The famous answer of Jesus to the question of the disciples of John the Baptist that people are being told that the good news has the corollary that unless people accept the dogma and ask Him to save them they are going to hell.
Not it does not; unless you think for some other reason that that's what the good news is.
Does it say that the good news has anything to do with being saved from Hell? No. Does that passage even imply that? No.
In all the gospels Hell is mentioned only in parables, and in those parables escape from Hell is based on either good works or on suffering in this life. (Nothing implies to me that Lazarus in Luke accepted any dogma before he went to Abraham's bosom.)
In Paul, Hell is mentioned... well, it has gates that won't prevail and that's it.
Saying that the passage in Luke has the corollary that people have to accept the dogma to avoid Hell is reading later developments in Christian tradition into the passage.
Traditional child baptism has the words “do you chose to turn from the devil and evil” or words to that effect. It is a choice.
Also one idea of Evangelicals is that Heaven is perfect and cannot take the imperfect. A sheet of paper with a tiny drop of ink on it is no longer perfect. God alone can make us perfect.
There is definitely a lot of misunderstanding and assumption goes on in none Evo circles. As I said, whilst there are idiots (far too many) if someone believes you need to get right with God then out of love and not wanting anyone to go to Hell they will continue to evangelise.
Problem is, it's all a variation on "believe in me so that I can save you from what I'm going to do to you if you don't believe in me"
Turning from evil is a choice. Turning to Christ is only meaningful if you believe in him. If you don't, it's not a choice you can make.
This is and remains a massive problem if one wants to defend the justice of God. It makes his favour dependant on picking the right set of theological truth claims from those humanity has to offer.
This.
Another reason for me now being respectfully agnostic...
Here are some words which I have come across in the last few days
iglesia: ilysia : iliz : igreja : gereja : eliza : cresia : kostel : kósciól : kostal :crkva : baznycia : templom : cerkev :simbahan : eaglais : kerk : kirke.
They are all words for 'church' in languages which use the Roman alphabet.
But which one is the true or real word for 'church' ?
In every case it depends on the language which one is speaking.
If you are speaking Czech then 'kostel' is the 'real' word for 'church' but not if you are speaking Basque when 'elisa' is the word for 'church'
And so it is with religions,just as the late pope Francis said,it depends on the language and the culture where everyone can see the truth and the trust in the religion which they know and understand best
Here are some words which I have come across in the last few days
iglesia: ilysia : iliz : igreja : gereja : eliza : cresia : kostel : kósciól : kostal :crkva : baznycia : templom : cerkev :simbahan : eaglais : kerk : kirke.
They are all words for 'church' in languages which use the Roman alphabet.
But which one is the true or real word for 'church' ?
In every case it depends on the language which one is speaking.
If you are speaking Czech then 'kostel' is the 'real' word for 'church' but not if you are speaking Basque when 'elisa' is the word for 'church'
And so it is with religions,just as the late pope Francis said,it depends on the language and the culture where everyone can see the truth and the trust in the religion which they know and understand best
Only if none of the truth claims are actually true, but are all metaphors, or indeed just ideas. If God did not incarnate in Jesus, then in most of its forms Christianity is wrong. If he did, then Islam and Judaism are wrong. It gets really sticky with the historical claims; we can talk as much as we like about what divine attributes we see in Vishnu or Osiris or Bel Shamharoth (OK, not that one) but when we have to deal with a claim that God was man in Jesus in a historically defines time frame, then we have to say it's either true, false or another metaphor for something. Which it may well be, but it still means that most forms of Christianity are wrong, because they insist it's objectively true.
All religions can be equally false, but they can only be equally true in the sense that they're all - erm - equally false, because they make conflicting objective truth claims.
For 'truth' we can use also the word 'trust' in the sense that the religion which we follow can give us an aim in this life and also beyond.
While there may be one religion which is both subjectively and objectively 'true' different human beings ,depending on the experiences in this life as well as that which has been shared with them by people whom they trust,can come to differing conclusions which are 'true' for them.
For 'truth' we can use also the word 'trust' in the sense that the religion which we follow can give us an aim in this life and also beyond.
While there may be one religion which is both subjectively and objectively 'true' different human beings ,depending on the experiences in this life as well as that which has been shared with them by people whom they trust,can come to differing conclusions which are 'true' for them.
Don't you think it's quite important whether the thing we're following actually works for this life and/or the one to come?
I don't confuse the impossibility of knowing absolute truth with its non-importance.
There are good numbers of people for whom the religion which they follow 'works' for them and gives them both joy in this life and hope for eternity.
The various religions of our world put forward ideas (which may be called truths) which are also ideals towards which we can aim.
Just as most individuals cannot understand fully the language and cultures of all other human beings on the planet they can understand that basically we all share the same emotions and aspirations.
I find the phrase "true for" less than satisfying." I think it's reasonable to say someone's beliefs are justified for them, on the basis of personal experience and their personal intellectual journey. True for me implies universal validity.
(I can think of examples of subjective truths, but they would be truths about the person concerned that other people ought to share as true about that person.)
I find the phrase "true for" less than satisfying." I think it's reasonable to say someone's beliefs are justified for them, on the basis of personal experience and their personal intellectual journey. True for me implies universal validity.
Yes. A religious Jew, for example, would not think that that the difference between Judaism and Christianity is like the difference between one blind man thinking the trunk is the elephant and another blind man thinking the tusk is the elephant.
Rather, for the religious Jew, a Christian would be a blind man examining a moose standing next to the elephant, and thinking the antlers are part of the elephant.
There are good numbers of people for whom the religion which they follow 'works' for them and gives them both joy in this life and hope for eternity.
The various religions of our world put forward ideas (which may be called truths) which are also ideals towards which we can aim.
Just as most individuals cannot understand fully the language and cultures of all other human beings on the planet they can understand that basically we all share the same emotions and aspirations.
But that does rather require that the objective reality is benign and non-hazardous. If the more conservative members of some religions are actually on the money, then this "joy in this life" will be short-lived compared with the objectively unpleasant eternity in which their hope turns out to be futile.
Coming back to the OP, surely this thread should be entitled 'Proselytising other denominations' rather than 'evangelising' them.
I agree with this.
And I always understood evangelising to mean bringing good news, whereas some seem to be bringing bad news. I even had an evangelical tell me that they had to tell the bad news first, so people would understand why the good news is good news!
Well, to be fair, while I don't agree with various aspects of evangelical theology (especially what some of it has become in the US, aligned with the "culture war" and far-right politics, which isn't intrinsic to the actual theology), if people don't understand the bad news of sin and death and Hell, then it may be necessary to point it out...
(Though at the moment, the way things are in the world, I don't think many people are blind to evil all around us in the first place.)
Ah. Yes.
The famous answer of Jesus to the question of the disciples of John the Baptist that people are being told that the good news has the corollary that unless people accept the dogma and ask Him to save them they are going to hell.
Even if one believes that Jesus can save those who have not consciously accepted Him in their time on Earth (depending on their response one way or another, but that could be its own thread), the matters of sin and death and Hell still matter.
Well, to be fair, while I don't agree with various aspects of evangelical theology (especially what some of it has become in the US, aligned with the "culture war" and far-right politics, which isn't intrinsic to the actual theology), if people don't understand the bad news of sin and death and Hell, then it may be necessary to point it out...
Though at the moment, the way things are in the world, I don't think many people are blind to evil all around us in the first place.
I’m a little late here and while I agree that people are generally aware of evil all around us, we aren’t aware of evil within ourselves. We could say that’s part of the human condition, but when people in positions of power are unaware (names withheld) well I don’t think I need to say any more.
Then, yes, realizing that evil is indeed within all of us sounds like something wise to learn, or relearn.
Traditional child baptism has the words “do you chose to turn from the devil and evil” or words to that effect. It is a choice.
Also one idea of Evangelicals is that Heaven is perfect and cannot take the imperfect. A sheet of paper with a tiny drop of ink on it is no longer perfect. God alone can make us perfect.
There is definitely a lot of misunderstanding and assumption goes on in none Evo circles. As I said, whilst there are idiots (far too many) if someone believes you need to get right with God then out of love and not wanting anyone to go to Hell they will continue to evangelise.
Agreed! It doesn't have to come from a nasty attitude.
Comments
Does it say that the good news has anything to do with being saved from Hell? No. Does that passage even imply that? No.
In all the gospels Hell is mentioned only in parables, and in those parables escape from Hell is based on either good works or on suffering in this life. (Nothing implies to me that Lazarus in Luke accepted any dogma before he went to Abraham's bosom.)
In Paul, Hell is mentioned... well, it has gates that won't prevail and that's it.
Saying that the passage in Luke has the corollary that people have to accept the dogma to avoid Hell is reading later developments in Christian tradition into the passage.
This.
Another reason for me now being respectfully agnostic...
iglesia: ilysia : iliz : igreja : gereja : eliza : cresia : kostel : kósciól : kostal :crkva : baznycia : templom : cerkev :simbahan : eaglais : kerk : kirke.
They are all words for 'church' in languages which use the Roman alphabet.
But which one is the true or real word for 'church' ?
In every case it depends on the language which one is speaking.
If you are speaking Czech then 'kostel' is the 'real' word for 'church' but not if you are speaking Basque when 'elisa' is the word for 'church'
And so it is with religions,just as the late pope Francis said,it depends on the language and the culture where everyone can see the truth and the trust in the religion which they know and understand best
Only if none of the truth claims are actually true, but are all metaphors, or indeed just ideas. If God did not incarnate in Jesus, then in most of its forms Christianity is wrong. If he did, then Islam and Judaism are wrong. It gets really sticky with the historical claims; we can talk as much as we like about what divine attributes we see in Vishnu or Osiris or Bel Shamharoth (OK, not that one) but when we have to deal with a claim that God was man in Jesus in a historically defines time frame, then we have to say it's either true, false or another metaphor for something. Which it may well be, but it still means that most forms of Christianity are wrong, because they insist it's objectively true.
All religions can be equally false, but they can only be equally true in the sense that they're all - erm - equally false, because they make conflicting objective truth claims.
While there may be one religion which is both subjectively and objectively 'true' different human beings ,depending on the experiences in this life as well as that which has been shared with them by people whom they trust,can come to differing conclusions which are 'true' for them.
Don't you think it's quite important whether the thing we're following actually works for this life and/or the one to come?
I don't confuse the impossibility of knowing absolute truth with its non-importance.
The various religions of our world put forward ideas (which may be called truths) which are also ideals towards which we can aim.
Just as most individuals cannot understand fully the language and cultures of all other human beings on the planet they can understand that basically we all share the same emotions and aspirations.
(I can think of examples of subjective truths, but they would be truths about the person concerned that other people ought to share as true about that person.)
Yes. A religious Jew, for example, would not think that that the difference between Judaism and Christianity is like the difference between one blind man thinking the trunk is the elephant and another blind man thinking the tusk is the elephant.
Rather, for the religious Jew, a Christian would be a blind man examining a moose standing next to the elephant, and thinking the antlers are part of the elephant.
But that does rather require that the objective reality is benign and non-hazardous. If the more conservative members of some religions are actually on the money, then this "joy in this life" will be short-lived compared with the objectively unpleasant eternity in which their hope turns out to be futile.
Even if one believes that Jesus can save those who have not consciously accepted Him in their time on Earth (depending on their response one way or another, but that could be its own thread), the matters of sin and death and Hell still matter.
Then, yes, realizing that evil is indeed within all of us sounds like something wise to learn, or relearn.
Absolutely agreed. And for some other nasty effects as well...
Agreed! It doesn't have to come from a nasty attitude.