Salvation and other religions

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And I see no reason why someone should be condemned to hell for not finding one of thousands of old stories any more convincing than any other since not finding something convincing is not a choice, you're either convinced or you're not and if you're not all you can do is lie to yourself and others, including god and pretend you are

I'm not sure a person is condemned for not believing this or that story*. A person will perish (it appears) for "refusing to love the truth".

It seems to me that every person can be given access to Gods truth. And that every person can respond to that exposure in pro or contra fashion. I don't see it as necessary that a person believe in Gods existance in order to be exposed to his truth any more than a person need believe in the existance of virus' in order to be exposed to and affected by one.

So, if exposed to God's truth (whatever about you might think of such truths, or where ever you might think they arise) you will of necessity respond in one way or the other. And your reponse can be taken by God as an indicator of where it is you stand in relation to him and what he represents - all without your detecting his doing so.

It'd be a way of God detecting your view of what he represents without influencing your view by turning up and fuzzying the outcome.

If you consider 'perishing' as merely the destination of those who detest what God stands for and 'salvation' as merely the destination of those who love what God stands for - then you'd see this process as perfectly reasonable and fair: every person effectively decides where it is they will spend eternity.

Thy own will be done (which would naturally mean God's will be done - seeing as he's the one who gave you the will to have your way). I see no grounds for complaint.


* the argument is that a person believes Jesus Christ is their saviour because they have been saved. Such a belief is subsequent to and a consequence of salvation, in other words.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you consider 'perishing' as merely the destination of those who detest what God stands for and 'salvation' as merely the destination of those who love what God stands for - then you'd see this process as perfectly reasonable and fair: every person effectively decides where it is they will spend eternity.

No they don't, the choice being presented to me is not "live forever or perish", the correct choice is abundantly clear there. The choice being presented to me is whether or not I should accept this one particular claim of eternal salvation over all of the others. I could embrace christianity with all my heart and still perish if I'm wrong.

but I'm not allowed talk about it here

antiskeptic

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No they don't, the choice being presented to me is not "live forever or perish", the correct choice is abundantly clear there.

I wasn't suggesting that was the choice being presented. I'm suggesting that perishing/salvation are but the consequences attaching to the choice presented to you. Everyone does indeed choose their own eternal destination: by virtue of obtaining the consequences of their choice.

The choice being presented to me is whether or not I should accept this one particular claim of eternal salvation over all of the others. I could embrace christianity with all my heart and still perish if I'm wrong.

As mentioned, acceptance of Christ as Saviour (for example) is posited as occurring after your salvation. So can't be a belief leading to your salvation.

The choice being presented to you, I'm suggesting, is "what do you love: God's truth. Or lies". Your answer lies in your cumulative responses - whatever you believe about the existance of God.

This mechanism not only deals with the common atheist objection "what about someone who's never heard of Christ". It also deals with the less common atheist objection: "I had no compelling reason to believe this story over that story"... (with the unspoken rider) "..so if a just God does turn out to exist, I'll be fine" By this mechanism of salvation/damnation you clearly won't be. You're making choices all day everday. And God sees all your choices.

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that was the choice being presented. I'm suggesting that perishing/salvation are but the consequences attaching to the choice presented to you. Everyone does indeed choose their own eternal destination: by virtue of obtaining the consequences of their choice.




As mentioned, acceptance of Christ as Saviour (for example) is posited as occurring after your salvation. So can't be a belief leading to your salvation.

The choice being presented to you, I'm suggesting, is "what do you love: God's truth. Or lies". Your answer lies in your cumulative responses - whatever you believe about the existance of God.

This mechanism not only deals with the common atheist objection "what about someone who's never heard of Christ". It also deals with the less common atheist objection: "I had no compelling reason to believe this story over that story"... (with the unspoken rider) "..so if a just God does turn out to exist, I'll be fine" By this mechanism of salvation/damnation you clearly won't be. You're making choices all day everday. And God sees all your choices.

Sorry mate I can't respond to that here. If you start a thread on A&A I'll be more than happy to though

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that was the choice being presented. I'm suggesting that perishing/salvation are but the consequences attaching to the choice presented to you. Everyone does indeed choose their own eternal destination: by virtue of obtaining the consequences of their choice.




As mentioned, acceptance of Christ as Saviour (for example) is posited as occurring after your salvation. So can't be a belief leading to your salvation.

The choice being presented to you, I'm suggesting, is "what do you love: God's truth. Or lies". Your answer lies in your cumulative responses - whatever you believe about the existance of God.

This mechanism not only deals with the common atheist objection "what about someone who's never heard of Christ". It also deals with the less common atheist objection: "I had no compelling reason to believe this story over that story"... (with the unspoken rider) "..so if a just God does turn out to exist, I'll be fine" By this mechanism of salvation/damnation you clearly won't be. You're making choices all day everday. And God sees all your choices.

Do you accept thought that some things, such as the morality of genocide in the Old Testament, are only true if you know God exists.

For example, I think everyone, Christians included, would think someone who smiles at children being butchered and concludes that was just dandy, was a bit worrying.

Saint Ruth

You don't have to believe in the Literal Truth of the bible stories to be saved.

You have to be baptised and believe in God etc.

BUT:
If you are not baptised through no fault of your own, but search for the truth, you can be saved (so the theory goes) through "baptism of desire" and so yes, a Good non-Christian can be Saved.

As Wiki says: "Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly"