Do Christians think that every non-Christian is going to hell? ( I am not trying to be a douche; I just want some help)

nipchee · 18 days

Let me add to what Dead2Alive said. The Bible makes it quite clear that we are not good. Read through Romans chapter 3, particularly verse 23. If you like, read chapters 1 and 2 also.

The truth is that we aren't going to hell because we just slip up here and there. We are damned because we are extremely vile and wicked creatures whose every thought is nothing but sin against the holy and sovereign God of all creation. From birth, we have chosen to be the enemies of God in willing defiance of His will. Every second that He doesn't cast us into eternal damnation is mercy beyond our comprehension.

And yet, as the Bible says, while we were yet sinners, while we were the very enemies of God, He died for us. He took the thing that was most valuable in all of existence, His only Son, who He loves more than anything, and put him to death to bear the sins of those who have defiled His creation and who despise Him. For a person to reject this great mercy is for them to spit upon the death of God's most beloved.

Can a man be good? What is good? Is it following the 10 commandments? In the Old Testament, there were not just 10 commands, but over 600 separate commands. To be good, not great, but merely acceptable, one would have to, from birth, follow all 600+ commands. We can't even keep the 10.

Even if an unsaved man could get into heaven, he wouldn't like it. He hates God and everything about God. He would not be able to tolerate the presence of such a holy being. Men hate to be told what to do. Men hate to think that they are less than good. They spend quite a bit of energy trying to make themselves feel good about their sin, rather than to repent. They wouldn't be able to bear it being surrounded by truth.

That's why we need Christ.

celia_bedilia · 18 days

Been following you a few weeks and believe many of your positions to be solidly Bible-based

Thank you for the compliment, though I feel I may be less than adequate at times. Reddit makes me a bit too emotional to respond properly, if there is such a thing. I feel like most my posts are insufficient at best.

The concept is admittedly a very rough generalization, and is intended to point out that 1. a woman shouldn't be a pastor, and 2. a woman's submission is not a disproportionately larger burden than that of men.

The word "submit" in Eph 5:21 is quite literally the same as the one in 5:20. Actually, the word never appears in 21 in the Greek, and is just continuing the thought from the previous verse. So, if it stopped there, it would be entirely the same thing. The concept is that we all must submit.

The rest of that passage describes the heirarchy and leadership structure of the family. I hope that we are on the same page there, that wives are subject to their own husbands in everything.

For the issue of women holding authority, that statement comes almost verbativ from the Bible:

1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Also, consider this passage:

1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

In this context, Paul is repremanding the church at Corinth for speaking in unknown tongues. This is a rather hard verse to understand, and I don't want to try to disect the entire concept here, but even though it is not the main point, I think one would have a hard time accepting women preachers in light of it.

I am familiar with Deborah, and if one took that as an example without any other verses on the matter, then one might conclude that it is fine for women to be leaders over men. One thing that I've learned is that such examples are fine as guidelines when there is no direct verse dealing with the matter. The problem is that man is corrupt, and even the best often do wrong. For instance, the patriarchs had multiple wives. And yet, we know that a man should only have one wife because of the scripture.

Looking through the Scripture, we see that the traits most valued in women are meekness, humility, and modesty. This does not mean that a woman is less, because these traits are also valued for all believers. Even among men, it is not considered good to seek positions of authority. It is simply the order which God has placed for the houshold and then for society at large.

celia_bedilia · 19 days

but I think a good person does not desire to hurt or harm another human being.

The problem is that being a "good person" is much more demanding than either of us would like to admit. It means being completely submitted to God's will. We try to find arbitrary boundaries and say that if we stick the them, then we are good. Anybody can follow their own chosen boundaries, especially if they are flexible enough. One thing I've discoverd about Atheists and morality is that they don't really have one. Morality is supposed to tell you what to do in a certain situation, even if you don't like what it tells us. Atheists, in my experience, use "morality" to justify their actions rather than to determine them. This is a big difference, and it's made quite easy by using a shifting set of subjective moralities. The thing about Christianity is that you have only one morality to choose from, and it doesn't change to let you do what you want. Although, like I said earlier, some will pick and choose and try to call it Christianity.

Dare I ask, easier how? Do you mean spiritually or some other way?

By the obligations of the Bible, men have it much harder than women.

I was treated as a person who could not make decisions about my own body, clothing...

What you may be missing is that this is true of every Christian, not just women. A major concept of Christianity is submitting your will to God, and through that, submitting to others around you. God uses our authority figures to guide us in His will, even the those in authority who do wrong. The wife is obligated to submit to God and her husband. The husband is not required to submit to his wife in the same way, but he is obligated to submit to God and to his pastor and to his boss and to the earthly authorities in charge of him. So, he doesn't get a free pass. What's more, the husband is obligated to love his wife, and even to give himself for her as Christ gave himself for his bride, the church. That means that a husband should be willing to die for his wife. Then, consider their obligations in marriage. The wife has the children if they do have any children. But the husband is required to provide for the needs of the household. A wife has no such obligation. So, all things considered, I think the women have it a bit better. At least, they have it easier.

As for holing positions of authority, yes, it is not for women to hold authority over men. That means that they cannot be preachers and shouldn't hold positions of authority over men in the secular world either. But they can and should be teachers of other women and of children. The older women are to teach the younger women, so there are many women called into positions of authority. Also, consider that not every man is called to be in any position of authority. Outside of perhaps his family, most men are not. The Bible says that we shouldn't make ourselves many masters. In Christianity, being in authority isn't really a good thing. It seems almost like a necessary evil. Those who are in authority become responsible for those who they lead, and according to the Bible, have a greater condemnation. So, such positions are not to be coveted except that God calls us to them.

So, how would you ever know for sure that you had been "truly born again"?

When you read the Scriptures, I believe that everybody has some level of conviction, even the lost. A person who falsely beleives they are a Christian will read their Bible and begin to realize that they don't do the things it commands. They'll read the parts about the new nature, and realize that they don't quite fit what's being said. I know that for me, the book of James hit me like a brick. Before I gave my life to Christ, there were passages in Hebrews and others that made me sit up at night terrified because I knew that it was condemning what I thought was Christianity. I have known several false converts, and I was one once myself. Though every "Christian" you know tells you you're saved, the Bible tells you otherwise. Some might not notice because they don't read the Bible, but as a false minister, she would have had to read it. If nothing else, she would have had to account for the verses taht said she shouldn't be preaching. And yet, she continued to do it.

I do have a problem with christians teaching judgment though.

I think you may have those verses out of context. We are not to judge as in to condemn a person. However, we can, and should, certainly discern a person's actions, whether they are right or wrong. As for finding strangers and scruitinizing every area of their life and pointing out flaws, that isn't a wise thing to do. What we do is to look at evidences in a person's life and discern their fruits to know whether we treat them like one of the brethren. We also need to stand up against wrong teaching. This is most true when it comes to those teaching heresies and those who claim to be Christian.

I heard David Barton on the Daily Show say that 83% of people in the US are christians.

I wouldn't really trust the Daily Show for information. I would say that roughly 5% of people who claim to be Christian really are Christian. So, if that were the figure, it would be 5% of 83%. But let's pretend for the moment that 83% at least aren't persecuting Christians. They recieve the greater persecution in that Christians are generally more tolerant of others since we understand that they can't help doing wrong, and that we don't believe you can force a person into correct belief. On the other hand, Atheists and some other groups believe that you can and should "educate" people against Christianity, and they don't feel bad using the state to enforce these beliefs.

I don't really get it how christians are mad because they can't force ...

I don't know any Christian who wants to force anybody. We want to be allowed to pray ourselves. If they want to pray, let them pray too. This is one of the many problems I see with public education. I don't think it's right or fair that one small group gets to force another group to act in accordance with their will or loose their right to "free" education. I would much rather that we got rid of all public education, or at the least, provide vouchers so that there is a choice and everybody has a chance to find the right school.

Do you really want atheists to come to your door to pester you about deconversion during dinner time?

Well, if he really believed that I would be tormented forever if I didn't, I would think it awful nice of him to care about me. Don't think that I don't get Mormons stopping by too. I just try to teach the Gospel to them, and it doesn't usually bother me. A lot of people put up "no soliciting" signs, and we avoid those houses.

Do you want a panel of atheists deciding what's in your health plan?

Isn't that exactly what they are doing? That's just one of many reasons that I don't like the government getting involved in health care, or in our personal lives. But then, that's what I expect from them. I don't fault them for doing what they believe, even though I think it's wrong, and will fight to stop it.

Do you want to swear on Richard Dawkin's book in court?

I suppose that if I didn't believe in God or Dawkins it wouldn't matter much to me. Incedentally, I wouldn't want to swear on a Bible either and for the same reason. Jesus teaches us not to swear by anything. We are expected to always tell the truth.

I think atheists are a pretty tolerant bunch if you ask me.

I would say that they are tolerant of almost everything, except for the Bible. Truth is like a razor, straight and narrow. You can go miles to the left and be wrong, and miles to the right and be wrong, but you can't go an inch and still be in truth. It's that thin line of truth that causes such problems.

beauseph · 19 days

I have thought of the idea myself. One problem that I see is that people may nto be happy paying for things which they could acquire for free. It might take some time to get people used to the idea of supporting indie films.

It would cost a lot of money and overhead to start a new company like Redbox. I think that it might be easier to get them to include indie works along with the others. Inside the case could be a small pamplet explaining that the money goes to support the indie movement rather than to the media oligarchy.

One key is advertizement. I think that supporters of indie films should come together to pick one really great film, and work to promote it, even in some of the typically Hollywood-only areas such as TV ads and video stores. Once the public is aware, and there is demand for indie-only films, then we can make a new Redbox if needed.

noble_neckbeard · 19 days

I think that the obvious heirarchy is to please the Lord first, your wife second, and then your pastor. I think that the key is in serving the Lord.

I understand what you must be going through. Recently, my own church has gone through some changes. Much worse than just becoming repetative, my church changed much of everything, from the denomination and philosophy to the preaching. It's hard when you want to be around your local church family, but don't find the preaching edifying.

I would say that your obligation to your wife is to be the pastor of your own home. If she doesn't learn from your pastor, that's fine, let her learn from you. I'm sure that you have already looked for a strong mentor and teacher among the elders, and you can grow and pass that along to your wife even if your pastor isn't doing so well in that area. Wives can be great sources of discernment, so consider very much what she has to say, even though in the end, the choice will be on your shoulders.

The purpose of a church is not just to hear preaching, but to have a body in which to serve. Try to find a place in the church where you can minister. Also, talk with your pastor about your concerns. Let him know that you are looking for more meat, and see if he has suggestions. He is still your God given authority, and can guide you to the right place for you and your family.

Obviously, pray about it. God will lead you where He wants you. Sometimes, it's in a direction you don't suspect. As for me, when I couldn't bear it any longer, God just blessed me with a new job in another state, so I'll have to find a new church. I know that in His time, God can reveal His plans for you.

hobdobgoblin · 19 days

I don't think that's the way it works. I know of no person who was convinced on reason to trust in God. The Bible says that salvation is a work of God, not just a matter of changing opinions and beliefs, and it's certainly not about a set of acts. Many of the Pharisees had plenty of facts, and they help pretty much all the right beleifs. However, they were still lost because God had not done a regenerating work in them and made them a new creature.

The born again Christian believer most usually begins by hearing the Gospel. Through the Gospel, God convicts them that He exists, He is holy, and that they are themselves very vile. That person, after God has granted them repentence, then seeks God's will for their life. He then directs them to the Bible, which tells them about Him and about the world, etc. The philosophical question of whether there must be a creator is one that most believers never ponder. If they do, they do so from the perspective of having already known God on a personal level.

So, in theory, could a person start from pure reason and arrive at God? I can't say for sure, but I suspect that they could, if the devil didn't throw them off course. This is less in the realm of /r/Christianity, and more for /r/DebateReligion, but I think a person can start from solipsism, realize that they must believe something, and then go about testing all possible sets of beliefs, and realize that Christianity provides the most usefull and satisfying answers while requiring the least assumptions. I don't think that anybody would ever do this, because of our sinful nature.

celia_bedilia · 19 days

It works on the condition that if God were not real, then there wouldn't be any real Christians. On the other hand, there are plenty of false Christians, what Christ called "tares" and "goats". Since their version of Christianity is just a matter of a certain set of beliefs or actions, it is as shallow as what coat somebody chooses to wear. They can change their religion easily, and they are in fact no different than any other religion.

Yeah, I agree, I can't really see why...

It's a miracle that anybody is a Christian, not just women. Women get it easy to some extent. It's the men who really have it hard. But then, why would anybody willingly want to do what was right rather than what they wanted? Some try to have their cake and eat it too by calling themselves Christian, but denying all the commands of the Bible, and only following the parts that they like.

Then why did she ever leave?

I'm not saying that I think she was intentially trying to lie. I think that she justified it somehow in her own mind. I imagine that as she read the Bible, she had doubts about what she was teaching. Certainly, the verses that spoke against what she was doing must have given her pause. Instead of being honest, likely for fear of losing her job, she continued to teach the lies she was taught. I think it's a lot like the reason that Jesus called the Pharisees two-fold sons of hell, who not only were damned themselves, but who shut up the kingdome for others through their lies. She probably thought that everybody else was living a lie too, and maybe she saw it as the false choice of either believing the lies she had been taught or teaching that all Christianity was wrong. I think that she knew she wasn't a Christian (truly born again), but instead of choosing to research what that meant, chose to teach people that there was no such thing.

Yes, only Christianity is correct. I never have accepted the politically correct concept of (PC version) "tolerance" and acceptence. If somebody does wrong, I'm not going to say that it is right. It seems that these days, the only thing that people won't tolerate is biblical Christianity. They would easier accept murder than somebody teaching mercy and judgement. I believe that we should love everybody, but we should never accept the idea that wrong is right.

aPaperPie · 20 days

If the situation is that dire, there's adoption. It's better to give them to somebody who can provide a better life than to raise them up watching their daddy steal and go to jail.

But the real issue is that they continue to have children when they aren't even married. I get frustrated that there are women out there still getting together with guys who steal and can't support the bastard kids they have.

aPaperPie · 20 days

This sort of thinking is wrong and dangerous. It is never acceptable to steal. It's one thing to do it, but it's another to try to justify it. No matter how you're looking at it, you are hurting the industry.

First of all, there's the supply/demand issue. If you steal cheese, then that's one block of cheese you won't need to buy. Also, why do you think it's somehow okay to steal from a big grocery chain? Are they not worthy of the profit they earn? This sort of greedy, ignorant, self-centered idea is destructive.

celia_bedilia · 20 days

A reason that I want to point this out is that I think that most people are under the false assumption that Christianity is merely a set of beliefs or actions, as if one can simply decide to be a Christian or not. To any extent which this can be true, Christianity is unimportant to me. To be a true follower of Christ, a miracle must be done by God to change the very nature of a person. This is described by Christ, the very one to which the term "Christian" alludes. That is why the Bible tells us to examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith. If this change does not actually happen, and if no miracle is performed, then there are no Christians.

One problem I have is that it seems obvious to me that the woman in question didn't really care too much about the Bible to begin with. The Bible says that a woman can't be a pastor. Since she was willing to violate that, I don't see why we should accept that she really believed the rest of the Bible. There are very many people who are falsely portraying themselves as Christians to take advantage of those who don't know about what the Bible teaches. I can't say whether these false teachers intend to trick their followers or they are in it for some other reason. However, I do think that they always have doubts, and they hide them rather than deal with them.

Then what are you commenting for?

I believe that enough information is presented in the title and in the link to the comments to answer the OP's question, and provide insight that he may be ignoring.

celia_bedilia · 20 days

That's the problem with semantics. A person can change the meaning of a word over time. Originally, the word "Christian" was probably a derrogatory term given to those who followed Christ. At that time, you faced persecution and death for confessing Christ, so not many would desire such a title falsely, and yet, even then, they did. Jesus talks about the tares being planted in with the wheat and gave us instructions on how we could tell who was truly a brother.

In our day, the term "Christian" gets thrown around a lot, and it has almost become a fad to call one's self a Christian. The dividing line isn't semantics, but whether they truly follow Christ, and Christ gave certain commands. One of his commands was "ye must be born again". The Bible explains this process, and gives us some ways to judge whether a person is born again. I'm certain that there are many who don't use the Bible to determine what Christianity is. They call me a heretic for beliving in the Bible and even for following the commands of Christ.

I can not speak for every arbitrary definition of what makes a Christian so. What I can do is complain that these biased media companies never represent Christians who believe the most common sense and traditional concepts of Christianity, that is the doctrine of the Bible. It's like trying to criticize the true sport of wrestling by showing "professional" wreslters and saying that all wrestling is just a fake stage show, and using that to argue against wrestling competitions in school.

celia_bedilia · 20 days

Salvation is much more than just a series of beliefs. The beliefs are just a part of the gift of salvation. In other words, no person is saved who does not believe, but some who believe are not saved. Salvation is permanent, but it is also a process, similar to being alive.

If a person is alive, they will breath. Some things which are dead can have breath pumped into them, but no living person does not breath. When one is born, he begins to breath and over time, he grows or he dies. He does not stop breathing until he dies. Although a person can die, an adult can never become a baby again, or return to a pre-born state. If you see a baby, you can be certain that it was never an adult, and if it is growing in the womb, it's highly unlikely that it was born previously. It's not a perfect analogy, but it's similar to salvation.

The fact is that it is hard to be definatively sure that a person is saved. Since it is possible to be faked, only God and that person can be certain. However, there are some cases when one can be demonstrated to be certainly not saved. I think a woman "pastor" turned Atheist is one of those cases.

celia_bedilia · 21 days

Nothing in the linked story seems to imply that anybody's faith was threatened.

I would say it is offensive as it is a total straw man argument in documentary form.

This woman is not, nor has ever been a Christian. It is sad that so many people were duped by her. First of all, one of the evidences of salvation is the continuance and growth of ones faith and service to God. It's a doctrine called the "preservation of the saints". Secondly, the Bible forbids women from being a pastor. Not only does it forbid women from teaching and having a position of authority over men and that they should be silent in church, but one of the requirements for a pastor is that he must be the husband of one wife ruling his family well. So, calling her a (former) Christian is a straw man.

This is important because the Bible says that until a person is born again, they can not accept the things of God. It says that they have been blinded and are unable to understand God and even the Bible. So, a person who is not a born again believer can not even begin to understand the Bible or speak for Christianity. She couldn't be talking about losing her faith, but about no longer pretending to believe what she doesn't believe. From what I read, it seems that she also acted very inappropriately, but was applauded by the show.

I did not see the documentary, and I don't plan to. I don't listen to those stations specifically because that's the sort of content I expect from them. From the second link, it seems obvious what the problems are. They don't like that the program seems to reflect a very biased perspective, and one which opposes their faith while trying to seem unbiased. I've experienced a lot of that from such media as public television, the Discovery channel, etc. They only ever present one side of the issue. I have never once seen a documentary that shows true Christians and describes their beliefs. The ones I've seen have show people who I, as a Christian, and my fellow Christians, would consider to be heretics, or at best immature believers. Then, they attack the "faith" of these straw men and their beliefs to try to present their view of what they want Christianity to be. What is worse is that they then try to claim they are being unbiased. It has nothing at all to do with threatening faith. What part of their arguments make you think that? This seems less like a reasonable debate topic, and more like something for /r/Atheism.

DobyClark · 21 days

The example you have given, as well as those that many are expressing here, is similar to the concept that Edgar Allen Poe wrote about in "The Imp of the Perverse". It talks about our tendency to desire to do things which would be very harmful to us. This concept is explained in the Bible when it says that unsaved men are born with a sin nature. It even mentions them being given to doing that which is inconvenient for them.

stunder · 21 days

Redhat brings back memories. My very first (practical) Linux install was Redhat Linux. It came in huge book that tried to explain how to set it up and use it. I don't think I ever finished the book, but I didn't need to, I had man pages and the internet, but it was enough to get me hooked.

edgesmash · 21 days

A dead URL isn't such a devistating thing. It's assumed that the URL isn't dead when the equipment is made, and likely not dead while it is sold.

So, what about when it does die? There's Google's cache, and then archive.org. There's a good chance that the URL could still help a person in the future long after the paper instructions have been lost or discarded. Even if not, the extra ink isn't that much of a loss. I for one, love this idea.

awaywethrow1982 · 21 days

I saw this post and all the downvotes he was getting earlier up, and I felt really bad for them. Then, I read that comment and his respones to people replying. I feel no more sympathy for the OP. That girl is not unattractive in any way. I don't care for the choice of clothing (I'm more of a fan of modest clothing), but as for her physical appearance, I'd say she was very attractive.

I know that every person has their own tastes. I find most models to be very unattractive, and to me most celebreties are at best so-so. However, to be that picky about looks seems a bit too shallow to me. I think that a good personality can compensate well for almost any visual faults.

sunshine_and_dreads · 21 days

So, the bill would require Vanderbuilt to allow certain types of student groups?

sunshine_and_dreads · 21 days

This all started when the Christian fraternity supposedly forced gay members to resign for being gay.

Wouldn't you think that rather the fraternity didn't want members who were opposed to the principles on which the fraternity was founded? I don't see it as being any different that PETA rejecting members who support seal clubbing and go out on weekends to beat up baby seals.

sunshine_and_dreads · 21 days

So, the bill simply allows Vanderbuilt to allow students to form their own orginazations without having to be politically correct? It sounds lika a good bill to me. I think I'll read it and call to tell them to pass it.

supermegafuerte · 21 days

My vote is for RU, Reformers Unanimous. It's a faith-based Christian program.

One problem with AA is that it teaches you that you'll always be an addict, even though you are recovered. I think that is true for the folks that go there, and that is the best we can hope for on our own. The difference with RU and with Christianity in general is that if God truly does a work in you and makes you a new creature, as the Bible claims, then you can even be freed from the addiction, rather than just learning to cope. Add to that a new purpose in life, and a sure compass to guide you through the tough times, and I think it's a great thing. At lest, check out the RU website. I recommend looking for local classes, which should be free to attend. They also have live-in ministries.

This isn't just another "health and wealth" type of place. These guys are nothing like the phonies you see on TV.

now_you_listen_here · 21 days

This is just begging for downvotes. I'm straining at the moment to not downvote, and I may decide not to restrain that urge.

I know that self posts don't generate karma, but the purpose of voting isn't just to award karma to redditors. The purpose of voting is to raise the best and most interesting articles to the top so that people don't have to read through the entire internet for good and relevant content. When you play games with upvotes, you basically ruin it for everybody.

Now, I know this is reddit. Sometimes, some really stupid stuff makes the front page. But that is usually stuff that the particular subreddit really liked and wanted to see. I just don't feel that your personal experiment is worthy of being at the top of /r/AskReddit, and on my front page. There are other reddits where I wouldn't mind seing this, but asking people not to downvote here just seems like it's begging for them.

trollers · 23 days

To be more specific, hell will be free from the good things of God. Obviously His wrath will be there forever.

Axxerand · 23 days

Being gay is good, everybody should be happy. Of course that means giving up sins like murder and homosexuality. I think that if these sins didn't exist, we could live without pain. I know that won't happen on this side of the Tribulation, but it would be nice if it did. So, if you're happy now, I imagine you would be only more gay when those sins were gone.

CGRampage · 24 days

That's a false choice. Just because public schools don't talk about sex doesn't mean that nobody does. The parents should very much be reminding children not to have sex and that it is wrong outside of marriage.

ANewMind

TROPHY CASE

ANewMind

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login