The Bible says it's true ,! You don't have to like it , it's still true,that's the whole point of the gospel! It is a free gift to men, God is spirit and if you never heard of Jesus ,he still gives us a choice,that's what he went to hell for,and now he reveals himself thru the spirit! Like the rich man and the begger
I think sometimes we forget that we are human and let our motives overcome our humanity. There was this article in Sudan, where in the mountains of Nuba, Christians and Muslims coexist. They celebrate each other's holy days. The parents will even attend their child's conversion, if the child so chooses to. Unfortunately, they are/were also riddled with war. *I'm curious about what anyone thinks with this scenario of coexistence?*
_I'm curious about what anyone thinks with this scenario of coexistence?_ I think it would be great if it also extended to us atheists - and to other religious minorities, too. But I'm also surprised that you didn't pick the United States as an example of coexistence. After all, _every_ religion - and all manner of non-belief, as well - coexists in a nation with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the strict separation between church and state. The Christian Taliban is working hard to change that, of course. They've been trying for a long time, but they control the U.S. Supreme Court now. Still, it's a lot better than in Sudan, isn't it?
@@Bill_Garthright You make very fair points my friend and I only brought up Sudan because unlike in the United States the people over there are willing to participate in each other's holy days. Christians will go to a mosque and Muslims will go to a church because they respect one another. I'm fairly certain that doesn't happen in the United States.
@@mustachemac5229 _unlike in the United States the people over there are willing to participate in each other's holy days._ I don't know a single Muslim here in the U.S., and I have no idea where a mosque might be or what Muslim "holy days" even _are._ But lots of non-Christians celebrate Christmas here. And I've certainly been to Christian churches for weddings and funerals. So I think you're probably wrong about that. _Christians will go to a mosque and Muslims will go to a church because they respect one another._ Is that how you express "respect"? How about not murdering people for 'apostasy,' 'blasphemy,' or atheism? Now _that's_ my idea of respect. And in general, that's how it usually works in America. (Not always. For example, Salman Rushdie was attacked and nearly murdered by a religious nut in New York last fall. But that's quite rare here, even from Muslims.)
@@Bill_Garthright I was just giving an instance of coexistence between different religions. IMO, Atheism is not a religion. Anyway, I just found it interesting that Christians and Muslims were willing to participate in each other's rituals and holy days. This was more of an example towards people of faith.
Wanting to hope there are many paths to God, or 'Heaven' is fraught with misconceptions: to use the proper mountain analogy (and it is important to choose the correct mountain for this, K2 for example): there is only one route to the top, all the others just result in a fall to death. That said, the misconceptions underlying the pluralist ambition: 1. That 'god' is contained within the cosmos somehow, and that cosmos is monist: all is finally one. In this conception of reality it makes sense that there are many paths to god, because god is really one of us in a sense. But God is not in the cosmos, he is separate from it as creator, while active and present within it as 'father' (the action over normal days in Genesis demonstrate this dichotomy, culminating in Genesis 3:8, with its sad twist). 2. That heaven is some sort of destination where everything is about you. That is not biblical. 'Heaven' if anything is built on being in fellowship with God, the creator, through Christ. Its about real relationships of real intimacy; not about some solipsistic party for the self-absorbed. Nor is it a Platonist ethereal harp club; the Bible tells of a new creation; a new real material creation with us in real ('spiritual') bodies that will not end and an ever growing knowledge and enjoyment of God in a real world. If you are not reconciled with God you would not enjoy it one bit, so without God, without seeking fellowship with the creator, you have voted to be in the place of anger instead. God has provided plenty of demonstration of his god-ness, both in the creation itself, and in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. So, no excuse.
Tell me, please. Do you have *one* piece of good evidence backing up _any_ of that? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? If not, then why should it _matter_ what claims you make about "God" or "Heaven"? If it's all just imaginary - or _indistinguishable_ from the imaginary, at least - then why should anyone else even take it seriously? _God has provided plenty of demonstration of his god-ness, both in the creation itself, and in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth._ Again, that's easy to _claim._ But how about *one piece of good evidence* that your god is actually real, that the universe really _is_ a "creation," or that there _was_ a resurrection of Jesus? Just *one,* please. Take your pick.
How can Jesus be the only way to Heaven? That's easy. In your imagination, right? That's the way it is with _every_ religion, isn't it? And it's why Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about this stuff, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity? You all just imagine whatever you _want_ to be true, don't you? (Almost always, it depends on which religion you were taught to believe as a child.) After all, I have yet to see even *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that _any_ god is actually real, rather than just imaginary.
@@mustachemac5229 Matthew 10:37, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,” Jesus says. “Whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37). And Jesus said.....“If God were your Father, you would love me” (John 8:42). See Jesus is God. So any love relegated to God is relegated to Him. No difference.
@@SK-bw2cv I appreciate your response but that verse from Matthew has nothing to do with what I brought up in Mark. Mark is talking about God the Father not an earthly father like in Matthew. As for that verse in John: Jesus is saying that God is truly the Father and that you would also love him(Jesus) too. Jesus said that God sent him and that he did not come on his own authority but by God alone.
To God be the glory.
I listened to the pastor's perspective today and Dr.Conway gave an excellent explanation regarding God's justice and mercy.
The Bible says it's true ,! You don't have to like it , it's still true,that's the whole point of the gospel! It is a free gift to men, God is spirit and if you never heard of Jesus ,he still gives us a choice,that's what he went to hell for,and now he reveals himself thru the spirit! Like the rich man and the begger
I think sometimes we forget that we are human and let our motives overcome our humanity.
There was this article in Sudan, where in the mountains of Nuba, Christians and Muslims coexist.
They celebrate each other's holy days. The parents will even attend their child's conversion, if the child so chooses to. Unfortunately, they are/were also riddled with war.
*I'm curious about what anyone thinks with this scenario of coexistence?*
Islam are not christian friend.
_I'm curious about what anyone thinks with this scenario of coexistence?_
I think it would be great if it also extended to us atheists - and to other religious minorities, too. But I'm also surprised that you didn't pick the United States as an example of coexistence.
After all, _every_ religion - and all manner of non-belief, as well - coexists in a nation with freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the strict separation between church and state.
The Christian Taliban is working hard to change that, of course. They've been trying for a long time, but they control the U.S. Supreme Court now. Still, it's a lot better than in Sudan, isn't it?
@@Bill_Garthright You make very fair points my friend and I only brought up Sudan because unlike in the United States the people over there are willing to participate in each other's holy days.
Christians will go to a mosque and Muslims will go to a church because they respect one another.
I'm fairly certain that doesn't happen in the United States.
@@mustachemac5229
_unlike in the United States the people over there are willing to participate in each other's holy days._
I don't know a single Muslim here in the U.S., and I have no idea where a mosque might be or what Muslim "holy days" even _are._ But lots of non-Christians celebrate Christmas here. And I've certainly been to Christian churches for weddings and funerals.
So I think you're probably wrong about that.
_Christians will go to a mosque and Muslims will go to a church because they respect one another._
Is that how you express "respect"? How about not murdering people for 'apostasy,' 'blasphemy,' or atheism? Now _that's_ my idea of respect.
And in general, that's how it usually works in America. (Not always. For example, Salman Rushdie was attacked and nearly murdered by a religious nut in New York last fall. But that's quite rare here, even from Muslims.)
@@Bill_Garthright I was just giving an instance of coexistence between different religions. IMO, Atheism is not a religion.
Anyway, I just found it interesting that Christians and Muslims were willing to participate in each other's rituals and holy days.
This was more of an example towards people of faith.
Wanting to hope there are many paths to God, or 'Heaven' is fraught with misconceptions: to use the proper mountain analogy (and it is important to choose the correct mountain for this, K2 for example): there is only one route to the top, all the others just result in a fall to death.
That said, the misconceptions underlying the pluralist ambition:
1. That 'god' is contained within the cosmos somehow, and that cosmos is monist: all is finally one. In this conception of reality it makes sense that there are many paths to god, because god is really one of us in a sense. But God is not in the cosmos, he is separate from it as creator, while active and present within it as 'father' (the action over normal days in Genesis demonstrate this dichotomy, culminating in Genesis 3:8, with its sad twist).
2. That heaven is some sort of destination where everything is about you. That is not biblical. 'Heaven' if anything is built on being in fellowship with God, the creator, through Christ. Its about real relationships of real intimacy; not about some solipsistic party for the self-absorbed. Nor is it a Platonist ethereal harp club; the Bible tells of a new creation; a new real material creation with us in real ('spiritual') bodies that will not end and an ever growing knowledge and enjoyment of God in a real world. If you are not reconciled with God you would not enjoy it one bit, so without God, without seeking fellowship with the creator, you have voted to be in the place of anger instead.
God has provided plenty of demonstration of his god-ness, both in the creation itself, and in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. So, no excuse.
Tell me, please. Do you have *one* piece of good evidence backing up _any_ of that? Just *one,* but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?
If not, then why should it _matter_ what claims you make about "God" or "Heaven"? If it's all just imaginary - or _indistinguishable_ from the imaginary, at least - then why should anyone else even take it seriously?
_God has provided plenty of demonstration of his god-ness, both in the creation itself, and in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth._
Again, that's easy to _claim._ But how about *one piece of good evidence* that your god is actually real, that the universe really _is_ a "creation," or that there _was_ a resurrection of Jesus? Just *one,* please. Take your pick.
How can Jesus be the only way to Heaven? That's easy. In your imagination, right?
That's the way it is with _every_ religion, isn't it? And it's why Christians can't even agree with _other Christians_ about this stuff, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity?
You all just imagine whatever you _want_ to be true, don't you? (Almost always, it depends on which religion you were taught to believe as a child.) After all, I have yet to see even *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that _any_ god is actually real, rather than just imaginary.
John 14:6 is very clear. There is only one way to heaven.
Jesus says to love the one and only Lord with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the greatest commandment to keep.
Mark 12.29-30
@@mustachemac5229 what a coincidence. Jesus Christ is Lord! 😉✝️
@@SK-bw2cv But Jesus doesn't say to love him he says to love the Lord.
There is a difference.
@@mustachemac5229 Matthew 10:37, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me,” Jesus says. “Whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37).
And Jesus said.....“If God were your Father, you would love me” (John 8:42).
See Jesus is God. So any love relegated to God is relegated to Him. No difference.
@@SK-bw2cv I appreciate your response but that verse from Matthew has nothing to do with what I brought up in Mark.
Mark is talking about God the Father not an earthly father like in Matthew.
As for that verse in John: Jesus is saying that God is truly the Father and that you would also love him(Jesus) too. Jesus said that God sent him and that he did not come on his own authority but by God alone.