How do Christian's explain

[Riders]

This makes no sense, at all.

The fact that an instructor who is a religious scholar with religious college degree from another religion explains Jesus is a prophet is not proof?

Then why do you Christian's claim religious scholars who agree with the deity teaching Trinity teaching of Jesus as proof because they are scholars?

Next time you guys bring up the fact that scholars agree with Jesus I will throw this thread back in your face.

Most Hare Krishna leaders have studied alot and know alot.

 

[sojourner]

What belittlement? I said that different religions teach mutually exclusive things. Conflicting claims cannot all be true. It's a basic fact of logic.

Conflicting claims arise out of the use of different metaphors and from differing perspectives.

Christianity makes claims, some of these claims are mutually exclusive with the claims made by other religions

Only if the metaphors are twisted into fact.

For Muslims Jesus was a merely human prophet. I don't belittle Islam by pointing out that both cannot be right. Either one is wrong and the other is right, or both are wrong.

Or, both are correct from their respective perspectives on the religious metaphors.

In John 14:6 for one. Jesus claims to be the sole means to God

Yes, in that context and from that perspective. John’s is not a global, pan-cultural persective.

I could compile other verses wherein the God of the Bible makes exclusive claims to both worship and divinity

Again: from a particular, specific perspective — not a global perspective.

I said that Christianity's claims are exclusive and if you believe in Christianity you reject other religions by logical necessity

Not so. You simply have to keep the metaphors separate. They all point to the same truths.

 

[sojourner]

The fact that an instructor who is a religious scholar with religious college degree from another religion explains Jesus is a prophet is not proof?

Then why do you Christian's claim religious scholars who agree with the deity teaching Trinity teaching of Jesus as proof because they are scholars?

Next time you guys bring up the fact that scholars agree with Jesus I will throw this thread back in your face.

Most Hare Krishna leaders have studied alot and know alot.

I’m having a very tough time following your argument here. Can you rephrase some things?

 

[Terry Sampson]

I’m having a very tough time following your argument here. Can you rephrase some things?

.

1. A, a Krishna devotee, explains that Jesus is just a prophet and that the Doctrine of the Trinity is a false doctrine.
2. A is a religious scholar with a religious college degree from non-Christian religion.
   
3. Therefore, Jesus is just a prophet and the Doctrine of the Trinity is a false doctrine.

• Christians do not accept that argument and, instead, say their religious scholars say that Jesus is the 2nd person in the Trinity.
• Riders asks: If Jesus' status depends on religious scholars, why are Christian scholars' claims true and A's claim is false?
• Riders had a Krishna friend, believes that most Krishna leaders are religious scholars and know a lot, and she trusts the Krishnas more than she trusts the Christians.

 

[Glaurung]

The fact that an instructor who is a religious scholar with religious college degree from another religion explains Jesus is a prophet is not proof?

No. Hindu and Muslim denials of Christian doctrine do not disprove Christian doctrine. You do not have a coherent point.

Conflicting claims arise out of the use of different metaphors and from differing perspectives.

Alternatively, they arise out of real disagreements about the truth.

Only if the metaphors are twisted into fact.

Christianity is not a metaphor.

Or, both are correct from their respective perspectives on the religious metaphors.

Do you reject the law of non-contradiction? Otherwise, we know with logical certainty that at least one is wrong.

Yes, in that context and from that perspective. John’s is not a global, pan-cultural persective.

The truth of Christianity is not a cultural perspective.

Again: from a particular, specific perspective — not a global perspective.

The Decalogue is not a list of culturally dependant suggestions. If you accept the Bible as revelation then there are no other gods. If you don't, fine, worship whatever you want and hope in the truth of that.

Not so. You simply have to keep the metaphors separate. They all point to the same truths.

The notion that all religions point to the same undefined truth is something I categorically reject. Christ did not claim to be a truth. Christ claimed to be the truth.

 

[sojourner]

Alternatively, they arise out of real disagreements about the truth.

They arise out of our insistence that the piece of truth we have is the only piece. It's like arguing over whether a 20 sided die has the number 12 or the number 1.

Christianity is not a metaphor.

ALL religion is metaphor, because that's the only way in which we can apprehend the Divine.

Do you reject the law of non-contradiction? Otherwise, we know with logical certainty that at least one is wrong.

Unless they're both right from different perspectives. At eight o'clock in the morning, a man facing north will say that the sun is to his right. A man facing south will say that the sun is to his left. Which is right? Which is wrong?

The truth of Christianity is not a cultural perspective.

But we perceive that truth through our cultural lens, and that colors the truth we perceive.

The Decalogue is not a list of culturally dependant suggestions. If you accept the Bible as revelation then there are no other gods. If you don't, fine, worship whatever you want and hope in the truth of that.

I accept the bible as revelatory. Do you argue that eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed cloth, not working on Saturday, and stoning people to death for transgressions are not culturally-dependent injunctions?

The notion that all religions point to the same undefined truth is something I categorically reject. Christ did not claim to be a truth. Christ claimed to be the truth.

Then you also categorically reject that God is either unable or unwilling to save every member of humanity, which stands in direct contradiction to God either being omnipotent or all loving.

The truth is larger than any one culture, any one person, any one religion can express. Yes, Christ embodies the truth, but he does so within the parameters of the understanding and religious expression of his audience.

 

[Nakosis]

It kind of does, because, if I’m reading you right, you’re implying that this theological model was foisted upon Christianity, thereby lending credence to Jesus’ non- Divinity. It was not. And that is not the truth that Christianity teaches.

No, I said not all Christians believe in the trinity which is still true. The state choose to sanction the other version. You don't think this influenced the popularity of one version over the other?

 

[sojourner]

No, I said not all Christians believe in the trinity which is still true. The state choose to sanction the other version. You don't think this influenced the popularity of one version over the other?

I don't think its sanction diminishes the truth of it.

 

[Glaurung]

They arise out of our insistence that the piece of truth we have is the only piece.

There is no such thing as multiple truths. There is one truth and truth does not contradict itself. Mutually exclusive claims cannot simultaneously be true.

ALL religion is metaphor, because that's the only way in which we can apprehend the Divine.

A poetic sentiment but one I reject. I would not ever be willing (should it ever come to that) to die for a mere metaphor.

Unless they're both right from different perspectives. At eight o'clock in the morning, a man facing north will say that the sun is to his right. A man facing south will say that the sun is to his left. Which is right? Which is wrong?

Your example does not work. The divinity of Christ is an either/or question.

But we perceive that truth through our cultural lens, and that colors the truth we perceive.

That our perception of the truth can be coloured by our cultural assumptions is obvious. That does not mean all religions have equal claim to the truth. To believe that is to deny reason.

I accept the bible as revelatory. Do you argue that eating shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed cloth, not working on Saturday, and stoning people to death for transgressions are not culturally-dependent injunctions?

I believe that all the laws of the Mosaic covenant were divinely revealed. Albeit as I Christian, I also believe that the ceremonial and judicial are no longer binding.

Then you also categorically reject that God is either unable or unwilling to save every member of humanity, which stands in direct contradiction to God either being omnipotent or all loving.

Man has free will, even to the point of rejecting his own salvation. I believe that those who culpably refuse the Catholic faith will not be saved. As for those who refuse it though no fault of their own, I trust in the mercy of God and leave it to him to judge.

 

[sojourner]

There is no such thing as multiple truths. There is one truth and truth does not contradict itself. Mutually exclusive claims cannot simultaneously be true.

I didn't say "multiple truths." I referred to a truth that has many sides to it. Like a 20-sided die. Or religious expressions of truth.

A poetic sentiment but one I reject. I would not ever be willing (should it ever come to that) to die for a mere metaphor.

So, God's small enough for you to completely understand and put in your little box? Not a God I'd be willing to die for, either.

Your example does not work. The divinity of Christ is an either/or question.

Really? Is Jesus fully human? Careful with your answer; you're a Good Catholic, after all...

That our perception of the truth can be coloured by our cultural assumptions is obvious. That does not mean all religions have equal claim to the truth. To believe that is to deny reason.

Why? Do all languages have verbs? Are those verbs all expressed the same? Do you understand all verbs of every language? I'd say that all languages have equal claim to verbs. Why can't all religions have equal claim to truth?

I believe that all the laws of the Mosaic covenant were divinely revealed. Albeit as I Christian, I also believe that the ceremonial and judicial are no longer binding.

So, then truth is colored by cultural bias.

Man has free will, even to the point of rejecting his own salvation. I believe that those who culpably refuse the Catholic faith will not be saved. As for those who refuse it though no fault of their own, I trust in the mercy of God and leave it to him to judge.

And your God is neither loving nor omnipotent. That's not what your faith teaches, though, is it?

(As an aside, I have to say that's a nasty side to present -- to so glibly assert that not everyone will be saved, as if it's OK for many people to just be thrown under the wheels of the bus so that you can retain your religious comfort zone. What if your mother wasn't Catholic? Are you comfortable with her spending an eternity in torment? Pretty heartless, I think.)

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think its sanction diminishes the truth of it.

Not my job to determine the truth of it. It's Christians who are in disagreement.

 

[sojourner]

Not my job to determine the truth of it. It's Christians who are in disagreement.

As well we should be. None of us is capable of fully apprehending God.

 

[Nakosis]

As well we should be. None of us is capable of fully apprehending God.

So, folks are just guessing at the truth?

 

[Muffled]

I went to Hare Krishna temple in Dallas 10 years ago the teacher told me this when I said something the Christian church.

He said the Hare Krishna have also always believed in Jesus sense way back. But they don"t believe he's a God man but good prophet ..

My Muslim friend told me the same thing Muslins sense way have always taught about Christ but Christian's don"t know who he is.

To me sense other religions have taught Christ was a prophet sense way back to me it's proof that the God man belief in the Bible was a myth.

How do you explain other religions teaching this especially if it goes back to days in early Christianity?

I believe people have a hard time understanding what they read.

 

[Muffled]

In the Qur'an, Surah 19 says:
16. And mention in the Scripture Mary, when she withdrew from her people to an eastern location.
17. She screened herself away from them, and We sent to her Our spirit, and He appeared to her as an immaculate human.
18. She said, “I take refuge from you in the Most Merciful, should you be righteous.”
19. He said, “I am only the messenger of your Lord, to give you the gift of a pure son.”
20. She said, “How can I have a son, when no man has touched me, and I was never unchaste?”
21. He said, “Thus said your Lord, `It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign for humanity, and a mercy from Us. It is a matter already decided.'“
22. So she carried him, and secluded herself with him in a remote place.
23. The labor-pains came upon her, by the trunk of a palm-tree. She said, “I wish I had died before this, and been completely forgotten.”
24. Whereupon he called her from beneath her: “Do not worry; your Lord has placed a stream beneath you.
25. And shake the trunk of the palm-tree towards you, and it will drop ripe dates by you.”
26. “So eat, and drink, and be consoled. And if you see any human, say, ‘I have vowed a fast to the Most Gracious, so I will not speak to any human today.'“
27. Then she came to her people, carrying him. They said, “O Mary, you have done something terrible.
28. O sister of Aaron, your father was not an evil man, and your mother was not a whore.”
29. So she pointed to him. They said, “How can we speak to an infant in the crib?”
30. He said, “I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture, and made me a prophet.
31. And has made me blessed wherever I may be; and has enjoined on me prayer and charity, so long as I live.
32. And kind to my mother, and He did not make me a disobedient rebel.
33. So Peace is upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the Day I get resurrected alive.”
34. That is Jesus son of Mary—the Word of truth about which they doubt.
35. It is not for Allah to have a child—glory be to Him. To have anything done, He says to it, “Be,” and it becomes.

• The Virgin Mary goes off in private.
• A spirit from God that looks like a human appears to her and tells her that he is only a messenger from God and is there to give her a son.
• Mary asks: How can happen, I’m a virgin.
• The spirit tells her: “God says: Easy. I’m God.”
• Mary became pregnant.
• Later, Mary goes somewhere alone, away from town, near a palm tree, and gives birth.
• Then Mary takes the baby back home.
• Folks who knew her saw her with the baby ,are horrified, and give her a hard time.
• Mary points to the baby and says: “Ask him.”
• The people say: “What? Are you nuts? A new born baby can’t talk.”
• The new born baby then begins to talk, saying: “I am the servant of Allah. He has planted the Hebrew and Christian Scripture in me and made me a prophet. ... Peace is on me the day I was born, the day I die, and the Day I get resurrected alive.”
• The baby’s name was Jesus.
• God can’t conceive a baby. All he has to do is say: “Be!” and Voila! There’s a baby.

Now, normally, in our world, it takes a human male’s sperm and a human female’s egg in order to conceive a baby. Commonly, the egg is already in the female’s body and the male does what he has to in order to get his sperm into the female. Right?

Now-a-days, medical technology has advanced quite a bit, and a male’s sperm can be put into a female to fertilize the egg without any concurrent male involvement. That’s called in utero fertilization. When both the egg AND the sperm are outside of a female and the sperm is put into the same dish or tube with an egg, and the egg is fertilized, that’s called in vitro fertilization.

Medical technology is pretty advanced and the science involved is very technical. But as far as I know, no human being has ever figured out a way to fertilize a human egg without sperm. Let me know if you ever hear otherwise. And, for the record, I’ve never heard of new born baby talking, but the Muslims say that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived and born, that Jesus was conceived without male sperm, and that he talked when he was a new born baby.

I believe I saw nothing in the text saying that no sperm was created. I suppose Muslims say a lot of incorrect things but text proves them wrong. In fact we do have the text that says God says "be" and it is.

God could have had a child by way of Jesus but I wouldn't guarantee that God created Him with the ability and I read the text as saying it is just something God would not do, not something He could not do.

I believe I do not know whether this is physically possible. New born children do not have the mental capacity to speak words but the Spirit can do it for the child.

 

[Muffled]

I didn't say he couldn't. I was just trying to show Riders that Muslims are in no position to declare themselves above theological reproach.

I don't believe I have ever heard one admit it, lol.

 

[Glaurung]

I didn't say "multiple truths." I referred to a truth that has many sides to it. Like a 20-sided die. Or religious expressions of truth.

Nicene Christianity is either what it purports to be or it is bunk. The Gospel is an all or nothing proposition. There are only two sides.

So, God's small enough for you to completely understand and put in your little box? Not a God I'd be willing to die for, either.

I did not claim to understand God. Not even in eternal contemplation will any of us begin to scratch the surface of God's depths. I claim only to accept what I believe he has revealed. To refuse the truth on the pretence of a 'humble incredulity' that any religion could possibly have exclusive validity is not a game I'm willing to play.

Really? Is Jesus fully human? Careful with your answer; you're a Good Catholic, after all...

Don't be facetious, you know what I'm saying.

Why? Do all languages have verbs? Are those verbs all expressed the same? Do you understand all verbs of every language? I'd say that all languages have equal claim to verbs. Why can't all religions have equal claim to truth?

Again with the false analogies. Different religions claim mutually exclusive things.

Am I going to be reincarnated as per Hindu teaching or burn in Hell as per Islamic teaching? Is Christ God made man or a purely human prophet? Do the innumerable Hindu deities exist or are there none beside the God of the Bible? Is Christ the sole means to salvation or do Christians really worship Krishna without knowing it as per the claim of the Bhagavad Gita? All these exclude each other.

The truth or falsity of any of the above do not matter whatsoever on perspective. Reincarnation is either true or it is not, end of story.

So, then truth is colored by cultural bias.

No. I could be wrong and there's nothing divine in the Old Testament. In either case, cultural bias has nothing to do with its truth or falsity. Objective truth one way or the other exists.

And your God is neither loving nor omnipotent. That's not what your faith teaches, though, is it?

That doesn't follow. That God (assuming the Catholic faith) has not seen fit to set things up as you would have it is no basis to doubt God's benevolence or omnipotence. God is also justice and has made very clear that unrepentant sin will be punished.

(As an aside, I have to say that's a nasty side to present -- to so glibly assert that not everyone will be saved, as if it's OK for many people to just be thrown under the wheels of the bus so that you can retain your religious comfort zone. What if your mother wasn't Catholic? Are you comfortable with her spending an eternity in torment? Pretty heartless, I think.)

Glibly? Your own projections are showing. It is not a comfort that I have no assurance final perseverance. I have no certainty of being among the elect. There is no once saved always saved in Catholicism.

The truth is that I, my mother, or anyone else I care about could very well end up in Hell just like everyone else who dies in mortal sin. The truth is not what makes me comfortable. What I would like to be true is an irrelevance. All that matters is the truth, and if the truth is that unrepentant mortal sin merits eternal punishment then so be it. I cannot change God's mind.

 

[sojourner]

Nicene Christianity is either what it purports to be or it is bunk.

Yeah? You might want to check with the EO on that.

The Gospel is an all or nothing proposition. There are only two sides.

Apparently there are at least four sides to the Gospel, seeing that there are at least four of them and they all disagree in their theology.

To refuse the truth on the pretence of a 'humble incredulity' that any religion could possibly have exclusive validity is not a game I'm willing to play.

I didn't say that any one religion has exclusive validity. I'm saying that religions share validity.

Don't be facetious, you know what I'm saying.

Not being facetious. Is Jesus fully human?

Again with the false analogies. Different religions claim mutually exclusive things.

Yes they do. They also stress mutually inclusive things.

Objective truth one way or the other exists.

Objective facts exist. Truth, though, is subjective.

That God (assuming the Catholic faith) has not seen fit to set things up as you would have it is no basis to doubt God's benevolence or omnipotence. God is also justice and has made very clear that unrepentant sin will be punished.

If God (who presumably knows all) created people whom God knows will wind up in hell, then God is not loving, nor is God impartial, which means that God is not universal, nor is God just. I don't see that God has made that type of punishment so clear.

Glibly? Your own projections are showing. It is not a comfort that I have no assurance final perseverance. I have no certainty of being among the elect. There is no once saved always saved in Catholicism.

Yet you have the lucky luxury of belonging to the faith that you have determined is "the only correct faith." Smacks of entitlement.

All that matters is the truth, and if the truth is that unrepentant mortal sin merits eternal punishment then so be it. I cannot change God's mind.

Apparently several people have been able to change God's mind. That aside, your post smacks of defeatism. Jesus didn't come to give us the Great Oh, Well...

 

[sojourner]

So, folks are just guessing at the truth?

No, but where God is concerned, I don't think anyone has the full truth. I think we each have a certain perspective on truth.

 

[Glaurung]

Yeah? You might want to check with the EO on that.

I am confident that the Eastern Orthodox accept Nicaea.

Apparently there are at least four sides to the Gospel, seeing that there are at least four of them and they all disagree in their theology.

You keep twisting my words and/or misdirecting with irrelevant arguments.

I didn't say that any one religion has exclusive validity. I'm saying that religions share validity.

You have misunderstood me. I said that incredulity for hard truths is not something I'm willing to play at. If Christian exclusivism is true, then it is true of whether or not I like it.

I understand that the exclusive claims of Christianity are hard to accept. I would much rather believe that God accepts worship and grants his graces irrespective of a person's specific beliefs. That a sincere Islam is as good as a sincere Christianity. That any religion which inspires moral conduct is essentially good and acceptable to God. I wish I could believe all of that. But that I would like it to be so does not make it so.

Not being facetious. Is Jesus fully human?

You know the answer. Jesus is fully human but he is not merely human as per the claim of Islam. Jesus is God.

Yes they do. They also stress mutually inclusive things.

I don't deny that many religions contain truth. (Some more than others). Indeed, I myself admire many aspects of Buddhism, Islam and Judaism. I have also always been intrigued by Hindu and Buddhist iconography.

But it does not matter how much other religions get right. To deny Christ is to deny the only means of salvation. Christ did not give us the freedom to practice whichever religion takes our fancy. He founded a Church, gave her the keys to Heaven and commissioned her to spread the Gospel throughout the whole world. Ultimately, salvation is hinged on one's willingness to submit one's own will to that of God's. And if the will of God is an exclusively valid religion then one is obliged to accept it. It is not my will that Christianity alone should be the only valid path to God. It is futile to blame me for accepting doctrines you don't like.

Objective facts exist. Truth, though, is subjective.

One's view of the truth may be coloured by subjectivity. One may be entirely mistaken about the truth. Christianity may be false. But the truth is objective and independent of any human mind. The afterlife is either real or it is not. God either exists or he does not. The sun is either a star made of super hot gasses or it is a deity traversing the sky on a chariot. (Well okay, we know the chariot deity isn't real). In any case, reality does not care about our perceptions. It is what it is and it does not care at all how we feel about it.

If God (who presumably knows all) created people whom God knows will wind up in hell, then God is not loving, nor is God impartial, which means that God is not universal, nor is God just. I don't see that God has made that type of punishment so clear.

One's very existence is a loving gift of God. The faith teaches that God predestined every single one of us to an eternity of indescribable happiness. But we also have the dignity of free will, which God will respect even if it means at least some of us end up damned. Saint Faustina, supposedly having been granted a vision of Hell, made an important point of what was revealed to her. That the souls suffering there have chosen to be there. Upon death one's will becomes so fixed either for or against God that even if God were to offer another chance at salvation to the damned they would all refuse it. Hell is an unfortunate consequence that arises from our freedom to reject God. But God still loves even those who reject him. Indeed, I remember reading that God mitigates Hell out of mercy for the damned.

Yet you have the lucky luxury of belonging to the faith that you have determined is "the only correct faith." Smacks of entitlement.

Quite the opposite. I believe that Catholicism is the truth, so I accept it even on its difficult points. Entitlement would be to refuse what my intellect has determined on the basis that not all the doctrines of the Catholic faith are to my personal liking. I don't like the idea of Hell. I don't like the idea of an exclusively true religion. I don't like the sometimes difficult moral expectations that come with the faith. Heck, the Catholic Church institution has become a corrupt embarrassment that may take generations to fix. I'm not Catholic out of 'entitlement'. Entitlement would be taking it upon myself to determine the truth as I would personally like it.

Apparently several people have been able to change God's mind. That aside, your post smacks of defeatism. Jesus didn't come to give us the Great Oh, Well...

If you feel you can negotiate with the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the cosmos then best of luck. I don't feel a mere creature of dust such as myself can stand toe to toe with his creator.