I just realized....

All arguably-valid statements, if you set aside the fact that both Christ and Buddha taught similarly about treatment of others...but they don't further any argument that Christianity is solely true and Buddhism, Hinduism, or whatever are untrue.

For information's sake, that's not an exclusive claim. In the Vedic ("Hindu") scripture Bhagavad-gita, which was, conservatively estimated, in written form a century before the birth of Christ, Sri Krishna identifies himself as God, describes his attributes as God and his relationship to mankind, and makes the statement: "Abandon all other forms of religion and surrender to Me. Do not fear, I will protect you".

Another view of rightness or wrongness...per the Vedic concept of Sanatana-dharma, eternal religion, present in written scripture centuries before the birth of Christ, there is only one truth, which is the eternal, beginningless existence of a supreme God and subordinate individual souls. So, there can't be a right or a wrong religion if religion equals truth.

This view puts Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., and their subdivisions and subsects, all in the realm of sectarian beliefs...all containing elements of Sanatana-dharma but each very distinct scripturally and culturally and each more or less claiming exclusive knowledge of truth.

 

There may be similarities, but the foundations can never be harmonized. They make contradictory truth-claims about reality, they can't both be true. Truth doesn't contradict itself. If it did, it wouldn't be truth.

It is an exclusive claim of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. Different religions claim to be the true way to God, but Christ made an exclusive claim meaning it excludes all other religious claims of how to know God, that nobody comes to the Father but through him.

If Christ is true, all other ways to God are false.

 

That's exactly what I pointed out about Sanatana-dharma...it's truth, and it doesn't contradict itself.

Did you miss something in my last post?

I just quoted a scripture that is foundational to a religious tradition followed by a billion people, is regarded by many followers in that tradition to have been spoken by God himself, and was a complete document and made its claims before Christ was born or the Bible compiled.

Whether or not you accept the claims made by Sri Krishna in the Gita, they are there for examination, just as the Bible and Christ's claims are there.

And that could be turned around to say that if all other ways to God share basic truths, then Christ, as totally different, must be false...but I don't believe that Christ is false.

So, that leaves me a final option...If all other ways to God are true, then Christ must be true as well.

As I said in a previous conversation with you, I'm not a basher. I'm aware that you are coming from a strict literalist perspective on the Bible.

 

But different religions do contradict themselves, so they are not all the truth.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying, I probably didn't write it out very clearly. I'm not saying that the Jesus Christ of the Bible is the only one who has every claimed to be God. Different religions claim to be the one true way to God. Jesus Christ claimed to be God and said that he was the only way to God the Father. This is exclusive. That is to say, there is no other way according to Jesus. If what Jesus said was true then all other religions that men try to reach God by fail. If what He said is true then he is the only way.

Yes, you could say that if all other religions share basic truths (which they don't) and these were indeed true then Christ would be false based on the claims he made. But the point is either what Christ said is true and all other ways to God are false or Christ is false. They are not all right. Theorectically, they could all be wrong but not all right.

You can conclude that if all other ways to God are true (these views also contradict one another) then Christ must be true as well but either you don't know what Christ taught or you are willing to think illogically, that two opposite claims about reality can be contradictory but still both be true, as if truth contradicts itself. How can Christ say that he is the only way and be correct in saying that while at the same time there are still other ways to God? It can't be both ways.

If Christianity is true, all other worldviews are false because that is what Christianity teaches.

 

Yes, I agree that the Eastern faiths have much in common with each other than they do with Western or "Abrahamic" ones, but that doesn't automatically make them false.

And I think you misunderstood me as well. Reread my first post...hundreds of years before Christ, Sri Krishna claimed to be God and revealed himself as the only way to himself..."Abandon all varieties of religion and surrender unto Me". How much clearer can that be, whether you disregard it or not?

I'm trying to make the point that historically, claims equally comprehensive to those of Christ's were made and are recorded in a world-reknowned scripture, and that Christ's claims to Godhood and as the way to God aren't exclusive on the world religious stage...I'm not trying to convince you to accept Sri Krishna's claims as true, only that they were made, exist concurrently with those of Christ, and are sincerely accepted as truth by very many persons.

I'll modify my conclusion: there are related bodies of faith that have great similarities to each other and share truths; yes, there are some seemingly-irreconcilable differences on a literal level between Christianity and Eastern faiths.

Regarding knowing what Christ taught, I had a strong Christian school, Bible, and church background, but inwardly renounced Christianity at the age of seven because I couldn't accept the story of Adam and Eve and the doctrine of Original Sin.

Regarding thinking logically...reread what I wrote regarding Sanatana-dharma...my logic is identical to yours.

Regarding Christ saying he was the only way...was this a statement of local or global intent? A local intent is plausible per the account in John, as it seems that Jesus was having a private conversation with his most familiar disciples...perhaps cautioning them not to be influenced by another teacher in his absence. Point is...we don't know.

What version of Christianity is true? There are a lot of them out there. That all depends on how you read and interpret the Bible, how open you are to history and critical thinking, and how truly you understand other world faiths, particularly the Vedic traditions of India. And, if you want to stick with an exclusionist position, you can certainly do that.

 

But it does mean that different religions cannot all be true because they are contradictory. All views cannot be true.

Yes, I'm not saying that Jesus Christ is the only person to have ever claimed to be God. What I'm saying is that different belief systems make truth-claims that by their nature imply that contrary views are false.

When I say Jesus Christ makes an exclusive claim I'm saying that he excludes other ways to God from being true. He is saying he is the only way. He's making truth-claims that exclude the contrary.

I think saying that there are some seemingly-irreconcilable differences between different views, namely Christianity and Eastern faiths, is an understatement when we look at the essentials of each view.

If I understand you correctly, and please correct me if I don't, you are saying that all views of reality are true though they contradict each other, making contradictory, exclusive truth-claims. Is this logical?

If all views are true, Christianity is true. Christianity says that all other views of reality are false. Does that make sense?

In context, within the Bible as a whole, Christ's claims are unmistakable.

 

Jesus did not screw up anything. He fulfilled to the letter the prophecies of the Old Testament. Even the rejection of His own people was fulfilled. It is not values or works that save us from sin. Its is the Blood Sacrifice on the cross. And this Sacrifice was fulfilled only in the person of Jesus Christ. And this Sacrifice was fortold by the Old Testament prophets.

 

Re-read that...he said WE screwed up, not Jesus did. It is similar I bet to the tirthamkaras in Jainism...

man i love the religion class

 

Thank you Burbot. I stand corrected. My only comment would be, the only one that was sent after Jesus was the Holy Spirit. And He came with the same doctrine of Christ. And not another religion.

 

I thank you for your defense and clarification, but I must make one comment..

I'm a girl

 

whatever...i am sorry "wahine" isn't that clear to me.

 

JPG...we're on different pages.

For this discussion, I've been coming from the viewpoint of Sanatana-dharma, a philosophical position that asserts that there is only one eternal truth or God, and that the apparent differences and contradictions in religions are superficial and sectarian...Christianity not excluded. Per this position, the conditions...the Biblical account of creation and the fall of man...that would give rise to Christianity as the absolute truth to the exclusion of all others, never happened in a literal sense...mankind as a whole acquired a selfish and sinful nature through each individual's conscious rejection of God in the course of a previous pure and eternal existence.

You, on the other hand, are apparently coming from an absolute-literalist and exclusionist perspective on the Bible.

No wonder one's logical conclusions don't work with the other's.

I really shouldn't be making such philosophical digressions here on the Christianity forums...they belong in the Hinduism section.

 

These differences are fundamental, irreconcilable differences involving claims about reality. They are in no way secondary issues. These claims that different views make by their very nature imply that contrary views are false. Something can't be true and not true at the same time.

People hold different worldviews. You may say that someone is incorrect in what they believe, in the differences they have with others of different views, but that doesn't change what they believe. You could try to change every worldview's essential, fundamental beliefs in order to harmonize them, but all you would be doing is constructing a different view.

You could believe that everyone is wrong, but to say everyone is right is illogical. Truth doesn't contradict itself.

 

That's why I said we're on different pages...You take one truth-position, I took another. Were each right within our own constructs, because we each meet the conditions of our constructs. Within my construct, to say that there is an underlying rightness in all faiths is an established truism, so I'm not contradicting my truth position, and my logical process is correct.

Who's absolutely right or wrong is the unresolvable question, at least for the discussion we just finished.

Comprende?

 

But what you are saying is that two opposite, contradictory views can both be true. You are saying that something can be true and not true at the same time. Something can exist and not exist simultaneously. There is a God and there is no such thing as God. The universe is an illusion and the universe is a creation of God simultaneously. Jesus Christ is God and he is not God. All men are born sinners and all men are inherently good.

This is why I say you are being illogical.

 

Strictly within the terms of your truth-construct, yes, I am being illogical.

Within mine, my logic works, because I'm reasoning within it's parameters. Your logic doesn't work within mine, because the truisms you accept in yours are not absolutes in mine.

That's about all I can say...this is turning into a wordgame.

I've been reading some books by a Benedictine monk named Bede Griffiths, Oxford-educated in religious studies, who as part of his monasitic duties was assigned to live in India. There he became deeply acquainted with and appreciative of the Vedic spiritual traditions, while not losing his essential Christian faith. He struggled to intellectually reconcile Christianity with what he recognized as a true and genuine spiritual culture from which he derived much strength and inspiration...interesting reading if you care to venture out of the box.

 

This is not a word game at all, this is about thinking logically or thinking illogically.

You are saying something can exist and not exist at the same time, that a thing can be and not be simultaneously. Nothing that is true can be self-contradictory - God exists and there is no such thing as God, Jesus Christ is God and Jesus Christ is not God. These can't all be true at the same time. Truth does not contradict itself.

 

question : when you go to Heaven do you exist or do you cease to exist?

question : should the bible be interperated literally?


then i'll have a bunch more to toss your way. i would like to know where you are coming from so my thoughts aren't everywhere, hope ya dig.

 

Hello slinklikegroove,

From a Biblical perspective, nobody ceases to exist after death.

The Bible should be read in context, as a whole.

 

hey buddy. two more questions

ah, cool... very curious about the whole heaven/existance thing then. how is one able to go to heaven yet not exist?

ok, i understand reading the bible in context. but should the scripture be taken literally?