Instead of using "going to hell", I'll change that phrase to "Am I still a Christian", for the meaning is practically synonymous.
One does not cease to be Christian nor proven to be a fake/non-Christian, if one does not attend church regularly. However, not going to church weekly does reveal one's attitude towards worship, fellowship, how one judges other fellow believers, biblical doctrines, etc., all of which do actually affect one's identity as a Christian.
I differ from many modernists in such view. They think racism has to do with religion, culture, etc. That is only superficial.
The chief reason of racism: The belief that all races/nations' ancestry are "monkeys" (non-humans). So, some evolved "monkeys" think themselves better evolved than other types of "monkeys".
The fake cure for racism: ignorance.
The true cure for racism: the belief that all races/nations' ancestry is human.
The latter cure is ironically but contrarily used by the modernists as well. The modernists know this is the best cure, hence their motto "all are equal", but they conflict themselves with their evolution theory of man. This results in the extremes among them, from Hitler to those who think humans are equal with animals - they should all have voting rights, etc.
"But Noah is not real", some say. "It's illogical". Such are the utterance of ignorance. Basically, "How can one produce both black and white?" so claimed the uni-directional thinking but so called "scientifically minded".
C = Christianity,
A = All other religions, non-religion religions, and so on.
The common answer is that C is of grace; while A is always based on works.
I say, C starts with where you differ, not what you don't know; While A starts with what you don't know.
Many Chinese Christians love the phrase "不知者无罪", which is invalid in the case of C. Simply put, for all have sinned.
It plays a Christmas song every hour, there are 12 different songs.
Setup: press red button at the back of the clock (or turn to next/previous hour while the clock is still singing) for next song.
I've set it this way:
00:00 Deck the Halls-fa la la la la (18 secs)
01:00 The First Noel (12 secs)
02:00 Joy to the World (39 secs)
03:00 We Wish You a Merry Christmas (14 secs)
04:00 Jingle Bells (47 secs)
05:00 O Come All Ye Faithful (36 secs)
06:00 O Christmas Tree (25 secs)
07:00 Gloria in Excelsis Deo (22 secs)
08:00 O Little Town of Bethlehem (16 secs)
09:00 The Twelve days of Christmas (18 secs)
10:00 Hark! The Herald Angels Sing (39 secs)
11:00 Silent Night (34 secs)
true genuine help is hard to find from strangers. Even from among those who volunteer to help. Volunteering now does not necessary prove someone with pure intent. One can usually tell which kind of strangers they are.
A good interactive one. I tried to do it on google map, but I guess this takes the work off me.
This dialogue is fictional. It is after a recent conversation with Michael when he tries to recommend me books to read. Many others have done the same to me and to others, I am sure. My fictional character here is SI, stands for shallow and practices indifference.
Me: Those who love to recommend others to read something assume only 1 thing: That others lack the knowledge of which that is to be read.
SI: But it's like sharing a good news! You don't need to know if others are previously aware of it.
Me: If it's good news to share, do you care if others get it or not?
SI: Yes of course! That's the point of sharing!!!
Me: So if others have already gotten it, do you still wish to share it? Like telling an 8 month pregnant woman that she is pregnant.
SI: In that case, no. But when we cannot determine if someone has gotten the news, then by all means, share it!
Me: Very well. So, you are saying that the act of sharing a news depends on acknowledging that the person had previously received the news or not?
SI: Yes.
Me: Would it be wise then, to determine if the person knew ahead of time, before sharing the news? Otherwise, it would be as redundant as the case with the pregnant woman, causing her to despise you?
SI: I suppose. So, if you wish to determine whether or not if others lack the knowledge of what you wish them know, you could try to probe them, with some questions, to determine so?
Me: Yes, that is one method I suppose. However, there remains a question of whether what you think worthy agrees with them. Then your problem is not about persuading them to read your recommendations, but to persuade them to agree with you first, if yours is truly worthy indeed. Not that yours must be worthy, but let's assume so. In the worst case scenario, they not only despise your ideas, but despises you for telling them something they already knew which they disagree. But even probing people with questions, trying to find out what they know, may seem a bit condescending to them.
SI: In that case, there is no easy way of recommending books or any readings to others.
Me: Not that I know of. Unless you are of someone of importance. Someone the others respect and admire because of certain qualities you have. Then, maybe it is easier, when your recommendation pertains to those qualities which they admire or are envious of you. Or if they come to you directly asking you for the source of your materials, that's the easiest way. If your reading recommendations are taken seriously by your very brief mention, that shows they truly respect your judgment. Otherwise, it is wise not to keep pushing it.
SI: It seems that probing is the only way to go, how can we detect what others know without condescension?
Me: That I'm afraid is not easy, as we have established earlier. However, you can try summarize what you what them to read in a couple of sentences, in your own words. Not just simply taking summary points directly from the reading. That way, the others could judge in seconds what you treasure worth any investment. These are wise fishes and if you can catch them, you may have found yourself great friends. The common reason many don't take reading recommendations seriously is because it is a waste of time and we believe that some of such recommendations, if worthy anything, can be summarized into 1 sentence and not a 100 pages, not even a paragraph. I have done such experiments to a friend once, Michael, when I tried to recommend him to the works of Paul Washer, a preacher, whose sermons are on youtube. I did not persuade him to go listen the sermons. However, based on my conversation with him, I detected that he would love Paul Washer's sermon. So, I brought up something Paul Washer said that surprised me. Michael didn't seem to hear it. I thought to myself, maybe I should put the same context in another interesting way next time, and so I did, on another day talking to Michael. This time, he is fully hearing what I was saying and even asked me: Who said that? Remind me again! That's when I said, Paul Washer, again. Since then, he has watched more of Washer's sermons than I. True story.
SI: What was the context?
Me: It's from a Paul Washer youtube sermon. The Jehovah's Witnesses once knocked on Washer's door, saying we are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Washer immediately replied: SO AM I, Come in!!!, which led to discussion and Paul refuting their claim and preaching the Gospel to them. It was about how we, as Christians, use every opportunity to preach to ANYONE and we must value our inheritance, such that others (Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc.) do not think they could steal it from us.
Now that I've written this dialogue, perhaps I will forward it as "reading recommendation" to those who like to recommend me things to read.
A good one. I had a suspicious email in my CUNY account with a doc attachment. And with this online scan, I could lookup lots of details and even determined that the virus I got "should not" infect Android phones.
At least there are like-minded people. And yes, this can extend to music too.
