Will I get into Heaven?

[Camalus]

Suppose I was born in another country where Christianity wasn't the dominant religion. I was raised to believe and to follow the traditions of another religion. I spent my years committed to learning and sharing the knowledge of these teachings, and doing what I thought was God's will. I worshiped how and when I was supposed to, put others needs before my own, and lived a very moral and spiritual life.

Suggesting that Christianity is the true path...
When I die, and I'm standing before God for judgment, will he look down upon me and say "Cam, you are an amazing person...you've lived a very moral and spiritual life...but I can't let you in because you called me by the wrong name."
...or...
Do I just get a "free pass" into Heaven because I lived a good life?

[Cogitoergosum]

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine the
Pope commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr.
Charles Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to
Heaven!"

Touching story i almost shed a tear. Ur imam has little knowledge if he was alittle smarter he would have told you that the first holy war in history was when POPE URBAN the second COMMANDED ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS TO DELIVER THE HOLY LAND FROM THE INFIDELS. Where do u live man? u should go out more often.

[Cogitoergosum]

His view is Biblical. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they must be saved (Acts 4:12). So please save the bigot and crusades nonsense for those who are bigots against Biblical Christianity.

Thank you, my point exactly is that people who believe in biblical christianity are as intolerant as moslims or any other fanatic. This is why they are referred to as the christian TALIBAN. Bunch of biggots remnants of the dark ages when man did not know the difference between an apple and an orange, and when they believed the dance of rain made it rain.

[Cathar1950]

Thhey figure 10,000 to 100,000 Christians were killed in this one.
It is a touching story easyrider if it happened.
I doubt Jesus ever said such a thing as John reported. But he may have said the law was to be obeyed even in spirit. But Christians disagree.

The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209 - 1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the religion practiced by the Cathars of Languedoc, which the Roman Catholic hierarchy considered apostasy. It is historically significant for a number of reasons: the violence inflicted was extreme even by medieval standards; the church offered legally sanctioned dominion over conquered lands to northern French nobles and the King of France, acting as essentially Catholic mercenaries, who then acquired regions for France which at the time had closer cultural and language ties to Catalonia (see Occitan); finally, the Albigensian Crusade had a role in the creation and institutionalization of both the Dominican Order and the Medieval Inquisition.

[Easyrider]

His view is Biblical. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they must be saved (Acts 4:12). So please save the bigot and crusades nonsense for those who are bigots against Biblical Christianity.

Thank you, my point exactly is that people who believe in biblical christianity are as intolerant as moslims or any other fanatic. This is why they are referred to as the christian TALIBAN.

Well first, tolerance of wickedness is no virtue. As founding father Reverend John Witherspoon that, "...Civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue...."

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the "Father of Public Schools," once had this to offer: "The only foundation for a republic is...religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty."

Don't miss the force of that last statement, "....without virtue there can be no liberty." The principle is clear - a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As one writer noted, "Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings)." The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they ultimately become in their carnal obsessions.

Second, secular (liberal) “tolerance” is not what it appears to be. It is a corrupted partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one will likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Lastly, if you think Biblical Christianity is like the Taliban, then you probably have never read the New Testament. And the next time you're down and out, try finding a "Bitter Atheist's Homeless Shelter."

[Easyrider]

His view is Biblical. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they must be saved (Acts 4:12). So please save the bigot and crusades nonsense for those who are bigots against Biblical Christianity.

Thank you, my point exactly is that people who believe in biblical christianity are as intolerant as moslims or any other fanatic. This is why they are referred to as the christian TALIBAN.

Well first, tolerance of wickedness is no virtue. As founding father Reverend John Witherspoon declared, "...Civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue...."

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the "Father of Public Schools," once had this to offer: "The only foundation for a republic is...religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty."

Don't miss the force of that last statement, "....without virtue there can be no liberty." The principle is clear - a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As one writer noted, "Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings)." The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they ultimately become in their carnal obsessions.

Second, secular (liberal) “tolerance” is not what it appears to be. It is a hypocritical partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one will likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Lastly, if you think Biblical Christianity is like the Taliban, then you probably have never read the New Testament. And the next time you're down and out, try finding a "Bitter Atheist's Homeless Shelter."

[Cogitoergosum]

Well first, tolerance of wickedness is no virtue. As founding father Reverend John Witherspoon declared, "...Civil liberty cannot long be preserved without virtue...."

Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also known as the "Father of Public Schools," once had this to offer: "The only foundation for a republic is...religion. Without it there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty."

Don't miss the force of that last statement, "....without virtue there can be no liberty." The principle is clear - a lack of virtue engenders bondage. As one writer noted, "Intemperate men can never be free because their passions give rise to their fetters (bindings)." The more liberties a godless people achieve, the more enslaved they ultimately become in their carnal obsessions.

U r right tolerance of wickidness is no virtue, this is y we should not tolerate religion, there has not been a bigger force for evil and misdoings in this world than religious teachings and fanatisim. Benjamin rush gave his OPINION which by no means makes it FACT or VALUABLE.

Second, secular (liberal) “tolerance” is not what it appears to be. It is a hypocritical partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one will likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Again your OPINION. Morality should be consequentialist and rarely absolutist like obviously ur medieval moral is. Homosexuals are consenting adults and are not hurting anybody, so leave them alone hatemonger. Abortion is warranted sometimes, and there is no religious truth, i will respect a religious belief like a respect belief in voodoo and witchcraft. For every one good message that any religion conveys there are ten messages of biggotry and intolerance.

Lastly, if you think Biblical Christianity is like the Taliban, then you probably have never read the New Testament. And the next time you're down and out, try finding a "Bitter Atheist's Homeless Shelter."[/quote]

[Easyrider]

U r right tolerance of wickidness is no virtue, this is y we should not tolerate religion, there has not been a bigger force for evil and misdoings in this world than religious teachings and fanatisim.

You confuse wicked religious practices with that which isn't. No where in the NT is any man commanded to kill anyone, but to "love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Second, secular (liberal) “tolerance” is not what it appears to be. It is a hypocritical partisan philosophical perspective with its own rigid set of dogmas. It assumes, for instance, a relativistic view of moral and religious knowledge. This assumption has shaped the way many people think about issues such as homosexuality, abortion rights, and religious truth claims, leading them to believe that a liberally tolerant posture concerning these issues is the correct one and that it ought to be reflected in our laws and customs. But this posture is often dogmatic, intolerant, and coercive, for it asserts that there is only one correct view on these issues, and if one does not embrace it, one will likely face public ridicule, demagogic tactics, and perhaps even legal reprisals. Liberal tolerance is therefore neither liberal nor tolerant.

Again your OPINION. Morality should be consequentialist and rarely absolutist like obviously ur medieval moral is.

So you want a milk-toast morality that can be interpreted to include most anything and everything? That's what got us into the mess we're into today.

Homosexuals are consenting adults and are not hurting anybody, so leave them alone hatemonger.

Please cut the name calling or you will have a moderator on your case.

One of the participants in pedophilia is a consenting adult. So are adulterers consenting adults. And gay sex is sin, which brings God's disfavor on the individual, and in the long run continuing sins (including heterosexual sins) can bring judgment on society.

[Cogitoergosum]

So you want a milk-toast morality that can be interpreted to include most anything and everything? That's what got us into the mess we're into today.

What mess is that exactly?

Please cut the name calling or you will have a moderator on your case.

U r right i apologise for that.

One of the participants in pedophilia is a consenting adult.

The key word here is ONE, i'm talking about 2 consenting adults, pedophilia is a crime.

So are adulterers consenting adults.

This is why adultery is not a crime because 2 consenting adults, it is only a sin because god has a problem with sex. i'm not saying it is a good to thing to cheat on ur spouse, i find that horrible but it is nobody else's business.

And gay sex is sin, which brings God's disfavor on the individual, and in the long run continuing sins (including heterosexual sins) can bring judgment on society.

gays are consenting adults, u do not choose to be gay, u r born gay, some people take a while to realize that they are. it is known now that it is a consequence of fetal hormone imbalance. If u don't know, not only your gender but also your sexual identity are determined while you are in your mother's uterus.
homosexual behavior exists also in the animal kingdom, does that mean animals choose to be gay? nobody's sins reflect on society if u believe in the god of the new testament. Amsterdam and thailand are probably the sin capitals of the world and it has been this way for decades, no divine anger there.

[MagusYanam]

CES:

Why should morality be consequentialist? I find that the easiest ethical system for most people to accept and put into practise is not consequentialist but deontological (or sometimes virtue-based). That doesn't make it correct, but that is a consideration that needs to be made. Also, it might be expedient to make it clear that it is your opinion that consequentialist ethics should be followed instead of begging the question.

Also, while religion is the root of many of the world's ills, it can also be a powerful tool for doing good. Saying that religion is a loaded weapon in the hands of Osama bin Laden or George W. Bush may be a sound metaphor, but in the hands of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Mother Teresa or Mohandas Gandhi, you can see how the metaphor becomes problematic at best.

ER:

You'll be waiting a long time if you're looking, oxymoronically, for a democratic society in which free expression or public opinion is outlawed. What I'm seeing you asking is all the benefits of democracy for Christians and none of the drawbacks - you want a forum for expounding your beliefs but not one for questioning them. In effect, I see you biting the (liberal, tolerant) hands that are feeding you.

Also, it is not ethical subjectivism (what you like to term 'relativism') which is the root of liberal stances on homosexuality or abortion. Oftentimes, the roots of these stances are interpretations of biblical morality. Broadly speaking though, the Bible is not a sound basis for an ethical system - you need a cohesive moral theory. Jesus expounded a form of deontological ethics based on love for one's neighbours by doing unto them what you would have them do unto you. Under this system, I see no problem with a mutually consenting homosexual relationship. The difference between this and pedophilia (homosexual or heterosexual) is that the adult is using the (unconsenting) child as a means to an end. The difference from adultery is that in adultery, there is deception involved which uses the spouse as a means to an end.

There is a big difference between ethical relativism and an objective approach to deontological moral theory. Especially given the stances of liberalism to such sins as political and economic exploitation of the working class, exploitation of the environment, declaration of war or subjugation of another sovereign power.

[Confused]

There is no such thing as a "free pass" into Heaven. You can not get into Heaven because you lived a good life. Names like Allah or Buddah are NOT other "names" for Jesus. The Bible says there is ONE way to Heaven and JESUS is the way. Not Allah or any other man-created "gods" who were really just good men who believed in the wrong thing. I have some friends who were Jews that got saved. If they had never turned to Jesus and believed him to be the Messiah, then when they died they would have gone to Hell even though they were Jews. So what does that tell you?

That tells me u r a biggot and ignorant fool. how u had friends from another faith is beyond me. Did ur friends send u a postcard from heaven thanking you for saving them? How people of your species exist is beyond me. If it was up to u there will be never ending crusades because of absurd beliefs. Say hi to your GOD for me when u see him, and even if he exists your GOD he does not deserve my worship.

His view is Biblical. No one comes to the Father except through Jesus (John 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they must be saved (Acts 4:12). So please save the bigot and crusades nonsense for those who are bigots against Biblical Christianity.

And once again, you ignore a vast population. You are so good a condemning, you very poor at understanding. YOu say bigots against Biblical Christianity? Yes, some exist. But you yourself quote their is no way to the Father except through the Son. And Kmass backs you up 100%. But you always so conveniently forget that the Bible says that only those with ears will hear. If one doesn't know this God, then one cannot hear His teachings. What part of that concept do you keep failing to get through your head???? I have been working with a few Christians attempting to comprehend the Bible. I admit, I started with John, had to quit that one early and am on Matthew. Have been on Matthew for almost a month and still not progressing far. Mind you, I am reading with an open mind, not one of a skeptic, and the person who is helping me can testify to this if he wishes to. My question are valid and not debating. But lacking in understanding. So you sit there on you throne of righteousness and screech out the words of Christ as much as you want. Christ himself said that one sinner being found was worth more than 100 righteous men. You persecute while you preach and have such a good time doing so. I think it is easy for you because you think you have found this path to God and it makes you righteous through His blood. I think you are deluding yourself. One who is righteous is one who not only follows Christ but leads others towards Him, and never give up. If Christ gave up the first time he was questioned, there would be no Christianity. I have heard I think it was Biker (forgive me if I am wrong Biker) say that you can only plow a field that is ripe. The meaning was that you can only teach those about Christ who are ready to learn about Him. So tell me, how does one become ready? By listening to easyriders constant condemnation? While I do in part mean to single you out Easyrider because this post is mostly to you, I don't mean to imply you are the only one who does this. Most Christians on this site keep preaching that they have this personal relationship with God that is reaffirmed by scripture. Great. But you seem to continuously forget that for those who can't understand what you say is written, how can you expect them to believe? Don't you have to plant the seed before it can grow? Don't you need something to grasp on to to make a statement of faith? Don't you need to understand what you are reading before you can believe what you are reading? See, what you have is an impossible circular defeat. If you weren't raised around religion (such as myself) then the only knowledge you have is either via ignorance or education. Both skew the Word so much so that it is taken out of context to mean something else. The Bible is taught as ancient literature. That is all. I was taught it in the literary sense only. It was a story. Such as The Epic Of Gilgamesh (which predates Genesis by over 3500 years). It was all literature. Those like myself are stuck in a continuous circle in which formal education and street smarts have kept us alive. Now you want us to see this book called the Bible in a religious sense and when we fail because we lack the "ears to hear" we must be bigots, heretics, etc...... I think you can easily classify yourself in that category as much as could I and most people here. So when you are ready to step off your throne, perhaps you might actually explain rather than ridicule.