Which is the bigger sin?

[Elijah John]

Which is worse, murder and other such atrocities we see and hear in the headlines all too often, or not believing in Jesus as the "only begotten Son of God" as John 3:18 seems to suggest.

That verse and others like it seem to suggest that not believing in Jesus as the "only begotten Son of God" is the worst sin in the world. Am I misreading this?

What if a person believes in God, and embraces His commandments in their heart and strives to live by them, but does not believe that Jesus is Divine?

Then what if an unspeakable murderer is "born again" in prison, does that person go straight to Heaven when he or she dies, and the Godly non-Christian does not?

[Danmark]

I never thought you did. I am just showing why the bigger sin is not following Jesus.

Can you tie those historical events to Christ? You see I think I can tie murder to evolution as a justifiable act within the ideology. Or we can tie murder as justifiable within the Islamic ideology.

I wasn't aware "not following Jesus" was a sin at all. In addition the 'good book' says something about 'the wages of sin' being 'death.' According to this doctrine any unforgiven sin is punished with the same 'death sentence' as any other.

But if there is any truth at all to the Christian tradition, I find it hard to believe a just person who tries to treat his fellow man fairly and benevolently, whose only fault is the failure to believe Jesus is God, would be punished at all.
But that's just me, preaching from the lowest dungeon in hell, where we are having a great time telling jokes and buying drinks.

[czyz]

John is the only gospel that makes the claim that believing in Jesus is the way to God. The other three gospels don't remotely make this claim. When the Synod of Hippo met in 393, the purpose was to select books that would encompass what we know today as the bible.

John was nearly omitted because it was deemed odd even by earlier Christian apologists. It is believed that John was written in three stages over time with its completion around the year 100.

These are man made documents and it shows.

[Joab]

I never thought you did. I am just showing why the bigger sin is not following Jesus.

Can you tie those historical events to Christ? You see I think I can tie murder to evolution as a justifiable act within the ideology. Or we can tie murder as justifiable within the Islamic ideology.

I wasn't aware "not following Jesus" was a sin at all. In addition the 'good book' says something about 'the wages of sin' being 'death.' According to this doctrine any unforgiven sin is punished with the same 'death sentence' as any other.

But if there is any truth at all to the Christian tradition, I find it hard to believe a just person who tries to treat his fellow man fairly and benevolently, whose only fault is the failure to believe Jesus is God, would be punished at all.
But that's just me, preaching from the lowest dungeon in hell, where we are having a great time telling jokes and buying drinks.

With, as we find in the cheats of all good computer games, unlimited lives and unlimited money.

[Elijah John]

John is the only gospel that makes the claim that believing in Jesus is the way to God. The other three gospels don't remotely make this claim. When the Synod of Hippo met in 393, the purpose was to select books that would encompass what we know today as the bible.

John was nearly omitted because it was deemed odd even by earlier Christian apologists. It is believed that John was written in three stages over time with its completion around the year 100.

These are man made documents and it shows.

I always considered the Gospel of John kind of "oddball" as well. It seems more like some of the non-canonical gospel, like Thomas etc, both in content as well as style.

Beautiful as poetry, however, but that should not be a criteria for including it in the Canon. Always seemed kind of "Gnostic" to me, and more in line with Paul's teachings than Jesus as portrayed in the Synoptics.

An example, Jesus in John's gospel claims glory for himself and advocates praying in his own name. In the synoptics, Jesus is all about glorifying the Father, and hallows the Father's name. And also Jesus in the synoptics seems more concerned about what people do to honor God and love of neighbor, whereas John seems more concerned about what people believe.

But yeah, John does seem to condemn those who do not believe in Jesus. But from my point of view, John has less credibility than the synoptics, and I do believe that being a good atheist or non-Christian who is motivated by conscience and love of neighbor is far to be preferred to a serial killer who pleads for mercy in prison. and becomes a "Christian".

[Wootah]

John is the only gospel that makes the claim that believing in Jesus is the way to God. The other three gospels don't remotely make this claim. When the Synod of Hippo met in 393, the purpose was to select books that would encompass what we know today as the bible.

John was nearly omitted because it was deemed odd even by earlier Christian apologists. It is believed that John was written in three stages over time with its completion around the year 100.

These are man made documents and it shows.

I always considered the Gospel of John kind of "oddball" as well. It seems more like some of the non-canonical gospel, like Thomas etc, both in content as well as style.

Beautiful as poetry, however, but that should not be a criteria for including it in the Canon. Always seemed kind of "Gnostic" to me, and more in line with Paul's teachings than Jesus as portrayed in the Synoptics.

An example, Jesus in John's gospel claims glory for himself and advocates praying in his own name. In the synoptics, Jesus is all about glorifying the Father, and hallows the Father's name. And also Jesus in the synoptics seems more concerned about what people do to honor God and love of neighbor, whereas John seems more concerned about what people believe.

But yeah, John does seem to condemn those who do not believe in Jesus. But from my point of view, John has less credibility than the synoptics, and I do believe that being a good atheist or non-Christian who is motivated by conscience and love of neighbor is far to be preferred to a serial killer who pleads for mercy in prison. and becomes a "Christian".

Don't worry God will sort out the Christians and the "Christians". We aren't talking about "Christian conversion" here are we?