Only Jesus adherents will attain salvation.

[Unveiled Artist]

So... is this hearsay or is there an authority on the subject making this claim?



I agree. I see this in two different ways. In one case, you believe in an immortal soul, in which case, it's obviously unending. In another case, you believe that only this physical world exists. In that case, it follows that your existence in not dependent upon the existence of an immortal soul at all! But if all that defines "you" are these physical interactions, then it follows that your existence is merely part of an unending sequence of physical interactions which don't being or end with "you". Since, the ending of "you" is not the ending of the physical interactions that comprise who "you" are, it follows that you don't actually technically end at all. The only way to accept that "you" end, is to accept that "you" are something besides the physical interactions that compose "you". In other words, you must accept that you are not simply a physical entity.









The question I'm thinking about is: what is this existence that comprises who we really are?

Bare bones? Our body, brain, thoughts, and energy in our blood, lungs, neurons, that make up the physical energy in the former and our thoughts and healthy ways our neurons send signals to the brain to the body for us to move, think, and be how we define ourselves by our environment, reflection, and others.

Spirit is just active energy. Soul is the character of a person. The mind is the thoughts or awareness of a person. Body is the physical shell of a person. All of these makes up who we are. Nothing above another. When we die, everything dies. Spirit goes in a cycle and "lives" in the thoughts, spirit, and things around us. Soul dies when the mind dies as the character of the person is created by the brain and thoughts. Thoughts die as the brain dies since thoughts are just recycled information the neurons pick from the brain. Our body decays.

Game over.

 

[Desert Snake]

I didn't know Jesus was a tacky subject.

foolishness aside. you do not have to be an idolater to be a follower.

case in point, everyone within the USA has to abide by US laws but not everyone is a US citizen.

Loll.

 

[Desert Snake]

Haha.

That's okay. Just saying ...

If I gave you a closed box (gift of salvation)

You did not know this gift was in this box.

You don't open the box so you do not receive the gift.

I understand the idea, however this is theoretical, again, (as were the other examples). Since your reasoning supposedly isn't theoretical, ie you just don't accept Jesus, then how is that like having that box, but not opening it? Hmm, you are making the religious context, a philosophical one.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand the idea, however this is theoretical, again, (as were the other examples). Since your reasoning supposedly isn't theoretical, ie you just don't accept Jesus, then how is that like have that box, but not opening it? Hmm, you are making the religious context, a philosophical one.

Religious and philosophical go hand in hand

I was given the gift of salvation. I benefited from the gift. I found out what was behind this gift and the meaning. I didn't care for what it stood for by it's history so instead of enjoying the gift and ignoring the history, I gave it back. In Catholicism, you gave give the gift of salvation back but you never lost the benefit from it. So, if I wanted to obtain the gift, it isn't denied to me.

In the bible, once you die, you don't have a second chance to get the gift of salvation. To Catholics, I'd go to purgatory. To some protestants, I'd burn in hell. Shrugs. Depends on the person.

If you don't accept the gift of salvation, by default, you won't be saved. You have to accept the gift to benefit from it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Religious and philosophical go hand in hand

I was given the gift of salvation. I benefited from the gift. I found out what was behind this gift and the meaning. I didn't care for what it stood for by it's history so instead of enjoying the gift and ignoring the history, I gave it back. In Catholicism, you gave give the gift of salvation back but you never lost the benefit from it. So, if I wanted to obtain the gift, it isn't denied to me.



If you don't accept the gift of salvation, by default, you won't be saved. You have to accept the gift to benefit from it.

Then you really aren't saying that you are not accepting salvation. I think, since we have different ideas, about what jesus adherence means, so forth, there is a misunderstanding, there, in your argument.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Then you really aren't saying that you are not accepting salvation. I think, since we have different ideas, about what jesus adherence means, so forth, there is a misunderstanding, there, in your argument.

Catholicism is different than protestant views. Once you are baptized and receive the Eucharist, regardless of your personal convictions, you are saved. Basically, it's bypassing the ego of the person's decisions and saying because you've taken the sacraments, you are held by the grace of god.

That makes sense; it's logical. By taking the sacraments, I took the gift of salvation. That's like saying I accepted a gift and because I don't practice, it means I don't have it anymore.

That's Catholic view. I don't agree with protestant view, though. In scripture you can toss either way. Once a child of god you are always a child of god on one hand. The other hand is if you leave the body of christ you are no longer part of the body. Which is odd because if you take the sacraments, you are part of his body regardless if you disagree with it or not.

The issue is not attaining salvation and whether it's true. It's whether the person who took the sacraments believe what they took was a fact. In Catholicism, once you're baptized, that's it. To me, if I went back to the Church, I'd go back through RCIA. Call me egotistic, but I feel if you're not practicing, you're not part of the body.

But the bible says once you are baptized in christ, that's it. So, it's a tough call. Catholics would say I just strayed away from christ I didn't deny him. Protestants would say I plain out rejected him as if I spit in his eye even though I wouldn't do that with anyone, jesus isn't an exception.

Just weird how both sides see things. I get more from living the body than reading the bible though. That's me.

 

[Deeje]

I see no reason to entertain the notion.

But no one recognizes a "bold empty claim" better than you do....you'd be perfect for the job!

I have not seen anything to convince me that your claim for "salvation" is anything other than wishful thinking on your part.

Your "arguments" thus far have simply reinforced my thought it is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

Ah, wishful thinking.....we all do it. I kinda like mine....what's yours?

When the best theists have is "you can't prove me wrong".....

Yeah, I know.....frustrating isn't it...?

 

[Deeje]

The old question of "what happens if the missionary has a flat and the people don't hear the message" comes to mind.

You think God can't fix a flat ? Or that he hasn't got more missionaries? He has ways of getting the message to the right people that we have never thought of....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

We are told sometimes, that people who refused to accept Jesus, will somehow get a "second chance"at judgement. This seems highly unlikely, because of course that will "make"people "convert". It is a silly concept, aside from those who literally never got the oppurtunity. Scripture seems to back this, as well.



This isnt to say there cant be a second chance, but that is contextual

The entire concept is "silly," why pick on one particular brand of "silly" and pretend you know better?

Belief in things that may simply not (i.e. likely do not) exist is such an abstract concept with zero absolutes. What form of belief is "good enough?" How much does one need to truly "feel" the belief "in their heart?" What do statements like that even mean - all those vague prescriptions of feeling-based behavior described in The Bible? How much does one need to adhere to scripture? Do certain requirements mean more than others? Can you know if you've ever even met the requirements?

All questions with no concrete/acceptable answers. If that much uncertainty surrounded an entirely real endeavor in this physical form of life - how much would you really trust anyone trying to peddle that experience to you? Be honest with yourself. Why do spiritual endeavors get such a glaringly free pass from sensible scrutiny?

 

[McBell]

But no one recognizes a "bold empty claim" better than you do....you'd be perfect for the job!

That you use overly complicated word salads to say "bold empty claim" does not mean you are not saying "bold empty claim".

Ah, wishful thinking.....we all do it. I kinda like mine....what's yours?

I supposed that that is the closest to an admission as one will get.

Yeah, I know.....frustrating isn't it...?

Comical actually.
Especially the way you go about it.

 

[Muffled]

We are told sometimes, that people who refused to accept Jesus, will somehow get a "second chance"at judgement. This seems highly unlikely, because of course that will "make"people "convert". It is a silly concept, aside from those who literally never got the oppurtunity. Scripture seems to back this, as well.



This isnt to say there cant be a second chance, but that is contextual

I believe we get lots of chances but if one is never taken, the person will not be saved.

 

[Muffled]

Bold Empty Claim

I believe the claim is valid. One can counter claim all one wishes but the facts support the truth.

 

[McBell]

I believe the claim is valid. One can counter claim all one wishes but the facts support the truth.

You are free to believe what ever you like.
It is still a bold empty claim.
Why?
Because it cannot be substantiated outside your belief it is true.

 

[Muffled]

The whole idea of eternal damnation is a silly concept.

I believe the ideas of eternity and infinity are silly to temporal people but I believe those ideas reflect reality.

 

[Muffled]

You are free to believe what ever you like.
It is still a bold empty claim.
Why?
Because it cannot be substantiated outside your belief it is true.

So if I put oxygen and hydrogen together and get water it can't be substantiated outside of my belief that the laws of chemistry cause that to happen. (After all it does seem like magic for two substances to transform into another)

I believe my beliefs are founded on facts that are just as substantial as the laws of chemistry.

 

[Muffled]

If God were to condemn those who question Jesus' status or even to be unaware who he is, then I would suggest that this would put God into the "homicidal maniac" category. Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense to have such a position, imo.

I believe denial of Jesus is basically denying God so it makes a lot of sense. I believe the so called unaware have been told how to be saved but just don't wish to accept it.

 

[McBell]

So if I put oxygen and hydrogen together and get water it can't be substantiated outside of my belief that the laws of chemistry cause that to happen. (After all it does seem like magic for two substances to transform into another)

Ouch.
No relevance.

Care to try again?

I believe my beliefs are founded on facts that are just as substantial as the laws of chemistry.

you are free to believe whatever you like.
Fact is "Only Jesus Adherents Will Obtain Salvation" remains a bold empty claim because it cannot be substantiated outside your belief it is true.

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe the ideas of eternity and infinity are silly to temporal people but I believe those ideas reflect reality.

That isn't what makes it silly.

 

[metis]

I believe denial of Jesus is basically denying God so it makes a lot of sense.

That's quite an assumption, to say the least. God is mentioned thousands of times in the Tanakh but Jesus is not mentioned there. Jesus cannot possibly be God since Jesus refers to God as "the Father". My father and I were quite a bit alike but we were not one and the same, nor could Jesus and "the Father" be exactly the same or Jesus would not be referring to him as "the Father".

I believe the so called unaware have been told how to be saved but just don't wish to accept it.

According to a Protestant theologian who visited China about three decades ago, he wrote that probably about 2/3 of all Chinese couldn't even begin to give you a simple description of Jesus and would have no clue what you were talking about if you mentioned his name.

 

[metis]

I believe denial of Jesus is basically denying God so it makes a lot of sense.

That's quite an assumption, to say the least. God is mentioned thousands of times in the Tanakh but Jesus is not mentioned there. Jesus cannot possibly be God since Jesus refers to God as "the Father". My father and I were quite a bit alike but we were not one and the same, nor could Jesus and "the Father" be exactly the same or Jesus would not be referring to him as "the Father".

I believe the so called unaware have been told how to be saved but just don't wish to accept it.

According to a Protestant theologian who visited China about three decades ago, he wrote that probably about 2/3 of all Chinese couldn't even begin to give you a simple description of Jesus and would have no clue what you were talking about if you mentioned his name.