Do you think that those who believe because of fear of going to hell will get accepted into heaven?
Or would that be judged as self-interest but not real faith?
Jesus Christ as Simple as A, B, C
- Thread starter Boiler Buck
- Start date
Or would that be judged as self-interest but not real faith?
I went to a Catholic high school as a non-Catholic. Good school academically and 4 years of religion class was required and I had a rude awakening at all of the idolatry, paganism, and emphasis of Jesus' mother Mary. What was really weird to me was confessing sins to a priest. Confession and other stuff I learned were definitely not Biblical. Catholicism is seemingly a works base religion. Therefore, salvation is good question.
As far as people who identify as Christian but do not practice the faith and do not plan on doing so. That's is easy. As the Bible says that the path is narrow and only a few will find it. Therefore, for them, no salvation. However, the good thing is that hopefully they will find Jesus and be born again and obtain a close relationship with God.
Last edited:
And every single pious Jew, Muslim, and Hindu that has ever lived is damned to eternal hell? That's really a harsh way to look at the world and base one's belief system IMO.
FWIW, his comment of "There are no excuses to not knowing Jesus today regardless of your faith. " is a comment I have frequently heard for reasons to your question in general. I struggle with that answer as well. I have friends that identify as Baptists that suggest that understanding. I do believe as I stated there are some real differences in religions. However, most of Christianity have smaller differences and I include Catholicism in there as well. I think anyone remotely familiar with Catholicism and other Christian denominations would not discern huge differences in the important areas of belief, while fully aware many are not that familiar. Jews do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and yet the "favored" group I cannot see being denied salvation. I do not have an answer to your question other than to give background to show the differences in Christianity and to suggest there are things we do not know that may only be concluded as a best guess of the context of what we do know. That flies in the face of some and I get that, but there are areas I struggle with that are not as clear to me
I wouldn't worry about anyone else's salvation but your own. And the Bible lays out how salvation can be achieved. Remember, narrow is the way. Wide is the gate.
Substitute "Bible" with "Koran" and that is exactly what an observant Muslim would say about the inalterable need to convert to Islam.
I was never exposed to Catholicism until Purdue. There I found my best friends to be Catholic and still recall going with them to St. Thomas Aquinas and being struck by how different that day was from the church I had grown up in. Everyone knew what they were doing and they had candles.
Later I learned that going to Mass in one location and in another state would cover the same things and that if one went everyday they would cover the entire bible in three years...something unheard of in other denominations that were more specialized with their message. Every mass will have a reading from the old, the new, maybe Psalms and the gospels I'm thinking. Please correct me if I don't remember correctly. Going off memory I wouldn't suggest that Catholics are a "works" religion, although they do seem to value it perhaps more than other denominations. Salvation seems to be a starting point for some Catholics where salvation may be an ending point for some denominations. I think a historical understanding sheds light on some of this. The Catholic Church had priests that were abusing their position and needed reformed. Reformation was needed, but was a whole separation warranted? That is a question that could be debated for years...particularly since there may be a dozen or so verses that suggest that a church must be one and that it will last forever...one fold and one shepherd. When Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) revolted against the Church, he wanted to remove James from the bible primarily since he didn't like 2:24 and called it an epistle of straw "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." Furthermore, he wanted to remove Revelations since he thought it was gibberish and made no sense, when actually there was some code for first century Christians to understand during the persecution times.
This break many years later indirectly led to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist church wanting to keep the government out of religion . There was a time I shared all your taught concerns on Catholicism and through study learned that with it warts...those thoughts were unwarranted. Sadly, years ago when my mother's side of the family was producing a book on the Hawkins family lineage with DNA many times I was asked to write a bit about myself as were others at this time. I made mention of the "rapture" that I do not believe in today and wish it were not in ink in the National Archives for any researchers long after I'm gone. That is not to denigrate anyone that does, just that I don't. It is not important as far as being a Christian.
Last edited:
But they are still left with having to explain how the 'prophet' could marry a 6-year-old but yet was not a pedophile.
One thing we have to realize is that Heaven is not for good people. It is for perfect people. Otherwise it wouldn’t be Heaven. Revelation 21:27 says that nothing impure will ever enter Heaven. The only way we can be made perfect is through Jesus Christ. Hebrews 10:14 says by Jesus’ sacrifice we are made perfect. But we need to accept Him as our Savior. If we could be good enough ourselves to get to Heaven then there would have been no need for Jesus to come and live a perfect life and die for us. I realize it sounds narrow to say there is only one way to get to Heaven but we didn’t make the world and we don’t get to make the rules. I wish everyone was going to Heaven but unfortunately that’s not the way it’s going to be.
Except we AREN'T free to believe what we want. One believes what they're convinced of and cannot choose to believe otherwise. Belief is not a decision.
That's what a Muslim would say. And Jews, Christians, and Hindu's don't make the cut. For Christians? Jews, Muslims, and Hindu's don't make the cut.
What, you don't believe in free will?
Do you mean the government will decide what you are to believe, JM, per the dem police state you envision?
Wow, an actual interesting, and maybe even honestly offered question:
It's not relevant with regards to beliefs -- because beliefs are not chosen and, therefore, are not subject to one's will, free or otherwise -- but no, I don't.
And back to the trolling, and trolling that demonstrates you don't have good reading comprehension, at that.
Can you choose to believe that 2+2=5? Can you choose to believe that the sky is not (generally) blue? Can you choose to believe that you no longer like your favorite food?
My statement is not meant to say that beliefs can't change, but that we don't choose them. The things we believe to be true are the things that we've been convinced (potentially for good reasons or bad) are true. The only way to change those beliefs is to be presented with new information that convinces you that your original belief was incorrect.
I've not been convinced that any gods exist. I can't merely choose to believe that the Christian god is real, but I'm open to being convinced by compelling evidence. To this point in my life, no one has been successful in presenting any.
Facts are based on empirically true evidence. Such as 2+2=4
Beliefs are choices. They can be based on any combination of facts, speculation, or misinformation.
I agree beliefs can be based on all those things. But a belief based on misinformation is still not choice. One has simply become convinced of something for bad reasons. Let me clarify, too, that I'm using the definition of belief of "acceptance that a proposition is true," so we're not talking about things like "I believe in myself," which is a different usage of the word. When I say I "believe" something, I'm saying "I accept that proposition is true." So, given the proposition "a god exists," I cannot simply CHOOSE to believe that it is true, and neither can anyone else. We must be convinced that it is true in order to believe it.
I'd submit that you (actually you, not the royal "you") could not choose to no longer believe in a god. While you could SAY you no longer believe, your actual brain state has not changed and you still actually do.
It was pretty accurately stated in the past that Islam was spread by the sword. It is a late to the party religion in that depending on the reference it originated between 600 and 800 A.D. (a time split in reference to the deity of Christ). Here is an odd twist...if Muhammad was the prophet declared for Islam it would seem that he would have viewed his daughter Fatima more esteemed than Mary, but he held Mary in higher esteem. Now if Mary were held in higher esteem, why wouldn't Jesus be held in higher esteem? I'm unaware of Christianity seeking the death of those that don't believe in the bible as what may be noticed in the Koran. Meanwhile some of the mindsets of 600 A.D. have entered the country.
As far as Mary being held in high esteem in Islam. I feel the same way on how Catholics hold Mary in high esteem compared to Jesus. Catholics even believe that Mary was a virgin for life. How can she when Jesus had 2 brothers and a sister?
How high do you think Catholics hold Mary compared to Jesus? I see nothing to suggest the same level. If one were to believe in Jesus and the birth told in the bible, why would anyone think Mary would live a "normal" life? How could she? It would take me some research and I'm not sure I'm up to it, but there is a reference to a brethren of Christ that is a known cousin and not a sibling since there was no word for cousin.
Mary is held in high esteem because she did what Eve didn't and I've seen referenced as the second Eve or a redo on the mistakes of the first as part of God's family. I've read others to compare her to the Ark of the Covenant in that she "too" contained the Word of God and like the Ark was brought out in battle. I'm sure there are many other comparisons, but I'm certainly not well versed on Marian understanding. Considering the time, it is somewhat amazing that a woman during that time was held in high esteem...and this reminded me of another in my old feeble mind. This is taking back many years. I believe I recall, and this can be verified easily if correct, that Eve was called "woman" until she sinned at which point she was Eve. Mary was called "woman" by Jesus and so you can draw some conclusions on that. Name change took place in a significant event such as when Jesus change Simons name to Peter as a result of the following:
Peter’s Declaration about Jesus
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[b] and on this rock[c] I will build my church, and the powers of death[d] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ. This can lead to a discussion on the meaning of Peter and debates will rage whether it was "rock" or pebble, but that too can get long.Here is another part that Protestant and Catholics differ. Catholic see Mary (the second Eve that did God's will) as the "mother" of Christianity and Protestants see her as a vessel only...just as they view John Chapter 6 differently from each other. CAtholics take that literally and Protestants take it figuratively as far as Communion versus the Eucharist
But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag′dalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
That was off the top of my head. I'm sure some may be able to explain Mary's position better. BTW, I have no problems with either denomination. I actually tend to believe that different churches can be better at different times of a persons life, but that too is for another day as this can get rather lengthy to provide context rather than just throwing out an unfounded opinion.
BTW, Peter's declaration is reconfirmed after Jesus returns after the resurrection...and after Peter has denied Christ which he said he would NEVERE do...before Cock crowed (3 AM?? roughly I seem to recall). Jesus then tells Peter to feed his sheep "three" times as a reminder of his three denials and asks if he loves Him. John 21:15-25
Last edited:
I can’t just pick on the Catholics. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormans are absolutely horrible. The Witnesses are off the rails.
There was a post and I'm too tired after typing what I did about changing minds. I have a sample size of one...me. As a third grader and the suggestion from an older sister in college of doing a report...I did that on Evolution. That wasn't a subject for many third graders and had it not been for an older sister I wouldn't have known. It was third grade level and barely recall much about it other than survival of the fittest and mutations. At 9 I lived across the street from our church. My mother went every Sunday and my father much less frequent. She handled communion and had a lot of concerns about Catholics. I had many of those perfect attendance pins and sometimes lighted the candles and less frequently read from the bible. When I was in high school I started leaning to being agnostic due to the many stumbling blocks for those of similar understandings. This carried somewhat in college as well. I was a bit of a character in high school and college. However, as I said...almost all my friends at Purdue were Catholic whereas I was only exposed or knew of one CAtholic family in 1-12. Time went on and in their encouragement to go with them to St Thomas Aquinas it opened a door of inquiry. I found nothing wrong in the message or homily and I started to want to understand a bit more about the concerns I had. Once explained and understood (and a lot of reading), I no longer held the same views. Today with my friends of Purdue living elsewhere, I really come into contact with no Catholics daily and all my friends and family are Protestant. Kim's father has done many missions and they too really don't know anything about CAtholicism, but their misunderstandings a sister of mine in the same boat. However, knowledge did in fact change my opinion and that inquiry led to more understanding than if I had no inquiry. So, yeah...as JOhnny Nash said...I can see clearly now.
Last edited:
I don't think any Christian church has a higher percent of good Christians than another, but the bible as referenced as to what the NT would contain was decided by the Catholic Church and so they have to have a shot at understanding what they allowed in it. Hundreds of years later different denominations took certain things and left things while emphasizing what they thought most important and accurate, but the Crux of Christianity is the same. All reference the bible as the source of truth and yet there are many denominations all referencing the bible...sorta like watching a ball game and having a different opinion of what went on. Where is "the pillar of truth" found might be an interesting inquiry?
I am a metaphysical Christian and believe in the inspired Word of the Bible. I am unorthodox. I started two sports ministries, one centered around basketball at a Church. If we had fifteen players, usually twelve would stick around for a Bible Study. I would then open up randomly in the King James New Testament, read twelve verses, and ask each player for his opinion. These kids in their twenties and thirties would then get into these in-depth theological discussions Not every player was a Christian, but almost all enjoyed the discussions, as they kept coming back and participating. We did a bubble prayer by everyone, and the players' eyes were opened when they heard the different healings from the following week.
A few said they were agnostic or atheist. I asked if they believed in love, and they always said yes. I then said that I believe God is Love, so we both agree in God, although our semantics are different. The group then often went on a theological discussion of the difference between Love and love. We also talked about the difference between life and Life.
I 100% believe Christ is the only way to everlasting Life, and it is a FREE gift to all. However, what did Jesus say? He basically said to Love thy God in everything you do and to Love thy neighbor. I really really try, but I can’t do this, so I need a Saviour, and that Saviour is Christ Jesus. However, the only one who decides who has everlasting Life is God the Father. He knows if I truly have Love in my heart or not. I am afraid he may say to depart because I never knew Him. I want ALL to go to Heaven, and I believe Jesus when he simply said to Love thy God and thy neighbor. So I pray that God would look into everyone’s heart and say, I see Love, and it is evident you believe in Christ even though your semantics are wrong. COME ON IN!
A few said they were agnostic or atheist. I asked if they believed in love, and they always said yes. I then said that I believe God is Love, so we both agree in God, although our semantics are different. The group then often went on a theological discussion of the difference between Love and love. We also talked about the difference between life and Life.
I 100% believe Christ is the only way to everlasting Life, and it is a FREE gift to all. However, what did Jesus say? He basically said to Love thy God in everything you do and to Love thy neighbor. I really really try, but I can’t do this, so I need a Saviour, and that Saviour is Christ Jesus. However, the only one who decides who has everlasting Life is God the Father. He knows if I truly have Love in my heart or not. I am afraid he may say to depart because I never knew Him. I want ALL to go to Heaven, and I believe Jesus when he simply said to Love thy God and thy neighbor. So I pray that God would look into everyone’s heart and say, I see Love, and it is evident you believe in Christ even though your semantics are wrong. COME ON IN!
Last edited:
If we are Christians we have confidence in our salvation because it is by Christ we are saved and not of ourselves. 1 John 5:13 says. I write these things to you that believe in the name of the Son and of God that you may know that you have eternal life. Also remember when we accept Jesus as our Savior all of our sins are forgiven, past, present & future.
Even future? Is that like Augustine's famous quip, "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet"?
Yes future. If we are not perfect we cannot get into Heaven. So we have to be sinless. If we have one unforgiven sin then we are not perfect which excludes us from Heaven. If our future sins are not forgiven then we would have to confess immediately every time we sinned in case we died or Jesus comes back before we have a chance to confess and be forgiven.
Last edited:
This is twice that you have alluded to "purification" being needed which I found interesting since so few know about it. It tells me that you are aware of things that many are not. Good for you! This is another area that could be long that I'm unsure would be beneficial in this site. Like believing in the "Rapture" this too has no bearing on being a Christian, just a perspective held by some Christians. I don't want to get into this other than I'm unsure "future" is correct due to Matthew 12:32 "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." I'm sure different denominations will parse this differently, and that is okay with all believing in the need for purification while, differing in how it is obtained.
This is an example where those that believe in Christ share the important things and differ in others. Personally, I find no value in what one understands about purification other than learning about it didn't come about by accident.
This is how I understand this scripture. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin. If we keep rejecting his conviction and don’t turn from our sins then we can’t be forgiven and thus do not qualify for Heaven. I agree we need to agree on the important things and agree to disagree on the nonessentials. Also I agree with you about the rapture although I think most Christians would disagree with us.
Living in Central Indiana there are some every common beliefs held. I don't know that the "Rapture" is shared with most, but certainly a LOT. Being immersed in it there were things that I wasn't sure. This came at a time in the mid 80s with "The Late Great Planet Earth" which I think was Hal Lindsey (going completely off memory here and could have the book and name incorrect, but they stuck in my mind as I typed. Naturally, it was concerning. There was a player 6'5" that I worked with that ended up going to Taylor University to play for Paul Patterson and his parents were "Charismatic Catholics"...the only CAtholics I knew outside of my Purdue friends. They were well versed and just reminded me the end times have always had some trying to predict them and that we wouldn't know.
I agreed, but didn't understand why so many held that view and even more that some of the events going on pointed to end times...being of the opinion like most that is was "future" event. Time went on and things going on could certainly "fall inside" those things that were understood as declared as a sign. Still, I had questions and stumbled upon a book with 1200 references to scripture as well as early church writings. I learned that this "futuristic event" only surfaced in the last 150 years or so and mostly in the USA, prior to that it was always viewed as a historic event. It covered Daniel, Matthew and Revelations or the typical go to for prophecy and was written by a teacher for "Moody" that taught end times for 20 years, but always struggled with some of what he taught. This is a newer version of David's book and with it's references was an eye opener. This is but another example @Riveting that a person can change beliefs to support your contention. Some might ponder "if the bible" were to be useful to people...who benefitted from a futuristic event that millions never encountered...why would it be included? I assume the newer version is as interesting as the older
Last edited:
I love these discussions and I welcome other opinions.
Larry, I agree with you, but I want all to be saved. By calling myself a metaphysical Christian, I am saying God is Spirit, and therefore I am calling on the Spirit to be saved. I think too many Christians say I believe in Jesus, and, therefore, I am saved. I think we have to be a light. I am also humble enough to realize that, in my thinking, Gandhi was saved even though he did not want to be called a Christian. I doubt God looked into his heart and saw Christ but said I am sorry, your theology is wrong. Gandhi did the most Christ-like act of the 20th century. All Christians should be humbled that he said that he would be a Christian, EXCEPT for the Christians he knows.
My prayer is that others defend their position, and I hope others will go to the Word to disagree with me. Please bring it on.
Muslims believe that Mohammed was a prophet, and many prophets did sinful acts. However, in my research, I found that Christians, Jews, and Muslims agree probably at least 90% of the time. Muslims are adamant that Christians believe in 3 gods, which, metaphysically, I can easily answer. The Koran also mentions Jesus many more times than Mohammed. They believe in Him as a great prophet born of a virgin. However, they don't think Jesus rose from the dead. They believe the propaganda being spread about Jesus rising three days later was a right-wing conspiracy. I encourage Muslims to read the New Testament and see if the Holy Ghost can convince them why the Apostles all faced tremendous torture not to change their testimony.
The Inspired Word is 100% accurate. I think language is too finite to describe accurately. I also think many words are grammatically wrong. ie - he is God. God is love.
