NationStates Jolt Archive

I am in a discussion about the ways to reach heaven according the Christian faith on another board. One guy (a catholic) claims that God will accept people who do not have knowledge about Jesus, even though he admits that this is not stated in the Bible.

He bases this on teachings that are passed alongside of the Bible and defends this by claiming that a 'sola scriptura' stance as the Prostestants have would be absurd (for various reasons).

He also accuses Protestants of subscribing to a false doctrine.

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?

The way the question is phrased I would say no, since Jesus Himself warned against false doctrines, and He was sinless. I may be missing your point though, so can you explain to me why you think it's a sin?


Oh, and I don't buy in to the whole "many paths to one God" thing, but then again I am protestant.

The Bible says there is one way to the Father and it is Jesus Christ. (In fact Jesus says that);)

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?In that it's a sin to judge others (except in whatever way churches excuse their leaders for judging members--such as "they're being proxy to God", etc.), yeah that would seem a sin.

The way the question is phrased I would say no, since Jesus Himself warned against false doctrines, and He was sinless. I may be missing your point though, so can you explain to me why you think it's a sin?


Oh, and I don't buy in to the whole "many paths to one God" thing, but then again I am protestant.

The Bible says there is one way to the Father and it is Jesus Christ. (In fact Jesus says that);)

To be honest: I don't know.

I thought, I remembered someone posting something similar once here on these boards and others said that doing so would be a sin. Maybe I was mistaken.

But I have some more questions and/or would like to hear some comments about a few things:

If I get it right, Protestants say that you have to find your own relationship with God and you do so by praying and reading the Bible. Catholics on the other hand say that the Pope has an authority, granted to him by Jesus (Matthew 16:18-19).

Further,

2 Peter 1:20-21
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

and

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

seem to suggest that the Bible alone is not the key.

I'm sure that the Protestants on this board have something to say about those quotes which seem to to give credence to the Catholic interpretation of the Bible.

Oh, and I don't buy in to the whole "many paths to one God" thing, but then again I am protestant.

The Bible says there is one way to the Father and it is Jesus Christ. (In fact Jesus says that);)

Sorry, didn't read too carefully.

The Bible says that the ONLY way is through Jesus? Can you give me a quote?

In that it's a sin to judge others (except in whatever way churches excuse their leaders for judging members--such as "they're being proxy to God", etc.), yeah that would seem a sin.
is it really "judging them" though?

If my daughter's school was teaching her that 1+1= 8 and I sald that she was being taught "false math" then would that be a sin? I would be telling the truth.

Sorry, didn't read too carefully.

The Bible says that the ONLY way is through Jesus? Can you give me a quote?
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

as far as the other verses that you quoted I am going to have to go back to my Bible and post my reply about them later, I am about to leave the house, so I don't have time right now.

I'm thinking this is an entirely objective issue.

While I'm an atheist, I have studied religion(s) from and anthropological perspective. A majority of Christians will believe that if, upon reaching heaven's gate, you accept god and Christ, then you will pass into heaven.

There are some fundamentalists who believe that by only following a literal interpretation of the Bible will you pass into heaven.

Then there are groups like Mormons who believe that only Mormons will acheive salvation.

Then there are the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Jesus has already come back and this world is merely a testing ground as to whether or not you acheive heaven when you discorporate.

So, there is no easy answer to this question.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

as far as the other verses that you quoted I am going to have to go back to my Bible and post my reply about them later, I am about to leave the house, so I don't have time right now.

So Jesus is God's bouncer?

is it really "judging them" though?

If my daughter's school was teaching her that 1+1= 8 and I sald that she was being taught "false math" then would that be a sin? I would be telling the truth.
Well, the difference between "telling the truth" and "judging" isn't really clear cut because a judgment of others to some is the truth. I mean, since everyone has a different perception of what is true and untrue, it seems hardly a reliable standard.

But you do have a point. There needs to be some way for a person to differentiate his or her beliefs (which will have to bring them to believe that one person or another of differing beliefs is wrong). Certainly this differntiation isn't judgement and thus sin, right?

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

as far as the other verses that you quoted I am going to have to go back to my Bible and post my reply about them later, I am about to leave the house, so I don't have time right now.

Take your time. :)

I'm thinking this is an entirely objective issue.

While I'm an atheist, I have studied religion(s) from and anthropological perspective. A majority of Christians will believe that if, upon reaching heaven's gate, you accept god and Christ, then you will pass into heaven.

There are some fundamentalists who believe that by only following a literal interpretation of the Bible will you pass into heaven.

Then there are groups like Mormons who believe that only Mormons will acheive salvation.

Then there are the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Jesus has already come back and this world is merely a testing ground as to whether or not you acheive heaven when you discorporate.

So, there is no easy answer to this question.

Yeah, I had posted several examples in said discussion.

My point was that I thought that Jesus only said that he was the way to heaven, while the other poster claimed that everyone who did not hear about Jesus would go there too (or at least not to hell) - based on Catholic teachings.

I did not know that Jesus said he was the ONLY way and that would clearly contradict with what the poster in the other discussion said. I guess.

Well, first to answer the original question posed, accusing someone of following a false doctrine is not a sin in and of itself, Jesus, Paul, etc. accused many of believing in false doctrines. However, the form and manner in which the accusation is made could be sinful based on the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" standard or the "first pull the log from your own eye before worrying about the splinter in the eye of another" standard.

As to other ways to heaven besides belief in Christ. As a protestant (Southern Baptist no less), I have been taught that certain people who did not beleive in Christ did/do get into heaven. Specifically, certain people in the Old Testament who had "faith" and people, such as the mentally retarded and very young children who do not have the mental capacity to believe or disbelieve. Merely failing to hear about Jesus isn't enough in general though as the bible teaches that God will make himself known to those who seek him and that he reveals himself to all through nature and the world around us. A useful resource on this topic is found here (http://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html)

Well, the difference between "telling the truth" and "judging" isn't really clear cut because a judgment of others to some is the truth. I mean, since everyone has a different perception of what is true and untrue, it seems hardly a reliable standard.

But you do have a point. There needs to be some way for a person to differentiate his or her beliefs (which will have to bring them to believe that one person or another of differing beliefs is wrong). Certainly this differntiation isn't judgement and thus sin, right?

The difference between "judging" someone and "telling the truth" is that judging is telling what is in their "heart" - telling their motivation - telling them that they're morally wrong. "Telling the truth" is simply stating facts without impugning the person. You can say 1+1=8, but you're wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you wrong on that one point. We all have things we're wrong about.

Saying someone has false doctrine is just a matter of facts. Judging them would be saying that they're sinning and hate God or God hates them because they have false doctrine. Only God can tell that.

As to other ways to heaven besides belief in Christ. As a protestant (Southern Baptist no less), I have been taught that certain people who did not beleive in Christ did/do get into heaven. Specifically, certain people in the Old Testament who had "faith" and people, such as the mentally retarded and very young children who do not have the mental capacity to believe or disbelieve. Merely failing to hear about Jesus isn't enough in general though as the bible teaches that God will make himself known to those who seek him and that he reveals himself to all through nature and the world around us.

The thing about being saved without believing in Christ is this: those who do believe in Christ are saved by faith. So the question is, can you have faith in Christ without knowing about him really? The people in the Old Testment were saved by faith in what they had not seen, and Jesus said "blessed are ye who have not seen, and have still believed" (paraphrase, sorry, I can find it if you need me to) so why shouldn't others who have not seen be able to believe too? Also, if, as I do, you believe that God has the impetus to belief, it is easy to believe that God can save whoever he wants - from my severely brain-damaged cousin to the man in darkest africa back in the day, who had never so much as heard of Christ, God, or anything.

Basically, it's the salvation-by-faith that makes it all make sense, to me at least. Not to say that we shouldn't do good things and all, but they come because you want to, not because you can earn salvation with them.

The thing about being saved without believing in Christ is this: those who do believe in Christ are saved by faith. So the question is, can you have faith in Christ without knowing about him really? The people in the Old Testment were saved by faith in what they had not seen, and Jesus said "blessed are ye who have not seen, and have still believed" (paraphrase, sorry, I can find it if you need me to) so why shouldn't others who have not seen be able to believe too? Also, if, as I do, you believe that God has the impetus to belief, it is easy to believe that God can save whoever he wants - from my severely brain-damaged cousin to the man in darkest africa back in the day, who had never so much as heard of Christ, God, or anything.

Basically, it's the salvation-by-faith that makes it all make sense, to me at least. Not to say that we shouldn't do good things and all, but they come because you want to, not because you can earn salvation with them.

I believe that is generally what I was saying. People who have not "seen" (such as the OT people) can still be saved if they have "faith" As I said, God will make himself known to those who seek him out. Therefore, the man in deepest africa who has never heard the world "Jesus" can still seek out God and be saved by faith in that which he as not seen, just as the OT people did. The point I was trying to make was that the person who has never heard of Jesus cannot be "excused" just because he has never heard, he must still seek him out. If he seeks, he will find. If he doesn't seek, he is condemned.
Salvation is by faith, not works. However, the truly saved will seek to engage in works.

I reckon it's not a sin to think someone else is wrong. I think the difference between thinking they're wrong and judging them comes if you try to attatch consequences to what they're doing/teaching. E.g. if I said "that's a false doctrine and if you teach it you'll go to hell" then I'm deciding punishment (like a judge in court), so that would be judging. If I just say "I think that's a false doctrine" then I'm not judging anyone just giving my opinion.

I'm thinking this is an entirely objective issue.

While I'm an atheist, I have studied religion(s) from and anthropological perspective. A majority of Christians will believe that if, upon reaching heaven's gate, you accept god and Christ, then you will pass into heaven.

There are some fundamentalists who believe that by only following a literal interpretation of the Bible will you pass into heaven.

Then there are groups like Mormons who believe that only Mormons will acheive salvation.

Then there are the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Jesus has already come back and this world is merely a testing ground as to whether or not you acheive heaven when you discorporate.
So, there is no easy answer to this question.

Then there are those nutty Bahai's who believe that all revealed religions have come from God, that all people are created by and therefore could not possibly be left out of God's plan--past or present, and that a new age has began with the coming of Baha'u'llah who is the Promised One that all religions are expecting. Man is that a mouth full.

I think the real question is: what is so great about heaven? I mean, would anyone other than a hardcore fundamentalist really want to spend an eternity with Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter? Hell sucks, but at least there will be cool philosophers there and after a few millenia of agony, I suppose I could adjust.

I think the real question is: what is so great about heaven? I mean, would anyone other than a hardcore fundamentalist really want to spend an eternity with Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter? Hell sucks, but at least there will be cool philosophers there and after a few millenia of agony, I suppose I could adjust.

I used to think that Hell was supposed to be the party place, but that was just me being wrong about the whole thing. Jesus repeatedly warned about the torments of Hell.

Jesus said:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."
-Mark 9:43-48

Interesting---better to go into life maimed, lame or half-blind, than to have all your faculties and be cast into hell. Doesn't sound like something that anyone could get used to...

Also, the passage in Luke 16, where Jesus tells the parable about the rich man and a beggar named Lazarus. The rich man dies and goes to hell, and:

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

It's so bad that he doesn't want his brothers to join him, and asks Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them:

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

So even the rich evil guy in hell doesn't want anyone to join him, that is how bad it is. Doesn't sound like anything anyone could get used to...

Sounds like something to be avoided at all costs...

I did not know that Jesus said he was the ONLY way and that would clearly contradict with what the poster in the other discussion said. I guess.

The question becomes - How many different paths are there to Christ? Is there more than one way to follow/believe in Christ? Has Christ been personified in different ways in different cultures? How many other faiths teach ideas similar or even, in some cases, nearly identical to those of Christ?

Of course the NT also claims that a male non-believer is saved if he is married to a Christian wife.

i have a few thoughts on the subject

it occurs to me that the early members of the church were christians without the bible. most of the books of the new testament werent written until 50-100 years after jesus's death and the bible as we know it wasnt decided on for a couple hundred years after THAT. if it wasnt important for THEM to have the bible or read the bible, why is it so important now? are susequent theologians from st augustine to today so much less important or thoughtful than st paul?

paul never met jesus but received his revelation directly from god. this revelation was so strong that it overrode any consideration of what those who knew jesus in person thought or remembered jesus telling them. (one would think tht when peter and paul fell into conflict on how the early church should be run, all peter would have had to do was say "welll when i asked jesus about this he said....")


i dont see why "no one comes to the father except through me" has to mean accepting jesus christ as your personal lord and savior. seems to me that it can be as easily interpreted to mean that jesus set out new standards and HE will decide who meets them and who doesnt. if you meet the standard you get in, if you dont, you dont. no belief implied.

no i dont think that telling someone you think their theology is off is a sin. that is what theologians have done throughout the ages.

The question becomes - How many different paths are there to Christ? Is there more than one way to follow/believe in Christ? Has Christ been personified in different ways in different cultures? How many other faiths teach ideas similar or even, in some cases, nearly identical to those of Christ?

Another way to think of it is: Is Christ a person or personality; or, is Christ a Messenger from God. One of many Messengers with identical messeges. Is Christ a globe over a source of light that gives off a certain color designed for that culture and time with other "globes" designed for other cultures and time. Each of them would be the one true path at that time; all of them from the same source--God.

Can it be possible that God the Creator who created all things would want His creatures to divide into thousands of religions each claiming that their religion is the only true religion? Not if that God is also a just God! All that is good comes from God. All that is not good comes from the human egotism.

Actually, the Bible says that God is manifested to all of creation, and that those who have never heard The Gospel can be saved by walking in whatever light they have received. I can look it up, if you like.

Actually, the Bible says that God is manifested to all of creation, and that those who have never heard The Gospel can be saved by walking in whatever light they have received. I can look it up, if you like.

I would love to have the reference for that quote, please do look it up.

I am in a discussion about the ways to reach heaven according the Christian faith on another board. One guy (a catholic) claims that God will accept people who do not have knowledge about Jesus, even though he admits that this is not stated in the Bible.

He bases this on teachings that are passed alongside of the Bible and defends this by claiming that a 'sola scriptura' stance as the Prostestants have would be absurd (for various reasons).

He also accuses Protestants of subscribing to a false doctrine.

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?

If you read it absolutely literally, and allow that ONLY Jesus has the 'power' to speak about such matters... then there is ONLY one way to 'heaven', and that is by 'believing on Jesus'.

Which is pretty sick, if you think about it... because it means every miscarriage, every stillborn, every infant mortality, every toddler that dies before it grasps such concepts as language, every individual who is never told 'the message', every 'native' that fails to encounter some carrier of the Jesus story... will ALL burn in Hell for all eternity.

If you read it absolutely literally, and allow that ONLY Jesus has the 'power' to speak about such matters... then there is ONLY one way to 'heaven', and that is by 'believing on Jesus'.

Which is pretty sick, if you think about it... because it means every miscarriage, every stillborn, every infant mortality, every toddler that dies before it grasps such concepts as language, every individual who is never told 'the message', every 'native' that fails to encounter some carrier of the Jesus story... will ALL burn in Hell for all eternity.


It seems to me that kind of "heaven" would be "hell".

Of course the NT also claims that a male non-believer is saved if he is married to a Christian wife.

No, not saved---sanctified or holy. Holy=set apart

1 Cor 7:
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

So the believing wife or husband should stay with the unbelieving, both because there are spiritual benefits to the unbeliever (being sanctified) and also that they may be saved.

I am in a discussion about the ways to reach heaven according the Christian faith on another board. One guy (a catholic) claims that God will accept people who do not have knowledge about Jesus, even though he admits that this is not stated in the Bible.

He bases this on teachings that are passed alongside of the Bible and defends this by claiming that a 'sola scriptura' stance as the Prostestants have would be absurd (for various reasons).

He also accuses Protestants of subscribing to a false doctrine.

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?

Whatever it is it most certianly is not bound in logic. How can any faith based religion claim to be the sole owner of truth?

It seems to me that kind of "heaven" would be "hell".

Certainly isn't any 'heaven' I would choose.

Actually, the Bible says that God is manifested to all of creation, and that those who have never heard The Gospel can be saved by walking in whatever light they have received. I can look it up, if you like.


Does any of this pertain?

Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Romans 2:
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Or maybe this from Romans 2:
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Yes, that must be it!

Does any of this pertain?

Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Romans 2:
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

Or maybe this from Romans 2:
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Yes, that must be it!

Just substitute Christian, Muslim, whatever, for Jew and you have the solution to all religious bickering.

Whatever it is it most certianly is not bound in logic. How can any faith based religion claim to be the sole owner of truth?

Easy. Insofar as that religion makes unique truth claims, and insofar as those truth claims actually reflect the true state of affairs in the universe, that religion can claim to be the sole owner or purveyor of truth.

And insofar as those claims are true, one would expect them to be logical, as a reflection of the highest logic emanating from the highest form of life aka God.

:) ;) :D

Just substitute Christian, Muslim, whatever, for Jew and you have the solution to all religious bickering.

:confused: ???:confused:

And how would that fix things? Please explain to this slow dense man...

:confused: ???:confused:

And how would that fix things? Please explain to this slow dense man...

It seems to me that the last quote especially is directed at those people who are outwardly "holy" but inwardly hyprocrites. Jesus used some of His worse condemnation towards such people. If all religions followed their religion there would not be religious bickering and judging of other people and their religions. They would worry about their own personal life and not others lives.

I am in a discussion about the ways to reach heaven according the Christian faith on another board. One guy (a catholic) claims that God will accept people who do not have knowledge about Jesus, even though he admits that this is not stated in the Bible.

He bases this on teachings that are passed alongside of the Bible and defends this by claiming that a 'sola scriptura' stance as the Prostestants have would be absurd (for various reasons).

He also accuses Protestants of subscribing to a false doctrine.

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?
Romans 1:20----"Ever since the creatiion of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened."


What many "Christians?" forget is that which became Jesus was the creator---IN THE BEGINNING. Jesus was NOT just a man who lived for 30 years. As such anyone can look at creation and see a creator and honor that creator. It does not matter if they use the name "Jesus" (Joshua, Yashua more acurately) What matters is: Do they honor the creator?

Your friend is wrong. The Bible does accept those who have never heard of Jesus or the New Testament. The "so called" Christians who reject those who accept the creator but do not use the name "Jesus" need to study their own teachings.

If you read it absolutely literally, and allow that ONLY Jesus has the 'power' to speak about such matters... then there is ONLY one way to 'heaven', and that is by 'believing on Jesus'.

Which is pretty sick, if you think about it... because it means every miscarriage, every stillborn, every infant mortality, every toddler that dies before it grasps such concepts as language, every individual who is never told 'the message', every 'native' that fails to encounter some carrier of the Jesus story... will ALL burn in Hell for all eternity.
Jesus said that little children were of heaven. Anyone like little children were saved.

Jesus said that little children were of heaven. Anyone like little children were saved.

I'd like to see exactly what you are quoting to get that content... I think I know which reference, but I think you are drawing more from it than is in scripture.

It doesn't matter anyway, of course. Jesus definitively said that there was ONE way, and that was belief.... if you are arguing there is another route, you are making a liar of Jesus.

Which is it?

Is Jesus messiah? Or a liar?

So Jesus is God's bouncer?

Yep, I tried to sneak past him once. He beat the crap outta me. It probably wouldn't have been so severe if I didn't say "Jesus Christ!" and "God dammit that hurt!" everytime he punched me. :D

For those who didn't get that.....2nd commandment.

i dont see why "no one comes to the father except through me" has to mean accepting jesus christ as your personal lord and savior. seems to me that it can be as easily interpreted to mean that jesus set out new standards and HE will decide who meets them and who doesnt. if you meet the standard you get in, if you dont, you dont. no belief implied.

That would seem to be a logical way of interpretting it. Of course I'm an atheist so my views don't count.:)

i dont see why "no one comes to the father except through me" has to mean accepting jesus christ as your personal lord and savior. seems to me that it can be as easily interpreted to mean that jesus set out new standards and HE will decide who meets them and who doesnt. if you meet the standard you get in, if you dont, you dont. no belief implied.


It could also mean, that Jesus has to eat you and not the other way around as the Catholics do. :)

That's the problem with the Bible: everything in there could mean almost everything.

It could also mean, that Jesus has to eat you and not the other way around as the Catholics do. :)

That's the problem with the Bible: everything in there could mean almost everything.

Salvation through divine digestion?:eek:

I knew I was right to worship Cthulu.

I'd like to see exactly what you are quoting to get that content... I think I know which reference, but I think you are drawing more from it than is in scripture.

It doesn't matter anyway, of course. Jesus definitively said that there was ONE way, and that was belief.... if you are arguing there is another route, you are making a liar of Jesus.

Which is it?

Is Jesus messiah? Or a liar?
Was Jesus the creator In The Beginning or not?? If he was, then, as the Bible says, People can see him in creation. So they are coming to him as he was In The Beginning. No where does it say they have to come to him as a 30 year old man. They just have to come to him. Was Jesus born 2000 years ago and died 30 year later? Or has he been available to humans from The Beginning?

Mat 18:1-6, 10 19:14 Mark9:37 10:14-15 to such belongs the kingdom of God Lk9:48 18:16-17

How can a child have sin? Sin is intentional.

Was Jesus the creator In The Beginning or not?? If he was, then, as the Bible says, People can see him in creation. So they are coming to him as he was In The Beginning. No where does it say they have to come to him as a 30 year old man. They just have to come to him. Was Jesus born 2000 years ago and died 30 year later? Or has he been available to humans from The Beginning?

Mat 18:1-6, 10 19:14 Mark9:37 10:14-15 to such belongs the kingdom of God Lk9:48 18:16-17

How can a child have sin? Sin is intentional.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was involved in Creation. He says that the ONLY way to the Father is through him.

Although there are references to coming to God 'through' Jesus, it is in the book of John made explicit that that 'coming through' Jesus MUST be a matter of belief:

John 3:16-8 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life... For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God".

It is absolutely clear that an ACT of belief is required. An infant is incapable of that act, and it doesn't matetr that he/she may 'see' God 'in the miraculous world around'.... if he/she does NOT specifically believe upon Jesus, then he/she is condemned to damnation.

Unless, of course, you can cast doubt on the veracity of Christ's stated word?

Regarding children being able to sin, and sin being intentional... I don't buy it. If you allow that people can NOT sin, if they don't intend to... or if theya re not aware of the sinful nature... then ANY sin is admissible, IF you know no better.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was involved in Creation. He says that the ONLY way to the Father is through him.

Although there are references to coming to God 'through' Jesus, it is in the book of John made explicit that that 'coming through' Jesus MUST be a matter of belief:

John 3:16-8 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life... For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

It is absolutely clear that an ACT of belief is required. An infant is incapable of that act, and it doesn't matetr that he/she may 'see' God 'in the miraculous world around'.... if he/she does NOT specifically believe upon Jesus, then he/she is condemned to damnation.

Unless, of course, you can cast doubt on the veracity of Christ's stated word?

Regarding children being able to sin, and sin being intentional... I don't buy it. If you allow that people can NOT sin, if they don't intend to... or if theya re not aware of the sinful nature... then ANY sin is admissible, IF you know no better.

wow. I never thought you and I would agree on something, much less something in the realm of religion.......but we do.

(of course the difference would be that I believe it)

wow. I never thought you and I would agree on something, much less something in the realm of religion.......but we do.

(of course the difference would be that I believe it)

A NationStates 'friend' (who isn't around anymore, unfortunately), told me that he believed me to be a good Christian, except fot that pesky 'belief' thing.

He said he it was supposed to be considered a compliment. :)

It doesn't matter if Jesus was involved in Creation. He says that the ONLY way to the Father is through him.

Although there are references to coming to God 'through' Jesus, it is in the book of John made explicit that that 'coming through' Jesus MUST be a matter of belief:

John 3:16-8 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life... For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God".

It is absolutely clear that an ACT of belief is required. An infant is incapable of that act, and it doesn't matetr that he/she may 'see' God 'in the miraculous world around'.... if he/she does NOT specifically believe upon Jesus, then he/she is condemned to damnation.

Unless, of course, you can cast doubt on the veracity of Christ's stated word?

Regarding children being able to sin, and sin being intentional... I don't buy it. If you allow that people can NOT sin, if they don't intend to... or if theya re not aware of the sinful nature... then ANY sin is admissible, IF you know no better.
If you don't accept that Jesus existed and was available before 30AD then you don't accept that Noah, Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Jacob, Israel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Job, and countless others that God showed had great faith, belief, and respect for had a chance. God didn't take them into heaven because they didn't say a name that didn't exist at the time. (And by the way is mistranslated in English so you are using the wrong name also)

Rom 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and diety, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles............


This and others clearly state that from the beginning of creation everyone had a choice because they could see that part of God which was to become Jesus in the things that were made. Most chose to follow other objects rather than follow that which was clearly before them.

As for children---Show me ONE place where you can sin without choice. Sin is always a choice. If you kill someone by accident, that is NOT a sin. If you scream for help as you are being raped, the sex outside of marriage is not a sin. Go through the list of sins---find one you can commit without choice. A child cannot choose. A child is without sin. If you are as innocent as a child you are a part of heaven. Become like a child and you are a part of heaven. Find ONE time in the Bible where Jesus or God says that a child has sinned. Don't just repeat what you have been taught. Defend your answer with the teachings of the Bible. Don't use lessons for adults when talking of children. WHERE is a child described as committing sin?

I am in a discussion about the ways to reach heaven according the Christian faith on another board. One guy (a catholic) claims that God will accept people who do not have knowledge about Jesus, even though he admits that this is not stated in the Bible.

He bases this on teachings that are passed alongside of the Bible and defends this by claiming that a 'sola scriptura' stance as the Prostestants have would be absurd (for various reasons).

He also accuses Protestants of subscribing to a false doctrine.

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?

1) We cannot, by definition, understand what precisely God's judgment will be for or against any particular person or group, as only God has perfect mercy, perfect justice, and perfect judgment.

2) I have always been taught that it is possible that those who have never heard of Christ could well be saved if they have lived their life in accordance with same doctrines Christ taught -- that in fact someone could "know Christ" inwardly if not with the actual knowledge of him consciously.

3) An observation: Christians are admonished to "judge not, lest ye be judged." Unfortunately it seems that is one of the first lessons we unlearn.

I'm thinking this is an entirely objective issue.

While I'm an atheist, I have studied religion(s) from and anthropological perspective. A majority of Christians will believe that if, upon reaching heaven's gate, you accept god and Christ, then you will pass into heaven.

There are some fundamentalists who believe that by only following a literal interpretation of the Bible will you pass into heaven.

Then there are groups like Mormons who believe that only Mormons will acheive salvation.

Then there are the Jehovah's Witnesses who believe Jesus has already come back and this world is merely a testing ground as to whether or not you acheive heaven when you discorporate.

So, there is no easy answer to this question.

You don't know your religious doctrine at all.

Mormons(Church odf Jesus Christ of Latterday Saint thank you very much) are the antithesis of Only us can go to heaven. Heck we think all sinners who have not knowledge are going to heaven. Lowest kingdom maybe, but definately Heaven.

You have to pull a Judas or a Cain to get to Outer Darkness. (Otherwise called Hell by other Christians).

Mormon knickname makes no sense anyway. It would be like calling Christians New Testamentals because they brought the New Testament.

As for children---Show me ONE place where you can sin without choice. Sin is always a choice. If you kill someone by accident, that is NOT a sin. If you scream for help as you are being raped, the sex outside of marriage is not a sin. Go through the list of sins---find one you can commit without choice. A child cannot choose. A child is without sin. If you are as innocent as a child you are a part of heaven. Become like a child and you are a part of heaven. Find ONE time in the Bible where Jesus or God says that a child has sinned. Don't just repeat what you have been taught. Defend your answer with the teachings of the Bible. Don't use lessons for adults when talking of children. WHERE is a child described as committing sin?
then you get into when does a child "know" that they are sinning, and when do they "choose" to do it. My 4 year old knows that lying is wrong, she chooses to do it anyway sometimes to try to keep herself out of trouble(which btw never works) therefore she is choosing to sin. Nobody is without sin, not even a small child.

Kids know. They're not stupid. BTW, sorry to get off topic, but Smunkeeville, are you guys OK? I'm watching CNN and it looks like your whole city's on fire.

Kids know. They're not stupid. BTW, sorry to get off topic, but Smunkeeville, are you guys OK? I'm watching CNN and it looks like your whole city's on fire.
We are okay, the fire (the big one that started today) is about 3 miles from my house, so it's pretty smokey outside, I had to take the dog out while it was still burning and it was so black outside my visibility was about 5 ft. I decided to let him poop in the garage for the rest of the day because I can't breathe out there. I think last I heard they had been able to control it, but if not the fire marshall will be by to move us.

It doesn't matter if Jesus was involved in Creation. He says that the ONLY way to the Father is through him.

Although there are references to coming to God 'through' Jesus, it is in the book of John made explicit that that 'coming through' Jesus MUST be a matter of belief:

John 3:16-8 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life... For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God".

It is absolutely clear that an ACT of belief is required. An infant is incapable of that act, and it doesn't matetr that he/she may 'see' God 'in the miraculous world around'.... if he/she does NOT specifically believe upon Jesus, then he/she is condemned to damnation.

Unless, of course, you can cast doubt on the veracity of Christ's stated word?

Now Grave, wasn't it just a few threads ago that you were claiming (rather convincingly in fact) that the latter half of that quote is John's words, and not Christ's? That the way it is written clearly seems to be an aside from John?

Regarding children being able to sin, and sin being intentional... I don't buy it. If you allow that people can NOT sin, if they don't intend to... or if theya re not aware of the sinful nature... then ANY sin is admissible, IF you know no better.

A rather Abelardian point of view, no?

then you get into when does a child "know" that they are sinning, and when do they "choose" to do it. My 4 year old knows that lying is wrong, she chooses to do it anyway sometimes to try to keep herself out of trouble(which btw never works) therefore she is choosing to sin. Nobody is without sin, not even a small child.

Would your child have been able to sin in infancy, when none of her actions were likely by any semblance of choice? I simply don't buy the Augustinian viewpoint of "Babies sin because they cry for food and we wouldn't suffer that behavior in an adult."

Edit: Glad to hear your home is still ok - hope it stays that way.

then you get into when does a child "know" that they are sinning, and when do they "choose" to do it. My 4 year old knows that lying is wrong, she chooses to do it anyway sometimes to try to keep herself out of trouble(which btw never works) therefore she is choosing to sin. Nobody is without sin, not even a small child.

Can you give me a verse that says a child was condemned? Can you give me a verse that says a child sinned? Can you give me a verse that supports a child is born with sin? (not the capability to sin in life, but sin itself)

At what age a person "knows" of course varies from person to person. The depth of that "know" also varies. Is your 4 year old knowingly violating God? Does she even have a concept of immorality? Or is she following an inborn survival instinct? Children are as animals that must be taught. They do not yet have that inner voice of right and wrong toward others. Everything they do is for ME. Sin comes when you truely know what is morally correct and you say to yourself, "I know this is against the good that lives within me, but I'm going to do it anyway." That decision happens at different ages and with different knowledge of God and Creation and the Creator.

If you say sin comes from the moment of conception, then how does a zygot believe? Do you preach the "name" to the ovaries? How does a single cell without a brain or tongue call out to God and ask to be forgiven for........what? So when do you think the first sin comes? With the first lie? OK, then a baby is still without sin.

I grew up witn Missouri Synod Lutherans that believed a baby had to be baptised out of the womb. If a baby died at birth the parents were told the baby would burn in hell forever. I still cannot imagine a belief so cruel as to tell such a thing to grieving parents.

My God is a God of love. My God says if parents understand how to give good things, God knows how to give good things. My God is a God that understands the motive of an action. If the motive is not one of intentional immoral action, then how can it be sin?

If you really believe that hell will be filled with the screaming of babies and children, I hope that someday you also will find a God of love.

Now Grave, wasn't it just a few threads ago that you were claiming (rather convincingly in fact) that the latter half of that quote is John's words, and not Christ's? That the way it is written clearly seems to be an aside from John?


Ah sorry for confusion... I am wearing my 'in context hat'.

Personally, yes - I am entirely convinced that the part of John 3 I quoted is actually John's commentary, and that Jesus' words last only into.... what, John 3:11 I think?

However, wearing my 'in context' hat, I notice that the consensus opinion seems to be that, not only is this considered to be the literal words of Jesus, but also - these seem to be the very words on which much Christian belief structure hinges.

Anyway.. thanks for the "rather convincingly" :)


A rather Abelardian point of view, no?


Again - an 'in context' thing. I'll not dismiss Abelard... I quite like the idea of a reconciliatory God.

Can you give me a verse that says a child was condemned? Can you give me a verse that says a child sinned? Can you give me a verse that supports a child is born with sin? (not the capability to sin in life, but sin itself)

At what age a person "knows" of course varies from person to person. The depth of that "know" also varies. Is your 4 year old knowingly violating God? Does she even have a concept of immorality? Or is she following an inborn survival instinct? Children are as animals that must be taught. They do not yet have that inner voice of right and wrong toward others. Everything they do is for ME. Sin comes when you truely know what is morally correct and you say to yourself, "I know this is against the good that lives within me, but I'm going to do it anyway." That decision happens at different ages and with different knowledge of God and Creation and the Creator.

If you say sin comes from the moment of conception, then how does a zygot believe? Do you preach the "name" to the ovaries? How does a single cell without a brain or tongue call out to God and ask to be forgiven for........what? So when do you think the first sin comes? With the first lie? OK, then a baby is still without sin.

I grew up witn Missouri Synod Lutherans that believed a baby had to be baptised out of the womb. If a baby died at birth the parents were told the baby would burn in hell forever. I still cannot imagine a belief so cruel as to tell such a thing to grieving parents.

My God is a God of love. My God says if parents understand how to give good things, God knows how to give good things. My God is a God that understands the motive of an action. If the motive is not one of intentional immoral action, then how can it be sin?

If you really believe that hell will be filled with the screaming of babies and children, I hope that someday you also will find a God of love.

I do believe there is an "age of acountability" before that a child is too young to understand what is right and wrong. I don't know when that age is, nor do I have any scriptural backing for this belief. I could for all I know believe it just so that I can sleep at night.

If you don't accept that Jesus existed and was available before 30AD then you don't accept that Noah, Elijah, Elisha, Moses, Jacob, Israel, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Job, and countless others that God showed had great faith, belief, and respect for had a chance.


If you research Hebrew beliefs of the Mosaic period, for example, you'll find that the Hebrews of the time did not consider a 'heaven' for themselves, or even for their prophets. Indeed, Enoch is the only Hebrew who is detailed as being given some 'heavenly afterlife', because he was translated directly to God's side.


God didn't take them into heaven because they didn't say a name that didn't exist at the time. (And by the way is mistranslated in English so you are using the wrong name also)


I'm not using the 'wrong name', my friend... I am using the commonly accepted version of the name. I could refer to Yeshua, and the meaning would be the same. I could refer to Messiah, and the Christian understanding would be identical (although the Jewish reader would see contradiction).


Rom 1:20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and diety, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles............

This and others clearly state that from the beginning of creation everyone had a choice because they could see that part of God which was to become Jesus in the things that were made. Most chose to follow other objects rather than follow that which was clearly before them.



Which is all very pretty, but irrelevent, if, indeed, the ONLY way to heaven is to (not only accept Jesus, but) actually 'believe on' Jesus.


As for children---Show me ONE place where you can sin without choice. Sin is always a choice. If you kill someone by accident, that is NOT a sin. If you scream for help as you are being raped, the sex outside of marriage is not a sin. Go through the list of sins---find one you can commit without choice. A child cannot choose. A child is without sin. If you are as innocent as a child you are a part of heaven. Become like a child and you are a part of heaven. Find ONE time in the Bible where Jesus or God says that a child has sinned. Don't just repeat what you have been taught. Defend your answer with the teachings of the Bible. Don't use lessons for adults when talking of children. WHERE is a child described as committing sin?

First - I recommend you go back to your Bible... I believe you are misunderstanding the 'rape laws'... or, at least, missing some of the content.

I'm still waiting for a verse which explains how children are part of heaven... which makes it all the more ironic that you think me 'repeating what I have been taught' (which is even funnier, if you've spent any time debating Christian religion with me, I think)... and more ironic that you keep pressing me to show Biblical justification.

As for sins that can be commited 'without choice', Proverbs lists several that could be 'accidentally' committed by children: A proud look; a lying tongue; a heart that devises wicked imaginations; feet that are swift in running to mischief; a false witness that spreads lies; he that soweth discord among the brethren - all of which are considered 'abominations'... and yet, all of which COULD be committed accidentally.

As to references to children committing sins - Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that 'disobedience' in a child is, not ONLY a sin, but one to be repayed by stoning the child to death, along with all your neighbours.

My God is a God of love. My God says if parents understand how to give good things, God knows how to give good things. My God is a God that understands the motive of an action. If the motive is not one of intentional immoral action, then how can it be sin?

If you really believe that hell will be filled with the screaming of babies and children, I hope that someday you also will find a God of love.

Sounds like a good god to me.

If only it could be reconciled with the one detailed in the Bible.

Sounds like a good god to me.

If only it could be reconciled with the one detailed in the Bible.

I think that when the conditions of the present are compared with the conditions of a people who were constantly under threat of attack from violent neighbors, who believed that conquest was the normal and expected response to anything that did not please them, then the picture is easier to understand. The God that is depicted in the OT and the teachings of Jesus do seem radicaly different. This is more a function of the dangerous conditions of the time than a different God.

I think that when the conditions of the present are compared with the conditions of a people who were constantly under threat of attack from violent neighbors, who believed that conquest was the normal and expected response to anything that did not please them, then the picture is easier to understand. The God that is depicted in the OT and the teachings of Jesus do seem radicaly different. This is more a function of the dangerous conditions of the time than a different God.

This is maybe so.... but there is a difference between being wary of other people, for example, and riding ploughs across the bodies of the women and children of cities you burn to the ground.

The God of the Bible is many things.... a 'god of love' is not one that easily fits the descriptions given in scripture.

Oh sure - he has his moments... but for a god that says that 'all things are possible', that claims there is only one 'unforgivable sin', and that promises the believer that EVERY prayer will be fulfilled, there is no 'love' in the altar sacrifice of his own incarnate flesh.

This is maybe so.... but there is a difference between being wary of other people, for example, and riding ploughs across the bodies of the women and children of cities you burn to the ground.

The God of the Bible is many things.... a 'god of love' is not one that easily fits the descriptions given in scripture.

Oh sure - he has his moments... but for a god that says that 'all things are possible', that claims there is only one 'unforgivable sin', and that promises the believer that EVERY prayer will be fulfilled, there is no 'love' in the altar sacrifice of his own incarnate flesh.

With the coming Jesus the first time we see from His words a very different response to the world around His believers. This is a radical change from what you speak of in the OT. Now either there are two gods represented or one God that is asking people to change, to turn the other cheek instead of and eye for an eye. It seems to me that it is logically impossible for there to be two Creators, then there must be one God who is asking creation to change, grow and develop new response to threats.

If we see this material world as the important world then it is correct to see the sacrifice of Jesus as loveless. There are other views on how this can be interpreted. The end was the begining. The physical body is left behind. The soul lives forever. Incarnate flesh if you will; but I find that part of Christian theolgy difficult to swallow.

With the coming Jesus the first time we see from His words a very different response to the world around His believers. This is a radical change from what you speak of in the OT. Now either there are two gods represented or one God that is asking people to change, to turn the other cheek instead of and eye for an eye. It seems to me that it is logically impossible for there to be two Creators, then there must be one God who is asking creation to change, grow and develop new response to threats.

If we see this material world as the important world then it is correct to see the sacrifice of Jesus as loveless. There are other views on how this can be interpreted. The end was the begining. The physical body is left behind. The soul lives forever. Incarnate flesh if you will; but I find that part of Christian theolgy difficult to swallow.

I suggest you convert to Atheism. Atheism is a highly secretive religion devoted to private worship of the all powerful god Athe. When you die, Atheists believe that your soul is weighed and measured by one's actions in life, and is sent to Las Vegas or Southend depending on how much of a dick one has been.

I am in a discussion about the ways to reach heaven according the Christian faith on another board. One guy (a catholic) claims that God will accept people who do not have knowledge about Jesus, even though he admits that this is not stated in the Bible.

He bases this on teachings that are passed alongside of the Bible and defends this by claiming that a 'sola scriptura' stance as the Prostestants have would be absurd (for various reasons).

He also accuses Protestants of subscribing to a false doctrine.

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?

No.

I suggest you convert to Atheism. Atheism is a highly secretive religion devoted to private worship of the all powerful god Athe. When you die, Atheists believe that your soul is weighed and measured by one's actions in life, and is sent to Las Vegas or Southend depending on how much of a dick one has been.


Thanks for the invite but I am quite happy where I am. It is now way past my bedtime and I am off to bed.

O SON OF LOVE!
Thou art but one step away from the glorious heights above and from the celestial tree of love. Take thou one pace and with the next advance into the immortal realm and enter the pavilion of eternity. Give ear then to that which hath been revealed by the pen of glory.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

With the coming Jesus the first time we see from His words a very different response to the world around His believers. This is a radical change from what you speak of in the OT. Now either there are two gods represented or one God that is asking people to change, to turn the other cheek instead of and eye for an eye. It seems to me that it is logically impossible for there to be two Creators, then there must be one God who is asking creation to change, grow and develop new response to threats.

If we see this material world as the important world then it is correct to see the sacrifice of Jesus as loveless. There are other views on how this can be interpreted. The end was the begining. The physical body is left behind. The soul lives forever. Incarnate flesh if you will; but I find that part of Christian theolgy difficult to swallow.

How is it even vaguely illogical for there to be two creators?

Surely, if you can accept that there can be one 'creator', there is nothing illogical about assuming there COULD be MORE than one.

Indeed, whenever we encounter one of anything in our world, we usually assume that it is the first of a number, rather than isolate and unique.

In our everyday life, we encounter so many things that have 'more than one creator'... it is almost the standard for things to be made by groups or collectives. Even most of our great art was created by artists in collaboration.

Not to mention the fact that, if one reads the Hebrew bible, there is plenty of room in Genesis to read multiple Gods. Even the very first comments about creation use terms that imply limited geographies, for example. And, there are also other references to other 'entities' buried in the language.

And, of course, there are other biblical references to other gods... that HAVE made it through the 'translation' barrier.

I don't see any way in which 'one Creator' is any MORE logical than 'MANY Creators'... quite the inverse, if anything.

And, of course, there are other biblical references to other gods... that HAVE made it through the 'translation' barrier.


That's quite interesting. Could you give some examples?

That's quite interesting. Could you give some examples?

Well, there are literally dozens of references to gods, throughout the Bible... but most of them can be written off (as most Christians seem willing to do) as references to false idols... because of the way in which they are written:

e.g.:

Amos 5:26 "But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chi'un your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves".

The text makes it immediately clear that the God is an idol, carved by the worshippers. Thus - the Biblical text attempts to belittle the entity, by claiming it as nothing more than a statue.

(Of course, in the case of Amos 5:26, the native text didn't mention "Moloch" at all.... indeed, it describes "Succoth", which is a place, not a god).

However, there are other situations, where gods are mentioned as being existant, WITHOUT the claims to their falseness:

e.g.:

Second Chronicles 2:5 "And the house which I build is great: for great is our God above all gods".

(an admission that there are other gods...)

Second Chronicles 7:19 "But if ye turn away, and forsake my statutes and my commandments, which I have set before you, and shall go and serve other gods, and worship them..."

(again, an admission, since it doesn't deny the reality of other gods...)

Daniel 2:11 "And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is none other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh".

(an explicit acceptance of multiple gods, as non-corporeal beings..)

Daniel 4:8-9 "But at the last Daniel came in before me, whose name was Belteshaz'zar, according to the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods: and before him I told the dream, saying, O Belteshaz'zar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof".

(another explicit acceptance... )

Daniel 11:36 "And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done".

(again, gods are acepted as 'real'... although, obviously, Yahweh is the greatest of them...)

Deuteronomy 5:7-8 "Thou shalt have none other gods before me... Thou shalt not make thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters beneath the earth"

(There is no point in decrying other gods 'before me', if there are no other gods. Similarly, what is a "likeness of any thing that is in heaven", if there are no other heavenly beings?)

Deuteronomy 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward"

(Once again, 'god' is the first among 'gods'... a tacit acceptance of other gods... otherwise it is a meaningless title...)

Exodus 12:12 "For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD".

(so - even 'god' accepts that the Egyptians have gods...)

Exodus 15:11 "Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods..."

(another tacit admission of other gods...)

Ezra 1:7 "Also Cyrus the king brought forth the vessels of the house of the LORD, which Nebuchadnez'zar had brought forth out of Jerusalem, and had put them in the house of his gods"

(These gods are no disclaimed as idols...)

Joshua 22:22 "The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)"

(More of those titles.... a 'god of gods' is an admission of other gods...)

Psalms 82:1 "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods".

(an absolute admission of other gods... here, they are the company of 'god'...)

Psalms 95:3 "For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods".

(again... a 'god of gods' requires that other 'gods' be real...)

Psalms 138:1 "I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee".

(... 'the gods', accepted as an audience before which Yahweh is to be proclaimed...)

I could continue.... and these are JUST the ones that made it through translation...

*snip*

Wow, that's quite a lot of quotes, I didn't expect that much.

Thanks a ton. :)

If you research Hebrew beliefs of the Mosaic period, for example, you'll find that the Hebrews of the time did not consider a 'heaven' for themselves, or even for their prophets. Indeed, Enoch is the only Hebrew who is detailed as being given some 'heavenly afterlife', because he was translated directly to God's side.

2 Kings 2:11 Did Elijah call out the name "Jesus"?



I'm not using the 'wrong name', my friend... I am using the commonly accepted version of the name. I could refer to Yeshua, and the meaning would be the same. I could refer to Messiah, and the Christian understanding would be identical (although the Jewish reader would see contradiction).


So a group of people can pick out a name and commonly use it? If the "meaning would be the same", why couldn't someone see Jesus in creation and call upon him with a name of understanding?



Which is all very pretty, but irrelevent, if, indeed, the ONLY way to heaven is to (not only accept Jesus, but) actually 'believe on' Jesus.

You can only "believe on" a person who lived for 30 years and ignore the infinity to the rest of it's existance?




I'm still waiting for a verse which explains how children are part of heaven... which makes it all the more ironic that you think me 'repeating what I have been taught' (which is even funnier, if you've spent any time debating Christian religion with me, I think)... and more ironic that you keep pressing me to show Biblical justification.


I listed my quotes a long time back but I'll repeat for you.

Mat 18:1-6, 10 19:14 Mark9:37 10:14-15 "to such belongs the kingdom of God" Lk9:48 18:16-17


As for sins that can be commited 'without choice', Proverbs lists several that could be 'accidentally' committed by children: A proud look; a lying tongue; a heart that devises wicked imaginations; feet that are swift in running to mischief; a false witness that spreads lies; he that soweth discord among the brethren - all of which are considered 'abominations'... and yet, all of which COULD be committed accidentally.

Choose to put yourself at a higher level than others; Choose to lie; Choose to concentrate on the wicked; Choose to keep your heart on wicked thoughts; Choose to go to wicked things; choose to get others into trouble falsely; Choose to cause division among believers (how could a child do that?)

Sounds like all things that an older person could do not a young child that is unaware that these things exist.


As to references to children committing sins - Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that 'disobedience' in a child is, not ONLY a sin, but one to be repayed by stoning the child to death, along with all your neighbours.

Read the whole thing---21:20 "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.

This is a young child? The father (or eldest male family member) is responsible to the tribe to make sure everyone aids the survival of the tribe. They could not afford a young man that was taking from the tribe but not contributing. He was putting the entire tribe in danger. A CHILD could not do this.


Try again.

Wow, that's quite a lot of quotes, I didn't expect that much.

Thanks a ton. :)

Most welcome... as I said, I don't doubt for a second that I could find the same number again.... if I had the time, and put my mind to it. :)

And, there are far more references hidden. For example - I don't recall the KJV ever actually translating the word 'ephod'. Suffice it to say, every time you find the word 'ephod' in the Bible, you are actually reading about a sacred phallic fertility symbol.

2 Kings 2:11 Did Elijah call out the name "Jesus"?


Glad you brought that up... I'd been thinking about that after I said that Enoch was the only one translated. Elijah is also translated.

But, he is translated the same was as Enoch - although with perhaps different details.... both are translated directly. (And, commonly believed to have become angels.... Snadalphon and Metatron are, I believe, the angelic forms they are believed to have assumed).


So a group of people can pick out a name and commonly use it? If the "meaning would be the same", why couldn't someone see Jesus in creation and call upon him with a name of understanding?


Because that is seeing the evidence of the creator, not 'believing on the son of god'.


You can only "believe on" a person who lived for 30 years and ignore the infinity to the rest of it's existance?


It's not my problem, I didn't make the system.

You don't like it, I suggest you take it up with 'god'... he made it that way.


I listed my quotes a long time back but I'll repeat for you.

Mat 18:1-6, 10 19:14 Mark9:37 10:14-15 "to such belongs the kingdom of God" Lk9:48 18:16-17


Ah - I see. Too much to ask that you actually post them, I assume?

Since they are not here, and I can't be bothered right now, to hunt them down... I guess I can ignore the references.

Sorry, my friend, but I have other things to do.

If you honestly believe you have a quote WORTH posting, please, post it... and then I'll respond to it. But, I'm not going to go play 'hunt the verse', just so I can argue against your assertions.

If for NO other reason that, I want to see how YOU support the significance of the passage...


Choose to put yourself at a higher level than others; Choose to lie; Choose to concentrate on the wicked; Choose to keep your heart on wicked thoughts; Choose to go to wicked things; choose to get others into trouble falsely; Choose to cause division among believers (how could a child do that?)

Sounds like all things that an older person could do not a young child that is unaware that these things exist.


Rubbish.

One assumes you have no children.


Read the whole thing---21:20 "This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.

This is a young child? The father (or eldest male family member) is responsible to the tribe to make sure everyone aids the survival of the tribe. They could not afford a young man that was taking from the tribe but not contributing. He was putting the entire tribe in danger. A CHILD could not do this.

Try again.

The age is not specified. What IS specified is that rebellion in children is a sin. Thus, every time a child (of ANY age) disobeys his/her parent, it is a sin.

Ah - I see. Too much to ask that you actually post them, I assume?

Since they are not here, and I can't be bothered right now, to hunt them down... I guess I can ignore the references.

Sorry, my friend, but I have other things to do.

If you honestly believe you have a quote WORTH posting, please, post it... and then I'll respond to it. But, I'm not going to go play 'hunt the verse', just so I can argue against your assertions.

If for NO other reason that, I want to see how YOU support the significance of the passage...


Thought you probably owned a Bible and didn't want to waste so much space. I think the plain reading says it all without explaination.

WHERE ARE YOUR SUPPORTING QUOTES?????

Mat 18:1-6At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kindom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Mat 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven".

Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

Mark9:36 And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives not me but him who sent me."

10:14-15 But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."

Lk9:47 But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side, and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great."

Lk18:16 But Jesus called them to him saying, "Let the children cone to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


Rubbish.

One assumes you have no children.


I have three children--21, 18, 15


The age is not specified. What IS specified is that rebellion in children is a sin. Thus, every time a child (of ANY age) disobeys his/her parent, it is a sin.
A child is glutenous and a drunkard? You are really stretching to defend that one.

The age is not specified. What IS specified is that rebellion in children is a sin. Thus, every time a child (of ANY age) disobeys his/her parent, it is a sin.
A child is gluttonous and a drunkard? You are really stretching to defend that one.
You've never seen fat kids? Or heard of children getting arrested for possesion of alcohol? Also consider that it is unlikely that there were laws against 'minors' drinking back then, and even if there were that certainl;y doesn't mean that everyone obeyed them.

Thought you probably owned a Bible and didn't want to waste so much space. I think the plain reading says it all without explaination.


patronising much? Yes my friend... I have a copy or two lying around. However, my time at the computer is fairly limited at the moment, and I'm not about to go looking for YOUR evidence for you.


WHERE ARE YOUR SUPPORTING QUOTES?????


This is a joke, right? Or - have you ignored the last few pages of the thread?


Mat 18:1-6At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them, and said, "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kindom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.


The point is that the child is humble. The point is that the child is NOT proud, and self-satisified... as many of the professed 'believers' were.

This is the recurrent element, which is why I wanted you to post your sources. Pay careful attention to the wording.



Mat 18:10 "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven".


I'm not even sure HOW you believe this one supports your claim.



Mat 19:14 But Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."


To 'such' belongs the kingdom of heaven. To those who are childlike. To those who are humble. He's covered this before. You must pay attention to the wording, my friend - not just try to fit it to your agenda.



Mark9:36 And he took a child, and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them, "Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; and whoever receives me receives not me but him who sent me."


Again - not sure entirely how you see this supporting your platform. If you accept a child in Jesus' name, you are accepting Jesus. This harks back to his comments about hospitality, I think - and the ACTUAL sin of Sodom.



10:14-15 But when Jesus saw it he was indignant, and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


Again - to 'such' belongs the kingdom of heaven... and this time, to explain it, he goes into a little more detail. He explains what 'to such' means: "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child"... that is, humble, not self-serving, not self-satisfied.



Lk9:47 But when Jesus perceived the thought of their hearts, he took a child and put him by his side, and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me; for he who is least among you all is the one who is great."


Again - I'm think hospitality. I don't see how you believe this supports your agenda... there is nothing here that matches your claim.



Lk18:16 But Jesus called them to him saying, "Let the children cone to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."


Another one of those that comes close to what you want it to say... but again, you are denied. To 'such', he states... and then, again, explains what that means: "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it".

I could maybe understand if you were missing the meaning, and it was in an explanation several verses away... but when it is made explicit IN THE SAME VERSE... I just don't know how you miss it?



I have three children--21, 18, 15


And yet, you claim never to have seen a single instance of a youngster lying?



A child is glutenous...

I do not think that means what you think it means, my friend.


...and a drunkard? You are really stretching to defend that one.

No. Not at all... as I have pointed out, you are picking the 'details' of the case, rather than the 'law' that is behind it.

The point is, rebellion in a child is sin. Which, given the 'honour your father and mother' type laws, pretty much SHOULD be a given... I wonder how you keep missing it?

The verse I posted clearly illustrates that disobedience is a sin... indeed, of such magnitude, that it deserves being stoned to death.

Let me point you in the direction of First Samuel 15:23... which clearly states: "...For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry..."

One assumes you also know Exodus 22:18 "...Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live..."

Clearly - the age of the youth is unimportant... as is the specific bad behaviour... alcohol and gluttony are irrelevent. What is important is that: if your child is disobedient or stubborn, he/she is (according to Biblical laws) commiting sin... of such magnitude, it is your Christian duty to have them brutally slain.

Sorry, didn't read too carefully.

The Bible says that the ONLY way is through Jesus? Can you give me a quote?

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You don't know your religious doctrine at all.

Sadly, this is often the case. Most people's knowledge of the LDS church comes from second-, third-, fourth- or further-hand accounts of bits and pieces. I'm in no position to comment on the state of knowledge of the original commenter, but in the vast majority of cases, what they think they know is wrong or at best half-right.

Mormons(Church odf Jesus Christ of Latterday Saint thank you very much) are the antithesis of Only us can go to heaven. Heck we think all sinners who have not knowledge are going to heaven. Lowest kingdom maybe, but definately Heaven.

I was going to say this if no one else did. Instead, I'll clarify it (with simplified terminology, no glossary required):

Only Mormons (sorry, Nosas) can achieve the highest level of heaven. This isn't actually unreasonable, any more than saying 'Only those who answer all the questions correctly can get the highest grades in their exam' is. I don't know everything about non-British education systems, but I assume that doing well on tests is generally a factor in getting good results.

However, to carry on the test analogy, it's not a case of all-or-nothing. There's no mark where you drop from 'brilliant success' to 'utter failure'. In Britain, say in A-levels, you can get anything from an A through to an E before you fail.

To go back to the original point, Mormonism has four possible 'results'. The top one is for those who get full marks - that is, do what they're supposed to and are basically Good Mormons. The next is for anyone else classed under Good People. The next one down is for virtually everyone else, mass murderers and so forth included. Note that all three of these are far better than what we've got at the moment.

The last stage is... well:

You have to pull a Judas or a Cain to get to Outer Darkness. (Otherwise called Hell by other Christians).

As I understand it, to reach this stage you have to have absolute knowledge of the existence of God - not just faith, which is all the vast majority of us can ever have - and still actively work against him. I'd actually disagree with Nosas on the subject of Judas ending up there, but that's another debate.

So, to restate: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is actually one of the most forgiving Christian denominations... provided you know enough about it.

Mormon knickname makes no sense anyway. It would be like calling Christians New Testamentals because they brought the New Testament.

Actually, it makes a sort of sense. Christians are defined by using a scripture focussing on Christ. Mormons use a scripture written by (all right, summarised by) Mormon (for the most part). It's the same as calling Christians, Jews and Muslims as a group Abrahamic religions, as it's something they all have in common (and yes, I have run across this usage somewhere).

'Mormon', however, covers more than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also embraces the FLDS, the RDLS (now Community of Christ), and all the other sub-denominations that accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. So, it's a useful 'group' term - perhaps alongside Catholic and Protestant - but should not be used to refer specifically to the LDS church. I've only used it as such in my explanation because it's common terminology that people will understand (and, possibly, because all the Mormon churches believe roughly the same thing, but on that I'm not sure).

The above two paragraphs are likely of little interest to any non-LDS readers. With that aside, what was the original question?

My question: Isn't accusing others of subscribing to a false doctrine a sin?

I think this one's actually been adequately answered, but: It depends on the context. If a church is (say) telling people that the only way to get to heaven is to cut off your own ears, and claiming that this is in the Bible, then we can completely objectively say that they're talking rubbish. That's not judgement, just a statement of fact. If it's a more ambiguous issue (not gonna name one) then I'd say still no, because it's not making a judgement call - you're not weighing up the two versions and deciding that one is wrong. Or rather, you are, but you're likely to be completely convinced of the correctness of your own viewpoint. You're not even accepting the possibility of error. That's ignorance, that's closed-mindedness, that's a pretty bad thing, but I don't believe it's classified as a sin. I may be wrong.

The point is that the child is humble. The point is that the child is NOT proud, and self-satisified... as many of the professed 'believers' were.

This is the recurrent element, which is why I wanted you to post your sources. Pay careful attention to the wording.

To 'such' belongs the kingdom of heaven. To those who are childlike. To those who are humble. He's covered this before. You must pay attention to the wording, my friend - not just try to fit it to your agenda.

Again - not sure entirely how you see this supporting your platform. If you accept a child in Jesus' name, you are accepting Jesus. This harks back to his comments about hospitality, I think - and the ACTUAL sin of Sodom.


Again - to 'such' belongs the kingdom of heaven... and this time, to explain it, he goes into a little more detail. He explains what 'to such' means: "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child"... that is, humble, not self-serving, not self-satisfied.

Again - I'm think hospitality. I don't see how you believe this supports your agenda... there is nothing here that matches your claim.

Another one of those that comes close to what you want it to say... but again, you are denied. To 'such', he states... and then, again, explains what that means: "whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it".

I could maybe understand if you were missing the meaning, and it was in an explanation several verses away... but when it is made explicit IN THE SAME VERSE... I just don't know how you miss it?

Either I'm totally missing your logic or you are missing mine. A child cannot help but be 'such' as a child. Therefore a child is childlike. Therefore a child comes to the creator 'such' as a child. Therefore a child is 'such' as a child. Therefore as you said, anyone 'such' as a child is accepted. Therefore, a child is accepted by your own arguement.




And yet, you claim never to have seen a single instance of a youngster lying?

Sure children lie, but not out of hatred or immorality. As I said above, children are as animals, they have no sense of right and wrong. They are as Adam and Eve in the garden, they have not yet partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Until they partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they are without sin. At some time in their life they choose, as we all do to eat that fruit. At that moment, they need to answer to God, as Adam and Eve did.


No. Not at all... as I have pointed out, you are picking the 'details' of the case, rather than the 'law' that is behind it.

The point is, rebellion in a child is sin. Which, given the 'honour your father and mother' type laws, pretty much SHOULD be a given... I wonder how you keep missing it?

The verse I posted clearly illustrates that disobedience is a sin... indeed, of such magnitude, that it deserves being stoned to death.


The detail of who is being spoken of IS all important. My 21 year old is still my child. It would be a sin for her not to honor and respect me. When she was 4 she disobeyed but not out of disrespect. She disobeyed out of an animal instinct to demand everything immediately.
When I go out to feed my cows they use their heads to butt the sack so the cubes go flying. That way they get them without waiting for me to evenly distribute them. The cows don't disrespect me or fail to honor me, they are just being animals. In the same way a child is just an animal when it comes to morality.


Let me point you in the direction of First Samuel 15:23... which clearly states: "...For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry..."

Don't have a clue what you were trying to say. This has to do with Saul not killing all the sheep as ordered. Maybe you should type out the whole thing as you insist I do.



One assumes you also know Exodus 22:18 "...Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live..."

Don't know any children who are witches, do you? Harry Potter aside. :rolleyes:


Clearly - the age of the youth is unimportant... as is the specific bad behaviour... alcohol and gluttony are irrelevent. What is important is that: if your child is disobedient or stubborn, he/she is (according to Biblical laws) commiting sin... of such magnitude, it is your Christian duty to have them brutally slain.
Age is important. Jesus said that you must be 'such' as a child. Who does a better job of that than a child? Your examples all relate to sins that an adult child/person would do--not your 4 year old. They are all sins that the person must choose to do. You cannot sin by accident. You must choose to sin. A child doesn't have the knowledge of good and evil to choose any more than an animal has that choice.

Either I'm totally missing your logic or you are missing mine. A child cannot help but be 'such' as a child. Therefore a child is childlike. Therefore a child comes to the creator 'such' as a child.


You are totally missing my logic, I'm afraid... because your argument rests NOT on logic, but on 'feeling'.

'Such' as a child, is a CONDITION.

The OTHER condition, the one that Jesus never refutes or removes, so one MUST assume he means it when he says it: is that the person MUST 'believe on him' to know the kingdom of heaven.

Thus - a child, being 'childlike' CAN enter the kingdom, IF he/she can actually have the capacity to 'believe on' Jesus... AND can maintain the 'childish' humbleness and lack of self-satisfaction.

The SAME requirements that are required for an adult.

Nowhere does it say that BEING a child, is any kind of 'other route' to the kingdom. That is just not scriptural... although it doesn't feel nice to have to admit it.


Therefore a child is 'such' as a child. Therefore as you said, anyone 'such' as a child is accepted. Therefore, a child is accepted by your own arguement.



Please don't misrepresent what I have stated. A child is only 'such a child' is an much as they conform to the childlike necessity of humbleness. I did NOT say "anyone 'such' as a child is accepted"... I have maintained that the childlike quality of humbleness is required...but not the ONLY requirement.

Thus - "Therefore, a child is accepted by your own arguement"... is not only untrue, but also a misrepresentation of half of the logic of the argument.


Sure children lie, but not out of hatred or immorality. As I said above, children are as animals, they have no sense of right and wrong. They are as Adam and Eve in the garden, they have not yet partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Until they partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they are without sin. At some time in their life they choose, as we all do to eat that fruit. At that moment, they need to answer to God, as Adam and Eve did.


Not at all, my friend. Catholics use the concept of 'original sin'... but the same concept is actually present in scripture ASIDE from that.

There are two ways to walk the world, my friend:

One can "walk in the spirit", which requires an understanding, a recognition, and an acceptance. None of which are of the childish capacity, I feel... especially since you seem to view children as equivalent to animals.

Or, one can "walk in the flesh", which is the natural state to which we are born. The flesh is, inherently carnal... inherently sinful. It is ONLY by "walking in the spirit" that we can allay that carnality, that sinfullness.

We are born sinners, my friend... BECAUSE we are flesh, and flesh IS sin.

So - until a child learns to 'fight' their own flesh, they are an unreprentent sinner.

And, they are burning in hell for all eternity.

So sayeth the scripture.


The detail of who is being spoken of IS all important. My 21 year old is still my child. It would be a sin for her not to honor and respect me. When she was 4 she disobeyed but not out of disrespect. She disobeyed out of an animal instinct to demand everything immediately.
When I go out to feed my cows they use their heads to butt the sack so the cubes go flying. That way they get them without waiting for me to evenly distribute them. The cows don't disrespect me or fail to honor me, they are just being animals. In the same way a child is just an animal when it comes to morality.


I don't accept that children are animals, or their equivalents... and I'd be inclined to see you scriptural support.

Unless, of course, you mean PURELY in scientific terms... in which case, I agree wholeheartedly.

Animals cannot achieve salvation. A child CAN 'earn' salvation, through belief. Thus, there is NO (scriptural) parallel.


Don't have a clue what you were trying to say. This has to do with Saul not killing all the sheep as ordered. Maybe you should type out the whole thing as you insist I do.


I insisted you post quotes, rather than line numbers. I posted the quote... what was wrong with it?

The context is rebellion. He refused to do as he was told. He 'rebelled'. He did not 'honour' the command of his father... and he is told that the sin of rebellion "IS AS WITCHCRAFT"... which is an abomination against God, and, therefore, a crime punishable by death.

I'll post half the surrounding verses, if you think it helps, but I think it is using time and space to no avail:

First Samuel 15:20-25 "And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the LORD, and have gone the way which the LORD sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Am'alek, and have utterly destroyed the Amal'ekites. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the LORD thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice... Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD".

Even in the context of the surrounding verses, the meaning is clear... to disobey is a terrible sin.... to 'rebel' is a sin equivalent to 'witchcraft', with all that entails.

If you want to refute that - you are going to need to find a SCRIPTURAL refutation, are you not?


Don't know any children who are witches, do you? Harry Potter aside. :rolleyes:


Harry Potter is a 'wizard', not a witch. If you are going to reference cultural icons, you might as well be accurate.

Do I know children that are witches.... that depends... can a child ACTUALLY be any religion? If a child can be "Christian", then a child can be a "witch".

On the other hand, if, as I do, you hold that child really lack the capacity for a religion... at least until they gain a degree of maturity... then children can be neither witches NOR Christians.... although they can be 'raised' in either practise.


Age is important. Jesus said that you must be 'such' as a child. Who does a better job of that than a child? Your examples all relate to sins that an adult child/person would do--not your 4 year old. They are all sins that the person must choose to do. You cannot sin by accident. You must choose to sin. A child doesn't have the knowledge of good and evil to choose any more than an animal has that choice.

Totally unscriptural.

This is 'feel-good Christianity'... or what the evangelist Lester Roloff used to refer to as 'caspar milktoast' Christianity.

You 'believe' this because it is 'nicer' to believe it... but it is not scripture.

The flesh IS sinful. It is ONLY by walking in the spirit that we can walk in any other way than the sinful path.... and we ALL sin.

If a child didn't NEED Jesus, then the only HUMANE thing to do, would be to abort ALL foetuses... so we could guarantee EVERY child the kingdom of heaven.

Even in the context of the surrounding verses, the meaning is clear... to disobey is a terrible sin.... to 'rebel' is a sin equivalent to 'witchcraft', with all that entails.

Unfortunately, the specific case you're citing is rebellion against God. Not against your parents. You'd be better off citing the fact that 'Honour thy father and thy mother' is a commandment deemed equal, judging by its placement in the scripture, to 'thou shalt not kill'. Whether you take it as 'honour their wishes' or 'bring honour to their name', obeying them when they're not being unreasonable is fairly implicit in that.

Unfortunately, the specific case you're citing is rebellion against God. Not against your parents. You'd be better off citing the fact that 'Honour thy father and thy mother' is a commandment deemed equal, judging by its placement in the scripture, to 'thou shalt not kill'. Whether you take it as 'honour their wishes' or 'bring honour to their name', obeying them when they're not being unreasonable is fairly implicit in that.

Since God has handed down a commandment that requires the child to honour his father and mother...

Since God, in a very real sense, is considered 'father' (and, indeed, mother) to all...

Thus, to rebel against ones parents is an 'abomination against God'.

Rebellion IS an abomination... both because it is implicit in the stated verse, AND because it is the logical derivative of Mosaic Law.

Also - it is perhaps worth mentioning that it is not necessary for the parents to be 'not being unreasonable'. There are those who would view the sacrifice of a son as 'unreasonable'. There are some who would consider commanding someone to have sex with their recently deceased brothers' widow to be 'unreasonable'

'Being reasonable' has been given pretty short shrift in the scripture. It is OBEDIENCE that counts.

It's been fun debating, but we are at impass. For the life of me I can't see how a child can be other than a child. I didn't see you give any support for "original sin" which is the concept that sex is evil so conception itself comes from evil. You argue that all children are lost because they are given a requirement that is impossible for a child to fulfill, yet God says that all have a chance (except for children who die early?) You require that a child has the same ability to decide as the God chosen King of Israel.
On the other hand, if, as I do, you hold that child really lack the capacity for a religion You make a requirement for belief but then say that a child has a lack of capacity for religion. If a child didn't NEED Jesus, then the only HUMANE thing to do, would be to abort ALL foetuses... so we could guarantee EVERY child the kingdom of heaven. Actually this would be true, but woe to the person who does it as a sin against a child is a direct sin against God.

I may be in a "feel good" religion. But I can find direct proof of my belief without stretching the words.

I feel sorrow for a person in a "feel bad" religion that is surrounded by the evil of children and other lost souls that don't have a chance to know God. Souls taken from the earth without being old enough or educated enough to fit the exact rules.

Isn't it interesting that even Jesus and the apostles didn't follow all of the rules. They "worked" and "healed" on the Sabath. I guess if Jesus can bend the rules on those things, he can bend them for children.

Thanks for the debate. Maybe we'll meet on the podium again.

The Bible says there is one way to the Father and it is Jesus Christ. (In fact Jesus says that);)
No, that is NOT FACT, it's FALLACY.

Before you go professing some kind of devotion at the VERY least familiarize yourself with your (errant) source material.

John 14:6:

KJV (which predates NIV and Living)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Living
Jesus told him, "I am the Way - yes, and the Truth and the Life. No one can get to the Father except by means of me.
(interesting - get to the father? :sniper: )

NRSV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

Also, you are breaking the 9th Commandment, in a way. Consider shame.

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." -- John 14:6 (NKJV)

The NEW King James Version? :rolleyes:
I'll further clarify that each version was different specifically on this point of contention, and not by accident.

It's been fun debating, but we are at impass. For the life of me I can't see how a child can be other than a child.


That isn't the point. The point is to be childlike (which a child IS), but ALSO to believe on Jesus (which a young child cannot do).

I didn't see you give any support for "original sin" which is the concept that sex is evil so conception itself comes from evil.


No. Original Sin is the sin passed on FROM Adam, and the consequence of that sin. We are exiles from Eden BECAUSE of Original Sin. Were we no longer under the ban of Original Sin, we would be able to regain paradise.

All human flesh is tainted by the sin of Adam, even the unborn. Thus - we are born into sin.

But - as I pointed out, Original Sin is almost sideline here.... since the 'flesh' is intrinsically 'carnal'. So - until a person LEARNS to 'walk in the spirit', we are sinful flesh, with no atonement or absolution.

You argue that all children are lost because they are given a requirement that is impossible for a child to fulfill, yet God says that all have a chance (except for children who die early?) You require that a child has the same ability to decide as the God chosen King of Israel.


It isn't my requirement. It is scriptural.

If you don't like it, take it up with the scripture, with the man who said it (that Jesus fellow), or with 'god'.

You make a requirement for belief but then say that a child has a lack of capacity for religion.


Again - not my doing. I didn't make the system.

But, it IS scriptural.

Actually this would be true, but woe to the person who does it as a sin against a child is a direct sin against God.


And yet, Jesus said "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13).

So - losing your own salvation, but giving salvation to all those innocents COULD be considered the greatest act of 'love' a person could ever show.

Or, do you consider your OWN salvation WORTH the damnation of millions of infants?

I may be in a "feel good" religion. But I can find direct proof of my belief without stretching the words.


No - you still ahven't managed to, I'm afraid.

Your version of religion can ONLY exist, because it is non-scriptural, and chooses to ignore that fact.

I feel sorrow for a person in a "feel bad" religion that is surrounded by the evil of children and other lost souls that don't have a chance to know God. Souls taken from the earth without being old enough or educated enough to fit the exact rules.


What you call a 'feel bad' religion, my friend, is the ONLY 'true' version of Christianity. Whatever your 'faith' calls itself, it is not Christian.

Isn't it interesting that even Jesus and the apostles didn't follow all of the rules. They "worked" and "healed" on the Sabath. I guess if Jesus can bend the rules on those things, he can bend them for children.


Or sinners? Or Atheists? Or Hindus?

Are you now denying that there is ANY specific route to salvation?

Thanks for the debate. Maybe we'll meet on the podium again.

I'm sure we will. I'm here fairly often.

No, that is NOT FACT, it's FALLACY.

Before you go professing some kind of devotion at the VERY least familiarize yourself with your (errant) source material.

John 14:6:

KJV (which predates NIV and Living)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Living
Jesus told him, "I am the Way - yes, and the Truth and the Life. No one can get to the Father except by means of me.
(interesting - get to the father? :sniper: )

NRSV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
How is it a falacy? When Jesus speaks of the father, he is almost always speaking of heaven also, His father is God, the only way to a relationship with God is through Jesus. That is what I said.

As far as your many "translations" the Living Bible is a paraphrase of the KJV not an actual translation, the NRSV is a bad translation, meaning that it mis-translates things to make statements that aren't true, not necesarily in this verse, but plenty in others. You fault me for using the NKJV this time, when I almost always use the NIV which is my prefered version, but as you can see both the NIV and the NKJV say the same exact thing this time.

Also, you are breaking the 9th Commandment, in a way. Consider shame.
how so? It is generally accepted by Biblical scholars and theological scholars alike that when Jesus says "no man comes to the father but through me" that he is speaking about the fact that without faith in Him there is no eternal life in Heaven with His father. I have other scripture to back up this. Now, if you interpret it differently then I would love to hear your interpretation, but I am not lying in saying that it says that there is only one way to the father.

how so? It is generally accepted by Biblical scholars and theological scholars alike that when Jesus says "no man comes to the father but through me" that he is speaking about the fact that without faith in Him there is no eternal life in Heaven with His father. I have other scripture to back up this. Now, if you interpret it differently then I would love to hear your interpretation, but I am not lying in saying that it says that there is only one way to the father.

Make a note of the date.

Forevermore, people will speak in hushed tones, of the day that Grave_n_idle and Smunkeeville argued the same side in a religion thread....

:)

Make a note of the date.

Forevermore, people will speak in hushed tones, of the day that Grave_n_idle and Smunkeeville argued the same side in a religion thread....

:)
hey, I think that you arguing my side gives me credibility, I mean you don't even believe it, and yet you interpret it the same. This way people can't come back and say that I am "brainwashed" or "reading into it what I want to see" heck you don't even really care what it says, it is of no consequence to you, but still you agree with me:)

hey, I think that you arguing my side gives me credibility, I mean you don't even believe it, and yet you interpret it the same. This way people can't come back and say that I am "brainwashed" or "reading into it what I want to see" heck you don't even really care what it says, it is of no consequence to you, but still you agree with me:)

Indeed.

Empirically, 'true or not', the scripture can only logically and legitimately be read one way.

If I were a believer, I would wish it to be other than it is.... but I can't legitimately see any why to argue against this one scrptural interpretation.

How is it a falacy? When Jesus speaks of the father, he is almost always speaking of heaven also, His father is God, the only way to a relationship with God is through Jesus. That is what I said.

As far as your many "translations" the Living Bible is a paraphrase of the KJV not an actual translation, the NRSV is a bad translation, meaning that it mis-translates things to make statements that aren't true, not necesarily in this verse, but plenty in others. You fault me for using the NKJV this time, when I almost always use the NIV which is my prefered version, but as you can see both the NIV and the NKJV say the same exact thing this time.


how so? It is generally accepted by Biblical scholars and theological scholars alike that when Jesus says "no man comes to the father but through me" that he is speaking about the fact that without faith in Him there is no eternal life in Heaven with His father. I have other scripture to back up this. Now, if you interpret it differently then I would love to hear your interpretation, but I am not lying in saying that it says that there is only one way to the father.
How exactly are you qualifying any more veracity for a later version from the same sources? Further, why are there so many different versions of specifically this phrase?
I'll clarify. You state it as a fact but you cannot use ANYTHING *BUT* a politically biased (yes politically i obviously don't mean repubs and dems) source as the totality of veracity. And i further explicitly stated you are bearing false witness in the sense that although you have read this passage somewhere, NEITHER were you AT that place in time NOR have you traveled the path to the end that is required to qualify the passage.
I IMPLORE you to prove me wrong.
You are bearing false witness. And in any terms other than biblical, go ahead and PROVE that there is "only one way to the 'father'."

How exactly are you qualifying any more veracity for a later version from the same sources? Further, why are there so many different versions of specifically this phrase?
I'll clarify. You state it as a fact but you cannot use ANYTHING *BUT* a politically biased (yes politically i obviously don't mean repubs and dems) source as the totality of veracity. And i further explicitly stated you are bearing false witness in the sense that although you have read this passage somewhere, NEITHER were you AT that place in time NOR have you traveled the path to the end that is required to qualify the passage.
I IMPLORE you to prove me wrong.
You are bearing false witness. And in any terms other than biblical, go ahead and PROVE that there is "only one way to the 'father'."
oh yeah, I see :rolleyes: so, you want me to kill an athiest bring them back from the dead and ask what happened? alrighty then. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I can admit that I wasn't around when Jesus actually said that, but I don't see how quoting exactly what the Bible says and saying that it's in the Bible is lying. It would seem to me that I was telling the truth, now as far as whether or not the Bible is actually true, I can't say any more than I believe it is, and you can't really prove it isn't so lets not call me a liar okay?;)

Make a note of the date.

Forevermore, people will speak in hushed tones, of the day that Grave_n_idle and Smunkeeville argued the same side in a religion thread....

:)
Love ya, Grave, but i have seriously thought this out.
It needs to be explained why this focus has its integrity shifted so much in such a short time of retranslation and augmentation (and you know what the bible says already about that).
I'll specify to you, since it's inherent in the text, and it actually matters to me that you consider it.


John 14:6:

KJV (which predates NIV and Living)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

NIV
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Living
Jesus told him, "I am the Way - yes, and the Truth and the Life. No one can get to the Father except by means of me.
(interesting - get to the father? )

NRSV
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
Each one of these that differs i think does so for the specific reason of politics involved in changing the nature of worship from "god" to the "son".
It further says quite clearly that he is the way QUALIFIED by the life. Doesn't say afterlife. By means of is as he does, not as he is. It may seem a bit nitpicky but i seriously don't think it was an accident for so many different forms of interpretation here.
Only the NIV opted to change it to "through" me, and the NRSV further reinforced the earlier "meaning".
Seriously, many people have argued the idea that the only way you could get to "god" was by worshipping someone who, as you know, doesn't have enough veracity as a real person to convince anyone who does any significant research to decide that he was any more than a parable for a "good leader/teacher". Horus and Mithra, anyone?

oh yeah, I see :rolleyes: so, you want me to kill an athiest bring them back from the dead and ask what happened? alrighty then. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. I can admit that I wasn't around when Jesus actually said that, but I don't see how quoting exactly what the Bible says and saying that it's in the Bible is lying. It would seem to me that I was telling the truth, now as far as whether or not the Bible is actually true, I can't say any more than I believe it is, and you can't really prove it isn't so lets not call me a liar okay?;)
There are enough living atheists that have enough to say about this subject that you don't need to invoke the dead, but YES, since you didn't experience it, you are representing someone else's ends and means.
I would much prefer that it could be done ... oh wait, that's exactly what is required of the christian faith. That's what is called the Second Coming, and that's exactly what HAS NOT HAPPENED, no matter HOW MANY TIMES a group of people have publicly declared such.
You can agree with it and therefore say that it was said to have happened, but since you didn't actually experience it NOR can you reproduce it, it stands on the gullibility/believability of people who listen to you and interpret your statements to be truthful.
I don't see how quoting exactly what the Bible says and saying that it's in the Bible is lying
Okay. You say you prefer the NIV, but do you actually understand that there are changes each time people get together to "reinterpret" the "book", and the result are the different versions that i've gone through the pains to show you (and that you can easily look up for yourself)? They wouldn't say different things unless someone felt that the meaning was being lost, or that their own interpretation (agenda - say "political?") wasn't clear enough to back up (cut through) inconsistencies and logical fallacies without ALTERING the source material.
I appreciate your last sentence though, that it does fall upon basically your faith, but DO NOT invoke "fact" when talking about unsubstantiated third-person accounts of a mythical amalgamative figure whose story was carried down in oral tradition for at least a generation before anyone wrote it down.
I didn't call you a "liar", i said you are bearing false witness.

maybe I am just dumb, but they all look to say the same thing to me (except for the living version which is a paraphrase and not an actual translation)

could you explain how they are different? I would really like to know.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
You're not fairly rep'ing the actual passage.

maybe I am just dumb, but they all look to say the same thing to me (except for the living version which is a paraphrase and not an actual translation)

could you explain how they are different? I would really like to know.
I said something along these lines ...

Each one of these that differs i think does so for the specific reason of politics involved in changing the nature of worship from "god" to the "son".
It further says quite clearly that he is the way QUALIFIED by the life. Doesn't say afterlife. By means of is as he does, not as he is. It may seem a bit nitpicky but i seriously don't think it was an accident for so many different forms of interpretation here.
Only the NIV opted to change it to "through" me, and the NRSV further reinforced the earlier "meaning".
I could go further to elucidate but i don't see exactly how i can without being more confusing. I can only say what i said in my response to Grave.
I should also point out that i am not specifically anti-christian, i am just someone who, upon reviewing the source material, came to the inescapable conclusion that people who aren't capable of discerning between their fantasies-of-myth philosophies and their living, provable philosophies aren't to be trusted ... and further should be put through rigmarole over matters of serious contention.
The matter of Jesus being an excellent moral guide and one who tried to show the reunification between the natures of god and man is in deed a serious contention issue to me ... especially since the cheese is shifted to worship of a man here. I don't think i need to explain much more about that.
Also, i should point out that on occasion i agree with you (often to the chagrin of other posters i do point out my agreement with some here), I did point out what i didn't agree with you about, and why.

EDIT: *watching Mythbusters*
I thought of a simpler response to your first statement,
but they all look to say the same thing to me
, but it would require you to share with (us/me) exactly the first time you were exposed to the idea/passage and what context it was given. IE, if you were given it in a sermon in church, if you were reviewing it in a fellowship (concordance/comparison), or if you read the whole book and came to that passage in order and contrast to all the other material before it.

I said something along these lines ...

Each one of these that differs i think does so for the specific reason of politics involved in changing the nature of worship from "god" to the "son".
It further says quite clearly that he is the way QUALIFIED by the life. Doesn't say afterlife. By means of is as he does, not as he is. It may seem a bit nitpicky but i seriously don't think it was an accident for so many different forms of interpretation here.
Only the NIV opted to change it to "through" me, and the NRSV further reinforced the earlier "meaning".
I could go further to elucidate but i don't see exactly how i can without being more confusing. I can only say what i said in my response to Grave.
I should also point out that i am not specifically anti-christian, i am just someone who, upon reviewing the source material, came to the inescapable conclusion that people who aren't capable of discerning between their fantasies-of-myth philosophies and their living, provable philosophies aren't to be trusted ... and further should be put through rigmarole over matters of serious contention.
The matter of Jesus being an excellent moral guide and one who tried to show the reunification between the natures of god and man is in deed a serious contention issue to me ... especially since the cheese is shifted to worship of a man here. I don't think i need to explain much more about that.
Also, i should point out that on occasion i agree with you (often to the chagrin of other posters i do point out my agreement with some here), I did point out what i didn't agree with you about, and why.

okay, sorry I got snippy earlier, I got defensive, I am not sure why, it hardly ever happens to me, I don't know what is wrong with me this week.

okay, sorry I got snippy earlier, I got defensive, I am not sure why, it hardly ever happens to me, I don't know what is wrong with me this week.
Actually, i shall apologize to you, for thinking you should apologize for being snippy. I am often very snippy myself. It could be that both of us take this particular issue very personally (as i certainly do) and our responses might seem to need to be tempered. But that's okay, if you need to, do so.

Love ya, Grave, but i have seriously thought this out.
It needs to be explained why this focus has its integrity shifted so much in such a short time of retranslation and augmentation (and you know what the bible says already about that).
I'll specify to you, since it's inherent in the text, and it actually matters to me that you consider it.


I appreciate it my friend.

"The mirror catches all those wishes, and returns them to you in silver".

As Smunkeeville pointed out - ultimately, the 'result', if you will, of the debate over the exact meaning of John 14:6 remains fairly unimportant to me. I'm not a believer, and I am more than a little skeptical of the truth of Jesus' existence, let alone, his deity.

So - why am I arguing the side I'm arguing, the way I'm arguing?

You know me. You know that I can easily dip below the surface of modern translations, and find what was 'written' in the native tongues (more on that in the second-half)... and yet, here, I am choosing not to.

I'm not a Christian. I don't 'believe'... and yet here, I am arguing 'in context'... again, why am I choosing to do so?

It is rooted in the original post... which, essentially dealt with Traditions versus Scripture, and set the context as 'within' the religion... so, I have been arguing 'within' the modern translations, and 'within' the assumption that we are accepting the scripture as true.

If one accepts both of those premises (as many Christians do), under THOSE circumstances, do you not agree with my assessment?



Each one of these that differs i think does so for the specific reason of politics involved in changing the nature of worship from "god" to the "son".
It further says quite clearly that he is the way QUALIFIED by the life. Doesn't say afterlife. By means of is as he does, not as he is. It may seem a bit nitpicky but i seriously don't think it was an accident for so many different forms of interpretation here.
Only the NIV opted to change it to "through" me, and the NRSV further reinforced the earlier "meaning".
Seriously, many people have argued the idea that the only way you could get to "god" was by worshipping someone who, as you know, doesn't have enough veracity as a real person to convince anyone who does any significant research to decide that he was any more than a parable for a "good leader/teacher". Horus and Mithra, anyone?

Okay - if we are now shifting the perspective outside of the scripture in it's modern translations, there are reasons why one might not accept the idea of 'only one route to salvation'. I could point to other times that 'dia' is translated in scripture, and the different meanings it has taken... I could analyse how one maybe SHOULD translate 'hodos' and 'aletheia'.

The 'questions' raised could certainly change the 'imperative' nature of John 14:6... if not the entire thrust of it's meaning.

I'm torn as to whether to derail the topic in that direction, though...

Part of the reason is that I respect Smunkeeville, and respect her stance on this issue (even though, she and I both know that I oppose the actual content of the stance). I think that, if one is going to argue the 'truth' of scripture, and the validity of modern translations, Smunkeeville embodies the only 'honest' interpretation of the message.

If we assume the thread parameters, I even agree with her. And that is almost enough reason to stay within those parameters

It is rooted in the original post... which, essentially dealt with Traditions versus Scripture, and set the context as 'within' the religion... so, I have been arguing 'within' the modern translations, and 'within' the assumption that we are accepting the scripture as true.

If one accepts both of those premises (as many Christians do), under THOSE circumstances, do you not agree with my assessment?

The 'questions' raised could certainly change the 'imperative' nature of John 14:6... if not the entire thrust of it's meaning.

Part of the reason is that I respect Smunkeeville, and respect her stance on this issue (even though, she and I both know that I oppose the actual content of the stance). I think that, if one is going to argue the 'truth' of scripture, and the validity of modern translations, Smunkeeville embodies the only 'honest' interpretation of the message.

If we assume the thread parameters, I even agree with her. And that is almost enough reason to stay within those parameters
That's fair enough. *bows*
Besides, Smunkee's a Star Trek fan and i can't in good conscience be too vicious in my posts ;)
The concern i have is about the thrust of that meaning.
I would have to say that the shift takes the root of salvation from one point to another: One way is through the deification/pontification of "the Christ" as Jesus was to be (even if he didn't actually meet all the criterion of Messiah), as in to worship him to the end of being saved - it could be said of course that qualifies many christian ideals of the making of a new covenant, et cetera (Jesus the PRACTICING JEW) and therefore the concern is no longer on the rule of God but the rule of the "legitimate"(?) son.
The other way requires that a person, instead of worship, should live the example that Jesus was leading, which is pretty clear as far as i see it, when he says he is the way, the truth and THE LIFE. It requires that people (instead of thinking that worshipping Jesus gets them through the burden of soul and conscience) take the active part in making their lives better through redemptive and positive means ... and although there are excellent examples from Jesus' supposed sayings, the line of where worship and responsibility go seems to sit pretty much upon this passage and further extended through the crucifixion, for which afterwards there isn't a lot of corroboration at all with deific capacity.
I hope that didn't sound too confusing.

Yeah, I had posted several examples in said discussion.

My point was that I thought that Jesus only said that he was the way to heaven, while the other poster claimed that everyone who did not hear about Jesus would go there too (or at least not to hell) - based on Catholic teachings.

I did not know that Jesus said he was the ONLY way and that would clearly contradict with what the poster in the other discussion said. I guess.

As I understand it (and if I recall correctly), the Second Council of the Vatican states that those who follow God's will will go to heaven, regardless of whether or not they actively consider themselves to be Christians. Jesus was a preacher of God's will, and, thus, could reasonably say, being only slightly metaphorical, that none would reach the father except through him.

With the coming Jesus the first time we see from His words a very different response to the world around His believers. This is a radical change from what you speak of in the OT. Now either there are two gods represented or one God that is asking people to change, to turn the other cheek instead of and eye for an eye. It seems to me that it is logically impossible for there to be two Creators, then there must be one God who is asking creation to change, grow and develop new response to threats.

If we see this material world as the important world then it is correct to see the sacrifice of Jesus as loveless. There are other views on how this can be interpreted. The end was the begining. The physical body is left behind. The soul lives forever. Incarnate flesh if you will; but I find that part of Christian theolgy difficult to swallow.
Or, we see a different (human) mentality reflected in the symbolism presented in the image of the god.

How is it even vaguely illogical for there to be two creators?
Well.... if you have one being who created everything, then there is nothing for the other creator to do.

Well, there are literally dozens of references to gods, throughout the Bible...
Oooh.... disappointed you didn't mention Asherah (1 Kings 15:13).

O SON OF LOVE!
Thou art but one step away from the glorious heights above and from the celestial tree of love. Take thou one pace and with the next advance into the immortal realm and enter the pavilion of eternity. Give ear then to that which hath been revealed by the pen of glory.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)
Just curious... have you done this?

Choose to put yourself at a higher level than others; Choose to lie; Choose to concentrate on the wicked; Choose to keep your heart on wicked thoughts; Choose to go to wicked things; choose to get others into trouble falsely; Choose to cause division among believers (how could a child do that?)

Sounds like all things that an older person could do not a young child that is unaware that these things exist.
Aye; participation.

No. Original Sin is the sin passed on FROM Adam, and the consequence of that sin. We are exiles from Eden BECAUSE of Original Sin. Were we no longer under the ban of Original Sin, we would be able to regain paradise.

All human flesh is tainted by the sin of Adam, even the unborn. Thus - we are born into sin.
I am curious: what does Baha'i believe about different races all descending from Adam?

That's fair enough. *bows*
Besides, Smunkee's a Star Trek fan and i can't in good conscience be too vicious in my posts ;)
The concern i have is about the thrust of that meaning.
I would have to say that the shift takes the root of salvation from one point to another: One way is through the deification/pontification of "the Christ" as Jesus was to be (even if he didn't actually meet all the criterion of Messiah), as in to worship him to the end of being saved - it could be said of course that qualifies many christian ideals of the making of a new covenant, et cetera (Jesus the PRACTICING JEW) and therefore the concern is no longer on the rule of God but the rule of the "legitimate"(?) son.
The other way requires that a person, instead of worship, should live the example that Jesus was leading, which is pretty clear as far as i see it, when he says he is the way, the truth and THE LIFE. It requires that people (instead of thinking that worshipping Jesus gets them through the burden of soul and conscience) take the active part in making their lives better through redemptive and positive means ... and although there are excellent examples from Jesus' supposed sayings, the line of where worship and responsibility go seems to sit pretty much upon this passage and further extended through the crucifixion, for which afterwards there isn't a lot of corroboration at all with deific capacity.
I hope that didn't sound too confusing.

No no... I totally get what you are saying.

The way I read John 14:6, the Greek can mean any of several things.


Sure, one can read it as "I am the way"...

Or, one can read it as "I am present on a course of conduct".

The first makes Jesus a 'gateway to salvation'... the other makes him an 'example of salvation'.


Sure, one can read it as "and the truth"...

Or, one can read it as "and according to truth"...

The first makes Jesus an 'embodiment of truth'... the other makes him a 'practitioner of truth'.


Sure, one can read it as "and the life"...

Or, one can read it as "and life"...

The first makes Jesus the 'key to immortality'... the other makes him a 'representative of all life'... an intercessor, perhaps.


Sure, one can read it as "no man cometh unto the Father"...

Or, one can read it as "No one (or even, 'nothing') can be established (or find influence) to the advantage of (or 'with regard to') the Father"...

The first deals with persons being ushered into the presence of God... the second deals with people (or things) finding influence with God.


Sure, one can read it as "but by me"...

Or, one can read it as "if not by reason of (effectively - 'because of') me"...

The first makes Jesus the 'avenue to God'... the other makes Jesus the REASON (not the 'path') for Salvation.

So - two very different translations (and a world of others lurking in the text):

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

Which means: "I am the gateway, I am the mystical truth, I am the key to immortality: no man can come near to God, except THROUGH me"

The other means: "I am on a course of conduct, according to truth, and I am as all life: no man can gain influence with God, except because of my sacrifice".

To be honest -for me - reading a version where Jesus claims to be 'all life', and claims his actions as the key to salvation... just seems to 'fit' better.

And, not THAT far from what you seem to be reading from it. :)


But - we are dealing with the modern trasnlation, with all it's lovely poetry, and it's built-in strangeness.

And, in that context... I'm hitching my horse to Smunkeeville's wagon. :)

Oooh.... disappointed you didn't mention Asherah (1 Kings 15:13).

I only went with 'named' deities as such...

So I skipped over Asherah/Asherim (sacred grove or shrine) as female 'aspects', just as I skipped over Mazzebah/Mazzeboth (sacred pillar) as male 'aspects'.

I believe I hinted at the presence of other (hidden) 'gods', in a reference to ephods (teraphim).

I only went with 'named' deities as such...

So I skipped over Asherah/Asherim (sacred grove or shrine) as female 'aspects', just as I skipped over Mazzebah/Mazzeboth (sacred pillar) as male 'aspects'.

I believe I hinted at the presence of other (hidden) 'gods', in a reference to ephods (teraphim).
'Aspects' of what?

They are idols (gods).

'Aspects' of what?

They are idols (gods).

It rather depends which view you take on Asherah....

I am of the opinion that SOME of the use of 'Asherah' in the scripture, is reference to Asherah as the Hebrew version of the Ugaritic Athirat (Akkadian Ashratum/Ashratu; Hittite Aserdu).

I am of the opinion that OTHER uses are more about the other interpretations (derived mainly from Phoenician, perhaps) of the word... as a pillar (which I think is a confusion with Mazzebah), or a sacred grove...

Obviously - these sacred groves and pillars are references to a god/goddess, in all likelihood... but not necessarily to the goddess 'Asherah'.

Thus - there is confusion over the terms.

Example: Second Kings 18:4 "He removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan". In this reference 'Asherah' is translated as a sacred grove... and it appears to be the correct translation.

Example: Jeremiah 7:17 "The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger". I this reference, we seem to be talking about 'Ahserah' as the goddess... but the word 'Asherah' does not appear in the text.

Some of our 'Asherah' references, then... are references to idols... maybe of 'Asherah' herself... but some of our references are 'symbolic' feminine entities... like the sacred grove.

I used references that were more clearly identifiable with 'named deities'... like Diana.

No no... I totally get what you are saying.

The way I read John 14:6, the Greek can mean any of several things.


Sure, one can read it as "I am the way"...

Or, one can read it as "I am present on a course of conduct".

The first makes Jesus a 'gateway to salvation'... the other makes him an 'example of salvation'.


Sure, one can read it as "and the truth"...

Or, one can read it as "and according to truth"...

The first makes Jesus an 'embodiment of truth'... the other makes him a 'practitioner of truth'.


Sure, one can read it as "and the life"...

Or, one can read it as "and life"...

The first makes Jesus the 'key to immortality'... the other makes him a 'representative of all life'... an intercessor, perhaps.


Sure, one can read it as "no man cometh unto the Father"...

Or, one can read it as "No one (or even, 'nothing') can be established (or find influence) to the advantage of (or 'with regard to') the Father"...

The first deals with persons being ushered into the presence of God... the second deals with people (or things) finding influence with God.


Sure, one can read it as "but by me"...

Or, one can read it as "if not by reason of (effectively - 'because of') me"...

The first makes Jesus the 'avenue to God'... the other makes Jesus the REASON (not the 'path') for Salvation.

So - two very different translations (and a world of others lurking in the text):

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

Which means: "I am the gateway, I am the mystical truth, I am the key to immortality: no man can come near to God, except THROUGH me"

The other means: "I am on a course of conduct, according to truth, and I am as all life: no man can gain influence with God, except because of my sacrifice".

To be honest -for me - reading a version where Jesus claims to be 'all life', and claims his actions as the key to salvation... just seems to 'fit' better.

And, not THAT far from what you seem to be reading from it. :)


But - we are dealing with the modern trasnlation, with all it's lovely poetry, and it's built-in strangeness.

And, in that context... I'm hitching my horse to Smunkeeville's wagon. :)Wagon Train to the Stars .... ;)
Thank you, sincerely, for your effort. I feel you've effectively explained it in a way i'm apparently not able to, very well.
*bows*

Wagon Train to the Stars .... ;)
Thank you, sincerely, for your effort. I feel you've effectively explained it in a way i'm apparently not able to, very well.
*bows*

See.. told you I 'got' what you were saying. ;)

(I did, right?)

Of course, you managed it in about a dozen lines... and I had to use a half page...

Actually - I have been very much enjoying this particular thread.

Not just because it has enabled me to argue the same side as Smunkeeville, but also because you and I have had to delve deeper than usual into our pockets, to try to explain to each other a perspective that we are actually 'geographically' close on, in a depth that conveys the nuances of our individual interpretations.

Good show, all round.

My thanks, especially, to Smunkeeville and Straughn. :)

See.. told you I 'got' what you were saying. ;)

(I did, right?)

Of course, you managed it in about a dozen lines... and I had to use a half page...

Actually - I have been very much enjoying this particular thread.

Not just because it has enabled me to argue the same side as Smunkeeville, but also because you and I have had to delve deeper than usual into our pockets, to try to explain to each other a perspective that we are actually 'geographically' close on, in a depth that conveys the nuances of our individual interpretations.

Good show, all round.

My thanks, especially, to Smunkeeville and Straughn. :)
Agreed, as well my thanks to you and Smunkeeville.
And a few other folk here.