All Religions More Equal than Different?

[Booko]

2. Islam and Judaism do not accept the Christhood of Jesus. Nor do any other world religions afaik.

"The Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted..."

- Shoghi Effendi (Baha'i Faith)

It would be impossible for Judaism to accept Jesus. It's called chronology.

As for Islam, what do you know about what the Qu'ran says about Christ?

Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism -- like Judaism, chronologically not feasible.

Did I miss anything?

Artificial attempts to eradicate that one central conflict by manipulating language or emphasizing ritual over content does nothing but promote confusion. A false harmony among groups, arrived at by gutting the core beliefs of one group -- is morally reprehensible and insupportable, imo.

God forbid we try to accentuate the similaries in an effort to promote harmony. We don't have to deny the dissimilarities either, but if they are held central and the similarities ignored, what happens is undesirable.

IOW we can't sanitize the Christ of the Bible to reach a happy medium:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NASB)

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division."... (Luke 12:49 NASB)

He said a lot of stuff like this. Does anyone here think it was the beatitudes that got him crucified? No. It was his central message that incited the wrath of the world then as now. His very name is enough to bring people to blows. So let's please not do him the disservice of remaking him or his followers' faith in him) into something more 'palatable'.

Your verses do more to show that the title "Prince of Peace" may be misapplied. His central message was one of harmony and love and people coming together (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek). Yet you propose we drive people apart? Perhaps I misunderstand you.

What incurred the wrath of some in His time is what happens with every Prophet -- he challenged the powers that be. That's enough to get you killed. Had He not pointed out the hypocrisy and corruption of the leaders of His day, but merely preached the Beatitudes, He would not have been Crucified.

 

[doppelganger]

1. Christianity is called Christianity because its core belief is in - Christ! Not a man, or a ritual, but the Christ.

Actually, Christianity is called "Christianity" because whoever is calling whavever they are calling "Christianity" is calling it "Christianity." My definition of a word, no matter how heartfelt or earnest, cannot change the reality of someone else's experience.

2. Islam and Judaism do not accept the Christhood of Jesus. Nor do any other world religions afaik.

I find that they do.

Artificial attempts to eradicate that one central conflict by manipulating language or emphasizing ritual over content does nothing but promote confusion. A false harmony among groups, arrived at by gutting the core beliefs of one group -- is morally reprehensible and insupportable, imo.

Conflict is all in the mind.

Sorry to be so adamant, but in this case I am left with a personal repugnance for the continued attempts to erase Christ just in order to arrive at a consensus.

No need to apologize. You owe nobody an obligation to believe anything. You're free to see your self and your world any way you want.

I would like to point out though, that I for one am not trying to arrive at a "consensus." I say what I say about what "Christianity" means to me because I find it to be deeply and profoundly true to me. I suspect no less so than what you find when you approach it the way you do - though I can't be sure of that.

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NASB)

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division."... (Luke 12:49 NASB)

Of course, I read those as meaning something entirely different than you do, I think. But I have no interest in arguing about it.

He said a lot of stuff like this. Does anyone here think it was the beatitudes that got him crucified? No. It was his central message that incited the wrath of the world then as now.

I always thought that what got him crucified was that it was the will of "God" that His selfless act of giving himself up even to death on a cross would take away the sins of the world.

So you can argue with the Christian Bible, and that I understand completely. Just don't erase it or try to make it something it isn't, and don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like what it says. Deal?

I have no desire to argue the Christian Bible. And I will make of it what it is to me.

the doppleganger

 

[!Fluffy!]

"The Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted..."
- Shoghi Effendi (Baha'i Faith)

Cool, thanks.

It would be impossible for Judaism to accept Jesus. It's called chronology.

The first believers were all as Jewish as Jesus. "To the Jew first" (Paul). I wouldn't want to tell Messianic Jews it would be impossible for Judaism to accept Jesus.

As for Islam, what do you know about what the Qu'ran says about Christ?

"Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son." 4:171

God forbid we try to accentuate the similaries in an effort to promote harmony.

No need for sarcasm here Booko. I never had a problem with promoting harmony, just not at the expense of truth. I do have a problem with someone making simplistic or dismissive claims about the origin, nature or texts of Christianity just to promote a pet theory, and that was the nature of my post.

We don't have to deny the dissimilarities either, but if they are held central and the similarities ignored, what happens is undesirable.

My premise was:

"Artificial attempts to eradicate that one central conflict (the divinity of Christ) by manipulating language or emphasizing ritual over content does nothing but promote confusion. A false harmony among groups, arrived at by gutting the core beliefs of one group -- is morally reprehensible and insupportable, imo."

I just don't get why you disagree with that. All I'm saying is that a harmony based on false presuppositions is not true harmony.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Actually, Christianity is called "Christianity" because whoever is calling whavever they are calling "Christianity" is calling it "Christianity." My definition of a word, no matter how heartfelt or earnest, cannot change the reality of someone else's experience.

Interesting theory. I think the idea that "Christianity" might have something to do with "Christ" is a no brainer. If someone finds that somehow untrue or offensive, so be it. You are right about our inability to change the reality of someone else's experience. But when we start messing with language we are in danger of promoting misunderstanding and self-deception.

I find that they do.

That's fine. So far no one has shown me.

Conflict is all in the mind.

Hmm. We are in conflict here.

No need to apologize. You owe nobody an obligation to believe anything. You're free to see your self and your world any way you want.

Thanks, I agree to an extent. However it might be useful or enlightening for us to make an attempt to explain ourselves to one another rationally, if for no other reason than to avoid misunderstandings.

I would like to point out though, that I for one am not trying to arrive at a "consensus." I say what I say about what "Christianity" means to me because I find it to be deeply and profoundly true to me. I suspect no less so than what you find when you approach it the way you do - though I can't be sure of that.

Yes, ditto. And very respectfully put.

Of course, I read those as meaning something entirely different than you do, I think. But I have no interest in arguing about it.

Me neither.

I always thought that what got him crucified was that it was the will of "God" that His selfless act of giving himself up even to death on a cross would take away the sins of the world.

Yup. But I don't think he dragged himself in front of the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate, nailed his own hands to the cross, or transported himself to the tomb. He yanked some chains to get there.

I have no desire to argue the Christian Bible. And I will make of it what it is to me. - the doppleganger

:yes:
I second that emoticon.

 

[!Fluffy!]

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NASB)

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division."... (Luke 12:49 NASB)

Your verses...

MY verses?? You can claim Christ didn't say it -- Like I said, I find it perfectly understandable to argue with or reinterpret the Christian Bible but please don't imply the words are my own.

...do more to show that the title "Prince of Peace" may be misapplied.

Not at all misapplied... Christ is multidimensional though: Lord of Lord, King of Kings, Lamb of God, Son of God, the Bridegroom, the Good Shepherd, the True Vine, the Living Bread, the Word, the Rock, the Builder, the Foundation, a Stone of Stumbling, a Rock of Offense, the Priest, the Ransom, the Salvation, the Last Adam... these are just a few of the myriad names and attributes of Christ.

His central message was one of harmony and love and people coming together (In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek).

I'd have to take this as a personal interpretation or a revelation. My view (although not static by any means) is closer to: "Christ did not come here to make BAD people GOOD, he came here to make DEAD people LIVE." (Ravi Zacharias).

His message to his followers was to love one another and to love God, but his purpose in coming here was as Messiah.

Yet you propose we drive people apart? Perhaps I misunderstand you.

Where did I propose we drive people apart?!? In saying so Yes you do misunderstand me.

If there is some problem with Christ's own 'divisive' words I would humbly advise taking it up with Him, rather than mischaracterizing me.

What incurred the wrath of some in His time is what happens with every Prophet -- he challenged the powers that be.

No, not a prophet - He boldly and publicly claimed to be the Son of God and the Way to salvation - the Christ. He claimed the ability to forgive sins. He claimed if He were crucified, He would rise again in 3 days and sit at the right hand of God his father. It enraged people then, and it enrages people now.

I can't apologize for that. People here don't seem to understand, the one thing Christians cannot do is deny the Messiah their Savior.

And maybe we should assume He told us he "came as a sword" for good reason. I believe that Christ as the Sword, Logos, the Word came to divide the darkness from the light and truth from lies... when you layer and combine that interpretation with the literal reading it becomes profound.

 

[doppelganger]

Interesting theory.

It's not a theory. It's a tautology and is therefore logically true.

I think the idea that "Christianity" might have something to do with "Christ" is a no brainer.

Most of the time, it probably does. Of course, as we know from your earlier post, it is your opinion that the "Christ" it has something to do with should only be the one you imagine from the stories in the New Testament. Which is fine. That's your prerogative.

You are right about our inability to change the reality of someone else's experience. But when we start messing with language we are in danger of promoting misunderstanding and self-deception.

Actually it's when we stop messing with language that we promote misunderstanding and self-deception. It's when we stop being conscious of the symbolic payload that words carry that we cease being able to communicate with one another.

That's fine. So far no one has shown me.

Or perhaps you've been shown, but so far you haven't perceived it that way?

We are in conflict here.

I don't think so. You were mentioning something about a "central conflict" in your prior post, so the answer to your question is in your mind someplace.

Thanks, I agree to an extent. However it might be useful or enlightening for us to make an attempt to explain ourselves to one another rationally, if for no other reason than to avoid misunderstandings.

I always do.

Yup. But I don't think he dragged himself in front of the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate, nailed his own hands to the cross, or transported himself to the tomb. He yanked some chains to get there.

In Matthew 26 and Mark 14 he expressly suggests that he is not a radical, but is arrested to fulfill prophecy:

55At that time Jesus said to the crowd, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? Every day I sat in the temple courts teaching, and you did not arrest me. 56But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled."

Specifically, the sentence was based on his claim that he is the Christ, the Son of God.

61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?" 62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"

I make that same claim. Would you like to crucify me for it?

Regarding swords, similar scene, this time the version from John 18:

10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) 11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

the doppleganger

 

[Booko]

The first believers were all as Jewish as Jesus. "To the Jew first" (Paul). I wouldn't want to tell Messianic Jews it would be impossible for Judaism to accept Jesus.

I was speaking of the chronology of the entire faith, not the possibility of individuals to embrace the idea.

That is, Judaism came before Christianity, and so if you go far back into the origins of that faith (oh, Moses would do nicely), there can be no "official from the mouthpiece of God or the Prophet" position on Christ, because He hadn't shown up yet.

Ditto for other earlier faiths, like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Zoroastrianism.

otoh, Islam comes *after* Christ, so it is possible for it to have an "official from the Founder" opinion. Which is why I asked what you knew about what the Qu'ran says about Christ. I decidedly *do not* mean what Muslims today think of it -- because they are as human as the rest of us, and therefore capable of misunderstanding something Muhammad said. Go directly to the source and see what you make of it.

Likewise with my religion. It's possible for us, chronologically speaking, to have an official opinion, that we believe is "from God" and that one snippet I posted about "The Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted..." is just a drop in the bucket of what Baha'i Writings have to say about Christ. (If you want to do a search on other ones, you should be able to do that at www.bahai-library.com.)

"Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son." 4:171

Here Muhammad is speaking to the heretical view common duringi his time and area, that God *physically* came down and had a little whooopee with the Blessed Mother. Uh, last time I checked, Christians would disagree with that as well.

And Islam does in fact deny that Jesus = God. So what? Even Christians have been known to debate the nature of God. If anything, you need to explain the departure from the pure monotheism of Judaism. The Muslims and Jews agree on this one, and obviously Christianity has it's roots in Judaism also, so why the change?

No need for sarcasm here Booko. I never had a problem with promoting harmony, just not at the expense of truth. I do have a problem with someone making simplistic or dismissive claims about the origin, nature or texts of Christianity just to promote a pet theory, and that was the nature of my post.

Clearly I at least partially misread your intent, sorry if that came off as sarcasm. And yeah, it was more of a general frustration over those (not necessarily you) who think comparative religion means "learn about other religions so we can tell them how superior ours is." That sort of thing gets a bit old, to say the least.

Anyway, to get back on the point. I'm not understanding then what truth is being...expended. Your truth? I'm not trying to pretend that the majority of Christianity isn't Trinitarian. I just ask the question...so what? We believe in God, do we not? Don't we also share the common belief that we can't know everything about God? In which case, it's not who is right and wrong about God but...we're *all* wrong...to some extent. We all have limited vision, so really, I don't see the point in arguing about it. If you relate to God better as a Trinity, who the heck am I to tell you you shouldn't? I'll work out my own salvation in fear and trembling, as it were, and I don't think it's my business to work out anyone elses.

My premise was:

"Artificial attempts to eradicate that one central conflict (the divinity of Christ) by manipulating language or emphasizing ritual over content does nothing but promote confusion. A false harmony among groups, arrived at by gutting the core beliefs of one group -- is morally reprehensible and insupportable, imo."

I just don't get why you disagree with that. All I'm saying is that a harmony based on false presuppositions is not true harmony.

I would only suggest that what you consider an "artificial attempt to eradicate one central conflict" is my idea of "no attempt to assert that my idea is better than yours, and it may not be as central as you think."

Do you think God cares so much about the minutiae of us petty humans' attempts at putting His Nature into human language?

Or do you think He might, just possibly, care more about whether we are working to love Him and our neighbors?

 

[maro]

Cool, thanks.

"Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son." 4:171


this is the complete true translation of the verse which Muslims trust

verse71 " O people of the scripture ! do not exaggerate in ur religion nor utter aught cocerning Allah save the truth
The Messiah , jesus, son of Mary , was only a messenger of Allah, and his word conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from him.
So believe in allah and his messengers and say not three
Cease!(it is) better for you !
Allah is only one god , far is it removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son
His is all that in the heavens and all that is in the earth
and allah is sufficient as defender"

verse72 "the Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto allah, nor will the favoured angels
Whoso scorneth his service and is proud
all such will he assemble unto him"

 

[bigvindaloo]

Fair enough.

Bias aside, I would hope we all could honestly acknowledge the truth of the following statements:

1. Christianity is called Christianity because its core belief is in - Christ! Not a man, or a ritual, but the Christ.

2. Islam and Judaism do not accept the Christhood of Jesus. Nor do any other world religions afaik.

Artificial attempts to eradicate that one central conflict by manipulating language or emphasizing ritual over content does nothing but promote confusion. A false harmony among groups, arrived at by gutting the core beliefs of one group -- is morally reprehensible and insupportable, imo.

Sorry to be so adamant, but in this case I am left with a personal repugnance for the continued attempts to erase Christ just in order to arrive at a consensus.

IOW we can't sanitize the Christ of the Bible to reach a happy medium:

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NASB)

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division."... (Luke 12:49 NASB)

He said a lot of stuff like this. Does anyone here think it was the beatitudes that got him crucified? No. It was his central message that incited the wrath of the world then as now. His very name is enough to bring people to blows. So let's please not do him the disservice of remaking him or his followers' faith in him) into something more 'palatable'.

So you can argue with the Christian Bible, and that I understand completely. Just don't erase it or try to make it something it isn't, and don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like what it says. Deal?

Emphasising ritual is one sure way to differentiate the three. You can go on from there having made the distinction to argue what the "core message" is. If however, you discuss meaning, this is couched in language. This fact is unavoidable. And the meaning of central teachings is similar because it is diluted perhaps to be acceptable to many. There is no "attempt" to erase central teachings by emphasising ritual. Rather you use these to differentiate yourself, then go on to make a claim of unique meaning in content.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I was speaking of the chronology of the entire faith, not the possibility of individuals to embrace the idea.

That is, Judaism came before Christianity, and so if you go far back into the origins of that faith (oh, Moses would do nicely), there can be no "official from the mouthpiece of God or the Prophet" position on Christ, because He hadn't shown up yet.

It's just another rabbit trail having nothing to do with the original premise: Other world religions (in this case Judaism) do not accept the Christhood of Christ. Why they do or don't is beside the matter.

If you want to somehow make the bizarre case that my premise is false and that Judaism accepts the Christhood of Jesus then go ahead. If you want to argue about the 'ability' or 'inability' of Judaism to have accepted the Christhood of the one who claimed to be 'their' Messiah when He came here, go ahead. I would rather you just accept at face value the premise itself and move on to the next point.

Here Muhammad is speaking to the heretical view common duringi his time and area, that God *physically* came down and had a little whooopee with the Blessed Mother. Uh, last time I checked, Christians would disagree with that as well.

Fine. If you wish to make the case that Islam accepts the Christhood of Christ I am sure I would enjoy the discussion.

And Islam does in fact deny that Jesus = God.

Ah. Although to stay on track this takes us right back to the original premise which is: Islam does deny the Christ. I'm glad you finally agree at least to that.

So what? Even Christians have been known to debate the nature of God.

But that's not the discussion here is it.

If anything, you need to explain the departure from the pure monotheism of Judaism.

"I" need to explain?

Thank you for just making my point. Why can't we all just get along and get back to the 'pure' monotheism of Judaism.

Throughout this thread I've been marginalized (how many Christians believe in the Christhood of Jesus anywayP)
and now put up as spokesperson who needs to explain that whacko idea of trinity.

The Muslims and Jews agree on this one, and obviously Christianity has it's roots in Judaism also, so why the change?

Sorry but it's not a matter of majority rule here. The fact that you don't consider Christians monotheistic is an interesting claim, but I'm sorry -- it seems rather odd to ask me to explain why something you believe to be true just isn't.

Clearly I at least partially misread your intent, sorry if that came off as sarcasm. And yeah, it was more of a general frustration over those (not necessarily you) who think comparative religion means "learn about other religions so we can tell them how superior ours is." That sort of thing gets a bit old, to say the least.

Yes it does. And I appreciate your apology.

Anyway, to get back on the point. I'm not understanding then what truth is being...expended.

The Christhood of Christ.

Your truth?

Apparently you are trying to make out that I am the only Christian who believes Jesus is the Christ, and that's central to my faith. Your repeated attempts to marginalize me are again, just making my point.

I'm not trying to pretend that the majority of Christianity isn't Trinitarian.

That's a relief, I thought you were.

I just ask the question...so what?

Please refer to my previous post(s) I covered it thoroughly. Several times.

We believe in God, do we not?

Yes.

Don't we also share the common belief that we can't know everything about God?

Which isn't the same thing as saying we can't know anything about God.

In which case, it's not who is right and wrong about God but...we're *all* wrong...to some extent.

Perhaps some more than others, but who are we to judge.

We all have limited vision, so really, I don't see the point in arguing about it.

That's because you are evading my original argument.

If you relate to God better as a Trinity, who the heck am I to tell you you shouldn't? I'll work out my own salvation in fear and trembling, as it were, and I don't think it's my business to work out anyone elses.

Exactly.

I would only suggest that what you consider an "artificial attempt to eradicate one central conflict" is my idea of "no attempt to assert that my idea is better than yours, and it may not be as central as you think."

Who am I to say how central Allah is to Islam?
Who am I to say how central Jehovah God is to Judaism?
Who are you to say how central Christ is to Christianity?

Do you think God cares so much about the minutiae of us petty humans' attempts at putting His Nature into human language?

For those petty humans to whom Christ has been revealed, his Christhood is the opposite of "minutae".

Or do you think He might, just possibly, care more about whether we are working to love Him and our neighbors?

No doubt He cares about righteousness.
No doubt He cares about truth.
The truth is "none are righteous, no not one". That's the conundrum solved by Christ. Which brings me back to my original post.