Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Neither of the religions I mentioned have strong opinions about non-members, they both teach that people are just people and there's really no difference between followers of one faith or another.

There's a pretty stark difference between Sikhism and Christianity, for example. Christians believe everyone who is non-Christian is going to hell for eternal damnation. Sikhs believe that everyone is actually just worshiping the same god by different names, and that it doesn't matter what you worship, just that you're not an evil person.



I believe that many belief systems have some truth and some good, and that we will be judged based on our choices relative to what we know, and that all will have the right info & opportunities, eventually.

Edit: My faith says: "Keep all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it."


In Christian circles, the concept you cite is called "universalism" and has plenty of traction.

Whether or not the Almighty cares for such stylings remains to be seen.


How do you square that with the biblical assertion that all non-believers are subject to eternal damnation?

I don't believe in Jesus, so I'm going to hell -- right?

Have modern Christians just thrown this belief out? Can they still be called Christians if they do so? It seems like a core belief of the religion.


You're setting me up in judgement of you, and I decline.

Jesus clearly asserts that all pass by Him, but what you do with that information is between you and Him.

That's about as heavy as I get.


> You're setting me up in judgement of you, and I decline.

No, you can have whatever beliefs you want. But Christianity's beliefs are codified in the bible, and you seem to disagree with what the bible says.

In my mind, you're not really a Christian, but obviously in your mind you can be whatever you want.

> John 1:9-1:11

> Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

This is in the bible. According to Jesus, you should not greet me and by doing so you have taken part in my wicked works.

> Revelations 21:8

> But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

This part of the bible says that since I am faithless, I am as bad as a murderer or rapist, and I belong in lakes of fire and sulfur.

You clearly denounce these parts of the scripture. How can you call yourself Christian and still disagree with these core beliefs of Christianity?


No, I have not disagreed with the Word; merel served it up for discussion.

> In my mind, you're not really a Christian, but obviously in your mind you can be whatever you want.

[Curtsy goes here]

> You clearly denounce these parts of the scripture. How can you call yourself Christian and still disagree with these core beliefs of Christianity?

I suppose that I'm supposed to go all Newton's 3rd Law in response to your troll. Is that what you require?


I don't require anything, I'm not trying to get a rise out of you, I'm just trying to understand your perspective.

You're telling me that "universalism" is compatible with Christianty yet the bible says following any other faith or belief is a great sin. I don't think these two can logically coexist. And I guess you have no explanation for that.

Cognitive dissonance is the only explanation, I guess.


Related to my earlier comment in this branch, where I said "many belief systems have some truth and some good ... [and] Keep all the good that you have, and let us see if we can add to it." (I hope I'm saying this right.)

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that all our choices have consequences, based on what we know/understand. All will eventually know about Jesus Christ (in this life or the next), enough to choose whether to accept His payment for their sins (by following Him), or suffer the consequences of those sins, personally. Sometimes that is called damnation, but He is merciful if we really try to do what we know is right, and everyone will get a chance.

I suppose that the best heaven wouldn't be so great if it requires being around those who, knowing the truth, still want to lie and hurt others, right? (My thinking, anyway.) Seems like those should all be ... together somehow. Hopefully they can learn better eventually.

The scriptures say we will get what we are willing to receive, that God knows all, cannot lie, and has a Plan which allows for both justice and mercy, for all His children, which we humans all are.

Edit: He also says not to procrastinate our repentance (the changes we make to our lives when we follow Him). I can attest that He helps make life better in many ways, and more bearable in the hard times we can all have.


Where I am with the Viklove sort of interlocutor is to inquire:

"Stipulate for argument's sake that I am incorrect, and Jesus is not the meaning of life, here and hereafter. Fine. What then is?

What complete existential theory would you assert? What is the operating system of the universe in general, and my soul in particular?

What is absolutely True? How can I judge that which is moral when the concept of truth has been scuttled?

Is there anything else which you can objectively offer beside raw, carnivorous will-to-power?"

If we're not fanatics, then, as an intellectual matter (irrespective of metaphysical faith), we should be serious about trading up, no?


> You're telling me that "universalism" is compatible with Christianty

No, I did not say universalism is "compatible", merely that it is commonplace.

Cognitive dissonance is not the only explanation.

Another explanation might be that you're giving me the motte-and-bailey business: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy


(In case you only see direct replies via one of the HN monitor services: I have replied to viklove on another part of this thread w/ how I find satisfactory answers, w/o what they have called cognitive dissonance.)

(Paul talks about baptism for the dead, but we don't believe anything is forced on them, and yes that the Lord is both just and merciful.)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: