Who can be saved? A Christian perspective

So, in your opinion, we can be saved by loving each other and NOT believing in death and resurrection of Jesus, and we go to the same place as the souls who do believe in the death and resurrection bit? To me this suggests that Christ's death was meaningless.I mean if the gift of eternal life with God is acheivable by just lovng other as you love yourself, then Jesus didn't need to die? His death was pointless if there is another way to get into heaven. I was referring to an extremist viewpoint that every word of the Bible is ture and if you don't believe one syllable then you shouldnt believe any. It is rare though, I'll give you that. Why would this be unpleasant, it is, after all, the goal in Buddhism?Brian.

Thanks for clarification.One other point.You say there are two commandments, love god, love others.How can an atheist love God?Brian.

Well?Brian.

Hi Miguel,But, there is always a but.I love my fellow humans, Jar, Phat, Percy, Charles, Paul, Asgara, Ned, Cory, Buzz, Mike, Holmes, Lam, Frog, all these guys and more.However, I think that the God of the Bible is a gutless, horrendous, evil, barbarian, so I do not love God, even by proxy.Cheers.Brian.

Buddhists call this Upalya Kausalya (skilful means), maybe Jesus was an incarnation of a Buddha!Brian.

Yep, I just found it interesting that Buddhists have a specific term for this.Brian.

We also have to consider the possibility that a Buddha is using the concept of God to speak in the idiom and context of the day and the audience.Brian.

Hi, It was hardly a big deal for Jesus though was it! The dude knew that he was immortal and couldn't die (which is a bit of a problem for him 'dying' on a cross), he knew that he would be resurrected three days later. Jesus' death is no big deal, givng someone your last cigarette is a bigger sacrifice. Well, we only have the word of legends to say Jesus did this, we have no eye-witnes accounts at all, no primary sources, no external sources, no real evidence at all.It is very easy to say someone went through all this, but did he really experience it? I think not.Brian.

Hi W thanks for the reply, It was a hypothetical question, I was assuming that there would be babies in a city, which is a reasonable assumption. How can I have evidence when we do not even know if Sodom or Gomorrah existed at all, there is no evidence to suport these cities ever existing, the whole tale is hypothetical. Which is your guess of course. It may not have been that easy for a family to just get up and leave a city.But, the only person in Sodom who was warned about its destruction was Lot, and we know what a disgusting pervert he was, is this God's idea of a righteous man? But no one is righteous according to the Bible, so a day old baby would be considered wicked, and probably still is by some Christians.This is also a problem as to why God allowed Lot to survive. Surely this incestuous drunk would be counted as wicked and punished for his future deeds? If it is good enough for a baby to die before it commits wicked acts then it should be good enough for Lot.Cheers.Brian.

hi w, The bold words are not found in the text and are merely what you wish to believe is true. There is nothing to suggest that ‘decent’ family types had left the area. There is textual evidence against this though in the shape of what must have been a righteous family, namely Lot, his wife and two daughters. So, if all the decent family types had left, then that suggests that Lot and his family were not decent, and deserved to die with the rest of Sodom. Thus, your claim is incorrect and unsupported. So, you are saying that all homosexuals are wicked and deserve to die, deary me, so much for Christian love. There are many places that are not fit to raise children that doesn’t mean that there aren’t any there.However, given the time frame we are talking about, it may not have been so easy to just get up and leave. Which is still speculation.But, by your ‘apologetic’ in the earlier reply, apparently if any children had been there then they deserved to die because God can see into the future and would have killed them for the evil that they would have done when they were older!This is a complete contradiction of course when we consider how evil and perverted Lot was. So your excuse doesn’t work here either. Eh? I have to go out and buy a book to see your answer?What kind of way is that to discuss anything, will I name some books for you to read and this some how is acceptable?Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London.Dever, W. G. (1985) "Syro-Palestinian and Biblical Archaeology" in
Knight G. The Hebrew Bible and its Modern Interpreters, Fortress Press ; Chico Calif. : Scholars Press, Philadelphia, Pa.Drinkard, J. F., Mattingly, G. L., Miller, J., Maxwell and Callaway, J. A. (1988) Benchmarks in time and culture : an introduction to the history and methodology of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Ga.Gordon, C. H. (1954) The Patriarchal Narratives, JNES 13 56-59Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London.Levy, T. E. (1995) The archaeology of society in the Holy Land, Leicester University Press, London.Miller, J. D. and Hayes, J. H. (1986) A history of Ancient Israel and Judah, SCM Press, London.Moorey, P. R. S. (1991) A century of Biblical archaeology, Lutterworth Press, Cambridge.I could go on and on and on, but what is the point.Why not summaraise the arguments instead of asking someone to read a book? Where did I say God killed any innocents?All I asked is how a one day old baby could be deemed wicked;****I didn’t say a one day old baby wasn’t wicked****.You could have said because the baby’s ancestor betrayed God’s trust in the Garden of Eden, or some other reason. I never said the baby was innocent. So, if there was a day old baby then what could that baby have done that was seen as wicked? Why is it in my mind, the reason that Sodom’s inhabitants were destroyed was because of the sin that the city committed. Is sin not something connected to wickedness? The God of the Old Testament is clearly a wicked and jealous barbarian, but this isn’t the reason why I don’t believe in him. I don’t hate anyone William, I am an atheist and I am not capable of hate. How can I hate a being that I do not even believe exists? God is not a feature of my life so I have no reason to hate or like Him. Let’s get back to reasonable thought then, and have you answer my questions instead of having a little rant at me and taking people’s attention away from the questions.According to the Bible God said there is no righteous in Sodom, that was when Lot was living there with his wife and daughters. Now Lot should have been killed with the rest of the inhabitants of Sodom because he could not have been righteous according to God.We see how disgusting a creature this man is when he offers up his daughters for gang rape to the people surrounding his house, so Lot is clearly a nasty piece of work.God’s seeing into the future and killing a baby who may be evil in the future causes a problem relating to why God allowed Lot to survive.Very soon after leaving Sodom we all know what this incestuous drunk would do, thus God should know what Lot would do, so I can only assume that it is righteous to get both your daughters pregnant and be a drunken sod as well, is this what God considers righteous? I don’t hate anyone William, get a grip and answer the questions. I am the most tolerant person in the world, just because you have difficulty in accepting that God is an evil tyrant, you don’t have to dodge the questions, just admit that you don’t have an answer. Do what other Christians do when they are stuck, just say God had a reason and we are not to question the ways of God. That would at least be better than your armchair psychology. Don’t worry, I won’t.I don’t hate any one William, so you can leave that excuse for not answering questions out of things.So, why was Lot considered by God to be righteous?Brian.

Yeah, I'm a nasty piece of work because I think genocide is pretty bad form!If W thinks im evil he should see me after a few Aftershock/Sours slammers! LOLBrian.

Hi, Great pun!!Seriously, it derives from the Hebrew word 'yada' in Genesis 19:5, which can be taken to mean sexual intercourse, (yada means 'to know')it is thus assumed that Sodom's sin was of a sexual nature, specifically against Lot's guests.It is by no means certain though, as Ezekiel identifies Sodom's sin as pride and lack of care for the poor and needy:Ezekiel 16:49'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. By far the most numerous contexts of the references to Sodom in the Bible suggest that it was for violating the ancient code of hospitality to strangers! Even Jesus said this in Luke 10:10-12But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11‘Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. Isaiah 3; relates to inhospitality too, as does 13:19, and Jeremiah 23:14.And among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen something horrible: They commit adultery and live a lie. They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that no one turns from his wickedness. They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah I think it is the name that makes a lot of people think that homosexuality was the particular sin.But it is uncertain what the great sin was.Brian.