I definitely support the idea of "more than one path" and I would even support the idea that God has demonstrated to other peoples in contexts more readily understandable with their existing vision of the world. I don''t think that I would spin that around and inject Christ into those traditions.

On the other hand, the message of Christ is far more important to me than any discussion of who or what he was. I think that Christ is more than a message but at the same time I would believe that the message was the most important part.

This is a very good question and because i''m not God. I can''t give a 100 percent answer on this. Yet at the same time, Jesus did say (according to the new testament, which people can argue was written by man alone and God had nothing to do with it, I find this a left wing fundamentalist view) that he was the way to the father. This claim is quite different than claims by the buddha (a great spiritual person but not someone who I''d be a disciple of if the choice was him or Jesus) buddha claimed that he was not the way, he was trying to find the way and he said to not follow him. Jesus claimed to be the way. This is quite a radical claim by Jesus. There have been many many, right wing fundamentalist churches who have tried to scare people into beliving in Jesus because he is the only way and the other option is hell. This is not how Jesus presented himself. Yet he did make it clear that if people wanted a guarantee that they really are getting to the father, he claimed that he was the way. I appreciate the teachings of other religious gooroos of the past like Ghandi, buddha, some of mohammad etc. but I''m not going to be there disciple and follow them into a relationship with God. Jesus is the only one to go against the grain and claim that he was the way to the father. It is also important to remember that there are many left wing fundamentalists aswell who through the baby out with the bath water. Many of them have had bad experiences with the church and revolt against biblical events such as the resurrection of Christ. And this is the linch pin of the whole argument. this discussion should not be about one way, rather, what proof does Christ offer about his claim of being the deffinit way to get to the father. The resurrection is the linch pin. No other religious leader besides Jesus has died and came back from the dead to give us deffinit hope of a life after. There are many lliberal scholars who have been changing their position on the resurrection and now give it a valid option of reasoning for being true. It''s not only right wing fundy''s that beleive in the resurrection as a historical logical account. Focus on the resurrection and not the exclusive topic. It will direct the question in a better light.

Well, this is very fascinating. One poster suggests that he likes this site because the people on it who "abhor fundamentalism". Another writes in response that he/she "definitely support[s] the idea of more than one path". This is a sad case of what another post describes as left-wing fundamentalism. Why do the first two posts in this discussion believe what they believe? I suggest it is because they have been socialized to believe that, in much the same way as the 'fundamentalists' they abhor are likely socialialized to believe what they believe. What I find so troubling about the United Church is that it promotes a culture of intolerance. Shocking? Doesn't the United Church preach tolerance? Isn't that what they're famous for? This is the irony!! They are tolerant only of what they choose to be tolerant of. They have little time for people who dissent. Many of its leaders are tolerant of people who believe the way they believe. So how is that an accomplishment. Would it not be far more 'tolerant' and more Christ-like to love those who subscribe to the religious right rather than hate and persecute them? There's a major inconsistency in the United Church's claims of tolerance and their practice. They are tolerant of Bhuddists, Muslims, Liberals, secular-humanists, etc. However, I, as an orthodox believer am not tolerated. They say there are many ways to God, but apparently, mine is not one of them. The closest United Church to my home proclaims not the death and Ressurection of Christ (but the cup of hope and the bread of promise). They talk disparagingly of Christian heritage and sing "heritage hymns" a couple times a year to placate the elders who are too committed to leave. Christ is rarely mentioned, the words death and blood are banned from the church. Isn't it time the United Church conceded that they are not Christian in any widely understood and accepted sense and instead took on a new name for their belief system? That would be religious honesty. Then people seeking Christ wouldn't mistakenly enter their churches. They should be appealing to those who oppose the historical version of Christ. Then their denomination might actually grow, rather than shrink as it is now doing. It's kind of like the KKK advertising themselves as a a African American support group. It's false advertising, and is unlikely to attract the sort of liberal post-modern fluff-balls who the church wants to populate its pews.

I do not believe any one faith has a monopoly on the highway to heaven.

i am a taoist by philosophy and in being that, it means that i embrace all faiths and religious forms as a way to the tao. to me, god and the tao are one whether or not a muslim, christian, or jew sees this equality or not. that being said, i have a great deal of respect for those and other religions when they help individuals reach their goals and realise their dreams. is there a place though in a christian church for some one like me to join in worship? is it enough to respect and enjoy what a christian does in worship or do i have to believe what you believe to join you? if you have read "life or pi" do you believe that you would welcome some one like pi to your church?

it is written: "that all knees shall bow and confess that Christ Jesus is Lord.

Hi, all. Sorry for my late reply to your thoughtful replies. I agree with a couple of the posters that there is a danger of being a fundamentalist of the left by ridiculing those who believe that Jesus is the true way to God. The Dalai Lama has stated that if someone has chosen a certain spiritual path, they should follow the path with all of their hearts unless they have a good reason to change their path.

I guess in my original post I didn't make it clear enough that I was railing against the intolerant brand of Christianity practiced by many in the US religious right. There are plenty of Christians in the center of the political spectrum (for example, Jim Wallis: http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2006/11/jim-wallis-defeat-fo... and Jimmy Carter) who believe that Christ is the best and most direct path to salvation. However, these Christians urge their brothers and sisters in Christ to practice unconditional love and acceptance (the opposite of intolerance), as Christ did.

For those who believe that Christ, Muhammed, whoever...is the only way to God for them, more power to them. I only ask that they practice genuine love and respect for those who do not believe as they do.

one way to heaven. one straight and narrow path.

spirisearch. We christians do not tolerate everything, Even Christ did not tolerate everything. He overthrew the money changers in the Temple, He did not tolerate the sadducees, who do not believe in the resurrection. He constantly admonished the pharissees. He even admonished some of his disciples.

martyrforlove Christ is the resurrection. He died and rose again He was the first to conquer death, Even David spoke of Him in the Psalms. "Even though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil, Thy presence and staff comfort me." Do you think Budha, or Mohammed can lead you through death? So all who believe in Him, He will lead to green pastures

sylviac,
not everything in the Jewish Scripture is prefiguring the Messiah. David was talking about the God he knew, not some future Messiah. I seriously doubt Jews of David's era would have any belief in resurrection after all.

gnomechumpsky -

Thanks for your post. It brought me up a little short when I realized the finger was being pointed at me, among others. In all honesty, I would have to agree with you to some extent, painful though it might be.

I am one of those "leftists" you talk about (actually "left" is probably not far enough out to apply to me when it comes to matters of faith). Frankly, I left the church entirely 40 years ago because I personally found much of what they were saying to be insulting to my "intelligence," such as it is.

At the time when I resumed my spiritual journey, about ten years ago, the local United Church, of which my wife is a lifelong member, offered a convenient and welcoming environment. Over the course of those ten years, some people have left the UCC over doctrinal and social issues and moved on to churches that more closely fit their beliefs. We still have a lot of traditionalists and literalists, but the ones left don't seem to mind sharing the church with heathens like myself. It has changed the dynamic of the dialogue - we don't hear the voice of the "right" too much any more.

I think my initial response to statements such as yours about intolerance by the left towards traditionalists would be "Well, they started it!" However, that's not much of an excuse, and may or may not be true. We like to think that the latter have a monopoly on intolerance and bigotry and that we are clearly more intelligent because we can see past the literal meaning of the Scriptures to something deeper. It's comforting to feel so superior, regardless of your orientation. Being truly tolerant and accepting is sometimes hard work.

I'm mindful of a cartoon I saw recently about how the problems in the Middle East got started. There is a line of fish crawling up on land for the first time, eons ago. A little ways back in the pack, two fish are giving each other raspberries. The lead fish turns around and yells, "I don't care who started it, CUT IT OUT!"

Can't say I'm going to be able to radically change my mindset overnight, but thanks for giving us something to ponder.

Love your moniker, by the way. Just finished Chomsky's "Failed States." Very depressing reading.

Shalom ...

k

gord you have forgotten that Jesus Christ was with God at the beginning of creation. Then why did David say after his child died that he would go to him?

Hey everyone, great discussion and a great issue. I'd like to offer some of my own thoughts, but I do so with the assumption that I may be wrong about some things (as we all frequently are - even scientists and physicists, the "Lords of Truth" for many people, are constantly rewriting the "facts")

First I have to wince at the statement "No one religion has a monopoly on the highway to heaven."

I mean I understand the presumption. As an observer, you see several religions all waving their hands up in the air like traders in the stock exchange saying "Ooh ooh, I have the truth," "No I do!" "No you guys are all wrong - I have it here!"

It's an amusing secene to imagine, but pretty frustrating and confusing to someone who is legitimately trying to find answers about the meaning of life, who we are, what we're here for, what happens after we die, etc.

This can be especially disconcerting to someone who has observed how each religion has had its proponents make mistakes, espouse wrong ideas about things, and committed acts that are nothing short of evil.

So on the one hand I would have to agree that "No one religion has a monopoly on the highway to heaven". That's because religion is not God. Religion is man's attempt to connect with God, Christianity included. And that means that religion will always be imperfect, because it is the effort and the construction of imperfect beings.

The problem I have with this statement "No religion has a monopoly" lies not in that it is untrue, but that it is the wrong answer to the question being raised here.

For instance, if I say "Jesus said that people had to believe in him and him alone to get to heaven," then a popular response to that is "No one religion has a monopoly on how to get to heaven."

However that response isn't valid. I was talking about Jesus, not religion. Furthermore, that answer supposes that you have some sort of special knowledge that "religious" people (numbering in the billions) do not know about. Religious people, for the most part, believe that their religion, or path, is the right one. You are basically saying that all religious people are wrong in that assumption.

There's an old story that is often used in these discussions and it goes like this. A group of blind men are wandering around in the jungle and they come across a dead elephant. Being blind they can not see that it is an elephant. One man feels the trunk and says "It's a giraffe." Another feels the tusks and says "It's a giant rhino." A third feels the tail and says "It's a snake."

Along comes the king and he happens by the blind men who are arguing about what this thing is. The king, who is not blind, says "You're all wrong - it's an elephant."

Proponents of religious pluralism (all religions are just different roads to the same destination) often use this story to illustrate their argument. And at first glance it seems very reasonable.

However it belies a tremendous degree of arrogance, because he who tells the story is putting themselves in the place of the king. They are saying that they are the one seeing clearly, and that all those religious people are like the blind men.

I would simply ask by what means were you able to determine that we are all wrong and that you are right?

Believing that all religions are essentially the same might be easier to swallow and seem nice and cozy, but it has serious logical shortcomings.

For me, the problem begins with Jesus. What do I do with him? For many reasons, I have been unable to dismiss him as a fraud or a fake. I have to admit that the historical record supports his existance as a genuine character. I also have to admit that without evidence to the contrary I have little reason to doubt that he said and did the things he said and did. So when he says things like "I am the way, the truth, and the life - no one comes to the father but by me," waht do I do with that? Either he is full of crap, or he's on to something. I've had to go with the latter.

Suppose I'm right in my assessment. Suppose that Jesus really was who he says he was. He says that following him is the only way to free yourself from the curse of separation from your Creator. Either he's wrong or he's right. If he's wrong, then he's a fake. But suppose he's right. Suppose that the way the universe works is that when human beings have been separated from their Creator, one can only reconnect with the Creator by hanging on to the Righteous One who repaired the gap. If that is indeed the case, and if Jesus is indeed right, then he's right whether we like it or not. If he's right, then it has nothing to do with whether or not any particular religion has a monopoly on how to get to heaven. In my opinion no religion has a monopoloy on how to get to heaven, because religion can't get you to heaven in the first place! The monopoloy on how to get back into relationship with God lies in the hands of one person, and that is Jesus.

You can refuse to believe that if you want, and many people do for various reasons. Sometimes I wonder if I believe it myself. But then I have to reject Jesus wholly and completely, and there's something about him that keeps me from being able to do that.

If all roads led to Heaven it would not be Heaven now would it? All roads leading to Heaven is not only contrary to the Bible but to MANY faiths.

Serena: If all roads led to Heaven it would not be Heaven now would it? All roads leading to Heaven is not only contrary to the Bible but to MANY faiths.

I haven't read the entire thread yet so apologies if asked and answered. But Serena, I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why does heaven have to be some exclusive club?

Even biblical scripture has Jesus saying there are many rooms in the mansion. I rather like Robert Heinlein's vision of Heaven in Stranger in a Strange Land. Each section responsible for further humanity along the path to enlightenment in their own context.

blue_wister

I respect that your inquiry has led you to believe in Jesus as the one way to a relationship with God. However, I think you might want consider some other points of view with regard to some of your premises.

I must preface this by saying that you and I probably envision "God" in different ways; I do not believe in a "Heaven;" and I do not believe that Jesus was THE son of God (assuming that he existed I the first place).

__________

" "¦ that answer supposes that you have some sort of special knowledge that "˜religious' people (numbering in the billions) do not know about "¦ [the elephant - blind men story] belies a tremendous degree of arrogance, because [the storyteller is] saying that they are the one seeing clearly, and that all those religious people are like the blind men."

I don't read it that way. The elephant is an imperfect analogy to "God." The elephant is a solid object, a biological entity. It has a definable set of characteristics. The blind men could eventually pool their knowledge and come up with a pretty good description.

"God," on the other hand, is not a physical entity and defies description in our poor human language. We can't grasp even a small part with any surety. We are all in that sense blind, seeing "through a glass, darkly," in Paul's words. It's not that some of us have some sort of special knowledge that religious people lack, it is that none of us have special knowledge, at least not in its entirety, and we can't even pool our information to come up with the "right" answer.

__________

"Believing that all religions are essentially the same "¦ "

That is not the same as saying that there are multiple paths. All (or most) religions may point in the same direction, but that does not make them the same. I'm reminded (once again) of the analogy to the tentpoles of a tepee, all starting in a different place, but all arriving at the same point.

__________

Re Jesus:

" "¦ the historical record supports his existance as a genuine character "¦ "

This is a subject of great dispute. We could get into an endless debate and cite numerous references (Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, and so on), and argue about the genuineness of these sources. Let's just say it is controversial and leave it at that.

__________

" "¦I have little reason to doubt that he said and did the things he said and did. So when he says things like "I am the way, the truth, and the life - no one comes to the father but by me," waht do I do with that?"

I, on the other hand, do have reasons to doubt. The statement ""¦ he said and did the things he said and did "¦ " is self-verifying; I believe the correct term would be tautology. I would say instead that there is room to doubt that ""¦ he said and did the things THAT THE GOSPEL WRITERS SAY he said and did "¦ "

Here we get into another topic that has been debated endlessly on this forum. We have only the Gospel evidence, Gospels that were written down decades after the supposed death of Jesus, that were probably preceded by many years of oral tradition.

The image of Jesus and his Christ-nature evolves in the Gospels. For instance, the "I am the way, the truth, and the life" statement, like the other "I am" statements in John, does not appear elsewhere in the Gospels. Given that John was probably the last to be written, and that these words are unique to John, we have to consider the possibility that these are not authentic words of Jesus, but are instead the product of a much later view of what Jesus meant. John stands apart from the Synoptic Gospels and seems to be very Gnostic in its mysticism.

__________

"Either he's wrong or he's right. If he's wrong, then he's a fake."

This argument also is used a great deal on this forum in various contexts ." Either the Bible is true, or it's a pack of lies" is another example. The problem is, there are other possibilities than truth or lies. Jesus may have had imperfect knowledge (someone is going to slam me for that!); that doesn't make him a faker. He may have (and often did) spoken allegorically; that doesn't make him a liar. The Gospel record may be inaccurate and was certainly subject to alteration and editing; that does not make it a pack of lies.

Re the "I am the way" statement, there is even debate as to whether "THE way" is the proper translation, The Greek of the Gospels uses the definite article, but Jesus would have spoken Aramaic, which apparently lacks definite articles (Russian is another such language). So, if he even made such a statement, did he mean I am THE way or I am A way?

__________

"Sometimes I wonder if I believe it myself. But then I have to reject Jesus wholly and completely"¦ "

I don't think you do. There is room for healthy doubt; it doesn't have to lead to outright rejection.

__________

" Religion is man's attempt to connect with God, Christianity included. And that means that religion will always be imperfect, because it is the effort and the construction of imperfect beings."

Yep, couldn't agree more.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.

I'm repeating myself from somewhere else. Read "The Five People You Meet When You Get To Heaven" by the same guy who wrote "Tuesdays With Morrie"

Dr. John Piper says, "It is not the banquet of the wicked that dulls our appetite for heaven, but endless nibbling at the table of the world. It's not the X-rated video, but the prime-time dribble of triviality we drink in every night. The greatest adversary of love to God is not his enemies but his gifts. And the most deadly appetites are not for the poison of evil, but for the simple pleasures of earth. For when these replace an appetite for God himself, the idolatry is scarcely recognizable, and almost incurable."

Jesus said that a desire is awakened in some people's hearts, but then, "As they go on their way, they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life" (Luke 8:14). In another place he said, "The desires for other things enter in and choke the word" (Mark 4:19). The desires for other things may not be evil in themselves. Only when they dull our appetite for God.

bw: He says that following him is the only way to free yourself from the curse of separation from your Creator.

klaatu's response is in much greater detail and I doubt i hasve much to add.

However, and this too has been talked about often, "followinmg him" doesn't only translate as worshipping Jesus as the connection to god. It can also be seen as a compelling statement that tells us to stop denying our connection, our relationship, with each other and with all of Creation.

That is certainly what Jesus modeled. An intimate connection to God and Creation.

Though i agree with a previous posters mentiont hat soem religions exclude others i find this more as a historical ralitly added afterwards, a religion always needs at least some form of wealth to spead its self effecently by makeing someone have to make a clear choise that religion has been brought up.

Unless you live in a socety with many good liek todays modern society we have the joy of having many resources and most of our wants satified religion at the very least can serve as some way that a comutinty can gather around somewhere.

When the disciples saw a stranger using the name of Jesus to cast out demons, Jesus told them to lay off, because whoever is not against him is with him.

When Jonah finally goes to Ninevah, the people repent. Jonah sulks because he really wanted to see them fry. God chastises Jonah for being so narrow, for refusing to see that God could also be the God of other people rather than just the chosen ones.

Ruth is an exemplary woman of faith. You can't argue against her faithfulness. She fathers a son with Boaz. Her great-grandson is King David. You can't get a more faithful man than David. But Ruth is from Moab, and Moabites are expressly forbidden from being part of the congregation of the faithful (Deut 23:3).

There has always been an exclusivist streak in the Judeo-Christian line, and there has always been a minority strand which resists. There are voices on this discussion strand who claim each. To say that the other is not part of the same rope is shortsighted. They hold each other in tension- that salvation does require something of us, and it does mean something. Salvation is also much more broadly offered than we often want to admit. Grace costs us our very lives. Grace is also a free gift.

Rev JamesMurray,

RE:"When the disciples saw a stranger using the name of Jesus to cast out demons, Jesus told them to lay off, because whoever is not against him is with him."

You have it backwards. It's whoever is NOT with Him is against Him.

Matthew 12:30 (NKJV) He who is not with Me is against Me......

RE:"When Jonah finally goes to Ninevah ......for refusing to see that God could also be the God of other people rather than just the chosen ones."

Yes our God is the God of all people but the Ninevites were extremely wicked and needed to repent. Jonah's preaching of God's word was enough for their hearts to turn to Our God.

Jonah 3:5 (NKJV) So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them.

Also Jesus claimed them:

Matthew 12:41 (NKJV) The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah is here.

RE:"Moabites are expressly forbidden from being part of the congregation of the faithful (Deut 23:3).

This is a temporary judgment and God promises they will be welcome upon repentance..

Jeremiah 48:47 (NKJV) "Yet I will bring back the captives of Moab. In the latter days," says the Lord. Thus far is the judgment of Moab.

RE:"Grace is also a free gift."

Yes this is true and the gift is for everyone but it is only a gift from one God who has provided a way for every single person in the world. It just can't be their ways. It must be God's way.

This is not exclusivity. This includes everyone but they cannot come by other gods.

Matthew 7:13-14 (NKJV) "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

(LAN) The gate that leads to eternal life (John 10:7-9) is called "narrow." This does not mean that it is difficult to become a Christian, but that there is only one way to live eternally with God and only a few that decide to walk that road. Believing in Jesus is the only way to heaven, because he alone died for our sins and made us right before God. Living his way may not be popular, but it is true and right. Thank God there is one way!

John 10:7-9 (NKJV)
Then Jesus said to them again, "Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. [8] All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. [9] I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

Be Blessed,
IB

I am very encouraged that there is one way!

It makes it so simple to understand that people should not have to be confused about what they have to do for eternal life.

Love,
Eli

gnomechumpsky, I too want to thank you for the posting.

You're absolutely right that the United Church seems to have thrown the baby out with the proverbial bathwater when it comes to orthodox and fundamentalist approaches to faith and theology. I personally believe that any road you feel puts you on the road to God, and anytime you feel like you want to take a step along or off of that road, it's a blessing. This means that your path may be straight and long and paved, or it may be disconnected flagstone with sharp edges, or it may be intermittant stepping stones or a circular labyrinth like I see in the basement of my church. And it's one thing to think that way, and I try very hard in my life to do that, and it's another to institutionalize that belief in organized religion. I don't agree with everything that the United Church does, and I don't think we treat many of our fundamentalist members and friends as if they're as enlightened as we want to be as a church, and that's a real failing that we need to think and pray about. The changes in our hymns and some of the prayers we read in church are a good example of striving to be inclusive by excluding the traditional and conservative. At our church, we tell people, if you want to sing the words to "This is my Father's World" instead of "This is God's Wondrous World" then do it; but we never talk about what that means for us as a faith.

Thanks for making me think.

Christ declares He is the Truth, and the word truth refers to and points out that off all the available choices (note He does not deny or suggest there are other choices you can make) He is the one true (right) one.

Amen Fish

Fish: Christ declares He is the Truth, and the word truth refers to and points out that off

Well, not that this hasn't been addressed a couple of dozen times already but..

there are a couple of suppositions in your statement, the first being "Christ declares". Certainly the writer of John makes the declaration. Whether or not Jesus said it just takes us back to interpretation again.

The word translated as "truth", Aletheia, is more properly rendered as an "unfolding revelation". For me, that removes all sense of Jesus' message as something that was ever intended to be static or exclusive.

Through the unfolding revelation of Jesus' message, we can see more clearly the presence of God in Creation.

I agree though that we are able to make choices. We can choose to continue to wear blinders, vainly attempting to limit the limitless, or we can allow God to show us God's presence in the diversity of faith.

IB: It just can't be their ways. It must be God's way.

Exactly. So why do some people keep trying to make God do it one way? Do you think that god can only handle one tiny model of faith? A most peculiar and limited deity that would be.

Jesus told us that He was the only Way! The concept of being a Christian includes this fundamental doctrine. We read in Timothy that the time will come when men (and women) will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from truth and turn aside to myths. We live in an era when many have an Universalist theology that desires to have all saved by travelling up various pathways to the mountain ofGod. It sounds like many today have itching ears. The bottom line is this: Christ is the only way - and this should be the impetus for us to spread the word of God to those who have not heard.

Owen said "Jesus told us that He was the only Way! The concept of being a Christian includes this fundamental doctrine."

To be true, I would restate this as "the bible tells us that Jesus in the only way. The concept of being a biblically literal Christian, includes this funamental doctrine."

Did Christ say that Owen? Hard to say.

If he did say it, was he correct? Harder still...

Witch: I guess it comes down to whether one chooses to believe the writings in the Bible, or not. My faith is one that includes the Bible and its writings as truth. Therefore, when the Scriptures state that Christ said those words, (John 14:6) "Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.", I believe that He did say this and that what He was saying was truth.

I would ask each of you, on this thread, that if Jesus appeared to you this afternoon and say:

"I have forgiven all of your sins. I am the only way to eternal life.
Do you want to come in?"

What would be your answer??

Be Blessed,
IB

I would ask IB, on this thread, that if Allah appeared to you this afternoon and say:

"I have forgiven all of your sins. I am the only way to eternal life.
Do you want to come in?"

What would be your answer??

The problem with this kind of speculative anecdote is that it is useless in real debate. I have no reason to believe that Christ ever would appear to me, so the speculation is meaningless. Plus you could easily apply the same speculation to any and all faith paths

What if The Dagda appeared to you?

What if Buddha appeared to you?

What if Isis appeared to you?

What if Odin appeared to you?

What if...

What if..

What if..

Witch,

For an educated guy, you never seem to want to answer a question that doesn't suit you but you certainly love to jump into the middle of a discussion.

I bet you are the life of the party, at a gathering, going around and listening in on all the little groups and answer their questions for them.

You do realize that this question was directed at those that wanted to answer it don't you? Don't answer that!

BeWitched,
IB

ib: You do realize that this question was directed at those that wanted to answer it don't you? Don't answer that!

Strangely, I had the impression that these threads were open to everyone, not just the ones you like best ib. Or who answer the way you prefer.

If you don't want to answer witch's question, that's up to you. Just skip it, eh?

grin

Ib: I am the only way to eternal life.

Why would Jesus change his mind and adopt the exclusivity of the narrow minded?

What if Jesus appeared to you today and said "for crying out loud guys. Stop with the "only" crap. Didn't you hear anything I said?????"

How would you respond?

Oh Dear GR(not),

The other guy I was thinking about who would jump in and answer with another question.

Yea these threads are open to everyone but it just surprises me that some will jump into a conversation that they have no interest in.

An example was in the thread on the Religion page - "What the Bible says and doesn't say about homosexuality"You jumped in and ridicules the Topic by saying:
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
[cut and paste]
from the 90 and 9 other places this same conversation has taken place.

Well you didn't surprise me that you did that but then you went on to post another 26 posts in that column.
The column actually had 421 replies and 1159 views. So as to your opinion that it was a waste of time, it looks like another 1158 people thought it was a good topic.
Hmmmmm! Were you upset that so many didn't follow you?
If you didn't like it in the beginning, why didn't you just go on to something else after seeing it wasn't your cup of tea.
It looks a lot like you and the other fella are just sitting around on pins and needles looking for a spot to jump in and have a fight.

Just an observation that so many of us don't usually mention.

Oh, by the way Be Blessed,
IB

ib: Yea these threads are open to everyone but it just surprises me that some will jump into a conversation that they have no interest in.

If I had no interest in it, why would I post 26 replies ib? And, not to questino your impecable math skills, but 1158 views doesn't mean 1158 people son. As you noted, 26 of those were me. How many were you?

Your continual attempts to limit God to your own interpretation interest me no end ib. As to the "cut and paste" bit, I simply point out that there is nothing new being said. You say God can only look through one peephole, I say God has the whole of Creation to paly with. like ping pong son, the ball goes back and forth.

But never fear, I'll always drop in on occasion. i like everyone too much not too. Unless of course, you think I should stay away if I don't agree with you.

Now, just out of curiosity, do you intend to answer my question, or just spend your time denigrating me? 8-)

abpenny: To be true, I would restate this as "the bible tells us that Jesus in the only way. The concept of being a biblically literal Christian, includes this funamental doctrine."

Nicely phrased Penny.

Owen: Witch: I guess it comes down to whether one chooses to believe the writings in the Bible, or not.

I believe the writings in the Bible Owen, but I do not accept translations at face value, knowing that they are just that human derived translations. Also knowing that scholars, even conservative scholars, question the souces of biblical scripture. I hosted a workshop one time led by a very conservative evangelical theologian. In private, he was very candid in saying that what he knew theologically would get him tarred and feathered if ever stated in front of a congreagtaion.

Gave me rather an interesting insight into the evangelical/literalist camp.

ib: Oh, by the way Be Blessed, IB

Now why do I have a mental image of you extending just one finger in a wave when you say that?? heheheehehe must be my imagination.

The idea of apostates not going to heaven is so completely anti-intellectual. It's intended for questioning believers. after all, atheists like myself who dont believe in God also dont believe in heaven (i find this conversation on something that doesnt exist amusing. how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?). let's face it; it's an intellectual trap! why do you need a heaven to motivate us to be good people. isnt serving EACH OTHER reason enough to be a decent person? i would also like to remidn everyone here that the belief in an after-life has an many cases destroyed lives her on earth, as some people are willing to do anything to rack up an eternal reward. let's focus on improving the little time we have here on earth. it may sound depressing at first, but that, if anything, is a hopeful beleif system!

Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me"

There is only one way to Heaven but many ways to Hell.

As I've posted on other threads, I do not believe there is only one way to heaven. (check my God by any other name topic - hey would this be considered a promotional spot/commercial). Someone I respect said in a post that "I am the same religion as God".

I do think that without faith of some sort that the mystery and magic in our lives starts to disappear. Just because God doesn't walk up to me and ask me for a cup of coffee doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Just because I've never seen a thousand dollar bill doesn't mean there isn't such a thing.

singlemom wrote:

"Jesus said "I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me"

There is only one way to Heaven but many ways to Hell."

Did Jesus say that? No way to know, really. The various authors of the Bible may claim that he said it, but there's no objective evidence to support that claim.

Even if you could show that Christ did say that, the really difficult part would be to show that he was, in fact, correct in saying it.

Even if he didn't say it, why did he come to earth? Why did his life on earth end at the cross (before his ressurecction) if there was another way to get there? Was it all for nothing?

Actually, I believe it's only in John's Gospel. The other gospels don't quote Jesus saying that. John's was one of the last to be written, and definately the most different from the other three. It also tends to be the most poetical. And John's Jesus does not say I am the ONLY Way although it is implied. And John was written quite some time after Jesus's death...

I believe that there is only one way to Heaven and that is to seek God. If a person really seeks to find God there may be other faiths that He could be found in and only God would truly know if the person were really seeking Him or was in the particular faith for another reason. I think this holds true for Christianity as well which in my mind is still the most sure way to Heaven.