Who gets into heaven

That clearly goes against the Bible. At the very least, you have to believe in Jesus/God and be baptized.
I don't think baptism is a requirement mentioned anywhere in the Bible
Letting in the "best" people in would make sense
You're invoking an objective and universal standard of justice and righteousness, and you believe it exists.

Otherwise, justice and righteousness are just relative terms that depend on opinion and culture.
 
I don't think baptism is a requirement mentioned anywhere in the Bible
Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

Acts 2:38: Peter tells people to "Repent and be baptized... for the forgiveness of your sins".

1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you... as an appeal to God for a good conscience".
You're invoking an objective and universal standard of justice and righteousness, and you believe it exists.

Otherwise, justice and righteousness are just relative terms that depend on opinion and culture.
Maybe, but surely we can agree that eating shellfish and clothing with different materials is a pretty silly measurement.
 
I don't think baptism is a requirement mentioned anywhere in the Bible

You're invoking an objective and universal standard of justice and righteousness, and you believe it exists.

it does exist.

its reciprocity and empathy, and cooperation.

the golden rule.
Otherwise, justice and righteousness are just relative terms that depend on opinion and culture.
no. cooperation, peace and mutual gain is clearly different that division, war, and loss.

that's the golden rule.

high trust societies always need something like the golden rule.

the golden rule makes Christianity, not baptism.
 
Mark 16:16: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned".

Acts 2:38: Peter tells people to "Repent and be baptized... for the forgiveness of your sins".

1 Peter 3:21: "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you... as an appeal to God for a good conscience".
You're right about those quotes, but it's an open question in Christianity if baptism is necessary for salvation. Some babies die before they are baptized, and some churches only practice adult baptism. Some people convert on their death bed.

Belief in the death, resurrection, and saving grace of Christ is the minimum to be a Christian.
Maybe, but surely we can agree that eating shellfish and clothing with different materials is a pretty silly measurement.
The ritual, civil, ceremonial, cleanliness, and sacrificial laws of Moses are not moral laws and do not mark one out as a righteous person. They mark one out as a culturally Torah-observant Jew.

So what objective universal standard of morality were you smuggling into your worldview to define who deserves spiritual liberation?
 
You're right about those quotes, but it's an open question in Christianity if baptism is necessary for salvation. Some babies die before they are baptized, and some churches only practice adult baptism. Some people convert on their death bed.

Belief in the death, resurrection, and saving grace of Christ is the minimum to be a Christian.
Sure. People often marginalize things in the Bible they don't want to believe because it doesn't "feel" right or doesn't make sensem
The ritual, civil, ceremonial, cleanliness, and sacrificial laws of Moses are not moral laws and do not mark one out as a righteous person. They mark one out as a culturally Torah-observant Jew.
Eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of two different fabrics is a sin according to the Bible. You don't think suns are a statement about what is or isn't moral?
So what objective universal standard of morality were you smuggling into your worldview to define who deserves spiritual liberation?
I don't have one, I'm just saying that Bible could be a lot more useful if it made more sense. I mean, killing your neighbor for working on Saturday, killing your new wife if she's not a virgin and killing people for witchcraft all seem a little Unconstructive, don't they?
 
. People often marginalize things in the Bible they don't want to believe because it doesn't "feel" right or doesn't make sensem

Eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of two different fabrics is a sin according to the Bible. You don't think suns are a statement about what is or isn't moral?
Christians have never been required to follow the ritual and ceremonial laws of Torah. If you hate the ceremonial laws of Torah, find a Jewish neighbor or friend to harangue about it. Those aren't laws about morality. Nobody on the planet today think a clothing fabric makes you righteous.
I don't have one, I'm just saying that Bible could be a lot more useful if it made more sense. I mean, killing your neighbor for working on Saturday, killing your new wife if she's not a virgin and killing people for witchcraft all seem a little Unconstructive, don't they?
So even though you clearly insinuated there is an objective and universal standard of righteousness people should be judged on, you are repeatedly refusing to say what this standard is, or from where you are smuggling it into your worldview.
 
Christians have never been required to follow the ritual and ceremonial laws of Torah. If you hate the ceremonial laws of Torah, find a Jewish neighbor or friend to harangue about it. Those aren't laws about morality. Nobody on the planet today think a clothing fabric makes you righteous.

So even though you clearly insinuated there is an objective and universal standard of righteousness people should be judged on, you are repeatedly refusing to say what this standard is, or from where you are smuggling it into your worldview.
Culture and religious traditions are one thing, but what I find most disgusting are the hypocrites; the self-labeled Christian who cherry-picks the Bible about homosexuals while munching on a pulled-pork BBQ sandwich with his mistress while his wife watches the kids at home and refuses to help his mother-in-law pay her electric bill saying "That God damn bitch should have planned ahead better!".
 
Christians have never been required to follow the ritual and ceremonial laws of Torah.

Depends on which Christian you ask. I bet 90+% of Christians are circumcized.
If you hate the ceremonial laws of Torah, find a Jewish neighbor or friend to harangue about it. Those aren't laws about morality. Nobody on the planet today think a clothing fabric makes you righteous.
God, not me, labeled certain fabric combinations a sin and working on certain days punishable by death and eating certain sea creatures a sin. By doing that, God, the same God Christians worship, is declaring those actions to be immoral....hence being a sin.
So even though you clearly insinuated there is an objective and universal standard of righteousness people should be judged on, you are repeatedly refusing to say what this standard is, or from where you are smuggling it into your worldview.
According to Christiana, God is the objective standard for righteousness and morality.... except when he's not, like when his rules for righteousness and morality become morally untenable....and punishable with lengthy prison terms.
 
Depends on which Christian you ask. I bet 90+% of Christians are circumcized.
Maybe around the world, but in the US, over 50% are circumcised as a medical, not religious procedure. Since most are Christians, it follows their numbers follow the trend.

Across the 32-year period from 1979 through 2010, the national rate of newborn circumcision declined 10% overall, from 64.5% to 58.3% (Table and Figure 1). During this time, the overall percentage of newborns circumcised during their birth hospitalization was highest in 1981 at 64.9%, and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%.

However, rates fluctuated during this period, generally declining during the 1980s, rising in the 1990s, and declining again in the early years of the 21st century. These changes occurred during a period of changing guidance on routine newborn circumcision. For example, American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) task force reports during the 1970s (1,2) stated there was no medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn; AAP revised its position in 1989 (3), stating there were potential medical benefits to newborn circumcision; and then in 1999 (4), an AAP policy statement said that, despite potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision, there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine circumcision of newborns.
 
Depends on which Christian you ask. I bet 90+% of Christians are circumcized.

God, not me, labeled certain fabric combinations a sin and working on certain days punishable by death and eating certain sea creatures a sin. By doing that, God, the same God Christians worship, is declaring those actions to be immoral....hence being a sin.
You're clinging to a straw man.

The ceremonial, dietary, ritual cleanliness, civil laws Moses established in the Torah were for the Israelites living in an ancient Jewish theocracy.

They weren't intended for anyone else.

There aren't any normal Christians today who believe those ritual laws of Moses make a person righteous.
According to Christiana, God is the objective standard for righteousness and morality.... except when he's not, like when his rules for righteousness and morality become morally untenable....and punishable with lengthy prison terms.

Leave God and Christians out of it. You yourself declared that righteous people are the ones who deserve any kind of salvation, irrespective of religious affiliation. What is this universal objective standard of moral righteousness you're pointing at to justify this statement?
 
There aren't any normal Christians today who believe those ritual laws of Moses make a person righteous.
Right because, again, Christians pick and choose which of God's rules they want to follow.

For a long time, homosexuality was a HUGE sin in Christianity, but even that "rule" is being ignored more and more and it's not because the Bible chang d or God changed his mind, it's because Christians rationalize not following rules they don't like.

In the New testament, Paul's letter to the Corinthians condemns homosexuality. Well, I'm not a Corinthian so should I, If I were a Christian, just ignore what Paul said?
Leave God and Christians out of it. You yourself declared that righteous people are the ones who deserve any kind of salvation, irrespective of religious affiliation. What is this universal objective standard of moral righteousness you're pointing at to justify this statement?
THE universal standard, or at least the single most fundamental requirement, is believing in God. But, Christians have even found a way to rationalize that rules away.
 
Back
Top