NationStates Jolt Archive

I was raised a protestant, but I'm not affiliated with any relgion, I border on Atheist, I dont see why Christianity is the right or correct religion, when it is "new" compared to Buddism, Judiasm, etc. Also, if there is a god, what is there to prove it?

Dont give me that twin towers BS either, because if the bible predicted anything, it would not be something thats going to be a Howard Dean type footnote.

I was raised a protestant, but I'm not affiliated with any relgion, I border on Atheist, I dont see why Christianity is the right or correct religion, when it is "new" compared to Buddism, Judiasm, etc. Also, if there is a god, what is there to prove it?

Dont give me that twin towers BS either, because if the bible predicted anything, it would not be something thats going to be a Howard Dean type footnote.

Huh? Is there a question here?

I think what's being asked is:

Hey Christians? Why is your religion better/more valid than any other? Is it just because you say so? We demand proof. Oh yeah, and stop preaching about "Christian values" if you happen to be pro-war and pro capital punishment.
Jesus would say, if he were alive today, "He who is withhout sin, throw the switch (or inject the poison.)"

I think he'd also be against rampant and unchecked capitalism: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." "The Meek shall inherit the Earth."

I was raised a protestant, but I'm not affiliated with any relgion, I border on Atheist, I dont see why Christianity is the right or correct religion, when it is "new" compared to Buddism, Judiasm, etc. Also, if there is a god, what is there to prove it?


Thats my question.

I think what's being asked is:

Hey Christians? Why is your religion better/more valid than any other? Is it just because you say so? We demand proof. Oh yeah, and stop preaching about "Christian values" if you happen to be pro-war and pro capital punishment.
Jesus would say, if he were alive today, "He who is withhout sin, throw the switch (or inject the poison.)"

I think he'd also be against rampant and unchecked capitalism: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." "The Meek shall inherit the Earth."

That is basically what I am saying.

To be totally honest, we aren't any better or worst compared to other religions. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the same God, and the only different with Christianity from Judaism is the fact Christ is the Savior and not just some super-great scholar person. At least that is what I think or believe. ;)

When it all boils down to it, there is no way to prove god exists that couldn't also be reasoned scientifically. Thats why your religion is also referred to as your "faith".

Science and faith are two completely different things, but they aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the best science occurs when one keeps their faith that there is more out there than is known.

I'm not religious, but I can't help but feel there is a greater "point" to life than just existence. Science cannot debunk that, because a basic law of science is that you can't prove a negative.

Can science say that pure creationism is false? No. Can it point to something much much more likely that is based on meticulous research and stands up to rigorous scientific proof? Yes, yes it can. That's why science is much more reasonable than blind faith.

Does science mean you have to abandon all faith? No. They are seperate issues alltogether, but the hysterically faithful can't seem to realize that. It's a pity

They are seperate issues alltogether, but the hysterically faithful can't seem to realize that.

Or, for that matter, can the aggressively scientific.

I think what's being asked is:

Hey Christians? Why is your religion better/more valid than any other? Is it just because you say so? We demand proof. Oh yeah, and stop preaching about "Christian values" if you happen to be pro-war and pro capital punishment.
Jesus would say, if he were alive today, "He who is withhout sin, throw the switch (or inject the poison.)"

I think he'd also be against rampant and unchecked capitalism: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." "The Meek shall inherit the Earth."\
and checked capitalism isn't right, As JC would "You have no right to take from these people what they do not freely give" HE also said, "Respect Authority and it will respect you" also we aren't Pro-War which by the way we have no insruction not to go to war, also i am only pro becasue death
their is no life in prison without parrol.

I was raised a protestant, but I'm not affiliated with any relgion, I border on Atheist, I dont see why Christianity is the right or correct religion, when it is "new" compared to Buddism, Judiasm, etc.

It may or may not be right, but many believe it to be. Some of us don't think that any one religion (or denomination even) has it "right and correct," but that there are degrees of closeness to right. Most likely all religions have part of the story and you have to figure out for yourself what feels right. To me, Christianity feels right, although no specific denomination does. However, I have no problem with those who think Budhism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, etc, etc, etc have it right or even those who think they're all pretty much bunk (my boyfriend's an atheist).

Also, if there is a god, what is there to prove it?

I feel that God is there, and, in the absence of any scientific evidence either way, that's good enough for me.

by the way we have no insruction not to go to war

How about "Thou shalt not kill"? Or is that just a little too ambiguous?

Or, for that matter, can the aggressively scientific.


That's the problem. A good scientist discounts nothing. Only those who have a weak grasp on the concept of science say that faith and science are incompatible.

Someone who tells you something is impossible is a bad scientist. Someone who calmly tells you why they think something is right is much better.

So, what I'm saying, is by definition, an intensely scientific person is reasonable (if they're not, then they don't apply scientific principles to things, simple as that!) and an intensely religious person is not.

Kahta, thanks for you honest inquiry.

I think that God is real and that religion is people trying to find him.

I think Jesus was God trying to reach out to us.

There's lots of things wrong with our end of it. And quite truthfully, I'm not sure as a religion, Christianity is miles above any other. Jesus, on the other hand is. Christianity as a commuity, seeking to find God, and to live well, according to his design, and to become Christ-like ourselves is the best thing we have going.

I'm resistant to the lumping of all religions together, despite the broad differences that exist between them. I think that God can and does work in the lives of people all over the world who are the members of many faiths, but I also know that Jesus was the truest and best expression of God's love and work in the world that there has ever and will ever be.

Christianity is different because we recognize Christ. Not because it is "better," only because it's got a little more truth.

we have no insruction not to go to war

Well, that's not entirely true.

From James 4:1-2"1From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. "

These lusts do not refer to carnal desire, obviously, but to temporal greed and to live within the Spirit is to shun the greed that leads to war and fighting.

And, as has already been pointed out, there's always "Thou Shalt Not Kill."

HE also said, "Respect Authority and it will respect you" also we aren't Pro-War which by the way we have no insruction not to go to war, also i am only pro death becasue their is no life in prison without parrol.

That is just abou tthe worst reason to be pro-death penalty I have ever heard. HAve some fucking conviction, fight to replace the death penalty with life w/o parole, that really what anti-death penalty activists are asking for.

That's the problem. A good scientist discounts nothing. Only those who have a weak grasp on the concept of science say that faith and science are incompatible.

Someone who tells you something is impossible is a bad scientist. Someone who calmly tells you why they think something is right is much better.

So, what I'm saying, is by definition, an intensely scientific person is reasonable (if they're not, then they don't apply scientific principles to things, simple as that!) and an intensely religious person is not.

That may be what you meant, but it's not exactly what you said. I agree with you that science and religion are separate realms. Stephen Jay Gould wrote an excellent book on this called Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life where he argued that both science and religion have their specific aims and specific realms and to use one in an attempt to "disprove" the other is not only mistaken, but against the fundamental concepts of both.

Forgive me if I'm attributing unintended meaning to your word choice, but as someone who tries to approach both science and religion as valid concepts within their own realms (to steal a classification from Gould), my views are frequently attacked by both sides and it's caused me to be quick to get my hackles up.

RE: Science

I don't think that Science makes faith irrelevant. For one thing scientific inquiry is in constant flux and is not nearly as settled and concrete as we believe it is. Secondly, throwing your faith to the wind just because you think that some scientific discovery has offended your reading of the Bible is foolish. The Bible does not address scientific questions. It tells us about history, about God and about who we ought to be.

RE: War

War is complex. Violence of a society is different from violence from an individual. We have the right to maintain the wellbeing of ourselves and others, and the state has the obligation to do so. That does not mean we have the right to kill for money and power, and neither does the state.

RE: Death Penalty

This is a question about the role of punishment. Is punishment designed to satisfy our lust for revenge? No. Is it justice? No. There is no justice for the crimes that warrant a death penalty in our society. There is no punishment that can make those wrongs right. It's not like a monetary crime, where justice can be made, where money can be returned.

Penalties are about deterrance and protection. And to some extent rehabilitation. In ancient societies there were no jails, there was no way for society to protect itself from violence, so they killed violent people. We have jails, we can protect ourselves from violent people.

It is also a punishment that deters crimes - so some extent. I think it rarely rehabilitates though.

Capital punishment has shown time and time again to have little or no effect on deterrance, therefore, in our society the death penalty is not right, beacuse you should never take a life unless it is absolutely necessary.

You and I agree pretty much completely Berkylvania. But you have to admit that pure science has room for faith in it...in fact it's not science if it doesn't have room for everything in it...but pure faith does not have room for science in it.

This does not mean that you aren't filled with faith. or that your faith is any less worthy for it, you've just tempered it with reason. All too many people see faith as a reason not to question, and I feel bad for them.

You and I agree pretty much completely Berkylvania. But you have to admit that pure science has room for faith in it...in fact it's not science if it doesn't have room for everything in it...but pure faith does not have room for science in it.

I think you're right and we do mostly agree, but I do question your assertation that "pure faith does not have room for science in it." That may just be my own poor understanding, though.


This does not mean that you aren't filled with faith. or that your faith is any less worthy for it, you've just tempered it with reason. All too many people see faith as a reason not to question, and I feel bad for them.

I also agree that faith is not a "get out of responsibility and questioning free" card, but I'm going to make a bit of a generalization here and say that that isn't faith. That is dogma and belief not in the spirit of a faith but in the rules and regulations and it stems less from a true desire to understand "God" and any connection we might have to divinity and more from either a place of spiritual "laziness" or fear/reward motivations. Faith, at least to me, relies in part on the idea that, if you honestly ask questions about what you feel and believe, then you will find answers. So an essential part of faith is indeed the questioning of belief. Similar in theory to scientific method, but focused on a different forum of inquiry.

The word Philosophy, the progenitor of Science, literaly means "love of knowing," and is esentailly a quest for individual knowledge. It (usually) encourages an overall attitude of infinite skepticism, that nothing can be believed without evidence. This is why Descartes began with the sole premise of his own existence, "I think therfore I am" and sought to prove the existence of God in this method. His eventual proof of God's existence (in a much simplified form) is that "God exists because I am able to hold the concept of God in my mind."

Descartes failed in his attempt to prove the existence of God through logical methods, simply because he began with the existence of God as a premise that was to be proved, insead of ignoring all that could not be logically deduced from the fact of his existence, as he claimed to do. I believe that this illustrates a fundamental flaw in religous systems of thought, which is that the conclusion is defined from the outset, instead of being determined based on the knowable facts and probabilities, as is done in philosophical systems of thought.

Religeon is a method of transfering memes to the masses without the need for time and resource wasting scepticism. How could a philosophy that supports individual thought and expression raise an army? Religeon is the tool for raising armies, because it forgoes knowledge in favor of action. If soldiers are told they must go to war because the wrongs of killing are outweighed by the rights achieved by victory, they may well go back to their farms. If they are told that they must fight the minions of Satan or spend eternity in torment, they are much less likely to desert.

Thus, I conclude that religeon is a cudgel and philosophy a scalpel; that their goals are not even similar. The goal of religeon is to induce a particular course of action in a group of people. The purpose of philosophy is to induce particular questions to be answered by the invdividual. Thus I would argue that in modern times the scalpel is a more useful tool than the cudgel. Religeon is now doing more harm than good to civilization, and philosophy is now becoming more viable as a system for arriving at ethical consensus. Religeon was better tool before a system educating every individual was feasible, and before communication technology. I aruge that while once our ends were best served by a cudgels in the hands of the ignorant masses, now they are best served by a scalpels in the hands of skilled surgeons.

I disagree with your broad categorization of religion as simply a meme transferring system (and damn you Richard Dawkins for injecting that word into the vernacular). It can be used for that end, but that is not it's "purpose." Like any tool, it can be misused. This doesn't invalidate the existance of the tool, simply suggests the incompetence of those who are using it.

Religion is, as I have said before and as I firmly believe, a simple set of tools to deal with questions of the metaphyisical. It is not the end in itself, but a way to a possible end. Indeed, religion used correctly is even more individualized than philosophy because it seeks to identify a highly personalized and unique connection with whatever divinity may or may not exist, whereas philosophy seeks to explain the function of vast swathes of humanity and human existance. Indeed, it is possible to claim that Philosophy also attempts to do exactly what you claim Religion does and that evidence lies in Communist societies throughout the globe.

To say that one is "more valid" is incorrect. Both have their place and their goals (on that we do agree, Science, or more broadly Philosophy, and Religion have different goals) and it is unfair to both of them to attempt and force a comparison or a value heirarchy just as it is unfair to say, "Vanilla is inherantly better than chocolate because I like vanilla better."

Hey Christians? Why is your religion better/more valid than any other?

I don't know. I'm reminded of a pizza box that said, "You've tried the rest, now try the best." (Of course all the pizza boxes said that, clearly only one of them was "the best." Why should a religion be "better?" If religion is based on faith, how can it be "more valid?"

For many people, "science" is their religion, which should drive a true scientist batty because science is a way of looking at things, and not a system of belief.

Personally I prefer a religion that uses faith and reason. Even science needs a little faith. ;)

To be totally honest, we aren't any better or worst compared to other religions. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have the same God, and the only different with Christianity from Judaism is the fact Christ is the Savior and not just some super-great scholar person. At least that is what I think or believe. ;)


Ummmm ... no .... Judaism does not believe Jesus was some "super-great scholar person" ... as a matter of fact, when it came to Torah, Jesus knew very little except that which school aged children would know.

Judaism does not even concern itself with Jesus.

As for Judaism and Christianity having the same God, that's way up for debate. I would agree that Judaism and Islam have the same God, but the simple fact that Christianity accepts(requires even) a moderator between man and God proves the God is not the same.

Ummmm ... no .... Judaism does not believe Jesus was some "super-great scholar person" ... as a matter of fact, when it came to Torah, Jesus knew very little except that which school aged children would know.

You have a source for this information, I presume?

You have a source for this information, I presume?

Why yes .... yes I do!

I have everything written about what Jesus taught concerning Torah. Namely the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Everything Jesus taught concerning Torah was very basic level stuff concerning the Flood, the life of Moses, and a little bit into Creation.

Comparatively, I have Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim, the Babylonian Talmud, the Tanya, and 2 millenia of Rabbinical commentary concerning Torah.

As for how Judaism views Jesus Christ, we must look to the Judaica.

Torah - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.
Nevi'im - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.
Kethuvim - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.
Talmud - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.

Judaism does not have an opinion on Jesus whatsoever.

The differences between Judaism and Christianity are so vast that it would take me weeks to type out the thousands of differences. I will indulge, however, and name just six:

1] Christianity holds that thoughts can be sins. (eg. Matthew 5:28) Judaism does not.

2] Christianity believes God came in the form of a man (Jesus). Judaism holds that God will never come in the form of any earthly creature.

3] Christianity believes in an end time in which God will return as Jesus and bring judgement whereas Judaism does not. (Covenant with Noah, Genesis 8:21-22)

4] Christianity believes Torah has been fulfilled (through the sacrifice of Jesus) where Judaism does not because the Messiah is yet to come.

5] Christianity believes it has dominion over the earth and its creatures where in Judaism we are not given "dominion" but are placed as caretakers and cruelty to animals is a grevious sin.

6] Christianity has 7 cardinal sins, Judaism has only 3.

I'm not saying either way is better or worse, I'm just saying that they don't worship the same God and they have very little in common.

I think there are significant differences, but not the ones your pointing out.

"1] Christianity holds that thoughts can be sins. (eg. Matthew 5:28) Judaism does not"

What about the commandment not to covet?

"2] Christianity believes God came in the form of a man (Jesus). Judaism holds that God will never come in the form of any earthly creature."

Is this explicid?

"3] Christianity believes in an end time in which God will return as Jesus and bring judgement whereas Judaism does not. (Covenant with Noah, Genesis 8:21-22)"

Minor prophets, Isiah.....

"4] Christianity believes Torah has been fulfilled (through the sacrifice of Jesus) where Judaism does not because the Messiah is yet to come."

okay...fair enough, but this does not pertain to whether or not we serve the same God.

"5] Christianity believes it has dominion over the earth and its creatures where in Judaism we are not given "dominion" but are placed as caretakers and cruelty to animals is a grevious sin."

The only text Christians have to base this on is Genesis, and it's not a cardinal article of faith, its a remnent of modernistic secularism imported into Christianity! And as to cruelty to animals....do you know what sacrifice is about?

"6] Christianity has 7 cardinal sins, Judaism has only 3."

I'm not sure what you even mean by this, it's not really theological.

So while I agree there are significant theological differences I think only one of your points, that Christianity holds that Jesus was God incarnate is a serious departure from Judiaism. And in this sense, we serve different Gods, but in reality I (of course) think we are serving the same God.

Why yes .... yes I do!

I have everything written about what Jesus taught concerning Torah. Namely the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Everything Jesus taught concerning Torah was very basic level stuff concerning the Flood, the life of Moses, and a little bit into Creation.

That's nice, do you read anything concerning the history of Judaism? At the time that Christ lived, there were many, many sects of Judaism, all with very different beliefs. Some held that there would be an end-time and a great judgement, others did not. Some had beliefs very similar to those that Christ taught. Did all of these sects of Judaism worship different gods as well? No, of course not. Do the orthodox and non-orthodox Jews of today worship different gods? Nope. Christianity grew out of Judaism and refers to the same God, only with knowledge of the Messiah. Anyone who thinks the two gods are different obviously has little knowledge of either religion.

The differences between Judaism and Christianity are so vast that it would take me weeks to type out the thousands of differences. I will indulge, however, and name just six:

There were just as many differences between the many types of Judaism over the years, were they all worshiping different gods as well?

That's nice, do you read anything concerning the history of Judaism?

Ummm ... yeah. I'm a Jew.

At the time that Christ lived, there were many, many sects of Judaism, all with very different beliefs.

No .... only two ... the mystics and the judges (you'd call them Pharisees and Saddusees). There are more now.

Some held that there would be an end-time and a great judgement, others did not. Some had beliefs very similar to those that Christ taught. Did all of these sects of Judaism worship different gods as well?

If it is not based in Torah, it is not Judaism. Torah states quite clearly that there will be no end time brought about by God. Now, if we destroy ourselves, that's different.

Anyone who thinks the two gods are different obviously has little knowledge of either religion.

Hmmm .... and yet here I am with my semikhah - I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself.

There were just as many differences between the many types of Judaism over the years, were they all worshiping different gods as well?

All sects of Judaism have Torah at its core - even the Humanist Jews. Christianity defies Torah by claiming fulfillment of the law, hence, it is not a sect of Judaism and Christians do not hold Abrahamic birthright (not that they need it, though, as they have a moderator).

"1] Christianity holds that thoughts can be sins. (eg. Matthew 5:28) Judaism does not"

What about the commandment not to covet?


Great response! However, the commandment not to covet is based on the act of speech. Sin can be in words, but never in thoughts.


"2] Christianity believes God came in the form of a man (Jesus). Judaism holds that God will never come in the form of any earthly creature."

Is this explicid?


You betcha .... Deut. 4:12-20


"3] Christianity believes in an end time in which God will return as Jesus and bring judgement whereas Judaism does not. (Covenant with Noah, Genesis 8:21-22)"

Minor prophets, Isiah.....


Isaiah spoke of wars, but not of an end to all mankind as brought about by God. The covenant with Noah precludes any form of God interfering with the existence of mankind as a whole ever again.


"5] Christianity believes it has dominion over the earth and its creatures where in Judaism we are not given "dominion" but are placed as caretakers and cruelty to animals is a grevious sin."

The only text Christians have to base this on is Genesis, and it's not a cardinal article of faith, its a remnent of modernistic secularism imported into Christianity! And as to cruelty to animals....do you know what sacrifice is about?


In Judaism, it is a cardinal article of faith. Genesis is the first book of Torah. It is through mistranslation and personal agenda that the idea of "dominion" was placed in the text. Sad, really, but it happens.

I'm aware that sacrifice may seem cruel to some, but there are dozens of laws in Torah concerning how to properly slaughter an animal painlessly.

Both religions have the same God. In the New Testament, Jesus is born a Jew. Jesus caries on the customs and beliefs of Judiasm. He is also the son of God and is the human embodiment of God, according to Christianity.

Jesus caries on the customs and beliefs of Judiasm.

Yes, because saying "I am the way and the light and none come to the father but through me" is a long-standing Jewish custom and belief [/sarcasm]

He is also the son of God

All Jewish men are called "Son of God". All of them. There is more than one.

and is the human embodiment of God

The God of Abraham would never be embodied in a human, hence, the Christian God is not the God of Abraham; therefore, Christians do not worship the same God as Jews.

This is facinating stuff here. It seems that Keruvalia has a better understanding of Christianity than most of the 'Christians' here. One question, though: In the book of Genesis, it states that Man was created in God's image. This seems incongruous to the statement 'God will never come in the form of any earthly creature'. Or is the part of the 'mistranslation'? Or does it really not matter whether Jesus was the son of God, since we are all His children? Wow... this is quite thought provoking.

The Earth witch you live on, drink the water, breath its air, ETC!

Is your God, and the universe is the higher god witch created the earth.

It is explainable in science. And completly obivious, just step outside.

we are very lucky to be energy, thats able to live a life.

you can beleave in an imaginary god like human, for a faith if you want.

but i think that is very ignorant. Cause the truth is all out there, your just not looking hard enougth.

and the faith you beleave in, just leads to coruption of the place witch keeps you alive! (the earth)

like pollution, etc, some think it is ok to do so cause after all this is just one world, they will be going to heaven after this.

the fact is where all tied together, the universe, and earth, humanity is just destroying what we where meant to enjoy.

just look at all the animals, they can lead, and live better lives than any of us humans,

and science is proving that most animals have brains, and are very intellegent indeed, thats how the servive and breed, in there daily lives.

but the corupt world we live in also likes to hide these facts, from large groups of humanity, and make our lives more complicated, and make us slaves to the money.

that is all for now.

This is facinating stuff here. It seems that Keruvalia has a better understanding of Christianity than most of the 'Christians' here. One question, though: In the book of Genesis, it states that Man was created in God's image. This seems incongruous to the statement 'God will never come in the form of any earthly creature'. Or is the part of the 'mistranslation'? Or does it really not matter whether Jesus was the son of God, since we are all His children? Wow... this is quite thought provoking.

Well, you'll notice when God decides to create Man in Genesis, even in the KJV (surprisingly!) it says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen 1:26). "Us"? "Our"?

Considering we can establish throughout the rest of scripture that there is only one God of Creation, then we have to wonder just who God was talking to. Interestingly enough, it was the animals which were created the day before!

So, we are animals in our flesh - with blood and sinew and organs - but contain the Divine in our hearts (soul).

Jesus, a Jew, son of Mary, a Jew, was considered a "Son of God" as are all Jewish men, but no more special or different and certainly not the only "path to the Father".

Incidentally, calling God "Father" assigns to God a male gender and a human parental trait and is, thus, blashpemy in breeching several commandments ... and who says Jesus never sinned ... ;)

You've got me thinking now. I'll have to read up on this.

You've got me thinking now. I'll have to read up on this.

Well ... might want to brush up on your Hebrew ...

English and Hebrew really are mutually exclusive languages that don't really translate well one to the other. It's why there are so damn many versions of the Bible and they all pretty much say different things.

Let's have an example:

Gensis 1:1 (not sure if this will work as you may need a specific font.)
‏בְּרֵאשִׁ֖ית בָּרָ֣א אֱלֹהִ֑ים אֵ֥ת הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְאֵ֥ת הָאָֽרֶץ

So ... how do we translate that?

The KJV has it as: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
The JPS has it as: "When God began to create heaven and earth ..."
The direct translation is: "With beginning, God was created from heaven and earth."

Quite a horrible quandry there, eh?

I disagree with your broad categorization of religion as simply a meme transferring system (and damn you Richard Dawkins for injecting that word into the vernacular). It can be used for that end, but that is not it's "purpose." Like any tool, it can be misused. This doesn't invalidate the existance of the tool, simply suggests the incompetence of those who are using it.

I believe our disagreement is one of semantics. When I use the word religion, I refer to organized religion, not individual spirituality. I put such individual thought in the realm of philosophy. Religion by my definition is used to instill common beliefs in a populace, and essestially to prevent rebellion. (Divine right of Kings, for example, or the Mandate of Heaven) By drawing the line between religion and philosophy at the point where the goal becomes explaining a preconcieved conclusion and not the furtherment of knowledge, we allow for metaphysical challenges to be engaged inthe same arena as the rest of philosophical discourse. This puts metaphysical questions to the test of skepticism, whihc I as a philosopher belive is a good thing. You say that religion is a tool that is often misused for such ends as the rallying of armies, I would say that it is this very misuse that places it under the term religion; If it were used in the individualist manner you suggest, I would place it well within the bounds of philosophy.

Religion is, as I have said before and as I firmly believe, a simple set of tools to deal with questions of the metaphyisical. It is not the end in itself, but a way to a possible end.
I disagree, but this may also be due to our differing definitions of religion. I believe a religion is a specific set of answers to methphysical questions. For example, the Christian faith offers concrete answers to metaphysical questions, and does not tolerate any individual interpretation. An example of this would be the question "Why does evil exist?" The Christian faith attributes evil to the work of Satan, it does not provide a framework for deciding the answer to such questions, but provides the answer itself. This is what makes Christianity a religion and not a philosophy.

Indeed, religion used correctly is even more individualized than philosophy because it seeks to identify a highly personalized and unique connection with whatever divinity may or may not exist, whereas philosophy seeks to explain the function of vast swathes of humanity and human existance. Indeed, it is possible to claim that Philosophy also attempts to do exactly what you claim Religion does and that evidence lies in Communist societies throughout the globe.

I would say that "religion used correctly" IS philosophy, and is thus individualized. It is the philosopher who determines what they seek, and if what they seek is a personal and unique connection with divinity, they are still a philosopher and not a preacher. It is when the philosopher takes his/her connection with divinity and makes it a forgone conclusion, that He/She becomes a preacher.
I object to your characterization of communist countries as using philosophy to control the populace. This couldn't be farther from the truth, these governments use fear and ignorance to control their populations, not the "love of knowing." Do you really think that the average Chinese peasent has the time to understand the philosophies of comunism? Communism as it has been practiced in the past is not a philosophy, it is a religion. Individual questioning and skepticism are not encouraged, and are even supressed. Its goal is not personal knowledge, but subserviance of the population to a dictator.


To say that one is "more valid" is incorrect. Both have their place and their goals and it is unfair to both of them to attempt and force a comparison or a value heirarchy just as it is unfair to say, "Vanilla is inherantly better than chocolate because I like vanilla better."

I agree that to say that philosophy is "more valid" would be misguided. To say that it is more applicable to a modern society, and less vulnerable to subversion, would not. I am not saying that we should throw out spirituality, I am saying that we should think about it in a different way, an individualist way, a philosophical way. The main thing I reject in orgainzed religion is that one person may be "holier" or "closer to god" than another. Thus it follows that to have one person that preaches to the masses is an inferior form of discourse. The only religion I am aware of that does not use this form is the Quakers. For this reason I would define the Quaker religion as a philosophy, and not a religion.


Well, theres my rant for the afternoon...

Berkylvania - Im so glad to find someone who is actually interested in talking about this kind of stuff in a constructive way.

The Earth witch you live on, drink the water, breath its air, ETC!

Is your God, and the universe is the higher god witch created the earth.

It is explainable in science. And completly obivious, just step outside.

we are very lucky to be energy, thats able to live a life.

you can beleave in an imaginary god like human, for a faith if you want.

but i think that is very ignorant. Cause the truth is all out there, your just not looking hard enougth.

and the faith you beleave in, just leads to coruption of the place witch keeps you alive! (the earth)

like pollution, etc, some think it is ok to do so cause after all this is just one world, they will be going to heaven after this.

the fact is where all tied together, the universe, and earth, humanity is just destroying what we where meant to enjoy.

just look at all the animals, they can lead, and live better lives than any of us humans,

and science is proving that most animals have brains, and are very intellegent indeed, thats how the servive and breed, in there daily lives.

but the corupt world we live in also likes to hide these facts, from large groups of humanity, and make our lives more complicated, and make us slaves to the money.

that is all for now.



indeed

I think he'd also be against rampant and unchecked capitalism: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven." "The Meek shall inherit the Earth."

the eye of the needle passage refered to the small hole left open in most city gates at night

a camel can pass through it, but in order to do so he has to bow down to his master

a rich man can enter heaven, but to do it he must be willing to bow down to the master

When it all boils down to it, there is no way to prove god exists that couldn't also be reasoned scientifically. Thats why your religion is also referred to as your "faith".

then how was the universe created?

That is just abou tthe worst reason to be pro-death penalty I have ever heard. HAve some fucking conviction, fight to replace the death penalty with life w/o parole, that really what anti-death penalty activists are asking for.

but untill that changes...

You and I agree pretty much completely Berkylvania. But you have to admit that pure science has room for faith in it...in fact it's not science if it doesn't have room for everything in it...but pure faith does not have room for science in it.

This does not mean that you aren't filled with faith. or that your faith is any less worthy for it, you've just tempered it with reason. All too many people see faith as a reason not to question, and I feel bad for them.

pure faith has plenty of room fro science

That is just about the worst reason to be pro-death penalty I have ever heard. HAve some fucking conviction, fight to replace the death penalty with life w/o parole, that really what anti-death penalty activists are asking for.

but untill that changes...

But until that changes, you should stand up for what you believe in, not just pick a side of the fence to be on. Like I said, have some conviction, and oppose the death penalty in favor or life w/o parole. Seriousy, this kind of apathy and intellectual laziness is just sad.

the eye of the needle passage refered to the small hole left open in most city gates at night

a camel can pass through it, but in order to do so he has to bow down to his master

a rich man can enter heaven, but to do it he must be willing to bow down to the master

according to jesus all that rich man had to do, since he was otherwise following all jewish religious teachings to the letter, was take everything he had, sell it, give the proceeds to the poor and go with jesus

then he wouldnt be a rich man eh?

you can try to work around it all you like, but jesus said what he said and it should be taken seriously. that very holy rich man wasnt getting into heaven no matter how big the needle gate was. his obsession with his "stuff" was too important to him.

No .... only two ... the mystics and the judges (you'd call them Pharisees and Saddusees). There are more now.

You are extremely wrong, so you must've missed your history classes. The Pharisees and Sudducees were simply the two most powerful groups at the time. They did not include your everyday person either - they were all rich and powerful Jews. I'd name others, but I don't have my textbook with me right now. I'll try and remember tonight, but I know there were several more - one of which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. Another had views very similar to Christ's. The word Ebionite comes to mind, but I can't guarrantee that one.

If it is not based in Torah, it is not Judaism. Torah states quite clearly that there will be no end time brought about by God. Now, if we destroy ourselves, that's different.

Jewish scholars use all sorts of texts that are not Torah. In fact, I believe the Torah is actually only the books purported to have been written by Moses. This leaves out plenty of other ancient Jewish writings.

Hmmm .... and yet here I am with my semikhah - I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself.

Claiming to be a part of a religion does not mean you actually know much about it. Most people who claim to be a part of a religion have just taken whatever someone else told them as rote fact.

All sects of Judaism have Torah at its core - even the Humanist Jews. Christianity defies Torah by claiming fulfillment of the law, hence, it is not a sect of Judaism and Christians do not hold Abrahamic birthright (not that they need it, though, as they have a moderator).

Name one Jewish person who follows the entire Levitical law. If you can't, then explain to me why they don't? Obviously, such laws have been deemed unecessary by Jewish scholars. Christianity claims that the Messiah has come and yes, has fulfilled the law. This is not inconsistent with Judaism, except the fact that Judaism does not accept Christ as the Messiah. Either way, if you knew your history, you would know that Christianity did start out as a sect of Judaism. All of the early Christians considered themselves (and practiced as if they were) Jews. Then, it branched completely by reaching out to Gentiles and became an entirely separate religion.

None of this changes the fact that the God being worshipped is the same. The two groups have different views of this God. Christ is believed to be a part of this God, not a completely separate entity.

wow Keruvalia you know stuff!

i had never thought about it before but in many ways you are right. the christian god is very different from the jewish god.

chrisitians believe in the trinity, that the ONE god of the old testament was really 3 gods all along sharing the same entity.

obviously no jew believe THAT.

is ONE god and 3in1 god really the same? just because we say it is? is a redefined god the same as the original?

Most people who claim to be a part of a religion have just taken whatever someone else told them as rote fact.

Mmkay ... well since it is clear to me that you know nothing about Jews or Judaism - I mean, if you did, you would know that Jews aren't *allowed* to follow anything blindly ... not even God - I think this discussion must come to an end before it degenerates into insults.

I'd also like to point out that I have not said what I personally believe in my religious practices. I'm a Jew, yes by blood and culture, but for all you know I could be Taoist; hence, you've been presumptuous and that is not a good way to carry on a civil discussion.

I have stated what I know and have backed it up. You have stated what you know and have only posed it as your statement without anything (scripture or otherwise) to back it up. So am I supposed to blindly follow you?

the eye of the needle passage refered to the small hole left open in most city gates at night

a camel can pass through it, but in order to do so he has to bow down to his master

a rich man can enter heaven, but to do it he must be willing to bow down to the master

Which is a nice rationalization for human greed (which is flat out against scripture), but how can a camel move while bowed down? And how do you know this is what Jesus was referring to specifically? Considering most of his other teachings are allegorical and symbolic and the whole scene at the temple, it is much more likely that this is a symbolic statement as well.

Why yes .... yes I do!

I have everything written about what Jesus taught concerning Torah. Namely the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Everything Jesus taught concerning Torah was very basic level stuff concerning the Flood, the life of Moses, and a little bit into Creation.

Comparatively, I have Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim, the Babylonian Talmud, the Tanya, and 2 millenia of Rabbinical commentary concerning Torah.

As for how Judaism views Jesus Christ, we must look to the Judaica.

Torah - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.
Nevi'im - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.
Kethuvim - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.
Talmud - Doesn't mention Jesus at all.

Judaism does not have an opinion on Jesus whatsoever.

The differences between Judaism and Christianity are so vast that it would take me weeks to type out the thousands of differences. I will indulge, however, and name just six:

1] Christianity holds that thoughts can be sins. (eg. Matthew 5:28) Judaism does not.

2] Christianity believes God came in the form of a man (Jesus). Judaism holds that God will never come in the form of any earthly creature.

Torah chaper and verse? Or anywhere in the Tenach? Or any Jewish scriptures that existed prior to Y'shua's days? Or are you just repeating the general wisdom?

3] Christianity believes in an end time in which God will return as Jesus and bring judgement whereas Judaism does not. (Covenant with Noah, Genesis 8:21-22)

4] Christianity believes Torah has been fulfilled (through the sacrifice of Jesus) where Judaism does not because the Messiah is yet to come.

5] Christianity believes it has dominion over the earth and its creatures where in Judaism we are not given "dominion" but are placed as caretakers and cruelty to animals is a grevious sin.

6] Christianity has 7 cardinal sins, Judaism has only 3.

I'm not saying either way is better or worse, I'm just saying that they don't worship the same God and they have very little in common.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." There is nothing written anywhere that tells us that Y'shua did not have the same education of any other Rabbi of his day.

I'd also like to chime in on Jesus being a Jew.

It's fair to call Jesus' understanding of the Torah as 'childish' because he does not interact with books that weren't written during his time! As well, the Rabinnical work that had been done, and the commentaries on the Torah that had been produced, Jesus was familiar with, but rejected - hence the arguments with the Pharasees.

Mmkay ... well since it is clear to me that you know nothing about Jews or Judaism - I mean, if you did, you would know that Jews aren't *allowed* to follow anything blindly ... not even God - I think this discussion must come to an end before it degenerates into insults.

::shrug:: Most people don't do everything their religion says either. This wasn't directly pointed at you - all I said is that most people do not do their own research into their religion. That is true of any religion and is very unfortunate. If you would like to start being insulting, that is fine, but I have not.

I'll admit that I know little about current Judaism, as most of the Jewish people I know are not orthodox. However, I do know some (probably more than most people) about ancient Judaism, having studied it in theology classes.

I'd also like to point out that I have not said what I personally believe in my religious practices. I'm a Jew, yes by blood and culture, but for all you know I could be Taoist; hence, you've been presumptuous and that is not a good way to carry on a civil discussion.

Erm....actually, you said you were Jewish. So I guess I wasn't being presumptuous in thinking you were Jewish.

I have stated what I know and have backed it up. You have stated what you know and have only posed it as your statement without anything (scripture or otherwise) to back it up. So am I supposed to blindly follow you?

Like I said, I'll bring my textbooks into it once I can get home, but a quick history lesson would point out that the Pharisees and Saducees were not the only Jewish sects at the time of Christ. Another group was referred to as the Essenes, which some scholars believe Jesus may have followed. In fact, here's a Jewish reference for you that actually lists four "main" groups:

http://www.wujs.org.il/activist/learning/judaism/denominations.shtml

You would also find that numerous "Messiah figures" were around, both before and after Christ, and each had their followers.

Erm....actually, you said you were Jewish. So I guess I wasn't being presumptuous in thinking you were Jewish.


Not presumptuous in thinking I am Jewish, but presumptuous in assuming I practice Judaism. Saying I'm Jewish is like saying I'm Texan, it's a cultural identity, not a religion.

Not presumptuous in thinking I am Jewish, but presumptuous in assuming I practice Judaism. Saying I'm Jewish is like saying I'm Texan, it's a cultural identity, not a religion.

The term can really go either way, considering that someone who is a new convert would also call himself Jewish. But either way, I never assumed you were practicing either - like I said, very few of the Jewish people I know are "practicing" Jews. All I assumed was that since you were mentioning semikhah and talking about Scripture, you have some background there.

The term can really go either way, considering that someone who is a new convert would also call himself Jewish. But either way, I never assumed you were practicing either - like I said, very few of the Jewish people I know are "practicing" Jews. All I assumed was that since you were mentioning semikhah and talking about Scripture, you have some background there.


Oh yeah ... very much so. Studied at University, went to Israel, studied even more, and became a Rabbi ... then hit upon a horrible quandry concerning a commandment, meditated on it, sought guidance, had a bit of an epiphany, and have been a proud Heathen ever since. :)

Oh yeah ... very much so. Studied at University, went to Israel, studied even more, and became a Rabbi ... then hit upon a horrible quandry concerning a commandment, meditated on it, sought guidance, had a bit of an epiphany, and have been a proud Heathen ever since. :)
hey thats not fair

tell us about it, its the net and now im curious as to what happened

you are no longer a rabbi?

I was raised a protestant, but I'm not affiliated with any relgion, I border on Atheist, I dont see why Christianity is the right or correct religion, when it is "new" compared to Buddism, Judiasm, etc. Also, if there is a god, what is there to prove it?

Dont give me that twin towers BS either, because if the bible predicted anything, it would not be something thats going to be a Howard Dean type footnote.

Hi all

This is the ultimate question in the world today, as it has always been. Do all ways lead to salvation, or is the only way to God through Jesus Christ's sin offering, as the Bible teaches? If all ways lead to salvaton, then no person will go lost. If however the Bible is absolute truth, then the only way is through faith in Christ, and many, many people will go lost. John 14:6 : Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This seems quite harsh, but the alternative would mean that no one goes lost as long as he has some sort of god he worships ( it can be a statue, a rock, a wash peg..whatever!) Everything is god, and god is in everything, according to this theory..a real win win situation!) Surely this cant be either, for where's the justice in that? Surely there has to be an absolute guideline.Even us humans with very limited understanding couldn't possibly believe the universe happened by accident, or that we'll be saved irrespective of how we live.

I believe this is the absolute guideline that the only way to salvation is through Christ, and that everyone who doesn't believe in Him, does so of his own free will, and will be judged based on that, without having Christ to pay the penalty for his/her sin. All who don't follow Christ will go lost.

The first commandment in the Bible commands mankind to serve God alone. He tells us He is the only true God. He forbids idolatry, when people serve man-made gods, as we see so many of today. The one behind this deception that there are other gods, and that they are equal, is of course the father of the lie, satan. Only through faith in Christ can a person see this however, and with more and more people following the trend to reject Christ and following their own will (actually satan's will), the social gospel that all ways lead to salvation , is spreading like wild fire.

Revelation 12 and 13 teach us of the unholy trinity: the dragon (satan - unholy father), the beast from the see (antichrist - unholy son), and the beast from the earth (false prophet - unholy spirit). Satan imitates God because he wants to take dominion of earth and be worshipped as God, although he isn't.He wants to keep people away from the truth so that they don't become saved. What we're seeing in the world today is this deception of satan. He is mixing the truth (salvation only through Christ), with the untruth (all gods are equal). The result of this mixture is a "global ethic" where people believe there is no more absolute truth; even salvation is relative to man's will. When they worship what they think is the "god of all religions", it is in fact the devil they worship, for there is only one true God, the Father of Jesus Christ.(2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.)

I'm sure many of you recognize in the world today the fading of the difference between right and wrong. This is the direct effect of the obscuring of the truth by satan. This relativism is flooding every aspect of society, and of salvation; For me it's a comfort however to know that the truth of the Bible and of Jesus Christ are immovable. Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

hey thats not fair

tell us about it, its the net and now im curious as to what happened

you are no longer a rabbi?


Oh no ... I'm still very much a Rabbi - that's sort of like being a Jew, it's unavoidable - and still (as you can see) do what I can to educate people concerning Torah as a religious text. One can learn about and teach something without believing in it, after all.

As for what happened, well, it had to do with the commandment to honor thy father and thy mother. My mother, an Irish Jew, was obviously honored by my path while my father, a Caddo (native american tribe), and his traditions were being ignored.

So, in light of that whole mess about not bowing before graven images and not participating in what would amount to sorcery and not doing as other nations do, I wondered just how in the world I was supposed to honor the traditions of my father and his family.

Quite the conundrum! So, upon consulting just about as many Orthodox and Hassidic Rabbis as I could get ahold of and consulting the great Rabbis of the past, I came to a single, unwaivering opinion on the matter: I can't honor both.

So, I did the next best thing (and what I should have done in the first damn place) and spoke to my mother. My father died when I was 16 and was, obviously, not answering the phone (chuckle).

My mother said to me, "This is your big problem? Feh! Follow your heart and, as the Wiccans say, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's ok!"

Disco.

Hi all

This is the ultimate question in the world today, as it has always been. Do all ways lead to salvation, or is the only way to God through Jesus Christ's sin offering, as the Bible teaches? If all ways lead to salvaton, then no person will go lost. If however the Bible is absolute truth, then the only way is through faith in Christ, and many, many people will go lost. John 14:6 : Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This seems quite harsh, but the alternative would mean that no one goes lost as long as he has some sort of god he worships ( it can be a statue, a rock, a wash peg..whatever!) Everything is god, and god is in everything, according to this theory..a real win win situation!) Surely this cant be either, for where's the justice in that? Surely there has to be an absolute guideline.Even us humans with very limited understanding couldn't possibly believe the universe happened by accident, or that we'll be saved irrespective of how we live.

I believe this is the absolute guideline that the only way to salvation is through Christ, and that everyone who doesn't believe in Him, does so of his own free will, and will be judged based on that, without having Christ to pay the penalty for his/her sin. All who don't follow Christ will go lost.

The first commandment in the Bible commands mankind to serve God alone. He tells us He is the only true God. He forbids idolatry, when people serve man-made gods, as we see so many of today. The one behind this deception that there are other gods, and that they are equal, is of course the father of the lie, satan. Only through faith in Christ can a person see this however, and with more and more people following the trend to reject Christ and following their own will (actually satan's will), the social gospel that all ways lead to salvation , is spreading like wild fire.

Revelation 12 and 13 teach us of the unholy trinity: the dragon (satan - unholy father), the beast from the see (antichrist - unholy son), and the beast from the earth (false prophet - unholy spirit). Satan imitates God because he wants to take dominion of earth and be worshipped as God, although he isn't.He wants to keep people away from the truth so that they don't become saved. What we're seeing in the world today is this deception of satan. He is mixing the truth (salvation only through Christ), with the untruth (all gods are equal). The result of this mixture is a "global ethic" where people believe there is no more absolute truth; even salvation is relative to man's will. When they worship what they think is the "god of all religions", it is in fact the devil they worship, for there is only one true God, the Father of Jesus Christ.(2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.)

I'm sure many of you recognize in the world today the fading of the difference between right and wrong. This is the direct effect of the obscuring of the truth by satan. This relativism is flooding every aspect of society, and of salvation; For me it's a comfort however to know that the truth of the Bible and of Jesus Christ are immovable. Psalms 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.


1) What benevolent Creator would sentance his creations to eternal damnation? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall hearing somewhere that in Judaism, there is no hell.

2) Our actions in this world depict how we are seen. Would you like to know that people all over the world hate and despise you? Hopefully not.

3) The rest of your post is on pure assumption that christianity is the correct religion-which many would disagree with you about.

4) As a side note of people not seeing "right" and "wrong," morals =/= christianity. You don't have a monopoly on the word or concept. Deal.

5) As a further side note, define "right" and "wrong."

Why do I, a Christian, think that my religion is the right religion? Well, if I didn't, why would I follow it? Conversly, I'm not saying that other religions are wrong. All the major religions seem to have a similar concept of what is good and moral. And they may be more right than my religion, but I personally don't think so. And maybe the atheists are right and there is no god of any sort. But remember this, all you atheists who love to say that there is no scientific proof or a god or an afterlife: there is also no scientific proof that a god and afterlife doesn't exist.

I was raised a protestant, but I'm not affiliated with any relgion, I border on Atheist, I dont see why Christianity is the right or correct religion, when it is "new" compared to Buddism, Judiasm, etc. Also, if there is a god, what is there to prove it?

I believe Christianity to be true because I believe that Jesus Christ was killed and subsequently rose from the dead. That makes me believe that he was more than just a great teacher, but the He was - and is - the Son of God. I therefore take His teachings as divinely uttered and inspired, and one of His teachings, which has already been mentioned, is that He is the only way to God. That is why I believe Christianity to be "better" than other religions.

Oh no ... I'm still very much a Rabbi - that's sort of like being a Jew, it's unavoidable - and still (as you can see) do what I can to educate people concerning Torah as a religious text. One can learn about and teach something without believing in it, after all.

As for what happened, well, it had to do with the commandment to honor thy father and thy mother. My mother, an Irish Jew, was obviously honored by my path while my father, a Caddo (native american tribe), and his traditions were being ignored.

So, in light of that whole mess about not bowing before graven images and not participating in what would amount to sorcery and not doing as other nations do, I wondered just how in the world I was supposed to honor the traditions of my father and his family.

Quite the conundrum! So, upon consulting just about as many Orthodox and Hassidic Rabbis as I could get ahold of and consulting the great Rabbis of the past, I came to a single, unwaivering opinion on the matter: I can't honor both.

So, I did the next best thing (and what I should have done in the first damn place) and spoke to my mother. My father died when I was 16 and was, obviously, not answering the phone (chuckle).

My mother said to me, "This is your big problem? Feh! Follow your heart and, as the Wiccans say, if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's ok!"

Disco.

moms know stuff!

im not familiar with the caddo tribe, is it the native name of one i would have heard of?

does honoring him mean you have to participate in tribate rites?

I believe Christianity to be true because I believe that Jesus Christ was killed and subsequently rose from the dead. That makes me believe that he was more than just a great teacher, but the He was - and is - the Son of God. I therefore take His teachings as divinely uttered and inspired, and one of His teachings, which has already been mentioned, is that He is the only way to God. That is why I believe Christianity to be "better" than other religions.

In short?

"I believe it's better because I follow it" :p

Hi all

This is the ultimate question in the world today, as it has always been. Do all ways lead to salvation, or is the only way to God through Jesus Christ's sin offering, as the Bible teaches? If all ways lead to salvaton, then no person will go lost. If however the Bible is absolute truth, then the only way is through faith in Christ, and many, many people will go lost. John 14:6 : Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This seems quite harsh, but the alternative would mean that no one goes lost as long as he has some sort of god he worships ( it can be a statue, a rock, a wash peg..whatever!) Everything is god, and god is in everything, according to this theory..a real win win situation!) Surely this cant be either, for where's the justice in that? Surely there has to be an absolute guideline.Even us humans with very limited understanding couldn't possibly believe the universe happened by accident, or that we'll be saved irrespective of how we live.

.
no man comes to the father but through me.

he doesnt say you have to believe in him

he doesnt say you have to sign up with some denomination that doesnt even exist yet.
he said he is the way to get into heaven. he opened the door.

HE will decide who gets through.

perhaps he has developed a fondness for buddhists. who knows? it seems to me that buddhist monks tend to follow the guidelines of jesus way more than the big time minisiters/priests do. (not that they follow them because jesus said to, its just an offshoot of being a good buddhist monk)

as to the "anything can be a god" thing. id have to agree with you there. but im an atheist and i cant see the sense in creating a new god to believe in. im with YOU on this one, i just believe in one less god than you do ( i got that line off this forum)

In short?

"I believe it's better because I follow it" :p

Well, why else would you follow it if you didn't think it was the true religion?

In short?

"I believe it's better because I follow it" :p

No.

I believe it's better because it's central tenet - the death, resurrection, and deity of Jesus Christ - is proven.

moms know stuff!

im not familiar with the caddo tribe, is it the native name of one i would have heard of?

does honoring him mean you have to participate in tribate rites?

In the Caddo tradition, yep. Just like being Jewish required a brit milah and a bar mitzvah.

You can learn a bit more about the Caddo at these websites:

Click Me! (http://www.texasindians.com/caddo.htm)

Click Me Too! (http://ops.tamu.edu/x075bb/caddo/Indians.html)

No.

I believe it's better because it's central tenet - the death, resurrection, and deity of Jesus Christ - is proven.

Boy, them be fightin' words :p


Alright, I'll bite. Show me how your religion is the right one.

perhaps he has developed a fondness for buddhists. who knows? it seems to me that buddhist monks tend to follow the guidelines of jesus way more than the big time minisiters/priests do. (not that they follow them because jesus said to, its just an offshoot of being a good buddhist monk)


Well, you know that period of time when Jesus seemed to vanish? That period of his growing up that isn't covered by the NT?

Considering what he was teaching when he came back to the Jewish people, I'm pretty sure he was off in India learning Buddhism. Everything - and I mean everything - Jesus taught was taught by the Buddha .... nearly 600 years before Jesus' birth.

Well, you know that period of time when Jesus seemed to vanish? That period of his growing up that isn't covered by the NT?

Considering what he was teaching when he came back to the Jewish people, I'm pretty sure he was off in India learning Buddhism. Everything - and I mean everything - Jesus taught was taught by the Buddha .... nearly 600 years before Jesus' birth.

Ya know, that is not the first time I've heard that theory. But I'm going to disagree when you say "everything" is the same. Buddhist reincarnation and Nirvana is in no way the same thing as Christians ressurection and Heaven.

Well, this has been fascinating - especially learning more about Judaism. I can't help thinking that it would do Christianity the world of good if we hired Rabbis to comment on any OT quote which came up in sermons or public debates.

That said - if 'God created the Heavens and the Earth' then Jews and Christians pretty much have to worship the same God, yes? Unless there's a second God running arund who's created a second Heaven and Earth? (And no, Max Barry doesn't count, he'd need to add Heaven to the game). Our beliefs might be *different*, but do you really think that our beliefs can change God's nature? (Assuming you accept the base quote). Of course, that doesn't stop us from thinking each other wrong, but hey...

Given that the big difference between Jews and Christians is simply whether or not Jesus is the Messiah, shouldn't any discussion focus on the various prophecies etc regarding the Messiah?

More generally:
Why do I think Christianity special? Well, covering the planet with schools and hospitals is something that no other religion has done. Christianity was the driving force behind ending slavery etc, etc. Now I realise that other religions have done things which their members can be proud of, and this is good. No doubt God will reward them for this. And, since Christ's command was generic 'feed the hungry, heal the sick' not 'feed the hungry only through authorised church bodies' I'm obliged, if I take Christ's teaching seriously, to try to help other faith's charity works.
But I'm only going to take other people's beliefs to heart if those beliefs help inspire good works in the people who believe them. Now, I can see how a Buddhist's 'detachment from the world' could be very handy when dealing with awful situations, and I doubt that Judaism's massive contribution to culture and science in the West is accidental - so I'm interested in learning more about them. But for the most part...

On th subject of 'faith' and 'reason' - the distinction is modern. I believe it was Aquinas who first noted and used the differences. The athiest David Hume created the modern usage as part of his plan to show why he should be allowed to hold theological posts despite not believing in God.
We still use the word 'faithful' in it's old form in romance. To remain 'faithful' is to be loyal, to trust your partner *because they've always been trustworthy in the past* and so on.
All to often we see the 'faithless' partner whose basic assumption (after several years of loyalty from their partner) is that they're going to be cheated on 'any day now'. Sad.
An athiest isn't 'faithless' or 'unfaithful'. The question hasn't arisen. If a believer is facing a crisis, and God has got them through a previous crisis, then they are faithful if they remind themselves of God's earlier aid (and assume therefore that God will get them through this crisis) and unfaithful if they abandon God, refusing to trust in past blessings.
God bless, James.

In the Caddo tradition, yep. Just like being Jewish required a brit milah and a bar mitzvah.

You can learn a bit more about the Caddo at these websites:

Click Me! (http://www.texasindians.com/caddo.htm)

Click Me Too! (http://ops.tamu.edu/x075bb/caddo/Indians.html)

very interesting, thanks for the links

Well, you know that period of time when Jesus seemed to vanish? That period of his growing up that isn't covered by the NT?

Considering what he was teaching when he came back to the Jewish people, I'm pretty sure he was off in India learning Buddhism. Everything - and I mean everything - Jesus taught was taught by the Buddha .... nearly 600 years before Jesus' birth.
yeah ive heard that before too, but i see no reason to believe it

2 people can have smiliar ideas and have come to them utterly seperately.

maybe some buddhist dropped by galilee?

On the subject of whether or not Judaism and Christianity refer to the same God, even though each faith has different ideas of that God:

Suppose a Jewish person and a Christian person are staring at someone else (to represent God) through a really thick window. They cannot really hear anything through this window, but the other person is talking and both the Christian and the Jew try to read lips.

The Christian turns to the Jew and says "That person over there said 'I love you.'" But the Jew says "No, silly. It is obvious that they said 'Olive juice.'"

Now, I ask you this: did the Christian and the Jew see two different people saying two different things? Or did one person say one thing and it got interpreted differently on the other side?

Here's another: I think Bush is the worst president we have had in my lifetime. I think he is using his religion to herd people like sheep by saying "God told me to do it" and is tearing down the very principles this country was built on. Other people think Bush is a great president, with lots of principles and things who really means it when he says "God told me to do it" and is a righteous guy and all that. Are there two different President Bush's? Or do we just view him differently? (hehe, I love it when I can Bush-bash in unrelated threads =)

The point is, God is the same regardless - Jews and Christians just have different ideas of that God. One believes God has already sent the Messiah, and one doesn't, but God is still the same god God always was (Damn- the gender neutral thing gets to be a pain after while, doesn't it? We need gender neutral pronouns in English).