Two Part Question on One Path/Multiple Paths and need for Evangelism

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Part 1: Do you believe that there is one true faith (or lack of faith)?

Part 2: Do you believe that it is important for others to come to share your faith?

[John Dule]

Yes/No.

[RINO Tom]

No/No

Nothing about my life experiences and contemplations about reality have led me to believe the “eternal answers” to questions like “Is there a God?” will be simple or “Yes/No” … I highly suspect that the grand truth of the Universe is far more interesting and complex than most Christians or atheists or whatever would like to believe.  Given that, I think there are infinite ways for an individual to go down said “path” toward finding some sort of spiritual truth.

[brucejoel99]

No/No

Judaism isn't nor does it claim to be the "one true faith." Per Jewish teachings, a Gentile can go to Heaven just as easily as a Jew, as anybody who manages to live a life in compliance with the Noahide Laws is going to Heaven. But Judaism is my religion & path to God only because its truth talks to a Jewish soul like mine. Other peoples have their own perfectly wonderful & legitimate truths, which is exactly what other religions are for, as God created humans differently & with a variety of customs. God's house is one for all people, & surely one with many rooms; we all aren't & need not be the same.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes/Yes   

[Aurelius]

No/no.

[Dr. MB]

The same faith leads to the same path. Heaven is for anyone who pursues the right life. Most people are gonna experienfe it and I’m not gonna convince anyone to a follow a simple system. The system works differently. I’m not sreally sure what peoples experiences but they all are different and it’s a big thing for a lot of people to oursue their own belief system but overall it’s a bit of a personal thing and like say Buddhism might work for some people and Islama nd Christianity work for others. God appeared to differne tppl in different ways.

God is universal and all encompassing. I think like the biblical God and Allah and Vishnu and Queztlcoatl are all the same thing. Like God would not choose just to pick a certain section of the worls to spread his truth to. And thinking and so many cultues have the smae myth of the Flood and it’s just crazy hwo many people have the same sh**t going on and it’s all connected. Everything is connected. Just open your mind up. That goes for everyone. Atheist or extremely religious. I’m neither of those but like.  Objective truth doesn’t lie there. It lies in ur heart. What do you believe. What’s good and bad. Think of that and then you’re gonna be set.

[Blue3]

Universalism

yes/no

[°Leprechaun]

Universalism

yes/no

The opposite of universalism is the idea of literally burning in hell for all eternity.
I don't know how many still believe in the latter but I know that there are some. It is an horrific belief beyond words.

Does John 12:32 which says that Jesus will draw all men to him, teach universalism?
(Or is that somehow out of context?)

[Del Tachi]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

[brucejoel99]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.      

If Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through me," he also stated fact about who He is: the Son of God, the Logos, God in the flesh; if the Doctrine of the Trinity stands, then any person who approaches the Father must definitionally approach Him through Christ, the Father in Himself being unknowable, known by people only through the Son & the Holy Spirit. Nothing there means that anybody raised in another religion can't approach God but is automatically condemned to Hell. Romans 2:14-16 makes clear that such can't be so. Not to mention, it strains credulity to suggest by default that none of the holy texts of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, & any other religion could've possibly been inspired by God. If a non-Christian approaches God through their religion, then as far as Christianity is concerned, didn't they definitionally approach Him through the Son, no matter that they don't know of Christ nor acknowledge Him to be the Son of God? What does the difference between their interpretation of what's happening & a Christian's interpretation of what's happening matter? In no way does the existence of such a difference serve to inherently render the former interpretation invalidated.

And all of that is to say nothing of just not leaving basic common-sense behind when interpreting Scripture, & it's just not sensical for God to condemn people to eternal torture just because they didn't hear the Gospel or didn't abandon a religion which may very well have already been fulfilling for them. Even if Christianity got it right, my people in Auschwitz didn't go straight from the gas chambers to Hell. If God is Love, then He surely provides ways for all peoples to come to know Him.

You can believe what you believe, but ironically enough, not only is it not very Christian of you to disrespectfully sh*t on fellow Christians' beliefs, but it's frankly sanctimonious of you to sh*t on RINO Tom in particular by directly quoting from his expressed belief without having the decency to at least say his name while you're sh*tting on his specific Christian beliefs.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Universalism

yes/no

"Universalism" can, annoyingly, mean two different things in conversations about soteriology. Can you define the concept you're asking about?

[KaiserDave]

Voted No/No as an Agnostic Atheist.

I do not believe in a or any God or a Creator, nor do I believe in the core religious or miraculous claims of any faith on Earth  but I don't feel any compulsion to tell people that nor do I believe people should necessarily become atheists. That said I'm willing to make the argument for my lack of belief if prompted. Could have voted Yes/No if I place the emphasize on being an Agnostic Atheist as opposed to an Agnostic Atheist.

[Del Tachi]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

If Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through me," he also stated fact about who He is: the Son of God, the Logos, God in the flesh; if the Doctrine of the Trinity stands, then any person who approaches the Father must definitionally approach Him through Christ, the Father in Himself being unknowable, known by people only through the Son & the Holy Spirit. Nothing there means that anybody raised in another religion can't approach God but is automatically condemned to Hell. Romans 2:14-16 makes clear that such can't be so. Not to mention, it strains credulity to suggest by default that none of the holy texts of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, & any other religion could've possibly been inspired by God. If a non-Christian approaches God through their religion, then as far as Christianity is concerned, didn't they definitionally approach Him through the Son, no matter that they don't know of Christ nor acknowledge Him to be the Son of God? What does the difference between their interpretation of what's happening & a Christian's interpretation of what's happening matter? In no way does the existence of such a difference serve to inherently render the former interpretation invalidated.

And all of that is to say nothing of just not leaving basic common-sense behind when interpreting Scripture, & it's just not sensical for God to condemn people to eternal torture just because they didn't hear the Gospel or didn't abandon a religion which may very well have already been fulfilling for them. Even if Christianity got it right, my people in Auschwitz didn't go straight from the gas chambers to Hell. If God is Love, then He surely provides ways for all peoples to come to know Him.

You can believe what you believe, but ironically enough, not only is it not very Christian of you to disrespectfully sh*t on fellow Christians' beliefs, but it's frankly sanctimonious of you to sh*t on RINO Tom in particular by directly quoting from his expressed belief without having the decency to at least say his name while you're sh*tting on his specific Christian beliefs.

Keep reading through your Romans passage and you'll see that the judgment that will take place on the final day will be through Jesus Christ.  There is no hope or salvation for humanity apart from His cross.

And that's the point, the cross is big and perfect enough to cover the entire width and depth of human depravity and restore us to the Heavenly Father.  There is no other mechanism to accomplish such.  It's a singular path.  Any approaches or knowledge of God contained in other traditions is non-salvific. 

It's ironic you make this huge effort post without even considering the possibility that the scary, Southern Evangelical already agrees with you, LOL.  If there are non-belivers in Heaven then it's because of Jesus' cross, not in spite of it.

[brucejoel99]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

If Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through me," he also stated fact about who He is: the Son of God, the Logos, God in the flesh; if the Doctrine of the Trinity stands, then any person who approaches the Father must definitionally approach Him through Christ, the Father in Himself being unknowable, known by people only through the Son & the Holy Spirit. Nothing there means that anybody raised in another religion can't approach God but is automatically condemned to Hell. Romans 2:14-16 makes clear that such can't be so. Not to mention, it strains credulity to suggest by default that none of the holy texts of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, & any other religion could've possibly been inspired by God. If a non-Christian approaches God through their religion, then as far as Christianity is concerned, didn't they definitionally approach Him through the Son, no matter that they don't know of Christ nor acknowledge Him to be the Son of God? What does the difference between their interpretation of what's happening & a Christian's interpretation of what's happening matter? In no way does the existence of such a difference serve to inherently render the former interpretation invalidated.

And all of that is to say nothing of just not leaving basic common-sense behind when interpreting Scripture, & it's just not sensical for God to condemn people to eternal torture just because they didn't hear the Gospel or didn't abandon a religion which may very well have already been fulfilling for them. Even if Christianity got it right, my people in Auschwitz didn't go straight from the gas chambers to Hell. If God is Love, then He surely provides ways for all peoples to come to know Him.

You can believe what you believe, but ironically enough, not only is it not very Christian of you to disrespectfully sh*t on fellow Christians' beliefs, but it's frankly sanctimonious of you to sh*t on RINO Tom in particular by directly quoting from his expressed belief without having the decency to at least say his name while you're sh*tting on his specific Christian beliefs.

Keep reading through your Romans passage and you'll see that the judgment that will take place on the final day will be through Jesus Christ.  There is no hope or salvation for humanity apart from His cross.

And that's the point, the cross is big and perfect enough to cover the entire width and depth of human depravity and restore us to the Heavenly Father.  There is no other mechanism to accomplish such.  It's a singular path.  Any approaches or knowledge of God contained in other traditions is non-salvific. 

It's ironic you make this huge effort post without even considering the possibility that the scary, Southern Evangelical already agrees with you, LOL.  If there are non-belivers in Heaven then it's because of Jesus' cross, not in spite of it.

Keep reading my post. I posted because you sh*t on RINO Tom as if he wasn't a Christian. If anything, what's really ironic is that you can't even consider the possibility that there's a reason that scary, Southern Evangelicals are perceived as such.

[°Leprechaun]

No/No

Nothing about my life experiences and contemplations about reality have led me to believe the “eternal answers” to questions like “Is there a God?” will be simple or “Yes/No” … I highly suspect that the grand truth of the Universe is far more interesting and complex than most Christians or atheists or whatever would like to believe.  Given that, I think there are infinite ways for an individual to go down said “path” toward finding some sort of spiritual truth.

What the grand truth of the universe is depends on how large the universe is.
Does it contain infinite matter or does the material universe end, and would the rest of the infinite universe be empty space? This may sound like sophistry or at least pretty weird, but the point that I am making is that I don't know if we can prove that things like "infinity" and "eternity" exist on the natural plane of life or any higher or more spiritual plane.

How this is relevant to the discussion is that YES finite humans can only see a small part of the grand truth of the universe and bringing all this back to religion, I think that the questions and answers about religion relate to what we know about the universe. They are equally complex as what we know and don't know in regard to religion.

The belief that anyone one religion has all the answers, may, therefore, be a mistake.

I also don't buy the idea of a personal Supreme Being. The idea that the Supreme Being is a person (or persons???) limits the infinite to something very finite. Certainly I can understand that humans want to see this hypothetical Being as something/someone that they were created in the image and likeness of. It's all just a theory with no evidence supporting it.

[Del Tachi]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

If Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through me," he also stated fact about who He is: the Son of God, the Logos, God in the flesh; if the Doctrine of the Trinity stands, then any person who approaches the Father must definitionally approach Him through Christ, the Father in Himself being unknowable, known by people only through the Son & the Holy Spirit. Nothing there means that anybody raised in another religion can't approach God but is automatically condemned to Hell. Romans 2:14-16 makes clear that such can't be so. Not to mention, it strains credulity to suggest by default that none of the holy texts of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, & any other religion could've possibly been inspired by God. If a non-Christian approaches God through their religion, then as far as Christianity is concerned, didn't they definitionally approach Him through the Son, no matter that they don't know of Christ nor acknowledge Him to be the Son of God? What does the difference between their interpretation of what's happening & a Christian's interpretation of what's happening matter? In no way does the existence of such a difference serve to inherently render the former interpretation invalidated.

And all of that is to say nothing of just not leaving basic common-sense behind when interpreting Scripture, & it's just not sensical for God to condemn people to eternal torture just because they didn't hear the Gospel or didn't abandon a religion which may very well have already been fulfilling for them. Even if Christianity got it right, my people in Auschwitz didn't go straight from the gas chambers to Hell. If God is Love, then He surely provides ways for all peoples to come to know Him.

You can believe what you believe, but ironically enough, not only is it not very Christian of you to disrespectfully sh*t on fellow Christians' beliefs, but it's frankly sanctimonious of you to sh*t on RINO Tom in particular by directly quoting from his expressed belief without having the decency to at least say his name while you're sh*tting on his specific Christian beliefs.

Keep reading through your Romans passage and you'll see that the judgment that will take place on the final day will be through Jesus Christ.  There is no hope or salvation for humanity apart from His cross.

And that's the point, the cross is big and perfect enough to cover the entire width and depth of human depravity and restore us to the Heavenly Father.  There is no other mechanism to accomplish such.  It's a singular path.  Any approaches or knowledge of God contained in other traditions is non-salvific. 

It's ironic you make this huge effort post without even considering the possibility that the scary, Southern Evangelical already agrees with you, LOL.  If there are non-belivers in Heaven then it's because of Jesus' cross, not in spite of it.

Keep reading my post. I posted because you sh*t on RINO Tom as if he wasn't a Christian. If anything, what's really ironic is that you can't even consider the possibility that there's a reason that scary, Southern Evangelicals are perceived as such.

Please tell me the reason since it's something that's apparently lost on me.  I bet whatever you say will be far less kind than what I maybe implied about RINO Tom, LOL

Beliving that there are multiple "spiritual truths" (whatever the hell that means) that each combine to create some grand unknowingness about the universe is incompatible with Christianity, and I make no apology for that.  It reads more like late night astrology than anything approaching religious edification

[brucejoel99]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

If Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through me," he also stated fact about who He is: the Son of God, the Logos, God in the flesh; if the Doctrine of the Trinity stands, then any person who approaches the Father must definitionally approach Him through Christ, the Father in Himself being unknowable, known by people only through the Son & the Holy Spirit. Nothing there means that anybody raised in another religion can't approach God but is automatically condemned to Hell. Romans 2:14-16 makes clear that such can't be so. Not to mention, it strains credulity to suggest by default that none of the holy texts of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, & any other religion could've possibly been inspired by God. If a non-Christian approaches God through their religion, then as far as Christianity is concerned, didn't they definitionally approach Him through the Son, no matter that they don't know of Christ nor acknowledge Him to be the Son of God? What does the difference between their interpretation of what's happening & a Christian's interpretation of what's happening matter? In no way does the existence of such a difference serve to inherently render the former interpretation invalidated.

And all of that is to say nothing of just not leaving basic common-sense behind when interpreting Scripture, & it's just not sensical for God to condemn people to eternal torture just because they didn't hear the Gospel or didn't abandon a religion which may very well have already been fulfilling for them. Even if Christianity got it right, my people in Auschwitz didn't go straight from the gas chambers to Hell. If God is Love, then He surely provides ways for all peoples to come to know Him.

You can believe what you believe, but ironically enough, not only is it not very Christian of you to disrespectfully sh*t on fellow Christians' beliefs, but it's frankly sanctimonious of you to sh*t on RINO Tom in particular by directly quoting from his expressed belief without having the decency to at least say his name while you're sh*tting on his specific Christian beliefs.

Keep reading through your Romans passage and you'll see that the judgment that will take place on the final day will be through Jesus Christ.  There is no hope or salvation for humanity apart from His cross.

And that's the point, the cross is big and perfect enough to cover the entire width and depth of human depravity and restore us to the Heavenly Father.  There is no other mechanism to accomplish such.  It's a singular path.  Any approaches or knowledge of God contained in other traditions is non-salvific. 

It's ironic you make this huge effort post without even considering the possibility that the scary, Southern Evangelical already agrees with you, LOL.  If there are non-belivers in Heaven then it's because of Jesus' cross, not in spite of it.

Keep reading my post. I posted because you sh*t on RINO Tom as if he wasn't a Christian. If anything, what's really ironic is that you can't even consider the possibility that there's a reason that scary, Southern Evangelicals are perceived as such.

Please tell me the reason since it's something that's apparently lost on me.  I bet whatever you say will be far less kind than what I maybe implied about RINO Tom, LOL

Referring, through quotation, to RINO Tom as only a "self-described Christian" rather inherently implies that, solely due to his expression of a single religious belief on a matter of Christianity which you happen to disagree with, you don't consider him an adequately faithful Christian. That not only insults RINO Tom but, as you know given your last reply, isn't your call to make if the teachings of Christianity that you already claim to agree with ITT actually still mean anything to the religion.

Beliving that there are multiple "spiritual truths" (whatever the hell that means) that each combine to create some grand unknowingness about the universe is incompatible with Christianity, and I make no apology for that.  It reads more like late night astrology than anything approaching religious edification

Del Taco, unless you're the Second Coming posing as a Southern Evangelical blue-av on Atlas, that's not your call to make if the words written in the Bible that you agree with mean what they're translated as now, as recently noted on this board:

John 14:6 doesn't necessarily mean that all non-Christians are going to Hell so much as it means that nobody's getting into Heaven unless they have Jesus' approval, & that's such an important distinction that it's why the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) doctrine defines the Church as all people saved by Christ, both those visibly saved & those not visibly saved; not all Christians, or even some Christians, but a visible subset of people who profess to be Christian & an invisible subset of people who don't so profess, & whether said subsets are all Christian or all non-Christian is ultimately up to Jesus (see: Matthew 25:31-46).

And if Christianity is true, people who unrepentantly kill in the name of God's will are surely going to Hell for that, so it only makes sense that those who love as themselves are seen as following God's Law of Love &, thus, Satan won't gain them.

Insofar as John 3:16 is concerned, you should go take a look at Mark 4:15 very carefully & then realize that "man" as scriptures see us is both man & Satan, the tempter, with there being no such person as an individual in scripture other than God-in-Christ, & all others being the person, & the spirit or spirits, plural, of disobedience, à la Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, & Eph. 2:2. What that means is that, assuming it's all true, John 3:16 & its extension to the unbeliever in John 3:18 both fully apply to every person, with the good of mankind universally saved & the devils thereof universally condemned to the lake of fire, as nothing written therein prevents nonbelievers from living a life in practical compliance with the Word of God & thus enabling said Word to apply fully to them, just as Jesus advised us in Matthew 4:4 & Luke 4:4.

As for John 3:36, its primary implication is that Hell is where sinners who disobey Jesus' teachings are called to repent, warning those unsaved who sin as a result of such disobedience of God's wrath still to come. So, sure, unbelievers may still suffer eternal condemnation in hell, but only because they still bear the full weight of all their sin, with the wrath of God remaining on them, just as believers do, to be punished pursuant to the nature of sins in which they'd previously engaged. In other words, nothing therein indicates that the lake of fire that is Hell will be experienced by all outside salvation, just as passages hitherto discussed & ignored (John 14:6) indicate that unbelievers who nonetheless manage to live lives compliant with the teachings of Christ can still be allowed entry to Heaven in spite of their evident lack of belief in Him.

In Eph. 2:8-9, Paul used the word "works" to mean works of the law, frowning upon the notion that one can be saved by piously following the Law (of the Jews). His argument that said Law doesn't save doesn't preclude nonbelievers from nevertheless believing something & then just not acting in a way that's contrary to what they've placed their faith in. If anything, Eph. 2:8-9 teaches that only by the grace of God can salvation & eternal life be given; not earned, but given. After all, Deuteronomy 1:39 tells of infants in the rebellion against God who should've been punished but were nonetheless entitled by Him to enter the promised land because they didn't know right from wrong; this doesn't necessarily mean that God would grant salvation to a non-believing non-Christian, but does speak to His presumed mercy in a situation like this.

[Blue3]

Universalism

yes/no

"Universalism" can, annoyingly, mean two different things in conversations about soteriology. Can you define the concept you're asking about?

What are the two different things?

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

Jesus saves everyone, he doesn't need people to recognize him as Son of God in order to love and save them.

[Schiff for Senate]

No, No

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Yes/Yes (Atheism is the objective truth, and its important morally that people not be allowed to mislead others with religious promises that can never be kept)

[Del Tachi]

Neither the Bible nor the traditional teachings of the church leave any ambiguity about the propitiatory role of Christ's sacrifice for mankind's salvation.  He is the way, the truth and the light; no one comes to the Father except through Him.

To hear self-described Christians "highly suspect" of this teaching is quite discouraging, to say the very least.       

If Christ said, "No one comes to the Father except through me," he also stated fact about who He is: the Son of God, the Logos, God in the flesh; if the Doctrine of the Trinity stands, then any person who approaches the Father must definitionally approach Him through Christ, the Father in Himself being unknowable, known by people only through the Son & the Holy Spirit. Nothing there means that anybody raised in another religion can't approach God but is automatically condemned to Hell. Romans 2:14-16 makes clear that such can't be so. Not to mention, it strains credulity to suggest by default that none of the holy texts of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, & any other religion could've possibly been inspired by God. If a non-Christian approaches God through their religion, then as far as Christianity is concerned, didn't they definitionally approach Him through the Son, no matter that they don't know of Christ nor acknowledge Him to be the Son of God? What does the difference between their interpretation of what's happening & a Christian's interpretation of what's happening matter? In no way does the existence of such a difference serve to inherently render the former interpretation invalidated.

And all of that is to say nothing of just not leaving basic common-sense behind when interpreting Scripture, & it's just not sensical for God to condemn people to eternal torture just because they didn't hear the Gospel or didn't abandon a religion which may very well have already been fulfilling for them. Even if Christianity got it right, my people in Auschwitz didn't go straight from the gas chambers to Hell. If God is Love, then He surely provides ways for all peoples to come to know Him.

You can believe what you believe, but ironically enough, not only is it not very Christian of you to disrespectfully sh*t on fellow Christians' beliefs, but it's frankly sanctimonious of you to sh*t on RINO Tom in particular by directly quoting from his expressed belief without having the decency to at least say his name while you're sh*tting on his specific Christian beliefs.

Keep reading through your Romans passage and you'll see that the judgment that will take place on the final day will be through Jesus Christ.  There is no hope or salvation for humanity apart from His cross.

And that's the point, the cross is big and perfect enough to cover the entire width and depth of human depravity and restore us to the Heavenly Father.  There is no other mechanism to accomplish such.  It's a singular path.  Any approaches or knowledge of God contained in other traditions is non-salvific. 

It's ironic you make this huge effort post without even considering the possibility that the scary, Southern Evangelical already agrees with you, LOL.  If there are non-belivers in Heaven then it's because of Jesus' cross, not in spite of it.

Keep reading my post. I posted because you sh*t on RINO Tom as if he wasn't a Christian. If anything, what's really ironic is that you can't even consider the possibility that there's a reason that scary, Southern Evangelicals are perceived as such.

Please tell me the reason since it's something that's apparently lost on me.  I bet whatever you say will be far less kind than what I maybe implied about RINO Tom, LOL

Referring, through quotation, to RINO Tom as only a "self-described Christian" rather inherently implies that, solely due to his expression of a single religious belief on a matter of Christianity which you happen to disagree with, you don't consider him an adequately faithful Christian. That not only insults RINO Tom but, as you know given your last reply, isn't your call to make if the teachings of Christianity that you already claim to agree with ITT actually still mean anything to the religion.

Beliving that there are multiple "spiritual truths" (whatever the hell that means) that each combine to create some grand unknowingness about the universe is incompatible with Christianity, and I make no apology for that.  It reads more like late night astrology than anything approaching religious edification

Del Taco, unless you're the Second Coming posing as a Southern Evangelical blue-av on Atlas, that's not your call to make if the words written in the Bible that you agree with mean what they're translated as now, as recently noted on this board:

John 14:6 doesn't necessarily mean that all non-Christians are going to Hell so much as it means that nobody's getting into Heaven unless they have Jesus' approval, & that's such an important distinction that it's why the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) doctrine defines the Church as all people saved by Christ, both those visibly saved & those not visibly saved; not all Christians, or even some Christians, but a visible subset of people who profess to be Christian & an invisible subset of people who don't so profess, & whether said subsets are all Christian or all non-Christian is ultimately up to Jesus (see: Matthew 25:31-46).

And if Christianity is true, people who unrepentantly kill in the name of God's will are surely going to Hell for that, so it only makes sense that those who love as themselves are seen as following God's Law of Love &, thus, Satan won't gain them.

Insofar as John 3:16 is concerned, you should go take a look at Mark 4:15 very carefully & then realize that "man" as scriptures see us is both man & Satan, the tempter, with there being no such person as an individual in scripture other than God-in-Christ, & all others being the person, & the spirit or spirits, plural, of disobedience, à la Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, & Eph. 2:2. What that means is that, assuming it's all true, John 3:16 & its extension to the unbeliever in John 3:18 both fully apply to every person, with the good of mankind universally saved & the devils thereof universally condemned to the lake of fire, as nothing written therein prevents nonbelievers from living a life in practical compliance with the Word of God & thus enabling said Word to apply fully to them, just as Jesus advised us in Matthew 4:4 & Luke 4:4.

As for John 3:36, its primary implication is that Hell is where sinners who disobey Jesus' teachings are called to repent, warning those unsaved who sin as a result of such disobedience of God's wrath still to come. So, sure, unbelievers may still suffer eternal condemnation in hell, but only because they still bear the full weight of all their sin, with the wrath of God remaining on them, just as believers do, to be punished pursuant to the nature of sins in which they'd previously engaged. In other words, nothing therein indicates that the lake of fire that is Hell will be experienced by all outside salvation, just as passages hitherto discussed & ignored (John 14:6) indicate that unbelievers who nonetheless manage to live lives compliant with the teachings of Christ can still be allowed entry to Heaven in spite of their evident lack of belief in Him.

In Eph. 2:8-9, Paul used the word "works" to mean works of the law, frowning upon the notion that one can be saved by piously following the Law (of the Jews). His argument that said Law doesn't save doesn't preclude nonbelievers from nevertheless believing something & then just not acting in a way that's contrary to what they've placed their faith in. If anything, Eph. 2:8-9 teaches that only by the grace of God can salvation & eternal life be given; not earned, but given. After all, Deuteronomy 1:39 tells of infants in the rebellion against God who should've been punished but were nonetheless entitled by Him to enter the promised land because they didn't know right from wrong; this doesn't necessarily mean that God would grant salvation to a non-believing non-Christian, but does speak to His presumed mercy in a situation like this.

Stop stanning for RINO Tom.  He can show up to defend himself in this thread if he takes offense to anything I've said.

There is nothing opaque or derisive about being a "self-described" Christian.  I am too a self-described Christian.  But saying there is no simple answer to a question as basic as "Is there a God?" is not, as you claim, an "expression of single religious belief on a matter" - it's a fundamental rejection of centuries of church teaching and theology.  It's truly heretical, to say the very least. 

This is a wholly distinct issue from who/how Jesus saves. I never claimed to know this entirely or completely, but I do acknowledge that the Cross is bigger and more perfect than any human can ever comprehend.  That's a singular truth, not one of many combining to create some illusion of God. 

[Kleine Scheiße]

1. no and 2. not necessarily but it's certainly welcomed

[progressive85]

I never understood how most people could tolerate some of these ideas - that if you don't believe in the deity I do or someone else does, they are going to Hell, or are worthless unless they are converted... that sounds like a judgment that is most unholy, and actually it sounds really evil... it's complete religious intolerance and that is something that must be challenged and fought against.

In the United States there seems to be much of this growing - this Christian nationalist stuff that's spreading, it's a perversion of both America and Christian faith together in my opinion.  They're trying to make this a country of one particular interpretation of a faith.... they do not represent all Christians and they certainly don't represent the religious diversity of the nation.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

No/No

Judaism isn't nor does it claim to be the "one true faith." Per Jewish teachings, a Gentile can go to Heaven just as easily as a Jew, as anybody who manages to live a life in compliance with the Noahide Laws is going to Heaven. But Judaism is my religion & path to God only because its truth talks to a Jewish soul like mine. Other peoples have their own perfectly wonderful & legitimate truths, which is exactly what other religions are for, as God created humans differently & with a variety of customs. God's house is one for all people, & surely one with many rooms; we all aren't & need not be the same.

Remember, ER can't comprehend not trying to convert people against their own will.