Can I convert to your religion without believing in its miracles?

[Storm]

I am all for mythology being treated as mythology and nothing more.

I think that many of the religious texts should be in the fiction section of bookstores. What do you think?

I think your understanding of "mythology" is sadly lacking.

 

[chinu]

Can I become a Christian without believing in miracles of Jesus?

Can I become a Buddhist without believing in miracles of Buddha?

Can I become a Muslim without believing in miracles of Mohammed?

Can I become a Hindu without believing in miracles of Krishna?

If you are a theist subscribing to one of the above-mentioned religion, do you believe in miracles of the other three religions mentioned above?

I respect three of them equally.

 

[Storm]

Possibly, but the intended use of the storytelling (and therefore its construction) is different enough that one can argue they should be in different sections. Although I will use pop culture/modern mythology as readily as ancient mythology in my religious practice, I don't get the impression most people are like that.

Frankly, I'd be happier if the books on Pagan religion got moved into the religion section instead of being in the $#@%ing "New Age" section. Paganism, neo or otherwise, is NOT the same as the New Age movement and the failure to categorize it with other religious books is a snub against the legitimacy of Paganism as a religion. Neither here nor there; I couldn't resist the rant. :sorry1:

Right there with you. Although my beloved Powell's City Of Books does file neopaganism under religion.

 

[nameless]

I respect three of them equally.

which three?

 

[rusra02]

Can I become a Christian without believing in miracles of Jesus?

Can I become a Buddhist without believing in miracles of Buddha?

Can I become a Muslim without believing in miracles of Mohammed?

Can I become a Hindu without believing in miracles of Krishna?

If you are a theist subscribing to one of the above-mentioned religion, do you believe in miracles of the other three religions mentioned above? If not, why not? For instance, if you are a Muslim, do you believe Krishna killed Putana, the demon and that Krishna is God?

Likewise, if you believe Krishna killed Putana [which is a miracle] and you are Hindu, why do you not believe that Mohammed split the moon and that Mohammed flew between Mecca and Jerusalem on Buraq - the flying donkey?

No, you cannot be a true Christian without accepting the truths taught about Jesus in the Bible. Nor should you, if you believe these miracles did not occur. The Bible urges us not to quickly be misled by persons who can perform miracles. Jesus said that some would say to him: "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" (Matthw 7:22 NIV) Jesus called such persons "evildoers" (vs 23)
The miracles performed by Christ were public, witnessed by thousands of people, done without fanfare or props. Even opposers who observed these miracles did not question that they occurred, but attributed Jesus power to perform miracles to Satan.
According to the Bible, part of Satan's methods of misleading people are "every powerful work and lying signs and portents and...every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth." (2 Thessalonians 2:9,10) So miracles alone do not establish the true religion, in my opinion.

​

​

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Have you ever read the Jefferson Bible? It is a rewriting of the New Testament with all the Miracles taken out.

 

[chinu]

which three?

jesus, buddha, muhammed.

 

[Muffled]

I think a person can even be a Christian without believing in a literal Resurrection. Though some others may not agree and find a literal interpretation of the resurrection to be foundational.

It is foundational. The whole concept is that of a spirit returning to its body and bringing it back to life. That is the expectation of a Christian, that He will be quickened to life by the Spirit of God.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Christian, no, sort of based on the miracle of resurrection.
Buddhist, not sure there are any 'miracles', at least not any we westerners would identify with.
Muslim, no, you sort of have to believe in the Qur'an, which is considered the greatest miracle in Islam.
Hindu, my guess is as good as yours, though it is eastern, so I doubt you can compare it to western religions very well.

As for believing in just one and not the others, in my experience, believing the 'miracles' of a religion is not nearly as important as living them.

 

[Muffled]

No, you cannot be a true Christian without accepting the truths taught about Jesus in the Bible. Nor should you, if you believe these miracles did not occur. The Bible urges us not to quickly be misled by persons who can perform miracles. Jesus said that some would say to him: "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?" (Matthw 7:22 NIV) Jesus called such persons "evildoers" (vs 23)
The miracles performed by Christ were public, witnessed by thousands of people, done without fanfare or props. Even opposers who observed these miracles did not question that they occurred, but attributed Jesus power to perform miracles to Satan.
According to the Bible, part of Satan's methods of misleading people are "every powerful work and lying signs and portents and...every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth." (2 Thessalonians 2:9,10) So miracles alone do not establish the true religion, in my opinion.

Exactly. What kind of disciple wants Jesus as Savior and then calls Him a liar?

 

[idav]

It is foundational. The whole concept is that of a spirit returning to its body and bringing it back to life. That is the expectation of a Christian, that He will be quickened to life by the Spirit of God.

Being reborn of the spirit doesn't literally mean being reborn. Oddly enough Jesus was reborn how many times between his baptism and resurrection and he didn't even need any of it for himself not once, its all symbolic, the blood the bread thing all symbolic. There is also the other idea of being reborn of spirit not being of the actual flesh as God is of spirit not flesh, the resurrection symbolic of being reborn of spirit.

 

[nameless]

jesus, buddha, muhammed.

thanks, i respect only one among these