Genesis 14 and Psalm 110

[Matthias]

Sure, it would be very interesting to learn what a common Hinduist person believes in his heart of hearts.
But remember: I would not frame that question from a theological perspective, but from a personal one.

Would you say that your God and their gods is the same God? Do you think they might say that their gods are your God? (Or that their gods are the God of Israel?)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Evangelism.

Since you (and the majority of Roman Catholics you’ve encountered) believe all paths lead to the same God,

Well, I do not believe that all paths lead to the same God… but I understand how you’re using the metaphor here, so let’s proceed. I just didn’t want to leave this without a comment.

do you think Christians should cease trying to convert people from other religions to Christianity Pancho Frijoles?

My Muslim friend / co-worker often urged me to convert to Islam. Do you think Muslims should cease trying to convert people from other religions to Islam?

Conversion means two different things for me, and to answer your questions properly, I really need to explain this first.

One is the conversion of the spirit, a radical change in life, similar to the prodigal son. This conversion can be achieved through many religions. I put as an example my teacher of Chemistry in high school. He lived in profound despair prisoner of his vices (alcoholism) and became a new man, a loving father, an exceptional and inspiring teacher at school. In his prior state he happened to identify himself as Catholic. In his new state, as a Mormon. From a Catholic formal theological perspective, he could have been regarded as an apostate. But in the eyes of God he had been converted.

The second meaning is a change of beliefs which do not necessarily imply a major change in life. I was a Catholic who came to believe in doctrines I found more appealing: those held by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. At the time I got baptized as SDA, I felt happy for being “in the truth”… and sorry for those who remained “believing lies”. Six years later, however, I found a different set of beliefs even more appealing and adhered to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon). From a strict theological Adventist perspective, I was an apostate. From a Mormon perspective, I was a convert. From God’s perspective, neither of those.

I think that believers should continue to preach to non-believers, focusing on the first type of conversion.
If with that conversion a “better” creed comes along, great! But without the first type of conversion, change of creeds is useless.

 

[Matthias]

Well, I do not believe that all paths lead to the same God… but I understand how you’re using the metaphor here, so let’s proceed. I just didn’t want to leave this without a comment.

Conversion means two different things for me, and to answer your questions properly, I really need to explain this first.

One is the conversion of the spirit, a radical change in life, similar to the prodigal son. This conversion can be achieved through many religions. I put as an example my teacher of Chemistry in high school. He lived in profound despair prisoner of his vices (alcoholism) and became a new man, a loving father, an exceptional and inspiring teacher at school. In his prior state he happened to identify himself as Catholic. In his new state, as a Mormon. From a Catholic formal theological perspective, he could have been regarded as an apostate. But in the eyes of God he had been converted.

The second meaning is a change of beliefs which do not necessarily imply a major change in life. I was a Catholic who came to believe in doctrines I found more appealing: those held by the Seventh Day Adventist Church. At the time I got baptized as SDA, I felt happy for being “in the truth”… and sorry for those who remained “believing lies”. Six years later, however, I found a different set of beliefs even more appealing and adhered to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon). From a strict theological Adventist perspective, I was an apostate. From a Mormon perspective, I was a convert. From God’s perspective, neither of those.

I think that believers should continue to preach to non-believers, focusing on the first type of conversion.
If with that conversion a “better” creed comes along, great! But without the first type of conversion, change of creeds is useless.

Thanks.

Would you clarify who “non-believers“ are? I’m thinking you mean only atheists and agnostics but I’d like to make sure that I’m understanding you correctly.

 

[Matthias]

“… teach certain men not to teach strange doctrines”

(1 Timothy 1:3)

Given what Paul, a Jew, taught concerning the one God and the gods of the nations, would Paul find it a strange doctrine that all gods are his God, the one God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel?

 

[Matthias]

Few people ( say, 25%) fiercely disagreed, mainly Fundamentalist Evangelicals with fanatic attitudes….
All Catholics, except by one, also agreed with me.

I find my mind returning again and again to this comment. It is an important statement of your personal experience with those not of the Baha’i faith.

I’m not a Fundamentalist Evangelical (nor would I be accepted as one by those who are) and I’m not a Catholic but I find myself on the side of the 25%. In order to be consistent, wouldn’t that place me in your thinking as also being a person with a “fanatic attitude”? I think it must, and I don’t have any objection to that.

Setting this issue aside for just a moment, is it feasible in your thinking that people in the majority (on other issues besides the one which we’ve been discussing) hold “fanatic attitudes” (on whatever those issues might be)?

If so, and returning now to the issue that we have been discussing, would you say that the majority in which you find yourself to be also holds a “fanatic attitude”?

Here is what I’m driving at: when I initially read your statement it struck me as a knock against those in the minority in your experience. In other words, “fanatic attitudes” initially came across to me with the connotation of it being a bad thing. Was that your intention or was that me reading something into it which you didn’t intend? In your thinking, is having a “fanatic attitude” a bad thing? Is it something which can be a good thing or a bad thing? Is it something which, in and of itself, is neither a good thing or a bad thing?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I find my mind returning again and again to this comment. It is an important statement of your personal experience with those not of the Baha’i faith.

I’m not a Fundamentalist Evangelical (nor would I be accepted as one by those who are) and I’m not a Catholic but I find myself on the side of the 25%. In order to be consistent, wouldn’t that place me in your thinking as also being a person with a “fanatic attitude”? I think it must, and I don’t have any objection to that.

Setting this issue aside for just a moment, is it feasible in your thinking that people in the majority (on other issues besides the one which we’ve been discussing) hold “fanatic attitudes” (on whatever those issues might be)?

If so, and returning now to the issue that we have been discussing, would you say that the majority in which you find yourself to be also holds a “fanatic attitude”?

Here is what I’m driving at: when I initially read your statement it struck me as a knock against those in the minority in your experience. In other words, “fanatic attitudes” initially came across to me with the connotation of it being a bad thing. Was that your intention or was that me reading something into it which you didn’t intend? In your thinking, is having a “fanatic attitude” a bad thing? Is it something which can be a good thing or a bad thing? Is it something which, in and of itself, is neither a good thing or a bad thing?

Dear friend

Believe me I was not thinking in you when I wrote that.
I was rather thinking in a couple of member of this Forum who approched me on the "Communty Welcome Center" with a direct warning in this sense: "Abandon your Faith because the creator you worship is Satan."
I was also thinking in the profile of some of the Fundamentalist Evangelical members of the Forum from which I was expulsed.
The attitudes I qualify as "fanatic" could more or less be summarized in these statements:
"You, along with all Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, etc. will go to eternal fire if you don't adhere to doctrines A, B and C."
"Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons [and for some people, Catholics] will go to eternal fire if they don't abandon their churches to adhere to doctrines A, B and C".

These are other typical attitudes of what I qualify as "fanatic"

• Those who do not literally the chronology of the creation as described in Genesis chapter 1 are blasphemous and deserve hell.
• Evolution is an invention of the scientific elites that have a hidden agenda to discredit God and His Scripture.
• People in gay marriages deserve to burn in hell for ever, regardless of their mutual fidelity of love.
• Armaggedon is coming and we should feel happy to see Muslims fighting Jews in Middle East, because it means that Jesus is Coming soon (generally, to take His church for 7 years to heaven)
• The United Nations and other international organizations associated with it are led by Satan.
• Ecumenism is led by Satan

 

[Matthias]

Dear friend

Believe me I was not thinking in you when I wrote that.
I was rather thinking in a couple of member of this Forum who approched me on the "Communty Welcome Center" with a direct warning in this sense: "Abandon your Faith because the creator you worship is Satan."
I was also thinking in the profile of some of the Fundamentalist Evangelical members of the Forum from which I was expulsed.
The attitudes I qualify as "fanatic" could more or less be summarized in these statements:
"You, along with all Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, etc. will go to eternal fire if you don't adhere to doctrines A, B and C."
"Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons [and for some people, Catholics] will go to eternal fire if they don't abandon their churches to adhere to doctrines A, B and C".

These are other typical attitudes of what I qualify as "fanatic"

• Those who do not literally the chronology of the creation as described in Genesis chapter 1 are blasphemous and deserve hell.
• Evolution is an invention of the scientific elites that have a hidden agenda to discredit God and His Scripture.
• People in gay marriages deserve to burn in hell for ever, regardless of their mutual fidelity of love.
• Armaggedon is coming and we should feel happy to see Muslims fighting Jews in Middle East, because it means that Jesus is Coming soon (generally, to take His church for 7 years to heaven)
• The United Nations and other international organizations associated with it are led by Satan.
• Ecumenism is led by Satan

Thanks.

We’re good, but I must say that I do agree with a few, not all, of the typical attitudes you provided as examples of positions which, in your estimation, qualify as “fanatic”.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Thanks.

We’re good, but I must say that I do agree with a few, not all, of the typical attitudes you provided as examples of positions which, in your estimation, qualify as “fanatic”.

Attitudes are, to me, what makes a fanatic a fanatic.
That's why I didn't refer to them in my post as "beliefs", but "attitudes". Perhaps I should have been more specific about how those attitudes are manifested.
Basically, I don't see these people with joy and peace in the way they talk to others. I see them as permanently and anxiously detecting heretics and devils all around them. It is like their position before God depended not on how they live their own faith, but how they defend them about heresies, either real or invented.

They seem unable to see the works of God in any person who does not hold their beliefs. No possibility of repentance and transformation while within their "false religions". As a matter of fact, seeing a moral hero among unbelievers made them go nuts.

Let me give you an example:

For them, there was no difference in the eternal fate of the Nazis, Oskar Schindler, and the Jews he saved from the Holocaust. All of them deserved the flames of hell as none of them were "true believers in Jesus Christ". So they looked for ways to discredit Schindler. According to them, he was not really a good man. His goodness should have been fake... and in any case, useless.

The big hypocrisy here is that they seemed very interested in defending the life of Jews in the wars of Middle East, but at the same time they were OK with Jews being tortured forever in the gas cameras of hell.
When confronted with this inconsistency, they resorted to some biblical verses, pretending that they were not the ones making the judgement, but just reproducing what the Bible said. In other words, they seemed to be willing to sacrifice what is good and ethical, in order to uphold a particular doctrine they cherished.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I think that we must learn to tell good from bad first, at home, from our parents... and THEN explore what the Scripture has to say about how to live a good life according to God's will.
The authors of the Bible took for granted that the readers understood the concepts of "good" "evil" "merciful" "wicked" "just", etc.
The Bible is not a philosophical treaty of ethics that starts from zero. It takes for granted we have an ethical notion of good and bad to begin with.

In those few passages in which ethics is taught, it is not to lower the standard, put to take it to a higher level (for example, Jesus asked us to love our enemies).

So, it is at home that you learn that it is a BAD thing to stub a cigarrette on the skin of a Jewish person because he or she doesn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. You also learn at home that it is a GOOD thing to defend a Jew from bullying at school or the workplace.
So, once you have embedded these concepts in your mind, you start reading the Scripture and learning to analyze the texts.
When you find a verse that seems to say that God will send Jews to an eternal lake of fire for not being convinced about how I interpret Isaiah 53, then you resort to your basic notions of good and bad, and analyze the Bible as a whole to try to figure out what the inspired authors wanted to say.

 

[Matthias]

Attitudes are, to me, what makes a fanatic a fanatic.
That's why I didn't refer to them in my post as "beliefs", but "attitudes". Perhaps I should have been more specific about how those attitudes are manifested.
Basically, I don't see these people with joy and peace in the way they talk to others. I see them as permanently and anxiously detecting heretics and devils all around them. It is like their position before God depended not on how they live their own faith, but how they defend them about heresies, either real or invented.

They seem unable to see the works of God in any person who does not hold their beliefs. No possibility of repentance and transformation while within their "false religions". As a matter of fact, seeing a moral hero among unbelievers made them go nuts.

Let me give you an example:

For them, there was no difference in the eternal fate of the Nazis, Oskar Schindler, and the Jews he saved from the Holocaust. All of them deserved the flames of hell as none of them were "true believers in Jesus Christ". So they looked for ways to discredit Schindler. According to them, he was not really a good man. His goodness should have been fake... and in any case, useless.

The big hypocrisy here is that they seemed very interested in defending the life of Jews in the wars of Middle East, but at the same time they were OK with Jews being tortured forever in the gas cameras of hell.
When confronted with this inconsistency, they resorted to some biblical verses, pretending that they were not the ones making the judgement, but just reproducing what the Bible said. In other words, they seemed to be willing to sacrifice what is good and ethical, in order to uphold a particular doctrine they cherished.

You acknowledge in your post that there are real (as well as imagined) heresies.

Is heresy, in your view, an inconsequential issue?

 

[Matthias]

I think that we must learn to tell good from bad first, at home, from our parents... and THEN explore what the Scripture has to say about how to live a good life according to God's will.
The authors of the Bible took for granted that the readers understood the concepts of "good" "evil" "merciful" "wicked" "just", etc.
The Bible is not a philosophical treaty of ethics that starts from zero. It takes for granted we have an ethical notion of good and bad to begin with.

In those few passages in which ethics is taught, it is not to lower the standard, put to take it to a higher level (for example, Jesus asked us to love our enemies).

So, it is at home that you learn that it is a BAD thing to stub a cigarrette on the skin of a Jewish person because he or she doesn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. You also learn at home that it is a GOOD thing to defend a Jew from bullying at school or the workplace.
So, once you have embedded these concepts in your mind, you start reading the Scripture and learning to analyze the texts.
When you find a verse that seems to say that God will send Jews to an eternal lake of fire for not being convinced about how I interpret Isaiah 53, then you resort to your basic notions of good and bad, and analyze the Bible as a whole to try to figure out what the inspired authors wanted to say.

Jesus is the only one who will decide who will be thrown into the lake of fire. He will deal with Jews who reject him and his teaching and preaching, just as he will with gentiles who reject him and his teaching and preaching. He will be a just, righteous and merciful judge. No one will be destroyed in the lake of fire, suffering the second death, on the say so of others.

 

[Matthias]

Thinking about beliefs vs. attitudes.

Proposition: A person’s attitudes and actions are grounded, in full or in part, on what a person believes.

What are your thoughts on that @Pancho Frijoles?

Are beliefs, attitudes and actions truly independent of one another?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You acknowledge in your post that there are real (as well as imagined) heresies.

Is heresy, in your view, an inconsequential issue?

I think heresy is bad because it leads to bad consequences... specifically, to a life in opposition to God.
Whatever mistake does not lead to a life of separation from God, I would just call it an error, not a heresy.

When you read the New Testament, you see that Jesus and the apostles were concerned about error in as much as it led to a bad life. So they spent very little time refuting the heresy intellectually/theologically, but rather showed the bad consequences it led to. Here are two examples:

First, the well known method to detect false teacher taught by Jesus. Such method is based on the examination of fruits. Jesus insists that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and viceversa.

Second, chapter 2 of Second Peter. Please notice how much ink and time Peter spends in describing the consequences of heresy (or apostasy), instead of refuting heresy with good Theology. Actually, we finish the chapter without knowing exactly what false doctrines these false teachers will believe, and why Christians should consider them heretic. What we know is the bad fruits they will show.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
... They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries...
... like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.

... These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Thinking about beliefs vs. attitudes.

Proposition: A person’s attitudes and actions are grounded, in full or in part, on what a person believes.

What are your thoughts on that @Pancho Frijoles?

Are beliefs, attitudes and actions truly independent of one another?

No, they are not.
Beliefs are important. But that importance can vary a lot.
Again, the examination of fruits will tell us about their relative importance.

AN EXAMPLE OF A CRITICAL BELIEF

If I believe that I must follow Jim Jones as my Messiah to the rainforest in Guyana leaving behind my family, job or education, and accepting that he can abuse me sexually, and I should follow him to commit suicide if he asks me to, then it is clear that it is critical to examine and abandon my belief in Jim Jones as my Messiah as quickly as possible.

AN EXAMPLE OF A NON CRITICAL BELIEF

Imagine you engage in a debate with a person who believes in the eternal torment of hell:

If he happens to be right and you are wrong, will accepting your error lead you to sin less, because you will now be afraid of the eternal lake of fire?
If you happen to be right and he is wrong, will accepting his error lead him to sin more, because he will not fear anhiliation as bad as as being tortured forever?
Would you expect the criminality rate of SDA or JW (who do not believe in eternal hell) to be radically different from, say, Baptists and Methodists who believe in it?

 

[Matthias]

I think heresy is bad because it leads to bad consequences... specifically, to a life in opposition to God.
Whatever mistake does not lead to a life of separation from God, I would just call it an error, not a heresy.

When you read the New Testament, you see that Jesus and the apostles were concerned about error in as much as it led to a bad life. So they spent very little time refuting the heresy intellectually/theologically, but rather showed the bad consequences it led to. Here are two examples:

First, the well known method to detect false teacher taught by Jesus. Such method is based on the examination of fruits. Jesus insists that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit and viceversa.

Second, chapter 2 of Second Peter. Please notice how much ink and time Peter spends in describing the consequences of heresy (or apostasy), instead of refuting heresy with good Theology. Actually, we finish the chapter without knowing exactly what false doctrines these false teachers will believe, and why Christians should consider them heretic. What we know is the bad fruits they will show.

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.
... They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries...
... like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption, and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you, having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children. They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness; but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man’s voice restrained the madness of the prophet.

... These are wells without water, clouds carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.
For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.

Jesus and the Apostles shared the same theology and taught it. As I see it, to hold their theology and to live it is to be truly orthodox; heresy being anything that falls outside of those boundaries.

Life flows from theology.

If for some reason I were to turn away from the God of Israel - which is to say, if my theology shifted - my life would change. In service and devotion to another deity, my life still might include many good qualities but it would not include the most important quality - loving and obeying the one true God.

 

[Matthias]

No, they are not.
Beliefs are important. But that importance can vary a lot.
Again, the examination of fruits will tell us about their relative importance.

AN EXAMPLE OF A CRITICAL BELIEF

If I believe that I must follow Jim Jones as my Messiah to the rainforest in Guyana leaving my family, job or college, and accepting that he can abuse me sexually, and I should follow him to commit suicide if he asks me to, then it is clear that it is critical to examine and abandone my belief in Jim Jones as my Messiah as quickly as possible.

AN EXAMPLE OF A NON CRITICAL BELIEF

Imagine you engage in a debate with a person who believes in the eternal torment of hell:

If he happens to be right and you are wrong, will accepting your error lead you to sin less, because you will now be afraid of the eternal lake of fire?
If you happen to be right and he is wrong, will accepting his error lead him to sin more, because he will not fear anhiliation as bad as as being tortured forever?
Would you expect the criminality rate of SDA or JW (who do not believe in eternal hell) to be radically different from, say, Baptists and Methodists who believe in it?

I would leave it in Jesus’ hands.

What I have to do as a disciple of Jesus is believe what he believes, obey him, and speak the truth to others. That’s what I will judged on.

I hold a belief that many, perhaps even the majority, who believe in conditional immortality don’t: not all who have their place in the great white throne judgement will be thrown into the lake of fire and suffer the second death after they are judged. I believe the wideness of God’s mercy will be demonstrated in the Messiah’s judgement of those who lived and died without ever knowing anything about him but lived as if they had.

I don’t insist on it and I acknowledge that it might in the end prove not to be true. I believe that it is implied or inferred in scripture.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I would leave it in Jesus’ hands.

Sure, our individual spiritual state and fate is known only to God.
What I wanted to point out with my examples is how not all mistaken beliefs have the same consequences, and how heresy is not synonym of mistake.

What I have to do as a disciple of Jesus is believe what he believes, obey him, and speak the truth to others. That’s what I will judged on.

Talking about judgement, there is no description in the Bible more detailed about the criteria used by Christ in this judgement than this:

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[Matthias]

Sure, our individual spiritual state and fate is known only to God.
What I wanted to point out with my examples is how not all mistaken beliefs have the same consequences, and how heresy is not synonym of mistake.





Talking about judgement, there is no description in the Bible more detailed about the criteria used by Christ in this judgement than this:

When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

“Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’

“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

He ties it all to belief in his God. There is life only in his God, not in any other so-called gods.

 

[Matthias]

“Hey, Matthias. I’ve decided that Dagon - the elohim / theos of the Philistines - is the one true God.”

I know what I would say to such a person @Pancho Frijoles. What would you advise me to say to him or her?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

“Hey, Matthias. I’ve decided that Dagon - the elohim / theos of the Philistines - is the one true God.”

I know what I would say to such a person @Pancho Frijoles. What would you advise me to say to him or her?

"Tell me about what Dagon requires from you, and what you expect from Dagon."
"Tell me how your worshiping Dagon makes your life better."