It doesn't bother me.  And I agree that it is where America is headed.  However, I disagree with some of the thoughts that the article mentioned, specifically the "whatever works" mentality.  And I know you'll disagree with me!  lol 

I believe that Jesus is unique among all the religions b/c he's the only one w/ a message about a personal relationship.  Whether you can "be saved" and reach Heaven thru another religion - I don't know.  The evidence in the Bible is pretty strong about Jesus, but we don't know everything...God has more mysteries than we can imagine.   

Lee- good point and valid quotes.  But my question is that your quotes are related to Christianity from Paul and Jesus is talking to the Jews and Disciples at the time.  Because the bible is only holding to Jews and Christians - how do you justify your position.  Your position is only valid if a person converts to Christianity, as that is who Paul is talking to.

Jesus' quote is up for interpretation.  ?I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.
It can mean that "I am the example of how to interact with Love and compassion toward people (the way) , what is the true commandments - Namely, Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself (the truth),  how to live with modesty, not greed as the main determiner of one's ownership status in society (life).  No one can come to the Father except through emulating my life and interaction within society for the betterment of the whole.

Michelle also has a valid point which was the thought of the great apologist Mr C S Lewis. That others may get into heaven by the name of a different God, which may be who the Christians call Jesus Christ.  It is also noted in the bible that God will be called by many names.

The article is reflecting that same theory of different names as noted in Hinduism. 

Are you trouble about the loss of souls based on the church position that someone needs to "save them" or is it the lack of "acceptance" as defined by Bruce's last sermon on Aug 29th 2009, which  would be the position that Jesus would have taken on acceptance.

It's ok to disagree Michelle. It think most everybody on here disagrees with me. I agree with you that if a Jew could follow all the laws he would be reconciled with God. But, I think we would both probably agree that it's impossible to follow every law. The laws and commandments where put in place to lead us to Christ. Thanks so much for turning me on to those verses.

I think America and other countries are tending toward this path because we're becoming less and less superstitious. I think it's hard for some to completely reject the idea of God and the after life because it can be quite comforting to some, and the bad versions of the afterlife are frightful.

Paul,I'm not troubled by the "save them" or "acceptance" kind of thinking. It upsets me because people don't get to experience God's love for them and He truly does transform our lives when we are born of the spirit. I have seen the transformation in my life although it has been a long transformation over many years. I just wan't all people to experience God's love for them. I don't think people should accept Christ just for the sake of avoiding hell although alot of people probably do.

Lee- A bit of a quandry in your answer that I need clarification on.
Your first reply was your concern appeared to be about "saving" souls by telling them they can only get salvation through Jesus Chist.
The your second answer is that the "saving or acceptance" was not a problem, and that people should accept Jesus not for the sake of salvation.

So, the main reason to know Jesus is that is the only way a person can obtain salvation from hell, yet that is not the only reason.

What are these other reasons?  If I know Jesus as a teacher of good and wonderful things, yet do not acknowledge the salvation issue, then am I not is the same thought that there are other ways to heaven? 

Or do I need to know Jesus as a good person and THEN ACKNOWLWDGE that he is the only way to get to heaven?

Please clarify,  thanks.

Michele- in answer to your question about religions - I would wager that 95%  or more of the religions in the world are based on an afterlife.  Try to think of one religion that insists that you treat others humanely, with empathy, compassion and equality without any promise that it affects any afterlife that one may have.  What religion directs us to recognise that the purpose of the treatment of others is to bring about a better world to live in, not the world that we inhabit when we die.

I agree with Anxiety, we worship, interact and tell others because we all want to have some kind of "soul insurance" not because it is the right thing to do.

This question that you ask, I applaud you for asking, is what I feel is one of the core matters in Christianity. 

If you say that Jesus is the only way, then you  tend to be more intolerant of any other religion.  If you accept the article and the stats, then the question is correct, that we should look at our time on earth for the betterment of others. 

I find it ironic - (ok tangent course here  ) - that we have wrist bands, t shirts other paraphanelia that asks us to think, "What Would Jesus Do?" when the main thought of Christianity is how to save our souls through acceptance of a salvation only through Jesus in the afterlife.

So does it really matter what Jesus would do, religions are about what YOU should do to get the correct soul insurance.

Lee- Let me see if I got it straight this time. 

The most important thing is leading people to Christ. Only Christ can save people and forgive their sins. We can't save anybody,all we can do is witness to them and pray for them if the conversation leads us that way.

accepting Christ rather than showing them acceptance and love.

"Accepting" as noted in this thread is the definition by Bruce meaning "to stand up for who or what they are and then working, helping and be an advocate for them so  that they have the best life that they can."

In this definition merely saying you accept them - would mean you tolerate them - not the same.  Love is of course a main component of the dialog. 

Both you and the church are in the same game - to get people to be "saved". The church uses the "guilt" card, you seem to use the "fear of the afterlife" card.  I don't see that as "standing up for who they are" nor "trying to make their lives better" unless you disregard their beliefs, customs, or life styles and view that being "saved" is really all that matters to improve or stand up for them. 

Which then comes back to the article.   Besides having different beliefs as "social acquaintances" should we then close down the dialog between the beliefs?