In Christianity, how does someone get into Heaven?

I think the Eastern Orthodox stance is interesting - the Holy Spirit gives everyone the compulsion to do good so any good deed is actually an act of faith even if we don't realise it.

Well, you used to be Christian, Bryce. What was your belief regarding getting to Heaven, back then?

I always thought you get to the Pearly Gates and hold St. Peter hostage at knife-point.

FAITH Alone:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 4:5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Romans 10:9-10 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.


No wait, it's actually faith AND works:

James 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

James 2:24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.


No...sorry, turns out it's actually WORKS alone:

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Romans 2:6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.”

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.


You see, the bible is a completely consistent and cohesive collection of works that never contradicts itself and is always perfectly clear!

Since you are aware that I used to be a Christian, then you should also be aware that I used to make the very same argument you are trying to make now, thus you shouldn't be asking me this question.

What's your point?

You are simply cutting a number of different passages out of different books and comparing them out of context to answer a single question, the apparent paradoxes you are seeing are most likely resolved by examining the rationale of the source.  And sorry but I will as you any question I like if it it pertinent, which it is.





My point is that you are doing the Atheist troll thing, if you expect us to believe that your recent conversion is both genuine and well reasoned, you would do well to not post in a manner that could confuse you with the likes of Angry Ducat or Blade.

Are they some kind of variant on Bloody Marys?

A just and loving god wouldn't care about faith. Rewarding those that suck upto the boss is a very human flaw.

You're entitled to your opinion about that.

Sorry but, I don't see why you feel it's necessary to become confrontational about this. I didn't challenge your ability to ask me questions. I just questioned why you are asking me something you already know the answer to. You asked me if I knew what the bible was, when you already know that I do.

First of all, I'm not particularly interested in "convincing" anyone of anything. Whether you BELIEVE I am an atheist or not is of zero concern to me. My motivation does not rest on other people believing I am what I say. Had you reasoned this out before asking me, you might have figured out that I've considered all of these points of view already. I know that their is context to every passage, and I've spent many hours considering each of the contextual interpretations. It's not that I'm missing your point, it's that you are missing mine! The question being asked relates to a central tenet of Christian doctrine that is disputed INSIDE THE CHURCH, the answer to which is different from one denomination to the other. And they are all using the same source material (the bible) to arrive at different conclusions. If all of these different Christian groups were examining the passages in context, and they were all cohesive to the point where the answer was simple, then this wouldn't be a question in the first place. Obviously, that is NOT the case, and that is the point that I am making. My response was a humorous way of pointing out exactly why the bible is NOT the cohesive, unified document so many Christians claim it to be (despite the evidence to the contrary). That you choose to ignore such inconsistencies (both in the bible and in the various competing Christian theologies) and excuse them away as being the result of interpreting "out of context" isn't me trolling you. It's the same argument that every Christian denomination uses to point out how they are the "true Christians", and how everyone else is wrong!

Secondly, if you are angry or upset with me because I am no longer a Christian, then I'm sorry but I don't know what to tell you. I gave it a chance for over 30 years (plenty enough time to evaluate the validity of a way of life that one should live by), and then I woke up. I've read the bible, I developed strong feelings about it, I used many apologetics to defend it's legitimacy, I tried to spin certain parts of it to make it mean something other than what it does (day-age creationism, nothing against homosexuality, hell not really being hell, etc). I pretended that other parts of it made sense (knowing deep down that it didn't), and I convinced myself that prayer would help me understand it more and more (because I wanted it to be true). Then I realized that I was kidding myself and delusional (just like every other theist). I came to the realization that it's all man-made bullsh*t, entirely unscientific, inconsistent with itself, and most importantly that many of the teachings are wholly immoral under the guise of some perfect diving morality. It is what, it is! And by the way, a well reasoned argument doesn't hinge on tone, nor the credibility of the one making the argument. Logic stands on it's own, and isn't dependent on you believing that I'm authentic. Either way, if you choose to believe that this is not a "genuine" belief of mine now, or that my past interpretation was not genuine then, that's fine. I have nothing to gain by lying to you. But I also have nothing to gain by going out of my way to ensure you believe I'm telling the truth either. I've always liked you as a poster, but I have no need for you to continue to like me. If I'm not willing to invest any time convincing my own mother that I no longer believe in the bible (and I'm not for the record), then I have zero need to convince you. Frankly, it's just not that important to me and it doesn't change anything either way. If you want to have a serious discussion about my beliefs now (or then), then just ask me and I'm always happy to do it. But don't whine about me trolling you simply because you have strong feelings about something that I now disagree with.

Trolling is usually light and humorous, and it's a natural expectation of topics that nobody can agree on (religion, politics, etc). And most people here to it to some extent or another (atheist and theist alike). It isn't a new development! I've always trolled people like Erjen, and Ada, and the people you just mentioned. I never once saw you complaining about that! Now I happen to be trolling (not YOU, but someone else's post that you agree with), and all of a sudden you have a problem with me. I suggest you reconsider your own position and objectivity here. I think you are shocked (and perhaps) upset that I'm not a Christian anymore, and are trying to find a way to cope with that reality because I've never really given a reason for why that is the case (until now). But ultimately, I'm still the same person. I'm still honest, I'm still open minded, I'm still very analytical, I still value logic over emotion, and I'm still overall a good guy!