The concept as it is now has more resonance with people who have very strong ideas of good and evil and very strong ideas of justice and morality as retributive.

If your conception of good and evil isn't so stark or your conception of punishment isn't as deeply ingrained, then a loving god as creator of such a horrible place is a rather paradoxxical concept at best.

In my case, I used to get spankings and other disciplineary actions that were 'for my own good". I don't have any moral problems with someone who loves you having to punish you. My father loves me, but he did not spare the rod when he felt I needed it. So hell for me dosen't create a moral or ethical quandry.

There is right and wrong and if you choose to do wrong, you acept the punishment. That is a cogent thought to me, one without questionable moral or ethical application. I think that particular mindset is more common among conservatives than liberals, because liberals tend to see shades of grey in ethics better.

Well I've met more than enough anti-liberal Jews to be able to confidently disagree that you can find Hell alien and still be very opposed to liberal ideas.

Don't confuse Heaven and Hell with Good and Evil, for Heaven's sake!

I think the basic difference is between thinking of a Stern Paternalistic God who metes out punishment and rewards (basic Jewish concept, no Hell), and a Good God and and an Evil Satan, who play Good Cop/Bad Cop.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well I've met more than enough anti-liberal Jews to be able to confidently disagree that you can find Hell alien and still be very opposed to liberal ideas.

Don't confuse Heaven and Hell with Good and Evil, for Heaven's sake!

I think the basic difference is between thinking of a Stern Paternalistic God who metes out punishment and rewards (basic Jewish concept, no Hell), and a Good God and and an Evil Satan, who play Good Cop/Bad Cop.

I wasn't postulating that you had to be one or the other Joe. Just commenting on the trend I have seen.

 

[rgraham666]

Again, I'll protest at the parent metaphor.

I got the rod lots of times. But my punishment usually had little to do with whether I misbehaved. It had more to do that I was a disappointment to my father and I was being punished for that.

It took me years to realise I could do nothing to placate my father, and he never has, or will.

To me, religion is simply another authouritarian structure most of the time. It's not a system based on ethics, but an ideology based on 'Truth'.

An ideology makes it impossible for a person to do wrong, so they'll be more likely to do it.

Just my opinion.

 

[mcopado]

this is very interesting too, and well laid out, simple for simpletons like me to understand

http://www.gotquestions.org/Old-Testament-believers.html


the last bit is interesting, about hades being emptied at the time of judgement then the occupants will be flung into the lake of fire. hmmmm...all found in revalations...

Cool thread, Thanks EL

On the lighter side as anyone read Heinlen's novel,Job: A comedy of Justice ? Has a really funny take on God, the devil and different religions...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Cool thread, Thanks EL

On the lighter side as anyone read Heinlen's novel,Job: A comedy of Justice ? Has a really funny take on God, the devil and different religions...

I have. By far my favorite Heinlin book

 

[Pure]

Reply to English Lady, note to Colly

EL: There is a Heaven, a place filled with God's Love.
soooo if you don't believe in God you're more than likely going to the place without God,

Reply: I'm not sure there is 'the place without God'--thought he was present (as is His Love) everywhere.

Beginning in the OT, there is a clear scriptural line *against* such reasoning, i.e., the concept of a 'righteous gentile.' One who follows the basic commandments (now known as Noahide).

Given that many Buddhists are atheists or not concerned with a God, but 'righteous' nonetheless, there is no reason to suppose this "God of Love" is going to stand on technicalities.

We must also suppose there are those who have not heard of "God" or who, like the Greeks have a multitude of them.

As mab said, for God to 'burn' or even permanently exile these folks [even under the rubric of 'you have {unwittingly} chosen it] from God's Love seems mean and petty.

ELbut if you don't care-why is that an issue? Is there a problem with facing an exsistance without God when you don't believe in him anyway?

Reply: IF, for the sake of argument there is an all-Loving God, AND there are places of both eternal reward and eternal punishment (even if its just separation from the Light and consignment to Darkness), then there certainly is a 'justice' problem if most non-believers--not to say most non Christians-- are to be consigned to 'the other place.' IOW the 'noble savage' is sharing a bunk with Hitler.

There are clear scriptural pasages suggesting that to love one another and keep God's commandments are quite sufficient for salvation. OR, to put it another way, if Jesus is "the Gate" and the "true vine", that the loving and righteous are with/in him by that very fact.

---
There is a nice Seinfeld episode where Elaine's boyfriend ("Paddy?"), the oafish one, tells her that since she believes in a right to abortion, she will go to hell. She says something like, "I live my life as I think I should, why is that a problem for you."

He replies, "It's not a problem for *me*, it's you who are going to hell."
---
Note to Colly:
You stated in part:
CT: In my case, I used to get spankings and other disciplineary actions that were 'for my own good". I don't have any moral problems with someone who loves you having to punish you. My father loves me, but he did not spare the rod when he felt I needed it. So hell for me dosen't create a moral or ethical quandry.

There is right and wrong and if you choose to do wrong, you acept the punishment. That is a cogent thought to me, one without questionable moral or ethical application. I think that particular mindset is more common among conservatives than liberals, because liberals tend to see shades of grey in ethics better.

What I've said above, is, I think, in accord with this so-called conservative approach. Supposing someone is unaware of your "father", but scrupulously follows the moral rules, there is absolutely no reason to take the rod to her.

To hold otherwise is like saying, "If someone doesn't know that there is a penal code, and its coming from a legislature, and in particular a law against murder, then they go to jail. EVEN IF they never murder anyone."

 

[English Lady]

Romans 2 1-15 (message translation)



11Being a Jew won't give you an automatic stamp of approval. God pays no attention to what others say (or what you think) about you. He makes up his own mind.

12If you sin without knowing what you're doing, God takes that into account. But if you sin knowing full well what you're doing, that's a different story entirely. 13Merely hearing God's law is a waste of your time if you don't do what he commands. Doing, not hearing, is what makes the difference with God.

14When outsiders who have never heard of God's law follow it more or less by instinct, they confirm its truth by their obedience. 15They show that God's law is not something alien, imposed on us from without, but woven into the very fabric of our creation. There is something deep within them that echoes God's yes and no, right and wrong.


Look at verse 14, this looks to me as if it says you can follow Jesus without knowing it and God will take this into consideration.


So i reckon the "noble savage" that recognises God in creation, who does good, who follows the guidelines Jesus laid out but who doesn't necessarily know Jesus name will likely be in Heaven.

I think.

Because you don't need to know Jesus name, to know Jesus.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

EL: There is a Heaven, a place filled with God's Love.
soooo if you don't believe in God you're more than likely going to the place without God,

Reply: I'm not sure there is 'the place without God'--thought he was present (as is His Love) everywhere.

Beginning in the OT, there is a clear scriptural line *against* such reasoning, i.e., the concept of a 'righteous gentile.' One who follows the basic commandments (now known as Noahide).

Given that many Buddhists are atheists or not concerned with a God, but 'righteous' nonetheless, there is no reason to suppose this "God of Love" is going to stand on technicalities.

We must also suppose there are those who have not heard of "God" or who, like the Greeks have a multitude of them.

As mab said, for God to 'burn' or even permanently exile these folks [even under the rubric of 'you have {unwittingly} chosen it] from God's Love seems mean and petty.

ELbut if you don't care-why is that an issue? Is there a problem with facing an exsistance without God when you don't believe in him anyway?

Reply: IF, for the sake of argument there is an all-Loving God, AND there are places of both eternal reward and eternal punishment (even if its just separation from the Light and consignment to Darkness), then there certainly is a 'justice' problem if most non-believers--not to say most non Christians-- are to be consigned to 'the other place.' IOW the 'noble savage' is sharing a bunk with Hitler.

There are clear scriptural pasages suggesting that to love one another and keep God's commandments are quite sufficient for salvation. OR, to put it another way, if Jesus is "the Gate" and the "true vine", that the loving and righteous are with/in him by that very fact.

---
There is a nice Seinfeld episode where Elaine's boyfriend ("Paddy?"), the oafish one, tells her that since she believes in a right to abortion, she will go to hell. She says something like, "I live my life as I think I should, why is that a problem for you."

He replies, "It's not a problem for *me*, it's you who are going to hell."
---
Note to Colly:
You stated in part:
CT: In my case, I used to get spankings and other disciplineary actions that were 'for my own good". I don't have any moral problems with someone who loves you having to punish you. My father loves me, but he did not spare the rod when he felt I needed it. So hell for me dosen't create a moral or ethical quandry.

There is right and wrong and if you choose to do wrong, you acept the punishment. That is a cogent thought to me, one without questionable moral or ethical application. I think that particular mindset is more common among conservatives than liberals, because liberals tend to see shades of grey in ethics better.

What I've said above, is, I think, in accord with this so-called conservative approach. Supposing someone is unaware of your "father", but scrupulously follows the moral rules, there is absolutely no reason to take the rod to her.

To hold otherwise is like saying, "If someone doesn't know that there is a penal code, and its coming from a legislature, and in particular a law against murder, then they go to jail. EVEN IF they never murder anyone."

My understanding J, is that good works will not get you into the kingdom of heaven.

Part of the evangelical movement is to make sure no one dies without hearing the good news and having the opportunity to accept Jesus. For evangelical congregations not spreading the news is akin to personally consigning anyone you meet but don't witness to, to hell.

My congregation was evangelical, but not fanatical about it.

Those who lived and died before Christ's birth are considered to be saved or not, based on their adherence to the laws in place before Christ's redemption changed them. My pastor's take on it was that if you never heard of Christ, nor had the chance to accept him, you were given something that I suppose would be akin to executive clemeancy in your law example. God would judge you on your works, without reference to the savior you knew nothing about. To my knowledge, that is simply his take and is not represenative of the SBC's position. But then again, he assured a crying, heartbroken little girl her puppy would be in heaven when she got there and I know that isn't part of the accepted Dogma.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[Pure]

Hi English Lady, (Note to Colly)

hey, it's unusual, but I find myself in agreement with your [EL's] last posting, and of course the Romans passage was one I had in mind.

as well, there are others, such as in Matt and John. Particularly I like the 'miniapocalypse' of Ch 25

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/ searchable online KJV--very nice site


Matt
Ch 7.
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Ch 25
[31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


John 15
1. [10] If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

====
Hi Colly,

I think we partly agree, although you call it 'executive clemency' for the un-evangelized. At least we agree of the obvious injustice of consigning to hell those who don't go around praising Jesus.

As to the old 'faith' vs. 'works' debate, largely sterile, I won't go around that bush, as I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. But the passages above clearly suggest that those who 'walk in his ways' and who 'feed the hungry' etc. are in God's love and remain there (and are not in a problematic[wrong] relation to Jesus, either, since Jesus is making the above statements).

 

[Varian P]

Unfortunately, I missed the show (Ira Glass's "An American Life")

Forgive me for not reading the whole thread, but in case someone hasn't mentioned it, you can stream "This American Life" online, though there's a lag between the radio air date and when it's made available on the site:

http://www.thislife.org/

 

[Guest]

Again, I'll protest at the parent metaphor. ...

You called to mind something I recently read. Don't have time to look it up, or the author, but he stated (basically) that 'any monotheistic religion must needs be imperialistic'.

Obviously in the history of western civilization that also means paternalistic. Too bad.

Perdita

 

[Colleen Thomas]

hey, it's unusual, but I find myself in agreement with your last posting, and of course the Romans passage was one I had in mind.

as well, there are others, such as in Matt and John. Particularly I like the 'miniapocalypse' of Ch 25

http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/kjv/ searchable online KJV--very nice site


Matt
Ch 7.
[21] Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Ch 25
[31] When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
[32] And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

[33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
[34] Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
[35] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
[36] Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

[37] Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
[38] When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
[39] Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
[40] And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[41] Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
[42] For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
[43] I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

[44] Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

[45] Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
[46] And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


John 15
1. [10] If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

====
Hi Colly,

I think we partly agree, although you call it 'executive clemency' for the un-evangelized. At least we agree of the obvious injustice of consigning to hell those who don't go around praising Jesus.

As to the old 'faith' vs. 'works' debate, largely sterile, I won't go around that bush, as I am neither Catholic nor Protestant. But the passages above clearly suggest that those who 'walk in his ways' and who 'feed the hungry' etc. are in God's love and remain there (and are not in a problematic[wrong] relation to Jesus, either, since Jesus is making the above statements).

I have to work from my training J. It's very old, but the thrust is that good works, when not coupled with accepting Jesus will not save you from hell.

One thing that always left me scratching my head was giving your witness. From my rather naive perspective, it seemed you were doing a person a disservice by witnessing. If they never heard, they had an opportunity at judgement to attain heaven. If you told them and they didn't accept Jesus, then they were going to hell.

It's a logical position and one that no one ever had a satisfactory answer for. I suspect that very conundrum drives many evangelicals to conclude you are going to hell reguardless if you haven't accepted jesus. Not having heard of him is no excuse. That would seem to be very injust, but it does dileneate the need to witness.

Like many tenets of various religions, there is a wide degree of interpretation involved. The bible has no injunction against abortion, but many faiths hold it to be wrong. Likewise dueteronomy has no injunction against lesbianism, but many faiths hold it as an abomination. People who start their moring with country ham, will turn around and tell you being gay is sending you straight to hell, never realizing that their morning breckfast would do the same thing to them, should they hold literally to the passages that make the second a crime.

One serious prolem with most religious texts is that they weren't edited for internal consistancy. That leaves you, in many cases, with logical fallicies and paradoxxical doctrine. It is in the interpretation of those that you find the roots of many sects and schisms.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm thinking of one of the more horrid historical incidents I recall hearing about.

When Spain conquered the Aztecs, they lined up new born babies on the street. A priest walked along the line baptizing the kids. A step behind was a conquistador who then dashed their brains out with a club.

The logic was that being baptized they were saved, and dying instantly kept them from sinning again.

I don't know if this is an apocryphal tale or not, but it rings true for me.

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't believe hearing about Jesus or following one of His religions keeps you from doing evil. And I don't believe not hearing or not following prevents you from doing good.

I do believe God will take your actions into account, while ignoring your beliefs. A Satanist who leads a virtuous life, if such a thing is possible, will be allowed into Heaven. Leo X (the Borgia who became Pope) and Torquemada were not.

 

[English Lady]

hey, it's unusual, but I find myself in agreement with your [EL's] last posting, and of course the Romans passage was one I had in mind.

Miracles do happen

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

That's an interesting conundrum about witnessing/evangelizing. It would certainly apply--according to official reasoning-- in the 'hard cases,' i.e., a Muslim who was not about to change.

From the perspective of my group, however, the issue is not centered on belief, nor is 'witnessing' centered on 'proclaiming' (i.e, talking).

Rather the issue is being a model, and example. And as you know, what you *do* carries a stronger message than what you talk. Further if someone modeled themselves on that--for example followed Jesus' words, already quoted, about 'feeding the hungry'... 'doing unto the least of them' ect., then they are considered 'in His ways.'

As the John passage clearly says, if you keep J's commandments, you abide in his love. Again it's the doing: to keep commandments *is* the sign of love, not the words.

This approach eliminates most of the 'hell' problems (the clearly unjust applications), including the conundrum about 'witnessing.'

 

[- K -]

It's all about marketing!

While the idea of a "hell" may not fit in contemporary Christian theology, I think it does make a lot of sense if you put it into context of the history and formation of Christianity.

Think about it like this, you're a run-of-the-mill pagan living in post-Roman times. You go about your existence, farming and drinking mead and doing whatever, when one day you are approached by a Christian missionary. I think the conversation would go a little something like this.

"Greetings brother! You should be a Christian."

"Now why should I do that? Paganism seems to be working fine. I mean, look at my crops, they're doing fine."

"Yes, but there is a greater reward if you put a cross where that statue of [insert pagan god here] is in your house. Paradise awaits you after you die."

"I can't change my religion now, I've got my schedule already worked out around my nature-based festivals and holidays."

"Oh, don't you worry about that. By some strange coincidence every Christian holiday seems to fall on a pagan holiday. You don't even have to give up the Yule log! Now isn't that convenient?"

"I'm still not convinced. My god throws around a giant hammer. What does yours do?"

"Well, the Christian God forgives all sins, offers redemption, is the creator of all life, brings peace to the soul, and smites the heathen."

"What was that last one?"

"Peace to the soul. You interested?"

"Well, if your god is so forgiving and I'm wrong, then why not just live as I am now and apologize when I get there?"

"Er... uh... because if you don't believe, then you will be cast into a pit of firey hell for all eternity."

"That doesn't sound very forgiving at all!"

"Yeah, well, that's why you should join today! Look, if you sign up now I'll throw in a holiday on the Vernal Equinox where you look for colorful eggs laid by rabbits! Doesn't that sound like fun?"

"Rabbits don't lay eggs!"

"Jesus can make it happen!"

"Look, if I say yes will you go away?"

And thus, the word of Christ spread through brilliant and persistent marketing. Hell was a key selling point, because it went along the existing theologies (such as Hades and the underworld) and served as a contrast to heaven.

 

[Pure]

Nice posting, -k-

Fine!

More seriously it's clear that Xtianity has something very unique to offer; its doctrines appeal to both victims and tyrants. The appeal to the downtrodden is legendary, and of course many of these (e.g. the New England Puritans in Mass.) wouldn't mind a spell in the tyrant's shoes.

"If I get to heaven,
before you do.
I'll drill a hole,
and spit on you!"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's an interesting conundrum about witnessing/evangelizing. It would certainly apply--according to official reasoning-- in the 'hard cases,' i.e., a Muslim who was not about to change.

From the perspective of my group, however, the issue is not centered on belief, nor is 'witnessing' centered on 'proclaiming' (i.e, talking).

Rather the issue is being a model, and example. And as you know, what you *do* carries a stronger message than what you talk. Further if someone modeled themselves on that--for example followed Jesus' words, already quoted, about 'feeding the hungry'... 'doing unto the least of them' ect., then they are considered 'in His ways.'

As the John passage clearly says, if you keep J's commandments, you abide in his love. Again it's the doing: to keep commandments *is* the sign of love, not the words.

This approach eliminates most of the 'hell' problems (the clearly unjust applications), including the conundrum about 'witnessing.'

My pastor's belief in witness was that you lived a godly life. If you did so, people would notice and in time of trouble, they would ask how you managed so well. it was at that point, that you colld witness effectively. When a person had seen the effects of jesus in your life and wondered about them.

I think it's about the only kind of witness that has more than a ghost of a chance of helping someone find God.

I think what you are looking for isn't there, i.e. some definitive statement on who is saved and what one must do to be saved. For every verse you find in one direction, there seems to be a verse that points the other way.

I like the way it has been laid out to me. I'm comfortable with it. You give your witness when someone sees the effects of your religion in your life. that is when they are receptive to the message. People who have never heard or whom were born before the messiah came, are judged according to a different set of rules. I like this because it shows God as having the capacity to make his judgements based on his knowledge and goodness. Kind of like a judge who can ignore the legalities in a case where they don't have relevance, rather than twisiting the legalities to fit the case, so to speak.

For my congregation, the only way to become saved was accepting Jesus. No amount of good works or living a godly life would suffice. you were expected to do good works and live a godly life as part of the overall change finding Jesus brought, but they were not the reason you were going to heaven or not.

But no one ever found a resolution to my conundrum I liked. the closest was, if you present Jesus and they choose not to accept him, then the fault was there's not yours. I wasn't comfortable with that, so i witness so inrequently as to be non existant.