Is Jesus necessary?

[Napoleon Ier]

This so-called "poll" shows that people believe that non-Christians can go to heaven. Brilliant. I think we'd already sorted that one at at Nicaea anyway, but never mind.

What the poll does clearly not in any way, shape, and/or form do, is indicate that people have a existentialo-Nietzschean borderline nihilistic conception of objectivity.

[mpjh]

Not at all. It indicates that people are in large part empathetic, loving creatures that do not buy into rigid liturgical dogma.

[Napoleon Ier]

Not at all. It indicates that people are in large part empathetic, loving creatures that do not buy into rigid liturgical dogma.

Liturgical dogma. Brilliant.

You have no fucking clue, do you...

[mpjh]

Nappy, nappy, I have a good understanding of how frustrating this must be for you. Your views are in a distinct minority, and that really irks you. Sorry, why don't you watch Mel's movie again, it might make you feel better.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nappy, nappy, I have a good understanding of how frustrating this must be for you. Your views are in a distinct minority, and that really irks you. Sorry, why don't you watch Mel's movie again, it might make you feel better.

How times do I have to tell you that since the 4th Century AD, the "dogma" of my Church's "so-called theologians" has been unequivocally rejecting of sola fidei?

My views are in an obvious majority and always have been, and no-one needed a poll to tell them that this majority was basically universal apart from a few extremist Protestant sects in South-Western England and rural Pennsylvania.

[mpjh]

Sorry nappy, poll shows that it is about even between those that require a belief in Jesus to get into heaven and those that don't, at least among Christians. So it is a fairly large group among christians. Those faiths not bases on Jesus, of course, make up the rest of the country.

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting. So it is a large crowd of Christians that say you don't need to believe in Jesus to get to heaven. What do you think?

I'm wondering what their definition of "belief in Jesus" was, but yes...I think that poll reflects a change of attitude on the requirements of being redeemed from one's sins. Obviously, I disagree with those who say He's not necessary.

This is controversial within Christianity, but I agree with Luns here.

The two qualifications are that someone might "know" Jesus, but use a differant name/description. Also, most Christians believe that everyone will, at some point have the chance to hear the truth as we see it.

Also, look at it this way. Most (not all) Christians believe Hell is really seperation from God. How can you be near/touch something you don't believe? It is not God that condemn the unsaved, they do it.

This is why even the smallest of sins is enough to drive someone from God and since we are all imperfect, we require forgiveness to be saved.

[mpjh]

What I find interesting is the apparent need of some to explain away the poll results. Why not just give people the benefit of the doubt and accept that many Christians do not find a belief in Jesus necessary to gain heaven?

[Napoleon Ier]

What I find interesting is the apparent need of some to explain away the poll results. Why not just give people the benefit of the doubt and accept that many Christians do not find a belief in Jesus necessary to gain heaven?

No one is explaining anything away, everyone is accepting that you don't need belief in Jesus. They're just finding it utterly bizarre that you'd want to a. even try to conduct a poll on such an obvious issue, b. use such an obviously botched set of data.

[khazalid]

c) think you can get away with that level of pretense in any online forum not chaired by stephen fry. ye fool, ye

[Napoleon Ier]

I think the poll is interesting. It indicates that religious people in the United States are a lot more tolerant of other religions than many so-called theologians and dogmatists would have us believe. I am uplifted by this tolerance, as an atheist and as an American.

This comment leaves room for two direct implications, both of which I outlined above, and both of which you fervently denied believing.

Now, you either accept that your post did imply one or the other, or you renege your original thesis.

Check Mate, Forrest.

[Napoleon Ier]

c) think you can get away with that level of pretense in any online forum not chaired by stephen fry. ye fool, ye

Yeah, good point.

"Yo check it! I'm muppetjh, I lyke read ri-serch polls 'bout lyke liturjikal thyolojy cos I'm all intalekchual n' shit!"

[2dimes]

Nice work turning on your brother there Napoleon.

[khazalid]

q: when is a christian not a christian?

[2dimes]

q: when is a christian not a christian?

Typically when some religious person shows up and tells them, "You're not a true Christian because you disagree with me. I'm a real Christian."

[mpjh]

Wasa matter guys, don't like the poll results. Well they are what they are, and the poll is a well respected one. Bottom line, most people do not believe in either a rigid liturgy-based or bible-based approach to religion.

[pmchugh]

To those of you who say you must believe, what about someone who is in some sort of tribe in a foriegn country and they never encounter christianity in their entire life (so they obviously don't believe) but they are a decent human being? Should they be condemmed to an eternity of pain because of where they were born?

It's a convienient spin in the book some men wrote to state that all humans sin and only confessing and accepting Jesus is the only way into 'heaven' - I remember asking one of my Chrisitian friends years ago whether he thinks in his own opinion whether or not myself and my other friends will go to 'hell' even though he knows we are good people. He didn't wan't to answer the question and just said something like "the scripture is pretty clear with who does and doesn't reach heaven" - It's a whole lot of baloney and another carefully worded social control mechanism ( though, only if you actually think heaven exists - otherwise, i will be good to my fellow human and non-human friends, and the environment, not because i fear the wrath of god or satan, but because that's what i feel like doing anyway)

I simple answer for those in a tribe who have never had a chance to hear about Jesus, they would be judged based on God's set of what is right and wrong and whether or not they upheld his righteousness. Basically whether or not they were good according to the Old Testament moral compass as a rule (which God says our righteousness is like filthy rags Isaiah 64:6, so I would rather know about option number 2, Jesus). However, everyone here does not fall into that category because they have heard about Jesus and therefore have had the opportunity to choose him or deny him (or not make a choice which is reality is denying him because it is defaulting to not choose him). So, for those people who have heard, the simple question is going to be have you made Jesus Lord of your life and become born again? If the answer is no, then YES you will go to hell of your own choosing. You can hem and haw all you want but God has placed the choice in your hands and you have only you to blame in the end because God did all the work to make the way for you. If you accept Jesus and become born again, then you will receive heaven as your eternal reward. You can call it baloney all you want but it does not change the truth. You can even claim there is no truth or that you can somehow argue with God and be a lawyer and weasel your way in, but in the end this is the way it is and that is the truth. It is God's truth, which had been established before Adam and Eve were created and he has not changed his mind about it. But then why would he since the plan included God's son coming and paying the penalty for your mistakes, disobedience and sin so that a way could be made to heaven and all he asks is that you accept Jesus and become born again and listen to him when he asks you to do something. But if you all only knew the things he would ask you to do are only to make your life better and prosper you and keep you in good health. And in all honesty, if everyone really knew (and Christians included) that God was only after our best interest, we would stop fighting him along the way and listen to what he says. But I got off topic a bit.

JH

So then you are saying that you can get to heaven if you don't believe in jesus. This question was aimed at those which voted you can't get in without believing in Jesus.

[Napoleon Ier]

Wasa matter guys, don't like the poll results. Well they are what they are, and the poll is a well respected one. Bottom line, most people do not believe in either a rigid liturgy-based or bible-based approach to religion.

Oh? Really?

Do you even know what liturgy is? What possible relation does the liturgy have to the branch of theology we're discussing right now? What's more, have you even looked at the position of any major theologians, of any major Churches on this issue?

Well?

Have you?

Clearly not, because they all agree with the majority of people in this poll, and have done since pretty much 325AD.

[mpjh]

Well, nappy, my credentials are not up for discussion. The topic of this thread is the result of a poll of christians on the issue of whether a belief in Jesus is necessary to get to heaven. I didn't do the poll, professionals competent in that scientific skill did the poll. Apparently many Christians believe that it is not necessary to believe in Jesus to get to heaven. Thus, many Christians believe that devout Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, Witches, Athiests, etc. can get to heaven.

This is a fairly straightforward concept, and it is now 2008, so we don't need some conference from 326 CE to test the poll.

[got tonkaed]

napoleon i dont understand why you antagonize when you dont have to.

His proposition is essentially one against the more recent nondenomonational fundamentalist protestant movement in America, which is why he posted the original thread. Obviously you dont believe the same thing, and you would have saved a few pages of the thread had you actually been forthcoming about what you were saying instead of just trumpeting out information that you and I understand the connection to, but a lot of people would have to look up at the very least. The fact that you are pushing an entirely different tangent is one thing, but your being silly in pointing out the research again and again, when ive been pretty clear its not actually crap.

I invite you to do one of two things for clarities sake. Start pointing out that your catholic belief isnt the same as the current movement mpjh is talking about which is why it isnt a big deal. Or as you often say "post something of substance" in regards to how the survey works, which you actually have done at all.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, nappy, my credentials are not up for discussion. The topic of this thread is the result of a poll of christians on the issue of whether a belief in Jesus is necessary to get to heaven. I didn't do the poll, professionals competent in that scientific skill did the poll. Apparently many Christians believe that it is not necessary to believe in Jesus to get to heaven. Thus, many Christians believe that devout Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, Witches, Athiests, etc. can get to heaven.

This is a fairly straightforward concept, and it is now 2008, so we don't need some conference from 326 CE to test the poll.

Yes, of course it's bloody straightforward, which is why the Church, since 326 and all the way up to 2008 passing via 1137, 1871 and 1963, has validated the exact same principle as you just described.

So, yes, your credentials are up for discussion, namely the credentials that don't make you a Tourette syndrome sufferer with no capacity for logical thought, since you're using this supposedly professionally gathered data to validate a claim about (and I quote) "people not buying the dogma of so-called theologians", and not accepting "liturgical dogma" (dogma which has nothing to do with judgement of soul so much as the rites of the Mass, but that's by the by) anymore.

You did make this clearly absurd claim and you made it about classical dogma despite the poll confirming everyone agrees with it, and so your "credentials" (what are they though? go on, I'd be amused) are looking to everyone here rather thin on the ground.

[mpjh]

Well, nappy glad to see that you come down on the "its a good poll" side of the argument.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, nappy glad to see that you come down on the "its a good poll" side of the argument.

I don't, I find it absurd, but we're going to take it as a given that it's reliable despite that since if I don't you throw a hissy fit and say it's because I don't like the results it gives, and I can just as easily if not more easily show you up whilst not excluding that that the data may be good.

[mpjh]

OK, so glad to see you are acting like you come down on the "it is a good poll" side.

[Napoleon Ier]

Hmm. So, I have handed you your arse to you on an e-platter whilst accepting a completely flawed premise on which you based your conclusions, the intellectual equivalent of beating you in a boxing match with my arms tied behind my back, and you're glad.

Do you like dominant women whipping you as well?