if jesus christ is the only way as the bible says. What is the fate of millions of people born into other religions as it seems thatmost peoples beliefs are as a result of the fact that they were born into a particular faith and thier parents thought them to follow that faith?

ordinaryguy

Of course there are arrogant, bigoted and self-righteous people in every walk of life (not just scientists) who think that anyone who disagrees with their opinions is an ignoramus. And yes, to this extent they are like religious bigots. But unlike religious bigots, they DON'T claim that their opinions come, not from their own thought and experience, but directly from GOD, and furthermore, that GOD will punish all the ignoramuses who have the temerity to disagree with them. That's the difference, and it's a big obvious one, so trying to deny and obscure it isn't going to work here. Give it up.

NeedKarma

Bull. Science doesn't work that way. I've explained it before but you've ignored it. Yay, you found one arrogant website, bravo, now talk to the rest of the people involved in the science, all 99.9% of them.

BTW
Once again there is no BTW.

Starman

I am 100% familar with the scientific method and would never claim that the scientific method involves bias, or bigotry. However, those who claim that they are applying the scientific method are definitely quite able to be biased and bigoted while claiming to be applying that method. Big difference.


Scientists have absolutely no proof that there isn't a God and yet they don't acknowledge that as a possibility. To me and thousands of others that's quackery and smacks of biased thinking. Can you give me a good reason why it shouldn't strike us as biased?

Furthermore, as I said before and was totally ignored, sometimes atheist scientists apply scientific rules as long as those rules don't contradict their cherished atheism. If the rules might go against their atheism then they have been known to suddenly become unscientific.

Since that's the case I am not convinced about their constant claim that there isn't any God.


Also, you give great value to numerical weight of opinion.
That's called bandwagon thinking and is a fallacy of reasoning.
Majority of opinion does not guarantee truth.

BTW
I could have swamped the thread with dozens of the websites I found which speak of scientist bigotry but didn't think it necessary since the number of links I might be able to place won't change your viewpoint anyway.

http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjor...isaBIGLIE.html


I have absolutely nothing to deny or obscure. I have been very clear in my statements.
Perhaps what you perceive as denial and an effort to obscure is simply that I disagree with your beliefs. In fact, I could just as easily say that you are denying and obscuring.
But making that kind of baseless accusation adds nothing to a discussion we are not supposed to be having on this forum in the first place. It only leads to a childish "Is so!" "Is not!" interminable cycle that might provoke modertator intervention.


In any case, I never said that all scientists are bigots. Obviously not all scientists are bigots just as not all scientists are atheists or Godless evolutionist fanatics. Actually, you are the one making sweeping statement in which you classify all religious persons as bigots because they believe that their religious beliefs are true and those of others are not--something which scientists do all the time rehgardless of the religious sensibilities of those who have to listen to their constant atheistic propaganda.

http://www.ex-atheist.com/contending-for-the-faith.html

The problem, as I perceive it, is that you focus only on what you consider religious bigotry but conveniently ignore the bigotry upon which your own precious beliefs are firmly founded.

BTW

I consider it bigotry when a person asks a question about Jesus on a question and answer forum and some who can't stomach other people's belief in Jesus feel they have to make the question into a heated debate. It smacks of intolerance. Sorry.


"If?"

As a Christian my answer to your hypothetical can only be one:


Acceptance of Jesus' Ransom Sacrifice is the only way leading to eternal life.


John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.



Yes, many people believe in the religion they were brought up to believe in.
But that doesn't nullify that Jesus is the only way to gain eternal life.
What is the fate of these other people?
They will be given a chance to make an informed decision.
That includes those who have died without having had that chance.
Only after they are able to make an informed decision will they be held fully accountable.
That period of time is referred to a Judgment Day and the people of Sodom and Gomorrha who died without ever having had a chance to learn of Jesus will be resurrected and will be there.


Matthew 10:15
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha
in the day of judgment, than for that city.


Those who are righteous of heart but who lack accurate knowledge will be given accurate knowledge

Isaiah 11:9
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.



Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

...and being righteously inclined will follow as Jesus said they would.

John 10:27
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

All those refusing to abide by God's way of doing things will have chosen death just Adam chose death though he knew what he was choosing.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

VBNomad

Starman you say "Scientists have absolutely no proof that there isn't a God and yet they don't acknowledge that as a possibility." Are the scientists not acknowledging God's existence, or God's intervention? And if a person's idea of intervention is not to the level or nature of your belief, your brand them athiest.
Also, quoting the bible to prove biblical interpretations are correct is circular logic. Science, above all things, avoids that kind false thinking.

ordinaryguy

Isn't it pretty presumptious to suppose that "Christianity" (meaning who or what, exactly?) has either the ability or the right to prevent anyone from entering God's kingdom? Wouldn't that be up to God alone? It's exactly this arrogance of organized religion in trying to place itself between the individual and God that I find so offensive. As I interpret the gospels, Jesus was offended by it as well. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter". (Matt. 23:14) All in all, I don't find much evidence that he saw a big role for religious institutions as gatekeepers of the Kingdom.

Starman

First, please go back and read the question and see for yourself that the questioner himself brings in the Bible into focus. Since that is thge case why is it then that you are so surprised that I answer him biblically when he himself brings the Bible into it?


I did not say all scientists, I said scientists who are atheists don't admit the possibility of a creator. Here is an example. There is right now a search going on for extraterrestrial life via SETI and via the space rovers on Mars. Soon there will be a way of analyzing the atmospheres of distant exoplanets via element signatures which will indicate whether the planet has life or not-in fact, will be able to determine whether that result is due to a technological civilization.

I am sure that you are aware of what atheist astronomers are saying in relation to such a discovery.

"Discovery of life will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that evolution of life can take place on other worlds and that the earth is not unique. All you need is the right substances right temperatures and life will emerge all by itself."

That's what they are saying in the event that life is discovered on other worlds. Never do I hear them as much as vaguely admit that life might have been placed there by a creator.

They do go so far as to say that a far more advanced civilization than ours might have seeded the earth, But they never say that such an advance life itself was created by God.

The same holds true for all their other claims including the presence of the moon which is essential to Earth's rotational stability. This had to have been the result of blind forces which come along just by chance and voila-Earth has a moon.

The same goes for all their other claims ad infinitum.
So where the admission that you say comes in reference to God I really don't know.


BTW
Circular logic to those who assume it's open to any and all interpretations.
The question is a biblical one and calls for a biblical answer.

ordinaryguy

See, now we're making progress, because it sure seemed like that's what you thought. I'm glad to know it isn't.

No, read carefully and you'll see that's not what I said. I said that some (but not all) scientists, and some (but not all) religious people are arrogant and self-righteous in being contemptuous of anyone who disagrees with them. I use the term bigotry as a synonym for arrogance and self-righteousness, and I do think it's pretty bad manners, whether displayed by scientists, religous people, or anyone else. But that's not really my point. My point is that what sets religious intolerance apart and makes it especially offensive is the certitude that one's own belief is shared by GOD, and that GOD will punish those who disagree with it. It's the use of God as a club to try to bludgeon others into submission that I find despicable and sacreligious. This is the third time I've made this point, and I promise it will the last. If it's not a point you're willing to address, I'm OK with that. Anyway, I'm not really speaking to you personally or accusing you of anything, Starman, I'm just trying to further the discussion in a civilized and respectful manner.

Starman

Thanx for clearing up certain points. No, I don't agree with trying to force others to think my way. That is for others to decide for themselves. That's why when I give my opinion and some gives an opposite one without bringing my answer into the picture I just try to ignore it. It's only when my response to a question is made a focus of criticism or debate that I feel I have to respond.


I personally do not see how my response to this person's question concerning Jesus is an attempt at bludgeoning anyone into submission. He directly asked a biblical question about Jesus and I answered it-bludgeoning never crossed my mind.

BTW

I have had others try to bludgeon me into submission religiously on more than one occasion. Shouting threats of eternal damnation in hell, red faced, bulging purple neck veins, spittle flying, arms flailing the whole disaster. I guess that's what you must be referring to.

VBNomad

I thought it was pretty clear that by addressing you I was speaking to you and not the question. But whatever. In the question of life and it’s start; whether the creator creates life on another planet, or creates the circumstances that allow life to happen, or just once, created everything in a flash and it all just unfolds according to laws of physics and chemistry, many of which we have yet to discover. Which of those scenarios is not miraculous and worthy of praise and awe? OK. For the sake of argument, the creator did it all at once and only here on planet earth. The nature of science and human nature too, demands the next questions: how, why, and why not elsewhere? That investigative, questioning nature requires answers. Real and verifiable. Logic. Not circular reference to biblical script. Faith is one thing. The pursuit of knowledge is another. I believe the circular arguments of faith to be more limiting than expansive, and as such should never be the sole guide to how knowledge is pursued or conveyed.

Starman

Can you please point out where I said that all seeking of knowledge should be limited to reading scripture. Have you really met a human being who actually made such a stupid statement or is this something that you imagine that certain people propose?


All I said was that the question asked is a biblically-based one which requires the quoting of scripture. Nothing more.


BTW
Nothing is ultimately verifiable and everything depends ultimately on faith.
All we can verify is that we are receiving what appear to be sense impressions from what appears to be a stimulus from what appears to be an external world



.