Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[JimL]

While the bible makes clear that belief in Jesus leads to salvation, the Inclusivist might argue that it isn't the only way, or that the completely ignorant may yet still respond to Christ through general (as opposed to "special") revelation of him. In other words, while they may not consciously know the actual name "Jesus", they believe in him in as much as they respond positively to those things they do know, and see in nature, or are written in their heart, and this counts towards belief in him. It's not a view, I, personally, find entirely compelling. I prefer Craig's Molinist view, since I think it makes a better argument, but it's not like these things have never been broached in Christian circles before. Again, regardless of where one stands on the issue, God is fair and just, and none will be able to come to him with excuse.

And the spin goes on. So, your argument now is that everybody, all around the world, from time immemorial, so long as they believe or believed in the existence of a god, no matter who that god they believe in is, then they can be saved, but that it is only those who by their own reasoning come to the conclusion that the world is uncreated and natural, who for that reason go to hell. And infants and retarded people, I guess there's a different category for them, they all get saved I suppose due to their complete ignorance on the matter, or do they get to go to hell as well?

[Sparko]

Unfortunately, I think you're both right. It's likely he has comprehension issues, and is also being purposely cantankerous.

After his last misconstrual of what you said, I think you should agree that he is doing it on purpose. Much easier to burn straw than actually have to debate.

[JimL]

After his last misconstrual of what you said, I think you should agree that he is doing it on purpose. Much easier to burn straw than actually have to debate.

Sparko, you never answered my question because you are either too dumb to understand it, or you are just a dishonest person. I don't think you're dumb. Adrift, understood what I was asking and, though i didn't care for his answer, he answered accordingly. So, are you just dumb, or are you dishonest?

[Sparko]

Sparko, you never answered my question because you are either too dumb to understand it, or you are just a dishonest person. I don't think you're dumb. Adrift, understood what I was asking and, though i didn't care for his answer, he answered accordingly. So, are you just dumb, or are you dishonest?

OK I will play along. What question did I not answer?

[Zymologist]

And the spin goes on. So, your argument now is that everybody, all around the world, from time immemorial, so long as they believe or believed in the existence of a god, no matter who that god they believe in is, then they can be saved, but that it is only those who by their own reasoning come to the conclusion that the world is uncreated and natural, who for that reason go to hell. And infants and retarded people, I guess there's a different category for them, they all get saved I suppose due to their complete ignorance on the matter, or do they get to go to hell as well?

Your eloquent restatement of Adrift's post is both accurate and pithy.

[Sparko]

Your eloquent restatement of Adrift's post is both accurate and pithy.

JimL doesn't understand sarcasm.

[Zymologist]

JimL doesn't understand sarcasm.

All the better.

[Sparko]

All the better.

You forgot this:

Mr_Burns_evil.gif

[One Bad Pig]

Ignoring what people say and repeating himself? No effort at all.

Jim's song:

[Adrift]

And the spin goes on. So, your argument now is that everybody, all around the world, from time immemorial, so long as they believe or believed in the existence of a god, no matter who that god they believe in is, then they can be saved, but that it is only those who by their own reasoning come to the conclusion that the world is uncreated and natural, who for that reason go to hell. And infants and retarded people, I guess there's a different category for them, they all get saved I suppose due to their complete ignorance on the matter, or do they get to go to hell as well?

I don't know how you got all of that out of the very few posts I've written. I've certainly not argued any of that since 1.) I'm not making an argument, nor 2.) would it be my argument since all I'm doing is repeating someone else's view of the subject. Furthermore, 3.) I've already told you that I lean closer to Craig's Molinist view. I've offered you as much of a summary on the subject as I'm willing to get into. If you're sincerely interested in this topic (I know you're not), you can read some detailed essays by people who actually hold the views in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Specifically check out Alister McGrath's softer take on Inclusivism, and Clark Pinnock's harder take on it.

[rogue06]

You forgot this:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]24508[/ATTACH]

Pro Level
Excellent.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Jesus and the Christian gospels dingbat!

[JimL]

I don't know how you got all of that out of the very few posts I've written. I've certainly not argued any of that since 1.) I'm not making an argument, nor 2.) would it be my argument since all I'm doing is repeating someone else's view of the subject. Furthermore, 3.) I've already told you that I lean closer to Craig's Molinist view. I've offered you as much of a summary on the subject as I'm willing to get into. If you're sincerely interested in this topic (I know you're not), you can read some detailed essays by people who actually hold the views in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World. Specifically check out Alister McGrath's softer take on Inclusivism, and Clark Pinnock's harder take on it.

So, let me be sure I've got this straight, is it your contention that belief in Jesus is not a requirement of salvation?

[Adrift]

So, let me be sure I've got this straight, is it your contention that belief in Jesus is not a requirement of salvation?

I don't understand why you're having such a hard time with this. 1.) I just got done telling you that it is NOT my contention. I lean towards Craig's Molinist view. 2.) I just got done telling you that I've offered as much of a summary on the subject as I'm willing to get into. You can find Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World here on Amazon for under $14 bucks. It's even cheaper if you have a Kindle.

[Tassman]

Again, from your view. What we call reason and science is contingent upon God. And your view is not allowing you to comprehend that.

You have not provided any substantive reason to do so.

Here is a fact for you. You do have an idea of God. The God or gods you do not believe in.

Yes. Most people are familiar with mythology

Now my God is the Uncaused Existence. (Whose Name in Hebrew has been understood to mean the self-Existent. Proverbs 21:30. )

Understood by whom and why would one accept the authority of Proverbs?

The universe even being defined as everything - would only be contingent in that Uncaused Existence. Uncaused Existence would be a key part of what makes up the universe - the universe being everything - but it, the universe being everything, would not be God, would only include God.

Defining the universe as "everything that is", is an unverified assumption. Cosmologists by no means agree on whether the universe is finite or infinite. If "infinite" then it not contingent on anything any more than your hypothesised deity would be.

Now my guess is your idea of God is not the uncaused existence.

You guess wrong. I’m familiar with the Cosmological Argument. Basically, it boils down to the claim that something caused the Universe to exist, and that this First Cause must be God...your god of course.

Although it wasn't "your god" when the argument was first formulated by Plato.