This is currently a fairly small story on CNN.... But the implications of this could be huge....
if nothing else, it is an interesting situation in which the court system needs to verify that Jesus really existed.....
Take a look...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/22/christ.book.ap/index.html

I resent your assertion. Who are you to decide that all of the great sages from all the great wisdom traditions throughout History, from Lao Tse to Ramana Maharshi, from Siddhartha Gautama to Sri Aurobindo (read "The Life Divine"), from Mahatma Gandhi, DT Suzuki and innumerable other Teachers and Realizers are WRONG because their Realization falls outside of your awareness?

Your requirement that there must be only ONE path, yours, (as you understand it), reveals the extent to which some people are comfortable rejecting everything that does not conform to their understanding. How do you know there isn't anything that makes sense to you from the Bhagavad Gita if you've never read any of it?

You are making an argument that reveals the extent to which you dismiss everything that does not conform to your understanding...Intolerance usually rests most comfortably with ignorance.

Last edited: Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 2:00:51 PM

It is not MY path, and I didn't say it. God did. "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." John 14:6

And yes, absolute truth is exclusive, but that is logic, not arrogance.

Wel in a sense yes but there are people who are innocent enough or young enough that sense they do not understand the full meaning of the bible so they well get taken to haven with all the other believers during the rapture. Also there is wrong ways to worship god like worshipping idols of god but in the ten commandments it shows us not to do that, thus being the guide to how we serve God, and obey his rules.
Check out socrates cafe

Last edited: Saturday, February 04, 2006 at 1:59:44 PM

What a relief it must be to understand everything...and to know who's right (us) and who's wrong (everyone who isn't us); Thanks for clearing that up.

Masimoto is gifted with a greater perspective.

Does an infant born in China to Buddhist parents have the same opportunity and liklihood of following the "right" religion as your child? Is that "just"?

Last edited: Sunday, February 05, 2006 at 2:56:26 AM

^ I heard a homily a few weeks ago that if people don't have the opportunity to follow the true religion, then they still have salvation if they follow their god/gods devoutly.
Basically (this is my interpretation of the homily), God thinks "He followed his god/gods very well, so if he had an opportunity to know the truth, he would have followed Me very well. He deserves heaven."

That is perfectly just.

@ Nyarlathotep

You know, for someone who believes all paths are equally correct, you certainly seem convinced that I'm wrong. If my religion is just as "wet" as your religion, you really should lighten up and be a lot more tolerant of my intolerance.

Wow.

There have been some really great posts in the past few days. Very interesting, VERY smart. I see a couple of spats here and there, but (as we all know) this is common when people compare their religions.

My favorite LOL moment was from perseus when he said "you really should lighten up and be a lot more tolerant of my intolerance." What a great line
:).

A philosophy of being "Tolerant of my intolerance" would probably go a long ways toward ending many religious conflicts in the world.

What do you mean I'm gifted. Is that a oke or do you seriosly mean that?????

People who say the phrase "true religion" in reference not to an abstraction, but to their own, are truly scary. The marginalization other people's beliefs as "acceptable" because of their geographical disconnection from the "true religion" is patronizing, condescending, and — if it were me being spoken down to — infuriating. To assert that in one's life, not worshipping the "true" god but showing the proper respect to their own would result in acceptance in to the "true" god's heaven is the kind of nonsense that breeds holy wars. I suspect people who hold those views have never left the western world.
*
masimoto: you can tease out the answer to your question in what I have just written, though that wasn't directed at you.
*
KKB: Buchanan is still anti-semitic.

Last edited: Monday, February 06, 2006 at 4:40:44 PM

^aw man I'm not smart enough can you say it in english?

@Perseus

Waiting for you to weigh in on the "true" religion and "just" God dilema...

Read Tally's post first...he gets it.

I'd love to hear Memphis' take on this one, too.

@ 44 and @ Tally

It seems you both have similar objections to my comments about Christianity. 44, you think that if God only accepts people who follow "my" religion, then He cannot be just. Tally, your comments don't seemed to be directly connected to anything I said, but I gather you also object to me claiming that my religion is the only true religion. I'd like to know if you both object to my statements simply because they refer to Christianity, or if you would object to any religion claiming to be the "true" religion.

Let's assume your view is the latter (please correct me in reply if I am mistaken): If no religion can be the true religion, then what you ask as an alternative is multiple paths to God. You have to consider, however, what it is that keeps us from God in the first place, and then look at the solutions offered by other religions.

We are cut off from God because we are imperfect; He is perfectly just, and cannot overlook sin. Doing so would violate an element of His divine character. Thus, any religion that claims to offer a way to God must offer a legitimate solution to this separation. A solution of legalism is not viable; the ability to "work" our way to perfection is lost with the very first act of sin. Imagine you are trying to balance a full cup of water - your hand is unsteady, and some of the water spills on the ground. Even if you balance that cup perfectly from then on, the cup will never be full again. Perfection once lost is gone forever. We can never earn it back.

Thus, legalism cannot provide a way back to God. What does Christianity teach? Paul explains it this way:

"But now, the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness...that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:21

A righteousness "apart from the law?" This is not a system of legalism, but is instead a system of grace. We can't reconcile ourselves to God by our own actions, so God took it on Himself to reach out to us. He provided a perfect sacrifice in the person of His own son, Jesus Christ. Christ lived the perfect life that we could not, and then died in our place "as a propitiation by His blood." Christ satisfied the just requirement of the law so that God may extend mercy to us without being unjust. That message is what sets Christianity apart from other religions.

Now I realize I haven't yet directly addressed your comments, 44. You said:

The truth is, we all have the same opportunity of following God. You don't have to be raised in a Christian home to know that God exists or to understand His law; "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." (Romans 1:20). Also, "not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness..." (Romans 2:13-15)

These verses make it clear that no one is ignorant of God's law. His character is manifest in all of creation, and his law has been given to every man in the form of his/her conscience. We are all equally guilty of violating God's law, regardless of how we were raised. For this reason, God would be perfectly just in sending every one of us to Hell.

The message of the Gospel, however, is not one of condemnation. God is perfectly just, yes, but He is also merciful, "abounding in lovingkindness." His plan for salvation involved the sacrificing of His own son in order to provide a way for us to be reconciled. Through Christ, God is reaching out to save us, and not even "an infant born in China to Buddhist parents" is beyond the reach of God's hand. "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Not all people will believe, but that does not excuse them from the consequences of their own sins. So, yes, God is just. But that is not the whole picture of God's character. He is also loving, merciful, and sacrificing, and gave up more than we can imagine to save us from the wrath we earned ourselves.

These are all very involved concepts, so if I haven't made myself clear in some way, please tell me. Also, if I didn't answer your question, or if you have others, feel free to ask. I'm not an expert, but I have spent a lot of time examining these things, and I'll do my best to explain my views to anyone who wants to know. Thanks for your patience in reading this. I know its a really long post. :) I hope to hear from you soon.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 5:54:12 AM

Yes, I object to any religion claiming to be the "true" religion.

And, I'm not clear on your answer. Is God "just" because "all" people "have the same opportunity of following God" in the Christian way? Or is God "just" because he chooses to be merciful upon those who follow the wrong religion?

Also, is the following a universal truth...or just an element of your faith: "We are cut off from God because we are imperfect; He is perfectly just, and cannot overlook sin. Doing so would violate an element of His divine character." If other religions believe differently, are they wrong?

44 - Reread my post. You continue to differentiate between universal truths and "my" faith. My faith is based on the absolute truths of God's revealed word, so that is not a valid distinction. God is just because He is just. Justice is defined by God, just as truth, love, and beauty are defined by God's character. The dictionary definition of the word "just" is "based on or behaving accordingly to what is morally right and fair." Morality is defined by God, thus justice is defined by God. And the punishment of Hell for all people is just (based on my post above) because God has revealed Himself and His law to all men, thus none are without excuse when they break it. Again, though, I ask you to reread my previous post and carefully consider what I say.

"Reread my post"...what kind of B.S. Answer is that???!!!!!! That's not an answer! Your arguements are growing cobwebs!!!!

(sorry, just channeling Stink)

I reread your post and carefully considered what you said...and I still have the same questions. You can ignore my third question for now, but relative to the child-born-to-buddhist-parents and the "perfectly just" God dilema...I am still not understanding your answer.

In your mind, is there no contradiction because:

1) "All" people "have the same opportunity of following God" in the Christian way...regardless of parents/environment/culture/etc.? In essence there is no difference in opportunity between buddhist child and your child; or,
2) God is merciful upon those who follow the wrong religion?; or, and in a new twist from your last post,
3) Is it indeed less likely that a buddhist child will follow Christianity's teachings (and, therefore, be reconciled for it's sins)...but that difference is not unjust because justice gets to be defined by God?

@ 44

I actually did not ignore your third question. You asked about a statement I made, questioning its truth as absolute or relative. I said

If other religions believe differently, then, yes, they are wrong. You cannot have two contradicting statements that are both true. Let's inject some logic into this discussion.

Now let me see if I can address your question clearly. I am not going to choose one of your options, because none of them express what I said. You are asking how God can be just when some people are less likely than others to become Christians (I reworded your question, but it retains its essence in this simplification). Thus, your insinuation is that, in order for God to be just, all people should have the same opportunity to accept Christ. However, the gospel is an issue of MERCY. If you want to discuss JUSTICE, then you should be talking about condemnation. That is why all of my answers so far have reflected the issue of Hell. It is because justice demands that all men be punished for their sins. Therefore, if no one ever accepted Christ, and we all went to Hell, God would still be just. If God chose one person, and shared the gospel with him, and the rest of us went to hell, that would be just. You cannot demand mercy. You only have the right to justice.

I am very curious to hear your views on the meaning of justice. We've talked a lot about what I believe; what do you believe? I want to know why you believe this:

If there is no "true" religion, then what is the alternative?

That all religions, in some way shape or form, have an insight as to what is true about God. From Indigenous Plains folks to Buddhists in China, we all have an understanding of what God is, and we can learn more about our relationships with God and each other if we only took the time to see that there is truth outside of our normal realm of existence.

God meets us where we are, is with us in every moment, and receives us in every moment. God works with the world as it is, to lead it to what it can be, and uses all prayers accorded to God to use in the stuff for God's doing. All of these prayers, regardless of religion are worthy in God's eyes.

Now I am a Christian, and I believe that Christ died for all people. Out of that salvific understanding, Christ has called me to do justice (a genuine respect for all people), love mercy (compassion for all of God's people) and walk humbly with my God.

Memphis, if you're a Christian, does the above reflect your views about Christianity? That "all religions...have an insight into what is true about God?" I won't argue about this, btw. The fact that God reveals himself through creation and human conscience means that any religion invented by men will in some way (intentionally or otherwise) reflect aspects of God's character. We cannot conceive of perfection apart from the existence of God.

This does NOT mean, however, that all religions are equally true.

Yes, the above does reflect my views on Christianity.

If you are setting up some form of apologetic FOR Christianity, you're going about it in a legalistic fashion. You use a legalistic interpretation of the Pauline tradition to talk about the Gospel revealed in Christ. It is the law that condemns, and the Gospel sets us free. As you say, everybody has some understanding of God's law. Why then do you feel the need to tell everyone that they are under the law? Why not set them free? Why not take God's understanding of freedom in Christ to whole new level? Why not let the Gospel be as radical as God intended it to be, as setting all people free, regardless of where they are? You need not limit yourself to the legalism that you propose. Let go of your need for perfection. Why are you holding onto some Pharisaic moralism? If you truly believe in this salvation that has been offered, then confess it, without limits, without fear.

I'm sorry, Memphis, but I really don't see where I've said anything legalistic. I firmly believe that the gospel sets us free from the condemnation of the law, but you can't ignore the fact that the law does condemn. Paul says it himself. YOU said it yourself. And that is all I ever intended.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 8:41:38 AM

You stated this:

Follow, or else = legalism. You try very hard to avoid the legalistic persepctive, but yet can't seem to get away from it.

You also state this:

Take a closer look at that statement and you should see that it is somewhat contradictory. Legalism is implied. What most evangelicals fail to notice is that when they begin to state that it's our way or the hell-way, then a form of legalism is underlying. Any sort of system or method or choosing implies legalism.

Let's turn to someone who can speak to this concept better than I. Paul Tillich in his essay, "My search for Absolutes describes Encounters with God. You can read the whole article here: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1628&C=1619

Are not all religions grounded upon seeing God as Creator and Redeemer? As Holy mysterion that can never quite be grasped yet still experienced.

Every human being. How radical of a concept is that? I would further that into being related to every creature, is that not what evolution also shows? (oops- another topic)

Let's get down to the basic question then which Tillich addresses:

He continues:

God cannot be caught in any particular religion, but it is able to transcend its own particularity. Now that's what I've been trying to get to all along. Tillich closes with this statement:

I take seriously, as do you, your search for meaning in the absolute. We both find this in Christ. But where we differ is that I find other religions have something to teach me as well. It is in that search for meaning that we transcend our selves and where people engaged in holy conversations find a grounding with the holy.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 9:04:36 AM

44, Memphis, Masimoto, perseus, TH....

I clearly do not have the intimate knowledge of religion that the rest of you possess. My questions and assertions in this debate are more top-level.... That said, I have the following to share....

Perseus.... A couple of questions....
For starters, I (respectfully) don't agree with the beliefs you have been taught. (And that is okay eh?). But I'm in awe of your understanding of your religion and your conviction to your beliefs.
A couple of questions for you....
1) What are your thoughts about humanities place in the universe? (i.e. Do you believe that we are alone in the universe? If not, do you believe that Earth's inhabitants have exclusive rights to heaven or that any creature in the universe that has cognitive abilities could find a way into God's graces?)
2) On earth, why aren't animals able to go to heaven? Clearly there are many species of animals on earth that have emotions and simple abilities to reason. I guess Mankind only has a "fair weather" relationship with his supposed best friend (dogs).

And finally,....
How silly the mores of religion seem to those on the outside of it!
I can guess that your reply would be that I could not understand because I have not felt the love of god....
Apparently Christianity would have us believe that we are doomed to hell unless we follow ONLY Christianity. Holy Exclusive Club Batman!
perseus, your long reply is incredibly well written and very VERY interesting, but could there BE any more rules to get into heaven? There are SO many gotchyas and conundrums! Christianity has an "answer" for everything, as long as that answer keeps you in the fold.... Wow.

I think Memphis nailed what a belief in God SHOULD be. Check out his post a few above this one. Well written, and makes the most sense to me. IF GOD is all knowing, we should be able to live a life devoted to understanding him and be welcomed into heaven, regardless of which of mankind's Churches we follow.

I said it a long time ago, I think the marketing team that came up with the concept of "Buy our product or go to hell for eternity" was brilliant.... I can just see it now.... 2000 years ago, sitting around the board room, breaking bread.... "Okay, now how are we going to get people to join our new cult? Hmmm... How about a catchy slogan?" They all think for a while... "how about... Join now and get two goats for free?".... After a moment, they decide against that one.... Then some little dude stands up in the back of the room and says "I have an idea.... Most people these days are undereducated, and are still pretty superstitious... Lets just tell em that they need to join us or their souls will burn in hell for eternity!".... After an uncomfortable pause... They vote the "Hell Initiative" in by a slim margin. The deciding factor being that it is less expensive to threaten people with burning in hell than it is to give every new member two goats.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 11:01:41 AM

Ooo, ooo, ooo,

Me, me, me,

I got a childlike question

Perseus,

Are mormons going to Heaven?

Peace

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 10:32:13 AM

I would go to Memphis' church every Sunday. I'd probably disagree a lot. But, I'd go.

Hi ghost. Good questions; I'll take a whack at an answer:

This is a question not addressed anywhere in scripture. The most any of us can do is speculate, and I don't really have much of an established view here. It is certainly not inconceivable that God created other worlds, and it is very intriguing to consider the ramifications of the possibility. C.S. Lewis wrote a very interesting series of fantasy books about life on other planets called "The Space Trilogy." "Perelandra," the second book in this series, addresses the issue of salvation in other worlds. Keep in mind, this is mere fiction, but I have a lot of respect for Lewis, and they are very good books.

In Genesis, it says "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him..." (Genesis 1:27). This has multiple implications, but one of the ways we are like God is that we are spiritual beings possessing souls. Animals are strictly physical creatures, and do not have souls. The Bible does speak of animals in heaven, just not the same animals that existed on earth.

I'm very sorry my posts came across like that. I have gone into a lot of detail in previous messages, so I'll try just stating it more simply. There are only two rules for receiving salvation:

1: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31)
2: See Rule #1

There are many rules in the Bible, but they are not the way to heaven. The Law serves two main functions: the first is to show us the true state of our hearts. The law condemns by showing us how inadequately we obey God. Once we have seen our need for grace and accepted Christ, however, the law takes on a different meaning. I do not study and try to follow God's statutes as a way to earn my way into heaven; I want to obey God because of the love He's shown for me, and as a way to glorify Him. As a Christian, the law now serves as a guideline for how to live my life. The law is still in effect, but it no longer condemns because of the work of Christ. Jesus said "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17) These rules are no longer between me and heaven, but I observe them as a way to honor God.

Now, I am protestant, and I know Catholics put more stock in liturgy and legalism. I do not believe this is biblical. The law CANNOT save. Rules CANNOT save. Only faith in Christ can save. If you take nothing else away from my statements, remember that, for that is the power of the gospel to liberate.

I want to thank you, Ghost for your gracious spirit in discussing these issues. I believe it is important to defend what I believe, but I don't want these discussions to become heated. All I ask is that others in this thread consider what I say with an open heart and a discerning mind. I believe you have genuinely listened to me, and for that I thank you. :)

I hope to see you in a game of scrum sometime. Until then...

@ Vash - I don't really know how to answer such a general (**cough, cough, *loaded,* cough**) question, however I will say that, as with any person, that depends on what they believe. I have stated clearly in previous posts what the Bible teaches is necessary for salvation. You should be able to extrapolate from that. If you have any more specific questions, "I'll be here all week." XD

^ You are right about everything except Catholics.
We are not too legalistic about things. We just say, you have to repent of your sins, believe in Jesus AND try to live a better life.
The two major things that are different with us are:

1. We believe in the Real Presence of Jesus' Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

2. We honor Mary as the person who was conceived without original sin and said "yes" to God when He asked her to bear His Son.

Pretty much no objections here. :) :)

Hiya perseus,

Thanks for the reply.

I can't say that I will ever be able to become a believer in religious teachings. I certainly do find religion to be interesting and I have great respect for people that choose to live their lives with the overt intent of being spiritual... Regardless of whether I agree with their religions.

Regarding TT... I have not really been able to find the time to get in there.... I wish I could, but as usual I seem to be working 18 hour days x 7 days a week. I barely even get to see my family these days. The only reason I get to poke my nose in here is that I have quite a few video editing projects right now and I have random minutes of available time while rendering....

Anyway, thanks again perseus. Always interesting learning from you.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 4:50:35 PM

Video editing, huh? I'm into digital design with a very strong side interest in videography. What kind of stuff do you do?

I'm surprised no one ever pointed out the multiple Gods part in the Bible. The Bible while in Hebrew contains the word "Elohim" to represent God. However, Elohim is plural. The singular form is Eloah.

Just something extra I thought I would toss in for the heck of it..

Zeonic, God refers to Himself in plural because He is a trinity. In Genisis, He often says, "Let us" do this, that, etc. The three parts of the trinity are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but are only one God.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 3:14:25 PM

In the Hebrew Bible. Ya know, the one where the trinity DOESN'T exist. ;) The concept of the trinity came about as a staple of Christianity due to the Nicean Creed.

What if Nietzsche is right and god is dead, or a dog, I can never keep those two strait.

Well, I think Nietzsche was referring to God in the moral and intellectual sense. If people start acting immoral or start to not include God in their thoughts/actions, does God exist to them? God becomes metaphorically dead, because people feel no need for the godhead.

Or at least that's how I feel about what he said. People abandoning God to the point that he might as well be dead in their eyes.

I think Nietzsche was espousing the atheist viewpoint. Although we don’t really know exactly what he believed, I think it is accurate to put him in the ‘god is an opiate of the masses’ set of philosophers.

Karl Marx. =D

Don’t be offended, in truth I’m an agnostic and do not pretend to know the truth. But I also don’t think anyone religion or philosophy can encompass the idea or reality of god. If god exists and is infinite, we as finite beings cannot hope to understand God, any more than we can hope to conceptualize the infinite. This doesn’t make me a communist, fascist or any other political affiliation – it make me an individual, who at lease tries to think for himself.

^ No problem with that. Ghost: I see things have calmed down a bit. Very good post by you all. Very insightful. Memphis did nail it with his post. :)

@ zeonic

Actually, the concept of the trinity has been in the Bible since the beginning. The counsel of Nicea merely established it as an official doctrine with an official name. They were discussing what the Bible taught and seeking to weed out heresies that had arisen in the church, not rewriting the scriptures or adding to them. Keep in mind that this was the first time the church had been able to meet in any official way, so they had a lot to talk about.

Even if what you say is true (which is very likely and I wasn't saying against that; hence why I said the trinity became a staple of the Christian doctrine, it became official, although it took an extra revision some years after the first to add in the "Son" part of the trinity), that doesn't change my point. My point is in reference to the Old Testament/Torah. And last I checked, the Jews don't believe in trinity.

Last edited: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 at 7:51:30 PM

I see your point, however my Bible has an Old Testament, too. ;)

Perseus

Try the best u can.

In this case lets say the book of mormon.(specific?)

Peace

Mormon are wrong. They say Jesus is a brother wtih Satan. (making things up)

I don't think it's possible that the old testament contains the concept of "trinity", is it? Jesus is not elevated. How can trinity exist therein?

Well, I'll just hop on the phone with the Vatican and make it happen. Better call the printer...
...and every motel on Route 66.

Leave no stone unturned my pretties. Unleash the flying monkeys!

Last edited: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 at 10:30:21 AM

So did they decide?

Although it is illegal in the U.S the italians have not made it illegal to use jesus or god as a defense