Not Ready's Noteworthy Statement

[David Sklansky]

He says it "wouldn't surprise him" if pious Jews and other pious religious people are saved. Of course he then goes on to say that if they are saved, it contradicts the words of the bible as he understands them. But he is willing to allow for the possibility that his understanding of those words is not necessarily flawless. He has stated that if he is somehow wrong about his interpretation and bumps into Jonas Salk up there he won't ask to leave.

Are fellows like udon'tknowmickey, spaminator, KuJustin and the other fundamentalists here willing to go along with Not Ready's position? (I think I stated it accurately.)

[Nielsio]

What is 'the' Bible?

[KUJustin]

David, I think you know where I stand on this but since I'm mentioned I'll address it.

I think there's a difference between misinterpreting a verse and misinterpreting the Bible as a whole.

Everything in the Bible starting from the Old Testament points to humanity's need for a savior. From the old-time sacrifices to the Jesus prophesies, the OT is constantly pointing to the fundamental ideas of the New Testament. Then, in the new testament, these same ideas are addressed over and over, consistent with each other.

We are sinful.
This sin necessarily seperates us from God because he is perfect and holy.
Jesus' sacrifice for us was the only one that is sufficient and complete.
We must accept that payment in order to be without sin in God's eyes and reconnected. We are saved through faith.

Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it. Anyone else believing that is either very slow, has decided that he probably knows more than God, or perhaps thinks that social ideals are more valid than the ideals of the God that he believes in.

So, no, I can't go along with the position. I honestly don't understand why you thought anyone who thought it through would go along with this position. It would shock me to find out that these people were saved. It would be incomprehensible for me. I will say that if I found out I was wrong upon arriving in heaven I certainly wouldn't leave. The salvation of others is very important to me, but it is by no means a core tenet of my faith.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
This sin necessarily seperates us from God because he is perfect and holy .


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It truly baffles me how someone can accept the ethical consistency of the preceding two quotes. You might as well claim it is morally "good" to rape children. The quoted poster's beliefs are an explicit example of how religion can corrupt otherwise good people into accepting a hideously evil ethical philosophy.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This sin necessarily seperates us from God because he is perfect and holy .


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It truly baffles me how someone can accept the ethical consistency of the preceding two quotes. You might as well claim it is morally "good" to rape children. The OP's beliefs are an explicit example of how religion can corrupt otherwise good people into accepting a hideously evil ethical philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do yout think they are 'otherwise good people'

Maybe the 'otherwise good people' are the ones who recognise, as many religous folk do, that there's a problem with this ethical philosophy. Or they just never really think about it so its just lipservice.

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This sin necessarily seperates us from God because he is perfect and holy .


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It truly baffles me how someone can accept the ethical consistency of the preceding two quotes. You might as well claim it is morally "good" to rape children. The OP's beliefs are an explicit example of how religion can corrupt otherwise good people into accepting a hideously evil ethical philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do yout think they are 'otherwise good people'

Maybe the 'otherwise good people' are the ones who recognise, as many religous folk do, that there's a problem with this ethical philosophy. Or they just never really think about it so its just lipservice.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

By "otherwise" good people I mean those who aren't sociopaths affected by, as Sam Harris remarks, frontal lobe dysfunction which causes them to engage in anti-social behavior regardless of beliefs. Rather I mean normal, sane people who became bad primarily because they accepted evil and irrational ideas. The 9-11 terrorists are obvious examples.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This sin necessarily seperates us from God because he is perfect and holy .


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

It truly baffles me how someone can accept the ethical consistency of the preceding two quotes. You might as well claim it is morally "good" to rape children. The OP's beliefs are an explicit example of how religion can corrupt otherwise good people into accepting a hideously evil ethical philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do yout think they are 'otherwise good people'

Maybe the 'otherwise good people' are the ones who recognise, as many religous folk do, that there's a problem with this ethical philosophy. Or they just never really think about it so its just lipservice.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

By "otherwise" good people I mean those who aren't sociopaths affected by, as Sam Harris remarks, frontal lobe dysfunction which causes them to engage in anti-social behavior regardless of beliefs. Rather I mean normal, sane people who became bad primarily because they accepted evil and irrational ideas. The 9-11 terrorists are obvious examples.

[/ QUOTE ]
The 9-11 terrorists may be good examples but I seriously doubt it.

The belief that they were otherwise good people that carried out such acts because they believed some nonsense about 72 raisins seems almost as silly as the belief about 72 raisins. (maybe not almost as silly but still far too simplistic)

chez

[revots33]

It boils down to this IMO:

God is never wrong.
(Most) humans agree that sending a good person to eternal torture is wrong.
So, good people who are non-Christians MUST somehow get into heaven, even if that thought is contradicted by the bible and the church's teachings.

Also: Baptism of desire is there as a convenient legit-sounding rationalization of the above contradictions.

What's ironic to me is that people are using their own sense of morality to contradict what their god says. Yet they feel it is their god who gives them their sense of morality.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
What's ironic to me is that people are using their own sense of morality to contradict what their god says. Yet they feel it is their god who gives them their sense of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[carlo]

\ [ QUOTE ]
Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it. Anyone else believing that is either very slow, has decided that he probably knows more than God, or perhaps thinks that social ideals are more valid than the ideals of the God that he believes in.


[/ QUOTE ]
The Bible is not and cannot be the end-all of moral behavior. Consider a Greek Statue or the Parthenon. These structures express a certain beauty/harmony which can be appreciated by anyone with some aesthetic sense. They are obviously not the same as first constructed(chips and bruises, et all). Nonetheless this type of structure can enter the depths of one's soul. Goethe went to Italy in order to become refreshed by it's vibrant artistic life and subsequently continued his creative process at another level.

The Bible is the same. How can a few words express the beginnings of Man without some consideration of Time? The Creation is MORE THAN ONE WORD OR SENTENCE. Only in an abstraction in thought would one consider that the sentence is enough. Likewise the NT presentations of Resurrection and Love are difficult to perceive for any thinking soul.

The Bible acts as a work of art but much greater is scope than one can imagine. This tome can and does work into the human being and its inward expresion is much more than a solitary consideration of an abstract absoluteness. Yes, it is absolutely true(chips and bruises,et all) but the work is to bring it into one's life.

The work is to bring this tome into ones heart, and express it as best as one can. To demand subjection to it's abstractness for salvation is a mere petrified/wooden misunderstanding. Fortunately the enthusiasm for its presentation does lead to Love in one's soul. We are all different but Love brings us together as Man in individual(s) harmony(ies).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What's ironic to me is that people are using their own sense of morality to contradict what their god says. Yet they feel it is their god who gives them their sense of morality.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its more than ironic. Its the best possible evidence against some religons.

I wrote a long post about this some time ago but some people seem over-impressed with words of dubious provinence rather than morality which is god-given if god exists.

chez

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person"


[/ QUOTE ]

I want to clarify that I don't believe anyone is saved by doing good works. I also don't believe that anyone will be saved who has heard the Gospel and not responded in faith at some point in their life.

What I meant by not being suprised is that I understand how easy it is for humans to misinterpret Scripture. I also meant that I believe God is good and "is not willing that any should perish" so that if it's possible to save someone, that person will be saved.

I tried very hard to word that post so no one would think I deviate from Scripture concerning salvation and the Gospel amd still leave sovereignty with God. But for those who hear and reject, I see no reason to think they are saved.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
if it's possible to save someone, that person will be saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it ever be possible that God cannot save someone?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Anyone else believing that is either very slow, has decided that he probably knows more than God, or perhaps thinks that social ideals are more valid than the ideals of the God that he believes in. </font>

I think your position is fine as long as you acknowledge there is a high probability that it will be you yourself burning in hell forever if you have any of the details wrong and therefore commit some small infraction.

Or are you really so arrogant to think that only members of YOUR sect are 100% right about everything concerning God? I can't even fathom such arrogance. It's dispicable.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How can it ever be possible that God cannot save someone?


[/ QUOTE ]

God can't do the intrinsically impossible. For instance, He can't sin. If salvation requires someone to respond in faith and that person refuses to do so then in might not be possible for God to save him.

[madnak]

"I'll say 'Marco,' then you say 'Polo.' If you don't say 'Polo' I'll roast you on a spit for eternity. Ready? Marco!"

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
God can't do the intrinsically impossible. For instance, He can't sin. If salvation requires someone to respond in faith and that person refuses to do so then in might not be possible for God to save him.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, god can just leave a clerk in charge since she herself is 'just following the rules, mam'. If I were god, I'd want to be able to make some decisions or I could stay home.

luckyme

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So, god can just leave a clerk in charge since she herself is 'just following the rules, mam'. If I were god, I'd want to be able to make some decisions or I could stay home.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was right in an earlier post when I said many people on this forum don't have a clue what I'm saying.

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So, god can just leave a clerk in charge since she herself is 'just following the rules, mam'. If I were god, I'd want to be able to make some decisions or I could stay home.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was right in an earlier post when I said many people on this forum don't have a clue what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strange that God would create me to be incapable of understanding what you (and my parents for 22 years) are trying to explain. Maybe he doesn't want my business?

Oh Snap, forgot free will. You win of course.

Lucky for you though that your free will gets you eternal bliss and I get eternal fire.

Eh, I'm sure it'll all even out eventually. There are lots of eternities ya know.

[dknightx]

the problem with fundamentalist christians is that they believe they KNOW what happens after death ... they assume that when you die, you are immediately sent to heaven or hell (depending on your beliefs).

In my opinion, this is not what happens. First I have no idea what happens between death and judgement ... maybe some are given the oppurtunity to believe? maybe not? who knows, but the most important part here, is the judgement. God will judge "fairly" ... meaning, we are not meant to determine if OTHER PEOPLE will get into heaven or not, that is up to God. YES, God can not stand sin, and can not (more like chooses not, but you get the point) be with sin. But that doesn't mean whoever believes is automatically saved, and whoever doesn't believe is automatically sent to hell.

In the first case (believers), two items from the bible:
1. even satan and his minions believe in and know about Jesus
2. The parable of the goats and sheeps, those who did not honor God (even though they believed) were casted out.

For the 2nd case (non-believers), theres not much information in the bible regarding this ... there are some mentions in Romans about how God is all around, etc, etc, but I think thats its GOOD that the bible doesnt have a lot about this. why? It prevents us, as humans, from judging other people. We KNOW that there is a way to get into heaven, a way that God has opened up for us. It is a PERSONAL decision whether to accept it or not ... its none of our business if another person does not want to accept it. Of course, out of love, we can try to convince them to accept it, but if they dont, they dont!

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your position is fine as long as you acknowledge there is a high probability that it will be you yourself burning in hell forever if you have any of the details wrong and therefore commit some small infraction.

Or are you really so arrogant to think that only members of YOUR sect are 100% right about everything concerning God? I can't even fathom such arrogance. It's dispicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about getting things 100% right? Your tirade confuses me.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Who said anything about getting things 100% right? Your tirade confuses me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what percentage do you need to get right before the gates to heaven swing open for you?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Or are you really so arrogant to think that only members of YOUR sect are 100% right about everything concerning God? I can't even fathom such arrogance. It's dispicable.

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to being despicable, I'd say it's also typical.

Every Christian sect believes that only *they* know the keys to getting into heaven. From NotReady's self-created sect of "Lutheran with a pinch of Pentecostal and a dash of Greek Orthodox" (or whatever it is that he claims to follow), to the snake-handlers in Tennessee, to the Baptists who hold up "God Hates [censored]" signs at soldiers' funerals, to KUJustin's sect that believes that Gandhi is roasting in hell...all of these sects believe that every other sect has it wrong.

It's really hard to take these theists seriously, when they can't even agree amongst each other about what is the "truth" -- yet they continue to arrogantly lecture us as to the mind of God.

[KUJustin]

Hopey, I can understand your frustration though I think it's caused you to go way outside the realm of reason, or even fact and into dramatic cliches.

[ QUOTE ]
Every Christian sect believes that only *they* know the keys to getting into heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

False, false, false, false, false, false, FALSE.

The differences in the many different denominations of believers are rarely about the idea that Jesus died for our sins and without him we have no way to be reconciled to God. In fact, this may be what defines Christianity.

I'm not sure how saying God should be expected to work in the way set forth in the entirity of the Bible falls under "unique interpretations." The whole point here is that none of us are going to get it right, but God has freed us from such an obligation. So, while we strive to determine exactly how God wishes us to live, and who exactly He is, and how to share Him with others, the fact is that we're allowed to get all of it wrong because we've been freed from the law.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In addition to being despicable, I'd say it's also typical.

Every Christian sect believes that only *they* know the keys to getting into heaven. From NotReady's self-created sect of "Lutheran with a pinch of Pentecostal and a dash of Greek Orthodox" (or whatever it is that he claims

[/ QUOTE ]
.... etc., etc., etc., ....

Ditto my previous post.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can it ever be possible that God cannot save someone?


[/ QUOTE ]

God can't do the intrinsically impossible. For instance, He can't sin. If salvation requires someone to respond in faith and that person refuses to do so then in might not be possible for God to save him.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is breaking God's own rules intrinsically impossible? There are numerous places in the bible where God does this. So why not save everyone?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How is breaking God's own rules intrinsically impossible? There are numerous places in the bible where God does this.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, I didn't say His rules. I said intrinsically. What I mean by that is God can't violate His own nature. It may be against His nature to save certain people. I don't know, I'm just speaking hypothetically in answer to the question how it could be possible that God couldn't save someone. He can't sin, for instance, and, hypothetically, if it would be sin for Him to save someone, He can't save that person. Again, just hypothetically.

Also, as to rules. Most of the rules in the Bible are meant for man. For instance, praying to God and worshipping Him. All of the rules reflect something about God's nature. But He is not necessarily subject to the same rules He makes for His creatures. Just like a parent doesn't have to be in bed by 10 P.M. even though he makes it a rule for his child.

[BPA234]

"The differences in the many different denominations of believers are rarely about the idea that Jesus died for our sins and without him we have no way to be reconciled to God. In fact, this may be what defines Christianity."

With this part you appear to exclude rather than embrace.


"The whole point here is that none of us are going to get it right, but God has freed us from such an obligation. So, while we strive to determine exactly how God wishes us to live, and who exactly He is, and how to share Him with others, the fact is that we're allowed to get all of it wrong because we've been freed from the law."

With this part you appear to prove your dissenters point.

[David Sklansky]

"Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it."

So you are saying that an atheist CAN get in but a Jew can't? The opposite of Not Ready's speculation?

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
"Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it."

So you are saying that an atheist CAN get in but a Jew can't? The opposite of Not Ready's speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think he is saying that those who have no knowledge of the Bible are not excluded, but those who do but have rejected it are.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How can it ever be possible that God cannot save someone?


[/ QUOTE ]

God can't do the intrinsically impossible. For instance, He can't sin. If salvation requires someone to respond in faith and that person refuses to do so then in might not be possible for God to save him.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is breaking God's own rules intrinsically impossible? There are numerous places in the bible where God does this. So why not save everyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, my understanding is that he has. He provided the means. He simply leaves it up to us whether we want to be saved. You are saying "why not force everyone to be saved?" Different question.

I think that Christians are getting a very unfair slamming here. In the main, they do not believe that you have to believe a particular list of things to get into heaven. But they do suggest that if you have been offered the chance to enter heaven by accepting Jesus as your saviour etc, and you turn that down, well, being "good" will not help you any.

However, note that while St Paul said that you are not saved by works, St James is clear that faith alone is not enough: you must also do good works. (The contradiction is only apparent. Paul means to say that works alone will not save you, not that having faith but sinning will work.)

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
"The differences in the many different denominations of believers are rarely about the idea that Jesus died for our sins and without him we have no way to be reconciled to God. In fact, this may be what defines Christianity."

With this part you appear to exclude rather than embrace.

[/ QUOTE ]

How? He's saying they have more in common than they differ over. He is only excluding those who don't accept Jesus as their saviour.

[ QUOTE ]
"The whole point here is that none of us are going to get it right, but God has freed us from such an obligation. So, while we strive to determine exactly how God wishes us to live, and who exactly He is, and how to share Him with others, the fact is that we're allowed to get all of it wrong because we've been freed from the law."

With this part you appear to prove your dissenters point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how. He's saying precisely that you do not have to meet some code, which the dissenters insist he thinks you do. But at the same time he's saying that believers want to know what will please God so that they can do it. That doesn't seem wholly unreasonable. They think God has given them a lot after all.

[KUJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
"Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it."

So you are saying that an atheist CAN get in but a Jew can't? The opposite of Not Ready's speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about who's actually getting in, just who has a reasonable basis for believing that "good people" can get into heaven on their own merits.

[BPA234]

1. Catholics don't "accept" Jesus as their savior.


2. The referenced paragraph highlights the inherent hypocrisy in such a position.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Believing that someone can enter heaven by being a "good person" should be reserved for those who don't believe the Bible or don't know anything about it."

So you are saying that an atheist CAN get in but a Jew can't? The opposite of Not Ready's speculation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about who's actually getting in, just who has a reasonable basis for believing that "good people" can get into heaven on their own merits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still confused. Who gets into heaven? From these threads I've narrowed it down to one or more of the following...

Christians who genuinely believe regardless of how they live
Christians who believe but who live good lives only
Jews who live good lives
Muslims who live good lives
Agnostics who live good lives
Athiests who live good lives
Those baptized by desire
crib deaths
dogs
New guineans

Apologies if I left anyone out

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Catholics don't "accept" Jesus as their savior.

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm. WTF? It's in the Nicene creed, dude.

[BPA234]

Not in the fundamentalist/evangelical/born again sense. This is not just semantics. There is a major difference between what the above consider "saved" and "accepting" Jesus and what catholics believe. Further, Catholics do not embrace sola scriptura,absolute literal interpretation, nor most modern "christian" positions on the bible.


I am uniquely qualified to make that statement, since I was raised Roman Catholic and graduated from a "Christian" college. There will be few Catholics in a "Christian" heaven.

[Shadowrun]

[ QUOTE ]
Not in the fundamentalist/evangelical/born again sense. This is not just semantics. There is a major difference between what the above consider "saved" and "accepting" Jesus and what catholics believe. Further, Catholics do not embrace sola scriptura,absolute literal interpretation, nor most modern "christian" positions on the bible.


I am uniquely qualified to make that statement, since I was raised Roman Catholic and graduated from a "Christian" college. There will be few Catholics in a "Christian" heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif