What would it take to make you a Christian?

[cloudyday2]

Maybe He didn't claim this other thing, or that thing over there. That kind of doubt makes the entire religion useless for syncretism. You can't just doubt away every obstacle to syncretism until it syncs up.

Why not? The doubt is well-founded. What is absurd is the faith that the new amalgamated religions put in their own revelations. Of course we are much more certain that the Baha'i religious texts contain the actual revelations of Baha'u'llah, so that is one advantage over the case with the gospels. ... BUT ... there is no reason to ASSUME that Baha'u'llah's revelations came from God and then to assume that the TRUE revelations of Jesus harmonize with Baha'u'llah's revelations. Baha'i needs a better argument than "Baha'u'llah said it therefore it is true". But at least we know fairly accurately what Baha'u'llah said. And we know some things about the biography of Baha'u'llah though not every detail. We don't need to doubt those things.

 

[Sanoy]

Why not? The doubt is well-founded. What is absurd is the faith that the new amalgamated religions put in their own revelations. Of course we are much more certain that the Baha'i religious texts contain the actual revelations of Baha'u'llah, so that is one advantage over the case with the gospels. ... BUT ... there is no reason to ASSUME that Baha'u'llah's revelations came from God and then to assume that the TRUE revelations of Jesus harmonize with Baha'u'llah's revelations. Baha'i needs a better argument than "Baha'u'llah said it therefore it is true". But at least we know fairly accurately what Baha'u'llah said. And we know some things about the biography of Baha'u'llah though not every detail. We don't need to doubt those things.

It's not really an advantage to write your own religious texts in the eyes of History. It's far better to have it written about you. I don't think any general doubt over the NT is well founded. There have been books written using the same methods of doubt over the NT to deny Napoleon and Abraham Lincoln. Doubt and skepticism over any historical text takes little effort to accomplish. In any case, the non controversial facts surrounding the resurrection... Jesus's death and burial, His empty tomb, and His post mortem appearances are considered historical by the majority of NT scholars. So there is a reasonable level of historical establishment for all the key, non controversial pieces for the resurrection. Anything more, such as His actual Resurrection, is beyond the purview of the historical method.

 

[dlamberth]

There is exegetic interpretation, there is eisegesis, and then there is the massive amount of equivocation required to syncretise 4 religions with explicitly contrary statements. What is the point in insulting 4 religions simultaneously? Mein Kampf can be added if we try our best with Eisegesis and equivocation.

There are religious statements, which are made outside of God, and there is seeing through the eyes of God. It's the latter where God becomes a reality for a person, and where the different religious trajectories aren't so different after all.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

The structure of these verses certainly make you recall the NT, but their theology is vastly different. And it makes no difference to quote 3 similar structures in Hinduism as if the vast differences and mutually denying scriptures don't exist. The only response I get to those conflicts is a response oddly written in King James English "God doeth as He Willeth", and "regards".

10:3 vs Luke 13:3 "I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

10:4-5 vs Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

10:8 vs John 1:1-5 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome"

Christ means 'Annointed One'. That is the name we are saved by and station of Jesus.

The Christ was also Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Bab and Baha'u'llah. That is how the Word is the Beginning and is the end, it is not the same flesh body. Jesus said the flesh amounts to nothing, Christ says it is the Spirit that is life. Christ said He would come with a new name, a name only those that accept him will see.

The fruit of all these Faiths are apparent and their longevity has proven them true as per biblical advice.

Just as mankind evolves, so does religion, it is given by God in a progression of understanding. Thus this is the Age of the Salvation of all humanity. The age where we realize we are one peolple under One God. This is the age where the 'Glory of God', the 'Father', has lighted the way. One fold, One shepherd.

Regards Tony

 

[ananda]

... we are saved by and station of Jesus ... The Christ was also Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Bab and Baha'u'llah. ... The fruit of all these Faiths are apparent and their longevity has proven them true ... Just as mankind evolves, so does religion, it is given by God in a progression of understanding ... we are one peolple under One God. This is the age where the 'Glory of God', the 'Father', has lighted the way. One fold, One shepherd.

From the early Buddhist scriptures:

• "Work out your own salvation with diligence." DN 16
  
• "Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's [Buddha's] words, asked him ... "Dear sir, do all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" [Buddha:] "No, deva-king, not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." DN21
• "contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' ... one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative." AN 3.61
• "Outside of this path, the path of the many who teach other things doesn't go to Unbinding as does this: Thus the Blessed One [Buddha] instructs the Community, truly showing the palms of his hands." Thag 1.86

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

From the early Buddhist scriptures:

• "Work out your own salvation with diligence." DN 16
  
• "Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's [Buddha's] words, asked him ... "Dear sir, do all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" [Buddha:] "No, deva-king, not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." DN21
• "contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' ... one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative." AN 3.61
• "Outside of this path, the path of the many who teach other things doesn't go to Unbinding as does this: Thus the Blessed One [Buddha] instructs the Community, truly showing the palms of his hands." Thag 1.86

I hope for you always happiness and strong Faith. May your meditations be very rewarding.

I can offer other thoughts on those passages.

Regards Tony

 

[ananda]

I hope for you always happiness and strong Faith. May your meditations be very rewarding.

I can offer other thoughts on those passages.

Regards Tony

I hope for you always great peace and a fruitful, skillful practice, as well. What are your thoughts on those passages?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I hope for you always great peace and a fruitful, skillful practice, as well. What are your thoughts on those passages?

Thank you and as you know our thoughts can not be as wise as the Buddha.

I have come to see that the Buddha was given by God and it is the Buddha that becomes the source of any wisdom we can have. All our thoughts, all of those who are not the Buddha, can only reflect what is pure Buddha teachings, when we let go fully of all our own self.

Very, very few of us can acheive this and thus when I read your quotes I see tge Buddha is saying tge differences arise when we mix what we understand with what is the intent of the teaching of Buddha.

"Work out your own salvation with diligence"

I se that salvation is our choice of applying all the Buddha taught, in its pure form and working on doing away with our ideas.

"Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's [Buddha's] words, asked him ... "Dear sir, do all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" [Buddha:] "No, deva-king, not all brahmans & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." DN21

I see that passage is saying many of us will cause a diversity of view, as we all still have mixed our own ideas with the intent of the Buddha.

"contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' ... one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative." AN 3.61

I see that passage suports the above idea. That we add our own thoughts and this is not the way to be a true contemplative.

Sorry out of time.

Stay well, stay happy. Regards Tony

 

[ananda]

Thank you and as you know our thoughts can not be as wise as the Buddha.

I have come to see that the Buddha was given by God and it is the Buddha that becomes the source of any wisdom we can have. All our thoughts, all of those who are not the Buddha, can only reflect what is pure Buddha teachings, when we let go fully of all our own self.

Very, very few of us can acheive this and thus when I read your quotes I see tge Buddha is saying tge differences arise when we mix what we understand with what is the intent of the teaching of Buddha.

I se that salvation is our choice of applying all the Buddha taught, in its pure form and working on doing away with our ideas.

I see that passage is saying many of us will cause a diversity of view, as we all still have mixed our own ideas with the intent of the Buddha.

I see that passage suports the above idea. That we add our own thoughts and this is not the way to be a true contemplative.

Sorry out of time.

Stay well, stay happy. Regards Tony

Thank you for sharing. In most respects, I see the Buddha as the polar opposite of "God". May you be well & happy.

 

[cloudyday2]

It's not really an advantage to write your own religious texts in the eyes of History. It's far better to have it written about you. I don't think any general doubt over the NT is well founded. There have been books written using the same methods of doubt over the NT to deny Napoleon and Abraham Lincoln. Doubt and skepticism over any historical text takes little effort to accomplish. In any case, the non controversial facts surrounding the resurrection... Jesus's death and burial, His empty tomb, and His post mortem appearances are considered historical by the majority of NT scholars. So there is a reasonable level of historical establishment for all the key, non controversial pieces for the resurrection. Anything more, such as His actual Resurrection, is beyond the purview of the historical method.

There were lots of people crucified and lots of people who claimed to be inspired by god. Some of them were crooks but some of them were mentally ill people who honestly believed their claims. You take a clever and charismatic person and you strike him/her with "delusional disorder grandiose" and you will get a cult and possibly even a new religion with billions of followers. We need some evidence before we should believe any of those people were truly inspired.

 

[Sanoy]

There were lots of people crucified and lots of people who claimed to be inspired by god. Some of them were crooks but some of them were mentally ill people who honestly believed their claims. You take a clever and charismatic person and you strike him/her with "delusional disorder grandiose" and you will get a cult and possibly even a new religion with billions of followers. We need some evidence before we should believe any of those people were truly inspired.

You have some of the best historical evidence you can have for nearly anything of a historical nature. Several very smart and skeptical people have become Christians just by trying to disprove it. You could bolster it's historicity, add another Gospel or something, but it's already entirely sufficient as it is.

 

[Sanoy]

Christ means 'Annointed One'. That is the name we are saved by and station of Jesus.

The Christ was also Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha, Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, Bab and Baha'u'llah. That is how the Word is the Beginning and is the end, it is not the same flesh body. Jesus said the flesh amounts to nothing, Christ says it is the Spirit that is life. Christ said He would come with a new name, a name only those that accept him will see.

The fruit of all these Faiths are apparent and their longevity has proven them true as per biblical advice.

Just as mankind evolves, so does religion, it is given by God in a progression of understanding. Thus this is the Age of the Salvation of all humanity. The age where we realize we are one peolple under One God. This is the age where the 'Glory of God', the 'Father', has lighted the way. One fold, One shepherd.

Regards Tony

So that's how it's done? "Christ means anointed" so we can ignore everything He ever said to contrary and syncretize Him with 4 other contradictory religions.

 

[Sanoy]

There are religious statements, which are made outside of God, and there is seeing through the eyes of God. It's the latter where God becomes a reality for a person, and where the different religious trajectories aren't so different after all.

Is this a religious statement made outside of God, or through the eyes of God? If the latter, which God?

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

So that's how it's done? "Christ means anointed" so we can ignore everything He ever said to contrary and syncretize Him with 4 other contradictory religions.

Mark 8:29 Was peters reply "And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ."

 

[Sanoy]

Mark 8:29 Was peters reply "And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ."

Every time you quote the NT, you mock it because of what you have done to it.

 

[dlamberth]

Is this a religious statement made outside of God, or through the eyes of God?

It's a reflection of spiritual experiences where God is a reality for a person. The Mystics point towards it.

If the latter, which God?

That question always baffles me when it comes up, because there's only One God. What changes from person to person is our perceptions of God.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Every time you quote the NT, you mock it because of what you have done to it.

It is not I that Mock.

I will wish you always well and happy in life and faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Sanoy]

It's a reflection of spiritual experiences where God is a reality for a person. The Mystics point towards it.


That question always baffles me when it comes up, because there's only One God. What changes from person to person is our perceptions of God.

"Reality for a person" sounds like subjectively real not objectively real. But then you say there is one God so it's kind of confusing. What religion are you referring too?

 

[cloudyday2]

You have some of the best historical evidence you can have for nearly anything of a historical nature. Several very smart and skeptical people have become Christians just by trying to disprove it. You could bolster it's historicity, add another Gospel or something, but it's already entirely sufficient as it is.

The question is: "sufficient for what?" Maybe the gospels plus Josephus are sufficient to prove that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified. There is a huge jump to go from that to being a Christian.

On the mental illness explanation, people think that a mentally ill person is not going to be capable of teaching and leading disciples, but that shows an ignorance about mental illness. For several years I had some strange delusions. One of them was that I thought one of my best friends was secretly under some sort of mind control and trying to kill me. That delusion caused me a lot of stress whenever I interacted with my friend through emails, phone calls, or occasional visits, but it didn't prevent me from be totally functional otherwise.

Here is a quote about delusional disorder:

Delusional disorder is a generally rare mental illness in which the patient presents delusions, but with no accompanying prominent hallucinations, thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect.[1][2] Delusions are a specific symptom of psychosis. Delusions can be "bizarre" or "non-bizarre" in content;[2] non-bizarre delusions are fixed false beliefs that involve situations that occur in real life, such as being harmed or poisoned.[3] Apart from their delusions, people with delusional disorder may continue to socialize and function in a normal manner and their behavior does not necessarily generally seem odd
...
Grandiose type (megalomania): delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator.

Delusional disorder - Wikipedia

There are other mental illnesses and psychological traits that can explain the behavior of people like David Koresh, Jim Jones. Those people all died for their cults just as Jesus died. No reason to believe they were inspired.

 

[dlamberth]

"Reality for a person" sounds like subjectively real not objectively real. But then you say there is one God so it's kind of confusing. What religion are you referring too?

Your right, God, being Love AND infinite is pretty subjective. But Love has a way of getting one there.

As to which religion I'm referring to, I call upon the Medieval Christian Mystic Marguerite Porete to explain. She wrote that there are two kinds of churches. The first she calls the "The Great Holy Church", which is the church of the Holy Spirit. The second she calls the Little Holy Church. That church preaches "empirical and scholastic church whose uncomprehending queries are more often placed on the laps of reason than are made to testify to Love or the Soul". The former church preaches Love the latter church preaches rules and law and order.

So to answer your question more directly, I belong to the Church that preaches Love.

It's interesting to note that Marguerite Porete was burned at the stake by the church that preaches rules and law and order. Which happens in other ways even today.

Hey...have you ever thrown your awareness into Jesus Christ to see what you see there?