How can Christians hold up Christ as the ONLY proven way to spirituality?

I consider myself to be both a Christian and a Buddhist, and see no conflict in the two, since Buddhism is not concerned with claims about God and is completely consistent with the teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, the latter day Pharisees who are probably the "Christians" you encounter have given an exclusivistic spin to John 14:6, where Jesus is quoted as saying: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." The Greek is "eimi hodos"--"hodos" meaning a path or (figuratively) a course of conduct or thinking. Fundamentalists have conflated it with the bundle of doctrines adopted by the various Christian councils, or at least with the notion that people need specifically to accept Jesus as their personal savior in order to get to Heaven. This interpretation has been a major source of divisiveness. As you mention, Jesus taught that we can identify false prophets by their bitter fruits. This is a good example.

 

What does Jesus mean when he says that the only way to the Father is through him and who are the princes of principalities?

 

That of all things, love is the most important? I don't know, just an educated guess. Of the 5 yogas or paths to self realization mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita, the Bhakti Yoga is the path of Love and the most supreme path, however all paths need to be encompassed. Many christian's might think that the 5 yogas are just some eastern religious non sense spirituality, however it makes full sense and is a major truth about any human's life on earth.

The 5 Yogas are:
karma yoga (the path of action)
Jhana yoga (the path of knowledge and wisdom)
Raja yoga (the path of meditation)
Bhakti yoga (the path of love and devotion)

I love what you wrote Okie.

 

I interpret it to mean that Jesus is the Logos incarnate--what eternal truth looks like when embodied in a human being. The way of Jesus is not a set of beliefs about Jesus, but rather a path shown to us by Jesus--the way of dying to our old way of being and seeing, and being born again into a new one. It is only by this way that we can find salvation. I see no inconsistency between this way and the dharma. The only way to union with God is through insight into this reality and reformation of one's life accordingly. As for "princes of principalities" or "principalities and powers", I take those to mean those who reject Jesus' way and embrace wealth, status, power and sensual pleasure--the way of the world--instead. They worship false gods who will ultimately fail them.

 

What is considered knowledge and wisdom? What is considered love and devotion? And what is considered mediation in Hinduism? Do they have different understandings at the core or are they the same with the Bible?

I'm not talking down on Hinduism btw or the path to self-improvement. I am just saying that they have different understandings of meditation and love.

The Bhagavad Gita seems to be suggesting that in certain circumstances it is ok to kill even if those people are your friends, relatives, etc because they will be reincarnated anyway. Doesn't this give a different perspective on salvation and love?

 

Do you believe that Shiva can also be seen as the Logos?

I never saw in the Bible describing Hindu God's as false, but I have seen God's that worship the things you mention being condemned by the Bible.

So in other words, you believe in the overall heart of the request by other religions. If so, I appreciate the heart of it but that I believe that they are different at the core which could be reason why Christianity may be the only way.

 

The Bible also seems to suggest killing homosexuals, disobedient children, people who work on Sabbath, and anyone without "the mark" is perfectly fine. Does this give a different perspective on salvation and love?

No?

Then most likely neither does the Bhagavad Gita.

 

Yes it does. That's why I'm not a Hindu. But certainly Hindus aren't the only ones who have thought it's okay to kill in certain circumstances.

 

Christianity doesn't follow Mosaic Law, but the Bhagavad Gita is supposed to be the Song of God.

 

True, but in Christianity it's supposed to be the final saying on the understanding of God in Christianity and the Gita is supposed to also be the final saying or am I wrong?

 

Isn't the Ten Commandments a piece of Mosaic Law? If Christians didn't follow that little half of the book, I find it strange they get all pissy when a government building takes it down in the name of the U.S. Constitution. The Bible is meant to be the Word of God. I wonder why he'd include a whole 1/2 of a book that isn't meant to be followed.

Jesus wasn't here for peace anyways. Matthew quotes him as saying "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword."

 

I'm pretty sure in the bible is says thou shalt not kill. Show me where it tells you to kill homosexuals, but I don't think you can.

 

^ "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13)

oh, and "thou shalt not kill" is a part of Mosaic Law, and Christians don't follow that.

 

It was for a specific time and place and they are what follows from the two main commandments that Jesus gave. The Bible mentions that the law was made for those with hardened hearts and it was to handle situations that were seen as important at the time.

I took what Jesus said as to mean that Jesus' message would not be received very well and that his disciples would also bear the cross the Jesus beared. True Christians would be persecuted by even members of their own family for trying to follow and lead a life of good. Many Christians were sentenced to death for no other reason than to confess that they were Christians and that they followed an oath from Jesus not to do wrong.

The sword that he was talking about was the truth and the the truth would be used as a weapon until Jesus returns. But sometimes expressing this truth has lead to these people's deaths.

 

Some have suggested that this had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with practicing shrine prostitution.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "different at the core". I'm first and foremost a Christian, but I respect those who have chosen a different path to spirituality. That doesn't mean I regard every religion as valid, and there are some (including some flying the banner of Christianity) I think would fit Paul's definition of "principalities and powers". We can love the sincere believers, but reject the beliefs. The Qur'an teaches that Allah sent messengers to every people on earth (124,000) by Islamic tradition), but obviously not every belief system embodies divine truth and some are evil. Generally speaking, I reject all forms of fundamentalism, whether Hindu, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist (e.g., the Tibetan Yellow Hats). To give allegiance to materialism and hedonism, or to put trust in lesser beings than God is shirk (idolatry), the greatest sin of Islam. I mentioned that I consider myself to be a Buddhist, as well as a Christian, since it doesn't entail a belief about God and seems to be generally consistent with Jesus' teachings. I've found that my Christian sprituality has been enhanced and nourished by Buddhist insights. But there are subtle differences that make me prefer a Christian perspective, if I had to choose. For example, the Buddhists I know take non-judgmentalism to a relativistic extreme that make me uncomfortable. I think it's necessary for a moral actor to be engaged with life and to struggle actively against injustice. of course there are many strains of Buddhism, as there are Christian denominations, so it's hard to generalize.

 

Doesn't appear to have been translated that way.

 

It is being said that is what that section is referring to by context.

 

Which is what 3/4 of Bible comprehension is....

 

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes.html this is what I mean if it helps.