'Drich, which of the millions of different christian denominations goes to Heaven?'

[Drich]

I have been asked this question so many different times in my last two threads I think it should be posted once and for all.

It's real simple.

All canonical Jesus Christ centered religions are good.

Why?

Attonement.

The same attonement that is offered to us when we willfully sin is also offered when we are trying to love God with all of our heart, mind, spirit, and strength.

So this beggs the question who is right? Which version of Christianity is correct? None are. The thing is.. We don't have to be.

So what's the trick? One must have the attonement offered by Christ. According to Paul to his letter to the Galations, this 'gospel' is the canonical/biblical Gospel. All other 'new gospels' are false.

Therefore the only ones that fall under the Christian 'freedom of religion' are those who know and follow the Jesus/gospel found in the canonical scriptures.

[Esquilax]

So, it's all good no matter how you stray from your specific version of christianity, Drich, because of that belief in the atonement offered by Jesus is the central tenet that unifies them all... and yet you still get shitty when we dismiss your No True Scotsman exclusions of others that call themselves christian, despite the fact that you're minimizing all differences except the atonement thing here, which presumably those christians you say aren't christians also believe in?

Have you ever had an internally consistent thought in your life?

[Nope]

What if someone is illiterate and can't read the bible, can't they be saved? If they can be saved than there must be a summary that one person can give another as to what the bare minimum to be a Christian means.

[Drich]

So, it's all good no matter how you stray from your specific version of christianity, Drich, because of that belief in the atonement offered by Jesus is the central tenet that unifies them all... and yet you still get shitty when we dismiss your No True Scotsman exclusions of others that call themselves christian, despite the fact that you're minimizing all differences except the atonement thing here, which presumably those christians you say aren't christians also believe in?

Have you ever had an internally consistent thought in your life?

The problem with your identification of a no true scots man. is the central rule for no true scots man fallacies are that they must speak of a universal claim to a group (no rules concerning the claim.)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The problem here? There are rules concerning Christianity. Christ Himself say not everyone who calls himself a follower is one. Why? Their are terms and conditions to the faith. What I am saying to those who are outside of worshiping the canonical version of Christ, is they do not have the attonement offered by Him. Without this attonement their offerings are doomed to fail. Why? Because like I said in the OP we all have it wrong to one degree or another, and desperately need the attonement Christ offers to justify our religious efforts.

Again not my words, but the words of Paul to the Church at Galicia, for doing something similar to what the Mormons did.

---

What if someone is illiterate and can't read the bible, can't they be saved? If they can be saved than there must be a summary that one person can give another as to what the bare minimum to be a Christian means.

The minimum is based on our indivisual capacities. For you I'm afraid the bar is rather high.. For someone like dry-sand, I think he would be allowed in if he could just pronounce the Name Jesus.

(Parable of the talents)

[robvalue]

Is this saying that all the denominations are just personal flavours and don't really matter?

[Tonus]

So what's the trick? One must have the attonement offered by Christ. According to Paul to his letter to the Galations, this 'gospel' is the canonical/biblical Gospel. All other 'new gospels' are false.

Paul sure did like to get the last word in, it seems. But did he specify which gospels were canon? The Bible did not exist when Paul was writing those letters, and there may have been a dozen or two "gospels" by then.

And as far as I can tell, nearly every Christian denomination believes in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus as the basis of salvation. Even JWs, who place Jesus on secondary footing to a fully separate primary deity, believe that salvation is not possible unless one accepts Jesus (not Jehovah) as the instrument by which he is saved. The differences between JWs and other Christian denominations are many, and to some denominations blasphemous. Yet the JWs are clear that no other denomination will be saved from god's wrath, and many of the others consider JWs to be hell-bound.

There's simply no consensus on such matters, and no real way to settle it because the Bible is too easy to manipulate towards any particular point of view. Even your claim regarding the "rules of Christianity" depends on how you interpret Bible verses. Like I said elsewhere, the problems that this presents is not mine to deal with, but it also doesn't require that I select one particular interpretation and accept it as canon. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the Bible was written by the George Lucas of its day.

[Drich]

Is this saying that all the denominations are just personal flavours and don't really matter?

Not all, but most don't matter. Why? Because our greatest command is to love our lord God with all of our heart, mind, spirit and strength. And because we are all a little different this all encompassing love will play out differently. Remember we as Christians are free from the law as a means to righteousness because of the attonement Christ died to provide. This means what we are judged on centers around this all encompassing love we are supposed to have and whether or not our actions reflect this kind of love.

After all a intelectual man builds a church and worships God as if he were in school, lots of lectures, endless research, personal study and lots of reading. While say a more active man would not be able to worship God with all of his being in that setting. He may need to hear lots of songs maybe even from different genres, see a principle acted out in some sort of play, to truly worship God with all of his being.
But, the enviroment that would all the active man to fully give himself over to God would keep the intelectual man from doing that most important thing.

If you look at the rev 2 and 3 you will note john writes to 7 different churches. I believe that these 7 churches repersent the 7 different profiles that encompass All of the different denominations. Why? Because if you read the profiles all 7 are different enough to have seperated themselves from each other in today's world. What was the reason for the seperation then? The region the churches were found were of different cultures and different class of people. Some wealthy and educated, some poor and more active. Each church john mentions has its own special unique way of worshiping God.

But again, in order for your denomination not to matter one must fall under the attonement Christ offers. Otherwise according to Paul and what he said to the Galations you/they are not Christian.

[Brakeman]

I have been asked this question so many different times in my last two threads I think it should be posted once and for all.

It's real simple.

All canonical Jesus Christ centered religions are good.

Why?

Attonement.

Please define your meaning of "attonement" so we will be clear.

[robvalue]

Making up for being born?

[Drich]

Paul sure did like to get the last word in, it seems. But did he specify which gospels were canon? The Bible did not exist when Paul was writing those letters, and there may have been a dozen or two "gospels" by then.

luke remember was not a jew, he was a gentile/slave doctor of another man theophilus. He went to find out for his master all he could on Jesus. In his travels he met Paul and became his deciple/understudy. How do we know this? Luke wrote not only the gospel of Luke he also wrote the book of acts. In it chronicals all the apstoles did to establish the church after the gospel accounts end.

So which gospel did Paul endorse? Without a doubt Luke's gospel would have been the gospel of Paul. And since Luke's gospel is in line with the other 3 all four canonical gospels are good.

And as far as I can tell, nearly every Christian denomination believes in the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus as the basis of salvation. Even JWs, who place Jesus on secondary footing to a fully separate primary deity, believe that salvation is not possible unless one accepts Jesus (not Jehovah) as the instrument by which he is saved. The differences between JWs and other Christian denominations are many, and to some denominations blasphemous. Yet the JWs are clear that no other denomination will be saved from god's wrath, and many of the others consider JWs to be hell-bound.

while I personally think that the JW's boarder line don't believe in the canonical Jesus, to say they all aren't christians is not my call to make.
I'm sure there will be a few, like I am sure their will be a few from other non Christian religions who might make it past the pearly gates as well. Why? They meet the requirement of God's command for an all encompassing love.

There's simply no consensus on such matters, and no real way to settle it because the Bible is too easy to manipulate towards any particular point of view. Even your claim regarding the "rules of Christianity" depends on how you interpret Bible verses. Like I said elsewhere, the problems that this presents is not mine to deal with, but it also doesn't require that I select one particular interpretation and accept it as canon. Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the Bible was written by the George Lucas of its day.

The rules aren't 'rules' per say. Their requirements for attonement. Once attonement has been found the 'rules' go out the window.[/quote]

---

I have been asked this question so many different times in my last two threads I think it should be posted once and for all.

It's real simple.

All canonical Jesus Christ centered religions are good.

Why?

Attonement.

Please define your meaning of "attonement" so we will be clear.

a·tone
əˈtōn/Submit
verb
make amends or reparation.
"he was being helpful, to atone for his past mistakes"
synonyms: make amends for, make reparation for, make restitution for, make up for, compensate for, pay for, recompense for, expiate, redress, make good, offset; do penance for
"how shall I atone for my mistakes?"
Origin

Middle English (originally in the sense ‘make or become united or reconciled,’ rare before the 16th century): from at one in early use; later by back-formation from atonement.
Translate atone to
Use over time for: atone

---

Making up for being born?

Do you not sin?

The bible does not say being born is a sin. It says having knoweledge of sin and doing the misdeed anyway is a sin.

If you only sin once in your life you need to have that sin attoned for. Otherwise the punishment for that sin is death by hell fire.