I think ‘bullshitting’ can be taken literally, in a very grounded and almost universal fashion. Within an indoeuropean context, the notion of ‘bullshit’ is universal; but to the north american aboriginal context (the context i justifiably find myself in) the notion fails directly, implying that discussion is required for a movement toward justice. One should consider the possibility that, in as much as the wills you speak of are not mutually exclusive, there is life that transends the world of physical sense experience.
God has spoken to you and he has told you personally. Read the bible.
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
Titus 1:2
2a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,
Hebrews 6:18
18God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged.
Even if your assumption about the hearts of men is true, you are still proposing a God who is making mutually exclusive statements to different groups of people. And he would seemingly be doing so to maximize the number of people who are ebing “saved”. It is very close to the position of the universalist but it is clearly unscriptural.
Obviously if you want to set yourself outside the confines of scripture and dream up a structure that allows for your salvation without adherence to God’s commands, then you are free to do so. But it is not the God of the bible that you worship. It is another God that you invented.
I understand the word “maybe”. But I do not agree that your position is a valid possibility in scriptural terms. Jesus clearly stated that the way is “narrow” and “few” find it. If you want to redefine the words of Jesus to suit your purposes then you are free to do so. But then why don’t you just ignore Jesus entirely and start from scratch? Why listen to him and then reformulate his words to suit yourself?
All who don’t take the narrow way are lost forever.
How do you know he hasn’t?
Hard question. In one sense “no”, since Jesus died for all men and all men have free will to enter into his “way” and accept salvation. But in another sense “yes” since he chose Israel and rejected others, he loved Jacob and hated Esau, Jesus chose the 12 and not more,…etc…
Not really. For all the differences between denominations, there are more similarities. The early creeds are a good example of where most denominations find doctrinal unity, and this is surprisingly large amount of doctrine to agree on.
Acts 4
12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
This is a pretty catagorical statement that eliminates the possibility of salvation through belief in “any other name”. Either this is a lie, or many other religions are false. Take your pick.
And you wont find any justification for this view in the bible.
An experienced woodsman would imply that you have been through the forest before. However, all of us are in the forest (this life) for the first time. None has any “experience”.
Suit yourself. I’ll keep my comprehensive map and you can work on yours with your crayons and paper.
There is only one sun in the sky, yet each of us (according to our specific relationship to it) has our own name for it. It still translates into “the sun,” regardless of whose perspective you use.
But what if God told you it was called “the sun” and said that there is no other valid name for it that he accepts. Would you still think it OK to call it by another name?
I would say that God was playing with words, and that you’ve accepted Him in name only. In other words it’s the principle of God that saves you, not some word you utter which may or may not have any significance.
You’re not speaking to my question. If the name of which you speak means ‘truth,’ and i’m sure you’ll have something to say about that, then the pinnacle as the destination of each path is the one name. If that also means ‘holy spirit’ then the extent of Christ’s forgiveness is also easily understood.
I don’t have the same need for personal affirmation that most north americans seem to have, and to which most fundamentalist views seem to pander.
Hello F(r)iends,
Isn’t your god is above any rules…
Perhaps god’s interest is in his creations more than some rules…
Do you think if a lie is necessary it is still a lie?
Who do you think is best equipped to decide and judge something like that?
For their own benefit… then he let’s free will take over. 
It wouldn’t matter that it was unscriptural if the scripture didn’t apply to everyone… think about it in this scenario: god tells those that need their authoritarian/structured god that they must do “x” to be saved and then he lets all those who god knows will reject the truth in search for god the only way they will find him–> through some path or some spiritual journey or through the Way.
- I never stated that this was a scripture based argument.
- I reject your god and the gods of the Tao or Buddha or any fairies.
- This is a thread of exploration of ideas, it’s attempt is not to start religion.
- It could be the same god… this god would simply be more flexible.
- Your god was invented too, so why not invent another one?
The whole point of this “maybe” thread was to allow for the possibility that one could accept the mythology of Christ or the mythology of Buddha or Mithras or whatever, and still reach a heavenly reward because god perhaps (maybe, possibly, plausibly) knew that this method would be the only way to ensure his creation found him.
Maybe.
-Thirst
Sorry to interpret scripture here, as that wasn’t the intent of the thread, but:
Name = identity. I assume they’re refering to God–or Jesus, who is also God–now, what’s the best identity of God? How about “everything that exists, has existed, or will exist”? I’m going to assume that equation works, so: we have to be saved by everything if we’re going to be saved.
I’m just going to assume we all want whatever salvation is, now here’s another quote from the New Testament.
That capitalized “One” is pretty obviously God–i.e. everything. It looks like we’ve ultimately got to (1) treat people well, (2) love people, (3) recognize that everything (also called God) is “good” (we’ll assume we like good things), (4) follow the will of everything (also called Jesus), and (5) be humble to be saved.
Does that work? Assuming it does, it doesn’t seem like it matters what the specific name is, so long as the identity is the same: According to that old collection of writings–the Bible–those are the (only?) requirements for “salvation” or even “perfection.”
This is precisely my point. Those who would like to incorporate the Christian God into some larger idea of a God who is the ultimate source of all religion, do so because of a vague underlying assumption that, “things have to be like that, don’t they?”.
The “playing with words” that you discard as trivial, is actually one of the most fundamental aspects of the bible; that woship of any God, other than the God of the bible, is idolatry and will be punished. Whether you have good intentions or a noble purpose, the bible states clearly that if you worship the wrong God you are in trouble.
But this kind of interpretation is not internally consistant with the rest of the bible. If you choose to interpret this passage as meaning that “all paths are the one name”, it does not fit the context of the passage it appears in, the book it is found in, or with God’s previous dealings with Israel.
So, while intepreting the passage in this manner allows you to construct an overarching theology that encompasses other religions, the problem is that your interpretation now does not fit with the rest of the bible. If you want to use the bible as any sort of guide, you have to go back now and “change” all the other passages that don’t fit with your new theology. By the time you are finished you have stripped the bible of any context and meaning. It would have been simpler to just write a new bible from the start.
Personal affirmation is a motivation for most people approaching religious thought and it is probably as true for you as it is for me. It is found in Christianity and it is found with other traditions. People generally want to find justification for the way of life that they already practice, or would like to practice in the future. In my opinion, this is exactly the motivation that drives many to use the bible to affirm their ideas about “one God many paths”. After all, this idea is very easy to accept, fits very well with a modern worldview, and allows you to sit back and enjoy life without making any hard decisions about whether something is right or wrong - person affirmed! In contrast, if you take the bible seriously, it tells us that humans are basically evil and the very first thing they need to do is repent of the lifestyle that they practice. Not very affirming, I would say.
And what I’m saying is that it is possible to accept God in principle, without professing it in the name of Jesus Christ. In fact the heathen are accepted into heaven just as readily as many “so-called” Christians. To suggest anything else, would be to deny God’s Universal purpose … which, is the salvation of all men.
This view is not consistant with the bible. God is very concerned with rules and behavior…and sin.
Yes I do. The obvious answer is that God is best equipped to judge. But when he has already explained the issue in depth in the bible, I see no need to revise or doubt what he means. Lies are defined as sin. Those who lie to God were killed. God states that he never lies. It is much clearer than you would like it to be.
I understand the theory. It just doesn’t work. You would have to modify so much of the bible to fit in your theology that you would be left with nothing except contradictions. You’ll probably say that you are happy with contradictions,…and round and round we will go.
When you made statements about God’s son, were you talking about Jesus, or some other God’s son?
OK. Then why try to incorporate my God into your grand theology of everything? If you want to talk about the Jesus in the bible, you’ll have to make some reference to the bible.
I disagree. All talk of God and his purpose is theology. Your theology is the basis of the religion that you adhere to.
Was God “flexible” in the OT? Or are you simply creating a new God?
My God has always existed and is in control of our future fate. Inventing and worshiping another one would therefore be a bad idea.
Not all men will be saved.
Matthew 25
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37"Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41"Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44"They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45"He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Revelation 20
11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
What’s the difference between the sun that shines in a harsh desert climate versus the sun that shines in an oasis? Indeed, it has nothing to do with the sun but, the availability of water. This is the difference between the Old and New Testaments … where Jesus represents the introduction of the “living water” so to speak.
There is no difference between the God of the OT and NT. This is an early heresy. If you don’t believe me, here is Jesus in action in the NT…
Revelation 19
11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Still think the God of the OT and NT are very different?
Not all who profess to do things in the name of Jesus Christ will be saved either.