If being 'saved' means you've officially punched your ticket to heaven, does it mean you can do anything after that and the deal is still good? Like, if Hitler had been saved when he was 13 he would be in heaven now, according to Christian doctrine. I always understood it was irrevocable, and probably non-transferable too but no expiration. If anyone has an official copy of the term sheet I'd like to read it.
That being said, salvation requires nothing. These posts eventually go nowhere, but I'll do my part to not get there. The above statement is absolutely incorrect. Salvation, per the Christian theological framework, requires one to believe in Jesus as their savior. See John 3:16. To say that salvation requires nothing is just absurd. As far as this comment: not to derail but as far as salvation some of you are wrong. the catholic catechism says that the path of salvation is open to all those who embrace the one true god, amongst them are the muslims (or something very close to that). What that really says is that heaven is open to Christians. That shouldn't be a surprise. A Muslim who embraces Christianity and Jesus isn't a Muslim; he's a Christian. A more accurate say to say the above is that heaven is closed to all who don't believe in Christianity.
Interesting. The Catholic church, which at one time said that all non-Catholics were denied entrance to heaven, now is saying that Muslims and Jews, who don't even believe in Jesus, can get to heaven?
Its not that Jews don't believe that Jesus existed, but rather that they don't believe that he was God incarnate as the Christians do.
Perham1, your confusion is shared. The Roman Catholic Church has said both things officially while not denying either one. It is contradictory and confusing, but it does serve some purpose. I would guess it would be to retain the position of authority/prominence they consider themselves to have and at the same time extend well being to the other large religions. I don't agree with either statement, but I think I understand what they are trying to accomplish.
Dionysus, Do you propose that uncertainty or disagreement among Christians is proof that Christianity is untrue? Can you think of any complex human institution that is not fraught with this sort of uncertainty or disagreement?
Coelacanth, but isn't that the problem? It isn't supposed to be a human institution but a divine one? Seriously, God sent his only son Jesus Christ, God of God, to earth to speak to his people... but somehow the criteria of what was required for salvation wasn't nailed down over the course of his 30 years, just seems either remarkably short sighted or a cruel joke. This is not a small point and souls rest in the balance, why is it left open to interpretation? Did God not have a choice but to play an intergenerational game of "Telephone" to communicate his message? Jesus is just a staggeringly inefficient way to offer his new covenant with his people. If God is omniscient, he is a bit of a prick, because his choice of revelation has resulted in the deaths of thousands over matters which were made more ambiguous by his intercession, rather than less. I believe that there is a creator, I do, but the only way I can reconcile the monumental inconsistencies of those proclaiming to be his earthly messengers is to conclude that they are not in fact his earthly messengers.
If God wanted me to know his will... if God required action from me to achieve his Grace... if that was important to God, then why would we have to play this fool's game of guessing his intentions? When I make figures out of playdough with my children, I don't require those figures to worship me, nor do I damn them for eternity for displeasing me. If God is my creator, then I can only be as God made me. I can't imagine that God would be so self conscious as to punish me for things he purposely left unclear.
i've thought about those things quite a bit myself, mia. *i think* God wants us to seek him. That the mysteries are inherent so that we have to actively choose to find him. He says to seek and you will find. It is my opinion only, but I believe that if you do earnestly seek the creator that you will find him. The question that you might ask then is what if you do find him and he's not the same God I found. That comes up in almost every discussion about religion - why is yours right? I don't pretend to know how God will judge other people but I do believe I know how he will judge me.
ADMIRALSTOCKDALE, I've followed a similar path, but I don't believe that God is sitting in judgment of his creation. If we are as God made us, then it is impossible for us to fail him... besides I judge myself enough for the both of us. I don't know if I believe in the concept of salvation, or even an eternal soul, but what I know is that I am alive on earth now. Existence is God's gift to us and I don't intend to waste a moment of it preparing myself or others for what, if anything, may come after. Unknowable truths seem rather like a waste of everyone's time, frankly, particularly when there are tons of perfectly solvable mysteries around every bend. Creation is a pretty cool place.
Amen, mia. Coelacanth, why the uncertainty and disagreement among believers? This is not complex at all, although it's obvious why apologists want to make it appear that way. You need some intellectual and philosophical wiggle room to maintain baseless claims. The central point is simple and unambiguous, and it's the problem with organized religion in general: several billion people on earth today believe the creator of the universe has written a book. But there's more than one such book and the various texts are incompatible in important ways. People have been divided for centuries over these differences, to the point of fighting and killing each other over competing myths. It would be comical if the consequences of it all hadn't been so tragic. Organized religion asks us to believe that a perfect being created a bunch of imperfect beings and then, tens of thousands of years later, commissioned some writings that were to be eventually compiled into a book, and said: Here, people. Read this. Some of it will make sense, some of it won't, and I'll leave it to you to figure it all out, knowing full well that competing faiths will emerge from the ambiguities and that billions will get it right while billions more will perish forever. Some divine plan.
Another amen for mia. The whole Jesus thing, i.e., Him being the only way to get to heaven (although the Catholic catechism may say otherwise) is really more of a business plan, a way of ensuring a monopoly of the catholic church's product. If they create the perception that they have the only valid product then they can cajole, browbeat, threaten, even torture people to force compliance. All under the auspices of God, of course.
My personal church only commands one action, the ritual sacrifice of bean dip. So sayth The Book of MIA.
Curious that everything has a frequency of some sort. Whether it be rotation, vibration, pulse or some other manifestation. Even bubbles of air rising to a pond's surface after hitching a ride down on a thrown stone.
I too find it curious that things happen... we should study those things. If you want to know God then you should get your head out of the book written in our language, and look around at the creation written in his. If you believe in God the creator, can their be any task more sanctified than the naturalistic observation of his creation? Why is organized religion not uniformly the single biggest champion of the sciences?... I'm willing to bet you that Perham has an interesting explanation as to why.
D, despite its history, the Catholic church is actually incredibly supportive of the sciences. They've always been big on astronomy, but they've added support to most of the other natural sciences in the last few decades. The Pope himself has repeatedly advocated for evolution. The catholic church has taken that punch on the chin so many times that they have kind of gotten past it. That said, most established religions have a fairly spotty history with the sciences.
Like I said in my original post, it is MY opinion. I have no idea if MY opinion is right. It is based on descriptions of being "truly saved" and my interpretations and studies. If you are, one would not go on killing and raping and murdering as you said of a guy like Hitler. There is a heart change and it is reflected in actions, attitudes and being repentant of sin. Not continuing to commit the same sin over and over, which Hitler did.
It is pretty clear how a person is saved in Christianity. It is spelled out clearly in the Bible. Repent and believe in the gospel. The exact phrase is used multiple times. The Catholic Church teaches differently because they do not accept the Bible as the only guide to the will of God. They also follow council and papal decree. Much of it contradicts Biblical teaching, so their conclusions are naturally going to be different. This is true even though the Bible itself says everything a Christian needs in order to know God and follow His will is in there. It is not that difficult. You all are acting like this is some mystery. The prophets predicted the death of Jesus as a sacrifice for sins. Jesus was sacrificed for our sins. He told the apostles to preach repent, believe, and be saved. There is not much to debate.
It is pretty clear how a person is saved in Christianity. It is spelled out clearly in the Bible. I'd like to think that, too, but it's not. It just isn't. One verse says that whosoever believeth in Jesus should not perish, but have eternal life. That seems straightforward enough. Another verse says that whoever believeth AND IS BAPTIZED shall be saved. Still kind of straightforward, but not the same as the first verse. Yet another verse says that faith without works is dead. So, no works means no faith, so works is also required. So.... Which is it? Sure, each denomination has their version of systemic theology that spells it all out, synthesizes everything into some kind of seamless web, albeit an entirely aritifical web. But to say that it's clearly spelled out? Nope.
In any event, as long as belief in Christ as Messiah is a requirement, then the original point stands... the founding block of salvation, and just as importantly avoiding damnation, is adherence to this religion's (and only this religion's) central beliefs... carrot and stick. I'm still trying to figure out why God is so keen on having us jump through such poorly defined badly sourced hoops to obtain his favor. More on point, I'm not entirely sure why anyone (except out of fear) would want to worship a God so petty. Sure, he is our shepherd, but the wilderness we are traversing is entirely of his creation... which is to say, that God is both the shepherd and the wolf. If we fail to obtain salvation it is because God's flawed creation failed to follow his flawed commandments and instead succumbed to temptations of God's own devising. Maybe God IS that mean hearted... but it certainly isn't much incentive for me to yearn for his embrace.
And that seems to be what you want—legalistic certainties. What? Maybe I need to go back and study the prior posts, but my impression was what was wanted was certainty, which by no means is the same as "legalistic certainties". In fact, that seems to be the point: a supreme being wouldn't reveal his truth in legalistic terms.
