Good Works

A MAN once asked Jesus: "Lord, are those who are being saved few?" Did Jesus say: 'Just accept me as your Lord and Savior, and you will be saved'? No! Jesus said: "Exert yourselves vigorously to get in through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will seek to get in but will not be able."—Luke 13:23, 24.
Jesus indicated that fewer people than one might expect would exert themselves vigorously to receive this marvelous blessing.
'That's not what I was told,' some may protest. These may quote John 3:16, which says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (King James Version) However, 'What, then, must we believe? That Jesus actually lived? Of course. That he is the Son of God? By all means! And since the Bible calls Jesus "Teacher" and "Lord," must we not also believe what he taught, obey him, and follow him?'—John 13:13; Matthew 16:16.
Many people who have been told that they are "saved" seem to have little intention of either following or obeying Jesus. In fact, a Protestant clergyman wrote: "Of course, our faith in Christ should continue. But the claim that it absolutely must, or necessarily does, has no support at all in the Bible."
On the contrary, the Bible lists immoral practices that are common among some people who think that they are "saved." Regarding one who continued in such ways, it instructed Christians: "Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." Surely God would not want wicked people contaminating his Christian congregation!—1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
What does it mean, then, to follow Jesus, and how can we do that? Well, what did Jesus do? Was he immoral? a fornicator? a drunkard? a liar? Was he dishonest in business? Of course not! 'But,' you may ask, 'do I have to clean all those things out of my life?' For the answer, consider Ephesians 4:17 through 5:5. It does not say that God will accept us no matter what we do. Instead, it tells us to be different from the worldly nations who have "come to be past all moral sense, . . . but you did not learn the Christ to be so . . . Put away the old personality which conforms to your former course of conduct . . . Let the stealer steal no more . . . Let fornication and uncleanness of every sort or greediness not even be mentioned among you, just as it befits holy people . . . For you know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person—which means being an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God."
Are we following Jesus if we do not at least try to live in harmony with his example? Do we not have to work on making our lives more Christlike? That vital question is rarely, if ever, considered by people who say, as one religious tract does: "Come to Christ now—just as you are."
One of Jesus' disciples warned that ungodly men were "turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." (Jude 4) How might we, in fact, turn God's mercy "into an excuse for loose conduct"? We could do so by assuming that Christ's sacrifice covers deliberate sins that we intend to keep on committing rather than sins of human imperfection that we are trying to put behind us. Surely we would not want to agree with one of America's best-known evangelists, who said that you do not have to "clean up, give up, or turn around."—Contrast Acts 17:30; Romans 3:25; James 5:19, 20.
Many people have been told that "believing on Jesus" is a single act and that our faith does not have to be strong enough to prompt obedience. But the Bible disagrees. Jesus did not say that people who begin the Christian course are saved. Instead, he said: "He that has endured to the end is the one that will be saved." (Matthew 10:22) The Bible likens our Christian course to a race, with salvation being the prize at its end. And it urges: "Run in such a way that you may attain it."—1 Corinthians 9:24.
Thus, "accepting Christ" involves far more than just accepting the blessings that Jesus' superlative sacrifice offers. Obedience is required. The apostle Peter says that judgment starts "with the house of God," and adds: "Now if it starts first with us, what will the end be of those who are not obedient to the good news of God?" (1 Peter 4:17) So we must do more than simply hear and believe. The Bible says that we must "become doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving [ourselves] with false reasoning."—James 1:22.
The Bible book of Revelation contains messages from Jesus, transmitted through John to seven early Christian congregations. (Revelation 1:1, 4) Did Jesus say that since the people in these congregations had already "accepted" him that was sufficient? No. He praised their deeds, their labor and their endurance and spoke of their love, faith, and ministry. But he said that the Devil would put them to the test and that they would be rewarded "individually according to [their] deeds."—Revelation 2:2, 10, 19, 23.
Thus Jesus described a far greater commitment than most people have understood when they were told that their salvation was a "finished work" as soon as they "accepted" him at a religious meeting. Jesus said: "If anyone wants to come after me, let him disown himself and pick up his torture stake and continually follow me. For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for my sake will find it."—Matthew 16:24, 25.
Disown ourselves? Follow Jesus continually? That would require effort. It would change our lives. Yet, did Jesus really say that some of us might even have to 'lose our souls'—to die for him? Yes, that kind of faith comes only with knowledge of the magnificent things you can learn from studying God's Word. It was evident on the day Stephen was stoned by religious fanatics who "could not hold their own against the wisdom and the spirit with which he was speaking." (Acts 6:8-12; 7:57-60) And such faith has been demonstrated in our time by the hundreds who died in Nazi concentration camps rather than violate their Bible-trained consciences.
Salvation is a free gift from God. It cannot be earned. Yet it does require effort on our part. How valuable is the lifeblood of Jesus Christ? It is a free gift, but we must demonstrate deep appreciation for it.
True Christians are in a saved condition in that they are in an approved position before God. As a group, their salvation is sure. Individually, they must meet God's requirements. However, we can fail, for Jesus said: "If anyone does not remain in union with me, he is cast out as a branch and is dried up."—John 15:6.
We do not earn salvation, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. We are not worthy of this magnificent gift if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience by doing the things that the Bible says God and Christ want us to do. Without works to demonstrate our faith, our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, for the Bible clearly states: "Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself."—James 2:17.

Deanna:

You said:

For many, many years, I did not/could not grasp the significance of Christ's crucifixion because I always thought, "Yes, but He was God, so he didn't really suffer." Then I experienced the true horror and meaning of the crucifixion -- and I finally understood.

My reply:
Holy Week is pivital to the foundation of my beief, and it is an emotional experience for me. But - and this is strange - I did not truly understand the pain of our Lord's sacrifice until I saw 'The Passion of the Christ'. I have seen many brutal movies, but this - this - made me turn away, choking and in tears. It still haunts me.

You also said:

However, the peace and joy which comes from understanding and receiving God's unconditional love leads us to love others -- and do good deeds.

In humble reply, I offer you this:

THE WORD

IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD

Reach out your arms and hug a friend,
Go praise a child, greet a stranger.
Now go outside and touch a tree
Smell a flower, hear the bird’s song.
In these places you find the Word
And you will know it is God's love.

AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD

Open your heart - to your surprise
You now will find God is with you.
The shock and joy will make you weep.
You will know then that God is love
Let him inside, You soon will know
You are with Him for eternity.

AND THE WORD WAS GOD

With tears of joy, you now will find
He’s been with you all of your life
If you had only bothered to look
You would have found that He was there
With perfect love. Give Him great praise!
And love your God and your neighbor!

Amen.

Deanna:

You said:

For many, many years, I did not/could not grasp the significance of Christ's crucifixion because I always thought, "Yes, but He was God, so he didn't really suffer." Then I experienced the true horror and meaning of the crucifixion -- and I finally understood.

My reply:
Holy Week is pivital to the foundation of my beief, and it is an emotional experience for me. But - and this is strange - I did not truly understand the pain of our Lord's sacrifice until I saw 'The Passion of the Christ'. I have seen many brutal movies, but this - this - made me turn away, choking and in tears. It still haunts me.

You also said:

However, the peace and joy which comes from understanding and receiving God's unconditional love leads us to love others -- and do good deeds.

In humble reply, I offer you this:

THE WORD

IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD

Reach out your arms and hug a friend,
Go praise a child, greet a stranger.
Now go outside and touch a tree
Smell a flower, hear the bird’s song.
In these places you find the Word
And you will know it is God's love.

AND THE WORD WAS WITH GOD

Open your heart - to your surprise
You now will find God is with you.
The shock and joy will make you weep.
You will know then that God is love
Let him inside, You soon will know
You are with Him for eternity.

AND THE WORD WAS GOD

With tears of joy, you now will find
He’s been with you all of your life
If you had only bothered to look
You would have found that He was there
With perfect love. Give Him great praise!
And love your God and your neighbor!

Amen.

Deanna,

Very well put. I'm so glad you have a true understanding of the sacrifice that Jesus had for us. I'm so very glad to hear that you are saved. I think you would make a great apologetic. Keep up the good work that Christ does through you. God bless

In Christ
David

Daniel:

You say, "A deep problem with Christianity is that we can now imagine--and perhaps always could--a figure greater than Christ. We are told Christ was God come to earth to suffer for the sins of man--to take sin upon himself and open the gates of heaven for man's salvation. But how could Christ have suffered being God?"

For many, many years, I did not/could not grasp the significance of Christ's crucifixion because I always thought, "Yes, but He was God, so he didn't really suffer." Then I experienced the true horror and meaning of the crucifixion -- and I finally understood.

The Christ of the passion, although He remained divine, CHOSE to set aside his divinity to suffer and die as a human! His death was a fulfillment of the law of the Old Testament which decreed death as the punishment for many sins. He paid the price as required by OT law -- and he paid it for us all. He was also the fulfillment of the prophets of the savior who would set the captives free. Because of His death, we are no longer bound by sin. If we repent and confess our sinfulness [not an easy thing to do], our souls are washed clean by the blood of Christ.

Did you ever wonder about those passages from the gospels about observers at the crucifixion?
"Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, 'So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!' In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. 'He saved others,' they said, ' but he can't save himself. Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe.'" Mark 15:29-31.

Those people had a very valid point. If you are who you say you are, then save yourself. BUT HE DIDN'T!!! Why?!! Because if He climbed down from the cross, He would no longer be experiencing the pain and agony of death by crucifixion. And He would not have died, so the stain of sin would remain, as would the debt to the OT.

As for faith v. good works, "This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:22-23 It is only by the grace of God that we believe and have faith. One cannot "earn" one's way into eternal life by doing good. However, the peace and joy which comes from understanding and receiving God's unconditional love leads us to love others -- and do good deeds.

Is beheading someone considered a good work?

At the evening of life, we shall be judged on our love.597 - St. John of the Cross.

krozmibc zfnejyod nromi hlxde klhqrdw ghewjd amzq

krozmibc zfnejyod nromi hlxde klhqrdw ghewjd amzq

As I see the debate, there are only 3 possibilities:

1)Works only will get you saved
2)A combination of works and faith will get you saved
3)Faith alone will save you

As to the first of these arguments, if you only had to work to be saved then Christ did not have to die. It would only be a matter of working off the debt. This absolutely goes against Scripture as one person already has stated. And also, “…for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing! (Gal 2:21)” So this is not a solution.

Number 2 seems to be the one that almost all would agree that seems most plausible. But is it? To uncover whether this statement is false, all that needs to be done is to find one instance of faith and no works. Let us take as our example an atheist on his deathbed reaching out to Christ in faith. He had no chance of doing good works but Christ would never dismiss an honest confession prompted by faith. Is this too much of straw man’s argument? Let us take the thief on the cross who cried "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom. (Luke 23:42)” Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise. (Luke 23:43)" This man, also, had no opportunity to do good works, though I have no doubt he would have given the chance.

That is at least one argument that refutes number 2 and therefore leaves number 3 as the only viable alternative.

Last but certainly not least, faith alone. Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent. (John 6:29)" God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Rom 3:25-26)

It is all about justification. Can you justify yourself? Does your righteousness count? Then you can’t save yourself! You take your life’s work of good deeds and put that up against the precious blood of Christ (as in cases 1 and 2) and see how it foolish it looks! If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. (Rom 4:2-3)"

Unfortunately, most people do not see that, logically, one must come before the other. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. (1 Cor 3:11-13) The foundation has been laid (faith in Christ) upon which we build (works).

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10) God prepared these things beforehand, not to merit salvation but to glorify Him. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8)

Lepido:

Glad you like the abbreviated name! :) Sounds sleek and cool.

**I think that anyone who commits such acts must be insane. Mentally stable, secure people do not have a desire to hurt others.**

But mentally stable, secure people do hurt others, everyday. They don't always intend to, and certainly they most often regret it afterwards. However, placed in a situation where one feels helpless, backed into a corner... even the most mentally stable and secure will do what they deem necessary to protect what they value.

**I didn't say that "just following orders" excused them. If that seemed implied, please forgive me. We run into the same issues with our own armed forces. If your CO gives you an order that you know is wrong to follow, what do you do? How far can an individual follow his/her own conscience within a military structure?**

Post-Vietnam, the US military has invested a great deal in the ethical training of its forces. We probably spend more on that sort of training than any nation on earth. Our soldiers are more PREPARED to refuse to obey an illegal order than any soldiers in the history of the world, and yet Abu Ghraib still happens. When the commitment of one or two to do good is pitted against the 'powers that be' that are intent on evil, the result is usually futile or fatal for the powerless.

**I never said that "What is, is right." In fact, I said that when one harms others, one also harms oneself, so it is in one's own best interests to behave well. While the Enron guys did not hurt themselves financially the way they did the people whose retirement funds they depleted, their actions harmed the community, and harm to the community affects all within it. Unfortunately, some feel the effects much more immediately than others.**

But in a community of 6 billion, Lepido, in a complexly broken cosmos, what action does not harm someone? Who has the wisdom to plumb the depths of such complexity?
Furthermore, how is it in one's own best interests to behave well? That is an assertion that cannot be proven. Serving the best interests of the community is only in one's own best interests if one values the life of the community over the life of an individual member of the community. And that may lead to the situation where the best interests of the community will expect me to surrender my best interests. In a community where life is temporary and furtherance of that life is the highest value, how can one expect someone to surrender that which they value highest for the sake of the community? And in a community where quality of life is valued over quantity, how can one expect another to ignore their own ambition when the community cannot even define 'quality'?

**We invaded Iraq to better our economy and improve our standard of living? **

From at least 3 different points of view, certainly that is the case.

1) Weakening global terrorism improves the American standard of living. IF (big IF) we invaded Iraq to establish democracy and cut off funding for global terror, then our standard of living will be improved.

2) Establishing long-term command and control over the Iraqi oilfields would give us greater access to fossil fuels, which clearly would improve both our standard of living and our economy on a short-term basis.

3) Establishing an American Empire abroad would clearly improve our standard of living and economy here in the US proper. The economies of Rome and Great Britain exploded when they established worldwide imperial interests.

**If there were a global commitment to "play nice," then that would pretty much eliminate evil, now wouldn't it?**

If every entity in the cosmos signed on, that would certainly give it a better shot. Good luck with that. Since most people who hold to your arguments deny the very existence of a lot of entities in the cosmos, you're up against a category challenge right from the start. Furthermore, even those most committed to "playing nice" fail. In fact, it is those who are most committed to it that truly recognize how poorly they perform at it. Not to mention that those who have the guns are going to be the hardest to convince that "playing nice" works better than tyranny.

Your optimistic philosophy deals works only under ideal circumstances. It does not answers the questions and problems that face us in the world in which we actually live.

Respectfully,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY

Falan:
**Hitler was insane? That remains to be proven. Does that mean that all "evil-doers" are insane, or only those who practice high-volume evil?
Was Stalin insane, too? He executed way more than Hitler did.
Pol Pot has been mentioned on this list. Was he insane, too?**

I think that anyone who commits such acts must be insane. Mentally stable, secure people do not have a desire to hurt others.

**So, if my boss is crazy, I don't have to "always do the right thing?" Boy, this is really getting complicated.**

I didn't say that "just following orders" excused them. If that seemed implied, please forgive me. We run into the same issues with our own armed forces. If your CO gives you an order that you know is wrong to follow, what do you do? How far can an individual follow his/her own conscience within a military structure?

**And how, in your paradigm, did the Enron guys harm themselves? How does the paradigm being encouraged by Athena and Lepido differ from the "Whatever is, is right" affirmation of the Marquis de Sade?**

Lepido - I like that - sounds kind of sexy when you say it aloud. I never said that "What is, is right." In fact, I said that when one harms others, one also harms oneself, so it is in one's own best interests to behave well. While the Enorn guys did not hurt themselves financially the way they did the people whose retirement funds they depleted, their actions harmed the community, and harm to the community affects all within it. Unfortunately, some feel the effects much more immediately than others.

**Most wars are fought because nations with great power feel a great responsibility to develop better economies and standards of living for themselves.**

We invaded Iraq to better our economy and improve our standard of living?

**Good and evil are a little more complex than "I'm okay, you're okay... let's all play nice now." However, I'm not surprised that a quoter of Spike Lee, one of the great American propagandists of the 20th century, might not notice that the universe isn't just black and white.**

If there were a global commitment to "play nice," then that would pretty much eliminate evil, now wouldn't it?

Hitler was insane? That remains to be proven. Does that mean that all "evil-doers" are insane, or only those who practice high-volume evil?

Was Stalin insane, too? He executed way more than Hitler did.

Pol Pot has been mentioned on this list. Was he insane, too?

So, if my boss is crazy, I don't have to "always do the right thing?" Boy, this is really getting complicated.

And how, in your paradigm, did the Enron guys harm themselves? How does the paradigm being encouraged by Athena and Lepido differ from the "Whatever is, is right" affirmation of the Marquis de Sade?

Most wars are fought because nations with great power feel a great responsibility to develop better economies and standards of living for themselves.

Good and evil are a little more complex than "I'm okay, you're okay... let's all play nice now." However, I'm not surprised that a quoter of Spike Lee, one of the great American propagandists of the 20th century, might not notice that the universe isn't just black and white.

All--

The argument of many seems to be that "it's good to do good", and that faith doesn't matter.

While it's hard to argue against any such solipsism as that of Wiccan (below), in which each person gets to decide what's right for himself, because of the lack of substance giving on to lack of traction, it's even harder to argue against such truisms as that above--and to try to do so is to fall into the trap laid, for whether "doing good is good" is not at issue. All agree on it. No points for either/any side.

The relationship between faith and good works in Christian is so intrinsically complex that it should be unsurprising that attempts to dissect it and discuss it lead often to disagreement and rancor. But it should also lead one to realize that drawing conclusions base upon any single, simple "fact" observed in that relationship is likely to be at best woefully incomplete and potentially seriously damaging.

That discussions like this inevitably bring out those who wish to attack some other group seems to simply be how the world works at this time--which in itself says quite a bit. I tire of the fatuous, disingenuous, misleading, and manipulative. No one wins a convert by force, though perhaps broad, superficial, meaningless similarities can be imposed.

I hope and pray that those who wish to find here civil, reasoned discourse can do so, and that those who, looking into their hearts, find anger and hate, can soon find these replaced by love and understanding, and participate in the forum in a different manner.

All of us succumb occasionally to the temptations of pride and vanity dressed in a quick tongue, but we need to remember that an adept tongue is like well-coiffed hair--it is attractive, and may help in getting others (generally of like mind) to listen, but does not in the end mean that one has anything to say, or that those whom one wishes to persuade will find what is said more persuasive than offensive.

There. I've said what I can today. Now I shall return to Boy Scout camp.

May God bless all.

AMY--

I was saddened to see that you Christianity as "doing what you please", followed by a "tearful witness" to "wild-eyed morons".

I'm not sure that I believe that you really think that Christian teaching is as you describe, but I fear that perhaps you do consider most of us to be "wild-eyed morons", and if that is true, it shall certainly reduce the likelihood that you shall listen seriously and respectfully to those who are Christians and cherish their relationships with God--you've greatly diminished the possibilities of civil discourse between us.

It seems to me that your description of Christian faith, coupled with a needless swipe at an unpopular president intended, it seems, to drench all Christians with the stench of derision and unpopularity, makes your post into more of an attack on people than anything that resembles reasonable discussion.

I hope that you might soon have the opportunity to discuss Christian teaching with a well-trained minister, that you may better understand basic Christian tenets. I think that might enable a new beginning in a more productive manner.

Ahmed--

Thank you for your kind response. I am sorry I did not acknowledge it sooner; I was out at Boy Scout camp with my son and his troop for a few days. (And there I shall return later today.)

It was of course pleasantly refreshing to read your post in reply. I'm glad to see that we are able, in some small way, to share a bit of God's love. I hope that such remains the case forever.

Peace and grace,

Perry Clark

Falan:
**Do you really think Hitler thought he was "doing the wrong thing" when he sent 12 million Europeans to death-camps?**

Hitler was insane. I have no doubt that Athena was referring to actions undertaken by sane people.

**Do you really think each individual act of evil that went along with the Holocaust was done by people intentionally "doing the wrong thing?"**

Leadership by the insane, especially when it comes along at a time of crisis, often leads to bad behvior by those being led.

**Do you think Ken Lay and the rest of the Enron crooks really thought they were doing something WRONG? Not illegal... they knew it was illegal. Did they really think it was wrong?**

I believe they knew that it was wrong, but just didn't care as long as they got what they wanted. It's unfortunate that some people can't see that in doing wrong to others, they ultimately harm themsselves.

**The United States is embroiled in battle in Iraq because of Stan Lee's beautiful philosophical contribution to the 20th and 21st centuries.**

Spiderman invaded Iraq? Which issue was that?

**In fact, most wars fought in the last 200 years were fought on the basis of that principle.**

Most wars are fought over real estate and mineral deposits.

**Jesus of Nazareth is still the only human who ever lived to completely model the true path of responsibility and humanness.**

He was one man who did provide a good role model. There have been many other men and women who have provided examples of altruistic living.

Namaste.

Athena:

Do you really think Hitler thought he was "doing the wrong thing" when he sent 12 million Europeans to death-camps? Do you really think each individual act of evil that went along with the Holocaust was done by people intentionally "doing the wrong thing?" Do you think Ken Lay and the rest of the Enron crooks really thought they were doing something WRONG? Not illegal... they knew it was illegal. Did they really think it was wrong? Most people, most of the time, think they ARE "doing the right thing" regardless of what they are actually DOING!

The United States is embroiled in battle in Iraq because of Stan Lee's beautiful philosophical contribution to the 20th and 21st centuries. In fact, most wars fought in the last 200 years were fought on the basis of that principle.

Jesus of Nazareth is still the only human who ever lived to completely model the true path of responsibility and humanness.

in HIS love,
Nick

Jihadist,

How goes that support of global religious freedom?

It's not necessary to believe in God or Gods to do good deeds. People of faith don't have a lock on charity - nor are atheists as selfish and craven as some would lead their congregations to believe. Two great modern philosophers - both with the last name of Lee - said it best. "Always do the right thing." (Spike Lee) and "With great power comes great responsibility." (Stan Lee) Both are moral codes which anyone can follow, regardless of belief in a Higher Power.

What would we do without religion. I am a 74 year old Catholic with a strong foundation in my faith through primary and secondary education who has grown more and more sceptical regarding scripture, especially the "old Testament". It is not necessary to have faith in order to do good works nor is having faith a prerequisite to doing good works. Even without faith or a belief in God or the hereafter one would want to do what is right. It is hard wired into we human beings. Unfortunately religions often distort what is right or wrong. Since I was a teenager I often observed that religion was always in some way involved in the troubles of the world throughout history. I believe we would all be better off without organized religion because without faith it is meaningless and as one grows older and begins to read about religions and question them faith becomes virtually impossible. Read Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion which is more of a mocking diatribe as a start and then read Christopher Hitchen's GOD IS NOT GREAT which I couldn't put down, particularly the chapters on the O.T and the N.T. and you will need a strong faith. Bottom line, the answer to your question is that good works far exceed faith in importance.

Mary Cunningham

Thank you for your post.

I can understand how you feel when you stated -

"It hasn’t been agreeable to be Catholic in England for much of the time I’ve lived here. Until the mid-1980s and Cardinal Hume, there was a very nasty undercurrent of English anti-Catholic prejudice.. Catholics were assumed to be both Irish and disloyal. The IRA bombings didn’t help!"

I started college in the UK just when the Salman Rushdie controversy happened. My female Muslim college mates who had headscarves on were taunted when we visited London once. One drunken lout even tried to pull the scarf off one of my friend's head. She was deeply shaken, but recovered gracefully, and never spoke of it since.

Best regards

Let's unite our disparate beliefs,
call them humanity,
good and evil,
knowing and unknowing,
the greatest blessing,
what a song to sing!

Concerned,

you said

(The OT time line has the creation of Adam at 6000 years ago).

According to Ussher's chronology. But unfortunately Ussher's chronology has been misleading people for a very long time. I suggest you do the research on the hebrew word "yom" or spelled "yowm" as well. It means "day" in english. Not just a 24 hour day, but also meaning day as in a long period of time, ex: "day of the Lord". Not necessarily a 24 hour period, but an unlimited amount of time. I'll let you do the research since it seems you do a lot of reading and study.

EEEWWUUU! I'm so, like, blessed. Paris Hilton has gound God and is going to heaven and since I do good works and stuff, I'll see her there. I hope our white robes aren't like, polyester.

Mary C,

A couple of comments:

B16's book is simply a NT "rehash". If it contained anything new, it would be global news. No global news since its publication, therefore, more NT "rehash".

A better book with nothing missing with respect to the NT is Father Raymond Brown's, An Introduction to the New Testament. (twice the size at half the price?) No doubt B16 got a lot of his material from Father Brown's books.

The approximate location/age of the real Adam has been found via the National Geographic's Genographic project.

An excerpt:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/ Miracles

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time. (The OT time line has the creation of Adam at 6000 years ago).

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Check the associated maps on the Genographic site and you might be able to determine what tree your tribe came/fell from.

I have a strong feeling that God prefers good deeds done for their own sake and not because we "have to" or we're "buying" our way into heaven.

ya'll need to cut this out. i am cracking up, this is better than watching TBN. "you know this and well jesus said that...god wants this" hey send me some money

ya'll need to cut this out. i am cracking up, this is better than watching TBN. "you know this and well jesus said that...god wants this" hey send me some money

It's difficult for me to accept that people make money and waste time with religion. It is beyond belief. I mean with all the information out there, say like the historical doc's;council of nicea and the various fields of science you all ignore it and just smile and carry on about what?? being saved? like in a freezer or something.

You really believe that some white man in a white robe is going to come down and take us somewhere? Bible this and bible that...people take money from their pockets, which could be used in some more meaningful aspect of tehir lives, and give it to you people WOOOOW. I gotta say though, i'm all for giving credit where and when it's do, the olnly thing ya'll are missing are zoot suits and great big Cadillac’s. It's a tribute to your powers of persuasion, from birth you brainwash people into denying reality, what truly is to follow you. I'm African American and i have to give it to ya'll, we were stolen brought here and hundreds of years later we as descendants have turned our backs on our culture and our people to believe in a jesus, god and a holy spirit. It's automatic, get up sunday, go to church, wednesday bible study. All this from a people that that lived in South and West Africa.

No god is coming to take us anywhere no Devil awaits us in hell. So much the better though you should fool people ignorance is indeed blissful.

Sorry candide those who believe they are saved by their works behave in no wise the same as those who believe they received salvation as a gift.

Osam bin Laden believes in works theology He promulgates a view that it is by what he does in this world that he is saved. I believe that what Christ did upon the cross and what the Holy Spirit did within my heart saved me. Osama bin Laden believes that he can perfect the world. I know that this world is ultimately not perfectable not by me at any rate.

The difference between these two views and how it impacts everyone else is as the difference between night and day.

Miguel:
Jesus seemed to think that being nice was pretty important:

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matthew 22: 34-40 (NIV)

28One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
29"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.[e] 30Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' 31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'There is no commandment greater than these." Mark 12: 28-31 (NIV)

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" 26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" 27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" 28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." Luke 10: 25-28 (NIV)

Even Paul said the same thing:

8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Romans 13: 8-10 (NIV)

14The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Galatians 5:14

And according to James:

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. James 2:8 NIV)

14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. James 2: 14-18 (NIV)

Good works, hands-down. The idea that you can go around doing whatever you please and then tearfully witness to a group of wild-eyed morons and have it all forgiven is one of the worst travesties of Christianity.

If Christians would behave better I'd respect them more, and we wouldn't have a president who makes up excuses to go to war.

Silly beliefs may be comforting, but that doesn't make them true. Good works are good no matter whether your god turns out to be real or not.

CCNL,

Well, so many points! And now I've heard about a new faith--not an atheist and humanist but a Catholic of Reality. OK. And where to start regarding these? Ehmm, I won't because I thought I;d post a wee note to that nice Monsignor Bohlin--four atheists (nasty) posts regarding a nice Catholic piece on faith vs. works.

But re Adam and Eve--there actually was a mitochrondial Eve who lived in East Africa some few hundred or so generations ago from whom all women are descended. There might be an Adam somewhere but geneticists haven't found him yet.

Re: the Eucharest. Look up Aristotle's distinction between existence and essence. The essence of Christ is there at the mass, every mass, but not his existence. It's not a hard difference to understand.

Why do scholars assume that Catholics are Bible literalists? We're not. To tell the truth, many of us--me!--know the Bible mostly from the passages we read in our missals. I'm reading Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth" and it's the first exegis I've read. Well, it's wonderful--and was well worth the wait.

Anyway, thanks for your response, but not much time. Must send that nice monsignor a little note of appreciation.

This is what's more important: that Bible illiterate people don't ask idiotic questions like that. In terms of religios faith and what it ultimatelly entails what do you think is more important: doing nice things or going to hell? can you get any more clueless than that?

Mary,

Actually I am a Catholic of Reality.

For your review: (many if not most of these elements are being taught in Catholic theology classes at major Catholic universities)

a. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead.
b. Christ’s teachings serve the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths.
c. Heaven is a Spirit State i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.
d. The Ascension and Assumption therefore did not take place.
e. Jesus' Soul/Spirit resides in Heaven with all the souls of deceased good people of any religion or of no religion therefore there will be no second coming.
f. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic.
g. There was therefore no Immaculate Conception.
h. Happiness in Heaven is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present.
i. Purgatory is possible but has no Scriptural foundation.
j. Hell is possible but would God tolerate imperfect-Satan spirits and contaminated souls in the realm of the Singularity?
k. As per Schillebeeckx, God does not know the future.
l. Predestination should not be a word.
m. Canonization of the likes of Pio and Juan eliminates any consideration of papal infallibility.
n. Exodus should not be a word.
o. ditto for the Christmas manger.
p. The Eucharist is a fantastic spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. Continued crucifixion of Christ is ridiculous.
q. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the Christ’s rules for humanity and our belief in God.
r. Dividing God into three parts violates the first Commandment.
s. Substituting God in place of any reference to the Holy Spirit or the Son of God works quite well.
t. Holy Orders is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members.

v. As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven.
w. Lourdes et al as per Crossan prove faith heals but Mary plays no part. Miracles are equally probable anywhere on earth but all miracles are limited in scope and limited to very few of any faith. http://www.ntgateway.com/xtalk/crossan3.txt
x. As per Crossan, Westar E-discussion group, 6/14/03, message 20213, “I said that there was hardly a single miracle I was sure of as an historical event even though I was absolutely sure that Jesus was a healer.
y. An act of contrition with repentance and life style changes by anyone of any faith or even no faith should be sufficient for soul cleansing.
z. The Old Testament is so full of untruths and embellishments, its content is of little historical relevance but of prime spiritual importance.
aa. Is Jesus the Son of God? i.e. God- no, but was definitely a Godly representative on earth. He was therefore the biological son of Mary and Joseph.
bb. God, in my opinion, is responsible for the Big Bang program that got the Ball rolling. He/She is unable to stop or influence it
because it is restricted by the gifts of future and free will. Good and bad, however, are part of the program. There is nothing to prevent the bad from winning as shown by historic events. Was JC an attempt at influence?? Probably not, just a Good part of the program in Run mode. One day lets hope the Good is part of everyone's Favorite list.
cc. Miracles do not happen except through a mental desire or faith to be cured since miracles violate God’s gift of natural law. If God were involved in our daily lives, cures would not be needed. You cannot have it both ways.

Hooray! Paris Hilton found God! Did God find Paris Hilton?

All this works faith business is baloney. People behave the same whether they believe in works or in faith. It doesn't matter.

It took me awhile but I read all the entrys ahead of this and the last will be first. Over several mellenia, mankind guided by its "better angels" caused to be written a book called the Holy Bible. Mystically it contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation of believers. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It containts light to direct, food to support, and comfort to cheer.

What sets man apart is the use of "words" to impart, albeit inprecisely, abstract concepts of reality between conscious beings.

Most readers have read John 1:1 but how many have really dwelled on this use of the word "WORD." What does this word connote? What about the parenthetical at Mathew vs. 24:15 which 'lets the reader understand.'

Grace be to "God" that "(S)He" has stayed the hand of editors and evangelicals from removing the abiquity and imposing their own understanding.

Salvation.
It's not a hard concept to grasp.Yes,it is very easy to grasp,is it?
9000 years ago Holy Mother had saved people,9000 years later Holy Mother Church will save catholics,choosen ones,choosen sheep such as exactly written Matthew 25.33
Jupiter,The Saviour had saved ancient romans.
Apollo,son of god Zeus had saved ancient greeks.
Saviour Jesus,Son of God will save those who baptized Mark 16.16,except ''cowardly,the unbelieving,the vile,the murderer,the sexually immortal,those who practice magic arts and all liars''Revelation 21.8
In that case how many people will be saved? Less then five per cent of world population.

Salvation in islam.
If muslim women dont show their unwashed and dirty hairs(because they usualy take shower bath once a month) and wear burqa and if muslims worship 150 times in a month they will be saved.
What about japaneses,chineses,hindus,africans.

Who shall save whom? Who is Who?

A respectful poster is using the word 'atheist' too much.But,lets not forget,according to islam a catholic is 'atheist' as well.
'They surely disbelieve who say God is the third of three(Trinity) Quran 5.73

According to catholics,protestants and orthodox go astray;according to orthodox,catholics and protesants go astray;for islam,all christians go astray.So who is 'infidel',who is not.
Is it easy to grasp? No,who shall save whom and who is who...
Nobody knows the exact answer.

Mr.Brooks,Kevin Costner.Super film.

Re: my response to the Westboro Baptist Church.

The initial question ("you Christians out there, what about Westboro Baptists?") was a good example of a “gotcha” post and didn’t call for an answer. I just answered one 'gotcha' with another. Neither needed an answer because a gotcha’ question is not a question; it's a rhetorical trick. If the discussion is about Christian Protestants you ask a ‘question’ about some bad Protestant act—in this case the westboro Baptists-- if it’s about Islam, bring up Osama bin Laden, for Catholicism: paedophile priests fit the bill nicely.

Concerned the Christian asks a lot of ‘gotcha’s’: his continued query re religious freedom to Jihadist, his gotcha to Dr. Wright re Henry VIII, his repeated exhortations to “think out of the box” (Why do people USE business bullsh*t like that?) Like many atheists he blithely assumes that intelligent, sincere Catholics are devout because they were brainwashed as children!

Re: Christian churches in Muslim lands.

This, however, was more a sincere question than a 'gotcha'. There is a lot of news here about state authorities acting against Christian converts, mostly in Pakistan. I would note Ahmed didn’t include Pakistan in his answers, nor did Jih. Pakistan ISTM is the both the centre of radical Islam, the faith, and the training centre for Jihadis destined to attack civilians in Britains. Most of the Muslims currently in remand for terrorist attacks in London are 2nd generation Pakistanis and trained at centres in Pakistan.

(Anyway, a 'faith vs good works' discussion is not the place to discuss the role of Pakistan in radical Islam.)

Best,
MC

Jihadist and Ahmed,

• Firstly I live in London, although I was born and spent my childhood in the West of Ireland. I moved to London as a teenager—about the time the IRA brought bombing to the mainland--and was educated through post grad. level here (except for one degree in the US.)

• I’ve always been Catholic, sometimes more practicing than others, but it’s always been there, at the very core of me.

• I guess you could say I have multiple layers of loyalty.

• It hasn’t been agreeable to be Catholic in England for much of the time I’ve lived here. Until the mid-1980s and Cardinal Hume, there was a very nasty undercurrent of English anti-Catholic prejudice.. Catholics were assumed to be both Irish and disloyal. The IRA bombings didn’t help!

True believers live by faith.

Salvation is not of works.

Works is a result, a product, of being saved.

Hence, is more important to be saved because a person cannot have good works unless he is saved to begin with. Once a person is saved, then comes the works --God does the doing.

Faith without works is dead, means that a person's faith is not alive to begin with if that person does not have works to show for it.

Debra...

Jihadist,

Yes or no, do you believe there should be freedom of religion globally? No "ifs", "buts" and "wishy wash", simply yes or no.

Perry Clark

Greetings to you my dear friend. I am open to receive and I follow and accept your reasoning which I feel is close to mine in intention if not clarity. The point is that Christians like Muslims come in all shades and I have met some who believe in what I have explained. It is good to see those like yourself who believe in what you have said. That we only repent once and by doing so we stand side-by-side with God and thus we do not see anything else. Just like moving from a dark room to a room full of light. In such a room we no longer see darkness because we have chosen the path of righteousness. We are guided by ONE Mighty. We either believe in this OR still hang on to sins. We can not believe in both and still claim allegiance to Christ. When we repent, we repent and let go. Our hearts are purified and a purified heart does not contain sin anymore and will never contemplate hurting another. Our is the lnaguage of love and belief in PURITY and PERFECTION. We have left sin a million miles behind. It is not longer in our landscape. I truly beieive Christ lived like that and he wanted every single human being to experience such a spiritual state. All his teachings lead us to this conclusion.

I have read many religious books to understand that no one can come close to God by just reading a book. It is our total belief in God and our actions towards other fellow human beings that gives us a glimpse of God. As for becoming a friend of God, that is only done through the heart and total surrender to His will. This requires letting go of all our ego for God and Ego do not mix well together. It is HE who guides those who choose HIM to HIS dominion.

I adore Christ with all my heart and being. He is truly my greatest teacher through my own heart for I have truly accepted him with all my heart.

Mary Cunnigham

Yes, about 7 minutes walk from my own house and mosque there is a Catholic church that has been there ever since I have known myself for 57 years and it has a service every Sunday. There is another church close-by but I am not sure what denomination. Also I have lived in Malaysia and there are many churches there just as there are Bhuddist temples. I have been to many of them and prayed, as I firmly believe that all houses of worhsip are sacred to those who believe in them. I just happen to believe in an all-encamapassing God. I do not believe that one has to be a Muslim to be accepted by God.

There have always been churches in Egypt, Jordan and Iran, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, etc. Somali, I don't know??

As for Saudi Arabia, well I am not a fan. Their ruling family needs to learn a lot before it can claim any closeness to God.

Ah, two more TINFOIL HATTED LEFTIST LOONS...they sure are coming out so that we can see and hear them. A better question is: do you, Sally and Jon, believe in Hillary/Gore/Edwards/Kucinich? And if so, which is going to give you salvation, because you certainly have not done any "good works".

Beautifully said, Jihadist. The Divine calls to each of us in the voice we alone can hear. How we answer is up to us. No one can say what is the right answer for another person, only for themself.

Hello Mary Cunningham :)

Good to see you back in form.

I am certainly flattered that you grouped Muslims and atheists together for whatever reason. I do like many atheists posters in On Faith for their cool reasoning on matters of faith, religion and God. And Wiccans/Pagans too, for their deep and spiritual connection with nature.

Athiests could be the best chairman of any inter-faith dialogue or commissions. They have no religious baggage and partisanship, and consequently are the best to led us all to ultimate salvation in not sniping at other believers of God and faiths, including paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. and to focus on universal common values and for seperation of church and state.

Ah yes, atheists have to answer for Pol Pot, and Muslims have to answer for Osama bin Laden. Surely we are not asking Catholics to answer for the IRA and priests engaged in pedophilia? But that is besides the point here, for I'm sure they all seek salvation for what they have done by the grace of the Compassionate and Merciful God.

Pol Pot, since he don't believe in God, will have to make do with house arrest and dying without being shot. That was his punishment, that was his retribution for what he has done. Whether he repented, whether he seek salvation, is irrelevant. When he died, he died, no after-life, no heaven and hell as atheists and/or Cambodian Buddhists believe.

Osama Bin Laden, is certainly not getting any temporal salvation for what he has done. He is hunted down, he is on the run. Could be dead already. He could burn in hell for all eternity for what he has done if he truly believe in heaven and hell. I don't know if he is seeking salvation for what he has done.

I don't have your absolutely certainty that salvation is only for specific believers and not for unbelievers. Only that salvation here on earth is what unbelievers also seek in living by specific ethics and values.

As for salvation for believers, certainly no believer, no matter how devout, how pious, can say for certain if s/he will get salvation. After all, God doth guide to It who It Will. And if God don't guide or open the hearts, minds and souls of those who are atheists to It, God knows best.

Please don't force anyone to any beliefs against their will. There is no compulsion in religion and God hates hypocrites the most. If you don't understand the miseries of state imposed faith and the successful manipulation of a specific religious group on governments, all you got to do is read up on the Lina Joy case in Malaysia. It is a cautionary tale of believers blatantly over-stepping limits on matters related to personal belief, and exceeding human decency in wantonly transgressing individual dignity and personal freedom.

You may think it will never happen in the US, but reading what some posters here wrote about Mormons, pagans/wiccans, atheists, gays, that is how it all start - the imposition of majority values and beliefs in state affairs and policies as well as others who are not adherents of the same faith as them.

Do we need salvation? Yes, we need to save ourselves from the sins we commit against our fellow men who are of a different race, gender and belief.

Best regards

God saves you inspite of yourself not because of anything you have done will do or are doing including asking him into your heart.

Frankly if you are really and trully inviting the one true and living god into your heart it is because his spirit is already there.

Go to newsbusters of you want a clear answer.

Way too intellectualized here. It is not a knowledge thing, it is a "has He been asked in to your heart thing?"

Hey, Wiccan and Lep,

Doesn't it amaze you that if you believe in something other than the Bible you are automatically questioned?

Angie, I do not belong to ANY established religious order, yet I have faith in "the holy cosmic heartbeat" that you happen to call God. That I don't believe that IT (God, not a he or a she) ever had a son, or that IT ever spoke to Moses or Noah or anyone else for that matter does not make my faith any lessvalid than your.

The same goes for the Pagans.

Could you rephrase the question please, so it makes some sense? Obviously your perspective is the secular "religious people are aliens" wing of the Ultra-Left, so let me help you out:

Your question should be: "From your religious perspective, which is more important to obtaining 'salvation' faith or good works?" This IS what you meant to ask, isn't it?

If so: "For by GRACE are ye saved, through FAITH, and that (faith) not of youselves, it is the GIFT of God, NOT of Works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9

The rest you can figure out for yourselves.

Angie:
"But if you don't believe in the bible or even God why on earth are you on the Faith Posts?"

The word "faith" does not apply exclusively to the Bible or to Christianity. People from many different faiths post here.

Angie:
"But if you don't believe in the bible or even God why on earth are you on the Faith Posts?"

The word "faith" does not apply exclusively to the Bible or to Christianity. People from many different faiths post here.

Angie-

"I am free to answer all questions on this. But it is clearly written in Revelation, Jude, and other chapters in the bible. But if you don't believe in the bible or even God why on earth are you on the Faith Posts?"

Ma'am, there are other faiths besides Christianity. And agnostics and atheists have the right to represent themselves. This forum is used by some to learn about other faiths with respect, and used by some to denigrate those of other faiths. I have met some wonderful people here who do not follow my faith, nor do I follow theirs, but sometimes we find common ground, sometimes we courteously agree to disagree.

May we stay?

The New Testament, the epilogue to the Jewish Tanakh, clearly state that being saved through acceptance of the Messiah is the ONLY way to "heaven" and to be able to stand before the Father. However, they also say that faith without works, is stagnate and stale. So it is through faith in the messiah that we are saved, and being saved and "born again, we do good works because it is the right thing to do. Being saved is the cause, good works are the effect.

I guess it depends on whether you are Arminian or Reformed. The former needs works in order to REMAIN saved by faith, the latter needs works in order to DEMONSTRATE salvation by faith.

The Westboro Baptist Church is not a church it is a hate group. Most members of the so-called church are relatives of Fred Phelbs.

The group has been labeled a hate-group by the Anti-Defamation League. They are highly homophobic and have protested funerals of American soldiers, tried to protest the funerals of the Amish girls brutally murdered in their schoolhouse, as well as trying to protest the funerals of the vitcims of Virginia Tech. All because God supposedly hates America whose policies dictate equal rights for homosexuals.

That should tell you that any normal human being(Christian or not) has nothing but contempt for these dredges of society.

I guess it depends on whether you are Arminian or Reformed. The former needs works in order to REMAIN saved by faith, the latter needs works in order to DEMONSTRATE salvation by faith.

Let's see! Who do I want to be accepted by the most? Men or God? Since men will judge me by their standards, and God will judge me by His standards, I think I'll go with God.

Most people I know have their own agenda and will accept me based on their opinion of me, and my works. If I fit into their mold, they'll accept me. If not, they won't. I'll take my chances with God's opinion of me and therefore I'll do what His word says to do and accept His salvation. I cannot do enough to ever please men!!!

Let's see! Who do I want to be accepted by the most? Men or God? Since men will judge me by their standards, and God will judge me by His standards, I think I'll go with God.

Most people I know have their own agenda and will accept me based on their opinion of me, and my works. If I fit into their mold, they'll accept me. If not, they won't. I'll take my chances with God's opinion of me and therefore I'll do what His word says to do and accept His salvation. I cannot do enough to ever please men!!!

The Paulian phrase dead in your sins means just that. Absent the Holy Spirit you are lost and doomed for your own inherent sin gets in your way. We are born selfish and sin at heart is not but selfishness. WE change that outlook only to the extent we find other better ways to satisfy our supposed needs and desires.

I do not expect that those who know not God through our Saviour Jesus the Christ will either understand or except the truth of this reality For the Bible tells me point Blank that to the natural man the things of God are foolish.

It's what you do, not what you say you are, that matters. To me "being saved" and "born again" are mere words unless the goods actions are there to prove it.

really, I can never tell when someone is serious. I mean don't you get weak from laughing at this drivel?

really, I can never tell when someone is serious. I mean don't you get weak from laughing at this drivel?

really, I can never tell when someone is serious. I mean don't you get weak from laughing at this drivel?

dumbest. question. ever. thank you newsweek for being utterly retarted. is anyone on your staff christian at all? i highly doubt it.

I just wanted to add to what I mentioned earlier.
Yes being saved is more important than good works. However at the Judgement seat of Christ, we will rewarded or not rewarded for our good works on earth. Meaning what did you do with God's son Jesus. Did you minister to the lost.Did you obey his commandments, Did you get anyone's name written in the Lambs book of life. Did you honor God with your substance, etc. etc. That goes into the different levels of heaven. Yes if you accept Jesus as Lord you will be saved and get in just by the hairs of your chinny chin chin, however there will be different levels of heaven. Those who kept the commandments and those who just wanted to be saved but wanted to live their life the way they wanted to rather than the will and commandments of God.

Luke 15: 31And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

32It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

dead vs alive

lost vs found

in peril vs saved

Not difficult following the parallels

Follow the parrellelism in Jesus' description of the stages/conditions - relative to the father - the Prodigal found himself:

Luke 15:31And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.

32It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

dead vs alive
lost vs found
in peril vs saved

Fred--

You ask why someone might wish to be save, and then you say, "One long life really is enough for me."

Is "one long life" really enough? When you're actually done with this one, do you think you shall be satisfied with the circumstances in which you find yourself?

But not to worry; if you decide you want to swim for it instead of climbing into the life boat, I suspect your wishes will be respected.

As for me, I wish to be saved because I recognize in myself the sins, flaws, and shortcomings any one of which precludes, without intervention, my eternal communion with God. That is, I recognize a need for it, and that I cannot do it myself.

Actually, Heaven is not the final destination. You are to be saved from an eternal burning flame in Hell. Now back to my first point. Once Jesus returns, there will be tribulation upon the earth. Lots of violence. Just imagin Iraq 100 times worst and throughout the world. Now after the tribulation Jesus will regain ownership of the earth and Earth will be our final home. Except it will be like the Garden of Eden (the beginning of it) all over again. SO you won't spend eternity in Heaven but only there for a little while during the great tribulation and then you are to return to earth where it will be "heavenly". There will be no more government (only that run by God himself)

I am free to answer all questions on this. But it is clearly written in Revelation, Jude, and other chapters in the bible. But if you don't believe in the bible or even God why on earth are you on the Faith Posts?

The salvation of which Jesus of Nazareth spoke cannot be drawn down to a mere "going to heaven when you die." Certainly that is a facet of it, but one facet does not accurately represent the whole. This becomes clearer when one pays attention to the variety of language he uses.

The nation to whom Jesus preached had no interest in heaven. God had not promised them heaven. God had promised them an eternal inheritance. However, God had also promised that he would make that promise and that inheritance available to all the world, not just the children of Abraham.

Because of prophecies written primarily in the books of Isaiah and Daniel, the Jews of the first century expected that promise to be fulfilled through an anointed one who would rout the Romans, rebuild the Temple built by Solomon and re-establish worship of the One True God there, and usher in the resurrection. Israel would become the pinnacle of the nations and the nations would either worship in the temple or be judged and punished.

When that anointed one came, he preached a message that matched their expectations, with one major difference. He strove to reorient their understanding of enemy and "nations". The Jews knew that the sins that caused them to go into exile must not yet have been forgiven, because they were not a kingdom again. Though they were in the promised land, they had never been free, not once since the Babylonian army sacked Jerusalem had they been a free kingdom. The enemy was, and had always been, Sin and Death personified in the Satan. Since Israel had never been forgiven of her sins, she was one of the nations living in rebellion against God.

The salvation Jesus preached was specifically salvation from the judgment coming upon Israel from God through pagan Rome. Exile was no longer sufficient, because exile did not convince Israel of her sinfulness. That salvation would be received by repenting of one's old ways of being Israel (most specifically, by fighting Rome), being baptized into the forgiveness of sins, and fulfilling the Law and Prophets by loving God with all your heart, soul, and strength, and loving your neighbor as yourself.

This is a poor and sketchy outline of the message of Jesus of Nazareth in the four 1st century accounts of his ministry. In conclusion, I would only add that everything God did for Israel was planned to bless the entire world, indeed the entire cosmos. But the teachings of Jesus must be anchored in the Scriptures of the Hebrew People. Otherwise they might make sense to us, but they make no sense on the lips of a Hebrew carpenter-prophet circa AD 30.

respectfully,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY

Why does anybody want to be saved? One long life really is enough for me, and the idea of being in heaven eternally next door to one of those bores is unbearable to me. I don't want to be saved!

Of Fred Phelps I know only a modest amount; of the Westboro Baptist Church I know nothing.

Since I've never had occasion to interact with or be around Phelps, I've not had to deal with him directly.

With regards to some of his controversial statements and actions, I can only say that his views sometimes do not coincide with or even approximate mine. I'm sure the same could be said regarding some particular member of any large group by any other member. With those statements and actions of his that are so controversial I am not familiar enough to discuss them in particulars.

Oops, make that "It is time to rid ourselves of diapers and parental prejudices".

Being saved is more important than good works.
Simply because you can't get to heaven by doing good works. But you can get to heaven by being saved w/out doing good works. You can't work your way to heaven. However Faith w/out works is dead. But the bible isn't talking about the kind of works as "good works" it's talking about you having faith in something and not acting upon it. I can't say I have faith that I will get a job and haven't applied for any jobs. The job isn't going to fall out of the sky. God says that he has given us POWER to get wealth. God doesn't give the wealth, he has given me the power to get it. It isn't going to fall out of the sky. You actually have to do something.

Old time "saints", generals, writers and philosophers were also sinners who were born to anti-semitic parents. Time to get rid ourselves of diapers and parental prejudices.

A Ha! A couple of gotcha posts!

The answer is: only if Muslims would care to comment on Osama Bin Laden and atheists on, ehmm, Pol Pot.

Will the "good" works of this group take them to the Kingdom of God?

I am interesed in what comments you Christians have to say about the actions of the Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church?

Do any of you Christians want to comment of the Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church group? I am curious as to how Christians deal with these type of groups.

Good works and faith: neither supersedes

God is great and we are tiny. He is perfect, we flawed. He made us part of the material world and, as such, we are like all living creatures, destined for death and decay.

Yet we were created for more than this, we have a greater purpose in life. The Jesuits hold that "Man is created to praise, reverence, and serve God Our Lord and by this means to save his soul."

We serve the Lord by following his instructions and example. We do good works “Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam” (for the greater glory of God). It’s not a hard concept to grasp.

Re: Ahmed and the Christian Minister

So Christian ministers are tolerated in Bahrain then? More so than in 1) Iran, 2)Pakistan, 3)Saudi Arabia, 4) Malaysia, 5) Syria, 6) Somalia, 7)Egypt, &tc. &tc.

Re: His assertion that:

>" All he [the Christian] has to do is go in a box and say 'Father, I have sinned." and then get out these Bible in one hand and gun in the other.<

OK, Ahmed has the different Christian branches mixed up. *Catholics* believe in the "forgiveness of sin." These Christians--and only these-- enter a *confessional* [box], which is for privacy only. The priest acts in the place of Christ in granting absolution for the sins of the penitent, but only in the case of true sorrow. "Oh God, I am heartly sorry for my sins," says the penitent and lists many of her reasons. Now after the absolution the Catholic is basically told not to sin again. So I doubt after leaving the Church (I normally feel uplifted and happy), she would get out her gun and her Bible.

Anyway, it would be a missal or maybe a rosary. We tend not to be Bible-carrying believers.

Ahmed--

Greetings. I read your post with interest mingled with disappointment, for while you seem to describe well your own thoughts, I fear you unintentionally misrepresent Jesus' teachings.

One can perhaps misunderstand Jesus as having taught that the way to salvation was in seeking perfection after hearing that Jesus taught his disciples, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) Upon reading this in context, however, it becomes clear that He is referring to what standards of behavior His disciples should seek to emulate as a result of their faith. Elsewhere He preaches that being perfect is the way to Heaven not because one can do it, but merely to remind us that no one (except God, and his Son, who even in becoming flesh remained perfect) can actually do that, and so an alternative means to salvation must be sought.

That alternative route is clearly identified, even by Jesus, as God's son, given in perfection because God so loves us that by believing in Him and in doing so acknowledging and accepting His love we may enter into eternal communion with God in Heaven.

Jesus said that one must be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and this, I suppose, could be interpreted as meaning one must seek some initial state of being. However, again, in context and in conjunction with other teachings it becomes abundantly clear that He is describing being born, as He puts it, "of water and the Spirit". (John 3:5)

You say that to believe in what I shall call Original Sin "gives one a terrible start in life". The obvious, and correct, response must be that we've already had that terrible start, and we are merely recognizing that we live in a fallen state, and cannot by our own efforts bring ourselves into God's grace and eternal communion with Him.

I am very sorry to see that you then speak of demanding salvation, and as if there is no accountability for Christians. A demand for salvation, I'm afraid, would certainly go unheeded, it being a voice from the squalor and decay demanding that the God who is perfect and just give something solely because this selfish, sinful, and malign creature says so. As the saying goes: Not in this lifetime.

As for accountability, there remains the fact that Christian teaching requires not merely an admission of sinfulness but meaningful repentance, along with an ultimate judgment of all by Jesus.

Finally, I am also disappointed with what seems to be some senseless and unnecessary bits of rant about events in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere. To say that you've not shown any connection is to state the least and simplest objection.

I hope that this, coming from one who is admittedly not deeply trained in matters of theology, clarifies some points for you. If you wish to learn more, I would advise that you speak with a local Christian minister.

St.Thomas Aquinas:

“The Jews should not be allowed to keep what they have obtained from others by usury; it were best that they were compelled to worked so that they could earn their living instead of doing nothing but becoming avaricious.”

Ulysses S. Grant

“I have long since believed that in spite of all the vigilance that can be infused into post commanders, the specie regulations of the Treasury Department have been violated, and that mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders. So well satisfied have I been of this that I instructed the commanding officer at Columbus to refuse all permits to Jews to come South, and I have frequently had them expelled from the department, but they come in with their carpet-sacks in spite of all that can be done to prevent it. The Jews seem to be a privileged class that can travel anywhere. They will land at any woodyard on the river and make their way through the country. If not permitted to buy cotton themselves, they will act as agents for someone else, who will be at a military post with a Treasury permit to receive cotton and pay for it in Treasury notes which the Jew will buy up at an agreed rate, paying gold.” (Letter to C.P. Wolcott, assistant secretary of war, Washington, December 17, 1862)

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW 20th c. British dramatist. “This is the real enemy, the invader from the East, the Druze, the ruffian, the oriental parasite; in a word the Jew.” (London Morning Post, December 3, 1925)

VOLTAIRE (François Marie Arouet). 18th c. French philosopher, writer: “Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race.”

(Essai sur les moeurs)
“You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables, in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.”

(From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’)

“They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” (Lettres de Memmjus a Ciceron, 1771)

“I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made…But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.”
(Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)

"Being Saved" Means Nothing

Take it from America's greatest literary critic,
it is a sloshy metaphor that can mean whatever a believerr wants it to mean.

It basically means, I feel like I am back in my mother's womb in a state before language, before lost innocence.

And since I as a Jew and a Buddhist know that heaven is a myth based on wish-fulfillment, being saved can NOT mean being with God in the afterlife.

Be Here Now.
Be Someplace Else Later.
Is that so complicated?

I would say that it depends on what faith you practice. My faith is not apocalyptic, and does not posit eternal damnation for non-adherents, so the idea of "salvation" really isn't an issue.

My faith and my works inform and feed each other. One is not the result of the other - they are inseparably intertwined.

the Scriptures clearly state that good works, as important as they are, i.e.- helping people, giving to charities, beind kind to your neighbor..... are important, they will never save a person from eternal seperation from God, that is spending eternity in hell. being saved, accepting Jesus into to your heart and life, by being born again is the only way to Heaven. thats the only way to be forgiven of your sins. you get saved to do good works, not the other way around. Jesus said- I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father (Heaven) but by me. nowhere does the Bible mention good works will get you there. John 3:3 and 3:5 Jesus said you must be born again.

Jihadist,

Yes or no, do you believe there should be freedom of religion globally? No "ifs", "buts: and "wishy wash", simply yes or no.

Whats more important?

'Faith" is a personal thing. "Doing good work" has wider implications and it should be the concern of everyone. Indeed 'Doing good work" IS 'faith' in action, for what is the point of faith if it does not make this place a better place for the lesser fortunate people than ourselves.

Besides the concept of 'being saved' is quaint and old fashioned. It implies that we are doomed from birth. What kind of faith is that? It gives one a terrible start in life. Then the demand to 'be saved' is just a belief in the figure of Jesus. No wonder we have the mess in Iraq/Afghanistan and all the ranting sagainst Iran.

Is the person who has such a belief, and calls himself a Christian, beyond any accountability? All he has to do is go in a box and say 'Father, I have sinned." and then get out these Bible in one hand and gun in the other.

That is freaky.

I believe that I am fine. Born free, innocent and perfect. As I grow old and absorb all the good/crap my society hands to me, I must seek Perfection that I knew when I was born. Regain that innocence and never fail to do good, or at the least have the intention to do good for everyone and anyone that crosses my path.

This is The Salvation that Jesus talked about and every single faith preached. I dare say athiests included.

Perry,

A belief in a salvation of some sort is present in all religions.

The great break down comes between those religions who believe in Salvation by works and those that preach salvation by grace.

Theolgies of works come in two varieties internalized by which I mean religions like Buddhism in which every thing is about the perfection of self and externalized in which the chief concern is the perfection of the world. It should be obvious then that the latter can be quite dangerous to Human freedom.

Theologies of Grace on the other hand believe that Salvation is wholely the work of God and hence the individual human can do nothing to convert anyone.

For us our only job viv a vis the world is to play the role of watchmen that is to warn them of impeding doom we are not however to inflict said doom.

AL--

Very interesting post. You make some very good points--and of course as they deal with spiritual things and the supernatural, they are impossible to refute. (Not that I wish to or intend to try.)

I wished earlier primarily to make the point that within the context of what you call "orthodox" Christianity, the notion of "Christ" as savior is more specific, and I believe more meaningful, than outside that context, at least in any way I've every heard presented.

Your descriptions of sensing the truth, and of the need for listening to one's inner voice of conscience or guidance are attractive, but I fear that they leave too open the door to easily manipulated, subjective, and self-serving routes of "sensing" what one wants to sense, then calling it the truth. In your model, how does one defend against this? Is it solely by listening to that internal guidance system? If so, is that guidance system (good grief, how'd I end up using such terms?) possibly what some might say is the voice of God, or His writing upon our hearts? Or is it possible that the system can be hijacked by others--either a corrupt and selfish self (sorry about the terribly awkward phrasing, but I'm not sure I have at hand a more succinct and accurate phrase), or perhaps by what for purposes of this discussion I'll call forces of Evil?

These sorts of questions have of course been around for some time now, and I see no easy reckoning with them now or in the foreseeable future.

My own thoughts on the matter of knowing ultimate truth boil down to the following: God is both the source of and in fact creator of all truth, and all good. Given my puny intellect and oh-so-incredibly-limited prespective, there is no way I can, as I like to say, wrap my brain around what God knows, or what God made, and even remotely to begin to understand any of it. Kind of like showing my dog a computer motherboard, only more so. Much, much more so. Although I do think we treat Creation as a chew toy much of the time. But I digress.

Thanks for the thought stimulation.

Cordially,

Perry

GaryD,

I really like that goat, sheep analogy. Very nice. I do think it compliments both Paul's teachings of faith alone for salvation and James' teachings that faith must be accompanied by works as well. For those who haven't studied the Bible, that may seem contradictory, but in fact they are complimentary. Thanks GaryD for that.

God bless

Jihadist,

Again, do you promote the global freedom of religion?

Given that one can only perform works acceptable to God if one is saved obviously salvation is the most important.

If you doubt this let me direct your attention to Matthew 25 and the story of the rich young ruler.

Compare the situations of the sheep and the goats. The goats present to chjrist voluminous resumes showing all that they have done and Christ tells them if you missed even one it was one too many.

The Sheep, on the other hand, seem unable to recall having done anything at all and yet are told if you did these things for even one it was enough.

What is the difference between these two groups? Only the heart changing power of the Holy spiit. You see it isn't that the sheep have done no works but rather that they simply do not recall them for once their hearts have been changed these things have become as natural for the sheep as breathing and as unremarkable. But the goats act out of character and thus remember their every good deed because for them it was the worst sort of drudgery and painfully hard.

You'll note I mention also the rich young Ruler. Christ answers his initial question with the second table of the 10 commandments and he brightens visibly for all these he has kept. HIs problem can't be greed then for were it so he could not have kept the 2nd table of the 10 commandments no his problem is that he fears that if he gives up his maney he will lose the honor and prestige his fellows have accorded him because of how he uses his money, and that he is not yet ready to do.

Hello Viejita Del Oeste

You noted: "My comments on this and other threads seem to take a long time to appear. Does this mean someone is actually reading them before they post? Do you also read and approve the stuff Frank Collins posts on the Islamic subjects?"

I read all your posts. I hear you. I listen to you. There are more like you than the likes of those you fret about here in On Faith.

Firstly, I let go and ignore posts by Frank Collins, Concerned the Christian Now Liberated, Ross et al on "Islamics". They barely know the differences between Hadiths and Suras, the differences between Shiites and Sunnis, and can't tell a Muslim dynasty from a Muslim school of thought. All of which they can easily go to that 101 of free info - Wikipedia as a start.

Secondly, it is a waste of my time to indulge them further as many Muslim posters have elaborated or corrected on the assertions in their posts, but they are not really interested. It is a spectacular waste of time to engage them. One must pay more serious attention to the bona fide and self-declared leaders of any religious entities in their pronoucements and actions.

Thirdly, I am more interested in and seriously engage my fellows Muslims on their views on Islam and Muslims in today's world. What they think and do matters more to me than the aforementioned "ranting jockeys" who, whatever they say in On Faith threads, don't have any impact in the Muslim world, now in the midst of its own internal discourse, except perhaps, to perpertuate specific views.

Fourthly, I read On Faith to to know what non-Muslim On Faith panelists and posters have to say re their beliefs and concerns on issues before us all apart from the Muslim panelists here.

The other Abrahamic faiths - Judaism and Christianity, is already familiar to me as a Muslim. But reading the posts by Christians and Jews of various denominations and shades of belief reminds me of the diversity of views within the Muslim umma too. And, like all Muslims, I leave the internal discussion of the tenets and affairs of other beliefs to their own adherents. Their internal discourse is as intense and passionate as within the Muslim umma on their own faith.

Best regards

Perry:

It's always good when even a minor point is recognized.

I believe it is worthwhile to provide a point of view that is perhaps unusual, even foreign to many. Not for the sake of convincing anyone of its ultimate merit or "truthfulness", but simply to provide those seeking (or open to) a different take on spiritual teachings some food for thought.

If my comments don't make sense or can't be digested comfortably, by all means the reader should reject them. They are only worth contemplating if your intuition guides you to such.

I agree with you that for most Christians, the definition of "savior" I presented as "a spiritual presence" within everyone, whether experienced consciously or not, is vague and largely indefinable in the way most of us like things defined. But as with quantum physics vs. Newtonian, perhaps the deeper mysteries simply are full of nuances, subtlety and paradox – and though we can choose to ignore such, we perhaps forego a richer understanding of spirit if we do. Perhaps also the question of what constitutes an appropriate kind of spiritual fuel for one person, but not another, is at play.

Anyway, I suspect too we are running up against the root cause of why much spiritual teaching is so often confounding. Whether one tries to understand scripture primarily from the point of view of logic, semantics, received articles of faith, or what the mind can make sense of, inevitably one person's belief or understanding will conflict with the intellectually accepted tenets or faith based assumptions of another.

The often unspoken reality in my view is that Spiritual truth is in the end about an experience in consciousness, an experience of something beyond culture and creed, beyond the 5 senses, intellect and ego.

Without the experience, we spin around endlessly debating the meaning of scripture and of words, like "savior", faith, salvation, God, heaven, hell and so forth.

And as we are often trained we find a scripture that supports our view, of course. We are all aware too that a scripture can be found to support any point of view whatsoever, whether taken from the Bible, or from the sacred text of another religion or belief system.

So I would simply say that some readers may sense something subtle about the meaning of the word "savior" (that ultimately it is a spirit, not a person -- and its function when awakened in the individual is to grant freedom from death).

In my experience sometimes the "truth" can only be sensed (not fully explained or understood by the intellect), and for those who agree, I would encourage them to follow their inner guidance (their soul instincts) on matters of belief as it speaks to them.

Reason has its place in understanding the mysteries of existence, but at times so does the apperception that there is something beyond reason, superior to reason, that awaits experience. And the experience of "this something" comes when the reason transcends its own limitations.

Some will sense or intuit that there is an infinite spirit permeating the worlds, but it is impersonal in its ultimate nature.

Yet, paradoxically, it is personal if that is the need of the individual at a given point in his or her journey.

But the personification of that which is beyond gender in essence can be any form required by a sincere heart.

For those drawn to Jesus or any other personification of the omnipresent spirit, those with understanding will simply say "wonderful". "God bless you and your path."

We understand that they have found the path right for them at this point in time.

If a follower can then ignite the light within themselves which is also embodied by their personal savior, then they become a light to the world, capable of enlivening the same in others. Just by their presence a vibe of peace or good will is emanated, no need to talk about it.

This is the perennial religious experience. An experience in consciousness, not a concept cherished by the mind or imagination, but a direct experience resulting from awakening the dormant spirit within.

I would add one more comment for your consideration. You quote John 14: 6 – "I am the way, truth and light...."

This of course is a statement central to orthodox Christianity. And in my understanding it is completely true and valid. But what I would offer the reader is this: the deeper meaning of much scripture begins to be spiritually discerned when one senses the truth that there are two "I's" capable of speaking in any human or human/divine interaction.

The little "i", and the big "I". One is symbolic of the human ego, personality or personal sense of "self". The other is the infinite spirit within the core of everyone, the "savior", the presence of God in every embodied being (whether they are consciously aware of its existence or not).

This gives a meditation on which "I" was speaking when Jesus spoke these words (and why at times he uttered other statement such as "I of my own self can do nothing, it is the Father that does the works". The same two "I's" are in you and me, even if the greater is currently dormant.

We're all just trying to wake it up so it can speak and function as it wills through us.

man is geneticly faithfull .
man is not only a rational live being but also a faithfull live being ,as a matter of fact he is a faithfull live being befor he is reasonable live being,man is the prince of faith as well as the prince of thought.
adam and eve when descandant on the planet earth they were carrying with them faith and reason and they geneticly transfered both to their ,offspring,faith did not start when the so called (prince of peace )came to mankind from a mankind mother ,faith was way far back even befor the creation of adam and eve and mankind period,
Quran,s7v172,when your lord brought forth from the childern of adam,from their loins,their seeed (adam)and made them testify as to themselves saying am i not your lord?they said yes we testify ,lest you say on the day of resurriction we have been unaware of this.
1-adam testifyied and his offspring in his loins till the last day.

for years ,people of rationalism ,proclaiming to mankind that man is a rational animal plus he came from no where ??? this is serious insult to mankind and to the creator of mankind who honor mankind and gave them the ability to faith as well as the ability to rationaize,the difference between man and animal is the ability to faith not the ability to rash ,you can always train a monkey to do ,monkey see monkey do in the grease and tune up monkey shop of rationalism ,when it comes to mankind, mankind were giving faith and rationalism to use it to help his faith not to contrast.
rationalism without faith is the status zoo.
the right faith is in the creator allmighty god who created heavens and earth and what so ever between including man kind from adam and eve till the last day .
to correct and enhance your faith,to correct and enhance your rationalim ,to correct and enhance your environement ,please read the last divine revelation (Quran)mercey to mankind.

AL--

"To those open to a different understanding . . . ."

While your post makes interesting reading, its most salient point might well be the minor one here. If one chooses to consider what might (or might not) be thought by "those open to a different understanding", most scholars, as I understand it, agree that the New Testament usage of the word "Christ" was an attempt to put into the Greek vernacular the concept of the Messiah known already from Jewish scripture. Thus, while the Greek word "christos" can and does have a more general meaning, the overwhelming understanding and usage amongst those who claim to be followers of Jesus the Christ is not so vague and indeterminate.

Now, it's most certainly possible that people can choose to refer to themselves as "Christian" because they consider Jesus a "great teacher", but even if we simply put to use the more general definition you discuss, the appropriate query in response is, "Okay, from what are you saved by this savior?" This brings us back full circle. If one wishes to claim that there may be some vague, undefinable "salvation" accessible to all on their own terms and with no external meaning or reference, then the term loses all utility beyond an indication of somehow feeling good about oneself. Oh, and by the way, those who have "chosen not be saved" are now suddenly saved. From something--we're not sure what--by someone--we're not sure who (other than it's NOT the person they call "savior"--or something (completely undefined).

Actually, a term exists and remains in use that might better apply to those who consider Jesus a great teacher: Jesuit. The only drawback is that, as far as I know, all those who claim that title consider it a subheading under that of Christian. But hey, at least it makes linguistic sense.

Finally, the words of Jesus: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Matt. 16:24) and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6).

As per Luther (as noted by Professor Crossan in his book, In Search of Paul),

"It is impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire."

What's more important from a faith perspective? Being saved? Or doing good works?

Obviously by "faith perspective" in the opening question what is meant is a religious perspective, and furthermore a traditional and quite simple to understand religious perspective. Therefore we can automatically say that being saved is far more important than doing good works from a faith perspective. There is no faith perspective which is a purity of good works without being saved...

Of course we are told often that good works are necessary to being saved from a faith perspective--this is obvious from the constant discussion of morals and the separation of good from evil--but a pure discussion of morals apart from the concept of salvation is not religion proper but the realm of philosophy...

It is with religion that we have the concept of salvation ascendent over good works and a good working concept of philosophy is the idea of the opposite...It is with religion that we have for example the concept of Christ having been God come to earth to open the gates of heaven and that although good works are important there must be a belief in Christ...

Philosophically we can imagine a creature greater than Christ--call him man--which if expecting to be saved expects to be saved in a much lesser sense than going to heaven.--A creature which puts his faith into works and which perhaps can be so noble that he fully expects not only no salvation in the sense of heaven but not to be remembered on earth...

A deep problem with Christianity is that we can now imagine--and perhaps always could--a figure greater than Christ. We are told Christ was God come to earth to suffer for the sins of man--to take sin upon himself and open the gates of heaven for man's salvation. But how could Christ have suffered being God? Furthermore, what a life! He not only gets to be God but the most famous person on earth! Or should I say he not only gets to be the most famous person on earth he gets to be God?!

We can see in Christianity with the notion of saints that doing good works is all toward being the purest soul on earth--and the most well known--as well as gaining entrance to an exalted place in heaven.

Now contrast that with a person who just has faith in good works--who puts his soul in good works and expects no salvation other than having made the earth a better place. Now go one step further and imagine a person doing such and remaining obscure--willing to remain obscure...

Such a person can be said to worship a different God--a God of his own fashioning--a God which not only does not come down from heaven, but a God which perpetually suffers to bring forth good works and cannot even expect acknowledgement for such on earth...A God of pure silence which simply blossoms for all and is forgotten...

This is the God of pure works--a pure faith in works--and very few men have worshiped him.--And who would? Who would rather not be saved? Or at least be known for having accomplished something worthwhile?

But this is a God of philosophy--strength--and is not even known to atheists. Perhaps atheists discount God as traditionally understood--as put forth by the popular and powerful religions--but few atheists (if ever) have managed to articulate, much less act on, a notion of doing good and not being remembered for it at all. In other words even in atheism we have being saved ascendent over works although the concept of salvation in atheism is geared toward the lesser concept of personal fame rather than eternity in heaven.

A faith in works only is really something of an aberration so far...but we can imagine it. And I suspect the better we can imagine it the more we will ask what exactly is the good as distinguished from the evil...In other words the more a person discounts personal salvation the more he will examine beliefs and actions with respect to results before his eyes and this is proof of good, purity of good, proof of works...

But admittedly this is difficult to do...I certainly claim no great ability at it...But one thing I do know for certain: I have just imagined a greater figure than Christ, a figure willing to do good without having first been God come down to earth...

The question is what exactly is the good and then simultaneously increasing one's ability at the good and decreasing the possibility of being remembered for it--and becoming simultaneously a becoming of good and disappearance, as if (and according to witnesses) just a lucky and mysterious event in their lives...

This is something of a faith perspective of works with no thought of salvation...The question is can man ever get away from wanting to be personally saved? Can he at least make his salvation increased wellbeing of others? Can he make his salvation increased wellbeing of others to such a degree that they simply get well and know not to what to attribute their health?

Act mysteriously and to the good. That is a pure faith in works.

Thanks to "Friend" for the profound quotes by Thoreau and Whitman.

Their words reflect great spiritual maturity.

For those receptive, I would offer a few additional thoughts for consideration.

The word Christ comes from the Greek "Christos", and one understanding of its original meaning is "savior".

But what this word actually meant to a few men and women of spiritual discernment several thousand years ago (and what it means to those of similar consciousness today) was not what is commonly accepted among the religious masses (past or present).

To those open to a different understanding of the divine mystery, this word has always meant a spiritual presence existing at the center of our being. Present eternally in everyone, whether they are consciously aware of it or not.

And this spiritual essence, which frequently remains dormant and not generally part of our daily conscious experience, is the "savior", or can be understood as having the potential to be the "savior", if it can be awakened to our direct perception.

And what does this presence "save" us from. Well in the perennial teachings of the mystics of every religion and culture, It saves us from the cycle of embodiment; of birth and death, followed by rebirth and death in one form or another, through countless ages.

It is the source of eternal life, but to receive such, one has to attune to it consciously, one has to become one with it.

But becoming one with it as a lived Truth (becoming "saved" in our current metaphor) is not accomplished by simple belief or mental agreement that this presence exists, that it has the power to give freedom from death, and that all of creation is really "one with it" if only we acknowledge it intellectually.

And I should add that however true these statements may be in the abstract, their "truth" remains theoretical and of very limited value until they are known through direct experience.

So, becoming one with the great inner Light of Life, meant (and will forever mean) serving others and engaging in practices that refined one's character and behavior daily.

And learning spiritual techniques for achieving profound states of inner tranquility & quietude which in turn fitted one for a direct experience of the "savior", a kind of conscious absorption into the light of spirit Itself. All taking place, if it was ever to take place, while one was still on earth.

A corollary teaching being that heaven or hell is a state of consciousness, not a "place" on this plane of creation or any other; and one will experience heaven or hell here (or in an after death sojourn), based solely on one's attained state of spiritual integration.

All of my discussion does not pre-suppose that there is no place for faith. There is, and it can be summed up this way: all of nature is a benevolent conspiracy to assure that we ultimately move forward in our spiritual growth. And in this we are invited to have the greatest faith.

And further, through the metaphysical processes described in overview above, the growing flame of the soul is said to ultimately merge with its source, the greater light of the spiritual sun (the solar deity, the Christos, among many other names or personifications). And at this point man has a destiny that no longer requires earthly embodiments.

Of course I'm well aware that these thoughts go against Christian orthodoxy, and will be understood as pagan heresy and so forth by some in the audience. And this is fine and as it should be, given the great spectrum of souls on the planet today.

But perhaps the seeds of a new understanding can be planted for some to contemplate. Especially among those who have undergone a measure of individuation and separation from "consensus reality".

And additionally, perhaps a few will sense that it is not a personality who is the savior; and that mistaking the messenger for the message is the reason that with the lapse of time the deeper truths given by the founder of every religion at some point inevitably crash on the hard rocks of misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

Whatever one's path, I sincerely wish all on their journey God's grace, voice and spirit.

VIEJITA--

I suspect you know that your example is too sparing with details for me to be able to render any sort of judgment--should it even be appropriate for me to do so. In any case, the decision-making model I would suggest for one to consider in that or any other situation is that one think about the circumstances and available information and try to make the decision th most loving one to/for those involved. That doesn't mean that someone might not occasionally be hurt--only that you may hope to limit the possibility of same. Perhaps. This is of course the sort of thing that prompted folks to come up with the "What would Jesus do?" idea.

Jenaro and Perry
You make several good points. We should be able to tell who is "saved" by their actions. Is this a chicken and egg type of a question? Some of the more ostentatious Christians display the phrase "Christians aren't perfect, just saved." ISTM those who claim to think this way should stop going around providing their own all-too-human judgment on others.
A few years ago I was sitting at the counter in a diner waiting to meet up with some other members of a religious outreach group with whom I used to be active. I was trying to memorize a particular prayer when I heard a poorly dressed woman trying to get the counterman to give her a discount on some food. In my pocket were couple of dollars, dues to the organization. Would it not have been more "saved" of me to offer her the money in my pocket instead of moving to the other side of the counter where it was quieter for my studying?

How come "On Faith" doesn't have a "report abuse" or "flag as objectionable" button?

Because then we would all push that button since we are all wrong.

How come "On Faith" doesn't have a "report abuse" or "flag as objectionable" button?

My comments on this and other threads seem to take a long time to appear. Does this mean someone is actually reading them before they post? Do you also read and approve the stuff Frank Collins posts on the Islamic subjects?

E Favorite--

That we run in different social circles I have no doubt. I don't doubt, either, that some people may call themselves "Christians" erroneously. I suspect they don't understand the term.

A point of history and theology: His name is Jesus. That He is the Christ is theological: a matter of him identified as the Messiah, God come to earth, and He through whom we are saved.

Thus, the term "Christian" logically applies to those who accept not only that Jesus was a "great teacher", but also that He is the Christ, "the living Son of God" as Peter said.

In fact, Jesus was told directly by the assembled priests and elders after His arrest, "If you are the Christ, tell us." (Luke, chapter 22) This shows that even those who did not believe Him to be the Messiah recognized that to be the Christ was very different than to be merely a rabbi or prophet.

While common usage often erodes the actual meanings of words and phrases, I don't think that the preponderance of use for this phrase (Christian) has yet been so diluted that most people would understand it to refer to those who merely think Jesus was a good guy but nothing more. And as a Christian in the sense I describe herein, believing that He is the Son of God, I would say that anyone who wishes to carry the title must also carry the cross.

I may think the Pope to be a great man and a great teacher, but that doesn't make me a Catholic.

"Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Said in other words: "Out of the poor there is no salvation".

“ How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God"
Christ speaks from the poor.
Either we do the same or we are not the church of Christ.

Am I poor?
Am I willing to share what I have with my fellow humans especially the needy, to the point of accepting to get rid of the superfluous so they have enough to live with dignity?

Does my christian compassion motivate me to work for the good of all, for justice(not just charity), for a total relationship of equality and fraternity as beloved children of God, to give my life for all, following Jesus' example?

"The glory of God is man with abundant life" (St. Ireneus)
"The glory of God is the uplifted poor" (Monsignor Romero, martyred bishop of El Salvador)- Based on Mary's "Magnificat": "He has cast the mighty from their thrones and has lifted up the lowly" and again: "He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich He has sent away empty".

"A child who dies of hunger today,dies actually murdered".(UN Relator )
"We have before us an election of life or death:
either we serve the poor and bring them to life or we are accomplices of their death" (Mons. Romero)

Either we ARE the church of the poor or we are not the church of Jesus the Nazarene.

"Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Said in other words: "Out of the poor there is no salvation".

“ How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God"
Christ speaks from the poor.
Either we do the same or we are not the church of Christ.

Am I poor?
Am I willing to share what I have with my fellow humans especially the needy, to the point of accepting to get rid of the superfluous so they have enough to live with dignity?

Does my christian compassion motivate me to work for the good of all, for justice(not just charity), for a total relationship of equality and fraternity as beloved children of God, to give my life for all, following Jesus' example?

"The glory of God is man with abundant life" (St. Ireneus)
"The glory of God is the uplifted poor" (Monsignor Romero, martyred bishop of El Salvador)- Based on Mary's "Magnificat": "He has cast the mighty from their thrones and has lifted up the lowly" and again: "He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich He has sent away empty".

"A child who dies of hunger today,dies actually murdered".(UN Relator )
"We have before us an election of life or death:
either we serve the poor and bring them to life or we are accomplices of their death" (Mons. Romero)

Either we ARE the church of the poor or we are not the church of Jesus the Nazarene.

"Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Said in other words: "Out of the poor there is no salvation".

“ How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God"
Christ speaks from the poor.
Either we do the same or we are not the church of Christ.

Am I poor?
Am I willing to share what I have with my fellow humans especially the needy, to the point of accepting to get rid of the superfluous so they have enough to live with dignity?

Does my christian compassion motivate me to work for the good of all, for justice(not just charity), for a total relationship of equality and fraternity as beloved children of God, to give my life for all, following Jesus' example?

"The glory of God is man with abundant life" (St. Ireneus)
"The glory of God is the uplifted poor" (Monsignor Romero, martyred bishop of El Salvador)- Based on Mary's "Magnificat": "He has cast the mighty from their thrones and has lifted up the lowly" and again: "He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich He has sent away empty".

"A child who dies of hunger today,dies actually murdered".(UN Relator )
"We have before us an election of life or death:
either we serve the poor and bring them to life or we are accomplices of their death" (Mons. Romero)

Either we ARE the church of the poor or we are not the church of Jesus the Nazarene.

"Blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven".
Said in other words: "Out of the poor there is no salvation".

“ How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God"
Christ speaks from the poor.
Either we do the same or we are not the church of Christ.

Am I poor?
Am I willing to share what I have with my fellow humans especially the needy, to the point of accepting to get rid of the superfluous so they have enough to live with dignity?

Does my christian compassion motivate me to work for the good of all, for justice(not just charity), for a total relationship of equality and fraternity as beloved children of God, to give my life for all, following Jesus' example?

"The glory of God is man with abundant life" (St. Ireneus)
"The glory of God is the uplifted poor" (Monsignor Romero, martyred bishop of El Salvador)- Based on Mary's "Magnificat": "He has cast the mighty from their thrones and has lifted up the lowly" and again: "He has filled the hungry with good things and the rich He has sent away empty".

"A child who dies of hunger today,dies actually murdered".(UN Relator )
"We have before us an election of life or death:
either we serve the poor and bring them to life or we are accomplices of their death" (Mons. Romero)

Either we ARE the church of the poor or we are not the church of Jesus the Nazarene.

For added review about Faith vs. Works, see Professors Crossan and Reed's book, In Search of Paul, especially pp. 377-378.

An excerpt: " In the sixteenth century, Luther said two things about Paul's letter to the Romans, one fundamentally right, one fundamentally wrong, both fundamentally important. In the preface to his commentary on that letter he (Luther) said,

..............................
It is impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire.

That last sentence is both crucial and correct. "

Paul the apostle talked about salvation as a gift from God. A gift is not earned; rather, it is something that is freely and graciously given. It can also be offered, but not received.

When you read Paul's letters, you find someone who was very thankful for his salvation experience. For him, it did not mean joining a church, or wearing a cross, or following a new set of religious rules. It was way deeper than that.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul talked honestly and in a very real way about what salvation meant to him:

"For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 7:22-25).

Perry Clark - Obviously we run in different social circles. I know many Christians who fit the description I provided, and who are you to say they're not Christians?

They live by the teachings of Jesus - They're just not so sure about this supernatural stuff - it's so alien to everything they've been taught in school. But they cherish the Christian community and live good lives. They don't let your definition of how they should think get in the way.

Tonio--

One other quick comment:

I've always been a tad uncomfortable with the phrase "saving lives"--even though I've been credited with this a few times myself. Not to make too much of a thing, but when people talk of 'saving lives' they seem so often to forget that any such event is merely a prolongation of what will be a thing of limited duration. As has been said, "Nobody gets out of here alive."

That said, if one believes that there are things beyond this world of much greater importance than how long we plod about this rock collecting shiny gew-gaws and little green bits of paper and feeling good about ourselves (just the sort of thing that kept Ozymandias busy, I'll bet), then the saving of life here takes a different position on the scale of things.

No matter what a thing is called, its value is determined, in the end, by how it fits into the whole "big picture". And the picture seems for most to be determined by where and how they hold the frame. It's hard to get everything in.

E Favorite--

I'm sorry, but you're now trying to have it both ways. You say that the person has "decided against the option of being saved by a supernatural being" (let's stipulate that God, for a Christian, counts as a "supernatural being"); you then say that the person is something called a "Christian skeptic". This sounds like a useful phrase, but on inspection it not only is found to be self-contradictory, but it also denies the description you've just provided--a person who has "decided against the option of being saved" isn't a mere skeptic, and, despite what someone may or may not put on a census form, isn't a Christian by any definition which means anything. And having said that, let me also say that I've met innumerable people who do attend church regularly, take their kids to Sunday school, work on church committees, and so forth, and yet admit to the occasional or even frequent doubt. Faith in those things the church teaches is not an easy thing to have or keep. But not a single one of them has ever "decided against" being saved, and not a single one of them has ever considered "being saved" and doing "good works" as mutually exclusive options for what to do Tuesday next or any other time.

There is another category of person which almost fits what you describe--the atheist or agnostic who, for some one or more reasons of convenience, behaves as you describe, but who doesn't at heart buy any of it. Still not a "skeptic", though, in the sense that word implies some degree of uncertainty, and we've just said that this person doesn't believe any of the religious dogma, so again the notion of "being saved" becomes ridiculous in his eyes.

In either case, I believe my analysis applies. The non-believer doesn't even recognize one thing as existing, and the Christian doesn't see them as competing or mutually exclusive. No matter how it's sliced, it remains nonsense.

Tonio--

You're welcome.

Given what you've said here, I understand your point better, and I can see how one might think it bears specifically upon the question. Should a JW consent to a transfusion for himself or a family member because that's a "good work", regardless of the effect on "being saved"?

In speaking with JW families on this topic--as you can well imagine, the discussions have frequently been long and heartfelt--the most consistent position taken by them and their church is that because of the (literally) damning effect of the transfusion, any "good" achieved so pales in comparison that it ceases to be a meaningful "good" at all. So I guess that's how the apparent quandary would be dealt with there.

Interesting circumstances, though, no doubt.

More background on the topic.

Some faith vs. good works history, as per my good friend, a Catholic theology professor at a large Catholic university: It is all about Purgatory -

"Protestants because of Luther's "sola Scriptura" do not accept Purgatory as a valid doctrine of Christianity. Luther argued that "Purgatory"
is not explicitly found in the Bible. Many scholars believe that he rejected the notion because of its ties to the selling of writs of indulgence. People viewed indulgences as a means for lessening the time of temporal punishment
in purgatory. Protestants also argue that Purgatory negates the satisfaction of sin by Jesus' death. God's grace through the merits of Christ is the only thing that saves. Religious services / prayers by loved ones and the
good works of repentance for deceased persons can do nothing to help a person earn heaven. The rejection of purgatory, is part of a bigger tendency in Protestantism toward individual relationship with God and away from a
sense of participation in a bigger "communion" of the faithful.

"The Roman Catholic Church teaches that after death, those guilty of sins that are not serious (venial rather than mortal) and of mortal sins for
which persons have repented, must spend time being purified through "temporal punishment" or are given the opportunity to repent. The justice
of God requires some punishment for the sins we have committed, due to the harm they have caused. The Biblical basis for this teaching is 1 Cor 3:15. "If any person's work is burned up, he/she will suffer loss, though the person will be saved, but only as through fire." Purgatory is envisioned to be a purification, as gold is purified "as through fire," so is the soul of
the person who has committed sin. 2 Maccabees 12: 38-46 is also associated with belief in purgatory, because it refers to praying for those who havedied.

Some scholars trace purgatory as a teaching to the practice of third century Christians of praying for the dead. In the late 12th century
speculation emerged that depicted purgatory as a separate "place" or state of being existing somewhere between heaven and hell. At the Second Council of Lyons (1274) teaching about purgatory became an official doctrine of the Catholic Church. It became fixed in the Catholic imagination due to Dante's Divine Comedy. During the Middle Ages (time of Crusades and Plagues)
Purgatory became an important element in Christian ascetical practices. Through such practices it was believed that the punishment due to sin could be paid here or in purgatory. In the Middle Ages speculation about Purgatory
heightened and the practice of offering masses for deceased loved ones began along with the system of indulgences. Offering prayers and Masses for the dead was seen as a way to be spiritually connected (in communion) with loved
ones.

For Catholics the doctrine of Purgatory is closely connected with belief in the Communion of Saints. This doctrine expresses the conviction that there is a communion between life after death (Saints in heaven and people making reparation for their sins in purgatory) and earthly life. Emphasis on the community of all persons living and dead is stronger in the Roman
Catholic Church than in Protestant Churches. Because of the belief in the Communion of Saints, Catholics pray for loved ones who have died, and pray not only to God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - but also to Mary and the
Saints, witnesses to and models of the Christian life. [Orthodox Christians also have the practice of honoring and praying to the Saints.] Devotion to the saints is viewed as an expression of love for those who have faithfully loved the God who is love itself."

I have heard what the talkers were talking, the talk of the beginning and the end
But I do not talk of the beginning or the end.
There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now.

Walt Whitman

A Modest Proposal
Eliminate Heaven from Religious Systems

The concept of heaven is a GREAT DETRIMENT to authentic moral thought and moral behavior.

Moral behavior based on the promise of reward or the threat of punishment/eternal damnation

is NOT moral behavior. It is operant conditioning. It is moral infancy.

The Buddhists tell us to
practice loving kindness to our neighbors because it is INTRINSICALLY good.

It is good for mankind, and it is good for you.

If I am nice to you because it will get me into heaven, that is a very low level of moral behavior, if it can be called moral at all.

Fundamentalists of all stripes abuse children by instilling a traumatizing fear of hell and damnation in young ones. Let's eliminate this barbaric practice.

It should make NO difference in moral behavior whther there are 3 levels of heaven or 16 or 43.

Perry Clark - the person I presented was not a "non-christian," but a "christian skeptic." Such a person could go to church regularly, sing the hymns, take communion, send their kids to Sunday school, have them baptised, work on various church committees, do good works associated with the church, answer "Christian" on the Census form and still be skeptical about existence of heaven and the resurrection of Christ. Such a person may not be YOUR idea of a christian, but they are Christian in their own eyes and the eyes of the people around them (who may or may not know about their skepticism).

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Perry.

"As you put the situation, would it be the JW, who believes that receipt of a transfusion prevents access to Heaven, who consents to the transfusion because in some way its seen as a 'good work'?"

That's correct for the most part. I wasn't talking about forcing blood transfusions on JWs. I was suggesting that to let a loved one die without a blood transfusion is NOT a "good work," if one accepts that "good works" include saving lives and alleviating suffering.

E Favorite--

Regarding, first, your comment about "my advice from a previous conversation": My comments in/about that other thread on the forum were specific to that thread; that you present my "advice" as somehow relevant on another thread makes assumptions that may well not be warranted.

But on to the question at hand. Your example is still one of a "false choice". Since, in your own example, the actor, being the sort of person you describe, simply cannot choose to "be saved" (it's nonsensical for the non-Christian), the question about which is more important becomes again what I described--worse than irrelevant--because it contributes to an increase in tension and argumentation for no good reason.

Tonio--

The example you give is interesting to me, though I'm not sure I follow you. As you put the situation, would it be the JW, who believes that receipt of a transfusion prevents access to Heaven, who consents to the transfusion because in some way it's seen as a "good work"? If instead you mean, as I initially took it, that the JW who so believes is forcibly (by dint of legal intervention overriding denial of consent) given the transfusion, I think the question is more interesting. Indeed, as a (retired) physician, I have both encountered that situation and acted as you described, but not without pause and great concern.

The situation I envision is generally something along these lines (please note that I was a neonatologist, treating extremely ill newborns, often extremely premature, in the neonatal intensive care unit): Baby A, in the doctor's progessional opinion, needs a blood transfusion to assure adequate blood volume in circulation, oxygen delivery, and so forth. Without the transfusion, the baby will die (much sooner than without it). The parents, being Jehovah's Witnesses, believe that a blood transfusion risks sending their child to Hell, at best, or, at worst, means that such a final destination is certain.

The physician, for whatever reason, decides that intervention by administration of the blood transfusion should be done in spite of the parents' refusal to give consent for the procedure. The doctor and hospital go to court, asking the judge to grant them legal authority to override the parents' wishes and give the transfusion.

In all such cases with which I am familiar, the judge has granted just such authority to the doctor and hospital, and the transfusion has been given.

Now, that said, at least for me, the decision still proved not to be a choice between the baby's "being saved" and what some might consider a "good work". The reason is that I do not believe that the transfusion has any effect on salvation. In effect, yes, I (and the court) am saying in that circumstance that we actually do know better than the parents, even with regards to this matter touching on the deepest spiritual and religious concerns, and that the proper action is as we prescribe.

In the preceding paragraph, more has been said than can be easily absorbed and considered in a moment or two. In effect, those with the legal authority (in some cases, myself, the authority having been granted by a judge) are saying that the parents' beliefs are either incorrect or of less consequence than what we wish done. And yes, that is a decision of extreme importance, and one that I never undertook lightly--or without acknowledgement that I may be wrong. I said on more than one occasion, if it turns out that I've damned some babies to Hell because of my insistence on a transfusion, then I sure as Hell got some 'splaining to do.

If I viewed the choice as truly one between "being saved"--which in this case I interpret as going to spend eternity in Heaven--versus what could only, in the final analysis, be seen as a secular "good work", then for me the choice would have been simpler--and the result the other way 'round. Though again, the alleged "good work" I would have viewed as merely a mirage, not real, making the choice again not what was advertised in the question.

I hope I've explained this adequately--for me it means the question still has no relevance, really, unless one interprets it to mean such conflicts as we've discussed here, which I consider a different animal--and one much more problematic, philosophically.

From a Christian perspective, I would agree with those who have said that being saved is the first step, but out of that should come the fruit of good works eventually.

Now, come on Gandalf, we all know that you were born-again.

Sub: Define Salvation

Can someone please dfine the word "salvation" and what it exactly means? Are religios and "good" people belonging to different faiths "saved" the same way? Anyone?

I think that faith means belief system in the context of the question.

There are as many paths to enlightenment as there are humans.

"The solitary hired man on a farm in the outskirts of Concord, who has had his second birth and peculiar religious experience, and is driven as he believes into the silent gravity and exclusiveness by his faith, may think it is not true; but Zoroaster, thousands of years ago, travelled the same road and had the same experience; but he, being wise, knew it to be universal, and treated his neighbors accordingly, and is even said to have invented and established worship among men. Let him humbly commune with Zoroaster then, and through the liberalizing influence of all the worthies, with Jesus Christ himself, and let "our church" go by the board."

Henry David Thoreau

The number of paths to enlightenment are equal to the number of humans.

"The solitary hired man on a farm in the outskirts of Concord, who has had his second birth and peculiar religious experience, and is driven as he believes into the silent gravity and exclusiveness by his faith, may think it is not true; but Zoroaster, thousands of years ago, travelled the same road and had the same experience; but he, being wise, knew it to be universal, and treated his neighbors accordingly, and is even said to have invented and established worship among men. Let him humbly commune with Zoroaster then, and through the liberalizing influence of all the worthies, with Jesus Christ himself, and let "our church" go by the board."

Henry David Thoreau

Time to take a break:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RFJtFlnd0k

Perry Clark, you say, "The question presupposes, in the sense that it pretends to any relevance, that there might exist a situation in which one must choose between one and the other."

Not necessarily - one MAY choose between them, if one is a Christian skeptic who decided against the option of being saved by a supernatural being because they used their common sense and 21st century education to determine that no such being existed, but still chose to do good works during his/her time on here on earth, because it feels good and seems like the right thing to do. Voila - the choice between being saved and doing good works.

Now if I had taken your advice from a previous conversation and just sat quietly, you wouldn't have perceived that option.

I suppose it's possible that the forum sponsors set up a question to appeal mainly to Christian believers, to dissuade others from participating, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that.

"The question presupposes, in the sense that it pretends to any relevance, that there might exist a situation in which one must choose between one and the other. I cannot imagine any situation in which that might be the case."

Perry, I can think of one possible example. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in blood transfusions. Would saving a person's life through a blood transfusion be an example of "good works"?

From my Wiccan perspective, there is nothing to be saved from. And doing goods works is important from a human perspective, not just a religious perspective. Mankind evolved as a social animal, and these good works strengthen the social bonds between people. Anybody who has done any type of charitable work, from stopping and helping a stranded motorist to being a "Secret Santa" to a needy family knows that the good you do makes YOU feel pretty good too.

Is there another religion besides Christianity that believes people must be "saved"?

Huh? "Which is more important: Being saved or doing good works?"

The question presupposes, in the sense that it pretends to any relevance, that there might exist a situation in which one must choose between one and the other. I cannot imagine any situation in which that might be the case. Therefore, I believe the question to be worse than irrelevant--at best distracting and/or divisive.

It's akin to asking a mother of two which child she loves more. Or asking a physician which is more important, heartbeat or breathing? Which is more important to wear to the prom, the jacket or the slacks? (Actually, neither is as vital as the cummerbund, but I digress.)

I think people have the wrong idea when Christians say that we are not saved by our works but by faith alone. They assume that we just say we are saved and then kick back and don't have to do anything. This is completely wrong.

Believer or non, we all have the capability to do good works. Let's say a believer feeds the poor as does a non-believer. We share in the same good works. But one does not believe in God. How can that one who does not accept God be saved by Him? It's great that both do good works, but it's by faith that we are given salvation through Jesus Christ.

The Bible says the "wages of sin is death". Before we accept Jesus we are "slaves to sin" and the master of us is death (spiritual death). Upon acceptance of Christ we are slaves to Christ now (alive spiritually in Christ). I can do good works while my master is death, but my sin seperates me from God and cannot be forgiven until I recognize that Jesus died for my sins and resurrected. So no matter what good works I do, I cannot recieve salvation because my sins are not forgiven until I accept Christ. When I do accept Christ, my sins are forgiven and therefore I am saved. Now the works I do (because I am a slave to Christ) are justifiable because Christ is working through me. I think it is important to do good works as a Christian to show others the "light of Christ" in us. But if we are ALREADY saved upon recieving Christ in us, then how can works give us salvation as well? Like I said before, we are saved upon reciept of the Holy Spirit through Christ. We do not work our way to salvation, but comes to us as a FREE gift paid for by Jesus' blood.

I hope that made sense. I can say with true confidence that if one has accepted Jesus, he will WANT to do good works in order to glorify the One who saved him/her.

It is indeed an absurd question, and definitely completely christian biased, as I'm not sure what other belief systems use 'saved' as a concept. The whole point of christianity and most, if not all religions is to instill a moral compass for believers, implying that if their compass points toward the 'light', they will do good things.... Being 'saved' confessing and repenting one's 'sins' and acknowledging the holy spirit, JC, etc. as the one and only passport is not an end-all or destination. It is how one STARTS the journey toward true salvation, it is the sandals on the feet of the journeyer, not the journey itself. Once one is saved in christianity, THEN good deeds, constant and vigilant praise, confession and repentance are required (catholics, et al can add bead squeezing , mantras, and eating crackers as well) If all that was required to ensure a seat at the right hand of God/Jesus was to be 'saved' then even I, a born-again atheist, have absolutely nothing to worry about since many years before figuring out it was all smoke, mirrors and brainwashing, I was 'saved' at a little fundamentalist church meeting in north Texas.... Nah, being saved is not enough... In fact the topic question is about the same as asking an architect: "Which is more important, the door or the room?"

Most of the Founding Fathers were members of Christian congregations. A few were Deists but suggesting that most of them were is patently dishonest.

What is more important from a faith...
Of course,we need to be saved.

Holy Temple of Deity,10000 BC.People had been saved by Deity.
Holy Mother.7000 BC,Catalhoyuk Turkey.People saved by Holy Mother.
Holy Temple of An,4000 BC,sumerians saved by Holy An.
Holy Temple of Amon Ra,3000 BC,ancient egyptions saved by Amon Ra.

God of Jacob,The Law,two plus two makes four.

Holy Temple of Jupiter,1000 BC,ancient romans saved by Savior Jupiter.
God of Christians sent His Son to save peoples 2000 years ago.
Son of God,son of jew,Shephard of sheep,Teacher of choosen ones,Word of God shall come and save only those who baptized.Mark 16.16
Holy Mother Church,2007 AD,shall save catholics
Pope,the owner of Keys of Heaven,representetive of Son of God,infallible man,ex-nazi shall show correct path to be saved.Knock and the door will be opened to you.Matthew 7.7
Holy Religion of Allah,Islam,shall save muslims who worship in arabic language 150 times in a month and if muslim women put on burqa.
Messenger of Allah,son of bedouin,husband of six years old child girl,exterminator of Qurayza tribe,unlettered camel driver who took 'read' revelation shall show the straight path to be saved.I will cast Fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.Therefore strike off their heads.Holy Quran 8.12

Yes,that is why we are on this earth:to praise God/Allah and seek salvation.
Yes,right.We need to be saved.

The premise that a person by following Christ and will get salvation inspite of commiting sins to the very end being better than doing good all your life and believing in another faith is hollow evangalistic propaganda

its funny how most of the posts are centered around "christian beliefs"- there are other beliefs in this world besides christianity- without the confusion that comes with it- maybe its time for us to understand other religions and respect their views rather than use the evangalistic scare tactic of following christ else go to hell..'cause that is not working

One problem I find with questions like these is that the Bible doesn't answer them. In fact, it doesn't even acknowledge that there is a tension between the concepts.

Another problem is that interpreters choose to "read back" their current understanding of broad words like 'faith' or 'works' and assume that ancient writers must have been talking about the same things about which they are talking. This is especially true of Biblical interpreters, because many believe that they aren't 'interpreting' at all; they're just reading and acting upon the text plainly.

A good question would be "What does faith mean?"
A better question would be, "What does works mean?"

It is extremely hard to have discussions like these with floating terms.

in HIS love,
Nick Gill
Frankfort, KY

Again, the only people allowed to be a columnist are people of faith.

No perspective from the secular people of the world - we're left out.

Are we left out because our views scare the god-fearing?

Just a thought.

The Founding Fathers were Deists, not Christians as people are mis-using their faith today. They lived in the Age of Reason.
In the late 18th Century, Sir Isaac Newton introduced a scientific world. Alexander Pope wrote, "God said, 'Let Newton be, and there was light.'"
Too many religious people who rely totally upon the Bible continue to dwell in the pre-scientific world. Witness the refusal to acknowledge the ravages of global warming. The repression of women. I grew up on the saw dust trails of rural tent revivals. Not only pre-scientific but barbarous.
The checks and balances created by the Constituion have preserved the United States thus far. With the encroachment of fundamentalist religion upon the courts and the encroachment of the the presidential arm upon the congress, are
tilting US government on its axis.
Every week, I read a column in the county paper my family have subscribed to since its founding in 1876 and I began to read for myself about 1941. A smug, self congratulating country preacher pontificates about global warming (in a rural agricultural area), abortion, race, education. How, in 2007 can such ignorance and narrow mindedness flourish?
Why? the decline of education.
If students were taught again the logic and argument of the Age of Reason that was a standard part of the second semester of Freshman English,
people could think for themselves, learn how to
judge what is reasonable and what is lunacy.
In WWII, a pamphlet on how to identify propaganda was distributed and was re-distributed to college classes during the Korean brain washing and the McCarthy era.
Students are not taught how to analyze the ideas they are bombarded with. They are up for grabs by any jack leg preacher, any silver tongued politician, any pitch to get their money, and any politically correct professor who have banished the dead white European males who gave us our government.
We are in a 21st century intellectual Dark Age.
Only education--if there were any longer educated teachers and professors who could educate--can restore the US to the rational, reasoned, balanced government our Founding Fathers envisioned and that we enjoyed all too short a time

Anonymous and all others reading here: The Washington and Franklin quotes are frauds.

A little googling found that the only mention of “Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co” is by numerous people quoting it, as was done in this thread. A separate search for A. A. Appleton & Co yielded nothing and a separate search for “Maxims of George Washington” yielded a few interesting results.

On Amazon, there is:
- “The Maxims of George Washington” by a guy named Fredrick Schroeder, published by Hess in 1998 and
- “Life and Times of Washington by John Frederick Schroeder and Benson John Lossing
- “Maxims of Washington” by John Frederick Schroeder, in 1854. Here’s the description: “Political, social, moral and religious, to which is added an address on George Washington's character and Washington's farewell address. A small volume of the words of Washington taken from public documents, private letters, manuscripts and printed volumes, with a view to the completeness and interest of the collection found within. Nothing but authentic materials were used in this compilation.”

Then at the Conservative book service ( a site that also sells Ann Coulter books) there is “Maxims of Washington” by John Frederick Schroeder, 1854 http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=C5296#continue

Part of that book review says, “We count no fewer than 600 individual topics such as Republicanism * Evils of democracy * Civil liberty * Taxation * The four pillars of independence * State rights * Character of the First Congress * The Constitution * Prosperity * Emigration * Non-intervention * Treaties * The currency * Speedy extinguishing of the national debt * A standing army * Character and sufferings of the army of the Revolution * Readiness for war * Abolition of slavery * Spirit of freedom * Self-control * Honesty * Talents, without virtue *”

Notice, there’s no mention of Washington’s thoughts on Jews. Considering the conservative nature of this site, I’d expect it to mention a quote that is such hit elsewhere on the internet.

Then I checked Snopes.com (Key words “George Washington” “Jews”) and found this: “This quote is a recasting of something Washington did say, providing just enough of an aura of authenticity to sound believable. What Washington actually wrote (or, at least, what is attributed to him in Maxims of George Washington), regarding currency speculators who sought to profit by taking advantage of soldiers and others during the Revolutionary War, was:

"This tribe of black gentry work more effectually against us, than the enemy's arms. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties, and the great cause we are engaged in. It is much to be lamented that each State, long ere this, has not hunted them down as pests to society, and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America."

Washington's private life and writings reveal no evidence of anti-Semitism, and his public attitude towards religious tolerance was well expressed on a 1790 goodwill visit he paid to [The Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation]”

Regarding the Franklin quote:

http://www.adl.org/special_reports/franklin_prophecy/franklin_documenting_fraud.asp
Documenting a Fraud (from the Anti-Defamation League)
________________________________________
The fraudulent nature of the Prophecy -- and the fact that anti-Semitism was foreign to Franklin’s behavior — has been substantially documented by eminent historians. The late Charles A. Beard reported, "I cannot find a single original source that gives the slightest justification for believing that the Prophecy is anything more than a barefaced forgery. Not a word have I discovered in Franklin’s letters and papers expressing any such sentiments against the Jews as are ascribed to him by the Nazis — American and German. His well-known liberality in matters of religious opinion would, in fact, have precluded the kind of utterances put in his mouth by this palpable forgery . . . In his writings on immigration, Franklin made no mention of discrimination against Jews."

Beard also noted that "the phraseology of the alleged Prophecy is not that of the 18th century; nor is the language that of Franklin. It contains certain words that belong to contemporary (Nazi) Germany rather than America of Franklin’s period. For example, the word ‘homeland’ was not employed by Jews in Franklin’s time. It was created in connection with the Palestine mandate." Beard also showed "positive evidence" that Franklin held Jews in high regard, citing the instance when the Hebrew Society of Philadelphia sought to raise money for a synagogue in Philadelphia. Franklin signed the petition of appeal for contributions to "citizens of every religious denomination" and gave 5 pounds himself to the fund.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

PLEASE CHECK YOUR SOURCES BEFORE PROMULGATING THIS TYPE OF OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE INFORMATION.

Ephesians 2:8-10

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

"Not by works". I think that says it all. Biblical Christianity states that we are saved upon our faith in Jesus Christ. Then, (V 10) we can do good works because our works are those of God working in us. Our works are not of our own. It says we are "created in Christ Jesus to do good works". How can we be created "in Christ" if we are not born again? Then once born again we can do good works because those works are a true representation of Christ working through us.

Salvation is not something earned. It's a free gift from God. Upon acceptance of Jesus we are called "saved". It is not something we "work" to have or it wouldn't be called a "free gift". Some Christian groups say that we are not yet saved even though we have faith in Jesus. This is false and contradictory to Biblical teachings. All the apostles referred to themselves as "saved", not "will be saved".

So, our works cannot justify us or give us the free gift of salvation. Only by faith can we be saved. The Bible says so.

Hmm. Do Meecham & Quinn expect any non-Xian panelists to respond to this question? Have they ever asked a question that a Xian columnist wouldn't be able to respond to? How does a Muslim or Jew respond to the question of "being saved?"

Maybe Jon & Sally should just cut the ecumenical pretense and call this blog what it really is, On Christian Faith.

Anon:

A search on your quotes and came up with two links. Are these your sources? Thanks.

http://www.radioislam.net/

http://ahmedismailibrahim.wordpress.com/tag/jews/

Being saved from what?
That whole idiocy was embarrassing 70 years ago when I was a child on the plains of Kansas. It's such a croc. So silly.
One has only to listen to the lying, cheating
finagling presdiential candidates who claim to be so religious to see it's phony balony.
Americans are desparate, but don't feed us that...get a decent administration instead.

What is a "faith perspective"? I don't understand the definition of faith being used here. Does it mean simply a belief in a God. A belief that such a God has wishes or orders for humans? A belief in a bright future?

What is a "faith perspective"? I asked a similar question in the Democratic Candidates topic. Does that mean simply a belief in a God. A belief that such a God has wishes or orders for humans? A belief in a bright future?

Correction: should be Stevens-Arroyo. Anyway, this is what I wrote in his column re faith and good works:

Holy Mother Church teaches that Catholics should perform good works in order to attain salvation. Oh! We can’t achieve it on our own, but Christ instructed us to do so by word and deed, and so does his body in the world, the Church: our holy church, keeper of our ancient faith. Good works and faith are inseparable for us, as they were for Christ. While he didn't need salvation, we certainly do.

That is why we are on this earth: to praise (to thank) God and to seek salvation.

Incidentally anon, Jesus Christ was a Jew, his ethics steeped in the reformist Judaism of his era. The earliest Christians were Jews of the diaspora. Benjamin Franklin and Geo Washington were deists--a very weak form of religious belief. I would hew to Christ and the early church for my ethics, not Franklin and Washington, they were just men..

You really shouldn't say such things, y'know.

Believing in Jesus Christ.

He is the only gate to salvation, the only gate to the future Kingdom of God.

Beware of the bread (knowledge) of the neo-pharisee's and the crypto-Jews posing as goi preachers!

WaKE UP!

GEORGE WASHINGTON, in Maxims of George Washington by A. A. Appleton & Co.: “They (the Jews) work more effectively against us, than the enemy’s armies. They are a hundred times more dangerous to our liberties and the great cause we are engaged in … It is much to be lamented that each state, long ago, has not hunted them down as pests to society and the greatest enemies we have to the happiness of America.”

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
(This prediction was made during the intermission of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, and was recorded by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a South Carolina delegate.): “I fully agree with General Washington, that we must protect this young nation from an insidious influence and impenetration. That menace, gentlemen, is the Jews. In whatever country Jews have settled in any great number, they have lowered its moral tone; depreciated its commercial integrity; have segregated themselves and have not been assimilated; have sneered at and tried to undermine the Christian religion upon which that nation is founded, by objecting to its restrictions; have built up a state within the state; and when opposed have tried to strangle that country to death financially, as in the case of Spain and Portugal. For over 1,700 years, the Jews have been bewailing their sad fate in that they have been exiled from their homeland, as they call Palestine. But, gentlemen, did the world give it to them in fee simple, they would at once find some reason for not returning. Why? Because they are vampires, and vampires do not live on vampires. They cannot live only among themselves. They must subsist on Christians and other peoples not of their race. If you do not exclude them from these United States, in this Constitution, in less than 200 years they will have swarmed here in such great numbers that they will dominate and devour the land and change our form of government, for which we Americans have shed our blood, given our lives, our substance and jeopardized our liberty. If you do not exclude them, in less than 200 years our descendants will be working in the fields to furnish them substance, while they will be in the counting houses rubbing their hands. I warn you, gentlemen, if you do not exclude Jews for all time, your children will curse you in your graves… A leopard cannot change its spots. Jews are Asiatics, are a menace to this country if permitted entrance, and should be excluded by this Constitutional Convention.”

Now I know what Prof Arroyo-Stevens was writing about. Maybe you should re-insert his column under this question.

SHow me a man's works, and I'll tell you his faith. Regardless....NOT BY WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.

THIS IS THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY.

He doesn't even understand what the Ephesians verse is telling him...

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

*pretty obvious what its saying*

Again,..

Romans 9:
31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Again,

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

There is a way that seems right to mankind, but the way's there of are death. That way is believing that "works" will give you inheritance into the future Kingdom of God.