Criteria for salvation; what must we do?

[achilles12604]

I have researched this myself and created a similar post in the holy huddle room. But I open it up for general discussion.

1) What exactly must be done to be saved?

2) What is the criteria used by God to determine judgement?

3) Who will be saved?

4) Who will NOT be saved?

[Rathpig]

... gave man free will

An all powerful, all knowing creator created a semantic loophole. You either have to remove the "all powerful, all knowing creator" part or you have to remove the "free will" part. You can't have both they are mutually exclusive.

I do realize that this is the dogma; however it failed and conception and has been long dismissed and debunked. Contradictions crash on compile.

..."because God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"

The "all powerful, all knowing creator" thing seems to clash with the rest of the story. God created an evil world and then *gasp* pitched a tanty when he realized it was evil. This is a quality control issue which also crashed on compile.

"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen"

This is a somewhat convoluted story and a definite violation of old Occam's Razor, but I understand this is the talking point that feeds the machine.

Here is my little qualm: why?

It all goes back to the "all powerful, all knowing creator" thing. You take that out, and you have at least a more constant story. But building from that premise it just appears to be bad highschool prose. Nothing that happens follows from the "all powerful, all knowing creator" thing. It is silly to thing that Uber-God is such a namby pamby.

If God built the entire system with complete power and complete foreknowledge, why intentionally mess everything up?

To put it in colloquial terms: God did it for the lulz!

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Yes, it is very clear in even a cursory study of history that a clear evolution of superstition follows the time-line of human social evolution with each subsequent culture building a more complex cosmology through adaptation of myth. I had digested many volumes on the subject prior to secondary school, so it is not even a university level topic. The bottom-line is that human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of profit.

It is not a chicken-first-or-egg question even. Man makes god in his image: film at eleven.


(The rest of your post is nice as well, but I think I hit the high spots.)

[McCulloch]

What the Bible Says

• You must repent of your sins.

  "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. ... I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

• You must confess your sins.

  Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

  If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

• You must forgive others.

  For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.

• You must endure to the end.

  "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

• You must suffer.

  "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.

  Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

• You must be baptized.

  He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

  ... when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you--not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

  Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

• You must believe in Jesus and make public confession that you believe.

  They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

  that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

• You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.
• You must not only love your neighbor, but you must love him as yourself.
• You must help the poor.

[logiet]

Creation was originally perfect. Genesis 1:31 makes this clear (literally "good good", or emphatically good). Creation is now imperfect, but Creation will in the future be purified and perfected again in greater glory than the original. Creation is not static but dynamic over time. We can be thankful that God is controlling the changes.

As to salvation, the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ is the sole access ("door" in John 10:9) to God the Father. Hebrews 7:24-25 expresses a similar idea with emphasis on Jesus' complete ability to save. There is no work that we can do to be saved, according to the Scriptures. John 3:15-18 among many other Bible passes establishes faith as the dividing factor between the saved and the doomed. For another example, note the ironic use of "work" in John 6:29 and the extended treatment in Romans 3 & 4. (The passage in James 2:14-26 is directed to distinguishing between dead intellectual-only assent and living faith which transforms our minds, emotions and actions, not at saying that salvation is earned. To believe in Jesus as God means to be committed in principle to obey Him and to worship Him as God just as we worship the Father. John 5:21-23)

[twobitsmedia]

Creation was originally perfect. Genesis 1:31 makes this clear (literally "good good", or emphatically good).

"good" equals "perfect"? How do you figure?

Creation is now imperfect,

Where and why was the change?

but Creation will in the future be purified and perfected again in greater glory than the original. Creation is not static but dynamic over time. We can be thankful that God is controlling the changes.

What is the sense in going from perfect to imperfect and back to perfect again???


[/quote]

[Fisherking]

... gave man free will

An all powerful, all knowing creator created a semantic loophole. You either have to remove the "all powerful, all knowing creator" part or you have to remove the "free will" part. You can't have both they are mutually exclusive.

How so? Being all powerful does not necessarily mean all power will always be used.

..."because God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"

The "all powerful, all knowing creator" thing seems to clash with the rest of the story. God created an evil world and then *gasp* pitched a tanty when he realized it was evil.

Again, an all knowing Creator would not have to "realized" anything. "Pitching a tanty" would be an anthropomorphization on your part, which commonly leads to apparent contradictions about the nature of God that do not actually exist.

"To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen"

If God built the entire system with complete power and complete foreknowledge, why intentionally mess everything up?

Do you have "complete foreknowledge" in order to say anything is "messed up"?

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Yes, it is very clear in even a cursory study of history that a clear evolution of superstition follows the time-line of human social evolution with each subsequent culture building a more complex cosmology through adaptation of myth. I had digested many volumes on the subject prior to secondary school, so it is not even a university level topic. The bottom-line is that human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of profit.

First, one would have to establish that a belief in God is a superstition --- then, one would have to support the claim that:
--cultural cosmology has greater complexity now than in the past
--superstitions evolve from simplicity to complexity parallel to social evolution.
-- human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of
profit.

[Rathpig]

How so? Being all powerful does not necessarily mean all power will always be used.

I would say that having "all power" and not using it removes any right to complain. The doctrine of Abrahamism can be surmised into the observation that God whines often. If "God" failed to use his "all-power" then that doesn't remove the responsibility for the outcome.

Again, an all knowing Creator would not have to "realized" anything. "Pitching a tanty" would be an anthropomorphization on your part, which commonly leads to apparent contradictions about the nature of God that do not actually exist.

I think the story of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is "God" either complaining or acting out about one bit of fluff or another. Just to hit the high points, we have the Eden tantrum, the flood tantrum, the Sodom tantrum, the killing all the first born, the genocide, the enslavement, the entire history of the Yahweh is a bit of a tanty.

Anthropomorphization is meaningless if we are discussing the Abrahamic "God". Let us not forget, we were created in his image, so any trait attributed to humanity is actually Yahwehpomorphization.

Do you have "complete foreknowledge" in order to say anything is "messed up"?

"God" says it is "messed up". In fact this is repeated ad nauseum. The Bible Story could be subtitled "Fear and Loathing in the Ancient Middle East".

First, one would have to establish that a belief in God is a superstition --- then, one would have to support the claim that:
--cultural cosmology has greater complexity now than in the past
--superstitions evolve from simplicity to complexity parallel to social evolution.
-- human build gods from the earliest epoch in response to fear and pursuit of
profit.

It is quite convenient to our discussion that Richard Dawkins recently published The God Delusion that covers the topic well, but recent books by Sam Harris, The End of Faith, and Daniel Dennett, Breaking the Spell, cover any spots that Dawkins may have overlooked.

Once you have finished these three books, please PM me and I will gladly provide a bibliography that should keep you busy for the next several years.

[Easyrider]

It is quite convenient to our discussion that Richard Dawkins recently published The God Delusion that covers the topic well....

Dawkins is the one who is deluded:

Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion - Chapter 1

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/th ... sion1.html

Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion - Chapter 2

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/th ... sion2.html

Debunking Dawkins: The God Delusion - Chapter 4

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/th ... sion4.html

[Greatest I Am]

If you believe in god then you must believe as scripture indicates, that all of His works are Perfect.

All souls are therefore Perfect.
All souls therefore are destined for Heaven.
This is as it should be.

If you believe in God then you must believe as the scriptures indicate that it says nothing about souls being created perfect.

Scripture indicates that God is the creator of all things.
It also indicates that all of God's works are Perfect.
It does not need to mention every works.

logiet
You have the beginning correct but if you cannot see the Perfection of Eve's choice then the rest of your view gets skewed to the wrong path.
God is not a loser of anything.
His works, us never lost Perfection.

That would be ungodly.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I Am]

Either the creation is perfect or the creation is imperfect. If a perfect creator built a machine that decided on it's own to embrace error, one can not blame the machine: it was designed that way.

Though our motivations for saying so may be different, I will have to say that I agree with your statement. Man was NOT designed perfect. At best, He was described as "good." That is a far cry from perfection. Even "pretty good"" would have been an improvement.

The snake is also called good.

Satan is good??

Regards
DL

[Rathpig]

It is quite convenient to our discussion that Richard Dawkins recently published The God Delusion that covers the topic well....

Dawkins is the one who is deluded:

(various links to "godandscience.org")

Of course I could dig through the various specious arguments present by Richard Deem on his woefully amateur website. But the battle of the Richard's can actually be summed up in rather nicely:

Richard Deem has not refuted Richard Dawkins in the slightest. Deem has presented volumes of logical fallacy that can be deduced into the simple retort that Deem doesn't have the least bit of evidence to support his case. Deem has a website.

If Deem had anything to stand on, he could find dozens of distributing publishers to put a book in the market within a week. Yet, Deem hides behind his amateur web site safe in the knowledge that he can maintain credibility as long as he avoids the scrutiny of peer review. Were he to publish a book, he would be finished as an apologist. Lucky for him you can publish back arguments on the internet and it is just assumed to be par for the course.

This thread is obviously not the place to get into a deep discussion of Dawkins. Let me just say that he is by no means the atheist's Messiah. I like Dawkins because I think he is a good professor and he has had phenomenal success with his books. Anything that promotes science is a good thing in my view.


(Let's not forget that Deem does not have a terminal degree in his field, so in the battle of Richard's one has more sheepskin on the wall than the other. Not that that is a big deal, but taken in context of this argument it is rather important.)