Problems With Christianity

[_EAllusion]

1) Supposedly, a person must accept Christ or they go to hell. It seems very unfair that a god would send the great majority of the humans to hell for not accepting Christ when most have never heard of Christ because they lived before his time or lived in areas of the world in which Christ was never preached. And then there are the many people who may have heard of Christ, but did not accept him because they were too indoctrinated into their own religion to give the message of Christ a fair chance. (At least Mormonism had a response to this through the teaching in spirit prison, but Christians believe one must accept Christ in this life).

The well-known apologist William Lane Craig argues that every person ever to live has had an undeniable witness from the holy ghost of the truth of Christianity. One must actively deny that verdical experience to reject Christianity.

To quote him on this point,

Suppose someone had been told to believe in God because of an invalid argument. Could he stand before God on judgment day and say," God, those Christians only gave me lousy arguments for believing in you. That is why I didn't believe"? Of course not! The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God's Holy Spirit

So there you go.

I only mention it because it makes me chuckle.

[_Jason Bourne]

So let's deal with this one. While it is true that murderers can go to heaven. It is equally true that God's standard is His righteousness and that is required for citizenship in heaven. No one can attain that righteousness but by God imputing it to them. That is done at recognition of who Jesus is and who we are. There are no magic words. The sinners prayer is not an incantation. Repentance, as I'm sure you know, is a complete reversal of ones mindset - that comes from recognizing who Jesus is and who we are.

I've found that those who want to flag-pole Hitler, et al., as the "at least I'm better than they are" defense haven't really delved too deeply into the doctrine. Certainly, Hitler etc., is (probably) enjoying the fruits of his labor - just as those who are in heaven are doing the same. Rewards are not equal and neither is punisment.

Still, God declares that He is knowable. That those who do not believe, choose not to believe. Just as God is a God of infinite mercy, He is a God of infinite justice. Rather, He is Mercy. He is Justice. To reconcile sinful man to a righteous God requires something. He chose Jesus (Himself). That is mercy. Yet, since He is righteousness, He can not co-habitate with unrighteousness. That is justice.

Yet still you have the problem that even the most heinouis person,IF they are convicted of their sins AND accept Jesus they will be in heaven wit God. Hitler could have done this. Most likely he did not. But hey who knows. Maybe before he pulled the trigger he had true repentance. Yet Gandhi, who of course sinned some somewhere along the way, but still seemingly lived a fairly holy life, is going to hell because he did not repent in the right God's name.

But let's look at the Mormon view. What if one intends to commit murder but just isn't very good at it? His ineptitude is his savior? Or he is capable but the gun misfired. The subtleties of technology is his savior? Are you calling that jus

This is not the Mormon view. The wanna be murderer is guilty and sinful and has to repent and accept Christ or he is not ending up in the best place. He pays for his own sins in hell for sometime then he ends up in the Telestial glory.

No, the Christian view is much more palatable.

You want to "Christian" view represented well get the Mormon view straight.

[_Hoops]

Yet still you have the problem that even the most heinouis person,IF they are convicted of their sins AND accept Jesus they will be in heaven wit God.

Not a problem at all. We are ALL convicted of sin. The sermon on the mount is the perfect example of our righteousness not meeting God's righteousness. So here it is again, the "at least I'm better than him" defense. When, probably, you are. But being better than the next guy is not the standard. It's being as righteous as God is.

Yet Gandhi, who of course sinned some somewhere along the way, but still seemingly lived a fairly holy life, is going to hell because he did not repent in the right God's name.

Again, the standard is not "a fairly holy life." It is God's righteousness. A righteousness by which you compare Ghandi.

This is not the Mormon view. The wanna be murderer is guilty and sinful and has to repent and accept Christ or he is not ending up in the best place. He pays for his own sins in hell for sometime then he ends up in the Telestial glory

You'll forgive me for not getting the Mormon view correct. I don't think any really knows what the Mormon view actually is.

You want to "Christian" view represented well get the Mormon view straight.

What does one have to do with the other?

[_Jason Bourne]

Not a problem at all. We are ALL convicted of sin. The sermon on the mount is the perfect example of our righteousness not meeting God's righteousness. So here it is again, the "at least I'm better than him" defense. When, probably, you are. But being better than the next guy is not the standard. It's being as righteous as God is.

And what is God's righteousness? What does that mean? Who says that this is what God really wants.

Yet Gandhi, who of course sinned some somewhere along the way, but still seemingly lived a fairly holy life, is going to hell because he did not repent in the right God's name.

Again, the standard is not "a fairly holy life." It is God's righteousness. A righteousness by which you compare Ghandi.

And arbitrary standard? So if God's standard is perfection then of course nobody meets it. Yet there is this arbitrary way to become perfect and that is repent and accept Jesus. You really don't find it a bit capricious that the most heinous sinner, a few days before his death could repent and claim Jesus and be in Heaven yet Ghandi, who was holy and most likely repented of sins he did but did not accept the man Jesus as savior will be in Hell?

Think outside of your reformed theology Bible box for a few minutes and ask, does this seem Godly and right?

This is not the Mormon view. The wanna be murderer is guilty and sinful and has to repent and accept Christ or he is not ending up in the best place. He pays for his own sins in hell for sometime then he ends up in the Telestial glory

You'll forgive me for not getting the Mormon view correct. I don't think any really knows what the Mormon view actually is.

Don't be such a dork.

You want to "Christian" view represented well get the Mormon view straight.

What does one have to do with the other?

As noted above, don't be such a dork.

[_AlmaBound]

And what is God's righteousness? What does that mean? Who says that this is what God really wants.

Great question, Jason.

[_antishock8]

By their fruits ye shall know them. If any god created this world/universe it's pretty obvious what he or she is about.

[_harmony]

Where is Hoops? I was hoping this discussion would really take off, and instead she appears to have bailed before the first round was over.

[_harmony]

By their fruits ye shall know them. If any god created this world/universe it's pretty obvious what he or she is about.

Your pictures have no bearing on this particular discussion, AS8. What did Christ have to do with any of those pictures?

[_AlmaBound]

Where is Hoops? I was hoping this discussion would really take off, and instead she appears to have bailed before the first round was over.

I don't know where Hoops ran off to, but I was interested in this topic as well, from the standpoint of "imputed righteousness."

Pauline theology fascinates me.

[_huckelberry]

I am interested in Pauline thinking and am willing to persue the discussion. Hoops may decide that Mormon things are a minefield where any misstep is awarded with dork insults(ok Jason I realize there is reason for a Mormon to find the question what does Mormon have to do with Christian? as just agravating)

I am inclined to see Mormon theology as an eccentric version of Reformed theology. But to see that a person must see Reformed as a family of thinking with a good bit of variety and no one correct version.

To call Mormonism a somewhat exaggurated arminian, freewill oriented view of the effectiveness of the atonement, part of the reformed family of thinking would require seeing the Calvinist
Areminian argument as an innerfamily disagreement. A picture which fits the history.

But Mormons agree with Wesley and the Methodists and reject Calvin and Westminister. Mormons see Gods predestination as soft, not hardwired like Calvin. Ok, but the discussion in the thread above is more about who is effected by the atonement and why it matters,a different questionr than the predestination thing and one which is to my mind much more interesting and important.

I think Jasons question about Gods standard is a good question. After all it seems natural to expect God to be more righteous and it is worth wondering why that is not completely acceptable.

It might be seen that the question is seriously effected by what one thinks sin is. If you think of sin as a mud spot on your shirt which you can wipe off your solution to it is different than if you think of sin as a cancer. A cancer grows and destroys whether it is small or larger. It kills whether it is visible or not yet visible. It requires its irradication not its forgiveness.

I think it is clear that Paul and Jesus see sin as having more in common with cancer than dirty shirts. Both of there thinking is focused on the question of how it cam be cut out of the body completely not how it can be kept in proportion.

The question I think the Mormons are worried about is the imputed righteousness that Paul speaks of. (I doubt believing Mormons would reject the sin is like cancer analogy, that is a shared view with other reformed theology)

I think confustion is created by treating imputed righteousness as the whole story. To do that is more an accentric version of reformed theology than is Mormonism. Imputed righteousness is the beginning and foundation for a process of living with God which is referred to as sanctification. An ongoing process where sin dies and life in the spirit grows. Paul speaks of imputed righteousness as what brings a person into the ongoing relationship with God. From that point sin starts to die.There is something in the sprit which is poison to sin.

I do not think that there is a complete explanation of what that poison is . Both Paul and Jesus point to good indicators. I think Jesus comment about the last judgement are a good summary. It is those who help not those who just wave the Jesus flag who have the good medicine.

So is Ghandi a helper or a flag waver?