Don't all roads led to heaven?

[Zaac]

Only if you think that the Bible, is indeed, what God says. And that is part of what is being challenged. And the advantage of finding reasons to support scriptural prescriptions is that you stand a reasonable chance of being able to communicate effectively with people who simply cannot accept Christian pre-suppositions.

Now I ask again. What God saved you if you don't accept the God of the Bible?

By 'Great Commission', I assume you mean trying to convert everyone to Christianity. Well, to be honest, I am relaxed about that. I don't think their eternal fate depends on it. I do think, however, that it depends on their moral stature, and I am a lot less relaxed about that. So, I take part in discussions designed to empasise the importance of morality in decision making, and to allow people to reach (their own) moral conclusions and implement them, that being the way moral stature is achieved.

This is truly sad.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Now I ask again. What God saved you if you don't accept the God of the Bible?

You think the way God is depicted in the Bible is the only possible way to concieve of God?

This is truly sad.

Why?

Best, 2RM.

 

[AngelusSax]

Why?

Best, 2RM.

If I may venture a guess (and Zaac, you can obviously answer better than I concerning why you think it's sad):

Jesus said He is the way, the truth, the life. He didn't say that good morals were, but that He was. But then, this comes from our understanding through Scripture, which is not where your understanding comes from (at least primarily), so at best, this discussion will happen on 2 different wave-lengths (if not more) as a result.

 

[2ndRateMind]

If I may venture a guess (and Zaac, you can obviously answer better than I concerning why you think it's sad):

Jesus said He is the way, the truth, the life. He didn't say that good morals were, but that He was. But then, this comes from our understanding through Scripture, which is not where your understanding comes from (at least primarily), so at best, this discussion will happen on 2 different wave-lengths (if not more) as a result.

Well, this is easily dealt with. Christians believe that Jesus was morally perfect. So, when He said He was the way, the truth, and the life, it is not inconsistant to think that at least part of what He was getting at (but too modest to say) was that morality has a lot to do with that way, that truth, and that life.

Best, 2RM.

 

[AngelusSax]

Well, this is easily dealt with. Christians believe that Jesus was morally perfect. So, when He said He was the way, the truth, and the life, it is not inconsistant to think that at least part of what He was getting at (but too modest to say) was that morality has a lot to do with that way, that truth, and that life.

Indeed it does, but it is not what saves. We are saved by God through Christ. Morality (or good works, if you will) come about because of God's grace, but never are done apart from God's grace to get to God.

Those who are saved are transformed by Christ so that they can live the moral life (though we all slip up from time to time). Living morally is one way of living out one's salvation in the present, but it cannot get one TO salvation.

 

[ittarter]

Thanks for the recommends. I'll see if I can find them. It may take some time though - I'm a bit low on funds, after Christmas!

Best, 2RM.

PS. I am not using scientific method, in the sense of observation - hypothesis - experiment - analysis - conclusion - peer review. But I do think that basic rationality, in the sense of a logical progression of concepts, is a useful contribution to this forum. The degree to which it is resisted confirms me in that view. And peer review is my entire reason for posting here.

Huh. I feel like I should have already known this about you.

Still, a "logical progression of concepts" didn't exist in antiquity? This is some sort of recent development?? Even in the Bible, the Hellenistic influence of philosophical thought on Paul's writings is undeniable. Yes, the Jewish or Hebraic way of thinking is definitely not linear, but I still wouldn't deny its logic. I'm sure it was logical to them, and as your opponents on this thread have already said, I believe that logic is at least partly a cultural phenomenon. I suppose that's our major disagreement -- and that, as I said before, is the great Western arrogance, the supposition that our logic is the greatest of them all.

Another book of interest is Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in this Text? The first half is the better half of the book, especially with respect to our conversation. He presents a great case on behalf of deconstructionism (which he tries to then refute in pt. 2) especially in terms of logic.

Of course, it would be a pretty big paradigmatic shift for you (or me, if I turned to the "light side"). Would you identify your position as akin to philosophical idealism, as opposed to philosophical relativism?

 

[2ndRateMind]

Indeed it does, but it is not what saves. We are saved by God through Christ. Morality (or good works, if you will) come about because of God's grace, but never are done apart from God's grace to get to God.

Those who are saved are transformed by Christ so that they can live the moral life (though we all slip up from time to time). Living morally is one way of living out one's salvation in the present, but it cannot get one TO salvation.

So you assert. But we come back to the point that began this thread, that saving people through belief is fundamentally unjust, since belief is a fundamentally a matter of religion, and religion is fundamentally associated with accident of birth. Because it is unjust, it is inconsistant with God's nature. Because it is inconsistant with God's nature, it cannot be the whole story.

Rewarding moral stature, however, is not unjust, and therefore not inconsistant with God's nature, and therefore a more likely candidate for the true state of affairs.

I suggest you review the thread, because we have discussed all this, earlier.

Best, 2RM.

 

[joy2daworld]

We have a moral sense because God planted it in our DNA. Like it or not, He is the standard by which we all should be living. The Bible supports it because it is the absolute truth by which all things are judged.

Unfortunately, because sin has entered the world, we can't clearly distinguish right and wrong anymore. Over the last 4,000 years we have grown farther and farther away from that absolute standard. Some inspiring men have attempted to re-create that which was missing by composing these other books, all of which came about long after the Bible was inspired by God and (coincidentally or not) hold many of the same standards.

Hm, I wonder where they got it. From that Law that was imprinted on their hearts, maybe? Could be from the oral stories passed down from generation to generation that came straight from the history of God's people, God's plan, God's love for all of us.

If it doesn't sit well with our "moral values" it's because our moral values have been corrupted by sin. What we think is right may not be. In ancient Sparta, baby boys who were declared too weak were left in the woods to die because they would not make good soldiers. That practice wouldn't sit well with our moral values, but for Sparta, it never occurred to them to do anything different. Does this prove that we set the standard? Or does it simply demonstrate just how far we've fallen from absolute truth?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Mod Hat On

Thread Is Being Moved To Exploring Christianity

By Staff Consensus

Mod Hat Off​

 

[ittarter]

We have a moral sense because God planted it in our DNA. Like it or not, He is the standard by which we all should be living. The Bible supports it because it is the absolute truth by which all things are judged.

If God planted a sense of morality in our DNA, then that sense is the standard, not God.

Unfortunately, because sin has entered the world, we can't clearly distinguish right and wrong anymore. Over the last 4,000 years we have grown farther and farther away from that absolute standard. Some inspiring men have attempted to re-create that which was missing by composing these other books, all of which came about long after the Bible was inspired by God and (coincidentally or not) hold many of the same standards.

I don't get how sin would hamper our ability to judge right from wrong, or why you think that we used to know right from wrong better than we do now, or even more strangely, why you believe sin entered the world about four thousand years ago. I'm pretty sure that there's a terribly twisted reading of the first few chapters of Genesis lurking somewhere back there.

And you are certainly not correct that the bible was the first literary statement on the issue of right and wrong. It is not even the oldest that is still being used by world-class religion. Hinduism, for instance.

Hm, I wonder where they got it. From that Law that was imprinted on their hearts, maybe? Could be from the oral stories passed down from generation to generation that came straight from the history of God's people, God's plan, God's love for all of us.

It could be. But it might very well be from somewhere else. Why start here rather than there?

If it doesn't sit well with our "moral values" it's because our moral values have been corrupted by sin. What we think is right may not be. In ancient Sparta, baby boys who were declared too weak were left in the woods to die because they would not make good soldiers. That practice wouldn't sit well with our moral values, but for Sparta, it never occurred to them to do anything different. Does this prove that we set the standard? Or does it simply demonstrate just how far we've fallen from absolute truth?

What it shows is that in different cultures, different moral codes are operative. What it does not show conclusively is that there is some absolute truth from which all moral codes are derived, however miserably. What you are essentially saying is that your moral values are somehow more authoritative than other moral values, and well, that's pretty much what everyone says (except those godless pragmatists, emotivists and relativists).

So the dilemma becomes, Unless I make the radical choice of believing in your God and your sacred text, why should I care what you say, and why should we have inter-faith discussion at all?

 

[joy2daworld]

I stand corrected. Hindu scriptures are as old as the Pentateuch. And, I didn't mean to imply that sin entered the world 4,000 yrs ago, but that during that general period, the corruption of the world became such that our walk with God was severely skewed. I believe in a young earth, about 6,000 yrs old, and that sin entered the world very near the beginning, when the angel Lucifer developed a sense of pride that caused him to become disobedient to God's laws. Along with him, he cohersed the woman God had created into doubting His words which resulted in the indiscretion of eating the fruit from the one forbidden tree, then offering it to the man God created and he also eating it.

As a result, our sense of the standard has become distorted because we too are prideful and would love to have the standard exalt us instead of God. Each culture distorts this in their own way. I am convinced that the standard for each culture is derived from the standard God has instilled in us but is not the same as other standards simply because sin has corrupted our view of right and wrong.

As far as the original question posed, "Don't all roads lead to heaven?" I stand firm on the answer of "NO". All roads do not lead to heaven, at least not the heaven of which I speak, the one offered in the Bible. They may lead to someone's heaven, but it is a heaven they have created for themselves because of the writings they believe are the foundation of their religion. So be it. But I rest secure in my faith in the one true God who has promised me that if I remain faithful to Him until death, I will receive the crown of eternal life. (Rev. 2:10 paraphrased)

 

[brightmorningstar]

To 2ndRateMind,

You think the way God is depicted in the Bible is the only possible way to conceive of God?

None of us have said that, but yes the Biblical testimony if true, says that there is no other God apart from the one whose tesimony the Bible is. Well we beleive the Bible is true but you obviously dont... which is probably why this thread has been moved to exploring Christianity.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Over the last 4,000 years we have grown farther and farther away from that absolute standard.

Funnily enough, while I agree with your idea that sin taints our moral sense, I think recently, since the invention of the Great Democratic Debate, we have made considerable moral progress.

#1 We no longer keep slaves.

#2 We educate our children, rather than working them.

#3 Racism, while still endemic, is being resisted.

#4 Women have their voices heard, and their opinions and interests taken seriously.

#5 We no longer crucify politically inconvenient preachers.

#6 The human rights movement protects these advances, and many others, where they exist, and seeks to implement them where they don't.

And these are just a few examples of moral progress, that occur to me as I write. I am sure I could provide more, if you remain unconvinced.

Best wishes, 2RM

 

[2ndRateMind]

To 2ndRateMind,
None of us have said that, but yes the Biblical testimony if true, says that there is no other God apart from the one whose tesimony the Bible is. Well we beleive the Bible is true but you obviously dont... which is probably why this thread has been moved to exploring Christianity.

Don't get me wrong, brightmorningstar. I am not arguing that the Bible should be discarded. There is a lot of good stuff in there. But it needs to be interpreted, not (exclusively) venerated. I, too, am a monotheist, and think there is only one God. But we who believe in Him approach Him from diverse angles, and consequently have diverse impressions. I just think that no single, individual impression has a monopoly on the description of God's nature.

And yes, I had noticed the thread had moved, also. Funny, that. As soon as one takes a philosophical approach, insisting on rational thought and assertions to be backed up by evidence and argument, then the thread is no longer considered suitable for the philosophy forum.

Best 2RM

 

[brightmorningstar]

To 2ndRateMind,

Don't get me wrong, brightmorningstar. I am not arguing that the Bible should be discarded.

Don’t get me wrong, according to the Bible you are, as all scripture is God breathed and useful for teaching correcting etc. 2 Tim 3. To use ones own intellect and reasoning to decide what is relevant is discarding. As soon as one change the truth a little it is no longer the truth.
Your statement

You think the way God is depicted in the Bible is the only possible way to conceive of God?

The answer simply is yes if anyone is proposing something to the contrary. Of course one might claim to conceive of God differently but according to the Bible it will be a god and not the one true God. Deut 4:35 & Mark 12:32.

 

[2ndRateMind]

Huh. I feel like I should have already known this about you.

Still, a "logical progression of concepts" didn't exist in antiquity? This is some sort of recent development?? Even in the Bible, the Hellenistic influence of philosophical thought on Paul's writings is undeniable. Yes, the Jewish or Hebraic way of thinking is definitely not linear, but I still wouldn't deny its logic. I'm sure it was logical to them, and as your opponents on this thread have already said, I believe that logic is at least partly a cultural phenomenon. I suppose that's our major disagreement -- and that, as I said before, is the great Western arrogance, the supposition that our logic is the greatest of them all.

Another book of interest is Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in this Text? The first half is the better half of the book, especially with respect to our conversation. He presents a great case on behalf of deconstructionism (which he tries to then refute in pt. 2) especially in terms of logic.

Of course, it would be a pretty big paradigmatic shift for you (or me, if I turned to the "light side"). Would you identify your position as akin to philosophical idealism, as opposed to philosophical relativism?

Hi Ittarter

I have to thank you for the tone of your posts. One gets so used to hostility, that a well-mannered, well-thought, intellectually challenging post is a real pleasure. But, to answer:

Yes, I am not convinced any longer by (moral) relativism. I used to be, as an atheist, and was most grateful, when I became a theist, to be able to discard it in a properly honest manner. So, idealism, at least in terms of ethics, was like coming home.

I do not mean to disparage the ancients. They did the best they could with the conceptual tools at their disposal. But I do think philosophy, and, indeed, the whole of society, has made progress since, and that if Christians fail to realise this, then they are doomed to irrelevancy. And I think that would be a shame.

And thanks again, for the growing book list.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[AngelusSax]

So you assert. But we come back to the point that began this thread, that saving people through belief is fundamentally unjust, since belief is a fundamentally a matter of religion, and religion is fundamentally associated with accident of birth. Because it is unjust, it is inconsistant with God's nature. Because it is inconsistant with God's nature, it cannot be the whole story.

Except there are converts to various religions all the time (nearly every day, I'd wager). Belief is a gift from God. Belief is a result of grace, for none can believe apart from that (some people born into religions fall away, most likely rejecting that gift of belief given to them). That gift is not necessarily given the same way to all people. Some may receive it through their baptism. Others through instruction. Others through a dream. Others through some experience which moves them beyond their comfort zone. They may evn express their belief differently. However, the only assurance of salvation given is to those who believe on Jesus the Christ, whether that be for their whole lives, or their very last second, or somewhere in between.

I consign no one to hell, for it is God who is the judge. I do not say "well that person didn't believe points a, b, and c, so they're in hell." I simply say "that person never acknowledged a belief in Jesus so far as I know, so I hope they did believe and I just didn't know about it, and beyond that I do not and cannot know the state of their eternal home."

 

[2ndRateMind]

Except there are converts to various religions all the time (nearly every day, I'd wager).

Oh, I agree. There are converts. There are even many converts. But the thing is, they are the exception, not the rule. The 'accident of birth' injustice does not need everyone born into a religion to die in that religion, just most people. And if I were a betting man, I'd be willing to enter into a wager with you, that the statistics would provide empirical evidence of that constancy.

Belief is a gift from God. Belief is a result of grace, for none can believe apart from that (some people born into religions fall away, most likely rejecting that gift of belief given to them). That gift is not necessarily given the same way to all people. Some may receive it through their baptism. Others through instruction. Others through a dream. Others through some experience which moves them beyond their comfort zone. They may evn express their belief differently. However, the only assurance of salvation given is to those who believe on Jesus the Christ, whether that be for their whole lives, or their very last second, or somewhere in between.

Yes, I think I'd give you that, and not just for the sake of argument. Christianity is special. But I answered the thread OP by stating my belief that it is not the exclusive way to find Heaven, and your comments don't affect that position, as far as I can see. Indeed, if Christian belief is a gift of God, a matter of divine grace, it compounds the injustice issue, since God does seem to bestow that gift in a capriciously random manner.

I consign no one to hell, for it is God who is the judge. I do not say "well that person didn't believe points a, b, and c, so they're in hell." I simply say "that person never acknowledged a belief in Jesus so far as I know, so I hope they did believe and I just didn't know about it, and beyond that I do not and cannot know the state of their eternal home."

I think that is an entirely reasonable position to adopt. I wish all the contributors to these forums were that enlightened.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

[Sketcher]

No, otherwise the sacrifice of Jesus would be totally pointless.

 

[ittarter]

I stand corrected. Hindu scriptures are as old as the Pentateuch. And, I didn't mean to imply that sin entered the world 4,000 yrs ago, but that during that general period, the corruption of the world became such that our walk with God was severely skewed. I believe in a young earth, about 6,000 yrs old, and that sin entered the world very near the beginning, when the angel Lucifer developed a sense of pride that caused him to become disobedient to God's laws. Along with him, he cohersed the woman God had created into doubting His words which resulted in the indiscretion of eating the fruit from the one forbidden tree, then offering it to the man God created and he also eating it.

As a result, our sense of the standard has become distorted because we too are prideful and would love to have the standard exalt us instead of God. Each culture distorts this in their own way. I am convinced that the standard for each culture is derived from the standard God has instilled in us but is not the same as other standards simply because sin has corrupted our view of right and wrong.

As far as the original question posed, "Don't all roads lead to heaven?" I stand firm on the answer of "NO". All roads do not lead to heaven, at least not the heaven of which I speak, the one offered in the Bible. They may lead to someone's heaven, but it is a heaven they have created for themselves because of the writings they believe are the foundation of their religion. So be it. But I rest secure in my faith in the one true God who has promised me that if I remain faithful to Him until death, I will receive the crown of eternal life. (Rev. 2:10 paraphrased)

This is a much more sensible post (although I still disagree, respectfully). Thank you for rephrasing your position.