Zone1 I am aware that I am stretching scripture: "Is it possible, even absent of belief, that a persons action on this planet can lead them to heaven"?

[Donald H]

correction

There are contradictions and SEEMING contradictions

one needs to closely examine things to find out which is which in his or her human (ie prone to error) mind/heart/soul

I as an atheist have nothing to examine. Ding and Meriweather, the two who appear to me to be the most devoted Christians on this board, have accepted the their bibles are not the literal word of the god, in many instances.

Darwinian evolution is accepted by the Catholic church and so that can be our starting point. The christian's task is to reconcile that with creation.

Only those two have at least advanced to that point of trying.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Protestants believe in faith alone will get us to Heaven ... and that's different from Catholic teachings which say faith and works to get to Heaven ...

Meaning no one believes that works alone gets us to Heaven ... however, if you want to believe that, go ahead, at a minimum you'll stay out of prison, succeed in business, have a happy marriage, attentive children and maybe ... just maybe ... the house cat will respect you ...

Just don't call it Christian Heaven ... okay? ...

maybe I read this too fast... no maybe to it

But I cannot figure out from what I've read here.. whether you believe in works or faith or both

Works are required, however. Read the 2nd book of James and see for yourself (but there are other Books also)

 

[notmyfault2020]

I as an atheist have nothing to examine. Ding and Meriweather, the two who appear to me to be the most devoted Christians on this board, have accepted the their bibles are not the literal word of the god, in many instances.

Darwinian evolution is accepted by the Catholic church and so that can be our starting point. The christian's task is to reconcile that with creation.

Only those two have at least advanced to that point of trying.

when you say The Catholic Church, you absolutely MUST explain to your readers WHAT you are referring to

The Vatican sect is NOT... repeat: NOT the Catholic Church. The Vatican was stolen from the Catholics as of 1958.. no valid pope since.

So... are u referring to the V2 sect here? It wouldn't surprise me one bit that they have rejected the ancient Church's teachings vis a vis evolution and etc..

 

[Donald H]

If this is going to turn into a debate between the different sects, then this isn't a place for an atheist.

I'm o.k. with that as long as the topic is not going to be debated.

 

[BS Filter]

no, that's according to Protestants, not Scripture

Show me the Scripture.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Show me the Scripture.

Catholics never rejected everything in the Old T. The "structures" in place before Jesus came along.. the temple and the ways of preserving it and worshipping God in it were not altogether rejected after Christ by Christ's Church... You'd have to read the entire Old T with a Catholic perspective to understand what all I am trying to convey here... In other words, it would take a theologian.. and I am not exactly that...

 

[BS Filter]

no, that's according to Protestants, not Scripture

You should read this. Jesus is the Rock, the Chief cornerstone. Peter is a small stone. Jesus didn't build his church on a man.

Why Did Jesus Say Peter Was The Rock On Which The Church Would Be Built?

In this article Dr. Mike takes a look at the context in the Bible in which Peter is called a rock and a foundation for the church.

www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com

 

[notmyfault2020]

You should read this. Jesus is the Rock, the Chief cornerstone. Peter is a small stone. Jesus didn't build his church on a man.

not so

Thou art Peter and on this rock (Peter means rock) I will build My Church

 

[BS Filter]

not so

Thou art Peter and on this rock (Peter means rock) I will build My Church

Read this.

Why Did Jesus Say Peter Was The Rock On Which The Church Would Be Built?

In this article Dr. Mike takes a look at the context in the Bible in which Peter is called a rock and a foundation for the church.

www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com

 

[Foxfyre]

This is one question of many I have pondered.

So, whether one is an Atheist or any religious believer, if one acts with the highest degree of integrity, character, righteousness, sacrifice etc, conducive to the instructions of Jesus, can they still gain entry to heaven without actually believing?

I realize that John 14; 6 among others, states it clearly "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

However, I ask because people will be aware of Jesus, might be indifferent or view what they know of him positively, but, don't submit themselves for whatever reason. Can they still gain entry through merit and the awareness of Christ?

You know, I decided years ago that it was way above my paygrade to declare who will and will not go to Heaven. There are probably as many different doctrines, dogmas, beliefs, teachings about that as there are people.

If Heaven can be guaranteed by faith alone, then where is that line drawn? Those who confess their sins and accept Christ? Those who say 'in the name of Jesus?' Those who adhere to Paul's teachings that imply salvation is by grace but those in grace will keep the Law? Those who adhere to Peter's teachings that Jesus came to fulfill the Law and eliminate it as the doorway to Heaven? Those who believe keeping the Law is sufficient?

Those who go with the Latter Day Saints, Calvinists, and others who think some are predestined for Heaven and others are not? With Luther who couldn't quite come up with a description of how salvation is given but there is nothing we can do or say to have it granted? Or James who declared 'faith without works is dead' or those who think if we are just good people and good to our fellow humans, that is enough? Or those who believe salvation is given via the Church? Or Einstein who believed in Spinoza's God, i.e. the deistic view that there a master intelligence that infuses and guides the universe and all that is in it but does not have individual relationships with we mortals.

Or those like me who know assurance of salvation via a personal relationship with the Christ who probably isn't much interested in our dogmas and doctrines but who sacrificed his earthly body so that we might have eternal life, love Him, and try to allow Him to work through us? Do I think my belief is the only valid belief? No.

So since I don't know how much of any of that is valid or correctly perceived or understood by us humans, but who believe our spirit lives on in an afterlife, I prefer to leave the details up to God. I believe Jesus was God incarnate on Earth, and I am worthy of salvation only because God loves me, and hope I can find ways to merit that love or something like that.

 

[ding]

I decided years ago that it was way above my paygrade to declare who will and will not go to Heaven.

Amen. I will go one step further and state that I worry for my soul everyday.

 

[ding]

Ding and Meriweather, the two who appear to me to be the most devoted Christians on this board

Don't include me in that group. She stands above the rest. She's a saint compared to me.

 

[ding]

their bibles are not the literal word of the god

That probably needs some clarification.

The word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes known only to the infallible Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the point of the historical accounts are true - historical battles did occur. The intent of the account is to record that history, not that God commanded it. The details are embellished for a number of reasons with the most obvious being since they were victorious they concluded God is great and on their side. In some cases the accounts were embellished to make the accounts more memorable (Genesis and Exodus to name two) so that they could be passed down orally from generation to generation more easily. In other cases the accounts were embellished so that a broader, more nuanced, truth across the books could be shown. You have to contrast the accounts of their victories with the accounts of their defeats and place that contrast in the context of their entire history to understand the broader, more nuanced truth which is this... the OT is the account of a people who cycled between remembering and forgetting God. Their experiences can be summarized by saying successful behaviors (remembering God) naturally lead to success and failed behaviors (forgetting God) naturally lead to failure. This is a true statement. Without the embellishment it wouldn't be possible to distinguish that truth from the historical accounts of victory and defeat. As it is in the accounts of defeat that they conclude that they didn't lose because God isn't great and not on their side, but because there was something God wanted them to learn.

 

[Foxfyre]

Amen. I will go one step further and state that I worry for my soul everyday.

I would be lying if I said I never have doubts. So I pray the "Lord I believe. Help my unbelief" prayer often. I know it is evil forces that put the doubts in our mind, but they can be dispelled.

 

[GMCGeneral]

The short answer is no. Because of our sin nature, a Holy, Just and Righteous G-d cannot, nor will not accept man into His Kingdom. The ONLY answer is found in Christ. John 1:12 puts down any notion of "universal" salvation, John 3:3 spells out the #1 condition, that you must be Born Again,, John 14:6 states that Jesus is the ONLY way to the Father, Ephesians 2:8-10 state that works cannot save us, Salvation is a gift, and that works follow to bring others to the Cross.

 

[Donald H]

Don't include me in that group. She stands above the rest. She's a saint compared to me.

I've detected that Meriweather lost his/her commitment to continuing the debate for some reason. That reason I think, is the same reason why nearly all Christians eventually come to understand that their religion can be debated in the same room with science. I think you too must sooner or later agree too that is so.

Therefore, to my opinion, that you are the most significant representative of Christianity on this board.

And then of course there are characters such as Ken Ham that I think we would all three agree is a clown who does harm to the entire religion!

 

[Donald H]

I would be lying if I said I never have doubts. So I pray the "Lord I believe. Help my unbelief" prayer often. I know it is evil forces that put the doubts in our mind, but they can be dispelled.

Your respective churches have methods to use that put both of your doubts to rest.

 

[Fueri]

This is one question of many I have pondered.

can they still gain entry to heaven without actually believing?

It has never made any sense to me that the answer to this could be 'no'

If someone hasn't been exposed, let's say some tribesman in the Amazon, that would be a silly requirement. The requirement to believe in a specific deity has always seemed to me to be to be more a Church requirement, than a God requirement.

 

[Foxfyre]

That probably needs some clarification.

The word of God is anything which is true because God is truth, as God is every extant attribute of reality. In other words, it doesn't necessarily have to be written in the bible to be the word of God. It only has to be the truth.

God didn't write the bible. Fallible men wrote the bible. Fallible men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit which used their fallibility to write these accounts in certain ways for certain purposes known only to the infallible Holy Spirit.

Lastly, the point of the historical accounts are true - historical battles did occur. The intent of the account is to record that history, not that God commanded it. The details are embellished for a number of reasons with the most obvious being since they were victorious they concluded God is great and on their side. In some cases the accounts were embellished to make the accounts more memorable (Genesis and Exodus to name two) so that they could be passed down orally from generation to generation more easily. In other cases the accounts were embellished so that a broader, more nuanced, truth across the books could be shown. You have to contrast the accounts of their victories with the accounts of their defeats and place that contrast in the context of their entire history to understand the broader, more nuanced truth which is this... the OT is the account of a people who cycled between remembering and forgetting God. Their experiences can be summarized by saying successful behaviors (remembering God) naturally lead to success and failed behaviors (forgetting God) naturally lead to failure. This is a true statement. Without the embellishment it wouldn't be possible to distinguish that truth from the historical accounts of victory and defeat. As it is in the accounts of defeat that they conclude that they didn't lose because God isn't great and not on their side, but because there was something God wanted them to learn.

No real argument from me here, but one other observation.
Serious Bible scholars have identified and noted some places in the Bible referred to as 'scribal glosses' in which a scribe copying a manuscript onto another parchment would make a note of clarification in the margin. And the next scribe that came along copying the copy sometimes incorporated those notations into the main body of the text. So did that corrupt the original text or was that process also inspired by the Holy Spirit? Who knows? But it does explain some seeming inconsistencies in the overall manuscripts.

Also when I teach Bible I insist that the students set aside all their 20th or 21st Century conditioning and cultural understandings and as much as possible read the text through the eyes of those who wrote down the words, i.e. from their perspective, their understanding, their environment, their history, their culture, their beliefs, their customs etc. If we do not do that we will interpret it through our own culture and understanding and get it a lot more wrong.

I have no doubt that God approves of the Bible and has helped protect it all these millenia so that it remains the #1 best selling book in the world even today.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your respective churches have methods to use that put both of your doubts to rest.

I don't think so. Human nature is what it is.