Kinda Shocking

[Anju No. 469]

Barbara - I agree, but it is also "kool"  that we have Martin and Elijah and all the others to help us learn.

I am so excited - thank you Betsy!

But I do think we need another thread.

[Forster]

I fall in the 70%.

I'm certainly not a religious scholar by any means, but I subscribe to the belief that most of what one should do is love your neighbor as yourself (and all that encompasses) and I do believe most religions have something similar in their basic tenants.  I also believe most religions have been inundated with piles of man made rules over the centuries and that one needs to step back to see what the real message is. As a human I fail at this all too often but I do try.  If I'm wrong and ultimately am judged as not worthy, well I'm okay with that.

[Suzanne]

I found this article interesting:

Do all Religions Lead to God?

Rick Warren Answers Your Questions

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do all religions lead to God?

~ Well now think about the logic of this. Can I go into a phone booth and dial any phone number and get home? No, there's only one number that'll get me home. I could be sincere, but I could be sincerely wrong. The truth is, all roads don't lead to Rome and all roads and all religions don't lead to God.

You see, it all depends on which direction you take. Jesus said this, "I am the way and the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through me." I'm betting my life on the fact that He was right because I figured Jesus knows more about it than I did.

The Bible tells us that on the road to heaven, there are only two directions, toward Christ or away from Him. You can accept it or you can reject it, that's your choice. You can make Jesus the Lord of your life, that means the manager, the ceo, the person in charge of your life, or you can call Him a liar, but that's what the Bible declares.

You know a lot of people sincerely believe that even though they've broken God's rules that they can earn God's forgiveness by doing good works, by observing the Five Pillars of Islam or the Buddhist Eightfold Path or the Hindu Doctrine of Karma, for example. But I don't get it. How will doing some good works that we should have done all our lives, make up for all the countless times we failed? You see, heaven is a perfect place and that means only perfect people get to go there. If not-perfect people were allowed in, it wouldn't be perfect anymore. Well I don't know about you, but I stopped being perfect a long time ago. So God came up with plan b. He came to earth in human form, Jesus Christ, and He lived a perfect life and now He offers to let us go to heaven on His ticket. And I pray that you will trust Jesus Christ and stop trying to bat a thousand because you ended up not doing that a long time ago and accept God's free ticket through Jesus Christ.

[Forster]

Interesting article, I disagree with it but interesting none the less.

[geoffthomas]

Well now this is an interesting thread.

Let me start out by saying that I love all the members of this Book Klub.

Let me also say that the quote from Rick Warren pretty well sums it up.

From my personal belief folder I will add this:
For such issues such as sin - same sex etc.  - "love the sinner, hate the sin".  I will never turn my back on a reasonable human. And I will continue to love my fellow man until he convinces me that he is an animal that deserves different treatment.  I do not have to love how you live or what you believe to love you.  God Loves All Men - so much so that while we were/are in sin he gave his only son (God Made Man) to provide salvation for us.  Now if God loves you that much how can I withhold mine?

Jesus, who is the fulfillment of the old testament, only asked us to love God and do his Will and to Love our Fellow Man.  As an example of both doing God's Will and Loving our fellow man, he gave us the great commission to take the word to men of all nations.  Because if you love your fellow man you will want to see him in heaven.

Now it think that it is that simple.  And I think it is a matter of faith.  If you believe then you MUST love.  If you do not believe then you can rationalize anything and everything.  And you can rationalize that worshiping cow dung will get people to heaven.  But I don't think so.

I don't think cow dung worship will save your soul no matter how "good" a person you are.  So I will pray for the cow dun worshippers.  And the people who drink the poisoned KoolAid in South America.  And the people who sold all they had an went to the mountaintop waiting for the rapture that never came.  After that dissappointment, they still maintain the same beliefs.  I say good for them.  They believe in something but not in the redemption of the only God, He who created the universe.

Sorry, went long there.
But that is where I come from.
And I explain where I come from to you in love.  As you can infer from Ric Warren's statement, not all spokes go to the hub.

Just sayin......

[mwvickers]

Let me bring it back to the basic question for a moment.

The basic question as I see it is this: "Do all roads lead to God?"

Some example analogies have been provided, namely the spokes of a wheel and the villages around a mountain.

There is, however, one assumption that lies at the heart of the statement that all roads lead to God.  Someone else actually brought this up a few posts ago.

That assumption is this:  All religions are basically the same. 

Now, that assumption itself has a few paths that it can take. 

Path 1 would say that all religions lead to God because all religions basically teach the same thing in the majors.  The fact is, however, that the majors are exactly what are so different in the various religions.  Let me explain by taking three religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, and Christianity (or Judaism or Islam). 

For these three religions, I'm going to examine only one basic major of the religion: namely, who or what is supreme.  Some branches of Buddhism answer this question in an atheistic way; that is, they say there is no god at all.  Hinduism has thousands of gods, and is a form of polytheism that eventually leads back to pantheism (that says god is in everything).  Then you have the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which say that there is one god.  So, in looking at this one basic, major point in these religions, we have completely separate views: there is no god, there are many gods (or god is in all in the long run), and there is only one god.  The plain fact is, they cannot all be right.  If Buddhism is right, then Hinduism and the monotheistic religions are wrong.  If Hinduism is right, then Buddhism and the monotheistic religions are wrong, and if the monotheistic religions are right (not getting into more details of differences among those three), then Hinduism and Buddhism are wrong.

Keep in mind, this is only one of the major basics: the question of god.  If you begin digging, you find that there are even more differences than these. 

In fact, it is only in the peripherals or minors that the religions are similar.

So, this leads us to path 2.  If all religions teach different things, yet one wishes to maintain that all religions are equal and lead to the same place, then one must conclude that all religions are, in fact, equally wrong in what they teach.  What I mean is this, they aren't all the same, so they cannot all be right.  As a matter of fact, each major religion differs from the others on many points.  So, you are now left with two options: Either one is right and the others are wrong, or none are right and all teach false things.  Only the latter will allow one to continue to say that all roads lead to god.  But that latter means that no religion teaches the total truth.  If that is the case, then you can never know whether you are missing something vital. 

I do want to hit on the issue of sincerity for a moment.  Many believe that sincerity is enough; in other words, if one is sincerely following what he or she believes, then that person is doing good enough.  There is one issue with this thought:  One can be sincere, but can be sincerely wrong.  If I, for example, think I'm the president of the United States, and I am sincere about that, it doesn't change the fact that I am not the president of the U.S.  I am, in that instance, sincerely wrong.  I believe this can apply to religion as well. 

Before I go any further, I want to let everyone have a chance to read it and let me know what you think.  If I have not been clear in my thinking, please let me know and I will try to clarify it. 

Martin

[Suzanne]

Wow, Martin, that is such a good explanation!!!! When someone says, Do all religions lead to God?, I am hesitant to answer, because I cannot explain it just within the context of Christianity, e.g., I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. Well, that's a good explanation for those who are Christians. But when we are talking to non-Christians, I don't feel it is practical to be whipping out my Bible at them. They don't accept the Bible, nor respect it a source from God.

Since this thread was started by Elijah, I've been thinking to myself, Well, how WOULD you explain an answer to non-Christians?? And I was befuddled!!! 

Sometimes when people hear that question, Do all religions lead to God?, they just think it is referring to the different Christian denominations. That's a whole different ball of wax entirely. And another thread possibly! 

[mwvickers]

Wow, Martin, that is such a good explanation!!!! When someone says, Do all religions lead to God?, I am hesitant to answer, because I cannot explain it just within the context of Christianity, e.g., I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. Well, that's a good explanation for those who are Christians. But when we are talking to non-Christians, I don't feel it is practical to be whipping out my Bible at them. They don't accept the Bible, nor respect it a source from God.

Since this thread was started by Elijah, I've been thinking to myself, Well, how WOULD you explain an answer to non-Christians?? And I was befuddled!!!  

Sometimes when people hear that question, Do all religions lead to God?, they just think it is referring to the different Christian denominations. That's a whole different ball of wax entirely. And another thread possibly!  

Thanks, Suzanne.  I have put a lot of time and study into this.  I hope that my answer is logical and well-reasoned, and I hope that it helps others (either directly answering their questions, or helping them to answer others).

I agree that eventually, my answer above will need to be narrowed down, and even, in my opinion, brought to Jesus and the Bible.  After all, it's not enough to simply say that all cannot be right and either one is right or none are right. 

If none are right, then all is basically useless, as I mentioned above.  It's simply some subjective, psychological pacifier if we cannot have some kind of reasonable assurance that what we are following is true, I think.  I don't mean that to sound as harsh as it probably does in writing, but I hope my point is taken with the honesty and grace I mean when I say it.

If one is right, then it is in our best interest to try to determine which one.  As a Christian, I think it is easier to simply start with whether or not Christianity can be trusted, and work from there.  Why?  Very simply because of the verse you mentioned.  Jesus said very clearly that He is the only way to God.  If He can be shown to be trustworthy, then that honestly settles the issue without necessarily having to deeply study other religions (though I still think it beneficial to know what others believe and why I disagree, if I do).  If, however, He is shown to be false, then the options are still open, so to speak.  I hope that makes sense.

There are, however, reasonable answers as to why Jesus (and the Bible) are trustworthy as well, and I hope to be able to share them with you all, too.

Thanks for the encouraging words.

Martin

[koolmnbv]

Ok I will start by saying I am Catholic, was born and raised this religion. I have never branched out or studied other religions and at times I even take my own religion for granted by not praciticing or learning as much as I can and should. So even though I am 24 years old and been in my religion for 24 years I am nowhere near what I should be and I know I could and should be doing better every single day. Not just in my actions but in my thoughts,words, and love. I just wanted to say that so ahead of time anyone here reading this will realize that I in no way think I "know" more than someone else or feel I am superior etc. I realize I am everday growing and learning.

After that being said I have a question that I have thought of SEVERAL times over the years,

The people that truly truly in their heart of hearts believe in "their" religion such as the Koolaid drinkers,etc I feel that in there own minds,and hearts they believed they were doing the right thing. Sometimes as small children they are born into that type of mentality and raised that way thus never knowing that the path they are on is not the one intended to get us to God. So how do these people get judged? According to their actions? According to their beliefs? They were just as strong in their belief as I am in mine, some were born and raised that way and never knew another option so are they condemned for this? Its so hard to understand God not forgiving them for being misguided.

If anyone can offer something on this I am all ears because I have talked about this with some people before and I seem to always go back to it when this type of topic is presented.

[Suzanne]

These are just my own thoughts on the matter. As a Christian, I believe that God is very loving and merciful. This love can be seen by the fact that He sent His own son to die for us. It would seem logical to me that God will make some provision in the future for those "Kool-Aid drinkers" to be taught about the true religion. After they are taught, they will have an opportunity to accept it or reject it.

In the world right now, there are many people who live in countries where they have never seen a Bible. If Armageddon came tomorrow, would God destroy them simply because they had the misfortune of being born in that particular country and never had an opportunity to learn about Him? That simply doesn't make sense to me. God does not want anyone to be destroyed. He is all merciful and all loving. The only logical answer (for me) is that He will make a provision for people in situations like this, for them to be educated so they can make an informed choice as to whether they want to serve Him.

On the other hand, there are people who have the opportunity to learn about God and are not taking it. They are not living their lives according to Bible standards. Say Armageddon comes tomorrow. Will they say, Oh Heavenly Father, I did not know!!? I would think that God's reply might be that You had an opportunity to learn, but you rejected that opportunity.

How many people have never even opened their Bibles for years? I don't know if God's mercy will be extended to them. What I do know is I am glad these matters will be judged by our Heavenly Father who loves us so much and doesn't want any to perish.

[Forster]

For these three religions, I'm going to examine only one basic major of the religion: namely, who or what is supreme.  Some branches of Buddhism answer this question in an atheistic way; that is, they say there is no god at all.  Hinduism has thousands of gods, and is a form of polytheism that eventually leads back to pantheism (that says god is in everything).  Then you have the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which say that there is one god.  So, in looking at this one basic, major point in these religions, we have completely separate views: there is no god, there are many gods (or god is in all in the long run), and there is only one god.  The plain fact is, they cannot all be right.  If Buddhism is right, then Hinduism and the monotheistic religions are wrong.  If Hinduism is right, then Buddhism and the monotheistic religions are wrong, and if the monotheistic religions are right (not getting into more details of differences among those three), then Hinduism and Buddhism are wrong.

You are making an assumption that God can only be one thing.  I think there are also implied assumptions that God has revealed himself/herself to all people the same manner and that man is capable of fully understanding God.  I've struggled with this and it is one of the reasons I'm in the camp with those that believe there is more than one path to God.  

I think there are greater truths to be found in all religions other than what is the nature of God.  I've got the basic tenets down on how to try and live my life and I know in my heart where I've succeeded and where I've failed and that I will always try to do the right thing and change my ways when necessary.  Again if that isn't enough and I'm cast out come judgment day so be it, I'll have lots of company.

Edit to clarify:
My main purpose in posting in this thread is to help enlighten why at least one of the 70% thinks the way he does.  It's certainly isn't to derail the thread or cause controversy in the Book Klub or to call anyone wrong as I'm all too aware it may be me.

[marianneg]

The people that truly truly in their heart of hearts believe in "their" religion such as the Koolaid drinkers,etc I feel that in there own minds,and hearts they believed they were doing the right thing. Sometimes as small children they are born into that type of mentality and raised that way thus never knowing that the path they are on is not the one intended to get us to God. So how do these people get judged? According to their actions? According to their beliefs? They were just as strong in their belief as I am in mine, some were born and raised that way and never knew another option so are they condemned for this? Its so hard to understand God not forgiving them for being misguided.

You've skipped over the part where we are all sinners, and hence we are all condemned.  We could argue about whether God will condemn people for being misguided, or for being sincere but wrong, but does that really matter when we all have committed plenty of willful, knowing wrongs to condemn us?

[mwvickers]

Regarding what happens to people who have never heard of Jesus if Christianity is right:

What marianner said is very true: We all seem to start with this assumption that "innocent" people go to Hell for not hearing about Jesus.  The fact is, there isn't an innocent person on earth.  Jesus even said no one was even good but God (Paul also said there is none good, quoting a Psalm in Romans).  Either Chesterton or Muggeridge, I believe, said that the concept of "original sin" is the one empirically verifiable theological doctrine; we see its results every day.  C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, also pointed out that there are two facts that we all know: 1) There is some sense of a moral law, as we always appeal to it (even by simply saying something isn't fair, as we are doing now), and 2) None of us hase ever prefectly kept that moral law, as we fail all the time to do what we will even say we know is right.

So, if the Bible's claims are true, God would be perfectly justified already if no one ever made it to Heaven, as we have all broken His law and (here comes a dreaded word in our society, I think) sinned against Him.

That being said, God is not only just, but He is loving, so He sent His Son to die in our place. 

Now, what happens, then, to those who die without believing?  There are several proposed options.

One has been mentioned: The idea that God gives people a chance to hear somehow after death.

Another option is that God judges by the light everyone already has in some way.  We don't know what that may entail, but it would still be a fair judgment.

Yet another option is that God Himself may have given people a chance to hear.  I have read of stories where, for example, someone born and raised in the Muslim faith who had never heard of Jesus had a vision where an angel (or even Jesus) appeared to them and preached to them.  They then responded. 

These are simply three possibilities.  All have their merits, and all have some biblically and philosophical questions.  The fact is, though, that in all of these God would be both just and merciful.

So, no matter what, there are good possibilities of how God is just and right and loving.  We don't know which, if any, of the above are true, but we do know that it would be inconsistent with Christianity's view of God to say He punishes people simply for lack of knowledge.  I hope that these answers show that it is at least possible to provide a rational answer to the question.  If we don't know which is right, this does show that the question is not insurpassable and unanswerable, I hope.

The real question, though, is not what happens to them, but what will happen to us who have heard?   

[mwvickers]

I'm going to try to respond to this point by point, roughly.  I think it's very interesting and needs to be addressed.  I hope I can shed some light on the situation.

You are making an assumption that God can only be one thing.

Not assumption so much as using basic logic.  Let's take the law of non-contradiction here.  This law says that something cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same manner.  So, something cannot both exist ("A") and not exist ("non-A") at the same time. 

That being said, looking at only Buddhism and Christianity (for example), one teaches god does not exist, the other says He does.  They cannot logically both be right, as they are making contradictory claims.  For God to be different things, here, He would have to both exist and not exist, and even God cannot do an illogical thing such as that.  He cannot both "be" and "not be."

While God may have different aspects (such as love, justice, mercy, and even anger), it is not the same as saying God is different in that He exists, doesn't exist, is one, and is many.  The claims that different religions make are too many to be coherent if thrown together or accepted as a whole.

I think there are also implied assumptions that God has revealed himself/herself to all people the same manner and that man is capable of fully understanding God.  I've struggled with this and it is one of the reasons I'm in the camp with those that believe there is more than one path to God.

This one is a little more complicated. 

Let me first state that man is not capable of fully understanding God.  If we were, we would be God, too, and we are not.  If anyone tells you they have it all figured out, they are lying...period.  I am a Christian, and I only can claim to know what God reveals to us (I believe, in the Bible).  There are still many aspects of God we don't and won't understand.  How can something outside of time step into time as a man, for example? 

There is a jump in logic, however, from saying we cannot know everything about God to saying that we therefore cannot know anything about God with certainty.  We can know things about God if He revealed Himself to us somehow. 

As to the claim that God revealed Himself (or herself) to everyone in the same manner, now we are getting into the history of religion.  If the Bible is right, then God did do that, but we messed that up when we refused to acknowledge Him as God, and started worshiping other things. 

Rather than assuming that, however, let's go back to the facts again.  There are various religions.  They do not all say the same thing, and cannot be harmonized.  Therefore, they are either all right (impossible and illogical), they are all wrong (in that they don't all teach the complete truth, and we cannot know which parts are true or false, so religion is pointless, subjective, and merely psychological aid), or one is right (in which case we need to know which one). 

I think it is very difficult to maintain that there is still more than one way to God if you admit the above. 

Logically they cannot be all right, so that is not a reason to believe they all lead to God.

The only other option is to say that only some truth is in each religion.  You cannot, then, know which truths are vital, and there is never any assurance you have opted to follow the right religion, or the right parts of each religion.       

I think there are greater truths to be found in all religions other than what is the nature of God.

I agree, but they all disagree too.  What is evil?  How does one live one's life?  What brings salvation (or Nirvanna, or something else)?  Are we reincarnated, or do we die only once and then get judged?  These are only a few of the great truths, and they are all different in all religions. 

I've got the basic tenets down on how to try and live my life and I know in my heart where I've succeeded and where I've failed and that I will always try to do the right thing and change my ways when necessary.  Again if that isn't enough and I'm cast out come judgment day so be it, I'll have lots of company.

My question is how do you know you have the basic tenets down?  I'm not trying to be rude, so please don't take it that way, and I'm not trying to attack you, so please don't think that either.  This question applies to us all really.  Do we base our tenets on how we feel?  Or do we have some objective standard that we can demonstrate to be reliable?  There is a big difference. 

Let me give you an example.  I could be wrong, but I would assume that you, like many, would assume that one of the basic tenets of life is to "do to others as you would have them do to you" or "love others" or something like that.  Above, you do qualify that all religions teach great truths, and that there is more than one path to god.

Satanism says "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."  It draws no distinction between mercy and loving others, as Wicca does when it says "An [If] it harm none, do what thou wilt."  Satanists simply say to do whatever.  Are they right?  Are they correct in their own way, even if it hurts another?  If not, why not?  What standard do we have to say we should all love one another? 

Ravi Zacharias put it this way (roughly):  There must be differences in beliefs, and no one truly thinks that all beliefs are valid and equal.  For example, in some countries they love their neighbor and in other countries they eat them?  Who is right?

Edit to clarify:
My main purpose in posting in this thread is to help enlighten why at least one of the 70% thinks the way he does.  It's certainly isn't to derail the thread or cause controversy in the Book Klub or to call anyone wrong as I'm all too aware it may be me.

Thank you for your comments.  I appreciate your input.  Discussions are much better when questions are asked, and disagreements are raised.  It helps us examine what we think and why. 

Don't worry about de-railing, as I hope that your post allowed me to clarify my beliefs better, too.  Don't worry about causing controversy, as a littly controversy never hurt anyone who is truly open-minded, if we can be civil, and I know you were, and I hope I was. 

I am glad that you are open to realizing you may be wrong, as that is the sign of a true seeker, and that is how I started my studying.  In other words, I've been there.  LOL  I was raised a certain way, went to college, and had my eyes opened to the multiple possible views on religion and life.  I realized I could have been wrong, many of my assumptions were challenged, and I have spent the last several years reading and thinking much.

I hope to share my thoughts with all of you.

Martin

[mwvickers]

Barbara - I agree, but it is also "kool"  that we have Martin and Elijah and all the others to help us learn.

Throw your name in there, too.  By asking questions and participating, you, too, help us learn.   

This is a group thing.  We all contribute, and we all help each other think. 

Martin

[geoffthomas]

I believe that there are many ways that we can prove that there is a God and that He created the universe, inlcuding man.
I believe that there is only one God.  Not multiple dieties or not a God for each universe, such as some "modern" religions preach.
And I believe that the Bible is the revealed word of God.
So we have a hard truth inn John 14,6:

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

There appears to be no second path, or options here.  However, like Martin, I hope that this includes relationships between the individual and God that I know nothing about.  Therefore I will judge no man's salvation. 

I also have some further hope found in Revelation 20,12:

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

So, it seems that Jesus will judge at the last.  And he will reference the Book of Life into which our names are written if we have accepted him as Lord and into which our deeds/misdeeds will be recorded. I will not enjoy having the Lord review my entries.  But I am encouraged to know that my name is written there as His.  I hope that the judgement of the deeds of those who have not accepted Him will fulfill the "No one comes to the Father except through me" verse in John 14.  I am not trying to manufacture scripture here.  I am merely hoping for my bothers and sisters who life good lives but who consciously deny Jesus in this life.

Your take, Martin?

[mwvickers]

geoffthomas,

I agree that we will eventually come back to John 14:6 and Jesus' words.  I also believe that doing so is one of the easiest ways to solve the question of whether there are many paths or just one.  As I stated before, if Jesus is right and telling the truth, that settles it with no further study adding anything to the conversation.  Again, that is not to say that we should not know and understand what others believe, and why we believe they may be mistaken, but I think it's easier to establish the truth of Jesus' claim than it is to try to systematically demonstrate the other views as mistaken or even false.   

Before we can do that, however, I believe there are a few steps that we must take. 

There was a time when one could quote the Bible, and, in America at least, most operated under the assumption that it was true.  Now, however, we have been exposed to many religious views.  At the same time, the Bible has been questioned by many people who claim that only those who are not intellectual continue to believe it.  We also have the postmodern idea that there is no truth anymore. 

All of this combined means we have a new burden of proof, as Christians, to show why someone should accept what we believe. 

The Bible, then, must be shown to be reliable and trustworthy before we can always just quote it.  In other words, why should I believe the Bible when it says something? 

I believe that the best way to do this is to start with historical reliability and the manuscript evidence of the New Testament first, then move from there. 

Does that help a little?

  I hope that the judgement of the deeds of those who have not accepted Him will fulfill the "No one comes to the Father except through me" verse in John 14.  I am not trying to manufacture scripture here.  I am merely hoping for my bothers and sisters who life good lives but who consciously deny Jesus in this life.

Your take, Martin?

As for this, I apologize, but I'm not really sure what you are trying to say, so I don't want to comment without understanding fully. 

Martin

[Forster]

All of this combined means we have a new burden of proof, as Christians, to show why someone should accept what we believe.  

The Bible, then, must be shown to be reliable and trustworthy before we can always just quote it.  In other words, why should I believe the Bible when it says something?  

I believe that the best way to do this is to start with historical reliability and the manuscript evidence of the New Testament first, then move from there.  

Martin

See this is one of the things I struggle with.  How does one know which religion's works are divinely inspired and which are not, or maybe to an extent some or all of them are.  I've got no real beef with accepting that most major religions testaments are "historical" given the age of most of the texts it is IMO difficult to prove anyway.

I do know a lot of LDS and some of there beliefs are IMO quite different from mainstream Christianity.  They absolutely believe that Joseph Smith received the word of God in the form of the Book of Mormon.  I'm assuming that practitioners of Islam absolutely believe Muhammad received the word of God, same for Christians and the Bible.

To me it appears that it is human nature to seek the divine, when some prophet comes along and said God has revealed his plan to them I either accept it or I don't (faith) but IMO I can not know for certain.  It's hard for me to accept that God has left most of his flock without guidance or let them be led astray.

At any rate, Martin, I appreciate your and the other's responses.  You have given me something to ponder.  

[mwvickers]

Good thoughts.  Let me offer some of my own in response.

See this is one of the things I struggle with.  How does one know which religion's works are divinely inspired and which are not, or maybe to an extent some or all of them are.  I've got no real beef with accepting that most major religions testaments are "historical" given the age of most of the texts it is IMO difficult to prove anyway.

For many texts, it is difficult to prove.  The NT is actually quite different in this way, though, and I will discuss it whenever everyone is ready for me too. 

As far as "some or all" being divinely inspired, that cannot be.  Again, they are too contradictory to all be inspired.

I do know a lot of LDS and some of there beliefs are IMO quite different from mainstream Christianity.  They absolutely believe that Joseph Smith received the word of God in the form of the Book of Mormon.  I'm assuming that practitioners of Islam absolutely believe Muhammad received the word of God, same for Christians and the Bible.

You are quite right that there are differences.  That's why they cannot all be right. 

Let me give you an example, though, of how we can judge some of it. 

If a book is truly divinely inspired, one would expect perfection in truth from God (who by all counts should know quite a bit, if not everything, right?).  If, then, we find a glaring error, one can begin to rule out divine inspiration.

For example, the Qur'an says, "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah [God]; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah..." in Surah 9:30.  Historically, however, the Jews have never believed God had a son in the same way Christians believe Jesus is.  Therefore, this is wrong on historical and religious grounds.  Surely a divinely inspired book could get something that basic right?  Keep in mind, I am not knocking the Qur'an, I am just showing why I believe it is not inspired. 

The Bible actually stands very much about other religious texts in this way.

To me it appears that it is human nature to seek the divine, when some prophet comes along and said God has revealed his plan to them I either accept it or I don't (faith) but IMO I can not know for certain.  It's hard for me to accept that God has left most of his flock without guidance or let them be led astray.

It depends on what you mean by "for certain."  Religious arguments, like historical ones, are not scientific in that we have 100% certainty.  Actually very few things in life are like that.  Religious and historical questions are treated in the same way you would judge something in a law court: you examine the evidence and find the answer that leaves the fewest problems; i.e., you find something that appears to be true "beyond reasonable doubt." 

As far as God leaving much of his flock without guidance, I don't believe He has.  He sent Jesus into the world.  He sends missionaries out.  And, as mentioned earlier, we don't know how God deals with the rest who never hear.  So I don't believe He does leave them without guidance. 

As far as "let[ting] them be led astray," God gives free will.  He does not coerce anyone to anything.  So people's being led astray is due to their freedom to think and believe how they will.  If God forced people to accept Him, then they would be robots, and not free human beings. 

At any rate, Martin, I appreciate your and the other's responses.  You have given me something to ponder.  

And I appreciate yours greatly.  I hope I'm able to continue to help you think this through, whether or not you accept or reject my answers.

Martin

[mwvickers]

For anyone interested, I want to recommend some books for Kindle that may answer some questions, too. 










I have not read either book on the Kindle, so formatting is somethign I cannot speak about.  In hard copy, though, I have read the two by Strobel, and can personally recommend them.  I have not read this specific book by McDowell, but I have read others by him, and I have not found anything I would object to yet.  Both men are well trusted in Christian circles.

I hope they prove useful to some. 

[mwvickers]

I wanted to post the information below from another answer I gave in another topic of this forum.  I feel it is pertinent here, answering the question about the reliability of the NT.

"I want to focus on the New Testament, as I have studied the texts of it a little more. 

For historical writings, the way we can be sure of the accuracy is to consider how many copies we have, how they agree or disagree, and how long after the originals the copies we have date to.  So, for example, I believe for Caesar's Gallic Wars, we have about 10 copies in existence, the earliest of which dates to about 1,000 years after Caesar originally wrote.  Interestingly, no one really questions the accuracy of that writing (I may have the writing and date wrong, but the point remains, and I can try to find the specific examples if necessary).  This is actually one of the best-attested historical pieces we have.  Actually, we have one better...the New Testament.

The earliest fragment we have of the New Testament (a few verses of John's gospel) dates to about A.D. 120.  It was written about A.D. 90.  So, that is only a 30 year gap between the original writing and the earliest fragment.  The entire NT was written between about A.D. 50 and A.D. 90.  The earliest fragment is in A.D. 120, and we have about 20 fragments or so between that time and A.D. 300.  Between A.D. 300 and A.D. 350, we find at least two full copies of the NT in Greek, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.  In all, we have about 5,000 copies of the NT (in whole or in part) starting in A.D. 120 or so.  Again, this is only 30 years after the last writing, and only 90 years after the events that the writings describe.  So, for the NT we have a little over 5,000 copies, with only a 30-year gap from the writing to the earliest fragment, and only a 90-year gap from the events to the earliest fragment.  Compare that to the 10 copies of Caesar's writings that date at earliest 1,000 years after he wrote them. 

In addition to this, we have early copies of the NT in other languages, such as Latin, Syrian, etc.  These copies raise the total greatly, though I don't remember how much, so I won't try to guess. 

In addition to this, we have the quotes of the earliest church fathers (who started writing in the early second century, the 100s A.D.).  It has been estimated that if one only took the quotes of the church fathers, the NT could be accurately constructed to within 95% of what the NT says. 

Textual critics have studied the NT, and have compared variants (differences in wording, spelling, verses included/excluded, etc.), and have demonstrated that about 98-99% of the NT can be reconstructed with no questions about what it says.  The remaining 1-2% in question doesn't alter a single issue of major doctrine, so it doesn't effect the teaching of the NT at all."

What does all of that mean?  Basically, that we know that the NT we have today says the same thing it did when it was originally written. 

Now, that does not mean that it is right in what it says, but it does mean that no one can honestly question if the text has been changed.  In other words, we know it is accurate, but this does not yet determine it's truth. 

How could we do that?  Well, I believe the same way we do something in a court of law.  We examine whatever is testable from the text.  If we can verify that it is accurate, meaning those who wrote it told the truth in instances we can examine, the benefit of the doubt must be given to those areas that we cannot examine.  In other words, if we can demonstrate that they tell the truth on things that we can check, we have no fair reason for doubting them on things we cannot check. 

In this case, historically and archaeologically, the Bible has been shown to be true time and time again.  I won't go into a lot of detail about that yet (and those books I mentioned discuss some of this, too), but suffice it to say that there is no reason that I am aware of to question the NT on historical grounds. 

I'll leave it at this for now.

Martin

[Elijsha]

 The Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
      creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
      who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
      and born of the virgin Mary.
      He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
      was crucified, died, and was buried;
      he descended to hell.
      The third day he rose again from the dead.
      He ascended to heaven
      and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
      From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
      the holy catholic* church,
      the communion of saints,
      the forgiveness of sins,
      the resurrection of the body,
      and the life everlasting. Amen.

*that is, the true Christian church of all times and all places

^^^That's my Faith!

Once i knew i was a sinner, a lire, a thief, adult er at heart! It clicked in my spirit i needed a Savior. An when i turned to him with all my heart, the Bible became Alive. I knew then this was real.  I never really had a need to look into anything else.

 I have studied other faiths. That's why i started this thread. It's something Ive been talking with my family about of late.
An i go wow alota Christians don't know the Gospel!

 

[mlewis78]

RE:  Is Jesus the Only Way to God?

I'm going to post a link to a sermon about this by the Rev. Dr. R. Maurice Boyd, former minister of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and The City Church, New York:

http://www.citychurchny.org/church/worship/printed/PS-is_jesus.pdf

I hope that some of you will find this helpful.

This is the very first sermon I heard by Dr. Boyd when I attended a service at 5th Ave. Presby in 1990, just a few months after my father died.  After reading several posts on this thread, I decided to find a link to this sermon online, and in doing so, I learned that Dr. Boyd passed away in March, 2009.  He was 77.  I didn't know this until just now -- wasn't checking the NY Times obits every day.  I was a member of 5th Ave. when he was there and later I was one of the founding members of The City Church, NY.

[brianm]

Mlewis78............. thanks for the link...... interesting.

                 Brian

[Suzanne]

RE:  Is Jesus the Only Way to God?

I'm going to post a link to a sermon about this by the Rev. Dr. R. Maurice Boyd, former minister of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and The City Church, New York:

http://www.citychurchny.org/church/worship/printed/PS-is_jesus.pdf

I hope that some of you will find this helpful.

This is the very first sermon I heard by Dr. Boyd when I attended a service at 5th Ave. Presby in 1990, just a few months after my father died.  After reading several posts on this thread, I decided to find a link to this sermon online, and in doing so, I learned that Dr. Boyd passed away in March, 2009.  He was 77.  I didn't know this until just now -- wasn't checking the NY Times obits every day.  I was a member of 5th Ave. when he was there and later I was one of the founding members of The City Church, NY.

Thanks so much for posting that link to the sermon.

I read it online. Then I printed it out and read it again. Then I read it a third time. I see where quite a few times in the sermon he says that Jesus is not the only way to God. Am I to understand that Dr. Boyd believed that all religions were acceptable to God? If so, I would have to disagree with him. Please forgive me if I misunderstood that. Maybe it is me & I'm just having a difficult time with Dr. Boyd's writing style.

Is Dr. Boyd saying that since there was communication from God before Jesus's birth, that this is why Jesus is not the only way to God? Please don't think I am being sarcastic by asking these questions. I truly had a hard time with this article.

My understanding as a Christian is that the nation of Israel were God's chosen people. It was through the nation of Israel that the Messiah would come. The nation of Israel had The Mosaic Law and it showed us our need for a ransom sacrifice. Year after year, they had to continue doing those sacrifices. This showed that we needed more than those animal sacrifices. That was accomplished with Jesus's ransom sacrifice. Upon His death, the curtain in the temple was rent. He opened the way to Heaven for us with His ransom sacrifice.

We are all imperfect. We cannot get to Heaven on our own merits. We need that ransom sacrifice.

When Jesus was on earth, he was quite severe with members of his own religion. For example, this scripture in John shows how severe Jesus was with them.

John 8:42-47 (English Standard Version)

42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.

(Bold mine)

Paul tells us to not be unevenly yoked with unbelievers.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 (English Standard Version)

The Temple of the Living God
 14 Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? 16What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said,

    "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them,
   and I will be their God,
   and they shall be my people.
17Therefore go out from their midst,
   and be separate from them, says the Lord,
and touch no unclean thing;
   then I will welcome you,


If all religions are acceptable to God & Jesus, why did Jesus command us to preach?

Matthew 24:14 (English Standard Version)

14And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 28:19, 20

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  20teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.


At the end of Page 2 and into Page 3, Dr. Boyd says, "If God is the fountain of all goodness and the source of all truth and love, then God is present wherever these are to be found, and they are not limited to one faith." I really would need some scriptures to back that bold statement; I simply cannot take it on his word.

False religion was prevalent with the neighboring nations of the nation of Israel. God wanted the nation of Israel to have nothing to do with that false religion. It is most likely there were some nice people who did good things to others in those false religions, but still that religion was abominable to God. He demanded its utter destruction. When the nation of Israel entered the Promised Land, they completely destroyed whole towns because of the towns' false religion.

Near the end of Page 6, Dr. Boyd asks, "Does this mean that those who do not believe in Christ are lost? Is it part of
Christian faith that men and women who belong to other faiths are shut out of heaven? Some Christians think so. They believe that the millions of devotees of other religions, many of whom died before Jesus was born, along with those who have never heard of Him, are eternally lost. I do not agree with them. I believe that such a doctrine is unchristian and unscriptural. It is, in the words of Charles Darwin, "a damnable doctrine," and one which drove him from faith, for he r regarded it, as I do, as immoral. I have no patience with those Christians who would think themselves cheated and their faith diminished or discredited if anyone of another faith were to be saved."

Yes, many Christians believe that the ransom sacrifice of Jesus is necessary to get to Heaven. Just because we were born into a particular religion does not make that religion acceptable to God. As individuals, we all have an obligation to examine our religion. God gave us our intellect & thinking abilities. We should use them.

Many people have had the opportunity to examine their religion. By this I mean, they have had the freedom to do so. But they have not done so. This is our eternal life we are talking about. We have time for other things; don't we have time to examine whether our religion is acceptable to God and is the right path?

There are some who have never been exposed to the Bible. My personal belief is that God is all loving & merciful and doesn't want any to perish. I believe these ones will have an opportunity to learn and then make an informed decision as to whether they want to serve and worship God.

Not all Christians are acceptable to God or Jesus.

Matthew 7:13

 13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.  14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

Matthew 7:21-23 (English Standard Version)

I Never Knew You
 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

Once again, thank you for posting the link to that sermon. It has added a lot to the discussion.