If Jesus isn't the only way to come to God...

[Nakosis]

I believe that Jesus came for everyone, not only the lost.

I don't believe anyone needs saving. Saved from what?
Jesus did not talk about us needing to be saved, that is a Christian doctrine, since Christians believe we all need to be saved from the original sin.

So Jesus came for what then?

 

[Valjean]

(I know you wrote other things in your post…. I will try to get to those, but I wanted to address this first. Because your response, “It’s all Biblically derived”, was in reply to my comment which I bolded.)
I wanted to highlight that, because here is a book that claims to be from our Creator, who wants us to love Him, right? Yet He tells us about some of His actions that seem very questionable! In that very book! He doesn’t hide anything!
That’s called being candid.

(IOW, you wouldn’t have an opinion that the ‘God of the Bible is a monster’, if those events hadn’t been recorded in the very Bible itself. You’d have no idea of it.)


But (as @CG Didymus says) wait! You say “The Creator isn’t the author of the Bible; it was written by people.”
Well then, we have the same issue!
The writers of those books were very candid about their own faults and inadequacies. And writing about the failures of the entire nation of Israel!
Other nations of that era hid their failures; the Israelites were very open about theirs.

Israel was apparently unaware that its failures were failures. The early Israelis ware an aggressive, expansionist people. The probably felt conquest and genocide were perfectly acceptable and justified by their war god. Morality didn't extend beyond the tribe.

So, besides egregious acts being reported in the Bible, what convinces you that this book is any more authoritative than the Guru Granth Sahib, Popol Vuh, or Silmarillion?
I have to be honest, reading some of these reported acts of God and of apparent exemplars of proper behavior, one would be hard pressed to find any justification for them, or morality underlying them.

 

[Valjean]

That’s not what the Bible implies. Suffice it to say that the Bible recods that A&E’s immediate descendants, through several generations, lived for centuries! Why? Because those first generations were genetically closer to A&E’s perfection. Lifespans gradually diminished, though, the more distant from A&E they became.

But early humans didn't have long lives. Fossil bones and teeth demonstrate this.
Where is there any evidence that "A&E" existed as the ancestors of today's humans, or that early hominins were any more perfect than today's population?
All of the objective, empirical evidence supports the fact that we're just another evolved species of ape.

 

[Trailblazer]

So Jesus came for what then?

Jesus told Pilate what He came for.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Jesus came into this world to bear witness unto the truth about God. He did that, so there is no reason for Jesus to come back to this world again, as Christians believe He will. Jesus said He had finished the work that God gave Him to do and He was going to be no more in the world. Jesus never said He was coming back to this world, not once in the NT.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Valjean]

What is evil? Of course its not eating the brains of those conquered in battle, not sacrificing children to the gods, allowing women to wear pants and women who don't wear burkas. Also, of course, music is evil. What we consider evil today was once considered good. And of course "greed is good" (recently and still today).

From an advaita perspective, good/evil is just one of an infinite number of bipolar constructs our brains focus on.

"Evil," in the Abrahamic sense of an offense to God or violation of one of His rules, is not a thing in Hinduism. There are beneficial actions, in harmony with dharma or the flow/pattern of Reality, and there are actions out of harmony, which can lead to unfavorable individual outcomes.

 

[Valjean]

The greatest charlatans would be false prophets. And that is what we have to consider when we look at the claims of Baha'u'llah. He says to investigate on our own and to use logic and reasoning. Yet, we some of us do that and come to the conclusion that the Baha'i Faith is wrong, Baha'is tell us we are blind and can't see the truth.

Well, okay... so it's our logic and reasoning that is off? Then what? We shouldn't use our logic and reasoning but theirs?

One thing I complain about all the time is their claim that Jesus didn't physically rise from the dead. But in one verse Jesus says to touch him and see that it is him and he is not a ghost. Now it's not like I believe it. But I do believe that is what the gospel writer intended... to make the claim that Jesus had come back to life.

Yet, the Baha'is claim that he didn't come back to life. Which is fine... if they didn't claim to believe in the Bible and the NT. Ah, but they make an adjustment... they say that it's not "literally" true, but symbolically true. That Jesus rose "spiritually."

Whatever... By the time they are done, the only thing true, is what they say is true. And makes it hard to "test" the validity of what they say when nothing else is true but what they say.

First, establish the reality of your major premise -- than a magical God or Creator exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

First, establish the reality of your major premise -- than a magical God or Creator exists.

Nobody can ever establish that as a fact, it can only be believed on the evidence.

 

[Valjean]

True. But there is a useful purpose to mythological tales while humankind evolves in its understandings. We are but "children" of the universe. Stories can be comforting.

True, but when treated as actual truth and their beliefs mandated, they become problematic.

 

[Valjean]

Nobody can ever establish that as a fact, it can only be believed on the evidence.

But the objective evidence doesn't exist. All the apologist explanations and reasoning are flawed.

 

[Trailblazer]

But the objective evidence doesn't exist.

There is no objective evidence of God's existence. There is only evidence which is interpreted subjectively.

All the apologist explanations and reasoning are flawed.

Some but not all.

 

[Valjean]

Aupmanyav, "every design, points to an intelligent mind or creator" by Pastor Cliff Knechtle. Religion believes that an intelligent creator is behind this Orderly designed Universe and Christians believe it is God. Now you and I know the universe we've come to know and love is not self-existing and it is caused by something or someone and that entity is the God factor​

No, that doesn't follow, it's a reïteration of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It's one of the better apologies, but it's still flawed.

What is your evidence for evidence for intentional design -- or cause, for that matter?

 

[Link]

But the objective evidence doesn't exist.

I would read chapter 16 of Quran. It talks about how to reflect at signs in creation, so much so, that you will see the greater picture and all signs adding up in creation.

To me, it's evident in the signs on earth and within the soul and in the horizons that God exists.

 

[Valjean]

1. As far as i can tell, if you read those so called mythological narratives, you would know the rules stipulated in them.
2. As to the evidence of God's existence, does this universe have a cause?

Not necessarily. You presume the need for a cause. No evidence of cause has been found.

a) If yes, What or Who caused it

If there is a cause, why presume it's a "who?"
What causes ice to melt or objects to fall when dropped?

b) If the universe was created then the creator should exist outside time and space (also meaning eternal)

First, establish a "creation." Next, establish that a "creator" is either necessary or exists.

c) There is no evidence of something coming out of nothing, Rationality comes out of the rational, and irrationality comes out of the irrational hence the order and design of this universe don't come from Chaos

There is evidence of things "coming out of nothing." Quantum mechanics demonstrates a bizarre and counter-intuitive reality. Moreover, the Big Bang is not a claim that something came from nothing.
Moreover, Your "rationality" seems dictated by your experience of the world around you. The world is far different from our limited perceptions or experience.

It is therefore absurd to walk into the middle of the desert, seeing a build structure fully furnished and claim it came to be by accident, that is intellectual dishonesty.

Perhaps, but you're just reïterating the Watchmaker Fallacy. Complexity and function don't necessarily indicate intentional design. There are other, natural and automatic mechanisms that can create complexity and function.

 

[Valjean]

I would read chapter 16 of Quran. It talks about how to reflect at signs in creation, so much so, that you will see the greater picture and all signs adding up in creation.

How were these signs tested? Why are they not universally accepted by the intellectual community, like gravity or plate tectonics?
The Quran is just a book, like all other books. There is no evidence that it's the Word of God. The "signs" add up to natural, unguided mechanisms.

To me, it's evident in the signs on earth and within the soul and in the horizons that God exists.

So it looks/feels designed, so it must be? Do you ignore the natural, tested explanations?

 

[Valjean]

Let's call him Christ, as that is a title, rather than a name.

Didn't Krishna say in the Gita that it mattered not what god one prayed to -- it was He who answered?

 

[Valjean]

So Jesus came for what then?

You presuppose he "came for" anything. What did King Arthur or Prester John come for? What did you come for?

 

[Valjean]

Nobody can ever establish that as a fact, it can only be believed on the evidence.

What apologists consider evidence rarely passes muster.

 

[Trailblazer]

What apologists consider evidence rarely passes muster.

Rarely, but not never.

 

[Valjean]

There is no objective evidence of God's existence. There is only evidence which is interpreted subjectively.

Some but not all.

Name a rational one.

 

[Trailblazer]

Name a rational one.

What is rational to me will not be rational to you.