Difference between revisions of "Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(JW view: new section)
(The "not-so-fun" part)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Fun ==
 
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666‰''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
 
:Nothing "amusing" about this.  There is a correct answer - a specific percentage.  What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
 
:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible.  For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
 
::::Your insight about this is superb.  I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
 
 
===The "not-so-fun" part===
 
===The "not-so-fun" part===
 
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell.  God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive.  After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven.  So, time to make the choice now.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell.  God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive.  After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven.  So, time to make the choice now.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Line 28: Line 17:
 
::::::::::::::But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this?  Do you reject Him or accept Him?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
::::::::::::::But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this?  Do you reject Him or accept Him?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::::::::::I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::::::::::I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible Final Edit to this comment: Actually, that passage is for people claiming to be christians and doing acts in christs name without BEING actually christian. That includes liberal Christians who have accepted a false gospel of christ--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
+
:::::::::::::::: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
 
+
::::::::::::::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Interesting ==
+
 
+
This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul.  He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]?  Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==
+
 
+
In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
+
 
+
== JW view ==
+
 
+
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
+

Revision as of 20:59, 20 September 2011

The "not-so-fun" part

Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. Karajou 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? AsherL 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--SeanS 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
@AsherL, his page [1] could probably explain it better than I could. Karajou 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty"
"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?"
I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle.
But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything I have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink.
I think we don't actually know what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. AsherL 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--SeanS 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better who would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. AsherL 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --SeanS 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Or what, exactly? AsherL 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Matthew 7:22/23 is the fate of Liberal Christians. --SeanS 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the action of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just happens (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it tells us that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. AsherL 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who WOULD have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --SeanS 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' Summa Theologiae (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God they had never even heard of. RexBanner 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
But you have heard of Jesus, so where do you stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? Karajou 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in City of God Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. RexBanner 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--SeanS 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. RexBanner 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)