How do Christian's explain

[sojourner]

I am confident that the Eastern Orthodox accept Nicaea.

*Ahem* Filioque clause. It's kept you fine people at each others' throats since 1054.

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

There is more than one perspective on what constitutes the Gospel. Which one is right? Remember: you said this is all an either/or proposition.

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 don't think Christianity is exclusive; I believe it's radically inclusive.

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

So... it's NOT an "either/or" proposition? It's "both/and."

But it does not matter how much other religions get right. To deny Christ is to deny the only means of salvation.

I disagree.

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.

Or... the afterlife is radically different than what we think. And what if God doesn't exist? (That would make God a thing.) What if God is existence?

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.

So, God does save everyone (including non-Catholics).

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.

I feel as if God loves me, God honors me, I am made of God's essence, and God is within and around me. That makes me "fearfully and wonderfully made." That means God "knew me before God formed me in the womb." That makes me more than a "mere creature of dust." It makes me nephesh, since God blew God's breath into me.

 

[sojourner]

I am confident that the Eastern Orthodox accept Nicaea.

*Ahem* Filioque clause. It's kept you fine people at each others' throats since 1054.

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

There is more than one perspective on what constitutes the Gospel. Which one is right? Remember: you said this is all an either/or proposition.

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 don't think Christianity is exclusive; I believe it's radically inclusive.

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

So... it's NOT an "either/or" proposition? It's "both/and."

But it does not matter how much other religions get right. To deny Christ is to deny the only means of salvation.

I disagree.

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.

Or... the afterlife is radically different than what we think. And what if God doesn't exist? (That would make God a thing.) What if God is existence?

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.

So, God does save everyone (including non-Catholics).

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.

I feel as if God loves me, God honors me, I am made of God's essence, and God is within and around me. That makes me "fearfully and wonderfully made." That means God "knew me before God formed me in the womb." That makes me more than a "mere creature of dust." It makes me nephesh, since God blew God's breath into me.

 

[Glaurung]

*Ahem* Filioque clause. It's kept you fine people at each others' throats since 1054.

The Filioque isn't in the creed drawn up at Nicaea. That dispute has nothing to do with the council. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do have disagreements. Nicaea isn't one of them.

There is more than one perspective on what constitutes the Gospel. Which one is right? Remember: you said this is all an either/or proposition.

The way I see it, there are only two credible choices. Orthodoxy or Catholicism. Protestantism requires the (at least) implicit belief that no one understood the Gospel until the sixteenth century. Or that the Church collapsed until [insert preferred reformer/prophet claimant] restored it. In either case, such is too big a leap of faith for me.

I don't think Christianity is exclusive; I believe it's radically inclusive.

Christianity is inclusive in the sense that it is meant for all. It is exclusive in that it claims to be the only religion with salvific value. The Church (be it Catholic or Orthodox) goes so far as to claim to be founded by God incarnate himself.

So... it's NOT an "either/or" proposition? It's "both/and."

The issue is not Islam's affirmation of Christ's humanity. It is the denial of his divinity. Jesus cannot be God and not God at the same time. Someone is wrong by logical necessity. This is basic logic. To deny non-contradiction is irrationalism.

I disagree.

Of course you do, otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange. If you believe one can save one's soul practising whatever religion one wishes then that's your prerogative. I actually hope you're right. But such a proposition is contrary to the teaching of catholic and apostolic faith. Therefore I must reject it as wishful thinking.

Or... the afterlife is radically different than what we think. And what if God doesn't exist? (That would make God a thing.) What if God is existence?

Human consciousness either transcends physical death or it does not. God is either a reality of some kind or not. In any case, you're dodging the point.

So, God does save everyone (including non-Catholics).

I don't know how you got that. God predestined everyone to the beatific vision (no one was created for Hell) but whether or not one actually gets the beatific vision depends on the state of one's soul at the point of death. Also, you should understand that I did not say all non-Catholics are damned. I said that those who culpably reject the truth cannot be saved. If one knowingly rejects the Gospel knowing Christ as the savoir then by definition one cannot be saved.

Not everyone outside the visible Church has necessarily rejected Christ. (Culpably). Likewise, not everyone inside the Church has actually accepted him. A Hindu who knows nothing but his Hinduism is not necessarily in the same position as an atheist who has wilfully refused the Gospel.

I feel as if God loves me, God honors me, I am made of God's essence, and God is within and around me. That makes me "fearfully and wonderfully made." That means God "knew me before God formed me in the womb." That makes me more than a "mere creature of dust." It makes me nephesh, since God blew God's breath into me.

You are made in God's image, but not his essence. You in no way share in God's divinity. But dust thou art...

God's love for all is not an assurance of universal salvation. The Scriptures are crystal clear that at least some are condemned by God. Sin is death.

 

[sojourner]

The Filioque isn't in the creed drawn up at Nicaea. That dispute has nothing to do with the council. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do have disagreements. Nicaea isn't one of them.

Yet you say it; they don’t. One of you is right; the other is wrong.

The way I see it, there are only two credible choices. Orthodoxy or Catholicism

No, you said only the RCC is right.

Christianity is inclusive in the sense that it is meant for all. It is exclusive in that it claims to be the only religion with salvific value

I don’t believe so. I think we’ve gotten that wrong.

The issue is not Islam's affirmation of Christ's humanity. It is the denial of his divinity. Jesus cannot be God and not God at the same time

Depends on what metaphor you’re using.

Of course you do, otherwise we wouldn't be having this exchange. If you believe one can save his soul practising whatever religion one wishes then that's your prerogative. I actually hope you're right. But such a proposition is contrary to the teaching of catholic and apostolic faith. Therefore I must reject it as wishful thinking

Then catholic doctrine is mistaken IMO.

Human consciousness either transcends physical death or it does not. God is either a reality of some kind or not. In any case, you're dodging the point

No, I’m not. There are many facets to God and many perspectives. God is known by a thousand names and yet is Unameable.

I don't know how you got that. God predestined everyone to the beatific vision (no one was created for Hell) but whether or not one actually gets the beatific vision depends on the state of one's soul at the point of death

Completely undermining your concept of the efficacy of the cross.

No, we cannot be whole unless all are whole — and unless the world is whole, since we are all one.

Not everyone outside the visible Church has necessarily rejected Christ. (Culpably). Likewise, not everyone inside the Church has actually accepted him

Now who’s hedging bets?

You are made in God's image, but not his essence

We’re made of dust. The earth is made of dust. That dust came out of creation. God didn’t create ex nihilo. Creation came out of God’s essence.

God's love for all is not an assurance of universal salvation

Of course it is.

 

[Glaurung]

Yet you say it; they don’t. One of you is right; the other is wrong.

Granting the Filioque, the Orthodox are wrong only insofar as they deny the truth of the Filioque. The creed they use omitting the Filioque is still technically correct. The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father. If the Filioque is wrong then the Catholic use of it is in error. In either case, the creed as drawn up by Nicaea is orthodox. (Small 'o' just to be clear).

As an aside, Catholics do not make universal use of the Filioque. I'm fairly sure the eastern rites omit it. That Nicaea did not include it in its original formulation is not disputed.

No, you said only the RCC is right.

Recognising the credibility of Eastern Orthodoxy is not an affirmation of its denial of papal authority on my end. My comment was meant to be read as a hypothetical of someone considering Christianity.

From a Catholic point of view the Eastern Orthodox are schismatic, not heretical. Like the creed situation most of what they affirm is orthodox. (Again, small 'o'). The Catholic Church even recognises Orthodox sacraments as valid. It is a real church.

I don’t believe so. I think we’ve gotten that wrong.

All religions are valid, except when they're not.

In seriousness, what you think is wrong does not mean much to me. I have an obligation to assent to all the Church proposes as authoritative.

Depends on what metaphor you’re using.

Christ as the good shepherd is a metaphor. Christ as the Second Person of the Triune God is an objective claim about Christ as God.

You could go half way and claim that Christ was some kind of 'manifestation' of God. But that would be unacceptable to both Christians and Muslims. Truth is not always in the middle.

Then catholic doctrine is mistaken IMO.

Again, not really an argument.

No, I’m not. There are many facets to God and many perspectives. God is known by a thousand names and yet is Unameable.

There are many perspectives. But even the existence of a trillion perspectives does not mean an objective truth does not exist.

As in the case of the afterlife. If I ask you whether or not denial of the afterlife (as a proposition) negates its affirmation, telling me that the afterlife may be radically different than what I expect is not an answer. We're not even having the same conversation at that point. I'm not asking you for your beliefs about the afterlife.

Completely undermining your concept of the efficacy of the cross.

The Cross redeemed the world by reconciling man with God. This reconciliation does not ensure that all will actually receive sanctifying grace. People can still lose the state of grace by mortal sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

No, we cannot be whole unless all are whole — and unless the world is whole, since we are all one.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. It's fluffy sentiment signifying nothing.

Now who’s hedging bets?

It's the teaching of the Catholic Church.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
​

You will notice that every time I've mentioned this doctrine, I have always qualified that it applies only to the culpable.

We’re made of dust. The earth is made of dust. That dust came out of creation. God didn’t create ex nihilo. Creation came out of God’s essence.

We are going to have to disagree. God created the world by his will alone. And God is utterly separate from his creation.

Of course it is.

Only if you flagrantly ignore the explicit warnings of Scripture on the matter.

 

[sojourner]

Granting the Filioque, the Orthodox are wrong only insofar as they deny the truth of the Filioque. The creed they use omitting the Filioque is still technically correct. The Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father. If the Filioque is wrong then the Catholic use of it is in error. In either case, the creed as drawn up by Nicaea is orthodox. (Small 'o' just to be clear).

As an aside, Catholics do not make universal use of the Filioque. I'm fairly sure the eastern rites omit it. That Nicaea did not include it in its original formulation is not disputed.


Recognising the credibility of Eastern Orthodoxy is not an affirmation of its denial of papal authority on my end. My comment was meant to be read as a hypothetical of someone considering Christianity.

From a Catholic point of view the Eastern Orthodox are schismatic, not heretical. Like the creed situation most of what they affirm is orthodox. (Again, small 'o'). The Catholic Church even recognises Orthodox sacraments as valid. It is a real church.


All religions are valid, except when they're not.

In seriousness, what you think is wrong does not mean much to me. I have an obligation to assent to all the Church proposes as authoritative.


Christ as the good shepherd is a metaphor. Christ as the Second Person of the Triune God is an objective claim about Christ as God.

You could go half way and claim that Christ was some kind of 'manifestation' of God. But that would be unacceptable to both Christians and Muslims. Truth is not always in the middle.


Again, not really an argument.


There are many perspectives. But even the existence of a trillion perspectives does not mean an objective truth does not exist.

As in the case of the afterlife. If I ask you whether or not denial of the afterlife (as a proposition) negates its affirmation, telling me that the afterlife may be radically different than what I expect is not an answer. We're not even having the same conversation at that point. I'm not asking you for your beliefs about the afterlife.


The Cross redeemed the world by reconciling man with God. This reconciliation does not ensure that all will actually receive sanctifying grace. People can still lose the state of grace by mortal sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.


I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean anything. It's fluffy sentiment signifying nothing.


It's the teaching of the Catholic Church.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
​

You will notice that every time I've mentioned this doctrine, I have always qualified that it applies only to the culpable.


We are going to have to disagree. God created the world by his will alone. And God is utterly separate from his creation.


Only if you flagrantly ignore the explicit warnings of Scripture on the matter.

I’m afraid your arguments aren’t cohesive. You say that all this is an either/or proposition, that the RCC is the only correct church and that salvation only comes through the church, and then you go to arguments that some outside the church will be saved and all of a sudden now the EO is a real church.

I get the RCC doctrine; I used to be one until I found that I was “informed dissenting” on too many points. I can never be Catholic, because I find that they’ve gotten too much in error. A God who is completely separate from creation leads to the kind of planet-killing attitudes that have caused glacial melting, greenhouse gasses and the extinction of too many species. It’s exclusivist attitudes has led to too many people being unjustifiably marginalized. This atomistic thinking has gotten us into a world of trouble, and it’s time we found and embraced some different models that don’t stem from imperialism and serve to perpetuate the status quo of the power structure — despite its work in liberation theology, especially in South America.

 

[Glaurung]

I’m afraid your arguments aren’t cohesive.

You haven't made a single real argument yourself. Claiming that mutually exclusive claims are all simultaneously true because everything is a metaphor is solipsistic. No, I reject your worldview. There is a real world with a real truth and it does not care about anyone's feelings. A triangle has three sides and no amount of 'metaphor' will ever give it four.

You say that all this is an either/or proposition, that the RCC is the only correct church and that salvation only comes through the church, and then you go to arguments that some outside the church will be saved and all of a sudden now the EO is a real church.

This is why I know we've been mostly talking past each other. I have not said that everything is an either/or. The either/or concerned the choice between Jesus as divine savoir or Jesus as merely human prophet. I'm sorry, but you cannot have both.

Nor have I ever said all non-Catholics go to Hell. (Seriously, go back and look). You keep attacking what you think I have said rather than what I have actually said. I haven't changed my position. The problem is that you're arguing against a caricature of your own making.

A God who is completely separate from creation leads to the kind of planet-killing attitudes that have caused glacial melting, greenhouse gasses and the extinction of too many species.

Oh please...

We don't burn fossil fuels, clear land and create garbage because of any particular kind of theism. We burn fossil fuels because civilisation is not going to abandon cars and electricity. We clear land because there are billions of people alive right now who need to eat. We create a lot of garbage because again, civilisation is not going to go without consumer goods. It's just insipid to claim that the belief in a transcendent creator somehow contributes to the environmental problems facing the world. Consider that two of the biggest (if not the biggest) polluters are civilisations wherein Christianity has never had any significant influence. China and India.

It’s exclusivist attitudes has led to too many people being unjustifiably marginalized. This atomistic thinking has gotten us into a world of trouble, and it’s time we found and embraced some different models that don’t stem from imperialism and serve to perpetuate the status quo of the power structure — despite its work in liberation theology, especially in South America.

Different models of what? Your whole rant is nothing but a red herring. This whole conversation has been nothing but red herrings.

 

[sojourner]

No, I reject your worldview. There is a real world with a real truth and it does not care about anyone's feelings. A triangle has three sides and no amount of 'metaphor' will ever give it four.

We’re not talking about the physical world. Although the same applies to your last quoted statement. We’re talking about theological constructs and spiritual understandings, not measurements scientific proofs.

The either/or concerned the choice between Jesus as divine savoir or Jesus as merely human prophet. I'm sorry, but you cannot have both

You can if different people have different theological understandings.

We don't burn fossil fuels, clear land and create garbage because of any particular kind of theism

No, but the thinking that “God is entirely separate” is the purview of a particular type of theism that has dominated the world for a long time.

Different models of what

The Divine and the sacramental nature of the world.

 

[Glaurung]

We’re not talking about the physical world. Although the same applies to your last quoted statement. We’re talking about theological constructs and spiritual understandings, not measurements scientific proofs.

All the 'spiritual understandings' and 'theological constructs' do not mean a thing if there's no basis in truth. My hope is in Christ, who has made it very clear that he alone is the means to salvation.

You can if different people have different theological understandings.

No, I don't care about 'theological understandings' I only care about the truth. Either Christianity is a terrible distortion or Islam is just another false religion.

No, but the thinking that “God is entirely separate” is the purview of a particular type of theism that has dominated the world for a long time.

And it has nothing to do with anything. The problem is our modern industrialised civilisation is damaging to the environment and there are no clear solutions to fixing this. (And dismantling modern civilisation is not a serious answer).

The Divine and the sacramental nature of the world.

That could mean anything.

 

[sojourner]

My hope is in Christ, who has made it very clear that he alone is the means to salvation

And who is Christ? What does he embody? He embodies the union of all humanity with Divinity, which is love. He embodies mercy, hope, lovingkindness, forbearance, patience, joy, wholeness, inclusion, and compassion. Other spiritual constructs share these embodiments. These are the way to salvation, because they lead to ultimate unity with the One.

No, I don't care about 'theological understandings' I only care about the truth. Either Christianity is a terrible distortion or Islam is just another false religion

You just managed to contradict yourself. Christianity and Islam are both embodiments of a particular theological understanding.

And it has nothing to do with anything

Of course it does! Our culture, our way of defining and making progress is built on the kind of exploitative action that is ruining the planet and ruining relationships with those we don’t like. And it all begins with how we view the world: as something God gave us to “dominate” (the imperial way of seeing it), or as something that embodies God. Same with people. We terrorize, colonize, enslave, marginalize, condemn and exploit those whom we can dominate. That’s not what Jesus taught, though.

That could mean anything

Yes! It can! It can mean whatever serves the greater good of the human family and the world, rather than serving the limited perspectives of one group.

 

[Glaurung]

And who is Christ? What does he embody? He embodies the union of all humanity with Divinity, which is love. He embodies mercy, hope, lovingkindness, forbearance, patience, joy, wholeness, inclusion, and compassion. Other spiritual constructs share these embodiments. These are the way to salvation, because they lead to ultimate unity with the One.

Christ is the Second Person of the Triune God who two thousand years ago became incarnate as man and on our behalf conquered death. Salvation is by faith in Christ and the cooperation with the divine will. This cooperation is achieved by a virtuous life infused with the sacraments.

You just managed to contradict yourself. Christianity and Islam are both embodiments of a particular theological understanding.

Both Christianity and Islam have theology. But both religions also claim to be rooted in historical events.

The idea that God would have an angel directly communicate with someone is not unacceptable. Unfortunately, what the angel supposedly dictated to Muhammad denies key truths of the Christian faith which warns us of false prophets to arise. At least one religion is founded on a falsehood.

Of course it does!

Not really, and I have no will to be further dragged into a rabbit hole.

Yes! It can! It can mean whatever serves the greater good of the human family and the world, rather than serving the limited perspectives of one group.

To mean anything is to mean nothing.

 

[sojourner]

Christ is the Second Person of the Triune God who two thousand years ago became incarnate as man and on our behalf conquered death. Salvation is by faith in Christ and the cooperation with the divine will. This cooperation is achieved by a virtuous life infused with the sacraments.


Both Christianity and Islam have theology. But both religions also claim to be rooted in historical events.

The idea that God would have an angel directly communicate with someone is not unacceptable. Unfortunately, what the angel supposedly dictated to Muhammad denies key truths of the Christian faith which warns us of false prophets to arise. At least one religion is founded on a falsehood.


Not really, and I have no will to be further dragged into a rabbit hole.


To mean anything is to mean nothing.

Your thinking is two-dimensional and wholly formulaic. Spirituality and religion fall more in the realm of creativity, intuition and mythology. The first requires answers. The second creates space for questioning.

 

[Jainarayan]

Am I going to be reincarnated as per Hindu teaching or burn in Hell as per Islamic teaching?

Which makes more sense?

• Isn't it logical to conclude that because we are made of atoms, the same atoms as stars, and that atoms are recycled, we would not be also?
• Christianity teaches about eternity in Hell also. How logical is that?

Is Christ God made man or a purely human prophet?

Why not another incarnation of God? I'm iffy about that, but my acceptance or rejection doesn't make it true or false.

Do the innumerable Hindu deities exist or are there none beside the God of the Bible?

How about the "innumerable Hindu deities" being manifestations of one God? Did you know that most Hindus see it that way? God appears in the form the devotee imagines him.

Per the Ṛg Veda 1.164.10:

एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति
ekaṃ sadviprā bahudhā vadanti
"One Truth the sages give many names".

Not to mention that there are two Gods of the Bible:

• The vengeful, angry, jealous God.
• The loving father Jesus spoke of.

Is Christ the sole means to salvation or do Christians really worship Krishna without knowing it as per the claim of the Bhagavad Gita?

How about Jesus and Krishna both speaking as God to different audiences at different times and places in history?

All these exclude each other.

Only if you want them to.

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.

It matters greatly on perspective, time, place, audience. The story has only just begun. You would do well to learn about these things before writing about them.

 

[Glaurung]

Isn't it logical to conclude that because we are made of atoms, the same atoms as stars, and that atoms are recycled, we would not be also?

This argument is compelling only if one takes the preexistence of souls for granted. Otherwise, it need not follow that the immaterial soul transmigrates from body to body. For Christians, each and every soul is a new and unique creation of God.

Christianity teaches about eternity in Hell also. How logical is that?

Quite logical. The eternity of Hell lies in the recognition that at death one's spiritual disposition (ether for good or evil) becomes fixed and irrevocable. It is not that the sins of the damned could not have been forgiven had they repented. It is that a soul who has maintained a rejection of God to the very end becomes by death incapable of change towards the good. A person who will not repent in this life will not repent in the next. This perpetual obstinacy is what Scripture means by blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Why not another incarnation of God? I'm iffy about that, but my acceptance or rejection doesn't make it true or false.

That may make sense from a Hindu perspective, but not from a Christian perspective. If Jesus were but one incarnation of many then his statements concerning his unique position make little sense. The whole Gospel of redemption and the conquering of death becomes a confused mess.

How about the "innumerable Hindu deities" being manifestations of one God? Did you know that most Hindus see it that way? God appears in the form the devotee imagines him.

I am aware of that. But even so it does not reconcile Christian and Hindu ideas.

How about Jesus and Krishna both speaking as God to different audiences at different times and places in history?

Possibly. But again Christianity would be an incoherent mess if that is the case. Christianity as just one path of many would require a total rewrite to make even a modicum of sense. All one would have left would be a non-doctrinal ethical monotheism. My hope as a Christian lies not in an ethical teaching but the the redemption won on the cross. But if Hinduism is right the cross is nonsensical. From what did Christ actually redeem and save us?

 

[Jainarayan]

For Christians, each and every soul is a new and unique creation of God.

Not everyone is Christian, nor is there any proof that Christianity has it right. We can match you scripture for scripture, and prophet for prophet (rishis/sages, actually) and still come out ahead with wisdom and logic. The secret: we eschew and detest blood.

Quite logical. The eternity of Hell lies in the recognition that at death one's spiritual disposition (ether for good or evil) becomes fixed and irrevocable. It is not that the sins of the damned could not have been forgiven had they repented. It is that a soul who has maintained a rejection of God to the very end becomes by death incapable of change towards the good. A person who will not repent in this life will not repent in the next. This perpetual obstinacy is what Scripture means by blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

So here we are again... free will v. God's mighty temper tantrums, his bait 'n switch policy, and skill at entrapment. In the words of Saruman, "Let us examine what we know":

• God creates man with a soul.
• God bestows free will on said soul.
• If man uses that free will to ignore God, said soul is condemned to everlasting torture.
• God gives said soul only one chance to "prove" itself.
• God knows in advance exactly how it will all play out.

Yeah, uh.. no. Not the kind of God worthy of my worship and allegiance.

That may make sense from a Hindu perspective, but not from a Christian perspective. If Jesus were but one incarnation of many then his statements concerning his unique position make little sense. The whole Gospel of redemption and the conquering of death becomes a confused mess.

He's not unique. He is unique only for those he was speaking to. Others already received God's words over the millennia. Jesus's message and teachings were made before.

Possibly. But again Christianity would be an incoherent mess if that is the case. Christianity as just one path of many would require a total rewrite to make even a modicum of sense.

No it wouldn't. It would only require abandoning the ramblings of Paul, who made up much of it as he went along, and return to what Jesus actually said... the "red letter Bible" and Jesuism, which include Matthew 22:35-40. That's all Christianity is, or should be, but it's so overthought! Christianity is not Christianity, it is Paulism.

My hope as a Christian lies not in an ethical teaching but the the redemption won on the cross. But if Hinduism is right the cross is nonsensical. From what did Christ actually redeem and save us?

From what did Christ actually redeem and save us? Nothing from where I sit. I think that whole thing was interpolated to lend credence to Jesus's life work and elevate his status. There is that element of entrapment again...

• God creates man, gives him a paradise to live in, with the condition that he not touch one certain tree, knowing full well (due to omniscience) that the man will eat the fruit.
• God says "Aha! Gotcha! I told you not to eat that fruit, but I knew you would, so now I have to punish you". Why not just start out punishing man and skipping that whole "the-devil-made-me-do-it episode? Such a waste of parchment and ink!
• Knowing that would happen, God kicks mankind out of the paradise and throws him into a harsh cruel world.
• God says "But y'know, I'll send a redeemer to atone for your "sin". In fact, I'll do it myself! I'll suffer and die in human form so you don't have to".
• But mankind still lives in a harsh and cruel world and dies anyway because he disobeyed God.

Say wut!?

Yeah, uh.. no. Not the kind of God worthy of my worship and allegiance.

 

[Glaurung]

Not everyone is Christian, nor is there any proof that Christianity has it right. We can match you scripture for scripture, and prophet for prophet (rishis/sages, actually) and still come out ahead with wisdom and logic. The secret: we eschew and detest blood.

I did not claim Christianity has it right. I'm saying that the recycling of matter does not prove the transmigration of souls. Reincarnation rests on assumptions Christians do not share. Your claims about the Hindu scriptures are not relevant.

So here we are again... free will v. God's mighty temper tantrums, his bait 'n switch policy, and skill at entrapment. In the words of Saruman, "Let us examine what we know":

• God creates man with a soul.
• God bestows free will on said soul.
• If man uses that free will to ignore God, said soul is condemned to everlasting torture.
• God gives said soul only one chance to "prove" itself.
• God knows in advance exactly how it will all play out.

Yeah, uh.. no. Not the kind of God worthy of my worship and allegiance.

The capacity to choose evil does not confer the right to do so. Since God has the right to the obedience of his creatures he also has the right to punish those who refuse that obedience. Since God is omniscient and entirely just no one is rewarded or punished beyond what they fully deserve. The problem is not the justice of God, but our lack of perspective. We have but a minute piece of the larger picture.

The thing to remember is that salvation is within everyone's means. God abandons no one who strives for their salvation. It is not our falls that damn us, it is rather our refusals to get back up from them that does.

He's not unique. He is unique only for those he was speaking to. Others already received God's words over the millennia. Jesus's message and teachings were made before.

Scripture confirms that right and wrong is written in the human heart. The moral law has always been knowable to a well formed conscience even sans revelation. Thus the presence of moral teaching in other religions does not compel me to accept them as divinely revealed. I expect other religions to contain moral teaching by virtue of the human heart.

Catholic teaching does not claim that other religions are entirely bereft of truth. It claims that no matter how much good may be found outside the visible Church, Christ remains the sole mediator between God and man. You reject this and that's your prerogative. But likewise, I'm not going to apologise for what I believe to be the truth.

No it wouldn't. It would only require abandoning the ramblings of Paul, who made up much of it as he went along, and return to what Jesus actually said... the "red letter Bible" and Jesuism, which include Matthew 22:35-40. That's all Christianity is, or should be, but it's so overthought! Christianity is not Christianity, it is Paulism.

I believe all the books of Scripture are divinely inspired. Those who insist on a conflict between Epistles and the Gospels are peddling a false dichotomy. Never read Scripture in isolation. Just as Orthodox Jews read Scripture in light of the Talmud, Catholics read Scripture in light of Sacred Tradition.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Christianity goes back to the time of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Therefore Christianity is the oldest Religion there is. In believing in Christ Jesus is God in flesh and blood..

Christianity is a relative newcomer in regard to religion. What are you talking about?

 

[Sand Dancer]

What people don't realize is that Jesus Christ foretold in Prophecy in his book of Revelation, all about Muslims as to how Muslims would come like locust deceiving and being deceived themselves like the locust covering the earth. As Muslims have no clue or idea that they are being deceived themselves and go about deceiving.

Of course the bible authors wanted everyone to think their religion was the best thing going on, so they denigrate all other religions. That and they steal their rituals and holidays, rename them, and say they were the originators of the religions.