My Beliefs- GDR

Several threads that I have participated in lately have wound up in critiques of my beliefs from both atheists and fundamentalist Christians. In pretty much every case I think that I succeeded in taking the discussion a long way from the topic so I decided that I would attempt to lay out my beliefs and the rationale for them in a separate thread. I know that the idea of having a thread on my personal beliefs sounds just a tad egotistical so I’m hoping that it will be accepted in the light in which it is intended.It is also going to be long and so I doubt that there will be many who will be want to make their way through it all but I want it to be complete. My apologies for my lack of brevity.First off let me be clear that my Christian beliefs are a faith. They are not based on science but I do believe that my rationale for holding them is reasonable.Firstly I believe in an intelligent first cause. I have been accused of arguing from a position of incredulity but I don’t regard that as a fair criticism. I can make the same argument to an atheist in that they can’t believe that there is a higher intelligence responsible for our existence. I believe that an intelligent first cause is far more plausible than a non-intelligent first cause.When we look take a long look at our world and consider the complexity of a single cell then I find it very difficult to believe that that cell could be formed by the chance combination of particles that by chance came together to form atoms and molecules. It is my belief that my position is the more plausible of the two.Secondly I am a theist. Once I accept the position that we are the result of an intelligent first cause I then have to ask myself, so what. Does it really matter whether we are or aren’t the result of an intelligent first cause? My first thought is that it would seem unlikely to me that this intelligence would create us without maintaining an ongoing interest in the project.Also we are able to distinguish right from wrong. We have a sense of morality that IMHO goes beyond personal survival which indicates to me an on-going interest. As someone who believes in an intelligent first cause I have to believe that there was what would be called a miracle that got everything off and running. As it required involvement at that point I see no reason to think that in one way or another that this intelligence would not still be involved in what had been created.With all that in mind I am a theist and not a deist.Thirdly, I am a Christian. My Christianity essentially has one absolute, and without that one absolute I would not be a Christian. The Christian faith grew from the belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Paul tells us that if that isn’t true then our faith is in vain and we are, in his words, to be pitied. I think that he is correct. By resurrection I mean that Jesus died on the cross and was later resurrected into a new bodily form that was like, but at the same time different, than his pre-crucifixion body. It is my belief that God will at the end of time as we know it, resurrect all of creation in the renewal of all things, and (for lack of a better term), the resurrected Jesus was/is the prototype for our own resurrection.I have read a number of books and listened to debates by Biblical scholars and others arguing both sides of the question of the truth of the resurrection. There are a lot of very bright and knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue but I find the argument for the resurrection far more compelling than the argument against. One of the simplest arguments is that if the resurrection story is either fabricated or mistaken there is no good reason for the movement to grow as strongly and quickly as it did. The argument against the resurrection is the almost solely the rejection of the possibility of it happening at all, as in every other case if someone died, other than for resuscitation, they have stayed dead. I find that position a little odd for anyone who believes in an intelligent first cause, they must believe that a miracle is possible as one would be required for God to get life started in the first place.I should be clear though. I do not believe that the Bible is inerrant or that it has been dictated by God, which is not to say that God doesn’t use the Bible to impact our hearts and minds.I agree that we are dependent on the Bible as the sole source for our information and that the gospels as we now have them were written decades after the event. However, the gospels are not the first written accounts of the life of Jesus. They are simply the first ones we have. Here is how Luke starts his gospel.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

So Luke tells us that he has drawn on many previous accounts and has verified them.The gospels are written in such a style that the authors obviously believed what they wrote. So either they got it right or they got it wrong. Yes, some of the details don’t line up but frankly I would be suspicious if they didn’t. We all come to our own conclusions about their accuracy.The Bible is a series of books written by a series of authors. I believe that the authors were inspired to write down their histories, their beliefs about God, what they believed God wanted them to know and so on. In the end the Bible tells the epic narrative of a people searching for god, getting some of it right and some of it wrong with the climax of the narrative being Jesus who was the incarnation of the Word of God which had been there from the beginning. Through what we have of what Jesus said we can then go back to the Hebrew Scriptures and discern where they got it right and where they got it wrong.To understand the Bible as inerrant, or as dictated by God, not only makes God very inconsistent and contradictory, but also a God capable of cruelty and injustice. IMHO to understand the Bible as inerrant requires us to say that Jesus can’t be the incarnate word of God because Jesus taught that much of what the OT says that God told them to do was wrong. The Genesis creation account was written with the science they had then and it would obviously be written very differently today. Having said all that I do believe that God has always spoken to us through our hearts minds and imaginations and so we should take seriously the words of the Bible to sort out just what God does have to say to us. If Jesus is the incarnate Word of God then Jesus is the lens that we use to understand all of the Bible. I realize that what we have of Jesus is in the Gospels but again, starting with truth of the resurrection I believe that the Gospel writers and the material from which the Gospels were taken would have been very carefully maintained. Certainly the writers would have had their own interpretations of some of what Jesus had to say but that is true of any historical account.Paul also had considerable contact with the original followers of Jesus and was convinced to make a complete turnaround in his beliefs about Jesus so I contend that what he has to say should be taken very seriously as well.In my view the Christian message as I understand it makes sense of the world as I experience it, but everything that I have just outlined is taken on faith and are my subjective beliefs, no matter how well founded I contend that they are.If what I subjectively believe is true it seems pretty obvious to me that it will have to be consistent with what we can objectively determine about our world. In that regard we should look at how it fits with our current scientific beliefs and historical record.We shouldn’t try and fit God into the box of a God dictated inerrant Bible, which there is no good reason to do. We are then free, using our God given ability to reason, to try to understand how God has done what He has done, and even look at what He continues to do.Everything that I write after this is based on the assumption that my beliefs are accurateI have no training in biology but from what I have read it appears to me that the evolutionary record is conclusive, although I’m sure many of the details will change as we continue to learn. From my perspective as a Christian I then conclude that God created life through an evolutionary process. I’m inclined to think that He may well have intervened but however most of the Christian evolutionists I have read seem to believe that the process was designed at the outset and didn’t require any intervention. Personally, it is a matter of interest to me but not consequential particularly as I will never get a definitive answer anyway.I also look at our historical record and it appears to me that not only have we evolved physically but that we are evolving morally as well. I would agree that it isn’t a consistent advancement but if you are to compare the culture in the majority of the world today to the most civilized cultures of the world 2000 years ago, or even just a couple of centuries ago, we are making progress.A couple of years ago I read a secular book called The Evolution of God. In this book the author, (Robert Wright who describes himself as a materialistic agnostic), describes how over the years our view of god(s) has evolved, and that civilisation has become more compassionate. In the introduction Wright writes the following:

quote:

---

I guess materialist is a not-very-misleading term for me. In fact, in this book I talk about the history of religion, and its future from a materialist standpoint. I think the origin and development of religion can be explained by reference to concrete, observable things in human nature, political and economic factors, technological change, and so on.
But I don’t think a materialist account of religion’s origin, history, and future — like the one I’m giving here — precludes the validity of a religious worldview. In fact, I contend that the history of religion presented in this book, materialist though it is, actually affirms the validity of a religious worldview, not a traditionally religious worldview, but a worldview that is in some meaningful sense religious.

​

It sounds paradoxical. On the one hand, I think gods arose as illusions, and that the subsequent history of the idea of god is, in some sense, the evolution of an illusion. On the other hand: (1) the story of this evolution itself points to the existence of something you can meaningfully call divinity; and (2) the illusion, in the course of evolving, has gotten streamlined in a way that moved it closer to plausibility. In both of these senses, the illusion has gotten less and less illusionary.

---

I found Wright’s book compelling and I found it confirming of the idea that we are teleological beings. Mankind seems to have purpose. If we are gradually becoming more compassionate then it follows that at some point the goal would be that all mankind would be truly compassionate. It is my view that God does influence us through our hearts, minds and imagination but also that He does use our socialization as a tool to spread the compassionate infection.I also contend that this has been happening from the beginning. If we accept Jesus as the incarnate Word of God, and then we review the OT Scriptures we can see more of more of the message that Jesus espoused in the latter prophets particularly in Isaiah and Jeremiah as opposed to what we read in Leviticus and Numbers.Although I look to the Bible and the wisdom of Biblical scholars to form my Christian beliefs, I look to our scientists, biologists etc in order to understand how God has done things, as in the case of evolution. More controversially I use it in an attempt to help me understand, even in a highly speculative way, how God fits into our physical universe.This was not the primary thrust of Wright’s book but he also had this to say in the introduction:

quote:

---

The second aspect of the current world situation I’ll address is another kind of clash — the much-discussed clash between science and religion. Like the first kind of clash, this one has a long and instructive history. It can be traced at least as far back as ancient Babylon, where eclipses that had long been attributed to restless and malignant supernatural beings were suddenly found to occur at predictable intervals — predictable enough to make you wonder whether restless and malignant supernatural beings were really the problem.

​

There have been many unsettling (from religion’s point of view) discoveries since then, but always some notion of the divine has survived the encounter with science. The notion has to change, but that’s not an indictment of religion. After all, science has changed relentlessly, revising if not discarding old theories, and none of us think of that as an indictment of science. On the contrary, we think this ongoing adaptation is carrying science closer to the truth. Maybe the same thing is happening in religion. Maybe, in the end, a mercilessly scientific account of our predicament — such as the account that got me denounced from the pulpit of my mother’s church — is actually compatible with a truly religious worldview, and is part of the process that refines a religious worldview, moving us closer to the truth.

---

(if there are any errors in the quotes it is my fault as I had to copy it from the book directly.)
I think that Wright, even though we have come to different conclusions about God, has got it right. I think again, that just as we are evolving physically are minds are evolving as well. I contend that as we learn more about what God has created that we will learn more about God himself.In the other threads I took some rather large leaps of a speculative nature in connecting some of my beliefs about God to modern science. One of the beliefs that I hold about God is that we are in some way connected to Him and his heavenly world. Various science theories hold to other universes and other dimensions that we are unable to perceive directly with our five senses. I have put those things together and speculated that God’s heaven exists in another co-existing universe or even in our own universe but that with different dimensions. When you consider that only 4.5% of the universe, (if our science is correct), is perceivable to us, it seems a little less far-fetched. Sure it is highly speculative but it does give us a new way of understanding the idea that God is with us but that we don’t directly perceive Him.Part of what I believe as a Christian is that God is eternal. Both science and philosophers have speculated on having more than one dimension of time. We move infinitely around in 3 spatial dimensions so it seems reasonable to me that if God’s heavenly dimension had 3 time dimensions then that would allow for an eternal existence. Once again it is highly speculative but it does give us one possible way of understanding an eternal existence.I agree that I am shoehorning my beliefs into a science that is looking at it another way entirely but on the other hand we all have our pre-conceived ideas about reality and so I don’t think that I am really much different than anyone else in doing that.I have probably provided more than enough already. If a mod is prepared to promote this I suppose it should be in Faith and Belief.

Of course it does. But that doesn’t mean that someone born in India can’t respond to the God in their own way. It is my belief what God really wants is hearts that truly respond to His love for us. I’m good with that. Jesus called his followers to take His message of love, peace, forgiveness, truth, justice etc to the entire world. By word and example they were called to be His agents in the spread of that loving infection. However, it is also clear that that the call was for all mankind. Loving people inspire others to emulate them. However of course evil can inspire evil as well. The good news is that on balance, as Robert Wright pointed out, the world is becoming a more compassionate place. Goodness is slowly winning.

I have only read The Evolution of God and highly recommend it. He is a clear and lucid thinker and writes the same way. As we all know the Bible is a collection of books by many authors. They all had their own reasons for writing what they did. Some books like Kings for example were written by people who would have a political agenda, the prophets would be passing on their views of the message that God had for the Jews etc. The Gospel writers are clearly writing in a style that is meant to be believed as an account of what happened although of course using the idioms and references that a first century individual would understand and particularly a first century Jew.The Gospels don’t build up the characters of the major players and in fact they show the disciples in a rather poor light a great deal of the time. The story of the resurrection itself is written as if to say that I know this sounds strange but here is what happened. Also many first century Jews would believe in resurrection but only for the Jewish people at the end of time. There was no expectation that a messiah or anyone else would be resurrected in the middle of human history. The resurrection story has the resurrected Jesus cooking and eating fish. If they were going to concoct some story about Jesus rising from the dead they would have had Him glowing in the dark or something like that. Faith dealt with the language issue better than I could so I’ll leave that.It is an old analogy but I think it’s true. When witnesses give an account of a car crash they are going to get some of the details wrong but they will usually agree on the important points. At a minimum they will all agree that there was a crash. All of the Gospel writers agree that Jesus died on the cross but that He was alive again in a bodily form later. Obviously this would grab their attention and as a result they would take care to, as closely as possible, record accurately what Jesus said and did, although that is not to say that they wouldn’t emphasize and possibly even embellish the parts of the narrative that were most important to them and the audience that they were writing for.Even though the Gospels were put into their final form decades later they were, as Luke tells us, taken from earlier accounts, both written and oral. I stand to be corrected on this but as far as I know we don’t know whether or not the Gospel writers were eye witnesses themselves or not. However, we know that most of the disciples were still around as would be many other followers of Jesus that would have ensured that the Gospels didn’t go far wrong.
I’ll requote the opening verses from Luke that I used in the OP.

quote:

---

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

---

Over 30 years ago I was a new Christian and was on a church weekend retreat. There had been a passage in scripture that was bothering me. I was by myself, and without me really thinking about the answer to what had been bothering me it came into my head and at the same time I got the idea that I was to be what they called a lay-reader in our little Anglican church in the suburbs of Montreal. The next day I went to our rector/minister/pastor and told him and as a result took on that role in the church. It meant mostly reading the scripture lessons during the service. However, one of the other things that they did was to go into a large senior’s facility in downtown Montreal and lead a service of Morning Prayer with the seniors. I found through doing that, that I connected with seniors and that I enjoyed my time with themDuring that time I had been playing Christian music at coffee houses for various youth groups. One day someone asked me to go and play at a senior’s residence, (not the same one), and so I did. I played a bunch of the current folk music that I knew at the time but found I got a much better response when I played a song that they knew which happened to be Five Foot Two.These two separate ministries came together and as a result of have had this ministry of leading sing songs with seniors now for over 30 years. ( I developed a taste for the pop music of my parents and grand-parents which came as a big surprise to me. )This was the direct result of believing that I was being told to be a lay-reader in our church. Was it really God speaking to me? Based on the outcome I believe it was but I have no way of knowing that objectively.As far as a personal relationship is concerned I’m not even sure what people mean. I have the attention span of a gnat so my prayers are not very long and I probably don’t give God a chance to get a word in edge-ways anyway, so I’m probably not the best person to ask. I certainly have a sense that God cares for me and that in some sense I have worth, but that is really pretty subjective. I also know that my life goes better and I am far more content when I live a life consistent with what I know is to be right as opposed to when I go the other way. I think that God does reach everyone, as I say, through our hearts, minds and imaginations so in that sense we all have a personal relationship with Him, it is just that some of us recognize it as being Him and some don’t. I think that is the best I can do in answering that question. John 14 has Jesus saying this:

quote:

---

28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

---

Jesus says that the Father is greater than Him. I think that this can be a statement of His humanity. He suffered grief, He loved, H e faced temptation etc.My idea of sin is not based solely on what we do but is based on what is in our hearts, or if you like, what motivates us. It is my belief that Jesus’ heart, or His motivation was to always do the just, merciful and loving thing. In other words He would embody the heart of the Father. I also believe that He was the incarnate Word of God so that when He spoke, He spoke what the Father would have Him speak.You are right in saying that I don’t think that the Gospel writers had His words down perfectly but I believe that they were intent on getting them as close as possible, which I said earlier. Also Jesus moved around the country-side speaking to people. He would have given the same talk in different places. Also, the message isn’t all that complicated when you get right down to it. and He continuously referenced the Hebrew Scriptures for His Jewish audience who would instantly understand His point.The Gospels have to be read in big chunks to understand them properly. Yes, there are verses like I desire mercy not sacrifice that encapsulate much of what He had to say but we have to be very careful not to take verses out of the context of the entire narrative.As to how it affects me personally I can only say this. I know that I don’t have all the answers. Hopefully I’ll have more tomorrow. I know that I will go to my grave with many questions unanswered and likely with many of the answers I thought I had being wrong. I’m ok with that. I know that God wants me to live a life that is guided by a loving heart, and He is in ways that I don’t directly discern changing my heart one day at a time. Good grief no. I’m heavily inflicted with the human condition. I will say this though. After I opened up my mind to the Christian faith I did notice a change in my life, specifically in how I talked about other people. I also think that over time God has imperceptively continued to soften my heart. The answer to your question then is no, but I’m getting better at it with a long way to go.Thanks for your questions and interest.Cheers

Hi PhatFirst off I apologise for not thanking you for your detailed well thought out reply earlier. I was in a bit of a hurry as I wanted to get it posted before I headed off to church. To quote that famous philosopher Pogo:

quote:

---

We have met the enemy and he is us

---

The Bible largely talks about a quasi-personal entity often referred to as "the Satan". We only have to look at some of the horrendous things that go in this world to know that there is a force for evil. I suppose that is some ways all disagreements are spiritual. The thing that we should be aware of is that our response to evil should not be more evil. It becomes difficult when we try to figure out how to defend ourselves, but if we justify evil in order to fight evil then evil is going to win every time.For example, in the west we have justified torture as means of getting information. Has it worked in getting that information? Probably. Is it worth it though? I would say no.In the first place when we engage in torture we become no different than the evil we were fighting in the first place. Secondly, I believe that we are supposed to be about is changing hearts. Not only will turn the hearts of others against us, but it will harden the hearts of those who we hire to do the dirty work for us, and for that matter we should ask what it does to the hearts of our nations?Do we need Jesus? Well. I would say that it depends what you mean by that. If my views are correct we have Jesus whether we want Him or not. In the ways that go way beyond my understanding we have Jesus as King over all the world regardless of our specific beliefs. Once again through our hearts, minds and imaginations we have His still small voice prodding us to the loving position.If you ask whether or not it requires an acceptance of Jesus intellectually, I would only say that I believe it would be a big help but I believe that people of other faiths, or no faith at all can respond to His call without knowing Him by name.Edited by GDR, : typo

Highly unlikely if you are talking about becoming a Christian, but very possible if we are talking about serving God by having a merciful loving heart.

I think that you are making the assumption that the point of being a Christian is that you will be on the right side of God and going to heaven when you die. I don’t see it that way. The Gospel message is first and foremost a kingdom message. Mark, Luke and John refer to it as the Kingdom of God whereas Matthew refers to it as the Kingdom of Heaven. Through Jesus, God established His eternal Kingdom on Earth for then, for now and forever.The point of the Kingdom is to take Christ’s message of truth, love, peace joy, forgiveness, etc to the world. Yes, if one truly gives his/her heart to God and makes Jesus Lord of his/her life then they are made right with God but although that is important, the main point is that they are to get on with the job that Jesus’ followers have been given to do. It is all about personal salvation.If you read through the Sermon on the Mount, (Matthew chap 5-7) it is clear that it is about having hearts that love and not simply about our theology. Jesus in that sermon even tells His listener this:

quote:

---

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

---

When you read the parable about separating the sheep from the goats, (Matthew 25 vs 31-46) it is clear that Jesus is asking for people to have hearts that care for the hungry, the naked , the homeless, those in prison, and the thirsty and then because of what is in their hearts they do something about that without thought of reward.So in answer to your question the point is to make the world a better place for all. Jesus asked us to pray to the Father that His Kingdom would come on Earth as in Heaven, and so when you have people in Afghanistan loving their neighbour then God’s Kingdom, as established through Jesus, is being served. When God’s Kingdom is being served others are attracted to His love.As the signature I use tells us, what God wants are humble hearts that love kindness and act justly. It ain’t that complicated.

Exactly. There is something that speaks to all of us. I believe it is God. I don’t dispute that at all. It is hard to avoid that. What I try and do is pick verses that are consistent with the overall theme of what we have of Jesus saying. That is one reason I suggested reading the Sermon on the Mount to get the context. A couple of things about this point.Firstly just what does it mean to believe in Jesus? Does it mean that we give intellectual assent to His deity or even His existence? One might say that they know Obama is President of the US but that doesn’t mean the same thing as believing in Him.Secondly getting to the Kingdom does not mean the same thing as getting to Heaven. Being part of the Kingdom in this life is being part of His church that is about bringing His love to the world. (I realize that isn’t always evident when you look at our churches. )The whole future narrative is about being part of a renewed Earthly creation whenever that happens. The Bible is actually pretty vague as to what happens in the interim. It basically tells us that those who have chosen to genuinely follow Christ, by allowing God to change their hearts, will go to be with Him in some way whatever that looks like. The bigger message though is what happens at the end of time and the Earth is renewed. The Bible is very clear that it is for all creation, although it does say that there will be those who reject it. I haven’t said that it is. I realize I’m cherry picking again, (as you did), but Jesus says in Matthew 9:

quote:

---

When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

---

This helps explain why the churches are full of sinners. Hopefully, most of them are repentant sinners, well... hopefully some anyway.

Either there is an intelligent first cause or there isn’t. I simply made the statement that I believe that there is and I gave a brief explanation of one of the reasons for that. I can’t absolutely say, regardless of how strong my beliefs that an intelligent first cause exists, that I am correct but I believe that the existence of such an intelligence is more probable than not. The Gospels are evidence. They were written by people with the intent of having them believed and it is very clear from the way they were written that it was something they believed. Now it is fine to reject that evidence on whatever ground you like but it is evidence.The balanced universe is evidence, one complex living cell is evidence, the fact that we can think about these things is evidence etc. You have not found the evidence for a god or gods compelling and so you reject it.I think that the point is that there is insufficient evidence for you. For me the evidence is sufficient. I suppose I do, although I’m not sure what it would mean to find it more compelling spiritually. However, I also find it to be compelling from an ontological point of view. I didn’t say it did. It is my belief that a deity is responsible. I may be wrong. My whole OP dealt with that so whatever I would say here would just be repeating what I have already gone over.

Interesting how in your last post you accused me of cherry picking verses. As I said earlier it is important to look at the entire context of what is in the Gospels. Interestingly enough it is highly unlikely that this verse was part of Mark's original Gospel. It is written in a very different style than the Gospel up to 16:8. Here is what wiki has to say about Mark 16Even if we are to assume that Mark did write it, and also make the rather dubious assumption equating being condemned with not being part of God's new creation, it would be inconsistent with the rest of the Gospels and we can just put it down to on over exuberance on Mark's part. That verse isn't at all inconsistent with what I believe. I believe that Jesus is the way to the Father but that doesn't mean that you have to serve Him as a Christian to come to the Father.I suggested reading the last part of Matthew 25 but you seem to have ignored that. I'll quote it here.

quote:

---

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. 32 All 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. 33 He 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. 35 For 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, 36 I 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? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When 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.'

---

The first thing that we notice here is that there is no mention of what their theological beliefs might be. Jesus is saying that, regardless of your theology when you feed the hungry, house the homeless etc you are serving Him.So yes, I believe Jesus is the way, the truth and the life but it is for all of mankind.

I thought I'd respond again to this and partly that is in light of a point you made on the supernatural thread.I take the Bible very seriously. I take it seriously enough that when I read the Bible I can see that it is clearly written be men, (as far as I know no women), representing their understandings of God, their cultures, themselves etc. It is not a God dictated book.The Gospels are written to be believed but that too is subject to personal and cultural conditioning. Matthew for example is writing primarily to a Jewish audience and so He was very careful to emphasize the connection between Jesus and the Hebrew Scriptures. This is not to say that he got it wrong but it just means that what he wrote represented his understanding of what Jesus said and did.When we get away from the idea that the Bible is a book dictated by God and look at it as an book written by men inspired to write about what they knew and believed we get a narrative of God reaching out in love to the Jewish people and through them to the world.The Gospels, as I have said were written to be believed. Why were they written at all?IMHO there is no reasonable explanation for them to do this if Jesus had simply died on the cross. He would have just been another in a fairly large group of failed messiahs, albeit one with a different message than the others.There is enough consistency in the Gospels and for that matter the Epistles to understand that Jesus was a man of peace and love. He talked about loving enemies and that the way to deal with the Romans was to forgive, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile and so on.Jesus claimed that the Father was acting through Him and that He spoke for the Father. He would just be another crackpot but God vindicated all that Christ said and did by resurrecting Him.In light of that it makes perfect sense to read the Bible through the lens of what Jesus had to say about God the Father, so that when we read about God ordering genocide or public stoning we can be confident that it was from the selfish hearts of humans with their own agendas and not from Yahweh at all.So my point is that although it may look like I am picking and choosing what to believe but that isn't the case. I am picking and choosing based on what we can know what the Word of God, is as we see it incarnate in Jesus.

Before I try and answer that I want to say is that the question itself again brings the focus back on personal salvation. Yes, personal salvation is a great and wonderful thing but if we make it our focus then it turns Christianity on its ear and makes it all about me and what happens to me when I die.The early Jews had made it all about them. Even though the message was for the world they kept it largely to themselves. There hope was that Yahweh would anoint a messiah that would lead them against the Romans and free them from Roman tyranny. Jesus however said that He did have a plan for the Romans but it didn’t look at all like the Jews expected. In fact Jesus was passing judgement on Israel. Here is a passage from Matthew 23 that is but one example of judgement.

quote:

---

23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. 25 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. 27 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. 29 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers! 33 "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? 34 Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. 35 And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation. 37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. 38 Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "

---

Don’t forget that Matthew more than other Gospel was written for a Jewish audience.Jesus told them that dealing with the Romans meant loving them, turning the other cheek and going the extra mile for the hated Roman soldiers. It wasn’t a hugely popular message.Jesus then goes on to tell them that the result of the rejection of His message will be the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Temple itself will be completely destroyed.All through the OT is the theme that if they could just get right with Yahweh by following the laws and making the right sacrifices, Yahweh would rescue them from their enemies and give them control over their own land. Jesus points out that they never did get it right when He says things like I desire mercy not sacrifice.As I mentioned to you in a previous post Jesus often referred to Himself as the Son of Man, obviously referring back to Daniel 7. Here is a small bit from that chapter:

quote:

---

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

From what I have read it is understood that The Son of Man would be understood to be Israel itself. Jesus however referred to Himself that way. Jesus also very pointedly chose 12 disciples representing the 12 tribes of Israel. Jesus, IMHO, saw Himself as standing in for Israel and He would be the one who actually fulfilled the desires that Yahweh had for the whole nation.As a result Jesus believed that through Him God would establish the Jewish Kingdom, except that it wasn’t going to be just for the Jews but for the entire human race, and that it wasn’t going to be about one plot of land but for the entire planet, which goes back to the original Abrahamic promise.

quote:

---

1 The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. 2 "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you."

---

Jesus also referred to Himself as coming to serve and would have seen Himself in Chap 55 of Isaiah as the Suffering Servant. This is from Isaiah 53.

quote:

---

3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants?

---

I think that the two passages I have quoted are the passages that would have been first and foremost in what Jesus would understand about what the Father was doing through Him. Jesus knew what would happen to Him when he declared Himself as the Messiah on His entry into Jerusalem. He was upsetting too many apple-carts by what He was doing.So Jesus went to the cross as the nation Israel — as Israel as it was meant to be from the beginning — and died at the hands of evil personified. This was all accomplished as a huge act of faith that He had it right, and that He truly understood what the Father was telling Him through the scriptures and in answer to prayer. He died as the one true Israel.Without the resurrection Jesus would have just been shown as a peaceful prophet who got it all wrong. However, we see through the resurrection that He got it all right. He was raised again to a new resurrected body and His Kingdom of followers was established for the world.So, to answer your question Faith. In the death and resurrection of Jesus His Kingdom of followers was established to be agents of His love, mercy, forgiveness peace and justice to the world. When people turn to Jesus as Lord and hunger for that message of love in their hearts they are pre-judged and made right with God and welcomed into His eternal Kingdom. The point though about that happening in the here and now is that by becoming members of the Kingdom we have been given a job to do.A couple of points on that though. Just because I might say the right words and acknowledge Jesus as Lord does not fill the bill. It is about having my heart transformed to one that longs for God’s goodness to permeate the world. It also does not mean that everyone else is hell bound. As CS Lewis said:

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

---

I hope that answers your question.

Actually, as I continue to study the Scriptures my views have changed considerably over time and will no doubt change again. I simply start with Jesus and I realize in saying that, that I am dependant on the NT authors. Actually I do think that the Bible is the word of God in that He speaks to us through it. I just don't think He authored it. There are certainly those who believe that about being saved but I don't accept that it is the majority. It certainly isn't scriptural. Reason is a God-given gift and I assume that He expects us to use it. I contend that the message of the Bible is very clear when taken as a whole. It is when we look at it a few verses at a time that we get led off track.Another point in trusting the Gospels. Although they show up as having one author it is clear, particularly in Luke because he spells it out, that the Gospels are compiled from the words of a number of Jesus' followers. The Gospels are not just the thoughts of four men. In addition to that of course we can cross-reference the Gospels to see where they are in agreement and where they might differ giving us greater confidence in where they concur. They are all very clear on the resurrection.That alone makes the Gospels different than any other books in the bible.

If I am correct in my speculation about time in the OP then there is no need for a first cause for God. If God is eternal the the idea of a first cause is meaningless.

The trouble is Faith it seems to me that you have all of these formulistic questions so that you can decide whether or not someone is a real Christian or not and whether they have been saved. Frankly it paints a very minimalist picture of God. IMHO God is bigger, wiser and more loving than a god that is intent that you have all pat answers to all the right questions. Read the Bible. God wants us to have hearts that reflect His heart for us. All the law and the prophets are fulfilled when we truly love our neighbour as our self. This question as you have phrased it here is a case of making your god in your image. You are coming up with an anthropomorphic god.In one way, I suppose you can say His death paid for our sins, although frankly I’m not even sure what that means. The point is that sin is evil and evil is part of our life. In a very real sense the ultimate evil is death and through Jesus’ death and resurrection God defeated evil. Evil and death do not have the last word.Jesus died in place of the Hebrew nation as the one true Israelite. Jesus represented everything that the Jews had been called to be. The message of Yahweh was supposed to be, not just for the Jews but for the world as we see in the Abrahamic promise. By extension then we can see that Jesus stood in for the sins or evil of all mankind. Does that constitute paying for our sins? In one way I suppose it does but on the other hand sin and evil still exist. Our hearts are far from pure and there will be an accounting for that.

I hadn't actually realized that the Catholic church was that large a percentage. Actually it is about 50% but that is more than I would have guessed. Here is the wiki site that gives the numbers. Size of Christian denominationsWhen we read through the OT we can see that humans have always had a proclivity to make laws that are attributed to God in order to keep maintain control. Jesus took all the laws that the early Jews had come up with and told them instead that it is all about love, and I have no doubt that if we were listening he would tell us the same thing today.Here is the passage that I believe is the passage that thinking is based on. From John 3:

quote:

---

1 Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." 3 In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " 4 "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.

---

When this is read, even in the context of this brief exchange, we can see that Jesus is talking about the water involved in child birth and not in baptism. For that matter, the Kingdom of God was the Kingdom that Jesus established for His followers in the here and now. It does not mean that not being part of the Kingdom of God means that you are off to hell. Baptism is essentially a public statement that one is committing oneself to the church, or in the case of infant baptism committing one’s child to the church or in other word to the Kingdom of God. (I realize it doesn't always look like that is the case but that is the plan.)I assume that by believing in Christ you mean believing in His resurrection and divinity. It is my contention that believing in Christ means believing in and incorporating the Word of God into our hearts, so that we are truly humble, loving, merciful and just.