If you were born into another religion..

If you were born into another religion, would you have ended up back at Christianity since this is the one true God or would you have accepted your other religion and disregarded Christianity as nonsense?

Since this would result in worshiping a false God, would it have led you to hell instead of heaven?

wolfsbane

Deleted User wrote: »

If you were born into another religion, would you have ended up back at Christianity since this is the one true God or would you have accepted your other religion and disregarded Christianity as nonsense?

Since this would result in worshiping a false God, would it have led you to hell instead of heaven?

It depends on whether God has chosen that individual for salvation. If so, no matter where they start they will end up repenting and believing in Christ.

If not, no matter where one starts from, they end up in hell, for all start out as sinners against God.
_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

It depends on whether God has chosen that individual for salvation. If so, no matter where they start they will end up repenting and believing in Christ.

How do you mean? Eg. I'm born into Islam.. How would I know God has chosen me for salvation? Can I ever go to heaven without repenting and believing in Christ?

Fanny Cradock

Deleted User wrote: »

If you were born into another religion, would you have ended up back at Christianity since this is the one true God or would you have accepted your other religion and disregarded Christianity as nonsense?

How do you suppose anyone can answer this?

Deleted User wrote: »

Since this would result in worshiping a false God, would it have led you to hell instead of heaven?

We have covered this already. Please don't start another thread on the same topic.

PDN

If black was white do you think your uncle would be your grandmother?

old hippy

Deleted User wrote: »

If you were born into another religion, would you have ended up back at Christianity since this is the one true God or would you have accepted your other religion and disregarded Christianity as nonsense?

Since this would result in worshiping a false God, would it have led you to hell instead of heaven?

I have to say, I find this quite an offensive post

Fanny Cradock

It might help if you explained why you are offended.

old hippy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It might help if you explained why you are offended.

It may well do but I got torn a new one, last time I explained my feelings on similar subjects.

I know, I know, if I don't like it, I don't have to post on it...

Fanny Cradock

old hippy wrote: »

It may well do but I got torn a new one, last time I explained my feelings on similar subjects.

I know, I know, if I don't like it, I don't have to post on it...

Well done for wasting 30 seconds of my life.

old hippy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well done for wasting 30 seconds of my life.

Nonsense. You're in a position of authority & you love every minute of it

PoleStar

If you find this post offensive, please clarify why rather than stating it.

I am most curious about a Christians perspective on this. The reason being that the singlemost important determinant of an individuals religion is the religion of his parents and secondly the country of birth (which in most cases will determine the religion of the parents).

There are thus a number of viewpoints. If you believe that where you are born is an accident of genetics, then would it not be a cruel god that thus has condemned many of the human race to eternity in hell? Or is it that God has chosen who will be saved even before they are born and thus those born into non-Christian religions are deemed not to be saved, even before they are born?

Or do Christians believe that if those humans are worthy then they will convert to Chrisitianity as they realise that the religion of the country of their birth is not the true word of God.

I would be interested to know. I do not accept the moderate Christian view which "respects" other religions as this is fluffing. After all one of the central tenets of Christianity is that "thou shalt not place false gods before me".

I look forward to responses. And please, no antagonistic responses, which are maybe to be expected, as this could be a genuine and interesting discussion.

Fanny Cradock

old hippy wrote: »

Nonsense. You're in a position of authority & you love every minute of it

This isn't about me or whatever buzz you think I get from reading aimless posts, is it? It is about you making silly posts.

I would imagine that it is possible to make your point and remain within the bounds of the charter (no sneaking under it allowed).

old hippy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This isn't about me or whatever buzz you think I get from reading aimless posts, is it? It is about you making silly posts.

I would imagine that it is possible to make your point and remain within the bounds of the charter (no sneaking under it allowed).

No need to get nasty. I just took offense to the post because I don't like being preached to and I don't care for absolutes. As it is, I should probably have kept my mouth shut & moved on. Apologies for wasting your time, I can assure you I get no buzz from being spoken down to by a Moderator.

Is mise,

old hippy

Fanny Cradock

old hippy wrote: »

No need to get nasty. I just took offense to the post because I don't like being preached to and I don't care for absolutes. As it is, I should probably have kept my mouth shut & moved on. Apologies for wasting your time, I can assure you I get no buzz from being spoken down to by a Moderator.

Is mise,

old hippy

I wasn't getting nasty. I was getting angry at your reflectance to back up your ambiguous opening post. Sorry if it came across any other way.

Anyway, I gather that the OP is an atheist. He is asking a question, not stating a fact. So whatever offence you feel is misplaced.

For the record, no offense meant old hippy.. I always found it one of the most interesting aspects of religion. Especially when the idea of limbo is taken into account.. Ie. Being born too early in time.

I've heard of a practice where you are taught various world religions up to 16 years old and then you make an adult choice on what you think is right for you.. Anyone know the name for this? Is it a good idea?
Also, do those who believe in a higher being but do not subscribe to any organised religion break the 'false gods' commandment?

antiskeptic

PoleStar wrote: »

I am most curious about a Christians perspective on this.

Then you've come to the right place

The reason being that the singlemost important determinant of an individuals religion is the religion of his parents and secondly the country of birth (which in most cases will determine the religion of the parents).

Agreed. At this point it need be pointed out the difference between a Christian and a cultural Christian.

A Christian is, for the sake of this discussion, a person who has been made a child of God - by God.

A cultural Christian is, for the sake of this discussion, a person who identifies with Christianity due to their being raised in an Christian environment

Because becoming a Christian (as opposed to a cultural Christian) depends on Gods work there is no reason to suppose that a person brought up in say, Tibet, can't be made a child of God (whatever about the cultural religion they are surrounded and influenced by).

What you and the OP appear to be doing is conflating Christianity with cultural Christianity.

Or do Christians believe that if those humans are worthy then they will convert to Chrisitianity as they realise that the religion of the country of their birth is not the true word of God.

This Christian doesn't think these people have to have heard of Christ in order to be a Christian (paradoxical as that may sound). If they have been made children of God, by God, then they are Christian. If however, they subsequently come to hear of Christ then they will recognise the truth of that news and will identify with Christ in the usual way - because they are already Christians-in-effect.

I'd note that no-one is worthy. Let's just say that if these people meet the criteria necessary for their salvation then they will be saved. "Worthy" implies they deserve it in some way. They don't.

I would be interested to know. I do not accept the moderate Christian view which "respects" other religions as this is fluffing. After all one of the central tenets of Christianity is that "thou shalt not place false gods before me".

Indeed. Other religions (including Roman Catholicism, a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing) are the puppets of Satan. No fluffing about it.

wolfsbane

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you mean? Eg. I'm born into Islam.. How would I know God has chosen me for salvation? Can I ever go to heaven without repenting and believing in Christ?

You don't need to know that before being saved. All you need to know is that God promises to receive all who call upon Him. Once you do, then you know you were chosen before the foundation of the world.

No, you can never go to heaven without repentance and faith in Christ:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
_________________________________________________________________
Ephesians 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, 5 having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,

wolfsbane

PoleStar said:

There are thus a number of viewpoints. If you believe that where you are born is an accident of genetics, then would it not be a cruel god that thus has condemned many of the human race to eternity in hell? Or is it that God has chosen who will be saved even before they are born and thus those born into non-Christian religions are deemed not to be saved, even before they are born?

Yes, God has chosen, long before they were born, those who will be saved. But no circumstance of birth can prevent them being saved, so being born into a non-Christian religion is no indication of whether they will be saved or not.

Or do Christians believe that if those humans are worthy then they will convert to Chrisitianity as they realise that the religion of the country of their birth is not the true word of God.

No, one is not chosen on the basis of one's worthiness. But those who are chosen will indeed come to realise that the religion of the country of their birth is not the true word of God.

I would be interested to know. I do not accept the moderate Christian view which "respects" other religions as this is fluffing. After all one of the central tenets of Christianity is that "thou shalt not place false gods before me".

Well said! Whether one agrees with the Christian religion or not, an honest person will see that it is an exclusive religion. If it is right, all other religions are fundamentally wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came to all the people, and said, “How long will you falter between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people answered him not a word.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, you can never go to heaven without repentance and faith in Christ:

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

What you think of replacing the words the Son (underlined above) with the words the Truth. Given that the two words are, in Jesus' own words, the same thing.

It would certainly tie in with 2 Thess 2:10 in terms of underscoring the way of damnation.

"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved"

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

What you think of replacing the words the Son (underlined above) with the words the Truth. Given that the two words are, in Jesus' own words, the same thing.

It would certainly tie in with 2 Thess 2:10 in terms of underscoring the way of damnation.

[/COLOR]"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved"

Sure - as long as one understands 'the Truth' means Jesus Christ.

Not just any truth. Not just the truth that man is a sinner by nature, for example. Or that the sun gives us light by day and the moon by night.

The gospel demands we believe this truth - that Jesus is the Christ. And of course the demand that truth puts upon us must be obeyed - we are to come to Him as our Lord and Saviour.
_________________________________________________________________
John 1:11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure - as long as one understands 'the Truth' means Jesus Christ.

That's what he said: "I am the Truth"

Not just any truth. Not just the truth that man is a sinner by nature, for example. Or that the sun gives us light by day and the moon by night.

It might not be quite as simple as that, that we pick and choose precisely what truth Jesus happens to be. It can be - and is more plausibly so - that all that is truth is found in him. Or that he is the Absolute against which everything subjective is measured -in order to find out what is objectively the case wrt truth/lie. This includes what is night and what is day - because he defined what those are also (it may seem obvious to us what night and day are but that's only because few, if any, would deny this particular truth)

Which returns us to 2 Thess 2:10 ... and peoples perishing being tied to their "refusing to love the truth". Because Jesus is the ultimate representitive or arbitrator on what truth is (since all truth is sourced in him), a refusal to love the truth is also refusal to love what God is and represents. Which is a refusal to love God himself. Which ties into disobedience concerning the prime command God issues - which attracts a deserved penalty.

It is self-evident that the clearest way to demonstrate your refusal to love the Truth / love God is through a refusal to love the truth as it is manifest to you in your life as an unbeliever. We seem to agree that unbelieving man has an ability to respond respond positively/negatively to God's truth as it is revealed to him in conscience. Wouldn't a refusal to love a particular truth (eg: thou shalt not sleep around) be manifest in your rejection of it?

The gospel demands we believe this truth - that Jesus is the Christ. And of course the demand that truth puts upon us must be obeyed - we are to come to Him as our Lord and Saviour.

Which is the question to hand

We both agree believing Jesus is the Christ is a consequence of some prior event. We also seem to agree that believing 'Jesus is the Christ' is an idea which is open to shades of through a glass very darkly-ism. Iirc, we've already agreed that seeing one's need for a 'redeemer' is effectively the same as believing Jesus is the Christ. In which case we must leave open what seeing one's need for a redeemer means to a person when seen through a glass darkly.

For example: would you see Romans-7-mans cry "who will save me from this body of death" as a person seeing their need for a redeemer?

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's what he said: "I am the Truth"



It might not be quite as simple as that, that we pick and choose precisely what truth Jesus happens to be. It can be - and is more plausibly so - that all that is truth is found in him. Or that he is the Absolute against which everything subjective is measured -in order to find out what is objectively the case wrt truth/lie. This includes what is night and what is day - because he defined what those are also (it may seem obvious to us what night and day are but that's only because few, if any, would deny this particular truth)

Which returns us to 2 Thess 2:10 ... and peoples perishing being tied to their "refusing to love the truth". Because Jesus is the ultimate representitive or arbitrator on what truth is (since all truth is sourced in him), a refusal to love the truth is also refusal to love what God is and represents. Which is a refusal to love God himself. Which ties into disobedience concerning the prime command God issues - which attracts a deserved penalty.

It is self-evident that the clearest way to demonstrate your refusal to love the Truth / love God is through a refusal to love the truth as it is manifest to you in your life as an unbeliever. We seem to agree that unbelieving man has an ability to respond respond positively/negatively to God's truth as it is revealed to him in conscience. Wouldn't a refusal to love a particular truth (eg: thou shalt not sleep around) be manifest in your rejection of it?






Which is the question to hand

We both agree believing Jesus is the Christ is a consequence of some prior event. We also seem to agree that believing 'Jesus is the Christ' is an idea which is open to shades of through a glass very darkly-ism. Iirc, we've already agreed that seeing one's need for a 'redeemer' is effectively the same as believing Jesus is the Christ. In which case we must leave open what seeing one's need for a redeemer means to a person when seen through a glass darkly.

For example: would you see Romans-7-mans cry "who will save me from this body of death" as a person seeing their need for a redeemer?

Sure - but if it ends there it is not conversion. 'Seeing the need' must lead to Paul's next words: I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

And one may refuse to believe many truths and still be saved. If one believes Him, all the lesser truths will be found either here or in eternity.
_______________________________________________________________
Romans 14:1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3 Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.

StealthRolex

Deleted User wrote: »

For the record, no offense meant old hippy.. I always found it one of the most interesting aspects of religion. Especially when the idea of limbo is taken into account.. Ie. Being born too early in time.

I thought Limbo was Catholic concept so if you were born a Catholic....

Deleted User wrote: »

I've heard of a practice where you are taught various world religions up to 16 years old and then you make an adult choice on what you think is right for you.. Anyone know the name for this?

Education. Specifically
Religious Education (RE).
Religious Knowledge (RK)
Religious Studies (RS)
Theology Studies

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it a good idea?

It's certainly an easy way to get at least one GCSE 'A' so probably is.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, do those who believe in a higher being but do not subscribe to any organised religion break the 'false gods' commandment?

It all depends on the Commandment in the religion you have been enrolled in by birth or choice.

Have you tried asking God?

StealthRolex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Well said! Whether one agrees with the Christian religion or not, an honest person will see that it is an exclusive religion. If it is right, all other religions are fundamentally wrong.

I'm not sure it should be described as "exclusive" as membership is open to all. An exclusive religion would put restrictions on who can be a member and Christianity does not.

If a religion puts restrictions on who can be a member there may be a case for it to be considered to be in error.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure - but if it ends there it is not conversion. 'Seeing the need' must lead to Paul's next words: I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Must they? Do we agree that those next words are the words of;

a) someone who has been converted? They utter those words from the position of having been saved.

b) someone who is aware of Christ and the doctrine of access to God through Christ?

If so, why does the lack of b) mean that a) cannot be?

And one may refuse to believe many truths and still be saved. If one believes Him, all the lesser truths will be found either here or in eternity.

What we're discussing is what believing him involves. We seem to agree that one can be brought to the total conviction side of things - at which point a "who shall save me" will be issued.

janeeen

I was born into a christen religion but soon realized that the religion i was in was not for me.There are a lot of so called christen religions out there who have doctrines witch contradict what the Bible teaches.
Believing in Jesus and excepting him as our Saviour is not enough for us to be saved.There are many who believe in Jesus and know he is our Saviour but choose not to follow him.
Simply being born christen and believing in Jesus may not be enough.
Paul and Jesus gives us a list of people who will not in inherit gods kingdom yet some christen organizations openly practice such things.

wolfsbane

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'm not sure it should be described as "exclusive" as membership is open to all. An exclusive religion would put restrictions on who can be a member and Christianity does not.

If a religion puts restrictions on who can be a member there may be a case for it to be considered to be in error.

When one says a religion is exclusive, it means it is the only true religion. That all other religions are false.

Exclusive does not refer to its membership.

_________________________________________________________________
1 John 5:12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

StealthRolex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Other religions (including Roman Catholicism, a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing) are the puppets of Satan. No fluffing about it.

Interesting. Care to expand?

wolfsbane

antiskeptic wrote: »

Must they? Do we agree that those next words are the words of;

a) someone who has been converted? They utter those words from the position of having been saved.

b) someone who is aware of Christ and the doctrine of access to God through Christ?

If so, why does the lack of b) mean that a) cannot be?




What we're discussing is what believing him involves. We seem to agree that one can be brought to the total conviction side of things - at which point a "who shall save me" will be issued.

What we possibly disagree on here is the moment of justification. Conviction does not save. Only repentance and faith do.

The 'Who will save me?' passage can be understood to refer either to Paul in his lost state (now remembered in his saved state); or Paul in his saved state, bemoaning his not-yet-perfect condition and his longing for the day of his glorification with Christ. Good theologians disagree.

_________________________________________________________________
John 17:2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

antiskeptic

wolfsbane wrote: »

What we possibly disagree on here is the moment of justification. Conviction does not save. Only repentance and faith do.

What we disagree on is the tipping point into salvation: the point at which the remaining elements of the overall mechanism of salvation become inevitable. You see this tipping point at election. I see it at conviction.

Let us not cloud the issue in confusing certain-to-happen events as if they produce salvation (although they are part of that mechanism). What is of interest in the tipping point after which all else is inevitable. The tipping point (whatever it may be) is prime causal in salvation with inevitable subsequent events being but consequential or sub-casual in salvation.

For example, my repenting doesn't cause salvation if my repenting is something that is sure to occur because of some prior event (election according to you and conviction according to me)

The 'Who will save me?' passage can be understood to refer either to Paul in his lost state (now remembered in his saved state); or Paul in his saved state, bemoaning his not-yet-perfect condition and his longing for the day of his glorification with Christ. Good theologians disagree.

I prefer Martyn Lloyd Jones variation on your first option - which sees Paul grammatically switch sense in Romans 7 so as to render him speaking of any man in the first person singular. He steps into the shoes of any man at the point where he approaches final conviction and is not speaking of his own case (although he would naturally be one of the 'any men' who found himself in this position).



I was working from the basis you seemed to be suggesting of the passage: a person seeing their need of salvation. You say that seeing their need (who shall save me from this body of death) must produce (thanks be to God..)

I ask "why must it?"

_________________________________________________________________
John 17:2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

One of those fascinating verses that indicate the mode of salvation: that the primary arrangement in salvation is between the father and the individual (whether by your election or my 'believing God'). That the tipping point occurs between God and the individual after which the individual is given over to the Son. As per John 18:9

This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: "I have not lost one of those you gave me."

antiskeptic

StealthRolex wrote: »

Interesting. Care to expand?

Sure. Roman Catholicism propagates a lie concerning the manner in which man is to be reconciled to God. Because of this, many, many people are fooled into thinking that because they had water poured over their heads as infants, it means that they are somehow potentially reconciled to God (if it only be that they conform to further ordinances posited by that same church).

Although that lie is close to the truth is many ways (salvation is through Christ, a man needs to baptised into Christ, there is forgiveness for sin, etc., etc.) it is close in the sense that jumping a 1000 metre wide canyon is almost achieved by a 990 metre leap.

Satan is the father of lies and the one who stands behind mankinds propagating lies. And so, Roman Catholicism can be said to be a puppet of Satan in that Satan is the ultimate string puller. This is not to say that a Roman Catholic can't be saved - he can of couse be just like the Buddhist or the Muslim. But it will be in spite of the lie - not because of it - that salvation will occur if it occurs.