Hugh Hefner is now in hell

[One Bad Pig]

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

Oh, the irony.

[JimL]

Oh, the irony.

If you can't see and admit that either after reading his responses to my question, then you have a problem as well. At least Adrift was honest concerning what I was asking, even if his answer was a lousy one.

[Mountain Man]

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

Of course we have. God makes available to every person who has ever lived sufficient evidence for them to believe. It's up to each one of us to accept it.

[JimL]

Of course we have. God makes available to every person who has ever lived sufficient evidence for them to believe. It's up to each one of us to accept it.

Jesus and the Christian gospels dingbat!

[Adrift]

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.

I actually offered two ways in the post you were responding to.

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?

I take it you didn't read the essay, nor the other two links I posted, because your questions were directly addressed there in.

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.

That's pretty much what I'm addressing, "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."

Is belief in Jesus a requirement of salvation or not?

The Bible does state that belief in Jesus leads to salvation, and Jesus himself states that no one comes to the Father except through him, but Jesus also states that those who seek after God will find him, and we also know from scripture that that there were many pre-Christ Jews (and Gentiles) who were also saved by faith, though they were limited in knowledge. This view is typically called the Inclusivist view, and it's not without its Christian opponents. For me, personally, I find the previous view more compelling, but, again, regardless, God is just and fair, and no one will come to Christ complaining that they didn't have enough to go on.

[One Bad Pig]

If you can't see and admit that either after reading his responses to my question, then you have a problem as well. At least Adrift was honest concerning what I was asking, even if his answer was a lousy one.

The irony was because YOU have serious comprehension problems, Jim, as amply evidenced by the post you made just prior to that one.

[JimL]

I actually offered two ways in the post you were responding to.



I take it you didn't read the essay, nor the other two links I posted, because your questions were directly addressed there in.



That's pretty much what I'm addressing, "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."



The Bible does state that belief in Jesus leads to salvation, and Jesus himself states that no one comes to the Father except through him, but Jesus also states that those who seek after God will find him, and we also know from scripture that that there were many pre-Christ Jews (and Gentiles) who were also saved by faith, though they were limited in knowledge. This view is typically called the Inclusivist view, and it's not without its Christian opponents. For me, personally, I find the previous view more compelling, but, again, regardless, God is just and fair, and no one will come to Christ complaining that they didn't have enough to go on.

If you believe the bolded above, then it proves the case I've been making. Thank you.

[JimL]

The irony was because YOU have serious comprehension problems, Jim, as amply evidenced by the post you made just prior to that one.

No, you have comprehension problems, Adrifts post was non-biblical made up crap, as he himself showed in his next post.

[Adrift]

If you believe the bolded above, then it proves the case I've been making. Thank you.

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.

[Adrift]

No, you have comprehension problems, Adrifts post was non-biblical made up crap, as he himself showed in his next post.

Which parts did you find non-Biblical? Because, both views do in fact cite scripture for their views.

[Sparko]

The irony was because YOU have serious comprehension problems, Jim, as amply evidenced by the post you made just prior to that one.

I don't think JimL has actual comprehension problems. I think he is misreading and misunderstanding what Adrift and I have said on purpose.

Rather than just saying, "I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it" - he has to pretend we didn't say what we said, and that we haven't answered his "objections" and questions, and twist what we have said into something we did not. Basically so he can burn a strawman.

[Sparko]

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

Is that a liberal thing or an atheist thing, Jim? Accusing others of what you are guilty of yourself?

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think JimL has actual comprehension problems. I think he is misreading and misunderstanding what Adrift and I have said on purpose.

Rather than just saying, "I understand what you are saying, but I disagree with it" - he has to pretend we didn't say what we said, and that we haven't answered his "objections" and questions, and twist what we have said into something we did not. Basically so he can burn a strawman.

I don't think he's being that purposeful. That would take more effort than it's worth.

[Sparko]

I don't think he's being that purposeful. That would take more effort than it's worth.

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

[Adrift]

I don't think he's being that purposeful. That would take more effort than it's worth.

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