Obama Suggests Jesus Christ Not the Only Way to Heaven

Or maybe he's not a biblical literalist. Millions of Christians aren't, you know.

Maybe as the candidate of change and hope, he has the ability to convince God to change.

Then again, maybe not.

FWIW: C.S. Lewis (everyone's favorite Christian) had a pretty similar view to the one Obama espouses.

I voted for this article, not because I believe that it was seeded with good intentions, but because I think it makes Obama a better Christian than many who claim to be good Christians.

I voted for this article, not because I believe that it was seeded with good intentions, but because I think it makes Obama a better Christian than many who claim to be good Christians.

Amen.

hear, hear, Brian Ford!

Yeah, Brian! Couldn't have said it better. :)

Try Heinlein's Job, A Comedy Of Justice, in which the good christian protagonist and his saintly but pagan wife wind up separated by the rapture. The protagonist goes to heaven only to find that his beloved wife has gone to hell. He opts for eternal damnation because of course heaven can't be heaven without her.

And hell turns out to be a very much nicer place. Its only real flaw is bad P.R.

I guess his Bible is different from mine. Or maybe he doesn't think Jesus actually meant what he said. Or maybe he thinks that Jesus is wrong. Or (*gasp*) he's just saying what people want him to say.

Or maybe he respects other religions and understands that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even Atheists are good people who deserve a spot in heaven (if it's there) as well?

I guess his Bible is different from mine. Or maybe he doesn't think Jesus actually meant what he said. Or maybe he thinks that Jesus is wrong.

Well, since the earliest books of the New Testament weren't even written until at least 30 years after the death of Christ, and then they were hand copied over and over again (no Xerox machines back then, you know), then translated ... mistakes were made. None of the gospels can be taken as gospel. We don't know the exact words of Christ. I take that passage to mean that his message is the truth, the light and the way. If you live by that message, whether you believe in him as the Son of God, or even his existence as a man, if you have his message in your heart and live by it, you're good.

Why? Because it's only logical. Someone living by His message, being kind to people, giving to the needy, not harming others, respecting others, who doesn't happen to believe in Christ as the Son of God, would not be punished. It would go against the entire message. That's my view ... has been for quite a number of years.

The problem with Christianity is that too many people think they can just say, "Jesus is the son of God, he died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead three days later, please forgive me my wicked ways," and they believe that they are then "saved." The problem with most of them is that they continue their wicked ways and just keep asking forgiveness over and over again and keep right on doing what they are doing. Who is more likely "saved": someone who actually practices His message but doesn't necessarily acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, or someone who acknowledges that Jesus is Lord but doesn't practice the message?

Andrew, you are right on this one, and I'm glad you posted first. People try to give their watered-down, inaccurate "quotes" from the Bible (or not), and probably have never read or studied it, but what you've quoted here is the bottom line. Everyone is created by God with a body, soul, and spirit. The spirit within us is like an empty vacuum that can only be filled by the Holy Spirit of God, which is the spirit of Jesus that He imparted to His disciples (and therefore us) before being taken up into heaven after being on earth about a month past His resurrection.

Everyone has that empty vacuum within him- or herself. Everyone tries to fill that empty vacuum with all sorts of things, beliefs, imaginations, and so on, but ultimately, it can only be filled by the Holy Spirit, which then gives the ability to believe and be able to truly understand, "Jesus said, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father but by Me."

Oh, and another thing...I grew up in North Carolina, and most of my extended family still lives there, and I can tell you, the majority of North Carolinians are old-fashioned, Bible-believing Christians. Most of them in Greensboro probably heard what Obama said and thought it was bunk. All the members of my extended family who live in NC don't know a single soul who plans to vote for him.

To the comment in #1,

Bible?? Where did you get that from? Did you even read the article? It has no mention of the word "Bible". This is what it says:

But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much "children of God" as he is, according to The Associated Press.

He's saying that Christianity is not the only way to heaven. Looks like you disapprove. So, you are saying that all the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, all the non-Christians will not go to heaven. Mighty arrogant of you to say that.

Strawman arguments are dime a dozen when it comes to Obama-bashing.

It's funny you call yourself a tech-guy. That and given your Korean heritage, I woulda thought you'd be a bit more open-minded and not so brainwashed by Christianity that you seriously believe it's the only way to go to heaven.

And to the poster in 1.11,

People try to give their watered-down, inaccurate "quotes" from the Bible (or not), and probably have never read or studied it, but what you've quoted here is the bottom line

You never waste any opportunity to bash Obama, do ya?

Like Andrew you did not read the article else you woulda seen it makes no mention of the Bible instead of wasting time building on his strawman argument just so you can hate Obama.

Well, since the earliest books of the New Testament weren't even written until at least 30 years after the death of Christ, and then they were hand copied over and over again (no Xerox machines back then, you know), then translated ... mistakes were made. None of the gospels can be taken as gospel. We don't know the exact words of Christ.

The entire modern Muslim belief system is based on things that weren't written down until hundreds of years after Muhammed chose paradise!!! Qu'ran and Hadith...

Are you saying because the modern memory has been plagued by its reliance on writing that all memory throughout history was as faulty? Or are you saying that only the gospels written in Hebrew are valid because no human could possibly translate Hebrew into English well enough for the message to be the same?

We may or may not know the words of Christ or Muhammed (for that matter), but I know that there are words that we perceive as Christ's words and Obama claims he believes in them, but directly contradicts them by saying that those who lack faith in Christ achieve eternal life, all the same...

Why? Because it's only logical. Someone living by His message, being kind to people, giving to the needy, not harming others, respecting others, who doesn't happen to believe in Christ as the Son of God, would not be punished. It would go against the entire message. That's my view ... has been for quite a number of years.

You should read Paul's Letters to the Romans. The message of Christ was to have faith, to ignore logic, and have faith. Every human is going to "sin", but having faith in Christ and internally feeling regret for those sins is the only path to eternal life.

I've never understood the passive sentiment of Obama's words. The Christian doctrine specifically says numerous times, the way to get eternal life, so if you're claiming that you're Christian, you can't say, "well, this only applies to me"

You don't have to be arrogant and condemn all others, or believe you're better than non-Christians. I think the "Christian reaction" is feeling sorrow for their soul.

Stating realities isn't necessarily judgemental!

Who is more likely "saved": someone who actually practices His message but doesn't necessarily acknowledge that Jesus is Lord, or someone who acknowledges that Jesus is Lord but doesn't practice the message?

They are equally damned. The fact that there exist bad Christians doesn't mean that (in the Christian system) the message of "faith in Christ" is irrelevant...

Only the fundies will have a problem with that statement. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for us, they don't represent the majority of Christians in this country...

Actually there is a dodge that allows this, but only within a certain context.

Andrew is right here:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

With the self sacrifice of Jesus, who was God incarnated in a human body, the keys of death, hell, and the grave passed to him from Lucifer, who had taken them from the first son of God Adam.

Jesus, being human and subject to the law fulfilled the law of God (the law is called a Schoolmaster to teach us that no one can attain the standards of God by themselves by Paul) and with that fulfillment qualified to be like God as is written.

At this point he could have left the Earth at any time and would have removed the stain of Adam. However, he also fulfilled the role of the perfect servant from the old testament. In that role, the perfect servant had to serve an apprenteship for 7 years. At the end of that seven years the perfect servant was free to leave. However, if he married and had a family, he would have to leave them. If he loved his family and wanted to stay, he would go to the front door of his master's residence and nail his ear to the door. That is what Jesus did with his self sacrifice, he loved us and this made is bond to humanity.

With this bonding he became free to pick WHOEVER he wants to be the bride of Christ (In Revelations the saved are the brides of Christ at the marriage supper of the lamb). In this regard, he picks those who he wants. There are many who will be in heaven, ruling and reigning throughout eternity, filling that 1/3 of heaven vacated by Lucifer and his host, who would not be allowed in a Church. It is God, who reads the heart, that makes the decision.

That being said, without the self sacrifice of Jesus NONE of us would make it, no matter how good we think we are because ALL have fallen short of God's standard, except for Jesus Christ. Just as we all died in Adam, we all have the opportunity to live through Christ, even if we don't know him as our savior. He makes that decision.

Its also written in the bible In Mathew chapter 15 :9 jesus ( pbuh ) said.

but in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.

interesting don't you agree ?

Interesting in that that is seemingly precisely what Obama has done.

Christ no where in the now available doctrine said Muslims, Jews, etc can reach heaven without having faith in him, and that's basically what Obama has said.

So, in other words, He implemented the secular commandment of Freedom of Religion as Christian doctrine, which Matthew chapter 15:9 directly criticizes.

I think it's good that Brian's comment actually has more votes going for it than this article itself.

Makes me feel that Newsvine's audience is still, by a majority of sorts, more intelligent than most other online communities. :)

So for the entire time humanity existed on this earth, not a single soul went to 'heaven' until Jesus Christ?

I hear more and more Christians hanging to the that single sentence from The Bible and forgo commandments such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and "Make Yourself No Graven Images".

And passages such as Matthew25:40 - 46

And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
18 Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'
46
And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

FWIW: C.S. Lewis (everyone's favorite Christian) had a pretty similar view to the one Obama espouses.

I am not really sure that is true. I have read a lot of of Lewis' stuff, admittedly not all, but nothing in there would indicate to me that he did not think Jesus was the only way to heaven.

Or maybe he's not a biblical literalist. Millions of Christians aren't, you know.

not to mention all the millions of people who are of any other equally valid religion

(insert list of world religions here)

Or maybe he's not a biblical literalist. Millions of Christians aren't, you know.

OR

Maybe he's not a Christian at all.

The belief that Jesus is the only access to God, and heaven is the bedrock of the Christian faith.

But under the distorted leadership and teachings of the cult of Jeremiah Wright , I'm not shocked Obama is confused.

I think it would probably be better for his campaign if he didn't comment on his religious beliefs at all.

jazzy:

Maybe he's not a Christian at all.

Don't get my hopes up.

gillis,

A confused Christian can be more dangerous than a staunch atheist

I think the deadly incidents at Jonestown and Waco have proven that.

I have read a lot of of Lewis' stuff, admittedly not all, but nothing in there would indicate to me that he did not think Jesus was the only way to heaven.

Perhaps I'm grasping at straws, here -- but, in his allegorical Narnia series, he specifically mentions that there are many paths to the same end.

One of the better-developed characters in The Last Battle is a good Calormene, Emeth, who served Tash as a Narnian might well serve Aslan — dutifully and with love and devotion — and was thereby allowed to ascend to Aslan's perfect Narnia.

Source.

Admittedly, a work of fiction, but also a work of fiction with clear religious overtones.

jazz:

Obama's not confused at all. He's a mainline Protestant judging by the comment seeded above.

If you'd like John McCain to declare that all Jews are damned to hell, I'd be quite willing to help the process along. Can I write to McCain or something?

He's a mainline Protestant judging by the comment seeded above.

gillis,

Jeremiah Wright was not preaching anything you'd hear in a mainline Protestant Church.

If you'd like John McCain to declare that all Jews are damned to hell

He'd be wrong (as well as politically insane) if he did that, since Jesus and all his original disciples were Jews.

Jews were, are, and can still be Christians. They reject Judaism as a belief, and not their Jewish racial identity.

Jews For Jesus

WOAH!

A confused Christian can be more dangerous than a staunch atheist. I think the deadly incidents at Jonestown and Waco have proven that.

Jonestown, yes. Waco had nothing to do with the "confused Christians" inside. That was completely and totally the Federal government's shame. That was a simple case of citizens being slaughtered by their own government and had nothing to do with religion. The religious aspect was just a lame excuse by the Feds to try to excuse their evil and criminal actions after the fact.

jazz:

Just shows how little you know about Wright. You could do little more than watch three-second clips on Fox.

What a piece of theological crock. Do Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah or not? If not, they're damned to hell under your rubric of "true" Christianity. Is there some reason you're not telling us why you won't have Straight-Talkin' McCain tell the truth about the true beliefs of true Christians like you?

Jeremiah Wright was not preaching anything you'd hear in a mainline Protestant Church.

If you'd like John McCain to declare that all Jews are damned to hell

You're kidding, right? I've heard that kind of stuff and worse in churches for years.

Maybe he's not a Christian at all.

The belief that Jesus is the only access to God, and heaven is the bedrock of the Christian faith.

Although I'm certain many Christians might reflexively give this answer if asked, if pushed they would make allowances not unlike what Obama has stated.

Presumably the Jews of the ancient, pre-Christian world were covered under the old Covenant. What about everyone else alive at the time? Are all the Chinese of the first millennium and earlier automatically damned to Hell because they were covered under neither the old Covenant or the new Covenant, for instance?

Religion is highly tied to culture, and breaking free from ingrained culture is not a slow process. What "amount" of evangelism is required before a person in a culture with very little contact to Christianity can be said to have consciously and knowingly rejected salvation through Jesus? Is it one visit from a missionary? Is simple awareness through popular media enough? How much does it take to damn a person for ignorance in the modern world?

Religion is highly tied to culture

I completely agree. However if one is going to subscribe to a religion, then it bears questioning when they contradict it.

I would say that Christians should not consider what God does with people who were never introduced to the story and message of Christ. It doesn't have anything to do with their relationship with Christ.

As an atheist, though, I myself love speculating on these sorts of things and my opinion is that being all powerful God knows how they would've lived if given the chance to have faith in Christ (applies to those who lived even before Christ came) and He judges them based on that.

But for someone to say that those Jews, Muslims, etc who have seen the message of Christ and willingly choose to reject it, to say that they have the same opportunity to attain eternal life is just plain wrong (within the Christian system). And the idea that many Christians do the same thing, doesn't mitigate its wrongness because after all, the Christian system is an absolute system and in no way is subjected to human opinion (in theory at least).

The problem with Muslims is that they accept Jesus as a prophet, although they don't accept him as the son of God. Fundamentally, I don't see much difference between their position on Jesus and that of many Unitarians or Deists, for instance.

I also find it ironic that, under this metric, Benny Hinn should be considered a better Christian than your typical humble Unitarian.

No spiffie, I disagree.

It may seem that way to humans, but Benny Hinn has to repent for his sins all the same. And that is an internal matter between Hinn and Christ. Humans at this time at least, can never verify whether he's sincere in his repenting or not.

There is no validity to measuring how good is a certain Christian. There are those who will reach heaven, and those who will not. If you want a further breakdown of the ones who won't reach heaven, then I guess you can do so... but in eyes of God, a non-believer is a non-believer; or maybe more appropriate... a faithless sinner is a faithless sinner .

What I'm saying is that I find it absurd that Thomas Jefferson will burn in Hell and Benny Hinn will enter Heaven under this metric. It's silly that the Dalai Lama will be condemned but Constantine the Great will not. If this the primary, bedrock metric by which salvation is determined, it's a broken standard.

What I'm saying is that I find it absurd that Thomas Jefferson will burn in Hell and Benny Hinn will enter Heaven under this metric. It's silly that the Dalai Lama will be condemned but Constantine the Great will not. If this the primary, bedrock metric by which salvation is determined, it's a broken standard.

Do not forget Gandhi will fry.

Can I go where DL, TJ & MG go?

I like how people are bashing Obama for having an open mindedness about Heaven. NOt an elitist view of Christianity. Which would probably be something Jesus were to fight again.

But then again to be "Christian" you have to believe in some wacky stories & go to a building every sunday.

I think actually Christians are people who help the people who need it, who show no judgment. You know, being Christ like.

So Gandhi would be far more Christian then a lot of these people who use Jesus' words for their personal gain.

Are you saying because the modern memory has been plagued by its reliance on writing that all memory throughout history was as faulty?

Yes.

Or are you saying that only the gospels written in Hebrew are valid because no human could possibly translate Hebrew into English well enough for the message to be the same?

Partially. The endless copying subject to human error along with mistranslations which have never been corrected. Yes.

You should read Paul's Letters to the Romans. The message of Christ was to have faith, to ignore logic, and have faith. Every human is going to "sin", but having faith in Christ and internally feeling regret for those sins is the only path to eternal life.

I'm well familiar with what it says in the bible. I've read the thing. Perhaps you missed the part where I said I don't believe it is accurate. On top of that, I have a major problem with any philosophy which asks me not to question it. To "ignore logic". I am not a creature who can ignore logic. I am owned by logic. Logic dictates my every thought, my every action. I trust nothing which instructs me to ignore my greatest asset. To believe blindly and unquestioningly is the base structure of a cult.

Partially. The endless copying subject to human error along with mistranslations which have never been corrected. Yes.

True, also incorrect transliterations occur because the culture and idioms of the time are not known by the person doing the deciphering of scripture, even less know then by the writers of the KJV then now, who used a translation of a translation.

The Bible verse "The Kingdom of heaven is at hand", is an example of this, as "at hand" meaning to do by you, to bring about by your own hand, not that something is coming. We still use it in this way today, but at the time it was translated it was not known. Also from the Sermon on the Mount, "Whoever believeth in me shall attain the Kingdom of Heaven" is another. It simply means trust in what I say to you, of course they believed Jesus existed. He was standing in front of them in plane sight. These are jut a few of the translation errors made of many, many. A modern comparison would be words like "Dig, Cool, Fat" terms like "Far out, Out of sight. to name a few. Words that, "if taken literally by historians of the future, will make the meaning of the sentence unintelligible. You need to be taught how to read Shakespeare, and he spoke English. He was 1500 AD, just 500 years ago. Parts of the Bible were written 3000 years ago..... It's ludicrous to believe our translation of the Bible is more accurate then that of Shakespeare.

Jonestown, yes. Waco had nothing to do with the "confused Christians" inside. That was completely and totally the Federal government's shame. That was a simple case of citizens being slaughtered by their own government and had nothing to do with religion. The religious aspect was just a lame excuse by the Feds to try to excuse their evil and criminal actions after the fact.

Griff69@1.29:

My point is those people would not even have been following David Koresh, who had deceived them with distortion of Christianity, if they knew the truth of it.

But, I totally agree with you that the US govt was criminal in what happened at Waco, and the coverup that followed. Another Clinton crime family escape from Justice.

Just shows how little you know about Wright. You could do little more than watch three-second clips on Fox.

gillis,

My assessment of Wright, and those like him is not based on just a three second clip. I happen to be black (which you are not), and I've been involved in the so called black church, and personally witnessed and lived among Wright and his kind, and have personal knowledge and experience of the harm they've done to the black community, with their totally warped, self-serving, pray for pay, brand of Christianity.

What a piece of theological crock. Do Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah or not?

The point I was making is some do and some don't. It depends of if you mean Jews as a race, or Jews as believers of Judaism. There's a distinction.

If not, they're damned to hell under your rubric of "true" Christianity.

So is everyone who doesn't believe, according to the Bible and not me, regardless of race, creed or color. So why are you picking on Jews?

Is there some reason you're not telling us why you won't have Straight-Talkin' McCain tell the truth about the true beliefs of true Christians like you?

It's not a message of hate, as it's framed here by you, and not as trivial as politics

Hey, McCain can say whatever he wants, I really don't care. But unless I missed it, I haven't heard him make any expression of his religious belief (or non belief).

I'm saying, I think Obama would be politically smart to do the same. He only loses in any discussion of his relationship with Jeremiah Wright
.

It would be better for him if the discussion just went away.

You're kidding, right? I've heard that kind of stuff and worse in churches for years.

I haven't.

Although I'm certain many Christians might reflexively give this answer if asked, if pushed they would make allowances not unlike what Obama has stated.

Presumably the Jews of the ancient, pre-Christian world were covered under the old Covenant.

spiffie@1.32

I'm not sure what you mean by "covered". The Jews were and are God's chosen people, but if you read the Old Testament or The Torah, God didn't hesitate to punish them for their disobedience.

What about everyone else alive at the time? Are all the Chinese of the first millennium and earlier automatically damned to Hell because they were covered under neither the old Covenant or the new Covenant, for instance?

spiffie,

Paul addressed that question in Romans 1 (18-25),:

God's Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,

Paul is saying:

1. The truth about God is clearly seen in creation.
2. That truth is available to every person.
3. That truth "gets through" to every person.

So first we (and women) suppress the truth we inherently know about God, then we turn away from God, and then we, no matter what culture, time period, or where we live on earth, inevitably turn to immorality.

Every culture on earth has some conception of a Supreme Being, as flawed it might be.

The French philosopher, Pascal, said that inside the heart of every man there is a "God-shaped vacuum."

Augustine said, "Lord, you have made us for yourself. Our hearts are restless until they find rest in you."

Ecclesiastes 3:11 says that God has put "eternity in the hearts of men," meaning that the longing for ultimate answers comes from God himself. God put that longing (the "God-shaped vacuum") inside the human heart to cause men to look to him.

This may sound unfair, harsh and hard to accept, but there is no excuse. The entire human race is under indictment since the original sin of Adam and Eve, including the Chinese you mentioned.

Barack Obama may not believe this is true ( I doubt he was ever exposed to this teaching by the likes of a Jeremiah Wright). I do.

I would say that Christians should not consider what God does with people who were never introduced to the story and message of Christ. It doesn't have anything to do with their relationship with Christ.

Nathan Alan@1.35,

It's inevitable the question would be asked. But I feel it's been answered long ago(see 1.43).

But for someone to say that those Jews, Muslims, etc who have seen the message of Christ and willingly choose to reject it, to say that they have the same opportunity to attain eternal life is just plain wrong (within the Christian system). And the idea that many Christians do the same thing, doesn't mitigate its wrongness because after all, the Christian system is an absolute system and in no way is subjected to human opinion (in theory at least).

Amen to that!!!

Every culture on earth has some conception of a Supreme Being, as flawed it might be.

So what you're saying is that Paul says that every culture with a conception of a Supreme Being, because it glorifies God by acknowledging his existence, could make it to Heaven?

But then if this is so, then it's not the case that the only path to Salvation is through Jesus, exactly what Obama said.

Brian @1.3 Said

C.S. Lewis (everyone's favorite Christian) had a pretty similar view to the one Obama espouses

Actually Brian, C.S. Lewis acknowleged that the only way to be saved was by Christ, what he says in Mere Christianity is that we don't know what God's arrangements might be to save by Christ those who have not heard of him. I've put in the applicable extract of the book below with the link to the book.

From C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Here is another thing that used to puzzle me. Is it not frightfully
unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of
Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us
what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can
be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him
can be saved through Him, But in the meantime, if you are worried about the
people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside
yourself. Christians are Christ's body, the organism through which He works.
Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help
those outside you must add your own little cell to the body of Christ who
alone can help them. Cutting off a man's fingers would be an odd way of
getting him to do more work.

Wasn't God suppose to love everyone?

I never dug the "only us" mentality of Christianity. It makes God seem like the bad guy.

So what you're saying is that Paul says that every culture with a conception of a Supreme Being, because it glorifies God by acknowledging his existence, could make it to Heaven?

No I don't agree, my understanding of it is that Paul (and others) is saying every man is born with a desire to seek the One True God, but in many cases have chosen to worship something less (for whatever their reasons), if they have not suppressed that desire totally.

The proof is the Jews got it right (at least until the point of rejecting Jesus we Christians believe) while others were worshiping idols, various gods and goddesses, and images of animals.

The Jews got it right because they sought the One True God, and He revealed Himself to them (there were no synagogues and rabbis at the time) . Every culture on earth, all originally descended from Adam and Eve, had that same opportunity.

This entire discussion only makes sense if you believe in the Creation of Man, The Fall of Man, , and other events as described in Genesis, such as the scattering of man, and confusion of different languages, as punishment by God for the Tower of Babel (before the Tower of Babel incident, Genesis says we were one race, all speaking one same language)

You have to understand that Paul is writing from a perspective of a total historical traditional Jewish belief, in Genesis (which is not negated by becoming a follower of Jesus), and based that on that belief, he correctly says there was and is no excuse for any man not knowing, and acknowledging, the God of Abraham, who Christians believe came to earth in the form of a man in the flesh, Jesus.

Debating this with someone who doesn't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, or the Bible (no idea if you do or not) is worthless.


Genesis is the linchpin to EVERYTHING in Judeo-Christian belief, which is why I don't understand what so called Christians, who run around saying they don't accept the Bible as literal, base their faith on.

The truth is they have no valid basis, without a literal belief in the Bible, and most can't explain what it is they do believe in (this is directed at the comments of someone else here - not yours).

It also explains why those like Barack Obama, under the ministry of people like Jeremiah Wright, would make a comment that caused the controversy.

Got it. So the Dalai Lama and Gandhi burn in Hell, while Hagee, Parsley, and Benny Hinn go to Heaven. Sounds like justice to me.

"For the rest of my life I'll be as lonely as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after the Rapture!"

Every convicted Murderer who confesses his sins and asks for forgiveness just before he gets the chair or a lethal injection, goes to heaven. But Gandhi and all those who have ever lived, and who have never heard of Jesus goes to hell and burn forever. If I believed in god, hell and a afterlife, I would worry, but this is not even said in the bible to begin with. "Dante's Inferno" where all this nonsense comes from was even a comedy. I studied theology for over thirty years, answer this question. When you take a piece of paper and burn it, how long does it stay burnt? A day? A week? Or forever, an eternity? That what the bible means.

But why does any of this matter anyway? Christians use "Repentance" like their personal "Get out of Hell free card" whenever they get caught molesting some child, or having homosexual sex anyway. When all they are ever really sorry about is getting caught in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I have alot of respect for most people of faith, having been one once, I just think that doubt gets you a better education.

space guy:

It is God, who reads the heart, that makes the decision.

This is what I have always believed and, as God is fair per my Bible (the NIV, as well as every other Bible I've ever read), I could never understand how he could condemn good people of a different religion if they were confused. Men are judged by their actions. God does the judging, not I. I don't think anyone that understands Christianity and practices it should believe they are in a position to judge anyone else in a religious sense.

Got it. So the Dalai Lama and Gandhi burn in Hell, while Hagee, Parsley, and Benny Hinn go to Heaven. Sounds like justice to me.

spiffie,

I don't know the other two, but I'd be surprised if the phoney faith healer Benny Hinn makes it.

I'll go with Gandhi.

As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was "not a believer."

"[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known," Obama said, according to the Times. "I'm sure she is in heaven

I personally believe that damning somebody to hell because they never even heard of Jesus Christ is inconsistent with a loving and merciful God.

True, but most people nowadays don't have that excuse.

As for the Virgin Mary... I don't recall the Bible saying anything about her being divine. Just because the Pope says it doesn't mean it's right.

The holy quran gives her much respect and the quran has a chapter in her name,

Maybe as the candidate of change and hope, he has the ability to convince God to change.

Then again, maybe not.

So since people who don't devote themselves to the bible are going to hell. So people like Mohandes Gandhi go to hell. I wanna go where Gandhi goes.

Okay this is probably funny let's look over the last months of Obama & religion

emails that he was a muslim ( doesn't matter)
he was at a church where people disliked what his pastor said
now he's in trouble for not believe exactly in the book.

I'm glad he's opened minded on this issue. People get weird messages out of religion. While I see mostly promotions of love, peace and equality.

Some people take this book and use it as a weapon in a war against science, in a war against homosexuality, a war against humanity.

If people are going to take something religion, it should be an idea of helping others, being nonjudgmental.

Not a sense of "i'm more important than you because I believe in this"

He said, non-believers who live moral lives are as much "children of God" as he is, according to The Associated Press.

Moral living, according to everything in the New Testament, won't do it. If that were true we would have not needed the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross in payment for our sins. No man can live a so called perfect moral life acceptable to God.

That is a not uncommon belief among Christians.

No offense, but it's also a wrong belief, based on what Jesus taught us.

I personally believe that damning somebody to hell because they never even heard of Jesus Christ is inconsistent with a loving and merciful God.

No offense again, but I don't think God cares what our personal beliefs are concerning his mercifulness. His love and mercy is demonstrated in the fact he hasn't totally destroyed the human race, and has given us all a chance at redemption through Christ.

[ For those who don't believe in God and Christ, (meaning non-Christians) this entire concept will not make sense]

No offense again, but I don't think God cares what our personal beliefs are concerning his mercifulness. His love and mercy is demonstrated in the fact he hasn't totally destroyed the human race, and has given us all a chance at redemption through Christ.

[ For those who don't believe in God and Christ, (meaning non-Christians) this entire concept will not make sense]

I am Christian and that entire concept is very offensive.

Good Grief!!! (shaking head)

I can't imagine believing God would be so vicious as to even consider destroying "the human race" (something He created in His image, by the way).

I can't even imagine such an anthropomorphized concept of God. (Still shaking head)

What really amazes me is that you want people to embrace that concept of God - (really shaking head now).

I can't imagine believing God would be so vicious as to even consider destroying "the human race" (something He created in His image, by the way).

Yeah, I have no idea where someone could have gotten that idea...

Genesis 6:5-7 -
And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Yeah, I have no idea where someone could have gotten that idea...

Genesis 6:5-7 - And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...

Read my post, I didn't say, "I can't imagine where you got an idea like that". I said...

I can't imagine believing God would be so vicious as to even consider destroying "the human race" (something He created in His image, by the way).

I can't even imagine such an anthropomorphized concept of God. (Still shaking head)

Reading the Bible literally requires a belief in an anthropomorphized, vicious god that would literally destroy the human race.

Most Christians do NOT read the Bible literally. Reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity.

I can't imagine believing God would be so vicious as to even consider destroying "the human race" (something He created in His image, by the way).

Pavilion,

I think Griff69 adequately answered you in 2.6. on this, but you don't seem to want to accept it. If you're saying it was not meant to be taken literally, then maybe you can explain to me the non-literal meaning of Gen 6: 5-7, which Griff quoted is, or what the entire story of Noah means?

You seem to accept God creating us in His image as literal. Then maybe you can understand it's our corrupted human nature He has a problem with, which unchecked is in direct conflict with the nature of God.

Reading the Bible literally requires a belief in an anthropomorphized, vicious god that would literally destroy the human race.

I don't agree with your quote above. It may be a popular NV viewpoint, but I don't believe God is trying to win a NV popularity contest. We seem to want God to exist on our terms, because it doesn't interfere with our "fun".

The love of God is demonstrated in the fact that he hasn't destroyed the human race, and with great patience and love has offered us (more than once) a chance at reconciliation with Him, in spite of our general disregard of Him
.

Most Christians do NOT read the Bible literally

The real problem is MOST do not read it at all
.

Reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity.

The Jeremiah Wrights love that type of thinking, it allows them to continue to get their 1.2 million dollar homes financed by their followers.

Jazzman:

If you're saying it was not meant to be taken literally, then maybe you can explain to me the non-literal meaning of Gen 6: 5-7, which Griff quoted is, or what the entire story of Noah means?

This is going to be the ONLY post I make on this topic. Your questions could touch off a topic of it's own and I learned a long time ago that there is only so much one can say to people who have no desire to learn. But - on the off chance that you are sincerely interested in learning about a non-literal approach to Christianity and reading the Bible - I will respond this once.

If you are SINCERELY interested in understanding a non-literal approach to the Noah story you may want to read up on ancient Mesopotamian Deluge Mythology. Wikipedia is a good place to start.

The story of a Great Flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution is a widespread theme among many cultural myths. Though it is best known in modern times in the Western world through the Biblical story of Noah's Ark, it is also well known in other versions, such as stories of Matsya in the Hindu Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology and Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

Gigamesh is of particular interest when reading Noah. The Gilgamesh Epic is much older than the Noah narratives and there are many parallels between the two. Most Old Testament scholars feel that the Noah narratives are a reflection of the ancient Mesopotamian culture from which they grew out of. I am of that school of thought.

Also, if you are SINCERELY interested in learning about this approach you should also pick up some books and do some reading on the Documentary Hypothesis. This School of Thought (accepted by most mainstream scholars) states that the story of Noah and the Ark (as we know it today) is derived from two different sources.

The documentary hypothesis (DH) proposes that the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch), represent a combination of documents from four originally independent sources.

You go on to say...

You seem to accept God creating us in His image as literal.

Just a because I stated that humanity was created in His image doesn't mean I read those verses literally. Since I do not accept an anthropomorphized understanding of God, then it should go without saying that the saying "created in His image" goes more to the natural goodness and innate Wisdom and Love that is the core of the Human Race.

Unlike literalists, I don't feel a need to tie my understanding of humanity to ancient Mesopotamian world-views. It is possible to accept that the people of ancient Mesopotamia understood God and the human condition within the context of their own times and culture. And, it is possible to allow our understandings of God and the human condition to evolve, as our knowledge of ourselves, of the universe and of the natural world evolves.

Reading the Bible literally is NOT a requirement of Christianity.

The Jeremiah Wrights love that type of thinking, it allows them to continue to get their 1.2 million dollar homes financed by their followers.

Your little snipe doesn't change the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of Biblical Scholars - as in scholars who actually study the history of the Bible, the scholars who pay attention to such details as form criticism and source criticism (to name but a few) - do NOT read the Bible literally.

Just because someone says they are "scholar" of anything doesn't make it so. Do the "scholar's" you learn from live up to the high academic standards of the major universities who use the techniques I mentioned above? If not - you don't have much to stand on in trying to convince me (or anyone else) that a literal interpretation of the Bible has any validity.

There was a day when I'd be willing to debate these issues at great length. That day has passed because I've learned the futility of effort involved. If there is an honest openness, willingness to learn and engage in a open-minded discourse then I'm more inclined to continue the discussion. But experience tells me that this situation probably does not meet those criteria. And - so - I'm sure you'll understand why I intend to leave what I have to say on this topic to the this post. Anyone with SINCERE interest is given a few starting points from which they can start their own research. Any further discussion on this thread really serves no purpose.

Your little snipe doesn't change the fact that the OVERWHELMING majority of Biblical Scholars - as in scholars who actually study the history of the Bible, the scholars who pay attention to such details as form criticism and source criticism (to name but a few) - do NOT read the Bible literally.

Just because someone says they are "scholar" of anything doesn't make it so. Do the "scholar's" you learn from live up to the high academic standards of the major universities who use the techniques I mentioned above? If not - you don't have much to stand on in trying to convince me (or anyone else) that a literal interpretation of the Bible has any validity.

Pavilion,

That depends on your preferences. There are many respected theological seminaries which teach the Bible as literal, and produce so called "Biblical Scholars" who believe in a literal translation. They have academic standards as good, and often better than any major university (which seem to suspend those standards if a student can play football or basketball).

The one X factor in any reading an acceptance of the Bible as being literal is the role the Holy Spirit plays in it. I believe it contributed not only to the inspiration of those who wrote the words contained in the Bible, but has an important role in the reader understanding, and believing them.

It's usually (the Holy Spirit) not present or called on in classes at the major universities
., these days. In fact it's either against the law, or politically incorrect to do so in most.

The bottom line in Christian belief is faith. Part of my Christian faith is that the belief the Bible is literal, and is meant by God to be taken literally, by the reader.

There was a day when I'd be willing to debate these issues at great length. That day has passed because I've learned the futility of effort involved

I try to avoid it myself also, unless I feel compelled.

the natural goodness and innate Wisdom and Love that is the core of the Human Race.

If this were true, we wouldn't need God.

The basic nature of human beings, untempered, is hatred and murder of each other. The history of human beings proves it.

Jesus came to address it.

Andrew:

As for the Virgin Mary... I don't recall the Bible saying anything about her being divine. Just because the Pope says it doesn't mean it's right.

Oh, so you're one of those Protestants? You know, the ones that think Catholics are apostates and heretics?

HUH? What on earth are you talking about?

This is standard seah speak. Check out his column.

They believe Christ is black.

1. Whoopty G-damn doo.
2. He sure as hell wasn't white.

The only Christan thing about the church is to help the less fortunate and feed the hungry, the rest is pretty much political.

This... I'm not sure I even want to respond to this. Anyone see the comedy skit with the guy and the phrase "IF It wasn't for that horse, I would'nt have spent that year in college". Well, it's just like that.

1. Whoopty G-damn doo. 2. He sure as hell wasn't white.

Wrong. He was Jewish.

Actually, nobody really knows what his genetics were. At the time, The middle east was a meeting place of cultures and Jews had aggressively expanded and did a lot of forced conversions.
As such, it is not inconceivable that Jesus could have had traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry.
I'm simply pointing out the Jesus is very often depicted as white, even Nordic, when this was pretty much historically impossible, though black is actually a possibility, though perhaps a remote one.

Jesus was not anymore a Jew than a Christian convert to Judaism is a Christian!

Why do people say Christ was a Jew?

If he was anything, he was the biggest Christian ever!

And on a more serious note... Kai, religious affiliation (accurate or inaccurate) says nothing about the color of Christ's skin. Unless you're saying black people/arabic people/persain people are incapable of being Jewish?

I'm simply pointing out the Jesus is very often depicted as white, even Nordic, when this was pretty much historically impossible, though black is actually a possibility, though perhaps a remote one.

But it's important to note that the probability of Jesus having been black* is very, very significantly higher than the probability of him having been white or near-white.

* if he was real in the first place; there is actually plenty of evidence that he is merely a re-telling of Julius Caesar's life, crafted as a deity for certain people to gain power and control over others.

Jesus was not anymore a Jew than a Christian convert to Judaism is a Christian!

Why do people say Christ was a Jew?

If he was anything, he was the biggest Christian ever!

Because he was a rabbi trying to help his jewish people get equality. He was a revolutionary like MLK. I don't see Jesus as a man who went around praising his own deeds, he actually did something for the people.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Jesus was not anymore a Jew than a Christian convert to Judaism is a Christian!
Why do people say Christ was a Jew?
If he was anything, he was the biggest Christian ever!

How could Jesus have been a Christian? This is nonsense. There was no Christianity during his lifetime. Christianity is based on the idea that Jesus was not only the Son of God, but also died and was resurrected in order to bring salvation from sin. Now, if Jesus was alive, had not died and been resurrected, how could he have been Christian?
Furthermore, for Jesus to be a Christian, he'd have to worship himself, which, for one, I don't think his Father would appreciate very much, and for another, goes against what I was taught, that Jesus was humble.

J Dubb, yeah the weird thing he was suppose to be the JEWISH messiah. HMM.

If people stopped arguing about who's God was better, they'd see that they all could be looking at the same entity just in different lights.

The same being that sent forward Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, could've also had a hand in Buddha or if we want to be crazy, sent forward people like Gandhi, MLK, Mother Teresa.

If people stopped arguing about who's God was better, they'd see that they all could be looking at the same entity just in different lights.

The same being that sent forward Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, could've also had a hand in Buddha or if we want to be crazy, sent forward people like Gandhi, MLK, Mother Teresa.

I don't think it's crazy at all to see a sacred presence in the lives of Gandhi, MLK, and Mother Teresa.

Human beings know goodness, compassion, wisdom and love when they see it. These things are SACRED and when we see these SACRED attributes in the life of another human - then that life is seen as hallowed or blessed.

And that is not to say that every life isn't blessed, or hallowed. But, we humans do see something special in our brothers and sisters who's lives display compassion, wisdom, and love to a higher degree than most of us are able to attain. When these rare lives come into our midst, they are considered "touched" by something SACRED.

What I call like to call those people, "role models".

Before people go crazy and name every wrong people have done, since Newsvine is full of cynics. I think that there are parts of those people's lives that we should try to take to heart. Everyone has flaws but it's the fact these people over came them, and inspired the world to do good.

If it makes you feel any better, the Christian Post != "mainstream media."

Good grief not that long ago they were all up in arms because they thought Obama was secretly a Muslim. (shaking head)

UPDATE: Now they think he's the Antichrist... um... Muslim.

UPDATE: Now they think he's the Antichrist... um... Muslim.

Honestly - my first thought when I read your link was, "OH for Chr...st's Sake".

I've been involved in inter-faith dialog for years. I'm liberal Christian, and I've had fundamentalists call me all kinds of things (including a tool of Satan, Antichrist, etc..). I know there are people out there like this, what drives me nuts is that the media feeds into it.

And what really drives me nuts, is that when people make honest efforts to break down barriers of religion and intentionally go to the media for help with publicity - we get little sound bites and no real effort to assist in the education process.

Oh, no!!! Not the Anti-Muhammad!!!

Ah, that tickled me.

What is really sad about all this is that the fundamentalist Christians will never be satisfied anyway. Good grief not that long ago they were all up in arms because they thought Obama was secretly a Muslim. (shaking head).

Fundies will keep being more and more exclusive untill they believe that only their small church is going to heaven. It's how they operate, It's a race to the bottom. Think Fred Phelps.

Fundies will keep being more and more exclusive untill they believe that only their small church is going to heaven. It's how they operate, It's a race to the bottom. Think Fred Phelps.

Oh - I agree. In fact, if they could, Fundies would keep going until they created the theocracy they believe America should be.

Interesting in that anti-christ originally meant "in place of christ".

Thanks Bill needed that smile. I will not discuss my belief system because it is private and it is mine. I refuse to allow myself to be vulnerable to personal attacks. So you all can just go on with your debate. I agree with Bill. Nor do I think he would want to be the center of a theological debate.

God is probably wondering why we aren't taking this time to help those in need.

God is probably wondering why we aren't taking this time to help those in need.

It's obvious many are in need of learning about God =)

God is probably wondering why we aren't taking this time to help those in need.

It's obvious many are in need of learning about God =)

I wasn't speaking of teaching religion. I was speaking of feeding those who need it, and healing the sick.

God is love, remember?

Love doesn't have consequences.

And this is what I don't understand. If people don't claim to know God. Don't want to know God. Why would one want to spend eternity with Him? Is not hell God only giving one the choice to spend eternity where one has spent their whole life longing for?

After all, hell is just the absence of God where evil is allowed to flourish with no intervention of good.

By

intervention of good

do you mean the Salem Witch Trials?

Low blow, I know.

And if I could kick it with Einstein, Douglas Adams, and Ghandi for an eternity, I'll take my chances in hell. Plus the serial killers really aren't all that bad once you're already dead. :)

I'll be the first one to welcome you board, Griff69, knowing full well (of course) that Obama may be your first AND last vote for a Democrat.

But, anyway, welcome to the party that doesn't make "Born-again" Christianity a test of your worthiness as a candidate.

I haven't figured out when God came into the voting booth. Maybe he snuck in when I wasn't looking. Did any of you see him in there? Or maybe he is in disguise!

But MysteryOne

(Astonishment and Sarcasm)

I haven't figured out when God came into the voting booth. Maybe he snuck in when I wasn't looking. Did any of you see him in there? Or maybe he is in disguise!

Don't you know - God knows your every thought, He's aware of your every move, He's watching you at all times. And He anoints His Chosen Ones. If we were really TRUE Christians, we would have recognized George W. as God's Chosen One and we would have voted for him in the last two elections.

We're all going to hell anyway, because we didn't vote for George W. the last time around. We may as well put on our party gear and line up behind the AntiChrist. (Rolling Eyes)

Pavilion, my friend, do not forget the the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.'"

Many have forgotten this. It is time to re-think maybe, nes pas?

LOL, mysteryone. When God pays taxes he can have a vote!

Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's. It is tax time. Time to pay Ceasar!!! :)

I feel as long as people live principled, spiritual lives - you have nothing to worry about in the end.

I think you're in the soft spoken majority.

As an atheist, I wish my militant "brethren" and the extreme Evangelicals (or theist) would just put down their arms and give each other a big hug. Until then I'll just vote for Obama.

I think you're in the soft spoken majority.

As an atheist, I wish my militant "brethren" and the extreme Evangelicals (or theist) would just put down their arms and give each other a big hug. Until then I'll just vote for Obama.

I like what you said, Skal. I like it a lot:)

I've been involved in interfaith dialog for years. Wow - all the wars and grief and violence in the name of religions and at the hands of extremists on all sides. It's enough to make a person cry, if they truly took the time to look at the pain.

Are you?

Need I be? Why so defensive?

'roads:

Why is everyone who challenges one of your jerkwad comments "defensive"?

And what's wrong with "defensive" anyway? He's defending his preferred candidate against an invalid attack.

I thought we were voting for political leaders, not pastors. And that their positions on public policy and how they'd carry out the duties of the office were what mattered, not what they would do if they were head of the church. But maybe I'm wrong. I don't care how he thinks someone will get into heaven. It's a stupid question to ask. Even 40 years ago I doubt they'd ask JFK that question. But look how far we've gone backwards. We're now debating the candidates theological stand on admission to heaven. Ridiculous!

Perfesser, why are you even more defensive? What makes your idol a theologian? Can he do no wrong?

We're now debating the candidates theological stand on admission to heaven. Ridiculous!

Amen!!!

If asking questions makes one defensive, I note that 'roads has the most in this thread. The implication is that he's the most defensive of all.

Sorry, spiffie, it was mystery who tilted at that windmill. My question remains as to what makes Obama a theologian. Now, if you're an Obama supporter, I'd understand your resentment. I've noticed that about all Obama supporters. Part of the intimidation and disenfranchisement campaign. Carry on.

If you read resentment in my reply, it is your own failing, not mine. I have nothing for which to resent you.

As for your first question, not only theologians are allowed to hold an opinion on the subject of salvation. I note, for instance, the many opinions above regarding the subject from several members of our community who are not. I, for one, do not question their right, nor that of any other person, to hold an opinion on a matter of conscience.

'roads:

There's nothing deep or even especially interesting about the theological proposition offered by Obama. It's the standard blah-dee-blah of an ordinary congregant in a Unitarian church and I believe (I'll have to check Pew polls) the majority opinion of the American public.

If simply stating a belief about who goes to heaven makes you a theologian, then we're all theologians.

backroads
So now Obama is a theologian?

'roads:

Why is everyone who challenges one of your jerkwad comments "defensive"?
And what's wrong with "defensive" anyway? He's defending his preferred candidate against an invalid attack.

Sorry, spiffie, it was mystery who tilted at that windmill. My question remains as to what makes Obama a theologian. Now, if you're an Obama supporter, I'd understand your resentment. I've noticed that about all Obama supporters. Part of the intimidation and disenfranchisement campaign. Carry on.

I tilted at no windmill. (none here were I live) I just asked you if you were a theologian. You claimed Obama was one and silly me, I figured it took one to see one./sarcasm/

jfxgillis

There's nothing deep or even especially interesting about the theological proposition offered by Obama. It's the standard blah-dee-blah of an ordinary congregant in a Unitarian church and I believe (I'll have to check Pew polls) the majority opinion of the American public.

Ask and you shall receive:

The nationwide survey of 2,002 adults, conducted Feb. 25-March 10 by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, also finds strong expressions of religious inclusiveness. An overwhelming majority (75%) say that many religions can lead to eternal life, compared with only 18% who regard their own religion as the "one true faith." Those with a high level of religious commitment are more likely to see their own faith as the only path to eternal life. Still, nearly half of highly committed white evangelical Protestants (48%) say many religions can lead to eternal life.

Pavillion:

Thanks! I knew I'd seen that figure somewhere before. That goes beyond "majority" and approaches "consensus."

Give it another ten years.

Nothing ends a heated debate quite like a healthy dose of fact.

Pavillion:

Thanks! I knew I'd seen that figure somewhere before. That goes beyond "majority" and approaches "consensus."

Give it another ten years.

Yeah, gillis, I'm sure God is going to change His commandments ten years from now based on human consensus (aka the opinions of dust in the wind).

jazzman:
God has been working through imperfect people throughout all history using them as his instruments. Else how do you think that Christianity survived past Christ's death? God used the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae who were pagans to prevent the society that would give birth to Christianity, Western civilization, from being annihilated and dominated by Persia. God works in mysterious ways... many times in ways we don't understand until we can look back with hindsight.

Scott Isaacs,

I agree.

In 13.15, my point is God doesn't change His standards based on popular opinion of the age.

Okay. Let's talk about God's standards. What are they and how do you know? List them.

Duke, you're opening a can of warms & snarky remarks.

I guess I'll start.

God is merely a name for a being that is the balance of the universe, neither male nor female. Standards: Be good to each other. Show compassion. Go to heaven. Do not do such, be reincarnated.

that's right, no hell.

are you somehow mistaking my intent there to be to take the Religious Right side of this?

Don't hold out on us! Spill it! I wanna go!

In other news, golden tickets may not be the only way to the Wonka factory.

Best comment on the whole seed!

This comment made me smile. Way to make a silly comment about a silly post.

Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

Amen!!!

if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

So, basically what you're saying is that Christanity is a bad religion because it led TJ to enslave other humans?

Not an utterly bad argument to make.

This quote also seems to IGNORE the modern conception of separation of church and state... also not a bad argument to make

So, basically what you're saying is that Christanity is a bad religion because it led TJ to enslave other humans?

First Off, Jefferson was a Deist, not Christian. As to your assertion on slavery:
( From encyclopedia Britannica. )

By the time of the publication of Notes, then, Jefferson's record on slavery placed him among the most progressive elements of southern society. Rather than ask how he could possibly tolerate the persistence of slavery, it is more historically correct to wonder how this member of Virginia's planter class had managed to develop such liberal convictions.

(and then you said)

This quote also seems to IGNORE the modern conception of separation of church and state... also not a bad argument to make

I have no idea how you get that from this quote. Please explain. And while you're at it, pick up a history book this is not in Jest; it would be good. Jefferson was one of the greatest men to have ever lived, and probably the greatest in the United States.

First Off, Jefferson was a Deist, not Christian.

You're right. He wasn't only a Christian, (though he did believe in Christ, which by the simple definition makes him Christian).

As to my assertion of slavery... he owned slaves until his death. I don't care what he wrote or said, he was a politician. He enslaved human beings his entire adult life, and the fact that he found doing so morally wrong simply worsens the fact...

The modern perception of separation of church and state is that politicians should not allow their religious beliefs to influence the way they do their job. Jefferson's quote says that as long as the regulating religion makes him dutiful to society, don't worry about... That to me contradicts the idea of religion not being an influence, regardless.

This quote is a simple "the ends justify the means." which isn't as widely accepted now as it was then.

The modern perception of separation of church and state is that politicians should not allow their religious beliefs to influence the way they do their job.

1. There is no consensus "modern perception", but the law is simply that the government shall not respect an establishment of religion. Jefferson authored the concept of the "wall of seperation".
2. Saying that one can allow their religious beliefs to not influence their job is like saying they can keep their philosophy/political ideas from influencing their job. It's impossible. Jefferson simply says that religion should not be in-of-itself a justification for actions. The action should stand on it's own.

Jefferson's quote says that as long as the regulating religion makes him dutiful to society, don't worry about... That to me contradicts the idea of religion not being an influence, regardless.

Ok, but the idea of keeping religion from being an influence on their actions was not part of his, or many people's political philosophy, and it, quite frankly, not an important one imho.

I don't care what he wrote or said, he was a politician.

You don't care about the Bill of Rights (truly the most radical part of the constitution, and the thing that really made that U.S. unique), or the concept of separation of church and state that you seem to want to take further? In argumentation, you don't use ad hominem attacks, and his ideas and legacy stand on their own, regardless of his personal failings.

Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, first off, not the Bill of Rights; that was James Madison and George Mason.

And to be frank, I do not so comfortably say that the creation of the United States was so great a legacy that certain slave owners are to be forgiven because they played a role in creating the principles of the US. I may lean toward that deduction, but it isn't such an easy assessment, for me.

I didn't say he wrote it. It's not exactly appropriate to say madison/mason were responsible for it. . Madison was adamantly against a bill of rights and only made one because the anti-federalists like Jefferson demanded one. The list itself was a synthesis of several lists sent.
Jefferson was in France at the time.
As for slavery, it's over, yet our politicians continue to destroy the constitution and the original intentions of the founding fathers. Now is a more important time than ever to look towards them.

Well, I respectfully disagree.

I think in an age of well-fare, social security, the dawn of government run health care, the founding fathers are irrelevant.

You say that the constitution is getting destroyed, but needing a warrant to search wasn't the initial intent.

Privacy wasn't the initial intent.

I seriously doubt the founding fathers would have seen burning the American Flag in 1790 as a legal act in America.

These are men who gave women no right to political power, even as they were writing laws that bound them to do the opposite...

I hardly think the founding fathers' interpretation is relevant in today's society.

They are men who are seen as great for what they did during the time they did it. Transplated into the 21st century, however, they'd be racists and scorned if ever to hold public office.

I, for one, hope to see federal socialized medicine to disapear, along with the other programs you mentioned.

As for getting a warrant for a search, I see this as a modern extension of the fourth amendment.

These are men who gave women no right to political power, even as they were writing laws that bound them to do the opposite...

They were looking into the future, and noted that current social conditions made it impossible to achieve the goals they wrote/codified. This contradicts your implication that they are not still relevant, if they were able to predict modern values.

Someone "with a firm grasp on the concept of Sprirituality" would not vote for partial birth abortions or deny a living victim of a botched abortion the right to live. Even if this were Obama's only flaw, it would be enough for me to know that he is a dangerous man.

What's the deal with all of these ex-Mormons showing up in force on Newsvine? Is Salt Lake City exiling you en masse? LOL

Hey Scott Isaacs,
Very Funny. Here's my deal. I chose that username because the first comment I made on Newsvine was in response to a mormon who was misrepresenting the truth about an issue of mormon doctrine and I wanted to set them straight. A mormon is what I used to be, before I came to my senses and started studying the Bible. What I am now is a Christian.
I was born and raised a mormon, but I am not from Salt Lake or even from Utah. I am from another area outside of Utah where over 90% of the population is mormon. I was not exiled, in fact once I was Saved and asked that my name be removed from the records of the mormon church, I had to jump through hoops and wait a whole year before they honored my request. They like to be able to claim the big numbers.
I know you didn't ask for my life story, but there you go.

DON'T VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!!!!!

I believe all humans are children of God. Since when was that a controversial statement? It is a foundation of all belefs of Christians and Muslims and Jews, as we are all descendants of Abraham,

So, with that said, what about the rest of the world? Uuuhhmmm? Lets, see, Buddhism, Hinduism etc, etc, etc. god, god, god.
Why is it only your god? (just playing the Devil's Advocate here for a minute) Why is it only the god of Abraham that is ok? Am I missing something here/

Why couldn't have God given us several religions because it would know we were all different people, and God wanted to teach us love & compassion for each other?

Mystery, you misquoted me.

What I said is that I believe ALL humans are children of God, additionally, those that are descendants of Abraham are inclusive of the term "brother", as in we are our "brother's keeper". I do not understand those who look at the old Testament and see only abominations and ruin for mankind, yet the story of Haggar and Sara is forgotten in this troubled time of war. It is more relevant now than ever.

As to the existence of God or god, in reference to Hindus, Buddhist, Shintos, ect, it is irrelevent whether they believe as I do, they are deserving of respect and dignity as are all people.

The article in question posits whether those not Christian can attain heaven, not whether their beliefs are correct or valid. If they do not believe in a heaven than is it even relevant to them?

Would they even want to share a heaven with a bunch of Christians? (Snark)

lilorphant, If I misquoted, I do humbly apologise. :)

Nirvana is the "heaven" of the Eastern religions, so yes, in a way they to strive to obtain a perfection to be one with God. Though, their perception of God differs from ours.

No that isn't the message of Revelation 20:12.

The message there is that the human souls who do not have faith in Christ will be judged on how they live, and being that no human is without sin, they will be cast into Lake Fire.

Being judged on what one has done in life IS BAD!

What you see as a good person still has sin, and without faith in Christ, they cannot escape that sin in order to reach Heaven. That's Christianity 1-0-1

You know Nathan, let it be, it's YOUR Christianity 1-0-1, not every Christian. It does not literally say that those who don't know Christ won't get in. Where does it say that? You say it's the message, but that is not what it says. It is your interpretation.

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

It does not literally say that those who don't know Christ won't get in.

It says that only through Christ will the sins of a man be forgiven.

It might be impractical, or a bad thing, or even fabricated, but it is there.

so how do you know someone is being forgiven through Christ?

(Hint: That's a trick question, and no, "I don't actually know" isn't the correct answer yet.)

The bible contradicts itself on pretty much everything.

Support?

There are 66 books, 1189 chapters, over 31,000 verses in the Protestant bible. You may need to write an article to provide enough support to say it contradicts itself on pretty much everything.

God is all loving.

God kills people.

Loving someone and killing them aren't mutually exclusive.

Loving someone and killing them aren't mutually exclusive.

You and I have a different meaning of love.

You and I have a different meaning of love.

This is when the golden rule; "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" breaks down and fails. If you are amoral, or a sado-masochist. Or when the love of war, [the loose of your conection to humanity, and the only way you feel alive], and killing and hurting is what gives your pleasure, the "Golden Rule" becomes a perversion.

jfrank:
Define your meaning.

Yeah and grandpa McCain will go straight from the White House to the old folks home. He can barely walk without shuffling.