Here We Go Again!

[Mystic]

Ok Drich, what about people whom never came across the message of the gospels? What would their path of redemption be?

:^) is it your belief that a cermony or a specific version of Christianity is indeed Christianity? Meaning all of the followers of that brand of christianity is indeed Christian? If so which one, and what of all who don't follow that version?

In the End the writter of Hebrews tell us that we are all going to be rightly divided and judged (the Christian and non Christian alike) and our personal proclaimations have little to do with our eternal status. It is our hearts that are judged, and our motivies will be all laid bare to which we will have to give an account. For the 'Christian' it is not a matter of proclaimation that saves him it is a matter of attonement offered, accepted and approved by Christ. To the one who has not been offered, you can put your mind at ease that he too will be judged in the same way. For the same blood that saves a man when he accepts Christ, and condemns a man when he refuses Christ covers all of those who never knew Christ. Meaning God doesn't need us to live 70 years of our lives to accuratly judge us. He knew us before we were born. Our lives are for us to know and accept His final judgement. God will judge them in every aspect of their lives accuratly and fairly.

My question wasn't about being saved or not, I'm asking how would they redeem themselves.

In the case of Christians, you are saying willingly accepting redemption from God through Jesus Christ Sacrifice, is redeeming your sins.

I'm asking how people whom didn't have a chance to accept the gospel, how would they redeem themselves. Not whether they are saved or not.

If you state that you don't have to believe in Christ to be redeemed by Christ, then why doesn't that apply to those whom heard the gospel but were not convinced it's true?

Also, in that case, tell me exactly how they are redeemed from their sins?

And why isn't DeistPaladin suggestion that we try to become better humans, not enough of a redemption?

[Drich]

My question wasn't about being saved or not, I'm asking how would they redeem themselves.

What is the difference? is saved being apart of a religious expression or a specific denomination? if so then they wouldn't be 'saved' or a specific brand of christian, yet they could still find redemption for their sin and live an eternal life.

In the case of Christians, you are saying willingly accepting redemption from God through Jesus Christ Sacrifice, is redeeming your sins.

I'm asking how people whom didn't have a chance to accept the gospel, how would they redeem themselves. Not whether they are saved or not.

accepting the gospel according to Hebrews 4 goes beyond the rights and passages of Christian cermony. Their eternal life of salvation will become a matter of Christ's final judgement, just like everyone else.

The Christian is saved because He responded to an invitation. The man who never knew Christ is saved by Christ on the day of his judgement if he is deemed righteous.

If you state that you don't have to believe in Christ to be redeemed by Christ, then why doesn't that apply to those whom heard the gospel but were not convinced it's true?

Because they refused Christ. Not all who haven't heard of Christ would refuse Him if they had, in turn not all would accept them if they had. Christ does not need to witness the acceptance or denial of the gospel to judge a man's soul. It all comes down to where your heart lies, and if you have been faithful to what God has given to you.

Also, in that case, tell me exactly how they are redeemed from their sins?

The same way Aberham, David, Daniel, Joseph, way the same way Paul was, the Same way all who are save are. through the blood of Christ. i have already said Christ blood sacerfice is not something we do. It is something He did. These men all of the were faithful to what they have been given the oppertunities God gave them they carried out as far as they could. the same is true with the modern day man who did not her the gospel, but remains faithful. where God seperates him from the anounced unbeliever is the faithfulness one exibits to what he has been given.

On the other side of that coin Christ says there will be many who call out to Him for the many good deeds they have done in his name, and He will say He never knew them. Why because salvation is not some cermony or action we partake in. It is what has been done for us.

And why isn't DeistPaladin suggestion that we try to become better humans, not enough of a redemption?

because "better" is an illusion Better than what? Hitler's germany? the last Generation of Americans? Better than those who own slaves? or better than those who give themselves to God as they have been commanded? or just a little bit better than where you feel comfortable?

You guys don't seem to understand what biblical Christianity is. it is not subjugation to a list of rules and hardship. It is freedom from those rules so you can be just faithful humans. With the redemption Christ offers or requirements drop to a "Do the best you can" requirement. Not a half ass do the best you can' but a literal do the best you can be, and that is all God asks of you. Now understand that if you are faithful to what God has given you. You will be given more. and subsequently you will be expected to be faithful to that new lot. and so the snow ball builds. (which is why i can not attribute my sucess in this ecconomy as anything but a gift from God)

[Darkstar]

I don't typically do ethics, it takes me away from my core specializations and inappropriately wastes valuable time I could be using for other analysis.

However, in your case, I have an even better justification for avoiding it altogether.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm simply saying that, for example, although killing is generally wrong, if you are stopping a knife weilding maniac from maiming some helpless kid, then it can be better justified. Not only are the ten commandments flawed and incomplete, but people need to determine if an action is morally sound for the specific situation, rather than follow absolute rules while ignoring important situational details.

[Waratah]

@ Drich
What the fuck is this faithfulness you keep on talking about. You say if someone has been faithful for what has been given to them then he gets saved even if he new nothing about christ. Please Explain what that means.

[Reforged]

Sorry but I really want Drich to answer this question, I want to know what his answer would be in that situation:

Someone comes up to you screaming he is a prophet and announces
"Jesus is in my cock. Don't question it, just get on your knees and start pleasing it to receive the warm, gooey salvation it casts out to all true believers."
Considering you don't fully understand this concept he is preaching and that you have no reason to disbelieve unless you try it out what do you do?

[Angrboda]

I don't typically do ethics, it takes me away from my core specializations and inappropriately wastes valuable time I could be using for other analysis.

However, in your case, I have an even better justification for avoiding it altogether.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm simply saying that, for example, although killing is generally wrong, if you are stopping a knife weilding maniac from maiming some helpless kid, then it can be better justified. Not only are the ten commandments flawed and incomplete, but people need to determine if an action is morally sound for the specific situation, rather than follow absolute rules while ignoring important situational details.

I was being sarcastic. Your thinking in this area appears to lack clarity. I am not a bringer of light.


(Though if you need chips, beer, or a blow job, just whistle.)

[Waratah]

How do you whistle in a forum

[Darkstar]

I was being sarcastic. Your thinking in this area appears to lack clarity. I am not a bringer of light.

Okay, I'll try to explain it better. Some people argue over whether morality is objective or subjective. Some say it is subjective because you can decide what is right and wrong. Others say it is objective because saying something is moral does not automatically make it so, even if you, or your entire culture believes it. I say that both explanations have some truth to them. Morality is objective on a situational basis, and subjective in that you must use your own judgement to decide if something is moral or immoral in the given context. It is objective in that there are often right and wrong answers to these situation descisions, although it can be ambiguous at times.

[Angrboda]

I was being sarcastic. Your thinking in this area appears to lack clarity. I am not a bringer of light.

Okay, I'll try to explain it better. Some people argue over whether morality is objective or subjective. Some say it is subjective because you can decide what is right and wrong. Others say it is objective because saying something is moral does not automatically make it so, even if you, or your entire culture believes it. I say that both explanations have some truth to them. Morality is objective on a situational basis, and subjective in that you must use your own judgement to decide if something is moral or immoral in the given context. It is objective in that there are often right and wrong answers to these situation descisions, although it can be ambiguous at times.

[Tempus]

(Though if you need chips, beer, or a blow job, just whistle.)

Actually, I'm a vegetarian.