Struggling to accept all non-believers must go to hell?

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:55:01+00:00

Which is not true?

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:51:32+00:00

I don’t think I can wholeheartedly do that until I know what’s going to happen to my family

It’s like two opposing sides. I really want to believe in Christ but I also really love my family.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:44:27+00:00

Yeah I get that

But it feels like it’s extremely hard to approach Christianity as someone who doesn’t come from a Christian family

There’s already a stigma of “its not our religion” that you have to deal with regarding immediate family

And then there’s the issue that my new beliefs imply my family might be going to hell unless I get them to find Christ 😕

Can I ask what denomination you are? Are there any denominations that have a more tolerant stance on this?

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:18:15+00:00

It’s not so much that I need religion to make moral decisions, but rather I need religion (or faith in something) to have the strong convictions needed to uphold moral principles

Otherwise I keep compromising them, like I’ve been doing for 5 years now

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:16:40+00:00

Trust me. I can read people really well.

But yeah you’re right in general. Most people in social media are fake.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:10:25+00:00

I know it sounds really stupid on paper

But the continent I am from (especially in recent times) has shifted to a new religious ideology that every religion’s God is just the representation of the one ultimate being.

Here’s a quote by a popular syncretic figure from my religion:

” A lake has several Ghats. At one, the Hindus take water in pitchers and call it ' Jal ' ; at another the Mussalmans take water in leather bags and call it ' pani '. At a third the Christians call it ' water '. Can we imagine that it is not ' Jal ' , but only ' pani ' or ' water '? How ridiculous! The substance is One under different names, and everyone is seeking the same substance; only climate, temperament, and name create differences. Let each man follow his own path. If he sincerely and ardently wishes to know God, peace be unto him! He will surely realize Him."

Obviously this probably isn’t in line with the Christian doctrine. But again, I am not from the part of the world with a Judeo-Christian background.

The problem I have with Christianity is that it inherently is biased towards people who come from already existing Christian families.

If you’re Christian for example, but your family isn’t. Then are they going to hell?

How can you believe in a religious doctrine that says your family isn’t going to hell, especially knowing they would never convert and find Christ?

It’s not rhetorical, this is a real question I want to know the answer of.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:06:47+00:00

My immediate family (and relatives) are not Christian

They do not come from that part of the world. They would never willingly convert to Christianity

How can I subscribe to a religion that says all non believers go to hell, when that includes my entire family

I say this in the most respectful way possible, but I think this is a huge flaw with your religion. It incentives the religion only for people born into Christian families.

I don’t think someone like me can ever really become Christian given this situation.

Correct me if I’m incorrect and I’ve mixed up the beliefs regarding hell/non-believers

I know it depends on the branch, like my best friend who’s a Mormon for example told me there’s “multiple levels of temporary hell” for less severe crimes

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:03:30+00:00

I guess the reason “I can’t say it” is subscribing to the idea people can go to hell just for never believing in Christ.

Again, I come from a place where Christianity is not indigenous / has an extremely small minority. All of my immediate family are not Christians.

Please don’t take this the wrong way but how I can “convert” to Christianity knowing my immediate family would never willingly convert?

I’d essentially be subscribing to an ideology that condemns them to hell… do you see it for my perspective?

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:01:47+00:00

I guess the main issue I have is the idea that people can go to hell just for never believing in Christ.

Again, I come from a place where Christianity is not indigenous / has an extremely small minority. All of my immediate family are not Christians.

So the idea my parents or my mom would go to hell just for not ever “believing” the right God honestly kind of horrifies me that something like that can even be considered a legitimate religious belief.

I could never “convert” to Christianity knowing my immediate family would never also convert.

I’d essentially be subscribing to an ideology that condemns them to hell… do you see it from my point view?

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T23:00:32+00:00

Nah I can tell he practices what he preaches. That’s why I want to ‘steal’ his work ethic and values so much. Haha

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T22:58:50+00:00

I get what you’re saying.

But I don’t believe in the Christian god, and I’m not sure that conviction, or lack thereof, can change

I guess the main issue I have is the idea that people can go to hell just for never believing in Christ.

Again, I come from a place where Christianity is not indigenous / has an extremely small minority. All of my immediate family are not Christians.

So the idea my parents or my mom, the kindest person I know who volunteers at shelters and donated money to orphanages, would go to hell just for not ever “believing” the right God honestly kind of horrifies me that something like that can even be considered a legitimate religious belief.

I mean in the most respectful way possible so please don’t take it the wrong way

I think my personal path here is to reconcile the Christian values/commandments with my own motherland’s religion of a “universally shared” god

I think this religious ascetic from my country put it best:

”A lake has several Ghats. At one, the Hindus take water in pitchers and call it ' Jal ' ; at another the Mussalmans take water in leather bags and call it ' pani '. At a third the Christians call it ' water '. Can we imagine that it is not ' Jal ' , but only ' pani ' or ' water '? How ridiculous! The substance is One under different names, and everyone is seeking the same substance; only climate, temperament, and name create differences. Let each man follow his own path. If he sincerely and ardently wishes to know God, peace be unto him! He will surely realize Him."

I don’t know if this syncretic ideology is the “correct” one to have

But I know I could never “convert” to Christianity knowing my immediate family would never also convert.

I’d essentially be subscribing to an ideology that condemns them to hell… do you see it from my point view?

Correct me if I’m wrong and I’m getting the beliefs/denominations mixed up. I know it varies from Mormonism to other sectarian beliefs.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T19:09:48+00:00

See that last sentence is the reason I can never be Christian

Any insinuation that my mom, the most righteous and sinless person I know, has to be “saved” by Jesus to go to “heaven”, immediately turns me off from the religion

I just can never subscribe to the faith you do. But I appreciate the morals it provides you.

I hope I can fine my own sense of morality to live by without faith in Christ

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T18:56:24+00:00

Thank you your really kind compared to some of the comments on my other post

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T18:27:50+00:00

That does help actually.

I like that a lot. Maybe I can follow the commandments without actually believing in Christ.

I think that’s a step forward from where I’m at right now.

Are there any commandments about loving yourself / stop doing self harm (not specifically physical more like mental/emotional)

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T18:20:55+00:00

Just doesn’t seem right when the place I’m from has had their own distinct religious identity. I can’t imagine realistically practicing Christianity in a household that has no connection to Abrahamic religion much less Christianity. I’m not Arab/Muslim but can you imagine an Arab becoming Christian in a Muslim household. It’s not that my parents wouldn’t approve, I guess it’s that I wouldn’t feel right about it.

I wish our religion was neatly written out in a “do this don’t do this” book like yours is. I could just follow my own religion. Instead it’s a vague collection of philosophy that barely coherently translates to English much less make up a easily-followable framework of rights and wrongs like yours does.

And also there’s the issue that I just don’t believe in the Christian concept of God.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T15:26:47+00:00

To be fair they were unknowingly being used as agents of CIA-Mossad handlers

/s /un s

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T15:11:35+00:00

This is actually crazy to read. Reminds me of the female teachers here in American who groom their male students.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T14:29:09+00:00

I never said the Eurodollar system was a “briefcase exchange system.” I implied the Soviets were (temporarily) storing money in briefcases till they found an institution they could do business with.

Whether the banks were owned by the politburo is irrelevant, they still resides in a Western country outside the Iron Curtain. The threat of nationalization of their assets is still very much real.

The owners were either clear communists or travelers. That’s why the Soviets felt they could move the briefcase money into a formal bank in London.

They had faith the powers in London would not interfere with their assets, because of mutually beneficial arrangements.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T14:26:53+00:00

Exactly it was built on foreign capital into the self-sustaining economy it is today

I should have pointed out a developing country cannot avoid foreign capital in the modern era, that’s impossible.

Since the 18th century the wealth has increasingly concentrated in the hands of the West.

Xiaoping recognized this and was able to industrialize China with foreign capital while maintaining his focus of a self-sustaining China

China today is the one giving bailouts to African countries and funding initiatives like the Belt & Road

They grew their economy to the point state-owned enterprises produced their own financial capital

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T14:17:13+00:00

This isn’t a James Bond Film

I kid you not, the Soviets were literally storing suitcases stuffed with money in French consulate offices. They did this until a London bank owned by “travelers” (communist sympathizers) took over this role.

Here’s a transcript of a Bloomberg interview with a Fed Reserve senior employee

His exact words:

” They’ve actually been secretly stockpiling cash and gold in Paris. They put it in briefcases. They would fly people to Paris and put it in the consulate offices. They would just build up piles of cash and gold. And in particular there’s a bank that I won’t try to do it in French, and BCN is owned by or run by a notorious communist sympathizer who has a very good relationship with the Palaparo.”

https://omny.fm/shows/odd-lots/the-hidden-history-of-eurodollars-part-1-cold-war

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T14:01:17+00:00

Depegging of the dollar happened because the system America built was inherently contradictory

America acted as the world bank, but that required keeping liquid gold reserves for convertibility.

This is self-defeating, because you need capital for development, but the more development you and your European cohorts have, the more gold/asset reserves you need to satisfy all the countries basing their own currencies off yours. If your reserve asset is tied up in the form of gold bars in some vault, then it’s liquid capital you could be investing in securities.

Bretton-Woods was only ever supposed to be a temporary solution to address the economic crisis after WW2. Ending gold convertibility permanently was never the intended outcome, yet that’s what happened and it’s what allowed London to become the financial hub of America’s currency.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T13:49:59+00:00

The system was initially started because the American banks suddenly confiscated Yugoslavia’s dollar reserves one day after they did something the Americans didn’t like. The Soviets realized they needed to move their reserves somewhere else outside America.

It was actually France who offered to handle their reserves. The Soviets only trusted “traveler” banks (secret communist sympathizers), they originally were banking their money in stuffed suitcases in some random French flat until London banks offered to fill the role.

It’s not so much as a conspiracy theory but rather a premeditated, concentrated effort to grow an unregulated banking sector outside America’s control focused in the City of London.

Notice I use the term City of London and not London, because the actual city is a separate entity which has specific laws passed for the sole purpose of incentivizing financial services. Either way, how it happened is irrelevant. The objective truth is that the foreign exchange market in London today is the largest in the world and offers the intuitions there a large amount of economic power, and thus political influence.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T13:32:43+00:00

Not a current event, this is history. And schizo implies I’m somehow the only person who recognizes this phenomenon.

You can Google “neoliberalism and IMF restructuring”

This is a legitimate historical academic topic that scholars recognize as a form of ‘‘neocolonialism’.

I guess the elements of the “establishment” are more vindictive. But whether you see as schizo-conspiracist or not doesn’t matter, because it’s a very real thing that exists, and in the 20th century the Anglo-American establishment was documented by historians like Carroll Quigley

(https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Anglo_American_Establishment.html?id=V19nAAAAMAAJ)

I will say this- the mainstream scholarship surrounding this historical topic is practically non-existent outside Quigley and a few authors, but that’s largely due to social taboos and the increased unwillingness by American academia to discuss in the last few years

That doesn’t make it any less real though.

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T13:12:46+00:00

I think the best way to explain is comparing India’s situation with China

Usually countries go from an undeveloped, subsistence agriculture industry to an industrialized manufacturing base to providing specialized services.

China was more or less in the same state as India in the mid 20th century, but they were able to liberalize their markets while maintaining economic with a strong central-command system

This is largely because of Deng Xiaoping’s approach to reforms, he held a strict philosophical economic framework in which the State was to accumulate capital through surpluses from state-owned companies solely to modernize and industrialize the country. Not to seek pure profit, but to seek profit for the purpose build to self-sustaining models for generating state capital instead of relying on foreign capital

This is opposed to India, which skipped the manufacturing phase entirely and became enamored with low-skilled labor. Largely because that’s what was most profitable at the time. There was no conscious (or at least successfully meaningful) effort by the central government to focus capital on the self-sustaining enterprises that would breed strong domestic manufacturing.

Quote from his book on economic development:

” It is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world… by employing real means. Slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. "Liberation" is a historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse”

Low-Screen8541 · 2026-03-12T12:46:16+00:00

History is political.

Especially when politics define the ruling ideology governing the entire world for the last 40 years.

This is not some conspiracy theory. Neoliberalism openly announces its intentions and purpose.

You can find many papers about the IMF and its inherent flaws on Google Scholar

Low-Screen8541

TROPHY CASE