Government funds Catholic schools but not other religion's schools

[blackbird]

On 4/13/2023 at 10:23 AM, I am Groot said:

Catholic schools are more disciplined and won't tolerate the misbehaviour of the public system. They're also less violent because of that and so tend to produce better academic results.

They also teach a religious system which is totally contrary to what the apostles and prophets taught in the Bible.

Did you know the Bible knows nothing of worshiping Mary and does not call her the "Mother of God", Queen of Heaven, etc?  Yet millions of Catholics worship Mary and the saints and think they can access God by worshiping and praying to someone other than Jesus?  The Bible teaches to worship God only.  So worshiping Mary and saints is idolatry.  Vast numbers of Catholics also make pilgrimages to shrines dedicated to Mary and saints.  In Quebec its Saint Anne of Beaupre (supposed to be mother of Mary).  You won't find any of that in the Bible.  Pure inventions of men. This is what they must be promoting through Catholic school's religious instruction.

Edited April 15, 2023 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

3 hours ago, blackbird said:

They also teach a religious system which is totally contrary to what the apostles and prophets taught in the Bible.

You prefer they be taught nothing?

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You prefer they be taught nothing?

Since what they teach is not Biblical Christianity;  i.e. not what Jesus and the Apostles taught, you should not be supporting it.  Worshiping the false god of the Mary cult is condemned in the Bible.  I understand some people were born into it, baptized, and attended Catholic schools and find it hard to give it up.  The only solution to that is accepting and believing in Jesus Christ in the New Testament as one's Lord and Savior and giving up the false system.  Read the gospel of John.  Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone, not of works.

" 3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4  Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."  Exodus 20:3-5 KJV

"5  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; "  1 Timothy 2:5 KJV

It is a completely misleading and false religious system that should be rejected.  Teaching something that is false is more harmful than good.  

[Dougie93]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:34 PM, blackbird said:

Catholic schools are funded in Ontario

This seems contrary to the Constitution

it's written right into the constitution of Ontario, Section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867

it was all part of making peace between the Orange and the Catholics in the 19th century

to avert a civil war in Canada at the time

it would require a constitutional amendment to repeal it

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

Since what they teach is not Biblical Christianity;  i.e. not what Jesus and the Apostles taught, you should not be supporting it. 

Do you honestly think any religion today is an exact mirror of what was originally written down two thousand years ago through multiple translations?

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Do you honestly think any religion today is an exact mirror of what was originally written down two thousand years ago through multiple translations?

Firstly, the King James Bible was produced from the Received Text of the New Testament in 1611.  The Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Bible which the Jews carefully preserved down through the centuries.  For the N.T. they used the most ancient Greek manuscripts that were available at the time and of course cross checked them to verify them.  They also had Erasmus's Greek N.T. which he produced in the 1500s based on the earliest available manuscripts.  Today there are over 5,000 early manuscripts (originals no longer exist) and parts of manuscripts from the early centuries to verify the New Testament.  They also have early century written sermons that quoted the earliest manuscripts and other writings which they can use to verify what is in the KJV Bible.  So it is not correct to say the King James Bible is the result of "multiple translations".  It is 100% accurate.

Secondly there are some Bible-believing churches today that do use the King James Bible in English-speaking countries and they attempt to stay as closely as possible to it in their confessions and lives.  Even churches that use modern versions of Bible often stay close to the main doctrines, faith, and practices taught in the Bible.  Many still believe and follow the Bible as much as possible and reject all the inventions of men that Rome has acquired over the centuries.  One example is in Protestant churches you won't find them worshiping Mary and the saints.  There is no priesthood in the New Testament offering sacrifices for sin as in the Mass.  Protestant churches do not believe in or do that.  The Epistle to the Hebrews explains how Christ made a complete sacrifice once for all time, never to repeated as the Mass claims to do.

Here is what a book I am studying says in the section on Mary.

"In Romanism Mary usurps the place of Christ.

A striking phenomenon in Roman Catholicism is the effective way in which they have caused Mary to usurp the place of Christ as the primary mediator between God and men.  Christ is usually represented as a helpless babe in a manger or in His mother's arms, or as a dead Christ upon a cross.  The babe in a manger or in His mother's arms gives little promise of being able to help anyone.  And the dead Christ upon a cross, with a horribly ugly and tortured face, is the very incarnation of misery and helplessness, wholly irrelevant to the needs and problems of the people.  Such a Christ might inspire feelings of pity and compassion, but not confidence and hope.   He is defeated, not a victorious Christ............"

-from Roman Catholicism by Lorraine Boettner (1962).

That is why Protestant churches do not use crucifixes.  Many simply have a cross, not a crucifix.  The crucifix gives the wrong impression with a dead Christ on a cross.

An example of this exaltation of Mary and the saints is at the Saint Anne de Beaupre shrine in Quebec.  You can see on their website.

Their website says:

"The Basilica is a Sanctuary dedicated to Saint Anne. It is only natural then, that the first images which attract our attention would be about Saint Anne.

Even if we know very little about the life of Saint Anne, the simple fact of being the mother of Mary and the grandmother of Jesus, is sufficient for the Church to recognize and venerate her for centuries."

There is nothing in the New Testament about venerating Mary, Saint Anne, and other saints.  

Actually all believers are referred to as "saints" in the N.T.

Saint Anne - Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré (sanctuairesainteanne.org)

When you think about it, it must have cost vast fortunes to build these incredibly ornate churches and shrines in different countries, money that could have been better spent on many other things.

 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

the Protestants gave up their right to public funding for schools, so only the Catholics have it, as a way to ensure peace in the land?

I don't profess to know a lot about it.  One or two people have said Catholic schools in Ontario are funded as a result of an historic agreement made back around Confederation.  Never heard of any kind of threat if the funding was not paid or to ensure peace.  That sounds like a stretch and a bit of fiction.

Reading Wikipedia it sounds complicated.  The U.N. Human Rights Committee determined Canada is in violation of Article 26 on Civil and Politics rights because Ontario discriminates by funding Catholic schools but not other religious schools.

"History[edit]

In the early 19th century, there was a movement to take the responsibility for education away from individuals and make it more of a state function. Thus, governments allowed schools and school boards to collect taxes to fund schools. Previously, a combination of charitable contributions from the members of a particular religious body, supplemented with tuition fees paid by the parents of the students, had been the method of financing a school.

Nevertheless, an element of religious formation remained as this was considered a necessary part of educating the whole person.

As the Catholic minority played an integral part of founding and establishing the country of Canada, it was important to them that their rights to educate their children in Catholic schools be protected in the British North America Act, 1867. In fact, when the Fathers of Confederation came from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Canada East, and Canada West to meet in Charlottetown and Quebec, they quickly concluded, in the words of one of the Fathers, Sir Charles Tupper, that "Without this guarantee for the rights of minorities being embodied in that new constitution, we should have been unable to obtain any Confederation whatever."[3] As described by The Canadian Encyclopedia:

The concept that church and state are partners, not hostile and incompatible forces that must be kept at a distance, has made it possible for educational authorities in Canada to subsidize Jewish schools in Québec and Hutterite schools on the Prairies, to condone Amish schools in Ontario, and to permit the Salvation Army to develop its own public schools in Newfoundland.[4]

The "public" school system was that of the majority of taxpayers in an area. In most of the English-speaking parts of Ontario, this tended to amount to a form of "common-core Protestantism". This was accelerated under the 1846 School Act spearheaded by Egerton Ryerson. He believed it was part of the Government's mandate to be a social agency forming children in a uniform, common, Protestant culture, regardless of their individual family backgrounds. Although working in Ontario, his ideas were influential all across Canada.[1][2]

In Ontario, Alberta,[2] and in other provinces, if there were enough families of a particular faith that wished to do so, they could set up a separate school, supported by the specially-directed taxes of those families who elected to support the separate school over the public schools. In practice, this gave a mechanism for Catholics to continue having their own schools. Separate schools tended to be Catholic in the south of Ontario whereas in northern Ontario, where the majority of people were Catholic, Protestants were the ones to set up separate schools.[1] Yet, Catholic schools form the single largest system in Canada offering education with a religious component.[5]

Starting in the 1960s, there was a strong push to remove all religious education from the public schools in Canada, although Catholic schools tended to maintain their religious character at least in theory if not always practice.

In the 1990s there was a further movement in many provinces to dis-allow any religious instruction in schools financed by taxes. Currently six of the thirteen provinces and territories still allow faith-based school boards to be supported with tax money: Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, and Yukon (to grade 9 only).[4] [6] Newfoundland and Labrador voted to end the denominational school system, in a 1997 referendum.[7]

In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that Canada was in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because Ontario's Ministry of Education discriminates against non-Catholics by continuing to publicly fund separate Catholic schools, but not those of any other religious groups. For more information see Education in Canada and Waldman v. Canada"

Catholic schools in Canada - Wikipedia

 

Edited April 16, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

it's written right into the constitution of Ontario, Section 93 of the Constitution Act 1867

it was all part of making peace between the Orange and the Catholics in the 19th century

to avert a civil war in Canada at the time

it would require a constitutional amendment to repeal it

In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that Canada was in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because Ontario's Ministry of Education discriminates against non-Catholics by continuing to publicly fund separate Catholic schools, but not those of any other religious groups. 

Catholic schools in Canada - Wikipedia

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

I am still confused. Basically, what I understood from this thread is that, in a way, the Protestants gave up their right to public funding for schools, so only the Catholics have it, as a way to ensure peace in the land? Where am I going wrong here?

• I am willing to listen, even to my worst adversaries on the board. ?

This news article describes how Newfoundland stopped funding religious schools and how Ontario continues to fund Catholic schools but not others.  It is all politics.  Ontario has lots of influential Catholic organizations and all the main political parties still support funding Catholic schools even though the U.N. Human Rights Committee has said it is a violation of the U.N. Article 26 to discriminate against other religious schools that way.

Newfoundland offers religious school lessons | The Star

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Contrarian said:

the Protestants gave up their right to public funding for schools

Never heard or read that anywhere.  It wouldn't make any sense.

[blackbird]

25 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Are you saying that the Catholic Church wields significant political influence in this matter, making it difficult to effect change in terms of funding? Power is power, is the reality. Regardless, my original question remains: "Why was the decision made initially, based on what factor, who made the concession and why?" I know you didn't read them, those were my original thoughts on the matter. 

I read your post carefully.  

All I can tell you is the history of funding in Ontario and other provinces was complicated.  But it was obviously decided by politics like most things are.  This answers your question in a fair amount of detail.

I can post part of the history now, but if you want to read more about it's history in Canada perhaps you can go to the link.  The whole article would be too long to post here.

"Ontario Catholic schools

Canadian Catholic schools were established in Upper Canada (Ontario) before Confederation. This raised tensions between the Protestant majority and Catholic minority. They wanted a separate education from the Protestants that focused on their religion.[8] Catholic schools were often based in Irish Catholicism.[9] During the mid-1800s, Irish Catholics in Ontario had a strong distrust towards public education. In Ireland, the Protestant minority ruled over the Catholic majority, and there was a strong connection between the Protestant government and the control of religion. The Catholic church in Ireland felt condemned by the Protestant government, so when in Canada, Irish Catholics had precedent to distrust an English-based government. Public school legislation made the Irish Catholics worried about losing Irish culture and heritage.[10] Catholic schools were not thought of highly before Confederation, but in the British North America Act of 1867, Catholic schools are recognized alongside public schools.[11]

The British North American Act (BNA Act) was the piece of legislation signed during Canada's confederation.[12] In 1863, Sir Richard W. Scott created the Separate Schools Act (also known as the Scott Act), which outlined the creation of a separate school system that would grant religious privileges to students - in this case, Catholic. The first paragraph of section 93 in the BNA Act stated that "nothing in any such law shall prejudicially affect any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools which any class of persons have by law in the Province at the union." This sanctioned Scott's Separate Schools Act in Canada's constitution.[12]

As a part of the Scott Act, rural Catholic schools gained the same rights as those in urban areas. They also gained financial support from the central government. Canada's confederation complicated the national Catholic school situation. By 1867, the groundwork and foundation for Catholic schooling had been created, but after confederation, jurisdiction over education was given to the provincial governments. One of the complications was for the minorities in the different provinces. The French minority in Ontario and English minority in Quebec struggled greatly with the Catholic school question post-confederation. As part of section 93 of the British North America Act, denominational schools (like Catholic schools) had their foundation from pre-confederation preserved in legislation. This small part of section 93 became a strong argument when Provincial governments tried to infringe on their rights.[13]

Catholic schools often grew out of parishes, and through the transitional period, most parishes in the Toronto area were connected to a Catholic school.[14] Catholic and public schools had a similar curriculum, but Catholic schools were as much about maintaining a Catholic identity in a largely Protestant province as it was about a good education.[15] Opposed to public schools, Catholic schools started with a religious education and used that as a baseline. Once students had a religious background, it became acceptable to teach them secular subjects, because they understood Catholicism.[16]

Catholic schools in Canada - Wikipedia

______________________________________

Just watched an interesting video about the Reformation and history surrounding that around the 16th century and main things that happened in the following centuries.  You may find it interesting and informative.

The Protestant Reformation - Bing video

The whole history of the Reformation and what happened in the past 600 years is all tied together.  Europe was in turmoil for centuries and there were many struggles and wars involving religion.  That is part of history.  Fortunately Canada's history was more peaceful although not always fair.  Majorities carry more weight as they always do.

Edited April 16, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

35 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

Are you saying that the Catholic Church wields significant political influence in this matter, making it difficult to effect change in terms of funding?

Yes, that is a fact.  Constitutional rights were enshrined in the 1800s that made things difficult or impossible to change in later years.  Politics also plays a huge factor.  Politicians do not want to touch some issues because of their sensitivity and the backlash they might receive.

One of the problems I see with the Charter of Rights and the Constitutional changes brought in by Pierre Trudeau in 1982 is it is extremely difficult to amend the Constitution, almost impossible.

[blackbird]

20 hours ago, I am Groot said:

You prefer they be taught nothing?

You might find this history documentary video informative.  It answers the question "why was the Reformation necessary".

In the middle ages of the 16th century, society in Europe was breaking down.  The feudal system was failing.  Society was struggling and life was very difficult.  The old powers that existed were struggling to maintain their control and new thinking was arriving with the Renaissance.  Europe had been under very heavy control by Rome for over a thousand years.  But things were changing and people started to want individual freedom.  That is what this documentary is all about.

The Protestant Reformation - Bing video

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, blackbird said:

In 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee determined that Canada was in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because Ontario's Ministry of Education discriminates against non-Catholics by continuing to publicly fund separate Catholic schools, but not those of any other religious groups. 

Catholic schools in Canada - Wikipedia

a Canadian court can only interpret the constitution

the court cannot alter the constitution 

only the legislature can alter the constitution by amendment

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, Contrarian said:

my tentative view is that either no religious schools should receive funding, or all should receive some level of funding.

I agree.  Should be the same for all.

 

5 hours ago, Contrarian said:

Would you support funding for the latter two?

Yes.

[blackbird]

On 4/15/2023 at 6:46 AM, I am Groot said:

You prefer they be taught nothing?

I disagree with what some religions teach, but I would add that if government is going to fund any religious schools, they should be funding them all equally.  Everyone pays taxes for education. 

[Zeitgeist]

15 hours ago, blackbird said:

Never heard or read that anywhere.  It wouldn't make any sense.

It’s very simple: They removed prayer from schools, as the public system had been Anglican by default (the Crown church).  I bet you think it was a dumb move, but that’s what they did.  The Catholics maintained religious education.  What’s interesting is that parents of all religious backgrounds are selecting Catholic secondary education over public because at least God and gospel values are at the centre.  Though, as discussed, some Catholic school boards are caving into highly experimental secular ideas on transgenderism, etc.  The Catholic Church and Human Rights legislation are in conflict on some issues.  We’re supposed to have religious freedom.  For example, Catholic doctors can’t be forced to perform abortions if they don’t want to do them, but as we saw with Wynne’s legal protection of “Gay Straight Alliances” in Catholic schools, the Catholic system can be strong-armed into going against the Catchism.  It happens because many so called Catholics don’t believe in Catholic principles.  For example, Biden and Trudeau claim to be Catholics but are both staunch supporters of unlimited abortion access and gender affirmation. Trudeau banned pro life people from the Liberal Party of Canada and even prevented youth from getting summer jobs if they aren’t pro choice.  

Edited April 16, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Catholics maintained religious education.

When you say religious education, I must ask what that would be?   Unfortunately there are many different ideas about what "religious education" means.

This may come as a surprise to you but I heard the Pastor say this morning that Christianity is not "religion".  What do you think of that?

"

The Catholic Way of Salvation
James McCarthy

What exactly does the Roman Catholic Church teach is the way of salvation? A popular post-Vatican II catechism provides the following summary of the Church’s teaching.

Question What is necessary to be saved?

Answer You have to be brought into spiritual contact with that saving death of Jesus by faith and Baptism and loyal membership in His Church, by love of God and neighbor proved by obedience to His commandments, by the other Sacraments especially Holy Communion, by prayer and good works and by final perseverance, that is, preserving God’s friendship and grace until death.*

Note the lack of emphasis on Jesus in this answer. The only mention of Him is with reference to being "brought into spiritual contact with that saving death of Jesus." What the catechism means by this is that the person must have sanctifying grace in his soul. This, says the Church, unites a person to Jesus and gives him a participation in the divine life of God. According to the catechism, to obtain sanctifying grace and preserve it in one’s soul, a Catholic must accomplish a list of ten requirements:

believing

being baptized

being a loyal member of the Church

loving God

loving his neighbor

keeping the Ten Commandments

receiving the sacraments, especially Holy Communion

praying

doing good works

dying in a state of grace

Based on this list, I have developed a technique for sharing the gospel with Catholics called the Pocket Evangelism Kit. It is made up of a number of illustrated cards, each representing one aspect of the Catholic plan of salvation. The cards are placed before the Catholic with a brief explanation of what each represents. The person is then asked to pick up those cards that he or she considers necessary for salvation. The purpose is to help the person see what he is trusting in for his salvation.

Catholics typically pick up several cards. A well-taught Catholic will take most, if not all of them, as the catechism answer above instructs. Most Catholics make their selection with an attitude of the more the better!

Once the person has made his selection, he is asked several questions to help him rethink his selection. For example, should the person select the card titled "Keeping the Ten Commandments," he is asked: "Are you able to keep the Ten Commandments to God’s standard?" If he picks the card titled "Loving Your Neighbor," he is asked: "Do you love your neighbor with the kind of love that God requires?" If he selects the "Doing Good Works" card, the question is: "How many good works do you have to do to get into heaven?" It is surprising how readily most Catholics admit that they can’t do the things that they have selected as being necessary for salvation.

Should the Catholic pick up the card titled "Believing in God"—and most do—the person is asked, "What must you believe in order to go to heaven?" Here one would hope to hear something about the Lord Jesus and His saving work on the cross. More often than not, however, Catholics say nothing about Him. Instead they speak of the necessity of believing that God exists, that He is loving and merciful, or that He will forgive those who are truly sorry for their sins.

It is interesting to see the reaction of Catholics who fail to make any mention of Jesus when the omission is pointed out to them. Linda was such a person. I showed her the cards and asked her to pick up the ones that she thought were necessary for salvation. Linda chose most of them. When I asked her to explain her selection, she mentioned neither Jesus nor the cross. When I brought this omission to her attention, she became defensive.

"Your question was unfair!" Linda protested. "You asked what I had to do to be saved. If you had asked me about Jesus, I would have—" Linda suddenly paused and became reflective. She then continued in a quieter voice. "No, I have no excuse. I should have mentioned Jesus. I think I have just learned something very important."

I hoped that Linda had learned that no true Christian could forget to mention Jesus when asked how to get to heaven. I hoped that she realized that she needed to place her trust in Christ for salvation. But despite her admission, Linda continues to cling to the Roman Catholic Church and the false gospel that it teaches."

The Catholic Way of Salvation (reachingcatholics.org)

Can you see how the Roman Catholic Church is teaching a false gospel?

That being the case, how much value is it really to inculcate school kids with RC dogmas?

I am finding the history of secular schools and sectarian schools in Canada is very complex with different approaches in different provinces.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

it's understandable that an atheist or agnostic like myself may question your teachings.

It's kind ironic that you as an atheist comes to the defense of Roman Catholicism.  That reveals something don't you think?  Does that show that atheists and Catholics are on a similar page?  I am not sure any Catholic would take any comfort when an atheist is defending him.  The power behind atheism is demonic.  Would you want the Devil for a lawyer?

  You probably didn't realize that did you.

____________

What particular point of my beliefs do you question?  Is there any particular point?

As for the teachings of Jesus being credible and authoritative, the Bible records many eyewitnesses to his miracles and his resurrection.  That's pretty solid evidence.

 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Contrarian said:

In 2023, there are millions of people who practice Catholicism and are good members of society, contributing through charitable acts.

Yes and there are millions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other people practicing various religions that are good members of society, contributing through charitable acts.   HOWEVER, however, that has nothing at all to do with the central message of the Bible.

1.  Man is a corrupt fallen being worthy of death and eternal damnation according to God's standards.  Read the first few chapters of Romans.

"

No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; {proved: Gr. charged} 10  As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11  There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12  They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13  Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14  Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15  Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16  Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17  And the way of peace have they not known: 18  There is no fear of God before their eyes. 

19  Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {guilty…: or, subject to the judgment of God} 20  Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. 21  But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22  Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24  Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25  Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {set forth: or, foreordained} {remission: or, passing over} 26  To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27  Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28  Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29  Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30  Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. "  Romans 3:9-31 KJV

The Bible makes it clear good works and charitable acts will not save a person from damnation.

2.  Salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone.  That means all the other religious sacraments or ceremonies, good works, prayers to saints, indulgences cannot save anyone.

"1  There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. {again: or, from above} 4  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. {again: or, from above} 8  The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9  Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10  Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11  Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12  If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13  And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16  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. 17  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "  John 3:1-18 KJV

Edited April 16, 2023 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, Contrarian said:

You are basically saying that no matter how good of a person someone is, they are still a corrupt and fallen being according to God's standards, and therefore deserving of death and eternal damnation?

Exactly.  That is correct.  I suggest you read the first four or five chapters of Pauls' Epistle to the Romans.  Sorry for calling you an atheist rather than an agnostic.  My mistake.

"In the shifting winds of modern cultures, the idea of everlasting torment and damnation is difficult for many people to grasp. Why is this? The Bible makes it clear that hell is a literal place. Christ spoke more about hell than He did of heaven. Not only Satan and his minions will be punished there; everyone who rejects Jesus Christ will spend eternity right along with them. A desire to reject or revise the doctrine of hell will not mitigate its flames or make the place go away. Still, the idea of eternal damnation is spurned by many, and here are some reasons for it:

The influence of contemporary thought. In this postmodern era, many go to great lengths to assure no one is offended, and the biblical doctrine of hell is considered offensive. It is too harsh, too old-fashioned, too insensitive. The wisdom of this world is focused on this life, with no thought of the life to come.

Fear. Never-ending, conscious punishment devoid of any hope is indeed a frightening prospect. Many people would rather ignore the source of fear than face it and deal with it biblically. The fact is, hell should be frightening, considering it is the place of judgment originally created for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41).

A flawed view of God’s love. Many who reject the idea of eternal damnation do so because they find it difficult to believe that a loving God could banish people to a place as horrific as hell for all eternity. However, God’s love does not negate His justice, His righteousness, or His holiness. Neither does His justice negate His love. In fact, God’s love has provided the way to escape His wrath: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross (John 3:16-18).

A downplaying of sin. Some find it shockingly unfair that the recompense for a mere lifetime of sinning should be an eternal punishment. Others reject the idea of hell because, in their minds, sin isn’t all that bad. Certainly not bad enough to warrant eternal torture. Of course, it is usually our own sin that we downplay; other people might deserve hell—murderers and the like. This attitude reveals a misunderstanding of the universally heinous nature of sin. The problem is an insistence on our own basic goodness, which precludes thoughts of a fiery judgment and denies the truth of Romans 3:10 (“There is no one righteous, not even one”). The egregiousness of iniquity compelled Christ to the cross. God hated sin to death."

Why is the idea of eternal damnation so repulsive to many people? | GotQuestions.org

The State of Theology: Does Even the Smallest Sin Deserve Eternal Damnation? by Stephen Nichols (ligonier.org)

What Does the Bible Say About Eternal Damnation In Hell? (openbible.info)

 

Who will go to hell? | GotQuestions.org

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Contrarian said:

Can a loving God really send people to suffer in hell for all eternity?

Of course. 

He is both a loving and a just God. 

He is a loving God by the fact that he sent his Son to suffer and die on the cross to save sinners from hell.  See Hebrews in the New Testament.

He is also a just God by the fact he judges those who reject his offer of free grace and pardon by refusing to accept his Son as Savior and Lord.

Edited April 17, 2023 by blackbird

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Of course. 

He is both a loving and a just God. 

He is a loving God by the fact that he sent his Son to suffer and die on the cross to save sinners from hell.  See Hebrews in the New Testament.

He is also a just God by the fact he judges those who reject his offer of free grace and pardon by refusing to accept his Son as Savior and Lord.

That's how I treat my kids, whom I love.  Remind them daily that I brought them into this world, of all that I sacrificed for them and that if they disappoint me in any way, I will have them tortured forever.  Because, you know, I'm "loving and just". 

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That's how I treat my kids, whom I love.  Remind them daily that I brought them into this world, of all that I sacrificed for them and that if they disappoint me in any way, I will have them tortured forever.  Because, you know, I'm "loving and just". 

"12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. "  Proverbs 14:12 KJV

Your relationship with your family is not the same situation as God's relationship with mankind.  God is dealing with eternal matters.  Since God is God and we are mere created beings, it doesn't make a whole lot sense to look at eternal truths from a personal experiences view or worldly point of view and ignore what God's revelation says.

We don't determine how God's justice works.  We simply learn about it in his revelation and believe and act accordingly.

He is merciful by sending His Son to take on human flesh, suffer and die on a cross for mankind.  He didn't have to do that.  That was entirely God's choice.  We don't deserve anything.  Mankind rebelled against God and has a corrupt, wicked heart.  Many people don't understand that and think somehow there is something in them that deserves eternal life and not condemnation.  That is a huge mistake.  

The only reason anybody can get into heaven is by faith in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross for them.  He shed his blood for unworthy sinners and gave a complete pardon to those who accept Him as Lord and Savior and believe He died for them.

"11  But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13  For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? "  Hebrews 9:11-14 KJV

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by blackbird

[dialamah]

43 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Your relationship with your family is not the same situation as God's relationship with mankind. 

Very true.  I'm more loving and merciful to my children than God is to his.  I'm not as petty, becoming incensed enough to slaughter them and their friends because they disobeyed me.  I don't tell my children they deserve nothing, merely because I brought them into the world.  

I became a non-believer because I couldn't wrap my head around a "loving" God who could be as cruel as he's described as being in the bible.  

Edited April 17, 2023 by dialamah