Is there more then one way to God?

[crazyfingers]

Today at 09:54 AM Jephunneh said this in Post #20

crazyfingers, pray this prayer, Dear God, if there is a God, reveal yourself to me. Amen

Why?

 

[Jephunneh]

Why not?

 

[jodrey]

Today at 01:09 AM Jedi said this in Post #19



I have yet to meet a person like this, although I’m sure such people are out there. As far as this sort of people is concerned, it would be difficult to teach them anything. Teaching them about complex mathematical truths ought to be just as difficult as teaching them about spiritual ones (if the problem lies in being intimidating by someone smarter than themselves), but that doesn’t mean we should throw in the towel and not even try. Our efforts are only one side of the coin; God is the other side. Our part is to try to explain the truth as best we can, and leave the rest up to God.



What do you think the countless debates going on in numerous debate forums are concerned about? All you have to do is look around you to see others trying to do what you’ve demanded. However, again, I reassert that this is not the topic to do this in, and for you to demand it be done here is out of line, since the topic is about whether or not we think there’s one way to Heaven – not whether or not the one way we do believe to be the route to Heaven is the true one. Your quickness to try to challange the veracity of Christianity (when that is not on trial here) strongly implies you're simply looking for a fight.



We’ll see.

Well, there are less intelligent people, or at least mentally limited people, such as those with Down Syndrome and other mental disabilities. Are these people simply not able to be saved because they cannot understand complex mathematical formulae, and hence complex doctrinal structure? More often though, I find that less than a limiting mental handicap, it's a disinterest in scripture, history, archaeology, and physics that restricts a person's ability to learn through apologetics. I did not become interested in this until a few months ago. Before then I most likely would have fallen under the category of those unable to comprehend what the heck you're talking about. I would not have had the desire to study into length on these subjects. Isn't there a simpler method for learning truth? Does God really expect us to be able to prove His existance through science, and for each one of us to know Him through that way? Is that even faith?

Then there're still the point of those that have not heard the gospel. What happens to them? Isn't it unjust for them to suffer since they never had the opportunity to accept?

 

[Jedi]

Well, there are less intelligent people, or at least mentally limited people, such as those with Down Syndrome and other mental disabilities. Are these people simply not able to be saved because they cannot understand complex mathematical formulae, and hence complex doctrinal structure?

Hardly. I refuse to see any logic in God creating someone who is unable to come to Him. I don't think we know the details in how God deals with such people, but we can rest assured that all justice and mercy will be done in the end.

More often though, I find that less than a limiting mental handicap, it's a disinterest in scripture, history, archaeology, and physics that restricts a person's ability to learn through apologetics.

Apathy can't be good for the human condition. It is like God asking people "Will you accept my ways or not" and they reply "I don't care."

Isn't there a simpler method for learning truth? Does God really expect us to be able to prove His existance through science, and for each one of us to know Him through that way? Is that even faith?

No, proving God's existence isn't all of a sudden a requirement of salvation.

Then there're still the point of those that have not heard the gospel. What happens to them? Isn't it unjust for them to suffer since they never had the opportunity to accept?

The age old question of the salvation of the heathen. Let me quote C.S. Lewis concerning the subject here, which is a stance I've adopted: "I don't think we know the details; we must just stick to the view that (a) all justice and mercy will be done, (b) but nevertheless it is our duty to do all we can to convert unbelievers" (Letters of C.S. Lewis, 238).

 

[Jephunneh]

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

[jodrey]

Hardly. I refuse to see any logic in God creating someone who is unable to come to Him. I don't think we know the details in how God deals with such people, but we can rest assured that all justice and mercy will be done in the end.

Exactly! I don't see any logic in Him doing that either, but it is apparent, isn't it? This is the reason I believe there is a simpler answer than studying ancient manuscripts and language, history, etc. These are complex subjects and I don't think these are the means God has provided us with for proving Himself to us.

Apathy can't be good for the human condition. It is like God asking people "Will you accept my ways or not" and they reply "I don't care."

No, not apathy; disinterest in and intimidation by the above-mentioned subjects. Apathy about God and apathy about anthropology are two different things, and I'm distinguishing between the two.

No, proving God's existence isn't all of a sudden a requirement of salvation.

But according to you, only those who understand can know; therefore in order to believe it must be proven true to them.

The age old question of the salvation of the heathen. Let me quote C.S. Lewis concerning the subject here, which is a stance I've adopted: "I don't think we know the details; we must just stick to the view that (a) all justice and mercy will be done, (b) but nevertheless it is our duty to do all we can to convert unbelievers" (Letters of C.S. Lewis, 238).

That's a good answer, righteous and faithful. However, I believe that we know the method through which this justice and mercy is done.

 

[Jedi]

No, not apathy; disinterest in and intimidation by the above-mentioned subjects. Apathy about God and apathy about anthropology are two different things, and I'm distinguishing between the two.

People don't have to understand anthropology in order to accept God, though. One's understanding could very well be their faith.

But according to you, only those who understand can know; therefore in order to believe it must be proven true to them.

Some Christian philosophers in the past have stated the motto "I believe in order to understand," which is the direct opposite stance a lot of people here have. Most people here seem to want an understanding based on reason rather than an understanding based on faith.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

Yesterday at 03:16 PM jodrey said this in Post #26

Exactly! I don't see any logic in Him doing that either, but it is apparent, isn't it? This is the reason I believe there is a simpler answer than studying ancient manuscripts and language, history, etc. These are complex subjects and I don't think these are the means God has provided us with for proving Himself to us.

I'm certain the mentally retarded (this is what you're talking about, right?) are not held spiritually responsible, much in the way that children are not. And of course, the mentally handicapped and children die all the time, and God will not hold them accountable because they were not able to understand. Contrary to the poster on the door to my counselor's office, ignorance of the law is an excuse.

Regarding your concern about the methods through which we learn about God: I recall a thread somewhere about three months ago about apologetics. The query, if I remember correctly, was "Why isn't everyone terribly interested in apologetics and their salvation and eternal soul, etc. etc.?" My answer was simply because we are not all called to this, thus explaining the "disinterest" others have in the Bible or archaeology or history or physics. Diffrn't strokes, and so on. Many, it would seem, can accept the Bible from their original innoculation and never have a single doubt. Granted, they confuse me because I have a multitude of doubts, but I am in no place to second-guess their salvation - that is between them and God. We are all called to different areas. Apologetics is great and I love it, but another may love to sing or serve or write and on and on. All of those things you listed, physics and whatnot, they're just not everyone's steez.

 

[jodrey]

Yesterday at 04:24 PM Jedi said this in Post #27



People don't have to understand anthropology in order to accept God, though. One's understanding could very well be their faith.



Some Christian philosophers in the past have stated the motto "I believe in order to understand," which is the direct opposite stance a lot of people here have. Most people here seem to want an understanding based on reason rather than an understanding based on faith.

So then people should have blind faith? Why not do this with Islam or Buddhism or Mysticism or some such other religion? Do you mean this as a kind of try-and-buy basis or what?

 

[jodrey]

I'm certain the mentally retarded (this is what you're talking about, right?) are not held spiritually responsible, much in the way that children are not. And of course, the mentally handicapped and children die all the time, and God will not hold them accountable because they were not able to understand. Contrary to the poster on the door to my counselor's office, ignorance of the law is an excuse.

That's a good answer, but you didn't address those who are able to understand but don't have the opportunity to learn. Will they all go to heaven, innocent? That wouldn't exactly be fair to the rest of us. It would make the statement "Ignorance is bliss" very true.

Regarding your concern about the methods through which we learn about God: I recall a thread somewhere about three months ago about apologetics. The query, if I remember correctly, was "Why isn't everyone terribly interested in apologetics and their salvation and eternal soul, etc. etc.?" My answer was simply because we are not all called to this, thus explaining the "disinterest" others have in the Bible or archaeology or history or physics. Diffrn't strokes, and so on. Many, it would seem, can accept the Bible from their original innoculation and never have a single doubt. Granted, they confuse me because I have a multitude of doubts, but I am in no place to second-guess their salvation - that is between them and God. We are all called to different areas. Apologetics is great and I love it, but another may love to sing or serve or write and on and on. All of those things you listed, physics and whatnot, they're just not everyone's steez.

The feeling of many Christians seems to be that we learn the truth through intelligence; scriptural analysis; validity through scientific proofs. While a religion may be defended by such devices, does its adherence to them make it true? "Satan will tell a thousand truths so that we might believe a single lie." Is science and logic structure really a good thing to base faith off of? Should we have blind faith instead? My point was that since not everyone is interested in apologetics (assuming this is how it is proven) they can't know the truth. Since there is no other basis for belief they must then effectually be led by blind faith. If this is the case then it's no wonder there are so many religions. So, my question is: is there something more reliable? Is there something everyone can and will study to base faith on?

 

[Jedi]

So then people should have blind faith? Why not do this with Islam or Buddhism or Mysticism or some such other religion? Do you mean this as a kind of try-and-buy basis or what?

No, that’s not what I mean. I would encourage people to have a thinking faith, and not accept things blindly (hence the study of apologetics). However, for those who are unable to do so (i.e. the mentally retarded), the only option they have left is blind faith, and I’m certain God will take that into consideration concerning judgment.

 

[jodrey]

So then is faith based on study or is study based on faith? If study is based on faith then there's no reason a person should believe it in the first place, since this belief would imply that apologetics doesn't get the job done and faith is required first, before the learning takes place; this means blind faith is required before a person starts studying and hence builds a seeing faith. So this would mean a try-and-buy basis of acceptance. Have faith, study, and if it then makes sense, you should stick with it.

On the other side of the fence, if faith is based on study then it is not really faith because it is proven (i.e. sign-seeking), and this concept would be self-defeating.

Which is it? Is try-and-buy or sign-seeking the right way?

 

[Jedi]

So then is faith based on study or is study based on faith?

It depends on whom you ask. Do you honestly think everyone comes to God by study? Likewise, do you think everyone comes to God by blind faith? It depends on the individual.

If study is based on faith then there's no reason a person should believe it in the first place, since this belief would imply that apologetics doesn't get the job done and faith is required first, before the learning takes place; this means blind faith is required before a person starts studying and hence builds a seeing faith.

This is the sort of position Augustine takes. He starts with faith and then uses reason to justify it. Its basis is faith, but the supporting beams are made of reason. This approach wouldn’t be ideal for convincing someone else through intellectual reasons, but it is a sort of mixture of both faith and reason.

On the other side of the fence, if faith is based on study then it is not really faith because it is proven (i.e. sign-seeking), and this concept would be self-defeating.

Not really. Reason can only take you so far. In talking about the teleological argument, I can show how it’s much more reasonable to conclude there’s a God than not, but it’s not a 100% proof. Reason will support that conclusion, but faith has to take you the rest of the way. We may have reason to believe, but it’s belief nonetheless.

 

[jodrey]

It depends on whom you ask. Do you honestly think everyone comes to God by study? Likewise, do you think everyone comes to God by blind faith? It depends on the individual.

Of course not, but I'm trying to figure out what you were saying. It looked like you believe that people should study in order to know God, but then you changed that -- at least that's the way I saw it. Is blind faith encouraged by God? Is it even a good thing at all?

This is the sort of position Augustine takes. He starts with faith and then uses reason to justify it. Its basis is faith, but the supporting beams are made of reason. This approach wouldn’t be ideal for convincing someone else through intellectual reasons, but it is a sort of mixture of both faith and reason.

Hmm, okay. So what reason would someone have to start blind faith for? I mean, how would you effectively convert people? Say there's an atheist you want to convert -- what reliable method can they use to obtain even blind faith? It might be said that it's impossible to simply "have faith." Unless there is some kind of basis for it then can it even be considered faith? If this is the case then study MUST be necessary, but then that wouldn't be faith either, would it? Perhaps I'm confusing things. Care to clarify?

Not really. Reason can only take you so far. In talking about the teleological argument, I can show how it’s much more reasonable to conclude there’s a God than not, but it’s not a 100% proof. Reason will support that conclusion, but faith has to take you the rest of the way. We may have reason to believe, but it’s belief nonetheless.

Hmmm... Is knowledge of apologetics and intelligence directly related to faith? If you can understand how to prove your faith then is it still faith? What is faith and where does it come from if not from study?

 

[Jedi]

Of course not, but I'm trying to figure out what you were saying. It looked like you believe that people should study in order to know God, but then you changed that -- at least that's the way I saw it. Is blind faith encouraged by God? Is it even a good thing at all?

It is a good thing if you have blind faith in the right thing, since nothing else will deter you from the truth in which you believe. However, the rub comes in telling whether or not such blind faith is well placed.

I mean, how would you effectively convert people?

It depends on the person.

Say there's an atheist you want to convert -- what reliable method can they use to obtain even blind faith? It might be said that it's impossible to simply "have faith." Unless there is some kind of basis for it then can it even be considered faith? If this is the case then study MUST be necessary, but then that wouldn't be faith either, would it? Perhaps I'm confusing things. Care to clarify?

In the case of an atheist, I would think intellectual argumentation might be useful, although like I said, it depends on the person, and I wouldn't rest everything upon intellectual proofs (If I did that, the atheist would think I'm just like him, only stupid). But we must be mindful that study does not replace faith; it merely redirects it. Simply because you think about what you believe doesn't mean you no longer believe. Like I said before, someone may have reason to believe, but it's belief nonetheless.

Hmmm... Is knowledge of apologetics and intelligence directly related to faith? If you can understand how to prove your faith then is it still faith? What is faith and where does it come from if not from study?

Like I said before, study does not necessarily replace faith. I have yet to see some sort of adequate form of argumentation fully prove God's existence 100%. I have, however, seen arguments from those who have studied that show it is more reasonable to believe in God than not. Reason then directs someone's faith, but does not replace it. Reason can only go so far, and faith takes you the rest of the way.

 

[jodrey]

It is a good thing if you have blind faith in the right thing, since nothing else will deter you from the truth in which you believe. However, the rub comes in telling whether or not such blind faith is well placed.

Yes -- so what if I decided to have blind faith in Buddhism? For this reason I think God would be against it.

In the case of an atheist, I would think intellectual argumentation might be useful, although like I said, it depends on the person, and I wouldn't rest everything upon intellectual proofs (If I did that, the atheist would think I'm just like him, only stupid). But we must be mindful that study does not replace faith; it merely redirects it. Simply because you think about what you believe doesn't mean you no longer believe. Like I said before, someone may have reason to believe, but it's belief nonetheless.

Like I said before, study does not necessarily replace faith. I have yet to see some sort of adequate form of argumentation fully prove God's existence 100%. I have, however, seen arguments from those who have studied that show it is more reasonable to believe in God than not. Reason then directs someone's faith, but does not replace it. Reason can only go so far, and faith takes you the rest of the way.

Okay, that's a better answer.

 

[Jedi]

Yes -- so what if I decided to have blind faith in Buddhism? For this reason I think God would be against it.

Of course. That's why a lot of people don't like blind faith - it's hard to tell (through faith alone) if it's well placed. However, if it does happen to be well placed, it's the best sort of faith to have, since nothing will deter you from the truth. Likewise, though, if it's poorly placed, it's the worst sort of faith to have, since convincing that person that their faith is misplaced would be quite difficult.

Okay, that's a better answer.

Why thank you.

 

[jodrey]

Okay, cool. I've enjoyed this discussion.

Why thank you.

You're welcome.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

8th April 2003 at 03:26 PM jodrey said this in Post #30

That's a good answer, but you didn't address those who are able to understand but don't have the opportunity to learn. Will they all go to heaven, innocent? That wouldn't exactly be fair to the rest of us. It would make the statement "Ignorance is bliss" very true.

I don't know for sure, but I know that God is just and will dole out rewards and punishments accordingly. And, yes, ignorance would be bliss in that certain case (never hearing of Christ in your lifetime), but knowing Christ, in my opinion, gives more life than one could imagine. The two are gravely incongruous with respect to "degree of life," if there be such a thing.

The feeling of many Christians seems to be that we learn the truth through intelligence; scriptural analysis; validity through scientific proofs. While a religion may be defended by such devices, does its adherence to them make it true?

No more than adhering to anything else makes it true. Just because we landed in America and said, "We discovered it. We discovered it. We discovered it..." doesn't make it true.

"Satan will tell a thousand truths so that we might believe a single lie." Is science and logic structure really a good thing to base faith off of?

I don't think so, but it's a good spring board.

Should we have blind faith instead? My point was that since not everyone is interested in apologetics (assuming this is how it is proven) they can't know the truth. Since there is no other basis for belief they must then effectually be led by blind faith. If this is the case then it's no wonder there are so many religions.

I have to disagree with you. I think that's called a "fallacy of composition." Just because it's true for one person, or even largely true for many people, that doesn't mean it is necessarily true for all. It's a Western convention to have things in black and white. We sign contracts, for example, instead of exchanging handshakes. Case in point, missionaries in Eastern nations have learned that the people there aren't impressed by dialectics or fancy proofs. They want miracles. So God works miracles and many have come to Christ in that fashion. There's also revelation, whereby someone comes to know the truth in a vision or dream. God doesn't make us all the same, so why should he expect us to come to him in the same manner?

So, my question is: is there something more reliable? Is there something everyone can and will study to base faith on?

I dearly enjoy apologetics and it has helped me grow immensely. However, I only know of three or four other guys at my high school that share the same sentiment. So, I guess, to answer your question: No, there is no universal sledge-hammer that we can employ to make someone say, "Oh, there's the truth. I see it plainly now."

 

[Gerry]

5th April 2003 at 06:23 PM GirlReborn said this in Post #1

Since there are so many religions in the world it is really confusing to me, especially since the monotheistic religions are really similar. Is Allah the same as God? Will other religions get you to Heaven? If Christianity is based off of Judiasm then which one is right and where does Jesus fit in? What about faiths like Wicca, could that be another way of reaching the Creator? What's up?

I remember not long ago when you said you gave your heart to Jesus and was saved. I am sorry to see you are now confused and seeking to find answers in a forum composed of so many differing thoughts. I told you at that time to get into the Word and study it and let God's Word be your guide. I also suggested that you read the Book of John and study what Jesus says and see what He requires of those who follow Him and call themselves Christians. If one is a Disciple of Christ, then he has no choice but to believe there there is no other way because Jesus PLAINLY says so.

It is my prayer that you will not seek approval of men to justify any other way. Pray and let the Holy Spirit guide you into ALL Truth.