"No one gets to the father accept through me..."

Funkenstien

Unregistered
F
This phrase always pops up when I ask christians why they believe only they will get into heaven.

I've always said that I think what was meant here is, "if you want to have eternal life, do like I do." But noone seems to get it. What are all your thoughts on this frequently quoted Bible line?
 
We'll, the mythology of a savior is strong in the Christian community though it is not unique.

Christians put up a philosophical paradox that Christ supposedly solves.

1.) Everyone is born into sin
(oh really, why?)

2.)Because of Adams fall.
(Riiiight. Punish me for what someone else has done.)

2.) Well, no one is perfect.
(Ok, I can accept that.)

3.) God is both all just and all merciful.
(is that even possible?)

4.) He can't let us into heaven because we have sinned.
(I thought he was all merciful)

5.) That is why he prepared a way for us. Christ, God's only begotten son, took on the sins of the world and died for us, he that believes and accepts this gift will be saved.
(Ooooohhhh.....yeah that makes so much sense.)

....and how does one take on the sins of everyone? It's a mystery.
 
Funkenstien said:
This phrase always pops up when I ask christians why they believe only they will get into heaven.

I've always said that I think what was meant here is, "if you want to have eternal life, do like I do." But noone seems to get it. What are all your thoughts on this frequently quoted Bible line?
Of course it has also been claimed that Christ is the Father. If so, it should also make it a lot easier to get to heaven shouldn't it? :)
 
RandFan said:
We'll, the mythology of a savior is strong in the Christian community though it is not unique.

Christians put up a philosophical paradox that Christ supposedly solves.

1.) Everyone is born into sin
(oh really, why?)

2.)Because of Adams fall.
(Riiiight. Punish me for what someone else has done.)

2.) Well, no one is perfect.
(Ok, I can accept that.)

3.) God is both all just and all merciful.
(is that even possible?)

4.) He can't let us into heaven because we have sinned.
(I thought he was all merciful)

5.) That is why he prepared a way for us. Christ, God's only begotten son, took on the sins of the world and died for us, he that believes and accepts this gift will be saved.
(Ooooohhhh.....yeah that makes so much sense.)

....and how does one take on the sins of everyone? It's a mystery.
To play God's Advocate here, (:D) let me just say that by ridiculing other's beliefs you are either implying that they are stupid for believing them or showing your lack of understanding of their reasons for belief. Either case does not make you look good.
 
"No one gets to the father accept through me..."
Cecil reminds us that it's not polite to make fun of someone else's beliefs, but this line is often trotted out when the believer has gone into condescension mode.

When that happens then I feel a little freer to belittle my antagonist. I start by saying "yah, I know that but I'm not aiming for the Father God, I'm aiming much higher."

All of the gods in olden times were vengeful and jealous and very smallminded, smiting humans and playing with them like toys. The Christian god is no different than the Roman and Greek and Norse gods in that regard. He freaks out if you hug a golden calf. A dead statue. In creation, it's only the small minded little god who does such a thing. In fact, the Father God in a mere mask of the True God. All earthly gods are. My god has worn all these little masks.

Even if the True God in your philosophy is a figment of the imagination this argument can be used. It merely argues the point from the believer's frame of reference. He worships a god who does not like strange gods before him, so choose a god that contains his god. After all, God has to be the biggest thing that can be imagined. All we need to do is imagine one a little bigger than our antagonist's and we can be sure that we are closer to the truth than he is.
 
Cecil said:
To play God's Advocate here, (:D) let me just say that by ridiculing other's beliefs you are either implying that they are stupid for believing them or showing your lack of understanding of their reasons for belief. Either case does not make you look good.
When I wrote it I honestly wasn't trying to ridicule but show how a nonbeliever would see the idea. My apologies to anyone who was offended.

I still think the concept when viewed outside of faith is, at best, problematic and at worst it is illogical. IMHO.

RandFan
 
I'm catholic, and I wasn't offended. I know what you are trying to say. The biggest beef I have with the christian faith is the elite attitude it instills. "I'm better than you because I love Jesus" is not what the original purpose was of the statement, in my opinion.
 
Funkenstien said:
I'm catholic, and I wasn't offended. I know what you are trying to say. The biggest beef I have with the christian faith is the elite attitude it instills. "I'm better than you because I love Jesus" is not what the original purpose was of the statement, in my opinion.
I agree, as a Mormon who attempted every day to live his life by the precepts of Christ I was always offended by those who told me I was not a Christian.

The attitude struck me as not very Christian.
 
RandFan said:
When I wrote it I honestly wasn't trying to ridicule but show how a nonbeliever would see the idea. My apologies to anyone who was offended.

I still think the concept when viewed outside of faith is, at best, problematic and at worst it is illogical. IMHO.

RandFan

Agreed! It's far from rude to ridicule people who cling to the notion the earth is the center of the universe and is 5,000 years old. Don't forget that these same people are politely labeling you a 'sinner' who deserves eternal condemnation for the crime of disagreeing with their dogma.
 
Why is it that ridiculing someone's beliefs is considered offensive and must be redressed with apology and that a believer can with no clear reason can condem you and yours to an everlasting torture (with a smile on their faces) and that is not considered offensive?
 
I always thought that phrase meant Jesus was trying to keep you out of heaven. You know, “To get to the father you have to go through me, buddy!”

Now I see I was wrong.

Whew, what a relief. I’ve seen his picture and it looks like he’s in pretty good shape.
 
That quote was intended for Thomas the Apostle and no other. It's a response to when Thomas asks how he will be able to find Jesus once he's dead. Needless to say it is not about Christianity being the one, true religion. It just looks like that out of context.
 
RandFan said:
1.) Everyone is born into sin
(oh really, why?)

The reality above the reason. Sin is the reality of the situation, and Christianity makes absolutely no sense to someone who does not accept the concept of sin (behavior that does not correspond to objective moral standards).

2.)Because of Adams fall.
(Riiiight. Punish me for what someone else has done.)

It's genetic. We're all in this together. My poor eyesight isn't punishment, but reality. To be born into sin does not mean God will eternally hate us and condemn us to hell; he gave us the way to overcome this reality.

3.) God is both all just and all merciful.
(is that even possible?)

I think so.

He is just in that all evil deeds have to be addressed and rectified. He is merciful in that all sinners, no matter how evil, have the opportunity to repent. But that repentance does not mean that the sins no longer have meaning. The penitent has to admit the sin and understand just how the sin affected others and God. The mercy is given to a person who capitulates. You might not consider that mercy at all; those who "go to hell" refuse to capitulate and are allowed to eternally rebel against God. That is divine justice/mercy.

[B}4.) He can't let us into heaven because we have sinned.
(I thought he was all merciful)[/B]

The sin has to be addressed and rectified. Once that has happened, we can enter into the fullness of his grace.

The mercy comes in because he makes it possible to overcome sin; we can't do it ourselves.

5.) That is why he prepared a way for us. Christ, God's only begotten son, took on the sins of the world and died for us, he that believes and accepts this gift will be saved.
(Ooooohhhh.....yeah that makes so much sense.)

God had to conquer sin. This is how he chose to do it. Christians accept that. A divine plan is perfectly sensible; a human being is more than welcome to judge a divine plan (as you do) but a gift is to be accepted, and not scoffed at. If you scoff at the gift, surely you'd admit that it would be just for the gift to be rescinded, as to scoff at it is to reject it.

]....and how does one take on the sins of everyone? It's a mystery.

Only God could take on the sins of everyone. Satan asks the same question in the Passion of the Christ Gibson movie thing.

-Elliot
 
Elliot, for what it's worth. I was a missionary for two years. Granted, being a Mormon I wasn't a true Scotsman...er Christian. But I do understand the principles. I was trying to show what a non believer would think of such items. I'm glad that you had an opportunity to respond. I hope you understand that your explanations while interesting and might seem to answer the questions don't actually, unless of course you accept these things on faith. Let's look at a few.

Please don't take this as mocking. It is difficult to discuss these issues with out offending someone. I don't accept salvation or damnation so I'm not going to talk about them with reverence. I will however avoid gratuitous remarks.

elliotfc said:
The reality above the reason. Sin is the reality of the situation, and Christianity makes absolutely no sense to someone who does not accept the concept of sin (behavior that does not correspond to objective moral standards).
To be born into sin is antithetical to any definition that I can find. On the other hand to dismiss the concept based simply on definition would be pedantic.

However, if you accept that sin is a deliberate act then one can't be born having done something deliberate that one did not do.

Sin = not sin. It just doesn't work.

If it is some ethereal concept that Christians accept without really understanding then that is another thing.

It's genetic. We're all in this together. My poor eyesight isn't punishment, but reality. To be born into sin does not mean God will eternally hate us and condemn us to hell; he gave us the way to overcome this reality.
Again, the usage of the word sin, in this instance, must transcend the classical usage of the word since sin is a deliberate act and being born isn't, in and of itself sin.

RandFan
Is god all just and all merciful?

I think so.
Not really. Such absolutes are not so easily reconciled. It is human nature to try and resolve such issues. In the past the Sun was carried across the sky by gods. Diseases were the product of sin and good will the product of good deeds. But then someone noticed that good things happened to wicked people and therefore it was decreed that god makes it to rain on the just and the unjust.

One way to avoid god's wrath was to transfer sin to a prized possession (usually an animal) and offer it as sacrifice.

He is just in that all evil deeds have to be addressed and rectified. He is merciful in that all sinners, no matter how evil, have the opportunity to repent. But that repentance does not mean that the sins no longer have meaning. The penitent has to admit the sin and understand just how the sin affected others and God. The mercy is given to a person who capitulates. You might not consider that mercy at all; those who "go to hell" refuse to capitulate and are allowed to eternally rebel against God. That is divine justice/mercy.
So, all sin was transferred via a mysterious process to Christ some 2,000 + years ago. The process worked forward but not backward (depending on who you talk to) and Christ was sacrificed instead of animals. We don't really know how Christ took on the sins or what was really involved we just know it was painful and that he bled from every pore.

The sin has to be addressed and rectified.
This is logical.

Once that has happened, we can enter into the fullness of his grace.
Ok, if you accept that sort of thing.

The mercy comes in because he makes it possible to overcome sin; we can't do it ourselves.
This really means nothing. It is simply saying "god did it". And that is fine but don't expect anyone to accept such a statement based solely on logic.

God had to conquer sin. This is how he chose to do it.
A problematic and poorly designed plan. It doomed millions to hell without any option of even hearing of Christ.

Christians accept that. A divine plan is perfectly sensible...
Sensible to whom? Not to all the people who lived before Christ and not to all of the people who lived in Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Western Hemisphere before missionaries. I find that neither divine nor sensible.

...a human being is more than welcome to judge a divine plan (as you do) but a gift is to be accepted, and not scoffed at.
{scoffing turned off temporarily}

If you scoff at the gift, surely you'd admit that it would be just for the gift to be rescinded, as to scoff at it is to reject it.
If Christianity were the only faith or at least one that was head and shoulders above the rest I could be tempted to play a Pascal's wager, but then I'm sure god would not be impressed. I think he wants his believers to be true believers. So I don't really think cinching the deal is all that necessary on your part. And you can be certain that I am no more in fear of the Hebrew God as I am of The Norse Gods, the Muslim God, the Pagan Gods, Zeus or any of the many, many gods.

Only God could take on the sins of everyone.
Yes, and at one time only God could move the Sun around the Earth and only God could create a carbon Molecule and only God could travel outside the regions of our planet.

God's realm shrinks daily.

Satan asks the same question in the Passion of the Christ Gibson movie thing.
I'm a huge Gibson fan. He is great and I plan on seeing the movie. I love movie lines. I wish you could have quoted it. I have another.

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist”
--Verbal Kint AKA Keyser Soze (Usual Suspects)

I can think of a better trick. ;)
 
John 14:4-6 "And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know. Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way? Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

The circular logic of this idea is sometimes tough for believers to shake. In the linked sermon below, the final challenge posed to unbelievers is that they should really stand up and take notice because 'look what the Bible says right here'... But if not already a Christian, what was that reason again? It presumes belief.
The Way

I find it a little hard to read 'do as I do' in this, but then why not? The passage has the potential for many meanings. There are many perspectives to Jesus:

1. There is Jesus 'the historical guy with brothers and sisters' and 2. Jesus the 'Christ' (a kind of title or station). There is another 3. mystic sense that 'Christ lives in you'. So 'by me' can be a complex manner if complexity is needed to promote our cause.

What happens when someone comes along who claims to not be 'Jesus' the historic guy, but embodies the 'Spirit of Christ' or mantle of Christ? A new religion is born, but LUCKY! not a new religion at all, but the old time religion itself.
 
RandFan said:
To be born into sin is antithetical to any definition that I can find. On the other hand to dismiss the concept based simply on definition would be pedantic.

...

Again, the usage of the word sin, in this instance, must transcend the classical usage of the word since sin is a deliberate act and being born isn't, in and of itself sin.
Doesn't sin already have at least two "classical usages" in a theological context, i.e. (1) actual sin - deliberate violations of the moral order - and (2) original sin - a weakened, fallen condition into which human beings (at least subsequent to Adam) are born, to which the name sin is applied only by loose analogy to sense #1?
RandFan said:
A problematic and poorly designed plan. It doomed millions to hell without any option of even hearing of Christ.

...

Sensible to whom? Not to all the people who lived before Christ and not to all of the people who lived in Asia, the Pacific Islands, and the Western Hemisphere before missionaries.
This doesn't correspond to my (admittedly limited) understanding of how most Christians view the consequences that flowed from the implementation of their God's "plan". How do you reckon this?
RandFan said:
Yes, and at one time only God could move the Sun around the Earth and only God could create a carbon Molecule and only God could travel outside the regions of our planet.
Are you seriously proposing that one day human scientific endeavors might not only confirm the existence of sin in reality, but also devise an artificial means of sin transference? Probably not, but I'm left wondering about the relevance of this observation to the discussion of redemption from sin, which appears to me qualitatively different from, say, the manipulation of matter.
 
Cecil said:
To play God's Advocate here, (:D) let me just say that by ridiculing other's beliefs you are either implying that they are stupid for believing them or showing your lack of understanding of their reasons for belief. Either case does not make you look good.


Time to trot out:


" I'll stop laughing at your beliefs, when you stop believing in such silly things..." :D
 
ceo_esq said:
Doesn't sin already have at least two "classical usages" in a theological context, i.e. (1) actual sin - deliberate violations of the moral order - and (2) original sin - a weakened, fallen condition into which human beings (at least subsequent to Adam) are born, to which the name sin is applied only by loose analogy to sense #1?
Yes, you are correct. I alluded to this concept when I said "If it is some ethereal concept that Christians accept without really understanding then that is another thing." The notion of a weakened state really has nothing to do with sin. I wanted to separate the two. I don't think anyone can truthfully say that they comprehend the notion that someone is born into a state of "sin". I think it would have been better to say born into a state of imperfection.

This doesn't correspond to my (admittedly limited) understanding of how most Christians view the consequences that flowed from the implementation of their God's "plan". How do you reckon this?
Are you seriously proposing that one day human scientific endeavors might not only confirm the existence of sin in reality, but also devise an artificial means of sin transference? Probably not, but I'm left wondering about the relevance of this observation to the discussion of redemption from sin, which appears to me qualitatively different from, say, the manipulation of matter.
:) My words were poorly chosen. No of course not. Simply to show the impotence of what "only God can do".

This is a buzz term by believers to encompass all of those things that are not understood and not really explainable. All one needs to do is insert "God did it" or "only God can do it" and one needn't think about it anymore. Thankfully there were people in history who were unsatisfied with this explanation and were willing to suppose that it wasn't God but a naturalistic explanation. Since sin is a human construct there is nothing to discover, except of course, perhaps, a biological and genetic component to morality. But that is really horse of a different color.

Good Questions. Thanks Ceo.

RandFan
 
RandFan said:
I don't think anyone can truthfully say that they comprehend the notion that someone is born into a state of "sin". I think it would have been better to say born into a state of imperfection.
Probably too late to get them to change the term now, unfortunately. I agree that the term "original sin" is highly misleading - especially, I suspect, to Christians.
 

Back
Top Bottom