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"?

[ReinyDays]

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.

That would be the English Reformation ... and the effort to put scripture into the hands of the common folk ... science still rested with Copernicus and Galileo ... alchemy and meteorology ruled the Noble Houses ...

 

[Donald H]

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.

If the truth can be 'rhetoric' as opposed to 'literal' interpretation of the bibles, then we have reached a common point on which we can agree.

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.

And again, we are in agreement that the bibles are not the literal word of your god. Other Christians obviously don't agree but they are not the main representatives of the faith in the way you have become.

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.

I have obviously accepted the 'embellishment' in the true sense of the word. I perceive it as the equivalent of lies being told out of necessity for the good of Christianity.

In other cases the accounts were embellished so that a broader, more nuanced, truth across the books could be shown.

I would be interested in hearing how 'embellishment' served to make some specific case on the need for faith

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.

I think you're really just saying that the church needed to embellish and lie to the flock on account of the flock lacking the sophistication to understand certain stories such as a man living in the belly of a big fish for three days. If so then that adds to the point that we are settled on the fact that science and creation can't be discussed in the same room where the contrasting beliefs will never lead to agreeing on pretty well anything to literally believe. I'm completely content and satisfied with that.

If I've missed your intent then let me know.

I'm beginning to detect that you are very much interested in expressing a contrary view to mine, but not for the sake of proving anything concerning your religious beliefs. Your objection to me telling you about car insurance has led to suspecting that motive.

 

[Donald H]

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

As an atheist I agree.

If I was a Christian I could never agree. Ask your minister for the answer. Do your rosary 500 times and then get back to me on your feelings of doubt.

 

[Dadoalex]

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?

TBH...These are the words of a cult leader. We've heard similar from Jones, Koresh, Trump...

I am Buddhist, I believe there is something beyond this life but I cannot begin to explain what it may be.
Does a caterpillar have any concept of what it is to be a butterfly? Does the butterfly remember being a caterpillar?

If a person, say the Buddha had never heard of "God" but lived a "godly" life would "God" punish that person for their lack of knowledge?
If "God" would make such a choice is that "God" worthy of worship.

Perhaps, rather than worry over others' probability of getting to Heaven it would serve Christians better to concern themselves with their own path. There's good guidance on that.

Judge not lest you be judged...
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
Turn the other cheek...

But where would one go for such advice?

Try the Bible, Koran, Torah, Noble Truths and eight fold path...

 

[evenflow1969]

I interpret Jesus as saying follow HIM. That means to do the best one cans at following his words.

I think it is quite possible to Follow His words while not following Paul, or any of the old testament stuff or what Christians say by way of representing the religion of Christianity.

As such, I believe that one can follow Jesus without being a Christian per se.

Best thing I have ever seen ya write. Good job. I agree.

 

[Foxfyre]

That would be the English Reformation ... and the effort to put scripture into the hands of the common folk ... science still rested with Copernicus and Galileo ... alchemy and meteorology ruled the Noble Houses ...

For sure the Bible was probably interpreted through the eyes of that time differently than it would be through our eyes now. But those same serious Bible scholars are reasonably confident that Gutenberg and those who preserved the manuscripts that he printed exercised due diligence to keep them honest as they were written. I don't think there has been a lot of manipulation of the text except for those who demand the Bible be made more "PC" in modern times which I consider an abomination.

 

[Foxfyre]

As an atheist I agree.

If I was a Christian I could never agree. Ask your minister for the answer. Do your rosary 500 times and then get back to me on your feelings of doubt.

I am Christian and I agree with what I said. (I don't do the Rosary so you'll have to come up with something else as silly to tell me how to deal with feelings of doubt.)

 

[Donald H]

TBH...These are the words of a cult leader. We've heard similar from Jones, Koresh, Trump...

Does a caterpillar have any concept of what it is to be a butterfly? Does the butterfly remember being a caterpillar?

As opposed to it being mystifying, I would suggest that we know the most likely answer due to our understanding of the human brain and how it has evolved from the more simple to understand tbrain of the butterfly.

I would highly recommend Richard Dawkins', The Selfish Gene to a Buddhist.

We don't need to attempt to create mysteries when modern science has answers..

 

[Dadoalex]

As opposed to it being mystifying, I would suggest that we know the most likely answer due to our understanding of the human brain and how it has evolved from the more simple to understand tbrain of the butterfly.

I would highly recommend Richard Dawkins', The Selfish Gene to a Buddhist.

We don't need to attempt to create mysteries when modern science has answers..

Do you remember being in the womb?

We do not within this plane have the capability to understand what is next any more than a tadpole understands being a frog.

Dawkins' atheism is his own religion.

 

[Donald H]

Do you remember being in the womb?

No, but it's not established science to say it isn't possible.

We do not within this plane have the capability to understand what is next any more than a tadpole understands being a frog.

Quite obviously not true without some 'qualified' on what 'next means. For example, I might pick up my coffee cup and finish the last drops. And now about 10 seconds later I actually did.

Dawkins' atheism is his own religion.

I don't know of any quarrel the Catholic church has with 'The Selfish Gene'.

In fact, I think the Catholic church has learned over the last 40 or 50 years to not even challenge such science.

 

[BS Filter]

For sure the Bible was probably interpreted through the eyes of that time differently than it would be through our eyes now. But those same serious Bible scholars are reasonably confident that Gutenberg and those who preserved the manuscripts that he printed exercised due diligence to keep them honest as they were written. I don't think there has been a lot of manipulation of the text except for those who demand the Bible be made more "PC" in modern times which I consider an abomination.

The New World Translation is the worst and it's deliberate. The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) twisted many Scriptures to fit their beliefs. It's an abomination. No Bible scholars I know of outside of their organization take it as a reliable source.

 

[Meriweather]

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?

Let's look at the Parable Jesus tells in Matthew 13:44-46

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field,* which a person finds and hides again, and out of joy goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

First, Jesus tells us that the Kingdom of heaven is a treasure we should be seeking.

Then take a look at what he does next. He turns it around.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant searching for fine pearls.
When he finds a pearl of great price, he goes and sells all that he has and buys it.

First it is the person who is searching for fine treasure of the kingdom. Then Jesus turns it around and it is the Kingdom of Heaven searching for a fine pearl.

This reminds me of the Parable of the Prodigal son, where the father gives what he has to throw a party dressing and welcoming the lost son back. In this parable, it appears Heaven will give all it has to give to a "fine pearl" that it searches for.

 

[Foxfyre]

The New World Translation is the worst and it's deliberate. The Watchtower (Jehovah's Witnesses) twisted many Scriptures to fit their beliefs. It's an abomination. No Bible scholars I know of outside of their organization take it as a reliable source.

As a lifelong student of Bible History and development of JudeoChristian thought as well as having written curriculum for it and taught it, I do not consider myself an expert but probably have more experience with this topic than the average Bible student. And I sure don't consider those Bible texts that were seriously rewritten to be PC or fit some church doctrine to be reliable either. But then there is not much agreement on which translation is most accurate either. The RSV, the original NIV--not the PC correct one--, The American Standard are all pretty decent translations I think but there are others who would argue with me. Some consider the good old fashioned King James Bible the only one that is valid.

I have long railed against those who would rewrite the Bible to reflect what they want it to say instead of what it originally said.

But I use the following verse from Isaiah 45:11 to illustrate some of the problems between translations and especially when verses are cherry picked to use as doctrine:

KJV - . . .the work of my hands command ye me.
RSV -. . .Will you. . .command me concerning the work of my hands?
NIV -. . .do you. . .give me orders about the work of my hands?
Living Bible-. . .Who are you to command me concerning the work of my hands? - or - in an earlier translation: "how dare you command me the work of my hands?"
I can't read the Latin to translate that text from the Gutenberg Bible.

Which one most closely reflects Isaiah's intent written in the original Hebrew? Probably only Isaiah could say with absolute certainty. It's on my list to ask him.

So thinking about the OP, I think it dangerous for Christians to say with absolute certainly precisely what one must do or be to go to Heaven. I suspect all of us will be surprised at some of the folks who will be there and maybe some who aren't.

 

[BS Filter]

As a lifelong student of Bible History and development of JudeoChristian thought as well as having written curriculum for it and taught it, I do not consider myself an expert but probably have more experience with this topic than the average Bible student. And I sure don't consider those Bible texts that were seriously rewritten to be PC or fit some church doctrine to be reliable either. But then there is not much agreement on which translation is most accurate either. The RSV, the original NIV--not the PC correct one--, The American Standard are all pretty decent translations I think but there are others who would argue with me. Some consider the good old fashioned King James Bible the only one that is valid.

I have long railed against those who would rewrite the Bible to reflect what they want it to say instead of what it originally said.

But I use the following verse from Isaiah 45:11 to illustrate some of the problems between translations and especially when verses are cherry picked to use as doctrine:

KJV - . . .the work of my hands command ye me.
RSV -. . .Will you. . .command me concerning the work of my hands?
NIV -. . .do you. . .give me orders about the work of my hands?
Living Bible-. . .Who are you to command me concerning the work of my hands? - or - in an earlier translation: "how dare you command me the work of my hands?"
I can't read the Latin to translate that text from the Gutenberg Bible.

Which one most closely reflects Isaiah's intent written in the original Hebrew? Probably only Isaiah could say with absolute certainty. It's on my list to ask him.

So thinking about the OP, I think it dangerous for Christians to say with absolute certainly precisely what one must do or be to go to Heaven. I suspect all of us will be surprised at some of the folks who will be there and maybe some who aren't.

I agree. The problem many of us have with the NWT is the deliberate addition of words not found in any original text to take away the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity.

 

[ReinyDays]

For sure the Bible was probably interpreted through the eyes of that time differently than it would be through our eyes now. But those same serious Bible scholars are reasonably confident that Gutenberg and those who preserved the manuscripts that he printed exercised due diligence to keep them honest as they were written. I don't think there has been a lot of manipulation of the text except for those who demand the Bible be made more "PC" in modern times which I consider an abomination.

I was taught the Bible is written into our hearts ... the printed text is just a reminder ... and a good part of what the Bible says make good sense ... some truths have been true since the dawn of history ...

 

[ding]

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.

What kind of doubts? I have doubts that I am a good person and worthy of his affection. But that is the extent of my doubts.

 

[ding]

I was taught the Bible is written into our hearts ... the printed text is just a reminder ... and a good part of what the Bible says make good sense ... some truths have been true since the dawn of history ...

Absolutely. 100%. If the Bible had never been written we would still know right from wrong.

 

[ding]

I've detected that Meriweather lost his/her commitment to continuing the debate for some reason.

I suspect the reason is probably because you are a waste of her time. You are another one of what I call passive aggressive militant atheists whose only purpose here is to combat religion. You are in fabulous company.

"We must know how to combat religion..." Vladimir Lenin

 

[ding]

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.

That is excellent advice.

 

[Mac-7]

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?

The answer is no, it wont save you unless you accept Christ as your Savior