Jesus

[Counselor]

I'm a Christian, so I guess that is kinda sorta against my religion. :eek:

That still isn't a "no". But no counter-proliferation! If you want in on this campaign, keep in mind what we set out to do: make warlocks, shamans and sorceress that REALLY like trees.

[ChadCoxRox]

My mom sent me a quote from a book she was reading once and I want to share it here not for its relevance but because the thread simply reminded me of it...

"You know you have successfully created a God in your own image when you finally find He hates all the same people and things you do."

[pellaz]

... "you have successfully created a God in your own image when you finally find He hates all the same people and things you do."

this is so sad but true.

[ReasonableJeff]

The thought that one's religion is real is amazing enough, but to think one's own religion is true while every other religion one doesn't subscribe to is false is the height of epic pretentiousness, IMO), and then asked her if she'd visit me in mine because Sessrumnir sounded a lot more accepting of visitors than the Christian heaven.

Thank you for sharing your story. I really do appreciate you being open.

I think you are right in affirming a transcendental God that is loving, and I think if I had experienced what you have I would feel the same as you, however, it simply doesn't make sense to affirm that all religions are true and it's actually more pretentiousness to claim that they are all true than to claim that only one is true.

1. It doesn't make sense to affirm that all religions are true because some of the differences among the traditions are stark and irreconcilable.

Compare, for instance, Mormonism, Buddhism, and Christianity on the critical question of what is ultimately real. Mormon scripture teaches that ultimate reality is material or physical and that even God and spirits are material objects whose constituent matter has existed for all eternity. Mahayana Buddhists believe that ultimate reality is emptiness (sunyata) or beinglessness (nisvabhava)—no gods, no matter, no spirit, no self. Christians, by contrast, see ultimate reality in God, who is an eternal, personal, triune Being who created all there is—both physical and nonphysical—from nothing. By any measure these are dramatic differences.

The conflicting ideas are multiplied once other issues are addressed. What is a human being? Why do we exist? What is good? Why is there pain and suffering? Where is history going? How do I reach salvation or enlightenment?

2. It's more pretentious to affirm that all religions are true because you are claiming more knowledge of the spiritual realm than all of the other religions combined. Christianity believes that Jesus was God because He said He was, then He backed up His claim by rising from the dead. Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to God because that's what He taught. Christians claim no more than has been disclosed to them through the teachings of Jesus.

To claim that all religions is are equally true is to claim greater spiritual knowledge than Christians (who have merely just accepted what Jesus taught) and all other religions combined. Each religion speaks to what they know or believe in, but your view claims a higher knowledge than all of these....a sort of aerial view which states that they are all the same.

To claim such an aerial view seems to me to be more pretentious than to just go by what Jesus says.

[ReasonableJeff]

Any way you look at it - Do as ye will and in it harm none. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Honor all things for they are all a part of the same circle of life you are a part of. It all boils down to trying to be a good person, having faith in the unseen higher power.

To me, it's all just different human interpretations of the same being, same power.

Hey Blue, I hear what you're saying.

You conclude with "It all boils down to trying to be a good person, having faith in the unseen higher power." But if God is up to define however we like what would placing faith in him do? Why would we place faith in him and how are we to know how to do that? Even if we did it doesn't seem to me that that would be of any benefit.

If Jesus isn't God then at best we are stuck with the crushing burden of moralism. I don't know about you, but I can't even live up to my own moral standards. If it's left up to me...I can't cut it.

The only way we can have a God of grace is if Jesus really was God. Jesus endured hell on the cross so that we don't have to.

You see, the Christian God is a God of grace. Those that trust in Jesus to save them don't have to pay the penalty for breaking the ultimate moral law because the penalty was paid already by Jesus.

Only if Jesus is truly God can we really experience a love that can change us because only in Jesus do we see the depth of love that God has for us by the price that He's willing to pay to reconcile us to Himself. Only when you've been loved like that, by a God of grace, can you really be free to love others and treat them well - completely selflessly....because you have the only love that matters, the only love that can't be lost, the love of the Father.

[ReasonableJeff]

Actually Jeff, outside of the bible there really isn't much historical documentation about Jesus.

The legitimacy of the claim that Jesus was a prophet or messiah is one that can be argued either way, but largely exists as a matter of faith and only faith.

Hey BA, thanks for giving you input. It seems to me that you are assuming that the Bible itself cannot be considered as historical evidence. The Bible is a collection of historical documents (I know you know this but I'm saying it for others) that were later compiled by the church. So Galatians is actually a letter that was preserved through history (we can piece together fragments) that was written to the church in Galatia after the death of Jesus.

The Bible itself is history, each story or portion within can be evaluated using common tests for historical validity just like with any other document. The earliest church creed we have involving the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus can be traced by even the most liberal scholars to 5 years after Jesus death and there are portions of Mark (the Passion story) that are believed to be handed down from as early as 7 years after Jesus death.

For Alexander, his biography wasn't written until close to 400 years after his death. That much more time elapsed and historians don't take the accounts as legendary or mythical but rather fact.

Jesus as a matter of faith has a lot in common with Horus.

While there are a lot of details that are similar the grand story of Horus, His intent, character and purpose are very different from that of Jesus.

You can read about it on wiki (not that wiki is the most reliable source lol...but it's a good start)

Once you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt something exists, it no longer requires faith to believe it.

Faith is one of the main foundations of the whole Judeo/Christian belief system.

I agree with you, God doesn't want stubborn, coerced submission. I don't think anyone would agree that Jesus has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt...I'm simply saying there are better historical reasons to believe He was a real person and in his resurrection than there are for Alexander the Great.

[Pix]

I meant in a more general way and assuming that religion wasn't literally and perfectly true (the Bible certainly isn't) and that and divine revelations inevitably faced distortion by the human mind & ego (the end result being this) even before the politics did their own editing (be it a Hebrew warlord, the Council of Nicea, King James, or even the Conservative Bible Project).

And only Christianity is true? WHICH Christianity? Unless you're Eastern Orthodox then I know Russian Orthodox who'd say you're a heretic going to Hell...and some go even further saying only the Russian Orthodox are saved (saying that when Constantinople fell it was a sign that God then favored Moscow and thus the RO became the One True, Catholic, Orthodox church with all others claiming Jesus being deluded pretenders, especially the West), and I even heard of one Russian woman who claimed all other Russians churches as "poor cousins" at best, but she won the cosmic lottery to be one of the relative few to ever grow up in HER church (wow, did God really love her that much or was she just lucky?). Of course many in the Russian Orthodox have promoted the idea that all other religions, including Western Protestants (and probably Catholics, there's some animosity between them) are cults and have done all they can to get Moscow to crack down on the said cults.

And in the Bible Belt I grew up in there was intense rivalry...one said he heard something like, "I'm not a Christian, I'm a Methodist!" Southern Baptists often saw Pentecostals as little better than snake handlers and a few even found their thrashing about in the Holy Spirits closer to demonic possession while Pentecostals saw Baptists as missing essential components of salvation (from being baptized in the spirit to fire/persecution), and both looked down on Catholics as idol worshiping pagans, an opinion shared by Jehovah's Witnesses, but the Pentecostals & Baptists thought the JWs were unpatriotic scum refusing to pledge allegiance or serve in the military.

And the Russian Orthodox I met were gobsmacked by ideas like prosperity theology (as that seems too much like worshiping Mammon as well as God, and one can't have 2 masters, and it's also just not how the world works, you're expected to get crucified along with Jesus, not treat Jesus like some genie to grant your wishes, even if they do believe in miracles which they see as gifts and not to be planned on) and also thought the East Texas Bible Belt churches banning alcohol in so many places was crazy given that Jesus turned water into wine. (And then, again, many see all Western Christians as heretics devoid of Salvation anyway.)

And all these traditions, as well as much less well known ones that are now extinct (sometimes because they were massacred by other Christians as blasphemers) to persecuted sects that managed to survive in secret and only now starting to step out of the closet (like the Old Believers from Russia), or just fringe (Amish and Christian Anarchists). And that's not even counting the cults (I'm defining cults as having a guru in living memory who's word was unquestioned, such as Jim Jones).

And many of these trads have brilliant theologians for their interpretation, in some cases there are entire libraries devoted even to matters of doctrine, let alone that of their specific denomination...just as there are those of other denominations....and yet a person can think s/he is more correct than all these others far more brilliant and informed than one's self? :o

But just for the sake of argument let's say "only one religion" (and ignoring the many variants each religion has) can be true, how do you know yours is the only correct one when so many others believe just as strongly that theirs is the only correct one and frequently will gives reasons very much like your own? I'd freak if I believed that seeing it as Pascal’s Roulette here:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyath...-roulette/

[Bowyn Aerrow]

That still isn't a "no". But no counter-proliferation! If you want in on this campaign, keep in mind what we set out to do: make warlocks, shamans and sorceress that REALLY like trees.

My mother tried real hard to make me into a warlock... She failed... mostly.

[Counselor]

My mother tried real hard to make me into a warlock... She failed... mostly.

My parents set out early to make me into a Christian... They failed... miserably.

:ghey:

[OrphanPip]

For Alexander, his biography wasn't written until close to 400 years after his death. That much more time elapsed and historians don't take the accounts as legendary or mythical but rather fact.

This is a bit of a disingenuous argument though. First of all, numerous accounts of Alexander are considered to be mythical, especially those surrounding his birth and childhood. However, there is far more reliable evidence about Alexander's life than exist for almost any other figure from antiquity. One, coins with his face on them survive from the period. Reproductions of statues made contemporary to him have survived to this day. Fragments of contemporary histories talking about him survive. There are records about him from multiple cultural sources and different languages. He left a massive impact on the area immediately during his lifetime. The Helenic Empire is well accounted for in numerous sources, even if the details of the life of the man who led it are not. They left plenty of Alexandrias scattered across the region. Moreover, the later biographies are drawing on contemporary sources that haven't survived to today.

The amount of available information on Alexander, and coming from disparate sources rather than out of a single culture and small group of people, is better evidence of knowledge about Alexander having been widespread.

Finally, histories that tend not to claim magical abilities are more reliable than those that do.