If one does something for a certain type of person, so that bad things don't happen, it doesn't mean that what they did is the only thing necessary for the person to not have bad things happen.  And the Bible calls for more than people mentally affirming certain information being valid.  There is also a LARGE part to the Christian message of salvation, that goes beyond just eternal life.   And, I think it is far better to not poll people on what the lowest common denominator is for what is called for, when stating what the nature of Christian salvation is.

And to be saved, there is a LOT to it.  It is done by grace through faith, and persevering and so on.  It is done by abiding and resting in Christ.  There is also an emptying of oneself. And then there is bearing fruit.  All this fits in.  It isn't just a matter of mentally affirming what was done as being valid, but by responding in the way the Bible lays out, as dictated by Christian tradition.  The proper responding is the measure of whether a person has a right faith or not.

And if one wants to say it is a free gift to be received, that is fine and Biblical.  But then, one is asked how it is received.  And that opens up a lot of things, and how to, and can be a lot of things.  Even things with no cost can have conditions associated with them.  It would be like, if I said I had a million dollars for you, and you ask how you can get it, and I say "accept it".  You could then go around telling people you have a million dollars, accepting it.  It doesn't mean you have it, because you didn't receiving.

Of course, if you want me to open up a can of worms here, I will.  Want to know the Biblical pattern of salvation, and how one gets into relationship with Christ, receives the Spirit of God, and then communes with Christ and becomes partakers of everything of the Kingdom?  It certainly isn't a prayer.  It is baptism.  Baptism is the proper response to the gospel message.  This is in the Bible, and it is also in keeping with Christian tradition.  Of course, if you merely want to frame salvation as escaping hell, and having Jesus as your best bud so you can hang out with him, then sure believe that the response to the gospel is a prayer or even mentally affirming a message to be true.  But that is not in keeping with the Bible, or Christian tradition.

As for the can of worms, I really don't care.  You are free to believe whatever it is like.  That in no way means that it is what is of God or approved.

It's not really a serious problem. The findings from the cambrian doesn't contradict evolution in any way. And there are already some theories for the speeding up out there. I'd say the system just reached a critical point of diversity which escalated the process.

Before I respond I want to point out two things!

""I clearly wrote that God eventually stopped Abraham from killing his son (and used the phrase "called it off" because that's how Abraham saw it), so why do you keep assuming that I thought he would let him do it? "

Do you know what call off means? Abraham knew there had to be some  catch because he clearly stated he thought God would bring him back to life.  I told you to read because I gave ACTUAL quotes.

""Hebrews 11.17-19

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 19 [Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead], and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.- Me before quoting and giving examples disproving your obvious screw up.""

^ You never addressed this. Because it's not opinion you were wrong on what Abraham thought because Hebrews tells us clearly what he thought would happen. Will not drop this to you admit you screwed up  on this. There is no twist you poorly used called off and tried to cover it up with how Abraham saw it. I showed no he didn't see it as that. He thought God would raise his son back to life becuase he knew God wouldn't do something outside of God's own code. This isn't debateable admit you screwed up. Please tell me how I mis-quoted this because I'm using exactly what you said.

Two,you avoided the only question I asked you.

"Why would he want to based on what? You just say he would ignoring the whole reason behind Abraham and Issac. This is how you can tell you have no clue what your talking about. Do you even know why he only did with one person who was specifically Abraham? I want to respond to this because you seem to know nothing about why this event specifically happened and only getting pieces of it because of me. If you knew the answer the response you made would make sense why it's incoherent. You're obviously way over your head."

"God's purpose would in that case be to test us, and to make sure that we trust him, no matter what order he gives us?"

This goes to the question I asked eailier why did he do this specific test on Abraham why him.  He doesn't do a similar test on anyone but him why did you he do it on him specifically because that will answer your question and find out how the specific passage is more of a personal one and not general thing to happen from God. Answer the question because if you can't just tell and I will explain exactly why you don't understand why God gave this specific request.

"And that goes for every example that I mentioned, including being willing to leave your family."

You're giving a what if not based on the context of why. For example, you're not giving a reason why behind the reasoning the passage does with Abarham. You're just giving a pointless what if without and reasoning to why he would request based on how God works. For example, if you were to tell me that omni (all of God's omni) then like with Abarham I would trust God of course ebcause he isn't going to do wrong to me like with Abarham. You're using the worst example to defend your claims because it contradicts what your trying to say. Abarham showed if you trust God without doubt nothing but good will come. It in no way was about seeing if humans do whatever you ask it was the show the righteousness of God. 

"Most other users don't seem to have a problem with that, but I will give you a hand and ask you a concrete question"

Most people on here are laymen on bible and it's history concepts. They know as much as you do with is very little doesn't mean they stupid it's just there not educated on the topic.

"Is worshipping God necessary for people to go to heaven? "

What do you mean by worshipping in what way? Like physically worshiping or mind/body/soul worshiping what? Do you mean living your life around God and always putting him first? You need to be specific. If you can answer that I can give clear answer. I do believe trying to follow God's teaching as best as humanly possible (meaning people will screw up) is necessary to degree. But there is much more to this like the atonement from Jesus. Much more too it.

"Or is it possible for people to reject God while mainly being good (as in: follow the four points mentioned in the OP) throughout their lives and end up in heaven anyway? "

What do you by reject were they Christians and why did they reject it. What was the reasons or causes.  Were they never Christian and just heard of Christianity and rejected it?  Be specific.

No one is "good" person based on certain deeds as everyone has sinned and no is "good".

Mark 10:18

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

As in Mark 10:18 no one is a "good" you or me. You have sinned just as much as I have. I may have sin less but doesn't make me any less guiltly then you.

"Remember; the answer is based on your personal beliefs, so there are no right or wrong answers. Several religious and non-religious posters have already answered that question and came up with different answers." 

The argument if you are making one is an Argument of Ad  populum because serveral people agree or disagree then x isn't/is true. just because serveal people disagree or agree with something it shows not base that the actual question is based on opinion. For example, some exterme religious groups believe the earth is 2000 years old just because people disagree or agree that are non-/religious doesn't mean the matter at hand is based on opinion. There answer could all be worthless because there false and one could be right or all are simiply false. Answer should be based on logic not what you feel because your topic becomes worthless as debating what color is best. Just my two cents.

1)

call off
1.To cancel or postpone: call off a trip; called the trip off.

2. To restrain or recall: Call off your dogs.

As far as I can see, it is perfectly possible to plan to call things off. Just because you later plan to call something off that doesn't mean you never actually called it off. This discussion is absolutely ridiculous and I have no idea why you put so much effort into trying to make it seem like I didn't know that God intended to stop him from killing his son all along. I had a Christian upbringing, remember? This is basic knowledge.

I have to say though that I was not aware that he had to think through his actions before actually trying to commit the murder - That he actually had to look for a contradiction in what God said before following his order. But if he truly thought that God was perfectly just and fair and had good intentions, he should have blindly followed God's order no matter what. And this gets even more confusing when I read things like this, where they state that he actually did follow God's orders unquestioningly. I guess it's just another point to add to the pile of contradictions found in the Bible.

Anyway, I think he showed us all his human side at that point; that he trust no one, not even God. If he unconditionally trusted God he would have followed his orders no matter how bizarre they seemed. Not questioned them. If everyone questioned God's true intentions all the time everything in the religious world would be chaos. And, well, people do fight all over the world over God's true intentions according to their personal views.

...

2)

From the same source that I used before: "God uses Abraham’s faith as an example to all who came after him as the only means of salvation."

And that goes completely in line with what I have been saying all along. Everyone seeking God should be willing to sacrifice their son if God ever told them to.

...

As for your questions: By "Is worshipping God necessary for people to go to heaven?" I asked if people actually need to believe in God in order to go to heaven or if they can just follow my four points in the OP. To make it more clear we can say that these people have been educated with how all the Abrahamic religions are practiced, and that they are aware that God wants them to believe in him.

And as for your last paragraph, I really don't see where you are going with it. Some people believe that you don't have to believe in God to end up in heaven while others think that it is necessary. (Given that you are aware of the religion. Otherwise you would demand that they are aware of God and his message without ever even hearing about it.) In this thread I am asking what people believe. From that point of view they can't be wrong. If someone tells you that they think red is their favorite color you can't say that they are wrong.

As answer to the ? in the title : NO

Me not killing my neighbour is also just a matter of common sense. As are a lot of the good things a lot of people do, or in this case don't, in life.

Just common sense.

lol at people saying Christians have a different god than Muslims because we believe that Jesus (pbuh) is not gods son! in Islam we have to respect all prophets of God and all religions to be Muslims. If you do not accept one prophet then you are not Muslim!

I love Jesus (pbuh) and respect him but he is not Gods sun as God was not born and does not give birth! If Jesus (pbuh) was a demigod then Adam is a real God since God created him with no mother nor a father!

I don't make fun of prophets and god and I don't draw pictures of them either since I am not allowed to do so!

if you read the old testament (the unchanged bible) you will find that in it Jesus (pbuh) talks about the last prophet that will come and seal Gods religion as in the completion of his religion!

The incarnation (Jesus as God/Son of God) and also the death, burial and resurrection of Christ are essential to Christianity.  Islam denies this, and also while Jesus is said to be Messiah, I have yet to see a consistent understanding on the part of Muslims as to what this means.  In Christianity, it is all about salvation, being delivered from sin and so on.  Islam is all about submission.   You can correct me on this, but Islam says the only problem is that we didn't have a pure form of God's Law, and people choose  to not submit enough.  There is nothing in Islam that speaks of people being slaves to Sin.  Also, God is something entirely other and has little to do with humans being humans.  Christians say that man is made in God's images.  In Islam, God transcends everything.  There is talk of love, MAYBE, in Islam, but it really doesn't fit what is in the Christian religion either.

While Muslims can respect Christians, and act nice as you have,there really isn't much in common between Islam and Christianity at all.

I wil say this by asking you personally to go through the New Testament texts and either only copy down the verses that agree with Islam or list the ones that disagree.  And then see how much is left.  Islam claims the New Testament texts are corrupted, thus the Qu'ran is needed.

Islam does have a beautiful and logical simplicity to it.  Just, it ends up destroying what makes Christianity Christianity in its beautiful and logical simplicity.

anything altered by humans is automatically corrupted because its no longer Gods true words also you will find many contradictions in the Bible but not in the Koran. i see no point in reading the new testament as it is altered! if you want to see the resemblance between Islam and Christianity you should read the old testament.

if you can read the Koran in Arabic then you would see that the oldest copy you can find and the newest copy are 100% the same! now you tell me is that not the power of God? anything human made can easily be changed but the difference between the Koran and the Bible is that God said that the words in Koran will not change and if it does people will know about it. its no longer the Koran if a single letter is changed!

we Muslims pray 5 times a day and in the prayer we recite words from the Koran and a lot of people know the Koran to heart so if you burn all the Korans in the world and then gather 5 Muslims for instance from around the world they would recreate the book in a day ot two! can that be done with the Bible? no of course not because there are so many versions of it!

now I respect people for what they believe in but you should know that what you believe in is true or not and once there is alterations in something then those words are no longer Gods words.

Jesus (pbuh) is the Messiah and he will return as he never died. the anti Christ will come before he does. its actually pretty cool!

Similarities between Islam, Christianity & Judaism

I've always found it weird that an all powerful being would create 7 billion people just so they can all band together to say how awesome s/he is. And if for whatever reason you don't do it, you will be punished FOR EVER! That is just bizarre

Not only that, we also get to fight it out with regards to which "version" of him/her is more accurate.

Not to mention, the Christian version suggests he already had Angels whose job it was to do that anyway, clearly that wasn't enough so s/he had to go that extra mile.

Pardon me for deleting the video.  It is in your post and can be seen there.  I deleted it to save space.

Let's take a minute at what the most basic of information regarding Jesus is believed by Christians, and then look at what Islam says about it.  It fundamentally says things about Jesus that about everyone who claims to be  Christian, or a follower of Jesus says.  Islam denies Jesus is the Son of God, when that title is all throughout the New Testament texts, and has been shown over and over again.  It is even in the writings of gnostics.  But Islam denies this.  Same goes with Jesus dying on the cross.  Islam denies this. Anyone who is even remotely believing they follow Jesus hold these to be true.  Islam denies this.  

I will leave the point about "multiple texts" alone, because it really isn't relevant to anything here, or the discussion of the Christian religion, if you want to go there.

I will focus on Jesus as Messiah.  Post here what that title means.  Can you do it?  Does it mean savior?  If it doesn't, what does it mean?  Again, what does Jesus as Messiah mean?

Islam is a bit like you took the Christian religion, and then ran a buzzsaw through it and morphed it into something else that doesn't even resemble Christianity.  It says things of who Jesus is, and Mary (yes, it speaks of a virgin birth and calls Jesus Messiah) but it doesn't explain its relevance, and just claims "corrupted texts".  Again, I put this challenge through you.  Show me what an approved version of the New Testament texts are by Islamic standards.  Then look at how much is left, and ask yourself if this is merely corrupted texts or totally false texts.  I would then have to ask what "Book" do you consider Christians part of.  

There are multiple people who penned Christian texts, and they show ample examples of what is called for by God.