Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[JimL]

It is the same opportunity. We all have access to the same evidence, and we all have exactly one lifetime to believe. It doesn't get any more fair than that.

Wrong, think again. We don't all have, and never have all had, the same evidence pertaining to the existence of your god.

[JimL]

We all are sinners, JimL. By our own actions. Our own conscience condemns us if we don't know about God and the Law. Like the saying goes, "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse"

So ignorance of Jesus is no excuse for not believing in him? Gotcha.

You kinda suck at this whole attempt at playing "gotcha"

No, actually you kinda suck at defending your belief.

[Sparko]

Wrong, think again. We don't all have, and never have all had, the same evidence pertaining to the existence of your god.

Well you have, so what's your excuse going to be?

[Sparko]

So ignorance of Jesus is no excuse for not believing in him? Gotcha.



No, actually you kinda suck at defending your belief.

JimL, your "objections" are just dumb. Your attempts to turn around what I say are equally dumb. I am not even posting to explain things to you at this point, I know you are a hopeless case. I am posting for others who may come along and genuinely want to know how it works.

Not believing in Jesus as your savior merely means you are on your own and will face judgement for your own actions which you are responsible for because you have a conscience and know right from wrong and chose to do wrong. Completely just and fair.

You as an unbeliever don't want to follow Jesus or believe in God and say things like, "God is just a crutch for the weak minded" and that sort of thing. So guess what? You get to do it all on your own. You don't get a crutch or help from Jesus. You face judgment for what you have done all on on your own. Good luck with that.

[seer]

You as an unbeliever don't want to follow Jesus or believe in God and say things like, "God is just a crutch for the weak minded" and that sort of thing. So guess what? You get to do it all on your own. You don't get a crutch or help from Jesus. You face judgment for what you have done all on on your own. Good luck with that.

I thank God for the Jesus crutch, I know (better than anything else I know in life) that I am a moral cripple.

[JimL]

Well you have, so what's your excuse going to be?

Try to focus Sparko, this isn't about me, because you're right, I have no excuse and am not even arguing that I do, so try to focus rather than obfuscating.

[Sparko]

Try to focus Sparko, this isn't about me, because you're right, I have no excuse and am not even arguing that I do, so try to focus rather than obfuscating.

Jimmy, I have answered everyone of your dumb objections and mischaracterizations. But because you are of a reprobate mind so you cannot grasp the truth and instead reject it so that you may continue to feel guiltless in your sin.

[JimL]

JimL, your "objections" are just dumb. Your attempts to turn around what I say are equally dumb. I am not even posting to explain things to you at this point, I know you are a hopeless case. I am posting for others who may come along and genuinely want to know how it works.

No, you are not being genuine, you are trying to make this about me when you know thats not what I'm saying.

Not believing in Jesus as your savior merely means you are on your own and will face judgement for your own actions which you are responsible for because you have a conscience and know right from wrong and chose to do wrong. Completely just and fair.

Yes, the difference being that those who are on their own because they don't know, never knew, and so don't believe in Jesus, go straight to hell. Hard to believe you can't see the difference or the injustice of the whole christian idea. I don't think you are that dumb, so I'll just have to assume that it's just your bias blocking your ability to face the facts and answer to them honestly and logically.

You as an unbeliever don't want to follow Jesus or believe in God and say things like, "God is just a crutch for the weak minded" and that sort of thing. So guess what? You get to do it all on your own. You don't get a crutch or help from Jesus. You face judgment for what you have done all on on your own. Good luck with that.

Again, not about me Sparko, its about the double standard, its about those people, past, presnt, and or future who have never heard of your god and therefore, being that we are all sinners, go straight to hell for their non-belief. Try being honest for a change and actually answer to that rather than making it about me.

[JimL]

Jimmy, I have answered everyone of your dumb objections and mischaracterizations. But because you are of a reprobate mind so you cannot grasp the truth and instead reject it so that you may continue to feel guiltless in your sin.

No you haven't answered my questions, you answered questions that I didn't ask, and that, I can only guess, is because you can not answer them, and are to dishonest to admit it.

[Sparko]

No, you are not being genuine, you are trying to make this about me when you know thats not what I'm saying.

Yes, the difference being that those who are on their own because they don't know, never knew, and so don't believe in Jesus, go straight to hell. Hard to believe you can't see the difference or the injustice of the whole christian idea. I don't think you are that dumb, so I'll just have to assume that it's just your bias blocking your ability to face the facts and answer to them honestly and logically.

Again, not about me Sparko, its about the double standard, its about those people, past, presnt, and or future who have never heard of your god and therefore, being that we are all sinners, go straight to hell for their non-belief. Try being honest for a change and actually answer to that rather than making it about me.

I keep telling you and you keep ignoring me, JimL that they don't go to hell because of not knowing God. They only go to hell if they commit sins. That they do things that they know are wrong.

If you had a person who did not know that murder was illegal and he murdered his wife, should he be sent to prison, or would the judge just say, "oh well, you didn't know it was illegal so you are free to go?" - apparently you would say, "it's not fair to send him to prison for not knowing that murder was against the law!"

[Adrift]

While you're of course right, Sparko, that, like the Governor who commutes a criminal's sentence, it doesn't make it unfair if he chooses not to commute some other criminal's sentence (assuming both criminals are, in fact, guilty of their crime), I think the objection is that if God is all-loving, why doesn't he offer the same unfair grace to all people? The answer, of course, is that he does, and I think that's what JimL is not getting here (well, among other things).

So, in answering the question, "what about those who've never heard" Christian philosophers offer a number of different answers. William Lane Craig, for instance, offers an answer based on his view on Molinism. He suggests that, since God would that all are saved, yet knowing that not all will accept that salvation, the world is ordered in such a way so that the optimal number of those who would accept Christ were born in the time and place that they were/are so that they may readily hear and receive the Gospel message. Those who were not/are not in places to receive the Gospel were those who never would have accepted Christ in the first place. It's an interesting theory, and you can read Craig's essay on the subject here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...s/middle2.html As well as his follow-ups to it here and here.

Some instead take the view that everyone is judged on what knowledge they did come into contact with, and what they did with that knowledge, even if they were never formally evangelized in the name of Jesus.

I think both theories are interesting, and plausible from a scriptural perspective. Whatever the fate of those who have not heard, God is just and fair, and no one will come before Christ and complain "I didn't have enough to go on."

[JimL]

While you're of course right, Sparko, that, like the Governor who commutes a criminal's sentence, it doesn't make it unfair if he chooses not to commute some other criminal's sentence (assuming both criminals are, in fact, guilty of their crime), I think the objection is that if God is all-loving, why doesn't he offer the same unfair grace to all people? The answer, of course, is that he does, and I think that's what JimL is not getting here (well, among other things).

No, he doesn't, and just saying so doesn't make it so. You need to explain how God offers the same saving grace to those who never knew him, along with the fact that according to Christianity, one needs to believe in Jesus in order to be saved by grace.

So, in answering the question, "what about those who've never heard" Christian philosophers offer a number of different answers. William Lane Craig, for instance, offers an answer based on his view on Molinism. He suggests that, since God would that all are saved, yet knowing that not all will accept that salvation, the world is ordered in such a way so that the optimal number of those would accept Christ were born in the time and place that they were/are so that they may readily hear and receive the Gospel message. Those who were not/are not in places to receive the Gospel were those who never would have accepted Christ in the first place. It's an interesting theory, and you can read Craig's essay on the subject here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...s/middle2.html As well as his follow-ups to it here and here.

No thats a very poor theory, full of holes. There were millions of people who died long before the gospels who knew nothing of Jesus, and there were millions who lived at the time who were no where close to where jesus was born and who had never heard anything about him. And why would god create people that he knew would never accept Christ anyway only to doom them to hell eternal?

Some instead take the view that everyone is judged on what knowledge they did come into contact with, and what they did with that knowledge, even if they were never formally evangelized in the name of Jesus.

That doesn't answer the question concerning those people who had no knowledge of jesus and therefore had no belief in Jesus, unless your argument is that believing in Jesus is not a requirement of salvation.

I think both theories are interesting, and plausible from a scriptural perspective. Whatever the fate of those who have not heard God is just and fair, and no one will come before Christ and complain "I didn't have enough to go on."

Is belief in Jesus a requirement of salvation or not?

[JimL]

I keep telling you and you keep ignoring me, JimL that they don't go to hell because of not knowing God. They only go to hell if they commit sins. That they do things that they know are wrong.

If you had a person who did not know that murder was illegal and he murdered his wife, should he be sent to prison, or would the judge just say, "oh well, you didn't know it was illegal so you are free to go?" - apparently you would say, "it's not fair to send him to prison for not knowing that murder was against the law!"

As Adrift has made clear below, you have serious comprehension problems Sparko, either that or you are just being deliberately dishonest.

[Sparko]

If you don't break the law you don't go to jail. Pretty simple.
If you do go to prison, then a pardon would be the only way out.

If you don't sin, you don't go to hell.
Now if you do sin, then Jesus is the only way out.

[One Bad Pig]

No thats a very poor theory, full of holes. There were millions of people who died long before the gospels who knew nothing of Jesus, and there were millions who lived at the time who were no where close to where jesus was born and who had never heard anything about him. And why would god create people that he knew would never accept Christ anyway only to doom them to hell eternal?

That you respond with this shows that you haven't even bothered to attempt to comprehend the synopsis Adrift posted, let alone Craig's article.

That doesn't answer the question concerning those people who had no knowledge of jesus and therefore had no belief in Jesus, unless your argument is that believing in Jesus is not a requirement of salvation.

Is belief in Jesus a requirement of salvation or not?

It does address it, actually. If you'd take a moment to think about it, the possibility of salvation without having heard of Jesus would necessarily entail belief in Jesus not being a requirement.