How good is good enough to get to Heaven?

[jeager106]

Where does it say in Scripture that anyone is going someplace else that is refered to as heaven????

 

[Sumit]

You can use all the help available I guess.

:yes:

When industries must have competance and expertise it is the degreed men not those who out of insecurity or jealousy are arrogant and petty enough to dismiss credentials for the sake of convenience.

But for one who wants to learn hinduism degrees are only good for making paper planes. :meditate:

That was not coherent.

It's truth, but as I already said it's hard to digest truth sometimes.

I Suppose then that you are the arbiter of all knowledge. Men teaching other men is how all knowledge is passed along, including Hinduism.The greater the instructor, the available information, and the rigorous testing the more meaningful a scholar's claims are. When you stop the armchair quarter backing maybe you can actually address the issue instead of tearing down your betters.

:tsk:
In Hinduism knowledge is passed from Guru to disciple and not from any University, almost all Hindu scholars had Guru who taught them. So who is Guru of Mr Zaicharias and how many years he passed with his guru.

Type in his name but add in hinduism and you get a far more realistic number of 63,000 not that hits have anything to do with anything

Hinduism is not always addressed by this name. It's also known as Sanatan Dharma, Vedic Dharma etc.

Those statements are incoherent.

Yes, I know. But this is what he believes.

I need you to clarify whatever it is you were trying to say.

You too posted this, so now I hope for an answer--

Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality.

So now what is that evil and how it fuses with Ultimate Reality.

 

[1robin]

This is sad, Christianity and its constant assumption that mankind is somehow redeemable by actions. Looking at the actions of Christians today coming from America alone this seems to provide quite the opposite expectation.

I have no idea who this was meant for but if you will look at most previous posts in this thread of from any other you will see I argued for a grace and grace alone salvation model at all times. I reject as not only non-biblical but logically absurd any claim that salvation can be merited by effort or works. My argument is essentially the same as the orthodox protestant half of the entire Christian faith. Your claim might apply to many Catholics but the word constant is inaccurate.

No man is perfect and we are all sinners and are born to commit sin. SO using this logic how can one stop sinning if all that god does is forgive sin? That makes us sinner regardless.

I agree.

According to this logic god should forgive all as the Bible assert this is the unique trait of god above man. Yet still he cast people into hell.

You drastically misunderstand. God has done what is necessary to pardon everyone. However man must apply through faith in Christ that pardon to his account. Just as no prisoner is released if he refuses his pardon; no person is free from sins debt unless he accepts God's provision for him and becomes born again.

God in his infinite and almighty glory would not care about sin as we have all sinned and would be all thrown into the fiery pit of hell.

Sin was serious enough to him for him to doom all of us to eternal separation from him unless we accept the pardon he suffered to provide through faith. In fact nothing is more serious to God than sin.

Original sin and concept of heaven for the believers and hell for the sinners is entirely contradictory itself as well.

No it isn't and it is also the only way to establish justice. It also corresponds to an almost instinctual concept of accountability we almost all poses.

If you do believe in hell then the only logical debate is the Qur'anic perspective of the scales of justice weighing ones sins and good deeds.

That is absurd and it was Egyptian long before the Quran was ever heard of. It also is not what most Muslims have said they believe. Most have said they believe God forgives sins sincerely repented for and that he alone knows if what is left is good enough. That is counterproductive, illogical, and far less sophisticated, sufficient, and comprehensive than Christ's message. It sound like the simplistic doctrines of men and leaves God's absolute sense of justice un accounted for in that he simply waves away sin without a substitutionary act to take its place.


In summary.

1. There is no universal salvation in Christianity.
2. There is universal forgiveness but only if applied through faith by being born again.
3. A huge section of Christianity does not believe in a works based salvation and the ones who do can't justify it.
4. Your views about salvation do not line up with what I believe to be true from teh Bible or the Quran and they do not seem to even be consistent. Maybe you can clarify.
5. The salvation method you contribute to Islam has existed in a hundred false religions long before Muhammad showed up and is not unique or adequate.

 

[1robin]

But for one who wants to learn Hinduism degrees are only good for making paper planes.

In what way is a "GURU" more capable of teaching anything than a professor? If you claim that like our preachers that God uses them and them alone to inspire faith then fine but that has absolutely nothing to do with researching the history, claims, and effect of a religion. If a history scholar knows that the Vedas are historical nightmares wrong in every case then whatever any Guru is saying is meaningless and void. In short a scholar can evaluate a religion far better than any Guru can.

In Hinduism knowledge is passed from Guru to disciple and not from any University, almost all Hindu scholars had Guru who taught them. So who is Guru of Mr Zacharias and how many years he passed with his guru.

First that is not even theoretically true and second even if true is one more argument that illustrates the superiority of Christianity.
For the first. Why is only a Guru able to read or teach Hinduism? Do I need special Guru glasses before I can read Hindu texts?
The second part. Any God worthy of the name and who claims to be benevolent would never be so capricious as to demand that I must live in India or drive a thousand miles to find someone who claims to be a Guru before I could come to the faith. The only person necessary in Christianity to be saved is Christ. Unlike faulty Guru's Christ is available to all regardless of location, merit, income, social status, or intelligence. Salvation requires no "secret" knowledge known to only a select few that can in no way demonstrate the source from which their word come. Biblical prophets demonstrated their supernatural source to thousands and even tens of thousands. They did not hide in a cave a demand that they and only they have the password to heaven. There is no comparison between the Guru concept (or requirement) and the universal revelation given by my God. Gurus sound exactly like what I would think as coming from a regional mystery religion devoid of actual divinity. The universal Christ is exactly what I would expect is every way from an actual loving God. BTW before we get to deep in this you must tell me which version of Hinduism you believe in. I have not met two Hindus yet that had the same take on it in even the most fundamental areas. For instance do you support one God, several, or millions. Others have said only the Vegas are allowed to speak for Hinduism, others that all Hindu texts are fine, and you say Gurus alone my do so. What are the particulars of your Hinduism?

Yes, I know. But this is what he believes.

Who?

You too posted this, so now I hope for an answer--

I never posted the words you did. Yours were not grammatically correct and I was unsure what in the world you meant.

So now what is that evil and how it fuses with Ultimate Reality.

This is grammatically incorrect as well but close enough to get what you meant from. Before I get to that I want to touch on something that Hinduism claims that is not just wrong but actually logically impossible.

The concept of eternal and cyclical time lies at the heart of the Hindu world view and is closely related to the concept of atman. (Hindu sages claim that the individual's self-understanding determines his or her perception of the world.) Hindus consider the real self to be ever-existing, not only in the future but also from the past. This notion of two-way eternity, however, is not reserved solely for the realm of spirit (Brahman) but extends to this temporal world.

This theory poses a philosophical impossibility. There can't possibly be an eternal past that includes the natural. If the past is eternal then the number of past events is infinite. An actual infinite can't be crossed and therefore this current event would have never happened. It also means that past time is infinite. It is impossible to have traversed an infinite past number of seconds to arrive at this particular one. I have a math degree and can tell you with certainty infinites do not exist in nature and are logical absurdities. It seems Hinduism claims what ignorant men have throughout history that nature infinites exist. The Bible on the other hand has no such problem. It says exactly what by far is the most reliably cosmology at present; that time, space, and matter began to exist a finite time ago. Since this is the very beginning of things then if your theology gets it wrong there is little hope for the rest of it.

Widely-held academic views of ancient Indian history are uncontested and undoubtedly true

Hinduism's own version of its history differs from the widely accepted academic view. Traditional accounts speak of a glorious past and descent from highly learned rishis (saints), conflicting with Western notions of emergence from a primitive ancestry. Furthermore, the Aryan invasion theory is now widely contested in intellectual circles and is challenging academia to reassess its assumptions about ancient history (see Versions of Hindu History and The Tradition's Own Version). Whatever the current academic stance, teachers would do well to also represent the tradition's own ideas of its history, which suggest a degradation in civilisation rather than a progressive evolution.
The notion of circular time inevitably leads to fatalism and procrastination in both material and spiritual endeavour. The concept of linear time is superior.

This misunderstanding may be closely connected with the simplistic and misleading idea that all of Hinduism can be categorised as "world-denying." There are notions that the temporary becomes meaningful if linked to spiritual goals. Hence endeavours in this world bear lasting results if performed "in yoga" (e.g. through a sense of service to God.)
http://hinduism.iskcon.org/concepts/111.htm

You said you wanted my claims about Hinduism verses Christianity not Ravi's. So I said to use the textual veracity numbers in his statement as I have used them for many years myself and they are not his numbers anyway. You ignored that and instead demand I defend something a man with 9 times the degrees I have said. I can only post what I have synthesized about evil from Hinduism's claims over the years (there are vastly different and multiple view points on evil within Hinduism and all self-contradictory oriental philosophy’s). I can't speak for Ravi but I can post what I have found Hinduism to claim about evil if that is what you’re asking for. I will await your response before I do so.

 

[1robin]

Where does it say in Scripture that anyone is going someplace else that is refered to as heaven????

What? Are you actually asking for textual evidence heaven exists?

 

[Sumit]

In what way is a "GURU" more capable of teaching anything than a professor?

Knowledge dear knowledge. :beach:

If a history scholar knows that the Vedas are historical nightmares wrong in every case then whatever any Guru is saying is meaningless and void. In short a scholar can evaluate a religion far better than any Guru can.

Hinduism can only learned by Guru.

Why is only a Guru able to read or teach Hinduism?

Because only Guru knows right path. :sarcastic

Do I need special Guru glasses before I can read Hindu texts?

You need guidance of guru.

Do not divert topic, will I get my answer??
This is posted by you---

That is quite absurd. Am I to dismiss the claims of a man with at least 3 earned degrees and many honorary doctorates in the very subjects that would include a thorough knowledge of the faith of the Country and ancestors he grew up with in India and adopt the claim of a poster in a forum who did not provide a single example of what he claims. Ravi has written over 20 scholarly reviewed and praised books and countless published articles. He is requested by Presidents, leaders of Nations (even behind the iron curtain), countless of the world's finest colleges, many programs where scholarly experts on theology are requested, and sits on boards and is a visiting scholar of several prominent colleges (including Oxford and Trinity). What are you credentials?

Atheisms Nightmare Ravi Zacharias
Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is an Indian-born, Canadian-American evangelical Christian philosopher, apologist and evangelist. Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste), and later as Christian ministers. In one of his lectures, Zacharias asserts that a Swiss-German priest spoke to one of his ancestors about Christianity, and thereafter that branch of the family was converted and the family name was changed from Nambudiri to Zacharias.

Third, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration. In several tests the Bible surpasses the Hindu Vedas, and all other books of antiquity, for that matter. One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself, since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following:

1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of antiquity—5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 24,000 in all including other languages. The multiplicity of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said.

2) The manuscripts of the New Testament are closer in age to the originals than are any other document of antiquity. All of the originals were written within the time of the contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century A.D., and we currently have parts of manuscript as old as A.D. 125. Whole book copies surface by A.D. 200, and the complete New Testament can be found dating back to A.D. 250. Having all the books of the New Testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to devolve into myth and folklore. Plus, their truth claims were held accountable by members of the church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.

3) The New Testament documents are more accurate than any other of antiquity. John R. Robinson in Honest to God reports that the New Testament documents are 99.9% accurate (most accurate of any complete antique book). Bruce Metzger, an expert in the Greek New Testament, suggests a more modest 99.5%.
Fourth, Christian monotheism has advantages over pantheism and polytheism. It would not be fair to characterize Hinduism as only pantheistic ("God is all") or only polytheistic (having many gods). Depending on the stream of Hinduism to which one ascribes, one may be pantheistic, polytheistic, monistic ("all is one"), monotheistic, or a number of other options. However, two strong streams within Hinduism are polytheism and pantheism. Christian monotheism has marked advantages over both of these. Due to space considerations, these three worldviews are compared here in regards to only one point, ethics.

Polytheism and pantheism both have a questionable basis for their ethics. With polytheism, if there are many gods, then which god has the more ultimate standard of ethics for humans to keep? When there are multiple gods, then their ethical systems do not conflict, do conflict, or do not exist. If they do not exist, then ethics are invented and baseless. The weakness of that position is self-evident. If the ethical systems do not conflict, then on what principle do they align? Whatever that aligning principle is would be more ultimate than the gods. The gods are not ultimate since they answer to some other authority. Therefore, there is a higher reality to which one should adhere. This fact makes polytheism seem shallow if not empty. On the third option, if the gods conflict in their standards of right and wrong, then to obey one god is to risk disobeying another, incurring punishment. Ethics would be relative. Good for one god would not necessarily be "good" in an objective and universal sense. For example, sacrificing one's child to Kali would be commendable to one stream of Hinduism but reprehensible to many others. But surely, child sacrifice, as such, is objectionable regardless. Some things by all reason and appearance are right or wrong, regardless.

Pantheism does not fare much better than polytheism since it asserts that ultimately there is only one thing—one divine reality—thus disallowing any ultimate distinctions of "good" and "evil." If "good" and "evil" were really distinct, then there would not be one single, indivisible reality. Pantheism ultimately does not allow for moral distinctions of "good" and "evil." Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality. And even if such distinctions as "good" and "evil" could be made, the context of karma voids the moral context of that distinction. Karma is an impersonal principle much like a natural law such as gravity or inertia. When karma comes calling on some sinful soul, it is not a divine policing that brings judgment. Rather, it is an impersonal reaction of nature. But morality requires personality, personality which karma cannot lend. For example, we do not blame a stick for being used in a beating. The stick is an object with no moral capacity or duty. Rather, we blame the person who used the stick abusively. That person has a moral capacity and a moral duty. Likewise, if karma is merely impersonal nature, then it is amoral ("without morality") and is not an adequate basis for ethics.

Christian monotheism, however, roots its ethics in the person of God. God's character is good, and, therefore, what conforms to Him and His will is good. What departs from God and His will is evil. Therefore, the one God serves as the absolute basis for ethics, allowing a personal basis for morality and justifying objective knowledge about good and evil.

Read more: I am a Hindu, why should I consider becoming a Christian?

What exactly is wrong with this? I have used many of these numbers in debates and have researched them in detail and know they are accurate.

As for his book it received reviews that totaled 66 out of 87 that strongly agree. It has an average on amazon of 4.1 out of 5. On Google 99 out of 114 positive reviews.

SO DEFINE EVIL ACC TO HINDUISM AND HOW EVIL DISSOLVE WITH ULTIMATE REALITY??

 

[Katzpur]

I'm just curious what everyone believes on the subject and by what rationale they defend their view. I realize this is a diverse board but I think we can all agree that we are all sinners to varying degrees. If Heaven is real then God must have some standard of imperfection that one must meet if they are to reach the pearly gates or else we are all destined to burn. What is that standard?

I don't believe there is such a standard -- at least not as you've described it. I don't believe that God weighs our good deeds against our bad deeds on His scale of justice and lets us into Heaven if we were "good enough." I don't believe it's possible to be "good enough," to be perfectly honest. I do believe that we are expected to have the integrity to live our lives in accordance with what we believe to be right, and I do believe that greater righteousness will merit greater rewards. But as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ's Atonement made it possible for us to reach Heaven without being perfect.

To put it in mathematical terms, what is the sum of a finite, negative quantity (i.e. our sins) and an infinite, positive quantity (i.e. Christ's goodness and grace)? It's both positive and infinite, isn't it? We trust in Him to make us into what we cannot make ourselves into, but we don't insult Him by telling Him we don't love Him enough to do our best.

 

[1robin]

Knowledge dear knowledge.

Knowledge is the primary currency of those that haunt the halls of legendary universities. More so than any other group. Knowledge is also a universal commodity not monopolized by any "guru" who ever lived.

Hinduism can only learned by Guru.

That is inconsistent with a benevolent God and logic.

Because only Guru knows right path.

How many guru's exist? How is it that when in-depth knowledge and intellectual competence is a necessity that college graduates are sought and not Gurus then.

You need guidance of guru.

Do you know one? How can the rest of 99.9% of humanity get in touch with these sages? Why was I never taught about their wisdom in philosophy classes? Why are they never interviewed on world affairs? Why do they preside over an impoverished and overcrowded relatively less functional part of the world? Why is it Christian nations and empires that lead the world in knowledge and lifestyle for most of its history? If you add up everything every Guru has ever known would it have even had a fraction of the impact on Human thought as the short 3 years Jesus taught in a minor area of the middle east? Can you demonstrate beyond assertions alone what a Guru is capable of? Where are their books, accomplishments, awards, or things produced?

Do not divert topic, will I get my answer??
This is posted by you---

Yes. The problem of evil in Hinduism is such an ambiguous mess that I need to get what you want clarified first. Everything I read is self refuting, hopelessly confused, and so arbitrarily invented it requires time to even understand what is claimed by Hinduism.

SO DEFINE EVIL ACC TO HINDUISM AND HOW EVIL DISSOLVE WITH ULTIMATE REALITY??

I will get into this as deep as you want but it takes time with something this undefined. So far I have discovered some bizarre belief in Hinduism that our sins from past lives are being paid for in this one. First do you believe this? It makes little sense to contend with something your version (among thousands) of Hinduism, does not believe. I have also discovered that evil is a practical and real problem in Hinduism until one reaches "enlightenment" and realizes evil is no longer a problematic issue. That is about as unenlightened as anything I have ever heard. Once again do you subscribe to this? It might be easier if you tell me what your version of Hinduism believes concerning evil and then I can compare and contrast it with reality. Also can you put me in touch with one of these ever illusive enlightened people? The definition of evil in Hinduism is injustice. Which simply shifts the issue to what justice is. Again "evil dissolve with ultimate reality" is not grammatically correct. Do you mean how in Hinduism is evil thought to dissolve into an enlightened (or higher, or ultimate) reality? You must present a coherent claim before I even know what to evaluate.

 

[Sumit]

Knowledge is also a universal commodity not monopolized by any "guru" who ever lived.

The knowledge of Hinduism can only be received by Guru, no matter how great the present Universities are, they can never Give knowledge of Hinduism.

That is inconsistent with a benevolent God and logic.

No Pain No Gain.

Why was I never taught about their wisdom in philosophy classes?

Because your teachers don't know what Hinduism is. :no:

It might be easier if you tell me what your version of Hinduism

Just check religious title.

The definition of evil in Hinduism is injustice.

:no:
Is this what your Ravi Zaicharias says??

Again "evil dissolve with ultimate reality" is not grammatically correct.

If it is not grammatically correct so why you posted it???

That is quite absurd. Am I to dismiss the claims of a man with at least 3 earned degrees and many honorary doctorates in the very subjects that would include a thorough knowledge of the faith of the Country and ancestors he grew up with in India and adopt the claim of a poster in a forum who did not provide a single example of what he claims. Ravi has written over 20 scholarly reviewed and praised books and countless published articles. He is requested by Presidents, leaders of Nations (even behind the iron curtain), countless of the world's finest colleges, many programs where scholarly experts on theology are requested, and sits on boards and is a visiting scholar of several prominent colleges (including Oxford and Trinity). What are you credentials?

Atheisms Nightmare Ravi Zacharias
Ravi Zacharias (full name Frederick Antony Ravi Kumar Zacharias, born 1946) is an Indian-born, Canadian-American evangelical Christian philosopher, apologist and evangelist. Zacharias is a descendant of two rich religious traditions, first Hindu priests (of the Nambudiri Brahmin caste), and later as Christian ministers. In one of his lectures, Zacharias asserts that a Swiss-German priest spoke to one of his ancestors about Christianity, and thereafter that branch of the family was converted and the family name was changed from Nambudiri to Zacharias.

Third, the Christian Scriptures are historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration. In several tests the Bible surpasses the Hindu Vedas, and all other books of antiquity, for that matter. One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself, since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following:

1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of antiquity—5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 24,000 in all including other languages. The multiplicity of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said.

2) The manuscripts of the New Testament are closer in age to the originals than are any other document of antiquity. All of the originals were written within the time of the contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century A.D., and we currently have parts of manuscript as old as A.D. 125. Whole book copies surface by A.D. 200, and the complete New Testament can be found dating back to A.D. 250. Having all the books of the New Testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to devolve into myth and folklore. Plus, their truth claims were held accountable by members of the church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.

3) The New Testament documents are more accurate than any other of antiquity. John R. Robinson in Honest to God reports that the New Testament documents are 99.9% accurate (most accurate of any complete antique book). Bruce Metzger, an expert in the Greek New Testament, suggests a more modest 99.5%.
Fourth, Christian monotheism has advantages over pantheism and polytheism. It would not be fair to characterize Hinduism as only pantheistic ("God is all") or only polytheistic (having many gods). Depending on the stream of Hinduism to which one ascribes, one may be pantheistic, polytheistic, monistic ("all is one"), monotheistic, or a number of other options. However, two strong streams within Hinduism are polytheism and pantheism. Christian monotheism has marked advantages over both of these. Due to space considerations, these three worldviews are compared here in regards to only one point, ethics.

Polytheism and pantheism both have a questionable basis for their ethics. With polytheism, if there are many gods, then which god has the more ultimate standard of ethics for humans to keep? When there are multiple gods, then their ethical systems do not conflict, do conflict, or do not exist. If they do not exist, then ethics are invented and baseless. The weakness of that position is self-evident. If the ethical systems do not conflict, then on what principle do they align? Whatever that aligning principle is would be more ultimate than the gods. The gods are not ultimate since they answer to some other authority. Therefore, there is a higher reality to which one should adhere. This fact makes polytheism seem shallow if not empty. On the third option, if the gods conflict in their standards of right and wrong, then to obey one god is to risk disobeying another, incurring punishment. Ethics would be relative. Good for one god would not necessarily be "good" in an objective and universal sense. For example, sacrificing one's child to Kali would be commendable to one stream of Hinduism but reprehensible to many others. But surely, child sacrifice, as such, is objectionable regardless. Some things by all reason and appearance are right or wrong, regardless.

Pantheism does not fare much better than polytheism since it asserts that ultimately there is only one thing—one divine reality—thus disallowing any ultimate distinctions of "good" and "evil." If "good" and "evil" were really distinct, then there would not be one single, indivisible reality. Pantheism ultimately does not allow for moral distinctions of "good" and "evil." Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality. And even if such distinctions as "good" and "evil" could be made, the context of karma voids the moral context of that distinction. Karma is an impersonal principle much like a natural law such as gravity or inertia. When karma comes calling on some sinful soul, it is not a divine policing that brings judgment. Rather, it is an impersonal reaction of nature. But morality requires personality, personality which karma cannot lend. For example, we do not blame a stick for being used in a beating. The stick is an object with no moral capacity or duty. Rather, we blame the person who used the stick abusively. That person has a moral capacity and a moral duty. Likewise, if karma is merely impersonal nature, then it is amoral ("without morality") and is not an adequate basis for ethics.

[/B]

So it's you who posted this. So now please tell me how Evil dissolve with Ultimate reality.

 

[1robin]

The knowledge of Hinduism can only be received by Guru, no matter how great the present Universities are, they can never Give knowledge of Hinduism.

The emoticons cannot even rescue this stuff. Pray tell by what agency is knowledge kept from some and only given to those who have a GURU card. That also means that when this crop of GURUS are gone that there will be no Hindus left because they can't transmit what they know because the rest of the people have not achieved full GURU status. Do you actually believe this stuff your saying?

No Pain No Gain.

No harm no foul. Did I win the irrelevant and trite comment contest? I was hoping for something that was at least a little applicable.

Because your teachers don't know what Hinduism is.

Bold claim and the burden is all yours. Prove it.

Just check religious title.

I did not mean the name. I meant the particulars and I am not going through that process.

Is this what your Ravi Zaicharias says??

The reason I wanted clarification because unless boxed in within tight parameters you would have rejected any combination of words I would have typed. No, that is what the first four Hinduism sites all said. Make up your mind do want Ravi's claims or mine? Of course I will be told that every Hinduism site in the universe is wrong and you are right. BTW are you a GURU?

If it is not grammatically correct so why you posted it???

Look if you can't speak English correctly just admit it there is no shame in it. There is however making stuff up to defend an obvious mistake.
This was Ravi's statement.

Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality

Perfect English.
This was yours.

So now what is that evil and how it fuses with Ultimate Reality.

They are not identical and yours is grammatically incorrect. BTW you have stated this statement at least three different ways, all grammatically incorrect. This one is two sentence fragments mashed together along with two instances of improper puncuation. I do not care if you can speak English well. I can't, I hate English, and it is my primary language but I do need to know exactly what it is you claim because you will maximize any wiggle room as I pointed out above, left available to you. What Ravi said and what I said are confirmed on every single site I have searched about Hinduism, but I suppose they (even though you do not even know he sites I refer to) are all wrong and some random person in a forum knows better than everyone else. Do you really think that would convince anyone?

So it's you who posted this. So now please tell me how Evil dissolve with Ultimate reality.

Incorrect grammer again. Tell me what "Evil dissolve with" means: No, I posted Ravi's comments that said it. You first said you did not want his claims, I said then use the numerical claims in his comments as they are not his and are used by me all the time, you apparently ignored that and then countered something in the statements you said you were not interested in. Ravi's statement that you countered are right and very well understood and you have not even made an attempt to justify your incorrect claims that Ravi was wrong on a single issue. I have done more than my part here and unless you step it up I can't justify this much longer. You are not defending Hinduism you are trying to win a word fight that I could not care less about.

 

[John Martin]

Dear Sir,
heaven is not a place.it is state of consciousness. Human beings are created or manifested in the image and likeness of God. This image and likeness of God is already in the presence of God,which is also a level of consciousness,not a geographical place. Human beings are given a specific nature to live. But human beings are also endowed with the possibility of forgetting their true nature. When they forget their true nature then they fall into ignorance and act against their human dignity. Sin is living against human nature or human dignity. Sin is not against God it is against oneself. Sin creates disharmony, violence,inequality and conflict in the world. To enter into heaven means to wake up from our ignorance and realize that we are already in the universal presence of God. This enables us to live according to our human dignity.

 

[1robin]

Dear Sir,
heaven is not a place.it is state of consciousness. Human beings are created or manifested in the image and likeness of God. This image and likeness of God is already in the presence of God,which is also a level of consciousness,not a geographical place. Human beings are given a specific nature to live. But human beings are also endowed with the possibility of forgetting their true nature. When they forget their true nature then they fall into ignorance and act against their human dignity. Sin is living against human nature or human dignity. Sin is not against God it is against oneself. Sin creates disharmony, violence,inequality and conflict in the world. To enter into heaven means to wake up from our ignorance and realize that we are already in the universal presence of God. This enables us to live according to our human dignity.

I do not who this is addressed to but I wish to add a few things. Heaven is a physical locality. It may be filled or incorporate a conscious aspect but it is a concrete reality. Unless you think realms of the conscious contain:

Mansions
New Living Translation (©2007)
There is more than enough room in my Father's home. If this were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?

and capital cities
New International Version (©2011)
I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.

and exist on actual planets prepared for them.
New International Version (©2011)
Then I saw "a new heaven and a new earth," for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Bible Suite: Online Bible, Concordance, Topical, Strong's, Greek and Hebrew

You are not a Baha'i are you?

 

[Sumit]

The emoticons cannot even rescue this stuff.

:knight:

That also means that when this crop of GURUS are gone that there will be no Hindus left because they can't transmit what they know because the rest of the people have not achieved full GURU status. Do you actually believe this stuff your saying?

Disciple of Guru are new Gurus after their death.

Did I win the irrelevant and trite comment contest? I was hoping for something that was at least a little applicable.

You didn't tried.

Bold claim and the burden is all yours. Prove it.

Because your knowledge of Hinduism is poor. You said that in Hinduism definition of evil is injustice. So prove it.

I did not mean the name. I meant the particulars and I am not going through that process.

This shows your knowledge about Hinduism. My religious title clearly shows what I believe.

Look if you can't speak English correctly just admit it there is no shame in it. There is however making stuff up to defend an obvious mistake.
This was Ravi's statement.

Do you admit that your Knowledge of Hinduism is Zero and you totally dependent on copy paste. :sarcastic

Good and evil dissolve into the same indivisible reality

Now it's perfect. So now explain "how evil dissolve into the indivisible reality"?? :rainbow1:

You are not defending Hinduism you are trying to win a word fight that I could not care less about.

In word fight you are the master. :bow:

 

[John Martin]

Dear Sir,
the purpose of our life is not to become perfect( I do not like this word. I prefer whole) but to realize that we are already perfect or already whole. God did not create us with the possibility to become something but he or she created us in his image and likeness. This is the unconditional gift that God has given to us which no body can take away. But we are also created with the possibility to forget our image and likeness and also to remember. When we forget our nature then we act against our human dignity. This forgetfulness creates an identity that feels that it is outside God and wants to go back to God or heaven. The purpose of our life is not to go to heaven but to realize that our true nature is already in heaven. It is to wake up from our sleep or dream. Jesus said, the kingdom of God is like a man who found treasure in the field. he went home sold everything and bought that field. To find the treasure is to discover our true nature or self. To sell everything is to renounce our false identity or false self. For God we are already in heaven. We need only to discover it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Dear Sir,
the purpose of our life is not to become perfect( I do not like this word. I prefer whole) but to realize that we are already perfect or already whole. God did not create us with the possibility to become something but he or she created us in his image and likeness. This is the unconditional gift that God has given to us which no body can take away. But we are also created with the possibility to forget our image and likeness and also to remember. When we forget our nature then we act against our human dignity. This forgetfulness creates an identity that feels that it is outside God and wants to go back to God or heaven. The purpose of our life is not to go to heaven but to realize that our true nature is already in heaven. It is to wake up from our sleep or dream. Jesus said, the kingdom of God is like a man who found treasure in the field. he went home sold everything and bought that field. To find the treasure is to discover our true nature or self. To sell everything is to renounce our false identity or false self. For God we are already in heaven. We need only to discover it.

Yay for esotericism!

This doctrinal interpretation will be lost on those who view people with fear and/or contempt. I, for one, appreciate what you shared.

 

[1robin]

Disciple of Guru are new Gurus after their death.

So the qualification that makes these wise men the sages of the ages is the death of their master. How does the death of their master make them into the only ones on Earth that are knowledgeable? No one’s death has any causal potential concerning knowledge (other than the knowledge he died). You still have not demonstrated any actual reason a Guru is any more knowledgeable than anyone else.

You didn't tried.

There should have been no need to begin with.

Because your knowledge of Hinduism is poor. You said that in Hinduism definition of evil is injustice. So prove it.

You know, so far I am the only one that has said anything about Hinduism's claims at all. The Hindu has given none.

In the second, or treta yuga, the Bull of Truth has only three feet on the ground; an element of untruth and injustice has entered the world. That evil must be counteracted, and so Vishnu incarnates as Ram to fight the demons of that era.
http://ramdasstapes.org/hinduism.htm

According to Hinduism, the idea of complete annihilation of the soul after death is inconsistent with the concept of a moral order in the universe. (No it is not) If everything ends with death, then there is no meaning to life. (If used properly tere would have been, not liking something has little to do with it's being tue anyway) Nor is the view that the soul is created at birth and then becomes eternal at death reasonable, for anything that has a beginning will also have an end. (That is absolutely false. Time had a beginning and no known end is predicted, the same with matter and space) Further, this view does not explain the obvious inequalities among people. Clearly, all are not born equal. Some are born with good tendencies, some with bad; some strong, and some weak; some fortunate, and some unfortunate. Moreover, all too often the virtuous suffer and the vicious prosper. (the Bible gives are far more comprehensive and rational explanation for this than Hinduism) One cannot attribute these injustices to the will of God or to some inscrutable providence, because such a concept belies any belief in God's love for His beings. (that is only if you have very good reasons to believe God is good. There could be an evil God) These glaring differences cannot be considered the mere results of chance happening; for if such were the case, there would be no incentive for moral or material improvement.
http://www.ramakrishna.org/activities/message/weekly_message41.htm
Red words are mine.

In the Hindu tradition the problem of evil is phrased as the Problem of Injustice. This problem can be considered in the following manner:
God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Just. Yet injustice is observed to persist in the world. How is this possible?
In the Advaita school of Vedanta, this problem is dealt with in detail by Sankara in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras, 2.1.34-36:
Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."
Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life.
Brahma Sutra 2.1.35: "If it be argued that it is not possible (to take Karma into consideration in the beginning), since the fruits of work remain still undifferentiated, then we say, no, since the trans migratory state has no beginning."
The opponent now argues that there could have been no "previous birth" at the very beginning of creation, before which Karma could not have existed. Sankara replies that it is not so, for the number of creation cycles is beginning less, vide the next verse:
Brahma Sutra 2.1.36: "Moreover, this is logical, and (so) it is met with (in the scriptures)."
Sankara provides references from the Vedas concerning the beginninglessness of Creation: "The Ordainer created the sun and moon like those of previous cycles" (Rig Veda 10.190.3). This shows the existence of earlier cycles of creation, and hence the number of creation cycles is beginningless.
Thus Sankara's resolution to the Problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil_in_Hinduism
Continued below for no apparent reason:

 

[1robin]

This shows your knowledge about Hinduism. My religious title clearly shows what I believe.

I know very well there is an official practices list of your particular brand of Hinduism. I also know almost everyone differs somewhat in their personal beliefs with any general faith statement. Even if not I am not wasting my time looking up your version among the tens of thousands that exists in Hinduism. I also know you will use this ambiguousness to its maximum and it will waste my time. If you will not tell me where you stand on the main issues I will regard this as meaning you want to play games and are not interested in sincerely discussing anything. So far I have shown that Hinduism is wrong using only cosmology and philosophy. I do know a little about Hinduism but it takes virtually no knowledge of it to know that actual infinities are logically absurd.

Do you admit that your Knowledge of Hinduism is Zero and you totally dependent on copy paste.

My knowledge of Hinduism is exactly what I have said it was. Far below the other more substantial monotheistic religions. However I have been evaluating theology, defenses, and critiques that apply to all religions and Hinduism has failed in only the vanishingly small portion that I have posted. It claims logical impossibilities exist. BTW I have posted infinitely more on Hinduism than the zero you have.

Now it's perfect. So now explain "how evil dissolve into the indivisible reality"??

I think I have finally figured out what you mean, only because you referred to Ravis statement that is far more clear than yours. It is still not grammatically correct. You should have said "How does evil dissolve into the indivisible reality?". This will be the last time that I as the non-Hindu must present Hinduism. It is your job to present your religion and which of the 330 million God's you believe in, not mine. I also did not use this as an argument against Hinduism and it is the type of issue that has no claim or contention worth meditating.

Good and Evil are independent concepts but Hinduism teaches that once you become sufficiently enlightened (about a sophomore college level in Philosophy from what I can tell) that the lines the denote what is Evil and Good become arbitrary and dependent and blur. That is wrong but that is what they believe and here is at least some reasons why.

1. Good acts can become evil under different circumstances.
2. Evil acts can become good under different circumstances.
3. What separates them many times is context and context is arbitrary.
4. Good things come from evil actions.
5. Evil things come from good actions.
6. There is even one about if all comes from God and God is good then all must be good.

It is the same old oriental pluralistic philosophy that tries to reconcile two mutually exclusive truths. It isn't a bad idea, and it isn't simply a misunderstanding, it is a philosophic impossibility. Since no combination of words I could have ever posted would be agreed with by you then why don't you do what you should have already done long ago. Post what is wrong with Ravi's claim or mine (cosmology and textual)oractually present what version of this concept you believe in.

 

[Sha'irullah]

That is absurd and it was Egyptian long before the Quran was ever heard of. It also is not what most Muslims have said they believe. Most have said they believe God forgives sins sincerely repented for and that he alone knows if what is left is good enough. That is counterproductive, illogical, and far less sophisticated, sufficient, and comprehensive than Christ's message. It sound like the simplistic doctrines of men and leaves God's absolute sense of justice un accounted for in that he simply waves away sin without a substitutionary act to take its place.

What is absurd is that you are telling me where a concept came from. No doubt I know that the scales of justice far predates Islam as it is also used in American courts of law.
What Muslims believe is irrelevant since the Qur'an despite its varying contradictions does state that one will be judged according to their deeds or the scales of justice metaphorically. But it also says Kafirun will be cast into hellfire like dirt in other verses.
There is nothing sophisticated about weighing the good and the bad and making a judgement from that. YOU have made things more sophisticated by stating irrelevant words with little logic behind them. You say "it leaves sense of judgement unaccounted for" yet you believe he cast people into hell for not believing a corrupt book and that he had a son despite the absurdity of it followed by its contradiction of monotheism according to Judaic law. THAT is absurd.

In summary.

1. There is no universal salvation in Christianity.
2. There is universal forgiveness but only if applied through faith by being born again.
3. A huge section of Christianity does not believe in a works based salvation and the ones who do can't justify it.
4. Your views about salvation do not line up with what I believe to be true from teh Bible or the Quran and they do not seem to even be consistent. Maybe you can clarify.
5. The salvation method you contribute to Islam has existed in a hundred false religions long before Muhammad showed up and is not unique or adequate.

1. There is universal salvation in Christianity since anybody can be saved. Are you saying that go only allows certain ethnicities to be saved or something along that idea?

2. Forgiven for being human, major joke. Faith does not flourish in areas of logic and reason.

3. I know this very well. I have know many unorthodox Christians throughout my time though.

4. Why would I have my views abide by the Qur'an? The irony here is that most of my views actually have been Islamiyyah inspired despite certain heterodoxies. The nature of hell I mentioned above abides by the Qur'an (or part of it) but it is irrelevant because of the Qur'an's inconsistencies.

5. Please describe my salvation method because I have never talked about salvation to you, EVER. This is highly important for you to answer because it may Make or Break this conversation

 

[1robin]

What is absurd is that you are telling me where a concept came from. No doubt I know that the scales of justice far predates Islam as it is also used in American courts of law.

I meant the concept not the symbol. The idea that bad sins are weighed against the good works is what I meant. But even that is not where the absurd came from. I may have misunderstood you but it sounded like you were saying that the most logical salvation method in any theology was this concept as it exists in the Quran. Before I tear into what is wrong with the concept of the weighing of sin I will wait until you clarify that is what you were saying. Since posting this you have proven to be more observant than I got from your statement so I will allow possible misunderstanding. If not then I will post what is so drastically wrong with the concept it's self as it appears in Islam and other theological systems.

What Muslims believe is irrelevant since the Qur'an despite its varying contradictions does state that one will be judged according to their deeds or the scales of justice metaphorically. But it also says Kafirun will be cast into hellfire like dirt in other verses.

That was kind of my point. The Quran's model of salvation is not logically valid.

There is nothing sophisticated about weighing the good and the bad and making a judgment from that. YOU have made things more sophisticated by stating irrelevant words with little logic behind them. You say "it leaves sense of judgment unaccounted for" yet you believe he cast people into hell for not believing a corrupt book and that he had a son despite the absurdity of it followed by its contradiction of monotheism according to Judaic law. THAT is absurd.

There is nothing sophisticated or logical about the scales of justice for a salvation model. It appears I was right about the context of your post so I will go ahead and critique this method. The Bible states the most comprehensive, intuitive, and most philosophically correct initial conditions of the problem and that is where we should start.
1. God is absolutely perfect. He will not endure with rebellion and evil forever. In fact perfection is the only standard that can possibly exist within his realm. Anything less is unworthy.
2. God is absolutely loving and he is absolutely just. Note that justice for God is determined by God. Nothing can violate those two conditions and survive with him.
3. We utterly and completely fail to meet a perfect standard on any level. We are not eligible for heaven and there is nothing we possess that can be offered to God to fix this.
4. All other religions include primarily things that men must do to reach up to God. Prayers, ceremonies, incantations, ritual, works, charity, whatever. It will not work because the gap is infinite.
5. Christianity is maybe the only and certainly the primary theological concept where the rectification of our alienation from God is made up by him. He reached down to us because we cannot reach him.
6. Good works will never overcome bad works and repair the spiritual seperation between the impure and the perfect. Only the absolutely pure can bridge the gap.
7. Going as far back as history does the Hebrews sacrificed perfect (symbolic) animals not to fix sin as Christ did but to push the debt forward until the perfect lamb of God could fix the problem of sin and alienation from God.
8. Nothing impure could possibly ever cross the infinite gap. Only a perfect record that I nor anyone else can earn will merit heaven. Christ alone had a perfect record before God.
9. God applies Christ's perfect record to our account when we are born again. He applies our sinful account to Christ and his wrath was poured out for it and on it in full.
10. I am now legally perfect and able to coexist with a perfect God. His wrath was perfectly satisfied so his absolute justice was served in the way he demanded it to be.


That is by far a more comprehensive, sophisticated, intuitive, and sufficient salvation model in human history. Not to mention the actual historical events (of the type Islam is completely devoid of) that undeniably confirm this concept. Only the most desperately committed would argue against something so superior to any other. The scales method will literally send some to hell fire forever, and others to eternal paradise on a single sin. If you did 999 things right but 1000 wrong then burn, but the guy who has the opposite deserves eternal peace. Not even a little bit logical. My method makes allegience determinitive not numbers. BTW sin does affect rewards but not destination in Christianity and also temporal enjoyment or punishment (even physical death), so please do not use the tired and wrong idea that I can get away with anything after I am saved. Not in any category is a merit salvation more logical than the Grace model.


In Islam God hand waves sin away and his justice is never served in full. In Islam I can earn what every prophet that could actually demonstrate his prophet hood declared was impossible. If you remember nothing else I have ever said please remember this. Christianity alone demands and offers to every believer at the introduction to faith absolute proof of all of this in the form of a spiritual experience with him directly that literally accomplishes what I have described and leaves no doubt. No other religion in human history offers that. No false religion should survive the cradle that demanded and offered that but could not deliver it. That is the very very last thing you would ever do if inventing a lie is offer proof to everyone upfront. Islam doesn't nor any of the other false theologies in history, and you will not know the mistake until it is too late to adjust your thinking.

1. There is universal salvation in Christianity since anybody can be saved. Are you saying that go only allows certain ethnicities to be saved or something along that idea?

No, universalism is an official but false doctrine that Christ saved everyone whether they agree or not. It is universal in that it is available to all but not in that sense I mentioned. I was countering the doctrine by that name not the word.

2. Forgiven for being human, major joke. Faith does not flourish in areas of logic and reason.

Both those are absolutely wrong. What are you? One minute it's yeah Islam, the next boo Islam, in another it's Christianity, at another it's secular humanism. I must know so I can find common ground to debate on.

3. I know this very well. I have known many unorthodox Christians throughout my time though.

Yes there is wide disagreement on just about all things ever believed of any kind. Faith being the most profound and controversial.

4. Why would I have my views abide by the Qur'an? The irony here is that most of my views actually have been Islamiyyah inspired despite certain heterodoxies. The nature of hell I mentioned above abides by the Qur'an (or part of it) but it is irrelevant because of the Qur'an's inconsistencies.

Since I can't even begin to guess what Islamiyyah is as I have never heard of it and do not have time to check into it at the moment let's just say at this time I disagree with your take on justification in Islam.

5. Please describe my salvation method because I have never talked about salvation to you, EVER. This is highly important for you to answer because it may Make or Break this conversation

You are right. I assumed any concept you said is the only logical concept if you believe in Hell was also one you agreed with. I then thought I might be wrong at first in this post and then you seem to swing me the other way. Maybe you should give me the basics of what you actually do believe as this has been very confusing and would have been for Newton.
I hope you can salvage some coherence from this road trip because you sound liek an intelligent (even if a little sensitive) debater.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I meant the concept not the symbol. The idea that bad sins are weighed against the good works is what I meant. But even that is not where the absurd came from. I may have misunderstood you but it sounded like you were saying that the most logical salvation method in any theology was this concept as it exists in the Quran. Before I tear into what is wrong with the concept of the weighing of sin I will wait until you clarify that is what you were saying. Since posting this you have proven to be more observant than I got from your statement so I will allow possible misunderstanding. If not then I will post what is so drastically wrong with the concept it's self as it appears in Islam and other theological systems.

I am referring to the concept as well. I thought you were referring to the symbol . I a, not basing this assumption from pure logic of god but of pure logic on what is "just and fair".

That was kind of my point. The Quran's model of salvation is not logically valid.

The Qur'an sways and differs very often. But it makes numerous exceptions for whom Allah(swt) allows into heaven.

There is nothing sophisticated or logical about the scales of justice for a salvation model. It appears I was right about the context of your post so I will go ahead and critique this method. The Bible states the most comprehensive, intuitive, and most philosophically correct initial conditions of the problem and that is where we should start.

I am hoping your argument is not based purely from dogma.

1. God is absolutely perfect. He will not endure with rebellion and evil forever. In fact perfection is the only standard that can possibly exist within his realm. Anything less is unworthy.

Agreed. That is why I do not believe in the concept of heaven. If god ever thought about mankind he would only regard us as dirt or slaves. God is beyond perfect and perfection cannot be obtained by mankind so I do not believe in salvation of any kind. The only salvation we have is to accept that god is not concerned with us enough to even allow us in his presence yet alone have a religion erected for our benefit.

2. God is absolutely loving and he is absolutely just. Note that justice for God is determined by God. Nothing can violate those two conditions and survive with him.

I do not believe god is loving. He is logical although I would assume him to have emotion but I would not assume god to consistently act upon it like us mortals. I do not believe god interferes with mankind's lives and is above this universe, the dimensions within it, and all other planes of existence known and unknown to mankind. The immensity of this world is far too large for god to consider us special. We are just grains of salt in the ever expanding cosmos.

3. We utterly and completely fail to meet a perfect standard on any level. We are not eligible for heaven and there is nothing we possess that can be offered to God to fix this.

WELL AGREED. :yes:

4. All other religions include primarily things that men must do to reach up to God. Prayers, ceremonies, incantations, ritual, works, charity, whatever. It will not work because the gap is infinite.

I do not pray(supplicate), participate in ceremonies, perform incantations (although reciting Qur'an counts to some degree), or anything else although I do worship god only because he is worthy of it and I expect nothing in return. God would not answer my prayers simply because I believe that a spiritual being would not worry about the physical. If god did then why would he help a "saved man" on earth if he dies and goes to heaven anyways?

5. Christianity is maybe the only and certainly the primary theological concept where the rectification of our alienation from God is made up by him. He reached down to us because we cannot reach him.

Again, I do not believe god would care about us mortals and our issues on this small little planet. You are vain and conceited to think god an all powerful being would be so interested in us. Do you know how worthless we are compared to vast expanding universe?
Did you know that Proxima Centauri, the closest star to earth takes 4.3 years for its light to reach us? One of the furthest stars known as S Andromedae takes 2.6 million years to reach us. Do you really believe we are that important? Do you truly believe that we are so important that the universe is designed to support our insignificant existence?

6. Good works will never overcome bad works and repair the spiritual seperation between the impure and the perfect. Only the absolutely pure can bridge the gap.

This is entirely pagan of influence with no further explanation. God does not work in symbolism if you believe he exist. Why is Yahweh so petty and insecure that he needs to send his son to die for us? Is he full of guilt perhaps? He had to sacrifice his own son as a sign of pity yet still cast us off into the hellfire because he is pity. Yahweh sounds mighty confused if you ask me.
Do you claim that Jesus is god incarnate or the son of god by the way? It does not matter regardless since however you look at it the Injil declares polytheism and justifies it by claiming monotheism without rationality or justification.

7. Going as far back as history does the Hebrews sacrificed perfect (symbolic) animals not to fix sin as Christ did but to push the debt forward until the perfect lamb of God could fix the problem of sin and alienation from God.

Jesus is a lamb, meaning he is meant to be slaughtered. I could not agree anymore with a man who could not run or have the common sense to avoid troubling the Pharisees and then get himself crucified.
I doubt the authenticity of the crucifixion which is obvious and I out rightfully deny Jesus was god in the flesh or god's son. This is not a Hellenic mythology, well it is because it is a greek story hence the Septuagint. Jesus is tempted by Satan, prays to his father, forgets that trees do not bloom in the season, he weeps, becomes crucified, blinds a man (while ironically curing other blind men), and he kills his own friend as well as a child.
This does not sound like a god, it sounds like a mythological entity and fits perfectly with the Olympians and Zeus's numerous demigod sons.

8. Nothing impure could possibly ever cross the infinite gap. Only a perfect record that I nor anyone else can earn will merit heaven. Christ alone had a perfect record before God.

We entered heaven beforehand apparently. Jesus did not appear at the beginning of mankind and considering Noah's drunkenness and ironic simultaneous holiness I am surprised. He was more than impure yet I am sure you will tell me he is in heaven. Yahweh changed his mind? Again. Yahweh changes his mind often it appears as I see it all throughout the Bible.