What are your religious views?

Post Reply New Topic

VERY interesting point. I have a very important question for you. Christianity teaches that the only way to the kingdom of Heaven is through faith in Jesus Christ--that is, one confesses his need for atonement for sin, believes in Jesus' atonement for all sinners who believe, and renounces his former life of sin in favor of seeking after Christ.

What's more, and this is important, is that Christianity teaches it is THE right way for all people, which has the unfortunate effect of making all other religions wrong. So the question is, on the above assumptions of the most basic tenets of Christian faith, "Is Christianity therefore also right?"

Ugh, I don't know why I'm doing this to myself, but here goes.

I'm not well-versed in the bible, nor have I read all of it. However, I think there are just as many indications that Jesus believed it is Works that get you into heaven, if not more so. The way over-quoted line, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one can come to the father through me," could be interpreted metaphorically, since Jesus didn't intend for his words to be taken literal all the time. In addition, what about these verses:

Mathew 21: "Not everyone who says to me, 'lord, lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Matthew 24: "Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: "and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

Notice in the preceding one that Jesus didn't say "Any CHRISTIAN who hears my words and obeys them,.." but rather anyone who hears and does them. It should be also emphasized that Jesus' most important commandments have nothing to do with being a Christian who believes he is God. Rather, they are to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. He didn't say, "worship me as God," He said, love God.

Another verse that seems to indicate works, not faith: Matthew 50: "For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."

Once again, we hear from Jesus about doing the will of the Father, not necessarily worshipping him as Jesus. I could probably find some more verses, but I'll stop here. My point is that there are a lot of verses that seem to express the opposite of what you are asserting (i.e. that Faith is what gets you into heaven), and I'd like to hear your interpretation of these verses and how you reconcile them with the verses you interpret as expressing the opposite.

Again, you probably know more about the bible than I do, but I don't see how you can say with certainty that Jesus believed it was merely faith that gets you into heaven when so many verses suggest the opposite. That's the problem with the bible: you can come to almost any interpretation you want, and read almost anything out of it you want, which is why I think an eclectic spiritual approach is a better way.

Overall, I'll just say that I'm more spiritual than religious, and don't need to follow a book or one religion to believe I've found the "truth." In fact, I think that kind of simplistic dichotomy can be dangerous; it's the cause of many of the wars throughout our history, this belief that one religion is the only true one and all others are evil and must be crushed.

I'll finish this by asking you this question: Why would a loving God not let a non-Christian into heaven, simply because he doesn't follow the same religion? How is that truly loving? If a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or even an Atheist was a good person who followed all the basic commandments of Jesus, how is it loving or fair to not allow them into heaven?

I'll finish this by asking you this question: Why would a loving God not let a non-Christian into heaven, simply because he doesn't follow the same religion? How is that truly loving? If a Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or even an Atheist was a good person who followed all the basic commandments of Jesus, how is it loving or fair to not allow them into heaven?

You don't know why you're doing this to yourself, huh? Hey, I admire you for actually taking a risk! Here it comes...

I only said that because this is the first debate on an internet forum I've gotten into about religion, so I'm a little nervous. I've got social anxiety issues.


If I had more available time at the moment, I'd give a more detailed answer with more scriptural support. All I have at the moment (at work) is a KJV, and I absolutely despise spewing forth King's English!

The short answer (and this can be confirmed in Paul's writings) is that works are an outward expression of faith. Works do not save. Faith does.

Just a brief thing, I'm not willing to put too much stock in the words of Paul because some of what he said directly contradicts a lot of what Jesus taught. For example, Jesus often hung out with "unbelievers" prostitutes and "sinners" all the time, and yet, Paul said that Christians shouldn't associate themselves with nonbelievers because "Wickedness and goodness can never join" (not a direct quote of course, but I think I've got the gist of it).

Note that many of the "works" Jesus' contemporaries insisted on as necessary for holy living centered around strict observance of the Torah and, depending on the Judaic sect, the oral tradition and scholarly debate of scripture. The Sadducees, in opposition to the Pharisees, taught that oral tradition was unnecessary (in part also a tenet of Christianity) and that there was no resurrection from the dead. The Pharisees could be tricky guys, but at least they believed somewhat in the flexibility of the law--punishment equal to and not exceeding the crime. The Sadducees were extreme literalists, positing that "eye-for-an-eye" meant EXACTLY that. In either case, it was adherence to the Law that was the chief emphasis in holy living, not living according to the "spirit" of the law--that is, to "love the Lord" with all your being.

Paul concurred with Jesus that, while the Jews didn't have to throw out the law necessarily, that they should return to the "spirit" of the Law and accepting Jesus as the Law's fulfillment. Paul went a step further (compare with the "Vision of Peter" in Acts) to say that the works of the law were not necessary for salvation at all, only faith alone.

James, by contrast, said that "Faith without works is dead." What James is talking about is not the same thing. He's talking more about what I might call "works of the heart." Moses, later echoed by Jesus, said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength." Jesus went a step further, summing up all the rest of the Law by saying "Love your neighbor as yourself."

Now, it is true that Jesus never said "Any CHRISTIAN." There's a good reason for that: The term was a later invention by outsiders referring to (and even mocking) Christ's followers. It was meant as an insult, but eventually came to be accepted by the followers themselves. I might be wrong, but I don't think the word for "Christian" ever appears in the Bible--if it does, it is a rare occurrence. There is no doubt that Jesus intends two things here: He is talking specifically to His followers, those that believe Him; He is also saying that anyone may follow Him.

True, the term Christian didn't exist then. But I don't necessarily think he was only speaking to followers. Jesus hung out with people who could be considered "unbelievers" all the time, and the pharisees condemned him for that; remember, the people Jesus had the most scorn for were people who wore their religion on their sleeve, people who condemned others for not following their version of the law. Jesus didn't have much negative to say about the outcasts of his day, but plenty to say about the self-righteous pharisees, who condemned him for hanging out with the "others."

You might be taking that last verse from Matthew slightly out of context, something you have to be careful with when dealing with scripture. The principles that Christ laid out WORK. A person is wise that does them and has a solid foundation, not necessarily just for earthly life, but also for eternity. Jesus said that He and God were ONE. Faith in and worship of Jesus is equivalent to worshiping God, which is why we pray to the Father "in Jesus' name." By figuratively signing Jesus' name, that is, God's Son, to our requests, we make ourselves equal to Jesus and therefore brothers and sisters of Him as well as God's children. Hearing the words of Jesus AND doing them includes believing in Jesus and accepting His sacrifice as necessary for universal atonement and salvation.

What prayer outlined in the bible says "In Jesus' name?" All I know is the prayer outlined by Jesus that begins with "our father in heaven," and doesn't mention Jesus. Are you talking about some church prayer policy? Anyway, you are right that Jesus said that he and the Father are one, I remember that. But I'm wondering why you haven't pointed out any verses from Jesus that specifically endorsed faith as the key to heaven over works (aside from "I am the way" etc.). Are you saving that for a later post? In additon, what about the last verse I pointed out, the one that says those who do the will of the Father are my mother and brother? Because I think that verse in particular is more specific than the others and leaves little room for other interpretation besides that those who obey the words of Jesus are his followers. I believe there are a couple other verses that postulate much the same thing, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now. I think there seem to be more quotes from Jesus about the importance of Works over faith than the other way around, but please, point out evidence to the contrary if I'm missing it.

So works come THROUGH faith. It is written "You will know them by their deeds." Someone who claims to believe in Christ but has nothing to show for it PROBABLY doesn't really have any faith at all. One who does works but does not believe, on the other hand, does works for improper (i.e. selfish) or wrong (not inspired by God) motives.

Your last sentence I find to be a little offensive. Selfish motives? Do you actually know any nonbelievers and know what's in their heart? In case you didn't know, most major world religions have the same basic moral teachings: Love your neighbor, don't steal, don't lie, don't kill anyone, and abstain from adultery and homosexuality (Although the monotheistic religions are the only ones that specifically address homosexuality). How could a nonbeliever of any kind possibly be doing good works for "selfish motives" if they're also simply following the teachings of their respective religions? I'd like some further elaboration of what exactly you mean by this. Most people do good deeds because they believe it's the right thing to do, even atheists, so I really don't know where you got this notion from.

Jesus declared Himself THE Way. He also said that being His follower was not a guarantee of a peaceful life of the believer. Christians were not initially persecutors. By all appearances, some early Christians seem to have been hunted down for sport. Any Christian group being faithful to Christ and the spirit of His teachings would NEVER participate in persecuting other groups that didn't agree with them. The Roman Catholic Church had to learn some HARD lessons in that area, and they certainly weren't the last Christian group to make some horrible mistakes. That is a reflection on the sinful nature of humankind and tendency to twist words around to mean what we want it to mean, NOT a picture of properly holding to the intended meaning of Jesus' teaching. As I recall, the ONLY war and violence Jesus ever advocated was a person's civic duty to his own nation (military service should it be required) and protecting one's friends and family. The principle of "turning the other cheek" clearly shows that Jesus preferred mercy to retribution. Re-interpreting or deliberately misinterpreting scripture to justify a "Holy Way" to slaughter unbelievers and force conversions and to further a power-hungry agenda is absolutely FALSE.

Oh, I agree, people murdering in the name of their religion aren't following the teachings of Jesus. But that doesn't stop anybody from twisting words in the bible to their own agenda. If they can't find justification for war or intolerance in Jesus' words (which they usually can't) they have ample material to go by in the old testament, as well as some of the words of Paul. George Bush, for example, portrayed the war on terror, including the war in Iraq, as good vs. evil, and he was viewed somehow as one of our most "Christian" presidents. And frankly, there really isn't that much twisting and mincing of words to do, because the old testament really does have lots of instances of intolerance and war. The only reason we don't execute homosexuals and adulterers anymore is because Christians decided to finally disregard those verses. And don't tell me it's because they somehow "misinterpreted" them, because the mere notion is laughable. Even people who claim they're not "picking or choosing" are probably doing it anyway.

Not allowing unbelievers into heaven, actually, is at once an act of punishment AND an act of mercy. When this discussion has come up in the past in regards to unbelievers who need God to show up and reveal Himself before they will believe, I point out that the Bible tells us that this has happened. The Israelites who followed the pillar of cloud/pillar of fire out of Egypt faltered in their belief that God was powerful enough to guarantee them success in Canaan. An entire generation (with key exceptions) missed out on their inheritance as a result. After the end of the Exodus, they lost their faith, regained it any time they had a powerful, influential Judge as their leader, and lost it again until the next influential judge came to power. God revealed Himself to the early kings (David and Solomon), and the people forgot all about God when Rehoboam came to power. The prophets and so-called "Men of God" revealed the power of God through the miracles He performed through them. People still didn't believe. God sent His Son Jesus who did all these things and more. People still didn't believe. Countless things happen all the time that have absolutely no explanation whatsoever. People just explain it away as coincidence, or luck, or some freak occurrence that can never be repeated in the laboratory. Existence itself, whether you believe in the literal creation story of the Bible or abiogenesis is FILLED with so much evidence that cannot simply be explained away as just a random, happy accident. People refuse to believe.

Therefore, if people consistently refuse to believe, how is it they would believe in God if they did meet Him face to face? By then, what's the point? That means you HAVE to believe in God. That's not what God wants! He didn't make us mindless robots compelled only to do His every bidding. Compare us to the angels: The angels HAVE to believe, even the rebellious ones, that God does indeed exist. We humans were created with the freedom to make up our own minds about what is good and what is not, to follow the morality God gave us or not. We can even decide to believe in God or not believe. How can God be good, just, and merciful and NOT allow for the fact that not all will believe?

Like I said before, most religions have the same basic teachings on how to treat your neighbor, even the Wiccan religion. Therefore, it follows that if they somehow died and "met" God, and he supported the teachings of Jesus, which are mostly the same as any other basic religion's teachings, they would gladly accept Him. Why wouldn't they? If an athest is a very "good" person who follows all the teachings of Jesus on how to treat your neighbor, and one day dies and finds out that he was wrong about God's existence, but God still accepts him anyway, why the hell wouldn't they believe him? Especially when you consider near-death experiences, how vivid they are, and the life-changing effect they have on virtually all who have them - including atheists - your logic doesn't follow.

I agree with you on your beliefs about free will, so I don't know why you brought that up. You're preaching to the choir on that.

God does not WANT anyone to be separated from Him. It seems, however, that WE WANT to be separated from God. No amount of doing "good" is enough. What IS good, anyway? I say doing "good" is just doing your best. But doing your best will never be the standard of perfection set by God. And an imperfect creature has no place in heaven. We have to be MADE perfect, and there's only one way that's ever going to happen. Even the concept of Nirvana requires perfect understanding which cannot be reached except through death (a lot of deaths, actually). The choice one must make is whether one will believe, and requiring a person to spend eternity with a God in whom one does not believe would be an even greater punishment--just another kind of Hell, in other words. Thus separation from God, or Hell, as we say, is just as much an act of mercy (not forcing someone to spend eternity with someone they'll never love) as it is a punishment.

No one, including Christians, is able to follow completely all the basic commandments of Jesus. God's standard is that if you have sinned in your life, then you desrve Hell. Christians deserve Hell. However, Christians have Jesus to take the punishment in their place. The second bold: If God was fair to his standards, he would send all Christians to Hell too.

I should have worded that better. I meant that if you followed Jesus' commandments to the best of your ability or, strived to follow them and ultimately did more good than bad in your life, then it is unfair for you to not get into heaven. And of course, this doesn't exempt Christians from going to hell either. If Hitler called himself a Christian, he would still go to hell anyway. And God's standard is that all sins can be forgiven, minus insulting the holy spirit, so I don't know where you got the idea that any sin would send you to hell.

All sin sends you to Hell if it is not forgiven.

Where is Hell located?

ruveyn

Overkill: First debate? Well, don't worry. You're doing just fine! And don't get worked up over it. I have much the same trouble with social anxiety, else I'd have tried being a pastor speaking in front of people rather than forming my ideas electronically. I'll also keep that in mind and TRY to be gentle!

For starters: Paul's writings inconsistent with Jesus. That's false, actually. Paul's mission was to spread the gospel, Jesus' teachings, not his own personal opinions. In fact, I only recall ONE passage when Paul expressly states that he doesn't believe in marriage--it's too much of a distraction--and that idea was strictly HIS OPINION. That leaves the issue of marriage up to the conscience of the believer, and it is generally accepted that marriage is preferable to sexual misconduct. Also, Paul also hung out with "sinners," so if he's contradicting anybody, that includes himself. However, one must resolve the problem of WHY Jesus was around sinners. It wasn't so much that Jesus went to THEM. They came to Him. Under the Law, they didn't have much hope. Jesus effectively claimed that He offered hope, and more often people (sinners) followed Him in the spirit of repentance. On more than one occasion when Jesus would heal someone, He'd say, "Go and sin no more." When Paul preached, he went WAY beyond Jesus' boundaries by taking the message throughout Greece and the Roman Empire. That means sinners, the "unclean," and the uncircumcised. In Acts, the "Vision of Peter" reveals that one of Christ's closest disciples even had a crisis of conscience regarding spreading the message. When Paul tells us to avoid sinners, what he means is that believers should avoid unrepentant sinners who could possibly lead them away from their faith. All sinners may come to hear the gospel preached and receive Christ. There is no contradiction here. One must examine the context of a statement in order to see whether it is contradictory or flawed.

In Jesus' name: The "Model Prayer" you mentioned is a broad prayer format in which the believer may make a petition of God. Some people take great comfort in reciting it, but when we read other prayers throughout the Bible, we know they tend to be more specific. We name the Father and glorify His name (Our Father...hallowed be...on Earth...in Heaven). What follows is the specific request--provision (daily bread), forgiveness of sins, protection from evil, and praise. The request need not be all those things or even limited to those things, those are just examples. A prayer may not even be a request, but offered in thankfulness or even simply praise itself. Jesus, however, DOES instruct us elsewhere to make requests in His name: John 14:13-14--"Whatever you ask in My name, I will do it so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it." Later in John 16:23-24: "In that day, you will not ask Me anything. I assure you: Anything you ask the Father in My name, He will give you. Until now you have asked for nothing in My name. Ask and you will receive, that your joy may be complete."

Selfish motives: That need not be read as a derogatory statement. It isn't intended to be. The question here is what motives are there for doing the right thing? In other words, when we do the right thing, why do we do it? Who says we even SHOULD do what is right? By whose standards are we doing the right thing? Most often, these motivations come from within the individual to satisfy whatever that person's purpose is. That doesn't make you evil, it just means that you do "the right thing" for some other motive than to glorify God or to love Jesus (John 14:15--"If you love Me, you will keep My commandments"--once again, commandments follow love, works follow faith). There's nothing "wrong" exactly with doing the right thing because you want to. The problem is doing "good" for personal reasons, which can be said to be selfish, is never "good enough" in God's eyes. It's faith alone. Works flow through faith. The motives come from God who lives in the believer's heart. That isn't to ignore all the evil that has been done in God's name. "Good deeds" compared with the scripture never contradict each other; to do so would indicate that one of them is wrong, and it is almost universally agreed that the deeds themselves are questionable. Certain political or national leaders thought they were doing "the right thing." History shows us how that went.

Eternal separation/Hell: I've been fairly thorough on this already, but I'll try to clarify a little. To see God face-to-face, a person waives his right to choose. The angels, for example do not get a choice. They HAVE to be aware of God, even the ones that are in rebellion. To act in rebellion, even once, is to permanently banish an angel from God's graces. They refuse to believe that they are on borrowed time (that's a conclusion I made, so don't go looking in the Bible for it! However, Satan surely has access to what we know has been written about the end of time, the prophecy that foretells his ultimate defeat and damnation. Perhaps if Satan were omniscient, end-time prophecy would have an entirely different outcome. Logically, that point of an angel's power of choice regarding conformity to God's will, cannot know all things, and denial of what is to come only makes sense, though understandably up for debate), and it is for God's purpose alone that they are allowed any physical or spiritual activity. By contrast, all of humanity knows that we are, as individuals, on borrowed time (not in the Bible, but it's obvious). Humanity as a whole has been given the opportunity to believe and repent. If one were to say, "I'll believe God when I see Him," that means an entire lifetime has been wasted on something you never really wanted or cared to believe. Why would it be fair, then, for that person to face God for all eternity in that condition? Further, if you think you might change your mind after you're dead, why not just go ahead and change your mind now? You've got the rest of your life (and even eternity) to figure out the rest! God wants us to come to Him willingly, not because He forced us to.

Think of it like marriage. Assuming absolutely NO possibility of divorce, would you rather be in a lifelong committed relationship with someone you wanted to be with and knew for a long time, or someone you spent a long time rejecting, ignoring, or denying? There's a reason arranged marriages have largely gone out of vogue, at least in Western culture, anyway. We crave love and romance. God is the same way. If you don't show up prepared for the "happily ever after," what good use do you have for each other? I don't think God would want to "tame the shrew." You have a chance to make up your mind. So why not choose God and the rewards that come with it? If there's any doubt, as with atheists and agnostics, then all that's left is to simply turn the doubt over to blind faith. If you fail to understand anything other than evolution, then don't worry about it. You believe Jesus rescues from sin, so just put everything else in God's hands--origins of life and the universe are ultimately the least of our worries!

I don't think I'm exaggerating at all. I don't think any of us WOULD reject God in the afterlife, but that in itself is the problem. After death, there IS no more choice! We HAVE to believe, then. Philippians 2:10-11 indicates that ALL people, believers and unbelievers, alive and dead, will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. There are then two divisions: Those that believe willingly and those that believe unwillingly. The matter must be settled in one's own lifetime, else God is little more than a tyrant.

I brought up free will because not everyone believes in it. It seems like a hot topic on these forums, and honestly I've given up trying to convince the skeptical few of what seems to me common sense.