[soma]

If we argue that every religion is contrary to all of the others, any evidence in support of one doubt cast doubt on the authenticity or worth of evidence for all of the religions. Why as Christians do we have to cast doubt about God and His religions because that doubt that we cast is evidence for doubt of our own religion?

When we try to destroy a rival religion, we destroy the miracles of our own religion, and the Christian values and system on which Christianity was established.

[JosephM]

soma, on May 12 2009, 11:09 AM, said:

If we argue that every religion is contrary to all of the others, any evidence in support of one doubt cast doubt on the authenticity or worth of evidence for all of the religions. Why as Christians do we have to cast doubt about God and His religions because that doubt that we cast is evidence for doubt of our own religion?

When we try to destroy a rival religion, we destroy the miracles of our own religion, and the Christian values and system on which Christianity was established.

Hi Soma,

Could you elaborate more on this post. It appears deeper than I can at present comprehend.

Thanks in advance,
Joseph

[minsocal]

I have to admit that I do not "know" God in such intellectual depth that I can make absolute claims. Whitehead appeals to me because his perspective is universal. In other words, all humans have an equal capacity to be connected to God. The process does not begin with an intellectual inqury. Instead it is a bottom-up process beginning with empathy. The physical pole of emotion conditions the mental pole prior to reaching consciousness. At all levels it is not a matter of accepting A and rejecting B, instead it is a matter of drawing contrasts between A and B.

This sounds somewhat like what Soma is talking about. We learn best by drawing contrasts. If the process happens natually, it begins with empathy for all other viewpoints and insight is gained from the contrasts. The hitch is that the process takes a lifetime and never stops unless we become totally isolated from God or other creatures.

This post has been edited by minsocal: 12 May 2009 - 01:53 PM

[soma]

Mahatma Gandhi said, “The soul of religion is one, but it is encased in a multitude of forms.”

There is only one religion if we see the religions all talking about God. People approach God in different ways and God approaches them in return. If a person doesn't see God in a religion then they have no need to pursue that train of thought. If a person gains insight from a religion, I hope that person follows it and benefits from that faith. Now, if a person is growing closer to God following a spiritual path that is different from mine, I am not in a position to correct or alter the choice. I am not God. God is guiding that person and guided him/her to that path. If I put down any guidance from God then I an downgrading my own figure head for God. It shows I have no faith in My Lord. Religiously motivated wars, genocides, and civil unrest harms innocent people and arises out of doubt about Our Almighty God. We must trust Our Lord that He is really the Almighty.

Our Bible gives us wisdom in trusting, searching and being devoted to the One God. Other religions give similar advice.

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek; and you shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. [Matthew 7:7-8].”

We don't have to use one style of prayer, each style can be successful at the right time. Let nothing keep a person from prayer. We should not try to keep someone from their style of prayer. There is always a passage way to God and asking, knocking, seeking, praying, meditating are all successful. Discouraging someone from knowing their God discourages them and us from knowing our God, the same God.

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don't lean on your own understanding. In all things acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way. [Proverbs 3:5, 6]”

The Bible is full of principles of behavior, it doesn't give us specific instructions, but tells us what our attitude should be. If the Lord tells one to be a Buddhist, a Christian Buddhist then one should follow the heart. This is sincerity.

“Our love must not be a thing of words and fine talk. It must be a thing of action and sincerity (1 John 3:18).”

“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me”

People fear other Religions so talk negative toward them, but it only shows the fear in that person. It shows they lack faith in their own religion. It reflects a small god with a small tent.

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)”

Most religions give hope and strive to make people better. We should not crush others hope that is not what the Christian God is about

“Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don't lean on your own understanding. In all things acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way. [Proverbs 3:5, 6]”

“Commit to the Lord whatever you do, and your plans will succeed. (Proverbs 16:3)”

The Christian God is not small. He is all encompassing that is why the Church of Christ brought in everyone, sinners, and outcast. It is not the Church of no, it is all inclusive. When we deny other religions and their Gods, we are only making our God small because we are saying Our God can't guide other people in other religions. We are saying that our God is not Almighty. We are being exclusive and in our mind and community we are denying others their rightful place with God. Our Christian God does hear and respond to everyone and their cry. It is only some followers who want to limit our God and make his church an exclusive club.

Some Christians will say that Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus is our guide to God. Our unit mind cannot grasp God because God is too vast. The image that our unit minds can grasp is another unit being who serves as a model for spiritual life. As Christians we follow the Christ example of love and purity. We must purify our minds and love to grasp God. Talking trash about other religions does not help me to follow Christ, purify my mind, or teach me to love. Talking trash is trying to convince someone, which is usually the speaker that one should follow Christ. I say follow with the whole being and yearn for God and God will come from every angle and every religion to make us better followers.

This post has been edited by soma: 12 May 2009 - 04:20 PM

[JosephM]

Soma,

Thanks so much for the clarification. Much easier to grasp what you are saying now , at least to me.

Joseph

[davidk]

There needs to be an understanding of the relationship of the various areas of thought; topically, the Buddhist and the Christian. Christian and Buddhist beliefs have very different presuppositions (assumptions) that separate them at the very outset of any comparison. They are antagonist philosophies.
For example, in the basic presupposition that there really are such things as absolutes- such as: either God exists or He doesn’t. There is no compromise available. The answer is an absolute.

Buddhism presupposes that there is no evidence for the existence of God. All of its teaching is with this foremost in mind. They begin with an impersonal, naturalistic view. It is also quite impossible for them to think of any real propositional revelation. This is the ubiquitous uniformity of natural causes in a closed system; that is nature, where there is no knowledge from outside of self, from God.

Christianity presupposes a personal-infinite-creator God is evidenced in all else that exists and all of its teaching bears this in mind. They begin with a personal beginning. It is that nature and God are not the same, and open to knowledge revealed from outside self, from God. This is known as the uniformity of natural causes in an open system.

In the discussion of these differing areas of thought, they have either one of two solutions: first- As has been somewhat addressed in an above post (#141); both could be wrong. And second- There is only one answer that can be right. Either there is or there isn’t a God. They can’t both be right answers.

It has been said that Buddhists and Christians may have some philosophical overelap when it comes to discussing unity. However, since Buddhism believes in an impersonal beginning, it cannot provide an answer for diversity and freedom. Whereas, Christianity’s personal beginning does provide an answer.

To point out these differences is not in derision of either religion. To take a position as to whether either one is correct is the freedom and function of our free will. But only one of them will be correct. Only one of them ultimately allows for that freedom.

To say that one or the other is right or wrong will be the truth. We can have empathy toward either. But is that really negative talk?

Telling a student that says 2+2=4 is right, is true. Telling a student that says 2+2=5 is wrong, is true. Telling the student answering ‘5’ he is wrong, may be negative to the student, but it is the duty of the teller to speak the truth, which includes correcting error, which denotes love. Doing so doesn’t necessarily denote fear, negativity, or lack of faith in the correct answer.

Sometimes being correct does put you in a small tent.
---
If every area of thought (which includes religion) is really only one, there would be no choices to make, freedom ceases to exist. Diversity and variance are illusion.

Progressives and fundamentalists are the same!

Welcome home, brother!

[minsocal]

The multiple forms of both Buddhism and Christianity make any absolute comparison impossible. I have read the Dalai Lama's sermons on Christianity spoken to a Christian audience and found his insights quite profound. There was, in fact, little disagreement when the subject concerned the teachings of Jesus. I continue to connect Christianity to the teachings of Jesus and I think this is reasonable. I have found that progressive Christians just are not that much interested in outdated dogma. The message here is simple. Many of my Buddhist friends are progressive. My Jewish friends use a different term but mean the same thing. But there is a more basic point. These are people who actually go out into the world a DO SOMETHING consistent with the teachings of Jesus. You find them in any culture. And when these people from different cultures find each other, they know they have found a kindred spirit. These are the likes of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and ... Jesus. They know each other even if seperated in time and space.

[JosephM]

davidk said:

In the discussion of these differing areas of thought, they have either one of two solutions: first- As has been somewhat addressed in an above post (#141); both could be wrong. And second- There is only one answer that can be right. Either there is or there isn't a God. They can't both be right answers.

Davidk,

To me your answer looks like it comes from a limiting point of view...

When I am a Buddhist I see no Christian God as defined by the fundamentalists definition of God. Yet when I meet someone I bow slightly with palms together as a sort of reverence and speak the word Namaste or I bow to the divinity in you. The miss-used word 'God' is never spoken because it brings up images that could not express absolute reality. They use words like the unconditioned, absolute permanent changeless reality, that which itself alone is, (words from the Pali cannon) which are purposely vague because who can define in words the undefinable?

When I am a Christian, I see Christ in everyone and everything. (Christ is all and in all (KJV) I see Christ in the greeting of the Buddhist, I see it in his compassion, absence of malice, anger, and I know though his words are different than mine, we both move, breathe and have our being in the same undefinable absolute. Christ is the true light that lights EVERY man and woman that comes into this world.

So to me as a Progressive Christian we both believe in God and are both right. We just use different words so that in Fundamentalist terms he doesn't believe in God, but in life it is most obvious to me that he does but with a deeper understanding than the Fundamentalist. As a Progressive, for me, no words need to be spoken. It is most obvious to me that we both believe in the absolute and our life is our testimony. Words like God are too subjective as one can obviously discern by randomly asking a mix of people to define God.

Love Joseph

[soma]

When a Buddhist expresses his relationship to Nirvanna, it is difficult for a fellow Buddhist to understand the meaning and the same is true for other traditions trying to explain the unexplainable. I don't think our job as Christians is to explain Buddhism unless it can be explained in a way to help us on our path of Christian love. Let the Buddhist explain their path, they are the experts. I have awesome reverence for Taoism, Judaism, Hinduism ect. because they try to explain God and I learn from them. I am a Christian because I follow the Christ and His path. Christianity can stand alone and people are attracted to it not because 2+2 = 4 or 5. It is established because people can feel the passion and glory of past Christianity. It seems Christianity has lost the ability to provide an authentic mystical experience because nowadays, people preach to emotions about other religions that fragment the mind. They should use the wisdom in other religions to unite our mind on our path. Division divides the heart and our energy is dispersed so we are not focused enough to experience God in the heart. I say past Christianity because now it seems Christianity is identified through difference. The true Christian experience for many is lost because they just keep rules and repeat rituals without any religious experience. They divide the One God into pieces comparing those pieces to other pieces when people just want communion with Our Lord. They are just given crumbs, and they our left unsatisfied and bitter, which gets directed to other groups. Christian leaders are to blame for taking their congregations through the motions without anyone becoming closer to God and his world. People are disengaged from the one thing that gives meaning to life a relationship with the Divine.

Luke 11:42 (New Living Translation)
“What sorrow awaits you Pharisees! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from your herb gardens,[a] but you ignore justice and the love of God. You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things.

The leaders need to bring people to the Holy Spirit so they can know God and themselves, to repent, believe in, and love Christ. This will make them comfortable. Saying we are right, the best, and proving it by showing superiority is just pompous acts of hollow teaching. It does nothing to develop our journey to the soul. Driven Evangelicals who preach superiority abort their souls every time they try to show they are better then everyone else.

Matthew 22:14
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."

The arrogant often ignore God even those in Christianity may dishonor God with their arrogance. To have communion with God is not easy and we need everyone's help Christian and non-Christian to accomplish the task.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

I was trying to find the source and failed, but I recently read that the existence of multiple paths to God is not a zero-sum problem. To add to one, we don't need to take away from another. I think there are many apparent contradictions between religions, but much can be chalked up to the fact that we are limited by human languages in trying to grasp the indescribable.

[minsocal]

AllInTheNameOfProgress, on May 14 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

I was trying to find the source and failed, but I recently read that the existence of multiple paths to God is not a zero-sum problem. To add to one, we don't need to take away from another. I think there are many apparent contradictions between religions, but much can be chalked up to the fact that we are limited by human languages in trying to grasp the indescribable.

I found several variations on this theme, some of which could have been what you were reading. It centers on the debate as to whether you have to choose between religion and science or any regiion over another religion. In a zero-sum game, every win is accompanied by a loss. The zero-sum approach has been under attack for at least 30 years. Actually, I think the attack on the zero-sum theory began with Jesus (or even earlier), but that is my opinion.

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

It was probably something from this site related to Pluralism Sunday. Good thing the reference citation wasn't necessary :-)

[davidk]

minsocal, on May 13 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

I continue to connect Christianity to the teachings of Jesus and I think this is reasonable.

They said therefore to Him, 'What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?' "

Jesus answered and said to them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent. Truly, truly, I say to you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread out of heaven, but it is My Father who gives you the true bread out of Heaven. For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.'

'They said therefore to Him, 'Lord, evermore give us this bread.'

Jesus said to them, 'I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.

But I said to you, that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. All that the Father gives me shall come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from Heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.
And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I will lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him, may have eternal life; and I myself will raise him up on the last day.'

The Jews were therefore grumbling about Him, because He said, 'I am the bread that came down from Heaven.'

And they were saying, 'Is it not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does He now say, "I have come down out of Heaven" ?'

Jesus answered and said to them, 'Do not grumble among yourselves. No one comes to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will will raise him up on the last day.

It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught of God." Everyone who has heard and learned form the Father, comes to Me.
Not that any man has seen the Father, except to One who is from God; he has seen the Father.

Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

I am the bread of life.

Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died.

This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die.

I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread also which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.' 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life in yourselves.' - John 6: 41 ff

'I am the light of the world; he who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.' 8:12

minsocal, on May 13 2009, 02:26 PM, said:

But there is a more basic point. ... go out into the world a DO SOMETHING consistent with the teachings of Jesus.

I absolutely concur.

[JosephM]

Davidk,

In this section you can agree or disagree or concur or not concur or even challenge and debate or discuss a point but when you are answering a post as above, preaching is not called for . When responding to a particular post If you concur or not you can add supported writings to make your point of concurrance or in opposition but since you concur it is not necessary to list the teachings of Jesus which is neither in support or opposition to the post you are responding to. If you are trying to say something not related to what you are responding to, start a new thread please with your real point.

Thanks for your cooperation,

Love Joseph

[JosephM]

Davidk,
Your post here was deleted by the moderator as you did not heed the warning above. If you wish to debate your interpretation of the Bible/Jesus's teachings with PC's on this board concerning who Jesus is, Start a new thread topic in line with your point and if anyone is interested they may respond. If no one responds in a REASONABLE TIME IT WILL BE PRUNED.

Please heed this warning not to preach from a fundamentalist position on this particular thread titled Blinded by Belief whose intent is not related to your posts. Start a new thread and title it appropriately in this debate section to see if anyone is interested in discussing it with you. Your cooperation is requested and appreciated.

Love Joseph

[davidk]

DearJoseph,

Normally, I enjoy reading your opinions. And as we have readily discovered in the past we can have significant differences. It is notable that others have had differences of opinion with each of us; and, well, some could be judged to be significant. But despite that, we have both been careful not to be disrespectful. I wish not to damage that relationship.

Dk
--
The first post on this thread addressed a particular book. Though not outrightly named, it was understood, as evidenced by the posts which followed, to be the Bible; and about the people who know this book to be objectively true. Those same people believe that only one entity has the authority to reveal truth to man, and that it is the objective reality for that entity to be the infinite-personal triune God of creation who has truly and propositionally revealed Himself and the truths man needs through the Bible.

Both Corinthian and DCJ had offered to this topic reasoned and courteous opinions in differing with the first post, but later summarily dispatched with a euphamistic "pat on the head".

However, the disdain toward these people did not end so thinly veiled as had been expected. For in that first post, it had already opprobriously mischaractrerized the aforementioned people as being unable to come to any reasoned foundation for their belief, and are just considered blind fools by people actually capable of thinking.

The stage was now set to dismiss anyone who may believe in the truth of Scripture or anything other than what could be considered exclusively 'progressive'.

Thankfully the post ended, but the effort to rescue the post from revealing the true disdain harbored for these poor, fundamentalist fools, was in the offering of a patronizing statement of love and inclusion, of which, as ultimately revealed, was a reversal of attitude in what followed.

Soon after, there followed a response to which it was felt the need to defend preaching as not preaching.

Then, the magnanimous post, whereby it was insisted Biblical quotes could be used as supporting evidence without being considered offensive.

As the posts progressed, some began to claim that all religions are the same, eventually pantheistic; all gods were just the same God. Discussions followed declaring such things as "I connect Christianity to the teachings of Jesus and I think this is reasonable". My quoting from John of Jesus teaching an exclusive message, is an awakening and eye-opening message of true faith in contrast to the genuine blind faiths of false gods, not similitude.

Since the Bible is the only source of any statement that can be directly attributed to Jesus, it is entirely appropriate to quote them as supporting documentation for Jesus' claim of being the exclusive path. After all, they should be considered inoffensive by current measure, right?

Sadly the concept, of including those who having a Biblical perspective and are thereby intellectually limited (read: inferior), has fallen aside to arbitrary censorship of anyone that cannot so easily be converted to 'progressive' thought, where all faiths, except those that believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, can be included. Because 'nothing can be done for him', if he can't be coerced into towing the progressive line, we'll prune him from our midst.

As Rivanna introduced, either the Bible is true, or it isn't. Man has no authority to decide in any other way.

One more thought to consider: the spiritually blind cannot see that objective truth is always more valuable than subjective experience.

[davidk]

Deleted duplicate post by Davidk

[JosephM]

Thank you for your view Davidk.

You have not damaged our relationship.
You are correct I did not name the book (purposely) because that particular book was not the point of my topic. It applied to all religious books in general and to the concept of accepting a book as infallible truth blinding oneself to any contradictory evidence. After all I was the originator of the topic.

All i am suggesting to you is to start another topic if you have a point other than what you have already made here. My deleting of your posts was not meant to usurp your privileges on this board. Only to keep them in line with our guidelines as I see them.

TCPC is very tolerant but you must remember that many here came out of fundamental teachings and are already aware of many of your points and differences and what the Bible says. On their behalf, there is no need to re-preach fundamentalism by quoting massive writings to make points that are not in line with this topic as the author of it sees it. If you feel we are not Blinded by Belief assumptions in a book then make your point but not by quoting a mass of writings for proof that the subject topic purports that total acceptance of relates to unopenness or blindness. State why you think differently and leave it at that for others to question or consider. By definition of these 8 points, We PC's are open and with a book that one claims to be the infallible word of God totally without error you have, in my view, closed yourself to contradictory discussion. Besides you have made your point whereby some have felt you are monopolizing and they have grown weary of your posts.

So, David please start your own topic. The others you spoke of were not brushed away. They have every right to disagree with me or anyone else and state their opinion/view and leave it at that. It seems you would rather argue than discuss and that creates an atmosphere that I do not want to continue to propagate even in the debate section. Keep in mind this is a PC site and even in the debate section there are limits. By calling ourselves progressive, we mean that we are Christians who know that the way we behave toward one another and toward other people is the fullest expression of what we believe.
You have crossed one limit whether you agree or not and are politely being asked to start another topic for the third time and speak your view as relates to your point. That's all. There is no further need for you to respond under this topic. Please do not be offended but take it as an official warning.

Love in Christ,
Joseph