Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Stevil]

I just find it amazing how all these stories of god and heaven come about when noone has been to heaven and noone has met god.

We no nothing of this entity, don't even have knowledge of its existence.

Your story seems completely made up.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If someone has a subjective experience that convinces them that they have been enlightened in a particular way, I'm really not in any position to dispute them. 

I suppose part of my question, which I should have made clearer, is if you subscribe to the notion that all gods are one god, or that all paths lead to god?

I'm not sure about this, to tell you the truth.  Of all the religions, Jesus seems, to me anyway, the closest thing to a common denominator. He's accepted by the 2,000,000,000 Christians as the Son of God; he's accepted by 2,000,000,000 Muslims as a prophet/kind of Messiah; for the Jews at least he's a Jew (if he happens to be the Messiah, at least he's one of their own); he's generally not rejected by Hindus (who have so many gods, what's one more), and the Krishna stories have some parallels with him; and for any non-violent Buddhists, you've got a non-violent Jesus; and even for total non-believers he's received some decent press at times.  So I'm guessing at least 5,000,000,000 of the 7,000,000,000 of us have a somewhat positive view of him, which makes him a pretty good candidate (to put it in political terms). 

Even Christians can't agree on exactly what version of Jesus they believe in, so even Christians are, in a sense, approaching God from different paths.  I guess my answer to your question is "yes" in a sense.  I just think that at the end of the day, whatever path one chooses, he/she is going to have to deal with Jesus in some sense. Afer all, that's what we are doing on this thread.   

[Ecurb Noselrub]

When it gets right down to it, I don't know a single Christian who could sentence anyone to eternal hell.  I sort of see it like the end of Braveheart, with even the bloodthirsty crowd crying "mercy." In the end, I think we all make it into the kingdom.

As a Christian, that last statement is of terrible doctrine and has absolutely no justification within scripture.

Five years ago I would have agreed with you. At 59, the concept of eternal hell no longer makes any sense to me. My own personal experience of Jesus does make sense to me, however.  As time has gone on, I've begun to put more stock in my experience of the Holy Spirit than in doctrine and scripture.  But I know where you are coming from.  How old are you?  Could you send anyone to eternal burning hell?  Put your finger in a flame and then let me know how long you can keep it there.  Does any sin justify that level of punishment?  Even if it does, would you not forgive anyone after a relatively short punishment?  Are you more compassionate  that God?  These are just questions - I'm not chiding you.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Being an autistic person, I have no idea what you mean.

Then I value your perspective.  Tell me what autism means to you.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You like reading Paul's epistles. I think this is pretty clear in 2 Thessalonians 1.7-9;

'When the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and those who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus.  They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the lord and from the glory of his power'

Or do you interpret that allegorically?

II Thessalonians is not one of the generally accepted authentic epistles of Paul. They are Galatians, Romans, I & II Corinthians, I Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon.  Choose a passage from one of those, or a generally accepted Mark or "Q" saying from Jesus, and then get back with me.  

By the way, even though the earliest of all manuscripts we have are from the 2nd Century, there is general agreement among scholars that Mark, "Q" (though never found as a separate document), and the authentic epistles of Paul are all 1st Century in origin.  That's not true of the infancy gospels.  It may be true for the Gospel of Thomas, which is not canonical, and consists mainly of Q sayings with a little Gnosticim thrown in for good measure.  Almost anything Christian from the 2nd Century has some Gnostic elements or is arguing against Gnosticism in some manner.

[Sandra Craft]

He's accepted by the 2,000,000,000 Christians as the Son of God; he's accepted by 2,000,000,000 Muslims as a prophet/kind of Messiah; for the Jews at least he's a Jew (if he happens to be the Messiah, at least he's one of their own); he's generally not rejected by Hindus (who have so many gods, what's one more), and the Krishna stories have some parallels with him; and for any non-violent Buddhists, you've got a non-violent Jesus; and even for total non-believers he's received some decent press at times.  So I'm guessing at least 5,000,000,000 of the 7,000,000,000 of us have a somewhat positive view of him, which makes him a pretty good candidate (to put it in political terms). 

Can't go along with this -- I've never believed that "right determined by popularity contest" is valid.  A lot of people and things in history have been well liked, or at least generally accepted, without being right, much less divine.

I just think that at the end of the day, whatever path one chooses, he/she is going to have to deal with Jesus in some sense.

That's certainly particularily true in the West, but I don't think that's a indication of rightness either -- just culture and politics.  I have to deal with conservatives and conservatism all the time too but that doesn't make me even a borderline Republican.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

He's accepted by the 2,000,000,000 Christians as the Son of God; he's accepted by 2,000,000,000 Muslims as a prophet/kind of Messiah; for the Jews at least he's a Jew (if he happens to be the Messiah, at least he's one of their own); he's generally not rejected by Hindus (who have so many gods, what's one more), and the Krishna stories have some parallels with him; and for any non-violent Buddhists, you've got a non-violent Jesus; and even for total non-believers he's received some decent press at times.  So I'm guessing at least 5,000,000,000 of the 7,000,000,000 of us have a somewhat positive view of him, which makes him a pretty good candidate (to put it in political terms). 

Can't go along with this -- I've never believed that "right determined by popularity contest" is valid.  A lot of people and things in history have been well liked, or at least generally accepted, without being right, much less divine.

I didn't mean to use this as an argument for Jesus being the right path to God.  I'm quite frankly still struggling with the idea of multiple paths to God.  Since my experience with God is that he is infinitely merciful (he has to be to deal with me), I envision him as a God who ultimately will accept everyone (perhaps this is what Paul meant when he said that every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord, or what John meant in saying that Jesus took away the sin of the world).

[xSilverPhinx]

Can't go along with this -- I've never believed that "right determined by popularity contest" is valid.  A lot of people and things in history have been well liked, or at least generally accepted, without being right, much less divine.

Not to compare Jesus to Hitler, but the guy was so liked that he was voted into the government...

***

Cforcerunner, I'm curious to know why you think that some people deserve eternal punishment and why. Do you place even non believers in that group (which does have a scriptural basis) or just the evil people? Or are non believers also evil? And how can you justify what you call a loving god sending people to eternal pain and suffering?

[Sandra Craft]

I just find it amazing how all these stories of god and heaven come about when noone has been to heaven and noone has met god.

I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away:  brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill.  Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural.  Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning.  In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,

Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law.  I expected better.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away:  brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill.  Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural.  Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning.  In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.

Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture.  Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part?  It takes a certain amount of intelligence to understand physics and calculus. Maybe it takes a certain amount of brain capacity and insight to detect the presence of God, and you are one of the evolutionary rejects.  Just saying, and I'm smiling and being very happy and friendly as I say it.  See, here's a great big smile!!   

[Sandra Craft]

I read a book once that had a pretty good explanation for that -- "Why God Won't Go Away:  brain science and the biology of belief" by Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquill.  Basically, they found that a part of the brain has a secondary, minor function of creating the sort of experiences that are generally called divine, spiritual or supernatural.  Altho this isn't its main function, since it didn't interfere with survival and may have even ehanced the chances for survival, it remained a part of the brain's functioning.  In any case, that's were all these experiences of god and visions of heaven come from, regardless of anything substantial.

Maybe that's where they come from, or maybe God and heaven (an alternative dimension) are real, and you are incapable of seeing the pattern in the picture.

That's similar to one of two theories the authors (both scientists) had on this phenomenum -- 1) it was just a random biological quirk of evolution, or 2) some kind of Absolute Unitary Being (they were too scientific to tie themselves down to the word "god") created it as a way for humans to grasp what would otherwise be way outside their capacity.  They just offered these up as theories, without stating a scientific or personal preference for either.

Ever consider the possibility that it is a deficiency on your part? 

Nope.  And according to Newberg and D'Aquill, their atheist and agnostic subjects were not deficient in how this part of their brain worked --it fired off just as often and in the same way as it did in their religious subjects, from the Buddhist scholar to the Catholic nun.  The only thing different was in how atheists interpreted the experience.  Not to put too fine a point on it, they interpreted it as atheists, just like the Buddhist interpreted his experience in a Buddhist way the the Catholic interpreted hers in a Xtian way.

[xSilverPhinx]

Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,

Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law.  I expected better.

I'm aware of Godwin's law, but my intent was not to compare Jesus to Hitler, just point out that popularity of how liked someone is isn't a basis I (and I assume most) really take into account when deciding politically or choosing leaders. I may be a bit idealistic here...Look how it turned out for Germany back then. 

You were basing your arguments on how many people in the world like Jesus or follow part of his teachings. I attribute that to some universal good themes, but not to any person in particular. The Golden Rule, for instance, has been around for far longer than Christianity. Sure he was a radical in his time, and credit where credit's due for that, but Jesus isn't necessary as a universal role model IMO. 

[Tank]

Not to compare Jesus to Hitler,

Which you just did. Good Lord, you violated (or rather confirmed) Godwin's Law.  I expected better.

xSP simply pointed out that Hitler was voted into office and thus at the time had considerable popular support. When he was executed Jesus had only 12 party members and very limited popular support. I don't think xSP was making a Godwin's Law reference as such, it would be very out of character for her to do so.

[OldGit]

That's a lovely story Cforcerunner.

But I am still keen to find the subtle knife, its destiny must be fulfilled. Problem is, I am having some troubles finding it. But I have heard that there is a young wizard who hangs out at Hogwarts who might be able to help me find the knife. Although I don't quite know how to get to Hogwarts.

many whom the world would never expect are to be held up highly in the Kingdom and many who are celebrated in this world will not.

So being saved is basically a lottery, and nobody knows how to get there? Sounds as logical and reasonable as the rest of that delusion-system.  

This is simply taken from a worldview that differs from your own, no need to be childish in how one reacts towards it.

We simply don't accept that religion is worthy of any respect.  It's delusional, and showing respect for it only encourages it.  This is not the first time a faithhead has called me childish for mocking his delusions.
They don't like it up 'em, you see  

As for salvation, I went into it in more detail here.