Some how I missed posting on this subject so I think I'll give a long explanation on what I believe on this subject. To get this out of the way, the question "are other religions correct?" usually turns into "can other religions get to heaven?" so that is what I am going to post on.

First we must define a few terms:

Sola Fide- Sola Fide literally means "faith alone." This doctrine is held by almost all Protestant denominations and to a certain extant the Catholic Church. This doctrine DOES NOT mean that one has to confess the Apostles Creed and go to church every Sunday to be saved. Faith means a relationship with God, not acknowledgment that God exists (that is belief). Thus when one says people are saved by "faith alone" that means that it is only by right relationship with God that one receives God's saving Grace as opposed to being by ones good works

Sola Gratia- Literally means Grace Alone. Grace alone means that only God's grace gets us into heaven. This is more of a protestant just to warn everyone. God does not care about our works. There is no way to earn heaven because we cannot obtain perfection. "For all fall short of the glory of God" as Paul says in Romans. To earn heaven one would have to obtain the perfection of God and nothing less. They would have to love perfectly, give perfectly, and serve perfectly. Since all these things are impossible one one thing remains, God's grace. God wants for us to be in right relationship with him so he extends his grace.

Sensus Divinitatis- this phrase means "sense of the Divine." Described by John Calvin, it means that all people have a sense of who God is because he is their creator.

Ok since that is one of the way we can get moving. Several early Church Fathers have indeed left the possibility for other faiths to get to heaven. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both briefly discuss this issue.

Third John 10:16 says: "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd." Other passages can by used such as the story of Melkizedek in Genesis 14 or Jesus' parable about the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 but I think this one is the best. Christians usually hold that Christ's death not only allows the correction believers relationship with God, but all Creation's relationship with him. Thus to answer the question, if we hold that all people have a "sense of the Divine" and that God is "abounding in steadfast love" as the Psalms say then I think other religions have elements that are correct. All people have a "sense of the Divine" which means that all people in some way are seeking some kind of relationship with him (either good or bad). If a person of another religion has a right relationship with God and if we hold that it is by God's "grace alone" that we are saved than see no reason why other religions cannot have elements of truth in them. In answer to this question the best answer I usually have is Christianity is the best way and surest way, but not the only way.

I should probably note that on this issue (and many others) I am in no way considered a conservative Christian. This is my theology on this issue and many would disagree, but I think it could hold up enough to some Biblical investigation. Being a fairly liberal (religiously that is) Protestant there would be vast portions of Christianity that would disagree. Actually the best and truest answer is "God knows." God is the judge of such things and only he knows all these things. But if one really wants a answer that says yes or no on the subject then the above is mine.

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

A pleasure reading your post, Non Sequitur.

As the axiom it is, sensus divinitatus is an excellent postulate. It even ranges higher than the axiom-wannabe "God moves in mysterious ways" (to which it's only possible to say, "Ok, if you say so") because it justifies itself by the power of sin such that any rejection of a sense of divinity is a result of the corruptive forces of sin.

In your post, the sentence "All people have a 'sense of the Divine' which means that all people in some way are seeking some kind of relationship with him (either good or bad)" stood out as one that I felt should be argued, since, I thought, it can actually be verified whether or not people have a sense of the divine and whether or not such a sense can be explained by perfectly natural means, for example, as being recognition of authority of an exclusively worldly nature rather than that of divinity.

Of course, I knew I thought wrong already before thinking it because, as said, if someone as much as thinks of collecting data of a sense of divinity among the populace, it will turn into a measure of the stronghold of Evil. Likewise, attributing sensus divinitatis to "sensus auctoritas" is merely an act guided by the same powers.

However, sensus divinitatis does fall short of at least one thing: Collective cognition. Once you accept sensus divinitatis as an axiom for your cognition of divinity then you also accept that sensus divinitatis constitutes all the evidence needed for divinity. Let's stop for a moment and see what this means. It literally says that your sense of X constitutes evidence of the truth of X. In other words, whatever gut feeling you have must be equal to the reality and existence of whatever you have a gut feeling about. For example, when white nationalists have a sense of an übermensch, the existence of an übermensch must be true. If Capt. Someone has an icky feeling towards homosexuals, the feeling must be plain and clear evidence that homosexuals are icky people. And I could go on with all sorts of gut feelings, not to mention feelings about issues that should have been purely scientific issues.

So while subscribing to sensus divinitatis might be a perfect reason for individual faith, it can never leave the realm of faith and neither can the statement that "all people have a 'sense of the Divine' which means that all people in some way are seeking some kind of relationship with him (either good or bad)." And there, I got to argue your statement without sinning

make even a single verse like it contains. And no one has ever done that until now. and no one can do it. this is a greatest evidence that this is God's book and Muhammad Pbuh is the last messenger of Allah Almighty.
According to Bhavishya Purana in the Prati Sarag Parv III Khand 3 Adhay 3 Shloka 5 to 8.

"A malecha (belonging to a foreign country and speaking a foreign language) spiritual teacher will appear with his companions. His name will be Mohammad. Raja (Bhoj)

The Prophecy clearly states:

The name of the Prophet as Mohammad.

He will belong to Arabia. The Sanskrit word Marusthal means a sandy track of land or a desert.





The Prophet did not physically take a bath in the Panchgavya and the water of Ganges. Since the water of Ganges is considered holy, taking bath in the Ganges is an idiom, which means washing away sins or immunity from all sorts of sins. Here the prophecy implies that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was sinless, i.e. Maasoom.[/quote]




Here is the real text, not the one bastardised by some mullah:


Hearing this the king came back to his country and Mahamada came with them to the bank of the river Sindhu. He was expert in expanding illusion, so he said to the king very pleasingly: O great king, your god has become my servant. Just see, as he eats my remnants, so I will show you. The king became surprised when he saw this just before them. Then in anger Kalidasa rebuked Mahamada, “O rascal, you have created an illusion to bewilder the king, I will kill you, you are the lowest..."


So much for a merchant who sold a makeup of two religions as his own.

Mark this:
If anyone on this earth tells you he knows what GOD wants, kick his teeth in. All that person is after is your money and power over you.

God is love, the only texts that make any sense to me are those that embody humanity as a whole for the improvement of each persons life. God as i see him needs not my help to admonish those who sin, but he does say to love, forgive and teach with the same love that he freely gave us all through the knowledge and teachings of Jesus. There is no doctrine of Jesus that compels anyone to extract a life in his name, rather he says, John: 15;16 You did not choose me. I chose you and sent you out to produce fruit, the kind of fruit that will last. Then my Father will give you whatever you ask for in my name. 17.. So i command you to love each other ;. We can debate ad infinitum or just believe the truth of peace and love for all, and that is the intent everything else is worldly living in a society of mans rules, there is little good will in mans law.

i think one of the best group of phrases/sentences ever to come before my eyes in a religious document are these lines:
grant me serenity to accept that which cannot be changed; the courage to change that which can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other.

that is pure genius. i live by this code everyday.

I believe that was Bill W's contribution to AA.

Regarding the last part of this sentence, I think you'll find that there's very little else than good will in mans law.

Religion is a bullshit method of social control and they are all incorrect. Therefore there are no "correct" religions.

To paraphrase Bill Maher: "Religious texts were written during a time long before anyone knew what a germ or an atom was..." The very idea that humans have any use for these fairy tales in the modern world is ridiculous.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

the Christian one? HAHAHAHAH

(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB), (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB), (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)

(Matthew 21:21-22 NAS), (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB), (John 14:13-14 NAB)
(Joshua 7:15 NLT), (Leviticus 21:16-23 NLT), (Leviticus 20:9 NLT).

People of the cross..

__________________
En uneksi. I do not dream.

The idea that humans don't have any use for religious fairy tales in the modern world is apparantly more ridiculous since, well, there exists an immense number of people who are devout to them. You assume that the purpose of religion is to explain things like germs and atoms in absence of knowledge of things like germs and atoms. That's not such a sound assumption.

By the way, when the Bible was written the world was also modern. The world is always modern in whatever time as long as it's the present

Well excuse me for assuming that, but I think your position assumes that the majority of devout religious people don't believe ancient religious fairy tales literally, that's also a bad assumption. Just because people believe in that garbage doesn't mean doing so is more useful than other things they could be doing with their time. Being devout to them has nothing to do with the fact that the texts themselves are virtually useless and have been replaced with more modern forms of philosophy, science, etc... It's like being devout to beta, when Blue Ray DVD exists; not so smart...

The idea that whatever time the present is at is "modern" is also ridiculous. That means the beginning of the stone age was just as "modern" as the year 2000. Faulty logic.

__________________
"The only crime in America is not having any money."
-Berthold Brecht

"This interview...is not about me..."
-

That only makes sense if you're advocating a religious belief yourself (such as belief in Blue Ray DVD instead of belief in Betamax). Is that what you're doing?

Of course the stoneage was modern at the time. Just as tomorrow will be modern as well.

My point is there are few laws enacted that do not represent a wrong done somewhere, intent is the motivator. That there is not much good will reflected in those laws.

Being that these things were written over 2,000 years ago and we know not much law existed, i believe you need to apply the end lessons as the goal as we are not a barbaric race now for the most part.

Sounds like the pick and choose based on age approach Are you saying that parts of the Bible are obsolete because they were written for people that we no longer qualify as? If so, isn't the entire Bible obsolete?