Jesus Saves All? Or Only Some?

[Lela XX]

First I'll start with a little from this article: FIFTEEN BOMBS THAT SANK MY THEOLOGICAL SHIP at
http://www.saviourofall.org/Writings/fifteenbombs.html.

The author tells this story first:

When conducting evangelistic services in a community hall, I visited the home of a man, some of whose children had been saved at the meetings. I asked him if he would accept Christ as his personal Saviour. He looked at the ground, and I hoped he would decide favorably, but when he looked up and spoke he set me thinking. His voice was slow and intense. “If the way you preach is right, then one of my boys is in hell now, and if that is where he is, I want to be there.” That man wasn’t fooling; he meant it.
My second shock came when a friend in Pennsylvania gave me a book called, “After the Thousand Years,” by George F. Trench. Although I could not accept all the views of the author, I became convinced of two things, namely, that there is no word for “eternity” in the Greek or Hebrew Scriptures, and that the plainest teaching of the Word of God has been obscured by incorrect and inconsistent translation of the Greek word aion. It cannot possibly mean “eternity,” for consistency would force us into such senseless renderings as “the present eternity,” and “before eternity” (see 1 Timothy 6:17; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:21. Furthermore, a consistent rendering of the word in Hebrews 9:26 would give us the contradictory phrase: “at the conclusion of the eternity.” Yet a note in the Scofield Bible allayed my fears.
My third shock, the one that really jarred me loose from the binding tradition and the fear of men, came when a railroad engineer and a police sergeant who had been impressed with my faithfulness in preaching the Word of God as I then understood it, came to see me. We talked for nearly four hours. When they left I found I had used up all the heavy amunition I had gathered in college, seminary and twenty years of conformity to the “fundamentalist” and “evangelical” hierarchy. I couldn’t seem to be able to find their range, and when I did find it, my big gun, the King James Version, jammed. Fifteen bombs exploded on my deck, wrecking my fine theological system.

Then he lists numerous questions and answers.

About 20 years ago, I guess, there was a woman in Florida, I think, who had her 5 young children in the family car. She drove to a pond or lake and pushed the car in to drown the children. I believe her reason was because she thought there was a good chance that some or all of them would sin and go to everlasting hell, if they were allowed to grow up. Based on conventional church teachings, she was right. It's better for people to die young in innocence, than to reach maturity and then die and go to eternal hell, if hell is what they say it is.

In a web search just now I see this headline: Andrea Yates, the Texas woman who drowned her 5 children. It says in 2001 she drowned them in the bathtub one at a time, so maybe she drowned them there before driving their bodies into the pond or lake. I remember seeing the news story on tv, unless it was a different case.

[Inscriven]

Christian morality does NOT support that in any way. Christianity is a belief system that has absolute morality.

Good cannot be done by committing evil, no matter how well intentioned. That's why conservatives are against euthanasia, even if the person is in massive pain.

[_Leon Camero_]

This was poorly developed.... sad really. I like a Challenge that did not try to say Christian bible "supports this". Another tried the same thing. Yet failed to read what the bible did Not support at all.

[Sanguina Cruenta]

It's possible you are combining two separate drownings cases. Yates left her children in the house and then called her husband and told him to come home.

But I don't think you should use her as an example. She was (and presumably still is) severely mentally ill with psychotic depression. She wasn't thinking rationally at the time. The bible is not a big fan of murder, anyway, so I suppose your best hope is that your kids catch something fatal at a young age.

[stealthmongoose]

Inscriven

Christian morality does NOT support that in any way. Christianity is a belief system that has absolute morality.

Good cannot be done by committing evil, no matter how well intentioned. That's why conservatives are against euthanasia, even if the person is in massive pain.

[Hierarchy of Angels]

Jesus is not capable of saving all, when they refuse him. He tried to, to the point of death... but it is our choice, because God granted us a free will. But I would not worry though, because the mercy of God is great, I believe that He can save all, especially those who had not known him, because he solely died for the purpose of his mankind, who had known what they were doing, and are continuously doing so now.

[Lela XX]

It's true that Christian morality that doesn't support belief in eternal damnation does not support murder, but the belief in eternal damnation does support murder.

As the article at this link shows, http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html, Christians accepted belief that hell was not eternal, as the Bible shows, for the first 500 years. It wasn't until the Latins mistranslated the Greek word aionios that they started to believe in eternal damnation. That's when the new "traditions of men" began to replace the teachings of God, much like the Pharisees did in Jesus' time.

[_Leon Camero_]

Lela XX

It's true that Christian morality that doesn't support belief in eternal damnation does not support murder, but the belief in eternal damnation does support murder.

As the article at this link shows, http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html, Christians accepted belief that hell was not eternal, as the Bible shows, for the first 500 years. It wasn't until the Latins mistranslated the Greek word aionios that they started to believe in eternal damnation. That's when the new "traditions of men" began to replace the teachings of God, much like the Pharisees did in Jesus' time.

The problem is that they fall under the laws of Leviticus and the documents of " an eye for an eye" And things that happens to you, Do the same and stone them. It was said this in the old testimate because people misunderstood what was truly given. In which, the new testimate declare " It was once said an eye for an eye, But I say on to you Love another." Basically, What was kept in judicial laws was the idea that " following laws would get you to heaven. Ironically, Jesus said differently. " I did not come to abolish the laws, but to for-fill it. Basically, the "laws" Jesus was talking about, were the commandments. 2 Great commandant given to sum up the 10. 1) Love the Lord your God will all that is in you. 2) Love another as yourself and as I loved you ( This came later).

Basically, Christians do not support that given idea. it is rather judicial that does. If they were to blame Christians, then sadly, they didn't read up in the word of God.

ironically, Hell does exists, and so does eternal punishment. But now a days, it seems like paradise to many....

[Legato of the Night]

Does Jesus save everyone or does he save only some? I think this is a question some people would debate using quotes from the Bible, but I like to think of it logically.

I find the premise to be lacking.

The premise being that Jesus is in fact God, or God's son, and that God gave us all free will. He gave us the ability to choose to follow him, or not.
The problem with free will in this case is that we are aware of the consequences. If we break God's rules, we go to hell. However, if we follow them, we go to heaven.

The problem with this is that people will end up following God's rules because of the rewards, not because they chose not to sin because it was spiritually or personally enriching. This is a false kind of salvation. In addition, knowing that God will ultimately punish you for what is perceived as eternity for doing what you wanted when he gave you that choice in the first place is pretty backward. It's like holding a gun to my head and saying 'do what I say or else I'll fire the gun.' Basically, God's gun in this case is eternal punishment. We have pseudo-free will. We think we have free will but breaking the rules just means that God will punish us.

Now, on the case of whether Jesus saves all or some, it only makes sense to save all or save none. Everyone sins. This is a fact. We're human, not divine. We are weak and easily swayed to some perceived darkness. If Jesus didn't at least try to save everyone, then he would be a rather lackluster savior.

Again, I find the premise of sin to be lacking, too. We have to better define sin in more modern contexts. Worshipers won't stop applying antiquated thoughts about what sin is to realize that they themselves sin in the process.

This whole belief system gets very convoluted and nonsensical at some point.

[Lela XX]

If hell means suffering, then, yes, hell exists. The Bible says suffering, or fire, is for correcting us, not punishing us. God doesn't hate his creations, just as a parent normally doesn't hate his or her children. The Bible says God is nothing like us in a sense, because he has no hate. What is called God's hate is his hate of sin. He doesn't destroy or torture sinners in order to destroy sin. He just uses the "fire" of experience to destroy the sin and redeem the sinner. That's how I read it. Hell is anywhere there is suffering. Heaven is anywhere that we find God's Love.

As for Jesus saving us, we don't really know Jesus personally. What we know is the example he showed us of how to live. The Bible says Jesus is our example, which is why he called himself the "way" etc. So, while we don't know Jesus in person, his example for us is clear to see from the Bible. Following his example is what saves us. Matthew 25:34-40 is one of my favorite passages.

[stealthmongoose]

Lela XX

If hell means suffering, then, yes, hell exists. The Bible says suffering, or fire, is for correcting us, not punishing us. God doesn't hate his creations, just as a parent normally doesn't hate his or her children. The Bible says God is nothing like us in a sense, because he has no hate. What is called God's hate is his hate of sin. He doesn't destroy or torture sinners in order to destroy sin. He just uses the "fire" of experience to destroy the sin and redeem the sinner. That's how I read it. Hell is anywhere there is suffering. Heaven is anywhere that we find God's Love.

As for Jesus saving us, we don't really know Jesus personally. What we know is the example he showed us of how to live. The Bible says Jesus is our example, which is why he called himself the "way" etc. So, while we don't know Jesus in person, his example for us is clear to see from the Bible. Following his example is what saves us. Matthew 25:34-40 is one of my favorite passages.

To address your first parapraph, it's important to define God's traits. Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. A deity who possesses these traits doesn't need to do anything but what his traits compel him to do. As a result, a deity with these traits will do what is right whenever he can and to the most powerful effect of doing that right thing. This means that an all-powerful, all-good God would not use methods of suffering to create good, since suffering is evil. Therefore, suffering would not come from an Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God.

Compare this to a human being. Human beings need to use corrective suffering or punishment because they are limited. I have to yell at a baby that fire is dangerous because I have no other way of demonstrating that the fire is dangerous without evoking some form of suffering. This is because as a human being, I do not have omnipotence or omniscience to prevent that suffering from occuring. Human beings don't have Godly traits to excuse "correcting" others through suffering. What is God's excuse?

I would also dsagree with the opening of your next paragraph, in that we have no real evidence to support that Jesus lived the life described by The Bible in the first place. The character of Jesus is portrayed as an unrealistic bar for morality, attainable only by the heights of mythology or fiction. To assert that Jesus is the way one should live one's life while citing a minimal scriptural reference to a cherry-picked verse doesn't tell us much about this figurehead whom you're so quick to claim worship towards.

From all of these claims, i can deduce that the God of the Bible doesn't seem to provide any real advice to suit modern day morality. These principled messages of sacrifice, devotion, and inspiration can be found in many fables and mythologies. It is not honest, therefore, to assert that the Biblical account is either correct or unique in it's interpretation of absolute moral truth.

It is for this reason that I find religion to be inadequate when attempting to define morality, unless the religion in question accepts that every other religion and mythology/fable has the same hat in the same ring.

[washu_2004]

There is only one way to tell if you are saved or not and it involves being dead , so it is something you have to accept or refuse to accept on your own.

[Lela XX]

When I got "saved", Jesus didn't make a backup of me. I'm unique.

I accept that myths and fables all likely came from the ancients witnessing the same cataclysmic events, but many developed unhealthy beliefs in interpreting the cataclysms, by coming to believe in racial superiority, wars of dominion, human sacrifice etc. But there were some who interpreted the events humanely. So to the extent that various religions have adopted similar humane values, they have been similarly inspired by their Creator, or universal consciousness.

Pain or suffering was likely invented basically for the purpose of encouraging survival. If creatures did not feel pain when they got injured, they would frequently perform actions that would cause them serious injury, and the injuries would soon result in their deaths. Pain encourages all creatures not to injure their bodies.

Also, without pain, there would probably be very little caring about anyone else. If no one suffered pain, we would not be concerned about their welfare. If we did not feel the pain of sadness when not in someone's company, we would not care about having companionship.

It seems that love is the Creator. Love means caring, and if there was no caring, there would be no reason or incentive to bring anything into existence.

[_Leon Camero_]

Lela XX

When I got "saved", Jesus didn't make a backup of me. I'm unique.

I accept that myths and fables all likely came from the ancients witnessing the same cataclysmic events, but many developed unhealthy beliefs in interpreting the cataclysms, by coming to believe in racial superiority, wars of dominion, human sacrifice etc. But there were some who interpreted the events humanely. So to the extent that various religions have adopted similar humane values, they have been similarly inspired by their Creator, or universal consciousness.

Pain or suffering was likely invented basically for the purpose of encouraging survival. If creatures did not feel pain when they got injured, they would frequently perform actions that would cause them serious injury, and the injuries would soon result in their deaths. Pain encourages all creatures not to injure their bodies.

Also, without pain, there would probably be very little caring about anyone else. If no one suffered pain, we would not be concerned about their welfare. If we did not feel the pain of sadness when not in someone's company, we would not care about having companionship.

It seems that love is the Creator. Love means caring, and if there was no caring, there would be no reason or incentive to bring anything into existence.

then your subject became irrelevant. The question now you should be asking is "do you think Jesus saved us or not?"

You gave a question declaring all or some are saved. Ironically, that was not your case. You actually contradicted your own subject. Now what is new?

[_Leon Camero_]

stealthmongoose

Lela XX

If hell means suffering, then, yes, hell exists. The Bible says suffering, or fire, is for correcting us, not punishing us. God doesn't hate his creations, just as a parent normally doesn't hate his or her children. The Bible says God is nothing like us in a sense, because he has no hate. What is called God's hate is his hate of sin. He doesn't destroy or torture sinners in order to destroy sin. He just uses the "fire" of experience to destroy the sin and redeem the sinner. That's how I read it. Hell is anywhere there is suffering. Heaven is anywhere that we find God's Love.

As for Jesus saving us, we don't really know Jesus personally. What we know is the example he showed us of how to live. The Bible says Jesus is our example, which is why he called himself the "way" etc. So, while we don't know Jesus in person, his example for us is clear to see from the Bible. Following his example is what saves us. Matthew 25:34-40 is one of my favorite passages.

Quote:

To address your first parapraph, it's important to define God's traits. Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent. A deity who possesses these traits doesn't need to do anything but what his traits compel him to do. As a result, a deity with these traits will do what is right whenever he can and to the most powerful effect of doing that right thing. This means that an all-powerful, all-good God would not use methods of suffering to create good, since suffering is evil. Therefore, suffering would not come from an Omnipotent Omnibenevolent God.

This point I have to disagree my friend. To use something that would be considered evil and turn it into something benevolent, would actually be exactly what God is. To take the world's suffering and turn it to something that cannot be considered All-good cannot be true to most. However, the character traits you gave actually commendates this to be quite possible through a deity.
This point that it is possible for an All good God.

Quote:

Compare this to a human being. Human beings need to use corrective suffering or punishment because they are limited. I have to yell at a baby that fire is dangerous because I have no other way of demonstrating that the fire is dangerous without evoking some form of suffering.

That is discipline. Ironically, that was potrayed by Jesus Christ.

Quote:

This is because as a human being, I do not have omnipotence or omniscience to prevent that suffering from occuring. Human beings don't have Godly traits to excuse "correcting" others through suffering. What is God's excuse?

Hmm, so being beaten to the point of being dismantled and being nailed to a Cross on "Death hill" (Calvary) is ineffective and inexcusable? You are correct that He could had not allow this and prevented this easily. However, it was said in Isaiah 53, That servant will be beaten for our transgressions, His wounds heals our scars, His blood, causes our selves to be cleaned from the very demise being shown at that day. Image us instead of Him. Is that God to let us get beaten like that with the judgement given on is by satan himself? I don't assume it is. This means He took our demise, suffering and pain, and turned it to something else. Something that caused us peace. And understanding. People argue if believers would assume that they assume to not know God they do not know love. Ironically it is true by most believers. However, to show love and affections for a friend, family, loved ones, and to show protection, to me, that is saying, "they know Jesus. But does not see it for.themselves. It is built in us to defend, love and protect. However, it is also in us to hate, kill and doubt. That is why He was beaten and killed. For that understanding to be true.

Quote:

I would also dsagree with the opening of your next paragraph, in that we have no real evidence to support that Jesus lived the life described by The Bible in the first place. The character of Jesus is portrayed as an unrealistic bar for morality, attainable only by the heights of mythology or fiction. To assert that Jesus is the way one should live one's life while citing a minimal scriptural reference to a cherry-picked verse doesn't tell us much about this figurehead whom you're so quick to claim worship towards.

That website..... irrelevant. If one shows the exact idea portrayed in the Bible, the attitude would had been love and understanding. Not "walk on water" or "calm the raging seas" "or move mountains". That is poorly translated and read. Those were parables and the connection that life has and the parable.of that was overcoming with Him by your side. You may not be able to do what is in the bible. But in standards and with a clear understanding, that point was to overcome all odds through Him. Ironically, you should had known this. Not read it from that irrelevant website.

Quote:

From all of these claims, i can deduce that the God of the Bible doesn't seem to provide any real advice to suit modern day morality.

You look at it without an understanding. Or a connection. Believe me when I say, your not the first to do that.

Quote:

These principled messages of sacrifice, devotion, and inspiration can be found in many fables and mythologies. It is not honest, therefore, to assert that the Biblical account is either correct or unique in it's interpretation of absolute moral truth.

This point did not give anything prompting. It was irrelevant really.

Quote:

It is for this reason that I find religion to be inadequate when attempting to define morality, unless the religion in question accepts that every other religion and mythology/fable has the same hat in the same ring.

Welcome to religion. They all are literally similar to another. Ironically, I don't see anything similar in Christianity. Less, one acts falsely in it. Then that is considered the similarity trait.

Sorry, the media was not my interest of things. So I removed it. If your seeing media and films on things of documentations, you should consider two questions:

1) did they make this up?
2) did I agree because it seemed relevant to me?

But another question should be:

3) do I feel it?

Ironically, most people: 3 would be that answer. That idea is called Faith. How you watch videos and animations and believe in it is religious. By standards.

One should examine the idea of things before settling to a closed mind.