There is no question that the Christian Liberal/Humanist will have a hotter hell than the Mormon because they are in the church and pretending to be the real deal. This does not make Mormonism safe, but it wont be hotter for them than the liberal. People like Brian McLaren which I believe may be a true and real liberal more powerful and more satanic than someone like Joel Osteen whom is a self-help and prosperity gospel advocate whom no question is a false teacher, but maybe on the same level as a Peter Ruckman, etc.. I say this because I heard Osteen say on television that Jesus is the only way to God, the Bible is the true word of God, etc.. These are things that Brian McLarren does not believe and that makes him very dangerous.
Lets see, liberal tear down what they perceive as bad, and conservatives preserve what they perceive as good.
Being fallible, sometimes liberals tear down what is good, and conservatives preserve what bad.
So beware of those who label others with loaded labels.
All Christians are liberal in that they reject the world's value system, but they are conservative in that they want to preserve Christ's value system.
I think the point of the thread is who is less evil, a Mormon, or a member of a Christian church that is pretending to be a Christian.
That is kind of like comparing an F and an F+ on a report card.
You are either a Christian or you are not.
Degrees of hell, that is another debate.
First of all, I do not know why a non-Christian would waste time going to church and pretend.
Stay home and watch a ball game or go fishing.
Think about it, why would anyone who does not have a zeal for the Lord want to hear the Bible explained and listen to a bunch of songs with a boring or nonsenscial message?
In my mind, the only reason a non-Christian would go to church and go through the motions is if they thought themselves to be saved, but were in actuality - not. I think that those are the hardest people to reach with the truth.
Sometimes the lost person at rock bottom and metaphorical skid row is easier to present the truth to.
But I'm changing the topic.....sorry.
That ultimately depends on whether they are "religiously" Christian (as in THEY did all the work and action by their own merits and are zealous for God because of their own efforts) or whether they are in a born-again-from-above relationship with Christ according to the Bible.
Liberal or not doesn't really play into salvation issues.
What does is that one is either regenerated or not.
That being said, most liberal denominations, pastors, churches, and individuals do not actually hold to the supernatural nature of the born-again experience, so about all they have left (unless God has done a work in them, which can and does happen!) is their own zeal to chase after God, which in the end is as meaningless as if they chased after a crystal or a tree.
They just happen to hold the right book and say some of the right words.
I fear there are some conservative and traditional churches for whom the same can be said.
It would behoove us all to take inventory of ourselves and our respective churches.
Defintion in christian sense would be conservative as one who holds to the truths of trinity, salvation by grace/faith alone, Bible inspired/infallible/second coming etc
Liberal one who would deny one or all of the above!
A most interesting comment. Another might phrase it this way:
There is no question that the Christian Conservatives/Fundamentalists will have a hotter hell than the Mormon because they are in the church and pretending to be the real deal.
Both statements are opinions and cannot be proven either way.
One CANNOT deny Jesus died on Cross for atonement
one CANNOT deny would be saved by faith/grace alone!
One CANNOT deny trinity /nor that Jesus is God!
one CANNOT deny resurrection, nor Virgin birth
As an exercise in futility, do you think that ACTUAL EVENTS hapened at an ACTUAL TIME IN HISTORY that were subsequently written in a record called the BIBLE?
And, that if those actual events happened at an actual time in history, that there then is a SINGULAR interpretation that explains them?
No, of course you would not agree to that.
You would have to repent...
:wavey: