Exclusive claim to God

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Perhaps one's desire for having an exclusive God is borne not of Truth, but from the self. A desire to make one's self important that has pride as it's foundation. Perhaps that's what Truth looks like.

It's not my fault that Jesus was so definite about it. You talk as if I made this up myself. Truth is not necessarily exclusive but it is clear and definite. There's little point in Jesus saying something like "I am sort of the way and the truth , follow me if you feel like it , but then you could also follow the buddha cos he's also the son of God in a kinda way etc etc" Truth is truth . It is what it is. Personally I don't desire an exclusive Truth. It makes things much harder. It's far easier to have a woolly definition of truth that can blow with the wind , or however you happen to feel. That kind of truth never offends anyone , but it doesn't impress anyone either. In any case although there is some truth in all religion they can't all be right because on some levels they are radically different (eg reincarnation v heaven). Also , what would you do if you were God- hang back and leave everyone in the dark or incarnate amongst your creations and point the way to follow? God can't win. If he does nothing then you might say "why doesn't God just indicate to us which religion is the way?"...when he actually does this by sending jesus we say " but that's an exclusive claim of truth , what about the other religions?"

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not my fault that Jesus was so definite about it. You talk as if I made this up myself. Truth is not necessarily exclusive but it is clear and definite. There's little point in Jesus saying something like "I am sort of the way and the truth , follow me if you feel like it , but then you could also follow the buddha cos he's also the son of God in ...[text shortened]... say " but that's an exclusive claim of truth , what about the other religions?"

Do you really think that only Christians have a voice inside them that tells them right from wrong? That only Christians can love Truth? That only Christians are capable of following the Father?

If you can set your pride aside, you'll realize that it's YOUR interpretation. It's only DEFINITE in YOUR mind. Set aside the PRIDE and perhaps you'll be free of your delusion. Take into consideration the time and place that the Bible was written. All this fighting over who has the RIGHT religion is entirely man-made and it's rooted in PRIDE. What does the Bible say about pride?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really think that only Christians have a voice inside them that tells them right from wrong? That only Christians can love Truth? That only Christians are capable of following the Father?

If you can set your pride aside, you'll realize that it's YOUR interpretation. It's only DEFINITE in YOUR mind. Set aside the PRIDE and perhaps you'll be free ...[text shortened]... eligion is entirely man-made and it's rooted in PRIDE. What does the Bible say about pride?

I believe that all humans have a human conscience.

I am waiting to see if you listen to yours and back up your accusation that I lied and talked out of both sides of my mouth on "Original Righteousness"

So are you going to excercise your good sense of right and wrong and back up those charges or retract them?

We're waiting.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really think that only Christians have a voice inside them that tells them right from wrong? That only Christians can love Truth? That only Christians are capable of following the Father?

If you can set your pride aside, you'll realize that it's YOUR interpretation. It's only DEFINITE in YOUR mind. Set aside the PRIDE and perhaps you'll be free ...[text shortened]... eligion is entirely man-made and it's rooted in PRIDE. What does the Bible say about pride?

Wow , you are reading an awful lot into my post. Of course I don't think these things. If you met me you would know that I am miles away from who you imagine me to be. I think for example that Ghandi (who was a Hindu) was in some ways closer to the spirit of Christ than some christians at the time. I think you are right to say that religions have been involved in battles between themselves and pride plays a part , but I don't see how logically all religions can be said to be the same . They are different , so therefore some are going to be closer to the truth than others , unless you believe truth is a kind of nebulus , woolly concept that can be pulled this way and that.

Two things you have missed - the jews had their religion ripped in two by christ. He is not someone they would have made up for themselves and they didn't welcome him because he threatened the PRIDE they had in THEIR religion. Ultimately he was executed because he challenged judaism. Jesus would agree entirely with you about man made religion , but this is the whole point , Christianity is not entirely a made religion. Ultimately , even Christianity is not the "truth" , only God is truth . Christianity is just a picture or reflection of God and within it is the story of how God came to live amongst us. However , it only has meaning if it comes "alive". To me God is not a concept(or religion) but a living spiritual presence , a presence as real as trees or door knobs. Christianity is the truth because it has a clear explanation of this presence in a way that other religions don't. It's a religion that goes beyond religion. In addition it is the only religion that emphasises salvation as a free gift of God rather than something you have to work for ("so that no man may boast"😉 - so much for your pride idea!

Originally posted by knightmeister
Wow , you are reading an awful lot into my post. Of course I don't think these things. If you met me you would know that I am miles away from who you imagine me to be. I think for example that Ghandi (who was a Hindu) was in some ways closer to the spirit of Christ than some christians at the time. I think you are right to say that religions have been ...[text shortened]... hing you have to work for ("so that no man may boast"😉 - so much for your pride idea!

I believe that Truth is absolute and eternal, which is what I believe you are saying. So this is our common ground. Also, I'm not saying that all religions the same, only in so far as they are built on the same foundation: Truth and Love.

Despite your protests to the contrary, it's been my experience that most followers of ALL religions take a great deal of pride in the idea that theirs is THE correct religion and that their God loves THEM for being able to see this correctness. Unwittingly, this pride keeps them from Truth. As you say, only God is Truth. All the religions appear to include distortions that are derived from culture, pride, self-preservation, etc. If you can set aside your personal bias, you'll see that your arguments as to why Christianity is THE correct religion, require one to be a Christian as a prerequisite. If you have one that doesn't, let me know.

Not that I know much about Ghandi, but from what I've read, Ghandi was in MOST ways closer to the spirit of Christ than the vast MAJORITY of Christians at ANY time. I'm interested in what ways you think he wasn't.

"I believe that Truth is absolute and eternal, which is what I believe you are saying. So this is our common ground. Also, I'm not saying that all religions the same, only in so far as they are built on the same foundation: Truth and Love." THINK OF ONE

I find the above statement interesting because it sounds definite and yet it could mean all sorts of things. I'm assuming you believe there is a God then and that He is the truth and he is love? Some religions place love at their foundation whereas others place holiness and doing good deeds at their foundation. Others stress enlightenment. Only Christianity places God's love at the very heart of things and NOT as a side issue.

If you believe that God is love and that this is an "eternal and absolute" truth then how do you think God goes about communicating and demonstrating his love to us? Do you think he stays aloof and withholds his love in some eternal abode? What kind of love is that? God's love is gritty and he gets his hands dirty . He does not waltz around in some woolly "truth" , he comes alongside us and suffers alongside us , dies alongside us , washes our feet and DEMONSTRATES his love and empathy for our suffering. Shows us that death is not the end and most important of all demonstrates the huge length and breadth of his love by dying for us. He gets his more than his hands dirty and even after he goes he leaves himself with us (holy spirit). This kind of love demonstrated by Jesus is too familiar and human for Islam (that wants to keep God as "other"😉 This kind of love is too involved for Buddhism or Hinduism (with their emphasis on non-attachment and meditation). This kind of love is too inclusive , forgiving and graciously given for Judaism (because salvation is supposed to be "earned" by following the torah rather than faith in christ).

So where can we find such a love that is dynamic and living rather than some dead concept? The living person of Christ Jesus is the only thing that fits the bill. Even the religion of Christianity is irrelevant in comparison to this love. It's not about celebrating easter of doing your rosaries, it's about recognising that God's love exists and has made itself clearly known in the person of Christ. Everything else is secondary , but Christianity is the place you find out about Christ.

Maybe , you have a different idea about truth and love? Tell me.

As for Ghandi , as far as I'm concerned he was a Christian really , he just didn't know it maybe?

PS - ignore the smiley - I can't edit it out for some reason

Originally posted by knightmeister
"I believe that Truth is absolute and eternal, which is what I believe you are saying. So this is our common ground. Also, I'm not saying that all religions the same, only in so far as they are built on the same foundation: Truth and Love." THINK OF ONE

I find the above statement interesting because it sounds definite and yet it could mean all sorts ow it maybe?

PS - ignore the smiley - I can't edit it out for some reason

As for Ghandi , as far as I'm concerned he was a Christian really , he just didn't know it maybe?

This quote is really quite telling. In fact, it underscores the very point that I've been trying to make. Perhaps the reason a Hindu can be a "Christian" and not know it, is because it's the same Truth, it's the same Love, it's the same God 🙂 Can you not see how your Christianity-centric viewpoint imposes itself on your line of reasoning? Why, in your mind, isn't he thought of as a Hindu who followed God? Isn't following God the whole point?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b] As for Ghandi , as far as I'm concerned he was a Christian really , he just didn't know it maybe?

This quote is really quite telling. In fact, it underscores the very point that I've been trying to make. Perhaps the reason a Hindu can be a "Christian" and not know it, is because it's the same Truth, it's the same Love, it's the same God 🙂 Can ...[text shortened]... isn't he thought of as a Hindu who followed God? Isn't following God the whole point?[/b]

Absolutely , following God is completely and utterly the entire point . You are completely right , and Jesus is God incarnate . He's the one who said in effect "I am God , follow me" If Jesus had incarnated within the Hindu religion then I would be a Hindu instead , but unfortunately he didn't. In any case people were accepting Christ long before this thing called "Christianity" was invented. I'm not over concerned about labelling other religions as "wrong" , to me they are just incomplete.

I used to hold your position long ago . I hated the idea that one religion might stand out as true and I dearly wanted a relativistic , woolly theology to be true. However , I soon realised that Jesus was very aware of the significance of what he was saying and doing and I realised that the only logical response to him was to either say that the cheese was sliding off his cracker or he was the son of God as he claimed. I also realised that it was disingenuous and poor thinking to try and absorb into a grand theory of all religions.

Ghandi was inspired by Jesus to do what he did. He was "a Hindu who followed God" as you put it and God is real and alive. Jesus said he was the son of this living God in person, incarnate on earth. Now you either believe him and become a Christian or you dismiss him as arrogant and foolish for making such wild claims . But please don't patronise or misrepresent him by sucking him indiscriminately into a vast indefinite grey pool of "truth and love" which you won't pin yourself down on.

You see you haven't really addressed the other points I made about Love and other religions or God's remoteness in comparison to Christianity. So I ask you one more time. What kind of God of love hangs back and watches his creatures suffer from afar? Would not a God of love draw near and suffer alongside us? Would he not demonstrate his love? If your answer is yes then you have only one place to look to find this love. If your answer is no then I don't understand this God of love you talk about. Do you see my problem?

Do you really think that if you said yes and realised who Jesus actually was that I would say to myself " yes ...I've got someone else over to MY way of thinking .." ?? Or could it be cause I actually believe Jesus is the truth the life and the way?

Can you not see how your Christianity-centric viewpoint imposes itself on your line of reasoning? THINK OF ONE

My perception is that you are very obsessed with pride to the extent that it prevents you from debating in a straight forward manner. I feel that any time I argue a position supporting Christianity as being the truth you are going to roll out the "christianity centric" argument in defence. I would prefer you to say what you actually believe about the person of Jesus. I have read some of your previous posts and you seem very well versed in the Bible and you seem to have much spiritual understanding. I find myself wondering how you seem to get so close to what is basically christian belief without actually going there?

I also feel you have placed your own interpretation on Christ and have not allowed him to be who he proposed himself to be. Are you making up your own religion as you go along or do you allow for the fact that Christ clearly interpreted his own relevance to the world and doesn't need you to do it for him? You talk as if we christians are making up this religion for ourselves , a belief based on Christ being the son of the living God. But maybe this is because you are making up your own religion for yourself. How do you do this subtle transformation of Christ into something he is not.? What mental trick allows you to sidestep the implications of his completely exclusive and unambiguous claims whilst at the same time professing respect for him and the Bible?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Can you not see how your Christianity-centric viewpoint imposes itself on your line of reasoning? THINK OF ONE

My perception is that you are very obsessed with pride to the extent that it prevents you from debating in a straight forward manner. I feel that any time I argue a position supporting Christianity as being the truth you are going to roll o ...[text shortened]... sive and unambiguous claims whilst at the same time professing respect for him and the Bible?

No, I'm not trying to make up my own religion, however I hope you realize that everyone, including yourself, has his own interpretation of the Bible and Christ. If this weren't true, there wouldn't be so many divisions and sub-divisions of Christianity. Even within a given congretation, ultimately there as many interpretations as there are members however subtle.

The questions you ask in your last several posts here and in another thread cover so much ground. I feel as though we're getting lost in details. Ultimately we're both interested in understanding and following Truth and we each have a conception of what that is.

I submit that as human beings, neither of us will ever come to a complete understanding of Truth. We can only work to get to a closer approximation. We both currently have our own approximation. Objectively, your approximation is probably closer in some areas, while mine is closer in others. I honestly believe that there are a lot of areas where our approximations are very close.

What I propose we do, is work together to make both of our approxations closer, but we'll both need to be willing to distance ourselves from our current approximations to do so. I propose that we start with the forces that govern human behavior - initially leaving religion out of it for the most part. I'm willing to give it a go if you are.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No, I'm not trying to make up my own religion, however I hope you realize that everyone, including yourself, has his own interpretation of the Bible and Christ. If this weren't true, there wouldn't be so many divisions and sub-divisions of Christianity. Even within a given congretation, ultimately there as many interpretations as there are members however ...[text shortened]... ly leaving religion out of it for the most part. I'm willing to give it a go if you are.

I,m perfectly willing to give it a go. What I need to know is what you think God's love is and whether you think God is a living God or just a human concept.What do you have in mind? I would like to stick to this topic but I will have to be honest with you I don't see my position as an approximation I see it as the only logical way to interpret Jesus (other than to say he was potty or non existent). You will no doubt find this an arrogant thing to say but I don't say it flippantly , I say it because to not say it would be dishonest.

There are many interpretations or "approximations" as you put it of Christ but I wonder where you think God reveals himself?The many interpretaions of Christ could mean two things:1 either Christ was being deliberately vague and too ambiguous for anyone to make a clear objective interpretation and that or ;2 Christ was being perfectly clear and some of us have misinterpreted him because of our own hidden agenda and/or there is another spiritual force out there trying to mislead us.

Personally I think 2 fits the evidence much better.In any case Christ refered to those who be lead astray and be deceived. In such a battle for truth God would not be indulging in unneccesary ambiguity would he?

Just because there are many interpretations does not logically mean that some of them are false and some are true.

I propose that we start with the forces that govern human behavior - initially leaving religion out of it for the most part. I'm willing to give it a go if you are. THINK OF ONE

Sorry I missed that one- Ok so forces that govern human behaviour. Basically I see man as being part carnal/biological and part spiritual. We are the only animal that can think and know we are thinking. We are caught between the natural forces of self preservation and the spiritual force (God) of altruism and love. Evolutionary forces are powerful but so are the spiritual. God is trying to turn something biological into something that transcends the biological. He does this through the Holy Spirit who comes to us via Christ. Christ won that victory for us, all we have to do is accept it. Sin is just separation from God and all that this entails. Is this enough to go on?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I,m perfectly willing to give it a go. What I need to know is what you think God's love is and whether you think God is a living God or just a human concept.What do you have in mind? I would like to stick to this topic but I will have to be honest with you I don't see my position as an approximation I see it as the only logical way to interpret Jesus ( many interpretations does not logically mean that some of them are false and some are true.

I'm not really looking to change topic, but I feel like we're having trouble understanding where the other is coming from and end up talking past each other. What I'm hoping to do is establish a foundation of understanding between us that'll help us discuss this topic.

I guess I see Truth as the ultimate reality. As such it is absolute and eternal. Since human beings only have limited powers, I think that the best one can do is have an approximate understanding of that Truth. This understanding can always be deepened. I don't really think that this was your intent, but if you're saying that you have an absolute understanding, then yes, I see it as arrogant 🙂 I guess I see the many interpretations of Christ and the Bible as stemming from the idea that an absolute understanding by a human being is not within the realm of possibility.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I propose that we start with the forces that govern human behavior - initially leaving religion out of it for the most part. I'm willing to give it a go if you are. THINK OF ONE

Sorry I missed that one- Ok so forces that govern human behaviour. Basically I see man as being part carnal/biological and part spiritual. We are the only animal that can th ...[text shortened]... accept it. Sin is just separation from God and all that this entails. Is this enough to go on?

It's a really good start. I think we're pretty close.

Let me state in my own terms how I see it and then we can discuss.

Inborn in each individual dwells desires for the self. This includes desire for power and fame; greed; pride; jealousy; desires of the senses; etc.

Inborn in each individual dwells the desire for Truth.

All immoral behavior is borne from desires for the self.

All upright, moral and virtuous behavior is borne from the desire for Truth.

These two forces are present in all individuals regardless of gender, race, creed, etc.

These two forces are in opposition to each other and most likely inversely proportional. The relative balance between these two forces dictates the behavior of the individual. The relative balance varies from topic to topic and situation to situation.

I think this covers roughly the same territory as you with different terminology. I purposely left out the source of these forces for now in order to leave out religion. What do you think?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not really looking to change topic, but I feel like we're having trouble understanding where the other is coming from and end up talking past each other. What I'm hoping to do is establish a foundation of understanding between us that'll help us discuss this topic.

I guess I see Truth as the ultimate reality. As such it is absolute and eternal. Si ...[text shortened]... ea that an absolute understanding by a human being is not within the realm of possibility.

I would not say I have a complete understanding at all but that does not mean that one can't say "X is the truth and Y isn't" For example , scientists have an incomplete understanding of quantum physics but if you ask a physicist if he thinks that the basic fundamentals of quantum physics are the truth he will say "yes , definitely". Your reasoning seems to be that if we can't understand something completely then we can't say anything definite about it , but this is too simplistic. I feel I know enough to be definite about Jesus being the son of the living God. If that means that in your mind I am saying that I completely understand everything (and am therefore arrogant) , that's your interpretation not mine.

This will make it difficult to form a foundation of understanding between us because you seem to want to gravitate towards indefinite concepts and generalisations as a rule of thumb. Whereas I think that a God of love would give us something more definite to hang on to in this world. There's little point in there being an "absolute truth of love" if it remains hidden . Unless you hadn't noticed the world needs God's love , he isn't going to hide his light under a bushel (and he hasn't). As a father if I love my children what's the point if I don't demonstrate it to them?