Christians-

[Allbeama]

A guy holds a gun to your head and says "You have 60-70 years to bow down to me."

See, I take issue with anyone who would damn someone to eternal torment in a fiery hell because they chose not to "bow down" to him...

Thats not a choice, its extortion...

I hear that, and I'm glad someone else brought that to the table. Its like telling your child that if they don't love you, you are going to flush their cat down the toilet.

If you like Maurepas' posts you should read my posts...

[CanuckHeaven]

All you wish to do is antagonize...
But, what the hell... I'll bite.

You are WRONG about how it works.
He can't 'just say' anything and get into heaven.

The person in question MUST BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS. He must experience true sorrow and regret at his sins, and must honestly and humbly repent for them. The offender must earnestly offer himself up to God, through Jesus Christ, as the vile being that he is and beg forgiveness with honest intent to change in his heart.

Should he meet this requirement, he is just as 'saved' as any other man, even if he dies in that instant.
However, 'saying' and 'meaning' are two entirely different things, as everyone knows.

are you talking to me? I understand you actually have to believe, but I see that requirement on my own intellect as tyranny by a cosmic dictator. I realize the difference between saying and meaning. In fact it is this reason I feel that free thought is subjugated when you believe in God's authority. Because your own reason has to fall by the wayside and be replaced with faith, and submission.

Either way you slice it, it is about submisson........to the forces of good or evil......your choice. That is where free will comes in. It is also about faith......faith in Him or faith in yourself. Again, it is all about choice.

[The Archregimancy]

I always wonder about that. I mean a serial killer or rapist can repent and get into Heaven, and yet a guy like Ghandi, or the Dali Llama goes to Hell?

This is where the Christian doctrine started falling apart for me.

Respectfully, the premise above is a false one, and implicitly assumes a universal attitude towards repentance, forgiveness and 'salvation' (a Western term I'm not entirely comfortable with, but which we'll go with here for simplicity's sake) within Christianity.

The Eastern Orthodox Church takes a different approach towards issues of repentance and forgiveness than do most Western (Catholic and Protestant) churches. Instead of holding that the non-Christian or unrepentent sinner is beyond salvation, the Orthodox Church holds that while the repentent Orthodox Christian is far more likely to be 'saved' (again, using Western terminology), since God is beyond human understanding it would be arrogant in the extreme for us to assume that we always know what He wants, and we certainly can't rule out the possibility that God may choose to save otherwise good people who were unable to confess their sins prior to death, or who might not have been Orthodox or even Christian. You needn't take my word for it; the specific point is addressed in detail in Timothy [Metropolitan Kallistos] Ware's book The Orthodox Church (available in Penguin Books). Regrettably, my copy's at home, so I can't provide a specific page number.

This is, to an extent, an outgrowth of Orthodox negative theology that approaches discussions of God from the assumption that His 'essence' [a term with a very specific meaning in Orthodoxy] is undefinable and unknowable, rather than the Western approach that typically tries to make dogmatic statements about what God is.

So Orthodoxy could conceive of a situation whereby Gandhi and the Dalai Lama might be terribly wrong about theology, but that God could still potentially choose to 'save' them as good people. Ultimately the final judgement is God's, not ours. The same might very well apply to a pagan NSG'er, assuming they were otherwise a good person

Not that I'm trying to claim that all Orthodox Christians are paragons of virtue, tolerance and forgiveness; I'm not quite that naive. The Serbs managed to prove otherwise rather too painfully in the 1990s. Nonetheless, the basic theological point remains.

Incidentally, is the 'Dali Llama' a South American surrealist animal? [sorry - couldn't resist]

[Pritisakiah]

I always wonder about that. I mean a serial killer or rapist can repent and get into Heaven, and yet a guy like Ghandi, or the Dali Llama goes to Hell?

This is where the Christian doctrine started falling apart for me.

Respectfully, the premise above is a false one, and implicitly assumes a universal attitude towards repentance, forgiveness and 'salvation' (a Western term I'm not entirely comfortable with, but which we'll go with here for simplicity's sake) within Christianity.

The Eastern Orthodox Church takes a different approach towards issues of repentance and forgiveness than do most Western (Catholic and Protestant) churches. Instead of holding that the non-Christian or unrepentent sinner is beyond salvation, the Orthodox Church holds that while the repentent Orthodox Christian is far more likely to be 'saved' (again, using Western terminology), since God is beyond human understanding it would be arrogant in the extreme for us to assume that we always know what He wants, and we certainly can't rule out the possibility that God may choose to save otherwise good people who were unable to confess their sins prior to death, or who might not have been Orthodox or even Christian. You needn't take my word for it; the specific point is addressed in detail in Timothy [Metropolitan Kallistos] Ware's book The Orthodox Church (available in Penguin Books). Regrettably, my copy's at home, so I can't provide a specific page number.

This is, to an extent, an outgrowth of Orthodox negative theology that approaches discussions of God from the assumption that His 'essence' [a term with a very specific meaning in Orthodoxy] is undefinable and unknowable, rather than the Western approach that typically tries to make dogmatic statements about what God is.

So Orthodoxy could conceive of a situation whereby Gandhi and the Dalai Lama might be terribly wrong about theology, but that God could still potentially choose to 'save' them as good people. Ultimately the final judgement is God's, not ours. The same might very well apply to a pagan NSG'er, assuming they were otherwise a good person

Not that I'm trying to claim that all Orthodox Christians are paragons of virtue, tolerance and forgiveness; I'm not quite that naive. The Serbs managed to prove otherwise rather too painfully in the 1990s. Nonetheless, the basic theological point remains.

Incidentally, is the 'Dali Llama' a South American surrealist animal? [sorry - couldn't resist]

The premise you claim to be false is certainly not universally held, but is widely held, even, I suspect, amongst Orthodox Christians. The fact that Orthodox Christians are, as you say, 'far more likely to be saved' shows this; it is typical of the arrogance that asserts that your faith is the right one, without any evidence to support the claim. Quite frankly, the idea that anyone could have less chance of salvation because they arbitratily happened to be born in one country, in one religion, rather than another, is a horrific one.

[Tekania]

My view is this: anyone who sincerely has given their life to Christ is saved, regardless of national origin, particular denomination, etc...

As to providing the names of people who are saved and unsaved? Wouldn't do it. Just because someone professes, does not mean they necessarily believe. And those who don't believe now, may believe at some point in the future. I won't presume to know who is or is not.

[Blouman Empire]

I'm of the view that one should state that "gods love" is conditional, because that's how it looks. If you are required to act a certain way to receive the benefit of his love it is not unconditional and certainly not universal. It seems god hates those who disobey and loves those who submit. And also it seems that a morality based on what god likes is arbitrary and therefore not moral, to put it another way, Judaeo-Christian values are seemingly amoral. So I equate submission to an amoral ruler's authority with tyranny.

Again not true, and how are they amoral?

[The Archregimancy]

The premise you claim to be false is certainly not universally held, but is widely held, even, I suspect, amongst Orthodox Christians. The fact that Orthodox Christians are, as you say, 'far more likely to be saved' shows this; it is typical of the arrogance that asserts that your faith is the right one, without any evidence to support the claim. Quite frankly, the idea that anyone could have less chance of salvation because they arbitratily happened to be born in one country, in one religion, rather than another, is a horrific one.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your position that any 'salvation' (which we've already established is a term I'm unhappy with) which might depend on belonging to a specific religion is 'horrific', and I wouldn't dream of trying to convince you otherwise - but I might quibble with a couple of your subsidiary points.

First of all, it's implicit in your post that you place great personal stress on the value of empirical evidence in constructing your worldview. Yet you also state that you 'suspect' a certain position is 'widely held' by a specific socio-cultural group. I'll humbly point out my own suspicion that the size of the sample of that group which you've surveyed on the issue is fairly small (though feel free to convince me otherwise) If so, might your suspicions regarding the opinion held by the group on this issue potentially be based more on a personal stereotype regarding the opinions of that group rather than a statistically valid sample of the group in question? While I certainly wouldn't dispute that some members of this socio-cultural group do fit the stereotype you presuppose to exist (though apparently without the supporting data I suspect you so highly value), some definition of what you mean by 'many' might allow for a more robust debate. After all, I've provided a citation from a senior figure from within that group that directly contradicts your supposition; it may not be an unbiased source, but you'll forgive me for believing it might offer a more accurate picture of the beliefs of the group in question than your own suspicions.

As to your point of 'arbitratily happened to be born in one country', it may be that this is a reference to the geographical association of most Orthodox churches with Eastern Europe. While I wouldn't dispute that demographic association, it would be a fallacy to assume, as you imply (though perhaps without meaning to), that all Orthodox live within certain countries, or that all residents of those countries are Orthodox. My wife was born in Australia; I was born in the UK to an Anglican Scottish mother and an at best agnostic English father. Neither of us really fit the implication that being born in a certain country can be used as a totally reliable indicator regarding the issue to hand.

[Risottia]

He's God, he knows when you don't 'mean' it.

573. Yes, I do. Being thy LORD,
574.Etcetera, etcetera.