If you're religious, are you a born-again Christian?

[Aravis Kenobi]

I've always wanted to debate this point and get other people's views on the subject: if you're religious, does it mean you're a Christian? if there's already a thread on this, or it's in the wrong forum, mods can take care of it please. Anyway, I want to know everyone's thoughts on this topic.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

No. Some people practice Christianity but they have no faith in their hearts. Some people just go to church on Sundays and never carry that sermon with them home or to their hearts. They just listen to it and then after its done 'poof its gone out of their brains' Not everyone promclaiming to be Christian is an actual born-again Christian. Only God can read their hearts.

hope this helped :)

[Aravis Kenobi]

I do know the difference between religion and Christianity; in fact, I'm a born-again Christian myself. I've always wanted to hear what other people think. What you said, Lucy, is sadly very true. Many people just hear, they don't act. It's like the four kinds of soil described in Luke. You either have a shallow heart (the rocky soil), a crowded heart (the thorny soil) an open heart, (the good soil) and the heart which never has the chance to react (the pavement on which the seeds that sower sowed fell on) At the youth camp I went to at the end of May, this was the illustration used in the first sermon. It really convicted. The preacher really hammered on the differences between religion and Christianity. He helped me to understand so much more of the Bible.

[Lucy the Marshwiggle]

yes that it absolutely true!! its really sad actually how some people proclaim that they are Christians, but in their hearts there is nothing. :(

[Aravis Kenobi]

I have a friend next door to me who proclaims to be a Christian, yet I know for a fact that she never reads her Bible, never goes to church, not even to Sunday school. In fact, drag racing is all her life is about. I've tried to witness to her a few times, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm now trying to just be a Christian friend.

[Aslan's Son]

Well, the answer is that one can be religious, but that doesn't mean one is a Christian, for just knowing that God exists and such isn't enough. You actually have to have faith in God and a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Me, I'm a born-again Christian, but I'm not really that strong in my faith; it's like, I hardly ever read the Bible or pray or attend church even (well, the church thing isn't really my fault; my parents won't get up and take us), even though I know I should.:(

[Aravis Kenobi]

Take your relationship one day at a time. I'm still trying to get close to God. Sometimes I feel really far from Him. If your parents won't get up and take you, then do you know someone who can pick you up for church? And then bring you home? If not, ask God for help in asking your parents to take you; don't be afraid to take leadership in that part. Don't be afraid to ask them. If your parents are believers (and if they are, they need to go to church to fellowship with other believers) then they should understand. Do either one or both of the aforementioned things.

[echoscot]

I believe some who do read their Bibles and go to Church are not really Christains either. They do all the religious duties, but their hearts are cold and empty. For them Church is a social event with moral guidelines, like th Boy Scouts or something.

Then there are some, like Ged, who don't go and maybe don't read their Bibles as often as they should, but they know Christ and that is what makes a difference :D

[Aravis Kenobi]

Yes, knowing Christ makes all the difference, but you still need to read your Bible and pray at least once a day and go to church at least once a week. The fellowship in church with other believers helps you to grow. In my church, unfortunately, that doesn't really happen. I try to at least read my Bible and pray every night before I go to bed. I want to establish a morning routine as well, but I can never make myself stop and take the time to do so. I'm working on it, though. :)

[office]

im a christian.and i feel bad for people that arent christian.

[inkspot]

CS Lewis said it isnt true the world is made up of non-Christians and Christians, but rather of people who are becoming more like Christ and people who are growing further away from Him. Lewis maintained that a Buddhist, who suddenly found himself obsessed with his faith's teachings on compassion might well be on his way to becoming Christlike, as the Holy Spirit continued to draw him.

So, we cannot judge what people are based on what religion they follow or what they do or don't do (read the Bible, pray, follow drag racing). God knows hearts, and He knows He may well be drawing close someone who looks to us like he couldn't be further from God ... at the same time, someone we think is very cose to God could actually be falling away.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Good thoughts inkspot. I never thought about it that way. I'm still praying for my next door neighbor, but I want her to come to church with me. The last time I took her to church with me, she always told me and my mom she felt sick. I think the Holy Spirit was dealing with her, and she didn't want to listen to it.

[echoscot]

Yes, knowing Christ makes all the difference, but you still need to read your Bible and pray at least once a day and go to church at least once a week. The fellowship in church with other believers helps you to grow. In my church, unfortunately, that doesn't really happen. I try to at least read my Bible and pray every night before I go to bed. I want to establish a morning routine as well, but I can never make myself stop and take the time to do so. I'm working on it, though. :)


It is very true you should seek fellowship and pray and be in the Word, but that is not what defines one as a Christian, it is the relationship they have in their hearts.

Even when you read the Bible, you find that it was an up and down thing with all the heroes of the faith, mostly the men. Actually you don't find too many women of the faith struggling as much as the men to stay faithful. David, Samson among others. Daniel was an exception, he prayed 3x a day, even when he knew that it would mean death in the Lion's den.

[Aravis Kenobi]

It is very true you should seek fellowship and pray and be in the Word, but that is not what defines one as a Christian, it is the relationship they have in their hearts.

Even when you read the Bible, you find that it was an up and down thing with all the heroes of the faith, mostly the men. Actually you don't find too many women of the faith struggling as much as the men to stay faithful. David, Samson among others. Daniel was an exception, he prayed 3x a day, even when he knew that it would mean death in the Lion's den.

I know that. I'm just saying that I think you need to make a habit of going to church because it helps you to see what God has in store for you. Maybe the women in the Bible listened more to God and were tempted less? ;) Who knows? Like Deborah. She was a prophet, but I think she's the only prophet in the Bible, right? There may be others as well, but I'm not a scholar.

[LifeMaiden]

How would you define BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN? How does a born-again Christian differ from other Christian groups such as Baptists or Catholics? If someone is already Christian, for example, is it possible for them to become 'born again'?

[inkspot]

In my mind, you are "born again" when you confess Christ as Savior and ask Him to forgive your sins. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again -- if you start reading from verse one, you will find the whole conversation. So you could be a Baptist or Catholic or Episcopalian and not be born again if you have never believed Christ is Savior and asked for forgiveness of sins. Or you could belong to any Christian faith and be born again so long as you believe Christ is Savior and have received His forgiveness.

The term was taken up by evangelicals in our generation to separate themselves from the more Orthodox Catholics and Episcopalians, but I think they were mistaken in their belief on that score; the term cannot and should not be used to divide the church. All believers on Christ are "born again."

[echoscot]

Actually, the term may be used the way you describe, but I have never heard it that way. I grew up in a "born again" charismatic household. I am currently Southern Baptist, who use the term born again as well. I went for four years to a Charismatic Episcopalean Church which is where I really began to understand the history of the term. I talked with a Catholic School professor at UCF who went to a born-again Catholic church.

I think the church has often shied away from the term because it draws a radical fringe, but the true church has nothing to do with denomination it has to do with any who confess their sins and believe in the person of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and confess him dead and then resurrected to sit at God's right hand as the Scriptures tell.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I would really like to hear PrinceOfTheWest's thoughts on this. I hope he posts.

[LifeMaiden]

We'll steer him to this thread then :). See, I've always believed that someone who is Born Again is someone who was not Christian but who came to a realization and awakening that Christ is their savior, and was baptized later on in life, having been 'born again' because they now can fully live a life that is touched by God. I can see where one might think we are all technically 'born again' if we are Christian, but...I don't know. When I think 'born again' I think literally of a person who has had their life completely transformed by accepting Christ when they didn't at one time.

[Aravis Kenobi]

At first I couldn't understand your post, but I do now after reading through it twice. What you say about being really born-again is very true.

[LifeMaiden]

At first I couldn't understand your post, but I do now after reading through it twice. What you say about being really born-again is very true.


We don't often associate being Catholic with being 'born again' though. In theory, perhaps everyone who has had their life transformed by Christ has been born again as Inky was saying. I could say that I've experienced a reawakening of faith, but would I tell people I'm a born again Christian? I doubt it.

[umbrellaxscenexcore]

I'm not christian, but i consider myself religious, but we people these days are such sinners, lol! it's so funny when i talk like that!

well, i'm religious in my case and you don't have to be christian to be religious

you just have to believe in a RELIGION *key word*

[Aravis Kenobi]

There I disagree with you magic1. Chrisitanity isn't a religion, it's a faith (I think, though I'm not sure) I'd really love to get POTW's thoughts on this topic.

[Wendygirljp]

I agree that one can be extremely religious and not be "a born-again Christian". There are many extremely religious people in the world, extremely dedicated to their beliefs, who happen to follow their particular path quite well.

Just a quick comment about Christianity NOT being a religion - the dictionary disagrees. All theistic religions are faith-based as are many non-theistic religions as well. I understand what you MAY be saying, but maybe you want to post how YOU define "religion", Aravis of Archenland.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I define religion as being something that you're dedicated to, something that you believe in. I define Christianity or being a born-again Christian as being someone or something that has more to it, more than just being a "religion" It's something of a relationship with God, and Jesus. It's not hollow or shallow; it's the only thing in this world that can satisfy those who are seeking something more than what they now have. Other religions mainly focus on doing just good things, trying to appease the god of that specific religion. I can put Christianity into the religion aspect, but I can't explain it like my youth camp pastor did. Let me see if I can find out stuff on what he taught from my sermon notes, then I'll post some of them here.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Ok, I found something similar to what I'm trying to say:

1. "Believe" can have different meanings.

2. If you want to please God, you do it by believing in Him.

3. What can I do to get to heaven? isn't the real question. The real question is what kind of belief do I have?

The three kinds of beliefs:
1. Inherited Belief
2. Intellectual belief
3. Intimate Knowledge Belief

Inherited Belief
The Jews believed in God because of their ancestors belief in God

The Jews allegiance was to a traditional God, not in the real God.

You cannot inherit salvation

The Jews faith wasn't in God, but a system.

you will not get to heaven because your family's belief in God.

you aren't born a Christian

Being born into a Christian home, and being raised in church doesn't make you a Christian (something some people on here have debated)

God can do two things w/sin: He can punish it, or pardon it.

2. Intellectual Belief (something that I believe is what religious people possess)

The Jews wanted Jesus to do a miracle so they could believe intellectually

Intellectual belief involves the belief in the head, not the heart.

3. Intimate Knowledge Belief (something true Christians possess)
Believing in jesus in your head doesn't save you.

There was tons more, but the guy was going and was so on fire that I couldn't remember or catch all of what he said.

[Wendygirljp]

I agree that being religious in ANY belief would never be a hollow or shallow "thing". It is, in my particular belief/definition, a dedication to that belief.

I think you may have been given a bit of "misinformation" about "other religions mainly focus on doing just good things, trying to appease the god of that specific religion." Many religions believe nearly identical to you, dedicating their lives to following the teachings, not just appeasing. The same goes for non-theistic religions as well. You must admit, it is difficult to appease any deity in a non-theistic religion. ;)

From the "outside", Christianity can look like a religion of "appeasing" God as well, by the way.

Thank you for your input about your definition. It was appreciated greatly.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I'm thinking of getting either EveningStar or POTW's thoughts on this. Maybe I should pm both of them.

[Saruman]

If you are religious, you are not a born again Christian. For one can be pious and have a form of holiness and godliness, but without having received Jesus Christ in their heart as personal Lord and Savior, then it is all vanity. One cannot be called a Christian if they have and/or want nothing to do with Jesus. We are taught, simply, that no amount of goodness or any endeavors on the part of mankind will ever secure eternal life. Jesus Christ, the living God, told us how we are to get to heaven: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, but by Me" (Jn 14:6).

[Wendygirljp]

That is up to you, if you wish to elicit others' feedback. Personally, I enjoy hearing from a person's heart, not the influence one has from others.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Thank you, Saruman. Exactly what I was trying to say. I just couldn't word it right.

[Aravis Kenobi]

That is up to you, if you wish to elicit others' feedback. Personally, I enjoy hearing from a person's heart, not the influence one has from others.

That's not why I would ask their opinion. They answer religious and posts like this with answers from their heart. Not because of their moderator position. Just because I would contact them because they're mods doesn't mean they can't give their opinions from the heart.

[Wendygirljp]

Saruman,

So, by your post, do you equate being "religious" with being "Christian" only?

[Aravis Kenobi]

I don't think he was. I would re-read his post very carefully.

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis,

My apologies if you misunderstood me. I did not take it as how you claimed. I just enjoyed hearing YOUR input, for it came from your heart. That was all.

[Saruman]

Religion has nothing to do with Christianity. I regard "religion" as being finite man finding ways, means, methods, however you choose to see it, in order to try and reach infinite God. Christianity, however, is the exact opposite. The infinite God has come and reached down to finite man, and has given him the way of salvation in and through Himself, in the Person of Jesus Christ.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I apologize as well, but it sounded like the way I put it.

[Wendygirljp]

Saruman

Thank you for your personal definition. It makes communication easier when we know what the other means.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Yes, Saruman, thank you. It cleared some things up.

[Saruman]

Anytime, dear friends. Though not wanting to sound wholly harsh through my statements, I wish to make it known that, while there is nothing we human beings can do to achieve any state of "higher being," it is through His love and goodness that the living God has given mankind a living hope in Jesus Christ, if only we will choose to believe and follow Him. Christ's own statements are extremely bold, but He has the authority to declare what is the truth. As for me, I will abide in Jesus Christ, forever grateful to Him for what He has done for me.

[Wendygirljp]

Saruman,

You will find MANY of the theistic religions believing in the same manner as Christian thinking - of God reaching down to his people, not people reaching up to attain God.

My favorite textbook reference on this is "Religious Thought" by Roger Schmidt. He is a great Christian theologian and a former co-worker of mine.

[Saruman]

I shall keep your reference in mind, Wendygirljp. My thanks to you for your own input in this thread. :)

[Aslan's Beloved Daughter]

Actually, you're not a born-again christian until you're baptised with the Holy Spirit.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Meaning you've accepted Jesus into your heart? 'Cause baptism can't save you (well, baptism of water anyway)

[Saruman]

I believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs when one receives Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. For Christ said, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (Jn 3:16).

[Aravis Kenobi]

I was just making sure, and for other members who read this who might get confused.

[Aslan's Beloved Daughter]

Sorry for the mix-up! But, yes, I am a born-again Christian!

[Aravis Kenobi]

That's ok. I'm glad you are a born-again Christian!

[Wendygirljp]

Out of curiosity, how many believe one MUST be Christian (born-again or otherwise) to participate in this chat room?

[Aravis Kenobi]

I opened it for everyone who wants to participate in the dicussion. Born-again Christian or not.

[Saruman]

It is a great joy and comfort to find other believers on this forum. But it is also a blessing to hear from others who don't share the same views. The diversity in this forum is excellent. I for one appreciate the thoughts and views of others, and the opportunity to discuss with them.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Exactly. Anyone who wants to discuss the topic is free to do so.

[Wendygirljp]

Saruman - you posted,

"I for one appreciate the thoughts and views of others, and the opportunity to discuss with them."

I do as well. As long as the parties can keep somewhat objective and realize that not everyone is going to believe in the same label and respect that, fantastic! The more understanding we have of one another, the more chance there is, I believe, in mutual respect, understanding and compassion - maybe even a bit of peace may break out in the world, if we are not careful! ;)

[Aravis Kenobi]

Anyone else's thoughts?

[Per Sempre]

I've always wanted to debate this point and get other people's views on the subject: if you're religious, does it mean you're a Christian? if there's already a thread on this, or it's in the wrong forum, mods can take care of it please. Anyway, I want to know everyone's thoughts on this topic.No,some churchgoers and other "religious" people have no intentions to become a christian,and are simply going to church,reading the bible etc. for their image.

[Quentilian]

I have a friend next door to me who proclaims to be a Christian, yet I know for a fact that she never reads her Bible, never goes to church, not even to Sunday school. In fact, drag racing is all her life is about. I've tried to witness to her a few times, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. I'm now trying to just be a Christian friend.

have you tried to tell her in a way she might like? tell in a way that involves nascar.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'd recommend you try to set a good example in speech, action, and attitude - especially speech. I speak from experience here: I was in the military, where there are a lot of people who profess to some sort of faith yet their lives fall far short of it. Trying to pressure them into better conformance in to the faith they profess is a good way to alienate them, and besides, there may be factors you don't know about. But being a good friend, insuring she knows by your words and actions that she is precious to you, guarding your own tongue - these are the things that witness.

Many times people only come to understand God's love for them by seeing it expressed to them by one of God's people.

[LifeMaiden]

It is a great joy and comfort to find other believers on this forum. But it is also a blessing to hear from others who don't share the same views. The diversity in this forum is excellent. I for one appreciate the thoughts and views of others, and the opportunity to discuss with them.


I consider this forum a great blessing to have revived my faith and rediscover and accept Christ.

But I was interested in hearing how PrinceoftheWest would define BORN AGAIN CHRISTIAN. Is 'any Christian' ( Catholic, etc) a born-again, or does this refer to a more specific kind of Christianity?

[Saruman]

I consider this forum a great blessing to have revived my faith and rediscover and accept Christ.

And I rejoice at such awesome news indeed, IceMaiden! If C.S. Lewis were here to chat in this thread, I have no doubt he'd express his joy at your decision too.

[LifeMaiden]

And I rejoice at such awesome news indeed, IceMaiden! If C.S. Lewis were here to chat in this thread, I have no doubt he'd express his joy at your decision too.


Indeed :) the title of his book Surprised by Joy would be applicable.I've got a long way to go though...it's been so long since I've even been to Church...and I'm just starting to familiarize myself with Scripture.


So I am maybe a 'born again' Catholic :D

[Paravel25]

I am a born-again Christian. One of things my church does is an altar call for four reasons: for salvation, rededication (if you've been away from God and church), accepting the holy spirit, and new membership to the church. I was saved and baptized when I was around 13, but then I didn't stay with my faith, so I answered the altar call for rededication when I was 16. At my university, which is catholic in tradition, we have a club that meets each week in sub-groups to discuss the Bible and whatever is going on in our everday and spiritual lives.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Of course, the origin of the term "born again" finds its root in the Gospel of John, chapter 3, where Jesus is talking to Nicodemus. Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." The interesting thing is that the word Jesus actually used was anothen, which can mean either "again" (or "anew") or "from above" - i.e. from heaven. I've heard interesting discussions on why Jesus used that word and what He was expecting Nicodemus to say, but none of those are germane to this discussion. The point is that both meanings have value: the new life in Christ is an actual re-birthing, though of a spiritual nature rather than a physical one, and it is also "from above", i.e. from God Himself.

This phrase and the discussion following discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus, wherein Jesus speaks of being born of water ("Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God"), forms part of the basis for the Church's understanding of the central role of baptism and the grace it brings. This is sacramental grace, not magic - it must be accompanied by faith and proper intent on the part of someone. The Catholic Church's understanding is that all who have received this grace have been "born again".

Does this mean automatic and unconditional entrance into heaven? No, for this grace must be accepted and fostered as the recipient is capable. A child has a lesser understanding than a youth, and a youth's understanding should mature into adult acceptance. In the sin-damaged battleground that is this world, grace doesn't just sit there like a balance in an investment account, yielding dividend payments. It's much more like a young plant in a hostile environment - it is either tended and encouraged that it may grow, or it withers from neglect. Part of raising a child in the faith is challenging them to accept the adult burden of faith in Christ. This is a question I ask every one of my confirmation classes: to this point you have been coming to church because of your parents - are you ready to accept the burden of the faith on your own? Are you willing to commit to Christ by your own will? (Because if you aren't, get out of this class and don't come back until you are!)

In my experience, it is in this sense that many people use the term "born again". They're drawing on Jesus' phrase, but what they're often asking is, "Have you made a conscious, mature commitment to follow Christ?" They're often trying to juxtapose that against either 1) nothing at all, or 2) a mindless following of a cultural pattern (i.e. "sure, I go to church.") If I were asked that question and wanted to give a strict theological answer, I could say, "Sure, I was baptized." But if I wanted to answer the spirit of the question, I'd say something like, "Yes, I was baptized and raised in the faith, and committed my life firmly to Christ in my youth, and have been striving to walk in closer obedience and devotion ever since."

To summarize, it's my Church's teaching that all baptized Christians have been "born again" by virtue of their baptism, but that doesn't guarantee that they will see God's face. They must grow in that baptismal grace by devoting their lives to Christ, in the form and manner appropriate to their lives.

[the freak sisters]

no. Some one could be a christian and religeous yes but that dosent mean that if u are religeos your christion. some ppl dont have faith! im a christion and religeous so i know its posible

[PrinceOfTheWest]

You're right, in a very real sense, but we must be careful not to pretend that we know things that we don't know. Many times I've seen people whose lives seemed completely devoid of faith, but who God called back to Him. I certainly encourage all I know to deepen their faith and devotion to Christ, especially if that person was raised in a faith tradition and has "wandered away". Don't forget Jesus' parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke 15!

[the freak sisters]

thanks. i agree!!!!!!

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

Or the one of the Prodigle Son

[Aravis Kenobi]

have you tried to tell her in a way she might like? tell in a way that involves nascar.

What exactly do you mean? I didn't like NASCAR at the time, but I do now, and I hardly ever see her or speak to her.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Again, POTW, you posted fantastic thoughts on this topic. I believe that someone can be religious and a born-again Christian, as the freak sisters said. But, just because you're religious, doesn't make you a born-again Christian, or someone who has committed their heart and soul to Christ for a lifetime.

[echoscot]

I agree with most of the posts here. Most of the time when I share my faith I specifically tell people, "I am not asking you to be Baptist or Presbyterian or Catholic or Lutheran. As a matter of fact, I would be ashamed if I thought that was all I had made of you was another Baptist. I want you to know my God and have a relationship with him that is as real as the one you have with your best friend."

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

Again, POTW, you posted fantastic thoughts on this topic. I believe that someone can be religious and a born-again Christian, as the freak sisters said. But, just because you're religious, doesn't make you a born-again Christian, or someone who has committed their heart and soul to Christ for a lifetime.
exactly i so agree

[Aravis Kenobi]

Thank you. What some people just can't seem to understand is that going to church does not, I repeat, does not save you or get you to heaven. If you go to church regularly, then fantastic! But, if you're going to church, yet you've never made a heart and soul decision for Christ, then all those years of going to church faithfully will fail when you stand before Christ in heaven. He'll say, I don't know you, be gone from My sight. For those that go to church and have made a heart and soul decision, He'll say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." You can be involved in church activities (choir, youth group, revivals, etc...) yet still not earn your way to salvation or to heaven. Most other religions (Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, etc..) are based on works, not on salvation. Christianity isn't. Other religions (like Wicca or Scientology) are fads; Christianity isn't and never was. Christianity has never really been as popular as Wicca, Scientology, and others, but that's because Christians have a very solid foundation to stand on; other religions don't. Christianity and the beliefs don't change like for example, the Mormon beliefs: (i.e. views on polygamy, caffeine, etc...) Christianity has, and always will be the same, no matter what. I might have gotten a little off subject, but I had to say that before it left me.

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis,

You stated, "Most other religions (Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, etc..) are based on works, not on salvation."

I think, depending on who you ask, you will find the LDS Christians and the Muslims will disagree with you. That is not what I wanted to address, however.

Your comment about Buddhism being based on works, not salvation. Of course! It is non-theistic. It is not about "going to heaven", as it is a non-theistic philosophy. You are adding "apples and volkswagens", here. Again, Buddhism is about the alleviation of suffering in your life, which you create. It is not about the "here after". It is not relevant. That is why there are Buddhist Christians, Buddhist Jews and even Buddhist Muslims. It is not in any form of conflict, unless you do not understand the concepts of Buddhism.

I also happen to agree with you in the line with the business of some people going to church and not being "religious". I think that might be called "doingness" and not "beingness". To be is to actually live it. To "do" it is to put on the act, to go through the steps, NOT be it at the cellular level, so to speak.

There are many people of all religious thought who are "beingness" types and "doingness" types, not just Christianity.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I wasn't exactly sure about Buddhism, but thank you for correcting me.

[echoscot]

Aravis,

.

I also happen to agree with you in the line with the business of some people going to church and not being "religious". I think that might be called "doingness" and not "beingness". To be is to actually live it. To "do" it is to put on the act, to go through the steps, NOT be it at the cellular level, so to speak.

There are many people of all religious thought who are "beingness" types and "doingness" types, not just Christianity.

And you may find this surprising, but I like your phrasing on that very much, although we call those that you refer to as "religious" the ones who are truly "saved" or "born-again". :D

[Wendygirljp]

Thank you, echoscot, for your compliment. Does that mean, then, using your definition, that someone who is devoutly (in heart, not just in deed) Hindu or Zoroastrian "saved"? It does not seem to carry the same definition, from the standard Christian perspective.

[echoscot]

No, Wendygirl, that terminology of "born-again" or "saved" is specifically Christian, though other faiths may adopt and redefine the terms. But I did like the doing and being things you used.

[Wendygirljp]

echoscot -

"Redefine" the term? The basic concept of being "born again" has been around for many millenia, not just since Christianity. Yes, Christianity uses it as if it is their own concept, and they have their own perception of the definition, but again, as it has been used in many other cultures and religions, it was not an issue of others "redefining" it.

Being "saved", yes, in the sense of how Christianity perceives the term, is its own. There are concepts of salvation in other religions, again, however, both theistic and non-theistic.

Just a point or two.

And yes, I understand what you are saying. Christianity has their own definition of "born again" and "saved", which do not necessarily match up with the beliefs of others.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The Christian definition of being born again is drawn from Jesus' words in his discussion with Nicodemus as recorded in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, where Jesus says "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." (v.3) Later Christian teaching interpreted this in light of Jesus' statements about dying ("and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me" - Matt 10:38) and the Christian teachings about following Jesus in His death, such as St. Paul in the 3rd Chapter of his letter to the Church of Philippi: ("that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...") When Christianity speaks of dying with Christ, it means just that. Baptism is taking part in His death ("Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" Rom 6:3), and our entire walk of discipleship is a series of little deaths ("dying to self" is a common phrase used.)

The closest I've been able to find that even compares is the Buddha's command to extinguish tanha in our lives by seeking nirvana - self-anihilation. A beautiful and noble ideal - that it is better not to exist at all than to pollute the universe with your selfishness. Fortunately, Jesus offers life beyond death, as He proved when He walked out of the tomb.

[Wendygirljp]

POTW,

Sorry, but again, your assumptions about Buddhism are off.

You posted, "The closest I've been able to find that even compares is the Buddha's command to extinguish tanha in our lives by seeking nirvana - self-anihilation. A beautiful and noble ideal - that it is better not to exist at all than to pollute the universe with your selfishness. Fortunately, Jesus offers life beyond death, as He proved when He walked out of the tomb."

Nirvana is not about self-anihilation, but the extinguishing of one's EGO - not the self. It is not about not existing at all, but about the alleviation of suffering.

Your comment about Jesus offering "life beyond death" is not relevant to the discussion, that I can see.

At least, this time, thankfully, you used no sarcasm or hostility that I could find - just a bit of misinformation, which is quite rampant in the world, anyway.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, I heard that from a Buddhist authority, so I'm just passing along what I learned. In fact, he had a term for the version you're describing - he called it the "California version", that waters down the Buddha's true and rigorous message.

Of course, that may have just been his interpretation of the Buddha's message. I believe in another thread you invited people to post their interpretation of Buddhism, because you were very interested in what their thoughts might be. Are you now saying that there's an objective standard of teaching regarding the Buddha's message, and one could be "right" or "wrong" about it? Very interesting.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Your comment about Jesus offering "life beyond death" is not relevant to the discussion, that I can see.Perhaps this is all you can see, but you're not a Christian. To Christians, the Resurrection is the heart of the whole matter. As St. Paul says in his letter to the Church at Corinth: "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith in vain". To Christians, union with Christ in His death and resurrection is what it means to be born again. It is not simply an emotional occurrence or act of one's own will - it is something beyond us.

[LifeMaiden]

Perhaps this is all you can see, but you're not a Christian. To Christians, the Resurrection is the heart of the whole matter. As St. Paul says in his letter to the Church at Corinth: "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith in vain". To Christians, union with Christ in His death and resurrection is what it means to be born again. It is not simply an emotional occurrence or act of one's own will - it is something beyond us.


In Hinduism and Buddhism one is 'born again' ( so to speak, in their faiths) over and over again through reincarnation.

Have you ever wondered why Christianity never truly took root in Japan, China, Vietnam ( other than those influenced by the French colonists and became Catholic) and Thailand/Laos?

[Wendygirljp]

POTW - well, there goes the sarcasm, again. And I thought we could dialogue instead of your attempting to play "one-upmansship" with me.

My "California version" of Buddhism comes from the following sources - I will only list a few of them: Ven. Hsin Ting of Fo Kuang Shan, Ven. Man Ya of I.B.P.S., Ven. Yi Jih, also of Hsi Fang Temple, Dr. Roger Schmidt of Hsi Lai University, Dr. Edward Hughes of Cal State Long Beach in California, and the list goes on.

What Siddhartha spoke on the concept of Nirvana was quite plain and simple. If one person wishes to take the extinguishing of the ego to mean self-elimination, that is their choice, but I do not believe that is what Siddhartha meant as, many times, not just once, he talked about the previously mentioned extinguishment.

I did not invite others to share their interpretation of how they interpret Buddhism of which I am aware. Someone asked me what my religious beliefs were, and I addressed both the ethical side (which is Buddhism) and the spiritual side, which is Animism, which you claimed I thought that meant that it had to do with animals, which I never did say in the first place. If someone wishes to make their comments known of ANY religion, fine! Please. Even you, which you are more than willing to do. I just made a correction from a modern misinterpretation of the basics of the philosophy.

[Wendygirljp]

IceMaiden,

Again, in Buddhism, the concept of "reincarnation" may not be as literal as it is seen in Hinduism. It is, in the majority, as seen as, for example, the cycle of the breath. Another is, as mentioned previously as well, the cycle of a day. Each day you awaken, you are "reincarnated" into a new being, made of the days' experiences from before. Even the physical body "reincarnates". Cells are recycling constantly. Cells die, then regenerate. The oldest set of cells in any particular human are estimated to be no more than 7 years old.

And again, there are political reasons as to why Christianity was not allowed for many years. After that time, modern Christianity does not fit the culture of some of the countries you mention, mostly out of the ignorance (lack of knowledge type) of what Buddhism is about, when the foreigner (gaijin) says that one cannot be both Buddhist AND Christian, for example. If you check, you will see, however, that Christianity is growing in many of these countries, as is Islam.

Many of us Japanese will say "we have no religion", because the lines between "religion" and "social mores" intertwine so much, one cannot tell where one starts and another ends. Since you have a background in Japanese culture, please check out the term "ittadakimasu", and why it is said before meals. That is one of hundreds of examples.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actually, WG, in this post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=490509&postcount=119), you state the following:Parthian King -

You said, "I can just hear the response if I were to try and explain the real meaning of Buddha's words to a Buddhist..."

Go ahead! Please. You are most welcome to do so.

And again, fyi, I was stating what I have learned from historical writings and theological writings and discussions, not saying "I am right and everyone else is wrong", but that "This is what I found."

Again, too, I may be wrong. I am more than willing to admit that. You may be wrong as well. We don't know. It is ALL faith-based, correct? I am not condemning anyone's faith, but stating my findings and perspectives. I have found nothing in this chat system which says that is not allowed.I was merely taking you up on your offer.

I'm not sure where you're finding any sarcasm in my post. I was observing what seems to be an inconsistency in your position. You, a non-Christian, have repeatedly interpreted Jesus' words to suit your own preferences. When Christians contend that your statements are not a correct interpretation of Christianity, and appeal to an authority such as the Scriptures or interpretive tradition, you contend (as you do above) that you are merely stating your "findings and perspectives" - as if the teachings of Jesus were a matter of total subjectivity and personal opinion. Yet when a non-Buddhist makes a statement about what the Buddha taught that doesn't agree 100% with your personal view, you are swift to correct him, invoking a variety of authorities to point out that the non-Buddhist is objectively wrong.

We have a quaint idiom for this in the States - we call it "talking out of both sides of your mouth." You seem to be picking and choosing when you are going to accept authoritative teaching and, indeed, when and what truths you will consider objective. You can't have it both ways, WG. If you're going to contend that Jesus' teachings are wide open to a variety of interpretations based on one's personal preferences, then you cannot object when anyone does the same with the Buddha's. On the other hand, if you're going to contend that the Buddha's teachings are objective, can be rightly and wrongly interpreted, and appeal to knowledgeable authority on the matter, then you must allow Christians to also maintain that Jesus' words are objective, and can be rightly and wrongly interpreted, and are subject to proper interpretation by knowledgeable authority. Or (to use another idiom), "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

[Parthian King]

Oh, this is just too fun.

POTW, I like that other quaint saying we have here in the States. What was it? "Give 'em enough rope and..."

[Wendygirljp]

Actually, WG, in this post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=490509&postcount=119), you state the following:I was merely taking you up on your offer.

I'm not sure where you're finding any sarcasm in my post. I was observing what seems to be an inconsistency in your position.

It is not my position, but that of scholastic theology where I am posting. You also said, "You, a non-Christian, have repeatedly interpreted Jesus' words to suit your own preferences." Again, these are not my own "preferences", but my perspective of what MAY be in some cases, and culturally, what very likely could be in others. Do you think culture has nothing to do with understanding the writings and actions of people? If so, I disagree with you completely. If not, then maybe you can see why I state what I do. And then again, . . .

"When Christians contend that your statements are not a correct interpretation of Christianity, and appeal to an authority such as the Scriptures or interpretive tradition, you contend (as you do above) that you are merely stating your "findings and perspectives" - as if the teachings of Jesus were a matter of total subjectivity and personal opinion."

Again, you are twisting things very nicely, but throwing things around as if it were in a washing machine. The PERSPECTIVE of what the teachings of Jesus were ARE a matter of total subjectivity. We ALL have our own perspectives, even within our own particular "groups" in society, whether they be religious, philosophical, political, or sports.

"Yet when a non-Buddhist makes a statement about what the Buddha taught that doesn't agree 100% with your personal view, you are swift to correct him, invoking a variety of authorities to point out that the non-Buddhist is objectively wrong."

Again, twisting things - you were taking things, not from the position of the Buddhist teachings, but what the western culture has done with it - with a lack of understanding of the culture, let alone the philosophy. And again, many times, I have said "I may be wrong". Or, is that slipping your memory? When I talk about the things I have learned, with backing, I am usually coming from a scholastic perspective, unless i write that it is my opinion. Many times, you will see that I DO, indeed, state that certain things ARE MY PERSPECTIVE or OPINION. No, I am not "dodging" your statements, nor am I attempting any escape from any attack. I am stating my opinions when I state that it is my opinion. When I state that, for example, "Buddhism states . . . ", I am talking about objective, cultural aspects of it, not what someone from the west who may have very little backing knows about it.

"We have a quaint idiom for this in the States - we call it "talking out of both sides of your mouth." You seem to be picking and choosing when you are going to accept authoritative teaching and, indeed, when and what truths you will consider objective."

Answered in the previous paragraph.

"You can't have it both ways, WG. If you're going to contend that Jesus' teachings are wide open to a variety of interpretations based on one's personal preferences, then you cannot object when anyone does the same with the Buddha's. On the other hand, if you're going to contend that the Buddha's teachings are objective, can be rightly and wrongly interpreted, and appeal to knowledgeable authority on the matter, then you must allow Christians to also maintain that Jesus' words are objective, and can be rightly and wrongly interpreted, and are subject to proper interpretation by knowledgeable authority. Or (to use another idiom), "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

And again, I am NOT saying that one teaching is objective and the other subjective. I stated before, and I will state it again, that we all have our perceptions of what certain teachings mean. When a vast majority of various theologians from different schools of thought agree on certain points, as they have studied the cultures, the customs, and the languages of the time, there is a good possibility that they have some fairly substantial, fairly objective perspectives on the subject. When you, on the other hand, start saying that Buddhism is about . . . because someone you know says so, and that leading authorities in the field are "California Buddhists", then, that is where I say you just might be crossing the line.

Last time - when I state that something is my opinion, that is what it means. Now, anything else you want to do, or do you have more "idiomatic phrases" to throw around? And I DO know these phrases. I did not spend more than 20 years in the U.S. working at some place like Disneyland or acting like a tourist.

[Parthian King]

*PK sits courtside with jumbo Coke and popcorn, enthralled*

[Aravis Kenobi]

This debate is getting a bit heated. I may not be right on things, in fact, I'm very wrong at a lot of things (not inviting anyone to disagree with me), but I do try to say what's in my heart. Sometimes I feel that God has placed something in my heart, and I need to type it out. Unfortunately, at my cults and world religions class, we didn't get into Buddhism or Hinduism at all. We only got into Mormonism, Islam, Taliban, Wicca, and Scientology, all in four days. So much was crammed into my mind that I can't really remember it all because of how fast the teacher was. To me, it sounds like POTW is saying what he knows in love, saying what is to me, true. POTW also didn't post any sarcasm in his posts, but I do happen to believe him and trust him more because he may have more knowledge. No offense, WG, of course. From your posts, you also have a lot of knowledge. But, it also sounds like from your posts that you don't really understand much about why Christians believe in Christ the way we do. You don't sound like a born-again Christian.
The resurrection is the central part of Christianity. If Christ was dead, like Buddha and Mohammed, and who knows how many other prophets or "gods" of other religions, then we would be saved in vain. (or what POTW said) If you look in the graves of Mohammed, Buddha, and other prophets, what will you find? An empty grave? No. You'll find bones or some article of human remains. Look in Jesus' tomb, and what will you find? An empty tomb? Yes, precisely. See the difference between Christianity and other religions? We serve a risen Messiah, others don't (excluding Islam for they say our God and Allah are the same, just that Allah is angry and revengeful). God is a God of love, mercy, grace, redemption, and many, many other things. Our God is a God of love, not of revenge. He won't strike us dead if we commit a sin: He just requires that we realize our mistake, and repent of it. There, I've had my say. Oh, one more thing: If this continues to be as heated, I may ask a mod to delete the thread or iLock it.

[umbrellaxscenexcore]

no it does not... I'm not christian becuase I do not believe in christianity, i believe in my own religion which makes me "religious" i think, kinda....sorta...
if you you truly believe in a religion you're religious...



Religious:Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

[umbrellaxscenexcore]

It is not my position, but that of scholastic theology where I am posting. You also said, "You, a non-Christian, have repeatedly interpreted Jesus' words to suit your own preferences." Again, these are not my own "preferences", but my perspective of what MAY be in some cases, and culturally, what very likely could be in others. Do you think culture has nothing to do with understanding the writings and actions of people? If so, I disagree with you completely. If not, then maybe you can see why I state what I do. And then again, . . .

"When Christians contend that your statements are not a correct interpretation of Christianity, and appeal to an authority such as the Scriptures or interpretive tradition, you contend (as you do above) that you are merely stating your "findings and perspectives" - as if the teachings of Jesus were a matter of total subjectivity and personal opinion."

Again, you are twisting things very nicely, but throwing things around as if it were in a washing machine. The PERSPECTIVE of what the teachings of Jesus were ARE a matter of total subjectivity. We ALL have our own perspectives, even within our own particular "groups" in society, whether they be religious, philosophical, political, or sports.

"Yet when a non-Buddhist makes a statement about what the Buddha taught that doesn't agree 100% with your personal view, you are swift to correct him, invoking a variety of authorities to point out that the non-Buddhist is objectively wrong."

Again, twisting things - you were taking things, not from the position of the Buddhist teachings, but what the western culture has done with it - with a lack of understanding of the culture, let alone the philosophy. And again, many times, I have said "I may be wrong". Or, is that slipping your memory? When I talk about the things I have learned, with backing, I am usually coming from a scholastic perspective, unless i write that it is my opinion. Many times, you will see that I DO, indeed, state that certain things ARE MY PERSPECTIVE or OPINION. No, I am not "dodging" your statements, nor am I attempting any escape from any attack. I am stating my opinions when I state that it is my opinion. When I state that, for example, "Buddhism states . . . ", I am talking about objective, cultural aspects of it, not what someone from the west who may have very little backing knows about it.

"We have a quaint idiom for this in the States - we call it "talking out of both sides of your mouth." You seem to be picking and choosing when you are going to accept authoritative teaching and, indeed, when and what truths you will consider objective."

Answered in the previous paragraph.

"You can't have it both ways, WG. If you're going to contend that Jesus' teachings are wide open to a variety of interpretations based on one's personal preferences, then you cannot object when anyone does the same with the Buddha's. On the other hand, if you're going to contend that the Buddha's teachings are objective, can be rightly and wrongly interpreted, and appeal to knowledgeable authority on the matter, then you must allow Christians to also maintain that Jesus' words are objective, and can be rightly and wrongly interpreted, and are subject to proper interpretation by knowledgeable authority. Or (to use another idiom), "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

And again, I am NOT saying that one teaching is objective and the other subjective. I stated before, and I will state it again, that we all have our perceptions of what certain teachings mean. When a vast majority of various theologians from different schools of thought agree on certain points, as they have studied the cultures, the customs, and the languages of the time, there is a good possibility that they have some fairly substantial, fairly objective perspectives on the subject. When you, on the other hand, start saying that Buddhism is about . . . because someone you know says so, and that leading authorities in the field are "California Buddhists", then, that is where I say you just might be crossing the line.

Last time - when I state that something is my opinion, that is what it means. Now, anything else you want to do, or do you have more "idiomatic phrases" to throw around? And I DO know these phrases. I did not spend more than 20 years in the U.S. working at some place like Disneyland or acting like a tourist.
man, is any1 reading all this? do you expect us to read ALL that?! NOOO!! runs and hides under bed... :eek:

[Aravis Kenobi]

I skimmed over it, but I didn't read all of it.

[Wendygirljp]

Arivis of . . .

I can imagine having attended a course to learn about "Cults and Religions of the World", how much would be given in only four days. My classes on Comparative World Religions are two weeks in length, 2 days per week per each of the major religions, each class 2 hours in length, and that is not enough, imho, to get enough understanding perceived.

You quoted from another, "(or what POTW said) If you look in the graves of Mohammed, Buddha, and other prophets, what will you find? An empty grave? No. You'll find bones or some article of human remains. Look in Jesus' tomb, and what will you find? An empty tomb? Yes, precisely. See the difference between Christianity and other religions?"

This is an argument of assumption, in many points. First of all, the Buddha never claimed to be any messiah, God, or any other thing other than a teacher. Buddhism is not theistic in nature but a philosophy. In fact, again imho, it blends very well with the teachings of Jesus.

The issue of Jesus' bones not being in the tomb could be because of many reasons, and if that is all someone is basing their beliefs in a religion on, that appears, to me, to be rather flimsy foundation for a belief. Personally, I would think it is what was taught by Jesus which is much more important, but again, that is me.

And yes, my apologies for the previous long post. With so many issues, the next time, I will respond to them in PM.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

A long post indeed. I did read it, and tried to unravel it as best I could. Best I can figure, WG is still categorizing Christianity as something that is totally at the mercy of personal perspective, while Buddhism is something that can have "objective, cultural aspects". Thus, if I state things about Buddhism, I can be objectively wrong because I don't understand the objective aspects, but he can state anything he likes about Christ or His teachings but not be considered incorrect because they're just his "perspective".

Here's a deal: how about if I make a statement about Buddhism, I put a little caveat after it. Something like this:*Note: this comment was made by a Christian who has never been Buddhist and whose only experience of Buddhism has been from a detached and non-involved point of view.Then you could put the following after any comments you make about Christianity: *Note: this comment was made by a Buddhist who has never been Christian and whose only experience of Christianity has been from a detached and non-involved point of view.How's that sound?

Actually, Aravis, you put your finger right on the issue, for Christ's Resurrection is the final and definitive objective fact of the Incarnation - God's proof that He had send and vindicated His Son, for those who would see it. Of course, WG makes clear his opinion:The issue of Jesus' bones not being in the tomb could be because of many reasons, and if that is all someone is basing their beliefs in a religion on, that appears, to me, to be rather flimsy foundation for a belief.This is his perspective, but his perspective doesn't have a good explanation for what else might have happened to the body, and why the apostles were so adamant that they had seen Jesus risen (after the Gospels had recorded their initial fierce skepticism). In fact, they all died gruesome deaths that they could have avoided simply by admitting that they'd not seen Him in the flesh. And then there was their enemies - in Acts 4, Peter and John were put on trial for, essentially, preaching that Jesus had walked out of the tomb. Peter and John stood their ground while the Council blustered and threatened and tried to think of some way to shut these men up. But this whole drama played out less than 300 yards from the Tomb of Christ. If the Council had wanted to totally silence and discredit the apostles, they could have just marched down to the Tomb and displayed the body of Christ. They did not do that. The only thing that explains this non-action of theirs is that the body was not there.

Those are objective facts of history. WG has also weighed in with his perpective. You can decide which you're going to give more weight.

[Parthian King]

The issue of Jesus' bones not being in the tomb could be because of many reasons, and if that is all someone is basing their beliefs in a religion on, that appears, to me, to be rather flimsy foundation for a belief. Personally, I would think it is what was taught by Jesus which is much more important, but again, that is me.

Hhhhmmm. The problem is that "what was taught by Jesus" was that He would rise from the dead. For instance:

He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.--Mark 8:31, parallels in Matthew 16:21ff and Luke 9:22ff

A bit later, He repeats the lesson:

As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.--Mark 9:9-10, parallel in Matthew 17:9ff

...and again:

 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.”--Mark 9:31, parallels in Matthew 17:22ff and Luke 9:43ff[/QUOTE]

...and again:

He took the twelve aside again and began to tell them what was to happen to him, saying, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”--Mark 10:32-34 with parallels in matthew 20:17ff and Luke 18:31ff

(How rude of me, I've left poor John out in the cold):

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.--John 2:19-22

Of course, after He rose from dead, the lessons continued:

Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.--LUke 24:25-27

 But Thomas (who was called the Twin), one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not believe.” A week later his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it in my side. Do not doubt but believe.” Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”--John 20:24-29

I've left out quite a few passages, but I think I've illustrated the point. The resurrection was, in fact, Jesus' most repeated lesson (i.e., "Yes, Thomas, it will be on the test"). I just have a few questions in light of all this: By what hermeneutic does anyone justify dissecting a text that the authors meant to be undertood seamlessly in order to throw out those words of Jesus that one finds inconvenient or distasteful, and just lay claim to those that seem to fit one's worldview? Jesus' teaching on everything was connected to His assertion that He was the divine Son of God and that He would rise from the dead to prove it. If you accept His teaching on turning the other cheek, you have to accept His teaching that He was the risen Lord. There is no "picking and choosing" when it comes to Him.

What do they teach in the schools these days?

[Wendygirljp]

POTW

"Those are objective facts of history. " Objective? Really? Yes, your faith claims it is true, but are there any other sources of information about it showing it to be objective? I have seen none, personally. All I have EVER seen is faith-based belief, based on what the bible claims.

I did not state my belief about what may have happened as I do not know, but I have some speculations. Some of what I call the "myth" of Christianity is, indeed, the crucifixion. There are some writings in the bible which say that at least one person saw the hands of Jesus AFTER the crucifixion with nail marks left in the hand. I find this very interesting as, according to history, the Romans did NOT crucify by putting nails in the hand, but between the radius and ulna. Big difference, which leads me to believe something else may have happened other than what the faith-based belief leads us to believe.

Your "caveats" do sound, imho, a bit sarcastic. Adults, in conversation, should have to do nothing more than to state that certain statements are opinion, belief, or faith, not play "legalese" games, as it appears you are attempting.

Again, as posted before, if you do not wish to talk with me because I perceive things differently than you, fine. Don't write. If you feel threatened because of my differences, then it is an excellent idea to put me on "ignore". In the history of your writing to me, I have never seen you agree with ANYTHING I have said. You have ONLY made comments of condemnation, inaccurate assumptions, and sarcastic comments, which make be believe you may be threatened, instead of just accepting my writings as my perception, and yours are yours.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Hhhhmmm. The problem is that "what was taught by Jesus" was that He would rise from the dead. For instance:


A bit later, He repeats the lesson:



...and again:

 For He was teaching His disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him; and when He has been killed, He will rise three days later.”--Mark 9:31, parallels in Matthew 17:22ff and Luke 9:43ff

...and again:



(How rude of me, I've left poor John out in the cold):



Of course, after He rose from dead, the lessons continued:





I've left out quite a few passages, but I think I've illustrated the point. The resurrection was, in fact, Jesus' most repeated lesson (i.e., "Yes, Thomas, it will be on the test"). I just have a few questions in light of all this: By what hermeneutic does anyone justify dissecting a text that the authors meant to be undertood seamlessly in order to throw out those words of Jesus that one finds inconvenient or distasteful, and just lay claim to those that seem to fit one's worldview? Jesus' teaching on everything was connected to His assertion that He was the divine Son of God and that He would rise from the dead to prove it. If you accept His teaching on turning the other cheek, you have to accept His teaching that He was the risen Lord. There is no "picking and choosing" when it comes to Him.

What do they teach in the schools these days?[/QUOTE]



Great thoughts, PK. I never thought about it, and I've never looked at all the passages of Jesus' resurrection (or the prophecy thereof) but it does seem from your posts that it was His most repeated lesson. I think He was trying to tell Thomas something. :rolleyes:

WG, if I'm wrong, please correct me, but don't Buddhists worship and serve Buddha?; In essence, making him a god? Or am I being misinformed?

[Parthian King]

There are some writings in the bible which say that at least one person saw the hands of Jesus AFTER the crucifixion with nail marks left in the hand. I find this very interesting as, according to history, the Romans did NOT crucify by putting nails in the hand, but between the radius and ulna.

Probably a typo, WG, but "Bible" is capitalized because it is grammatically correct to capitalize proper titles in English--it has nothing whatever to do with reverence.

The passage you refer to I have already quoted--John 20:27 (see also Psalm 22:16, clearly referenced by Christ Himself in Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34). But the Greek word for "hand" (cheira) encompasses the extremity from the finger tips to the elbow. Sadly, this is another case where you are attempting to "trump" biblical (an adjective, btw, which is not capitalized) material with "inside knowledge" that not only fails to strike home, but ironically undercuts your argument in two ways: 1) It shows you place more stock in objective historical fact than you would otherwise have us believe, and 2) the substance of the assertion itself is in fact mistaken. Do you really think that we draw the foundation of our faith from Mel Gibson movies?

Saying things like this draw the fire that has been leveled at you before that you are in fact a dilettante in this area, and saying such things only hands your opponents in the debate the ammunition they need to demonstrate the fact.

[iamperfectlyme]

I havent read all ten pages, but I am a born again Christian. There is a difference between being SAVED and being RELIGIOUS. The Bible says that all go to the Father through Jesus, not that all go to the Father by going to a church service twice a month.

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

Probably a typo, WG, but "Bible" is capitalized because it is grammatically correct to capitalize proper titles in English--it has nothing whatever to do with reverence.
Its both but mostly the reverence one for me

[Wendygirljp]

Parthian,

Thank you for the correction of Bible, vs. bible. It is true, titles are typed in caps.

About the issue of the nails, thank you, too, for the input about one definition. No, I was not taking anything from the Mel Gibson movie as perception of it being, literally, in the hands has been around for centuries. This, again, proves my point of perceptional differences. Many religious followers of Christianity will say it is LITERAL, meaning, in the hands themselves, not in the arms, etc. Again, who is right vs. wrong in their perception? Yet, they will argue, ad nauseum, that their way is the only way, instead of pointing out cultural issues, like vocabulary, as you did.

This has been my entire issue, from day one of entering this chat world in this theme - it is an issue of perception, and they should all be given some form of respect, not just blanket condemnation, since they have reasons, whether we agree with them or not, for believing so.

The same lies for issues of other religions, imho. I, too, use cultural information, much as you pointed out with your beliefs, to state my perceptions of various beliefs, not just common belief.

Again, thank you for the input on the terminology.

[Wendygirljp]

Parthian,

"The resurrection was, in fact, Jesus' most repeated lesson" - As it is almost 1am, I am not going to reference different passages from the Bible, but I disagree. I believe his "most repeated lesson" was that of love.

"Son of Man" - not "I"? Maybe there is a direct correlation, but I do understand that is the belief that they are one in the same.

Again, I am not "picking and choosing". I am stating possibility, as you even point out that language deals with accuracy issues in writing. Many believe that Jesus, after his "walk in the wilderness", came back and did not talk so much in literality as he did in parable, metaphor, symbolism, whatever you wish to call it. Many people who have gone out on these extended trips who have had realizations have done this. I am not, also claiming that Jesus was "just a human" or "God incarnate" or the "Son of God". Just simple comparative among Jesus' speaking and others who have taken similar paths.

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis,

"WG, if I'm wrong, please correct me, but don't Buddhists worship and serve Buddha?; In essence, making him a god? Or am I being misinformed?"

While about 3% of the Buddhist population actually worship the Buddha as God, the majority do not. They revere him as a great teacher, but do not worship him, and no, they do not "serve Buddha". Reverence and worship are not the same, by any means, at least in eastern cultures.

Many people will take the bowing before statues, putting their hands together "as in prayer", and the offering of flowers, fruit, etc., as an act of worship, but again, culturally, not the case. Bowing is a form of respect - in this case for both the teacher and his teachings. Putting the hands together "as in prayer" is a form of centering to the mind (heart in Japanese culture - not brain) - note the position of hands. The offerings are two-fold. Offering is "giving a bit of yourself" in thought/remembrance of others - spreading good feelings - whatever you wish to call it - "what goes around, comes around", but symbolically, obviously.

If bowing was to be classified as worship, then, I worship my friends, my managers, my students, and they me. Nothing could be further from the truth, but many people misunderstand.

Thank you for asking.

[Wendygirljp]

POTW -

I am not certain, but I think I finally figured out why you seem to have a "problem" with nearly everything I write. Please correct me if I am wrong, given you have not finally put me on "ignore".

While I do not agree with all of your beliefs, I respect and understand them. Again, I did say, I do not agree with all of them. I understand WHY the followers of Christianity, with their many different perceptions of who Jesus was/is, and other issues, believe what they do.

You, on the other hand, appear to NOT understand why others believe what they do. You know your beliefs are right for you, and apparently, therefore, they must be right for everyone, therefore, all others HAVE to be wrong. You, then, will attempt to discredit what is said by another, and if that does not work, you attempt to discredit the person with sarcasm and what appears to be petty insult.

I do not believe you "should" believe what others believe, but to understand the perceptions and beliefs, I believe, is vital to carry on a coherent, calm conversation/dialogue.

Enough said from me.

[Parthian King]

WG, with the respect, the issue is not one so much of perception in the broader sense as it is definition in the narrow sense. Your post...

Some of what I call the "myth" of Christianity is, indeed, the crucifixion. There are some writings in the bible which say that at least one person saw the hands of Jesus AFTER the crucifixion with nail marks left in the hand. I find this very interesting as, according to history, the Romans did NOT crucify by putting nails in the hand, but between the radius and ulna. Big difference, which leads me to believe something else may have happened other than what the faith-based belief leads us to believe.

...identifies the Bible itself with the mistaken perception of a naive faith vis-a-vis the historical realities of Roman execution.

But now, after your demonstration has proved vacuous (and anyone can make a mistake), you reframe the issue as one of "perception" under the pretense of continuity, when, in fact, there is no continuity of premise whatsoever. It turns out that there is no identification between the Bible's testimony and a flawed perception of historical realities, yet you don't even remotely recognize that what has happened in the discussion is not merely a correction over a lexical definition, but a reframing of the entire discussion. In so many words, you have said, "Thanks PK, you have both corrected a minor faux pas of mine and have corroborated my point about the slipperiness of 'perceptions' "--when in fact my lexical correction was ancillary to the main, i.e., the objectivity that you are toying with through the paradoxical combination of logical obligation and postmodern ambivalence demonstrates that your argument is fundamentally flawed (made famous by Bilbo Baggins with the proverb "Don't laugh at live dragons"). The "myth" of Christianity you suggest here (and you use the term in a decidedly un-Lewisian/un-Tolkienesque fashion) has fallen apart in this microcosm since once again your "historical trump" has been revealed as erroneous, and all you have succeeded in doing is showing that if someone is willing to go to the wall over "nails in the palm vs. nails in the wrist on Good Friday" that they would be in error to do so (in 20 years of ministry I have yet to meet such a person, but perhaps he or she is out there). In fact, the only person in this thread who was under the impression that by "hand" the Bible meant "palm" is you.

My point is that you not only have the tendency to shift the terms of the discussion between your inquiry and another's answer, but between two of your own remarks. If you had admitted to not only a lexical error but also to the foundational flaw in your argument, there would be no ground for this comment of mine.

As for Jesus' "most repeated lesson" being love, WG, there is no need to speak of "belief." A simple concordance search will demonsrate my point is true. Jesus did indeed teach on love, and His Last Supper discouse in John (one occasion) is loaded with it. But if we go by the Gospels, His teaching about His own divine sonship and impending death and resurrection was repeated more often and over a longer period of time. Unless you care to list your references over against the numerous occasions I have referred to (though hardly exhaustively), I am open to hear them. But until you demonstrate by a numbered, comparative list of references what you are asserting (numbers lying at the heart of any assertion about quantity), your assertion carries no weight. I find it very odd that for all your accusations about "Christian subjectivity," here you are simply popping off about what you "believe" to be Jesus' most repeated teaching without any demonstration whatsoever of it from the Scriptures that testify of Him.

[Wendygirljp]

Parthian,

Again, I disagree - I am not "shifting the terms of the discussion between my own remarks", but defending points of other perceptions, which I have been accused of having to be wrong, by some, because they differ from what they believe. If it came across as differently, my apologies.

Foundational flaw in my argument? Where? That I state my own beliefs, things I have learned, and also scholastic perspective? I do not understand what you mean.

The issue of whether anyone would be "willing to go to the wall over 'nails in the palm' " comment - I am surprised you have not found them. Ask people about baptism. I have seen many, many heated debates over the subject. One will say "baptism close to birth is important!" Others will demand, "NO! One must only be baptized when they are old enough to comprehend what it all means!" Yet another group will also argue, violently that "baptism does nothing! It is a waste of time and pagan!"

True, the issue of any water actualy purifying anyone spiritually, literally, I cannot see as happening. The symbolic act, however, is another issue. It means much to many, yet the "doingness" is a hostile point of contention with many. The issue of the crucifixion example, I believe I addressed in another post, yet many people do get into hostile debates over that, as well.

Historical reference is erroneous? Why? With some, yes, because some will claim that history is "written by the victor". But the same can be said about the Bible, from certain perspectives, which is heresy to some.

Personally, I see it as an argument of which one is right - spelling the word "endorsement" or "indorsement". Only one truth can be true.

Human nature can be very "interesting".

[Parthian King]

WG, the fact that you compare opinion over something as trivial as the location of Roman nails and theological conviction over something as critical as baptism again reveals you are way, way out of your area of expertise.

The foundational flaw, WG, is that you based your intital assertion on the idea that the Bible suffered from historical inaccuracies, then when that was shown to be a flawed position, you acted as if there is no difference between a modern and mistaken reading of the text (which you have helpfully demonstrated for us) and the text itself. Your failure to recognize the difference between the text itself and a flawed reading of the text is your foundational error. The fact that you cannot recognize it is another error.

Again, WG, you astound me. You have once again attempted to assert dominance in the discussion through superior historical knowledge (i.e., "crucifixion was really like this"), then when you are proven wrong, it is all up for grabs. It is an incredible tactic of "heads I win, tails you lose," since if the facts are in your favor, others are put to shame, but if not, then it's all a matter of opinion to which you are as entitled as anyone else. All I can say is I'd hate to eat a meal that you'd prepared from a written recipe--who knows what would end up in the soup.

WG, in these things I don't accuse you of being wrong because I believe differently that you, I observe that you are wrong because your assertions don't conform to simple definitions of terms. If I were to say that I couldn't eat mincemeat because I am a vegetarian, it is hardly a matter of opinion that I am flawed in my thinking, since mincemeat does not contain the flesh of any animal. It is a matter of concrete reality--not conviction.

Your remark about things being "written by the victor" is downright hilarious: The New Testament was written by people who, to a man, were chased down and persecuted, and all except John (with whom they tried but failed) were put to death in the most gruesome of ways for their faith. These writings were recognized and revered as canon before the Edict of Milan--while local and even empire-wide persecutions were still going on and the Scriptures were being burned. Not exactly a position of "victory" by which to assert dominance over the masses.

As usual, WG, the discussion with you ends up being about the discussion, and not about the matter at hand. As POTW has repeatedly noted, you play with "subjective" and "objective" at your whim and as it suits you.

[Wendygirljp]

And again, you misunderstand what I am saying.

You are asserting, it appears, that the Bible is inerrant - Am I correct? That IS what Christian doctrine subscribes to, after all.

Your seeing my taking an issue of crucifixion and comparing it with baptism is another time where you appear to be misunderstanding my statements. It is not an issue of trivializing anything. It was an example, a statement that many people argue the various points which are stated in the doctrine of Christianity.

I never claimed the curcifixion was "really like this" was never made by me. I made some perceptional possibilities, knowing the culture and the history of the people of that time to some amount. Nothing has been proven wrong, except by issue of faith. There has been no empirical proof at all.

I understand that Christianity claims that any and all things in the bible are based on what the follower believes as fact. To take one book which followers claim is fact is like someone claiming that another religion is the "only way". I am almost certain you would fight that argument rapidly, claiming that there can not be two different religions with the same truth - that there can only be "one way", correct? Yet, when someone states a possibility, not claiming anything as fact, all hostility is raised.

Your response about "history being written by the victor", not just about "things", has been proven time and again. If you wish examples, please feel free to ask. If you doubt that happens, you may have been deceived by some biased educators.

The reason why the people who were "chased down and persecuted, then put to death" may be for many reasons, not because what they wrote was true. There have been many literary and political people who have had the same thing happen to them. Even issues, which may seem trivial to you or others, like book burning, are minor examples of such things. Look at the fiction/fantasy book, "Jonathan Livingston Seagull" by Richard Bach. It was a philosophy book in a story. Because a few people on a school board who happened to be fundamentalist Christian in their beliefs, demanded and succeeded in getting the book banned from the Placentia Unified School District in California because it "may have taught reincarnation". Is that not a form of "literary persecution"? Yes, it is not as violent as what may have happened to the apostles, but what happened to Mohandes Gandhi, was, I believe.

The only reason why these posts return to the discussion and not the issue at hand is that a few, because they disagree with my perception, believing their perception is the ONLY right way, apparently feel threatened, therefore, must attack something different than what they believe, instead of discussing it. At least that is how this writer sees it. And no, I do not play with "subjective and objective" at my "whim" as it suits me. I use it to the best of my knowledge in stating scholastic vs. personal perspective. Is that so awful? After all, I usually state when things stated are from my perspective.

Are you, too, disrespectful of other perceptions other than yours?

By the way, the original intent of this whole thread was the question, "if you are religious, are you born again?". I answered "no", because being religious does not imply the Christian concept being "born again" solely. That is scholastic AND my opinion.

[Parthian King]

I did not state my belief about what may have happened as I do not know, but I have some speculations. Some of what I call the "myth" of Christianity is, indeed, the crucifixion. There are some writings in the bible which say that at least one person saw the hands of Jesus AFTER the crucifixion with nail marks left in the hand. I find this very interesting as, according to history, the Romans did NOT crucify by putting nails in the hand, but between the radius and ulna. Big difference, which leads me to believe something else may have happened other than what the faith-based belief leads us to believe.--WG, post #96

I never claimed the curcifixion was "really like this" was never made by me. I made some perceptional possibilities, knowing the culture and the history of the people of that time to some amount. Nothing has been proven wrong, except by issue of faith. There has been no empirical proof at all.--WG, post #108

WG, the sheer arrogance and hubris of your position is utterly astounding. This is a first for me, to "dialogue" with someone who will not even admit to a mistake when they are proven to be objectively in error in something as basic as a definition of terms. You said a word meant something, and I pointed out that you were and are wrong. Not slightly off, not near the mark, not almost there, not possibly when the blue moon rises over a low tide with the planets well-aligned close to correct, but just plain 2+2=5 wrong. The word "hand" in Greek simply does not mean "palm" as you indicated, anymore than "mincemeat" in English means chopped liver. The Bible is not wrong, you are wrong in your reading of it, as you have consistently demonstrated in your perception of all things Christian and Scriptural. Not only are you unbelievably condescending and insulting (saying the resurrection is a "flimsy" foundation for faith, when it is in fact the cornerstone of our lives--and ahead of time, spare me the pseudo-irenic apologies), you haven't a clue of what you speak of when it comes to historical backgrounds. In the midst of it, you come here and have the temerity to pretend authority over things you know nothing (not hardly anything) of.

Stick to what you know. I presume that means Buddhism, but at this rate I couldn't bring myself to trust anything you would say about that either because I simply cannot believe so many people would live in such constant circular contradiction--civiliations are not built that way.

[Aravis Kenobi]

WG, the sheer arrogance and hubris of your position is utterly astounding. This is a first for me, to "dialogue" with someone who will not even admit to a mistake when they are proven to be objectively in error in something as basic as a definition of terms. You said a word meant something, and I pointed out that you were and are wrong. Not slightly off, not near the mark, not almost there, not possibly when the blue moon rises over a low tide with the planets well-aligned close to correct, but just plain 2+2=5 wrong. The word "hand" in Greek simply does not mean "palm" as you indicated, anymore than "mincemeat" in English means chopped liver. The Bible is not wrong, you are wrong in your reading of it, as you have consistently demonstrated in your perception of all things Christian and Scriptural. Not only are you unbelievably condescending and insulting (saying the resurrection is a "flimsy" foundation for faith, when it is in fact the cornerstone of our lives--and ahead of time, spare me the pseudo-irenic apologies), you haven't a clue of what you speak of when it comes to historical backgrounds. In the midst of it, you come here and have the temerity to pretend authority over things you know nothing (not hardly anything) of.

Stick to what you know. I presume that means Buddhism, but at this rate I couldn't bring myself to trust anything you would say about that either because I simply cannot believe so many people would live in such constant circular contradiction--civiliations are not built that way.

*Starts applauding wildly and cheering loudly* Amen, PK. I love watching this debate. :D WG, like POTW and PK have both said, it's clear from your posts that you really understand nothing of what true Christians believe and what they stand on. I pray that soon, you will not blinded to the truth of Christ's love, and that Christ will open your heart for what He said. I'd like to add my own thoughts on this (again): Some of the many differences between Christianity and other religions is this: Christianity never, ever, ever changes. Other religions do. Christianity is/was never a fad: other religions are/were. Christianity has never been as popular as Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, etc... How many times have Mormons changed their rules on living? For instance, their stance on drinking caffeine. They've changed that. Polygamy is now not accepted as much as it used to be. Christianity has always had the same rules for living, as the rules go back to the beginning of the world. Christianity (or rather Judeaism, sp?) has been around longer than any other religion on the face of the earth. Christians have a solid foundation to stand on: this is where all other religions fall short.

[Parthian King]

Aravis, you will better be able to answer this than I, since you started the thread:

Is the original question meant elicit responses regarding any religion? I mean, clearly you don't seem to be questioning whether a devout Hindu would qualify as a born-again Christian by means of his devoutness, would you? Isn't your question rather pointed at those who are nominal Christians, who carry on with a form of religion but lack a certain measure of conviction in their religiosity? In other words, isn't your question pointed inward at the Christian community, rather than outward at whoever? I think that seems to be your point.

If I am correct, this is one case where it is especially incongruous for someone of another faith to answer--not because they are unwelcome (this being a forum, etc., etc.), but because doctrinally and experientially they have no ground to stand on. How would they be able to pass judgment on the line between fervency and nominalism within Christianity without having experienced either? What real say would I as a Christian have in a debate between Shias and Sunnis over the relative virtues of their respective brands of Islam?

Just an observation...

[Pratterson]

I don't really like the term "born-again". In a way I am. I was brought up christian, but sort of felt it was put upon me because my parents were christian, and I cut out pretty much all faith from my life for a while, but I'm christian again now (after sorting everything out in my head).

I prefer to think I've always been christian and just misplaced it for a while than thinking of myself as born-again.

[Parthian King]

I don't really like the term "born-again". In a way I am. I was brought up christian, but sort of felt it was put upon me because my parents were christian, and I cut out pretty much all faith from my life for a while, but I'm christian again now (after sorting everything out in my head).

I prefer to think I've always been christian and just misplaced it for a while than thinking of myself as born-again.

I understand, as the term can carry some baggage, but at the end of the day it is a biblical phrase from John chapter 3, Titus, and 1 Peter. If you prefer "born from above" that is also a legitimate translation (though both are more descriptive than titulary). I personally always try and remember that biblical language is timeless in its message and trumps passing prejudices about PC language.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Aravis, you will better be able to answer this than I, since you started the thread:

Is the original question meant elicit responses regarding any religion? I mean, clearly you don't seem to be questioning whether a devout Hindu would qualify as a born-again Christian by means of his devoutness, would you? Isn't your question rather pointed at those who are nominal Christians, who carry on with a form of religion but lack a certain measure of conviction in their religiosity? In other words, isn't your question pointed inward at the Christian community, rather than outward at whoever? I think that seems to be your point.

If I am correct, this is one case where it is especially incongruous for someone of another faith to answer--not because they are unwelcome (this being a forum, etc., etc.), but because doctrinally and experientially they have no ground to stand on. How would they be able to pass judgment on the line between fervency and nominalism within Christianity without having experienced either? What real say would I as a Christian have in a debate between Shias and Sunnis over the relative virtues of their respecive brands of Islam?

Just an observation...

Actually, it was directed towards those who call themselves Christians, and finding out what they think about Christianity. I can see that some posters have gone off subject (I myself being one of the posters) but the discussion so far has been extremely interesting. I also find it a bit amusing, but I won't go into detail.

[Wendygirljp]

Parthian:

"WG, the sheer arrogance and hubris of your position is utterly astounding".

It is arrogant to question? It is arrogant to see things from different perspectives, other than the literal perspective?

"The Bible is not wrong, you are wrong in your reading of it, as you have consistently demonstrated in your perception of all things Christian and Scriptural. Not only are you unbelievably condescending and insulting (saying the resurrection is a "flimsy" foundation for faith, when it is in fact the cornerstone of our lives--and ahead of time, spare me the pseudo-irenic apologies), you haven't a clue of what you speak of when it comes to historical backgrounds. "

Apparently, I have touched a nerve with you, by saying that the Bible, by itself, does not make it empirical. That was not my intent, but just simple critical thinking. Because you were so offended, I apologize, for that is not my intent. As you are a literalist, then, and believe that the Bible is inerrant, with NO OTHER POSSIBILITY of some stories in it not being quite how you see it, I will cease any definitions, or make any further comments toward your posts.

FYI, I was never attacking you nor Christianity, just your brand of it, unintentionally, because some christian and non-christian theologians, and I see it differently.

Two suggestions - look at why you put up your blinders toward what I was saying and getting hostile. You might see more of what people are saying, and not taking things so much as attacks, rather than just perspectives. Secondly, as I offend you so, please put me on "Ignore", which is your choice.

You remind me of the story of the Eiffel Tower in France. The mechanical engineer sees it as a great work of engineering. The honeymooners see it as a romantic sight. The average Parisian sees it as an aging rust bucket which should have been torn down years ago, as it was only supposed to remain for 20 years or so. Who is the "only right" one? The answer may be, "yes".

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis,

Thank you for your kind wishes of "I pray that soon, you will not blinded to the truth of Christ's love, and that Christ will open your heart for what He said." I know what he said, according to the Bible, and I understand the various perspectives of Christianity (yes, there are many, as you even just pointed out). I just disagree with the perspectives, because I see no accuracy with SOME of the beliefs. With others, I find great respect. No, this is not "picking and choosing", because I am not Christian. It is observation, and reason WHY I am NOT Christian.

"Christianity has never been as popular as Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, etc..." Do you really believe that? When entire governments build their ruling of their people on Christianity? Or is Catholicism not Christianity to you?

The followers of Christianity have not always followed the same rules, even to this date. Look at how many will follow parts of Levitical law, dismiss others. Then, there are those who will not follow anything pre-Jesus. Then, there are some who take the ENTIRE Bible and use ALL of the rules to live their lives.

"Christianity (or rather Judeaism, sp?) has been around longer than any other religion on the face of the earth." Please check your facts, again. Hinduism predates Judaism, and then many of the Animist beliefs predate Hinduism as do many tribal beliefs in spirit. If you want references, please ask.

Sorry, but you are adding apples and oranges, again, when you add Buddhism in your list of theistic beliefs, as it has nothing to do with theism. As it is not theistic in nature, but more, to the common person, a philosophy, this is why, as stated probably too many times, Buddhist Christians, Buddhist Jews, and even Buddhist Muslims, to name a few.

Thank you for your input, however, I am surprised at your mistaken, but belief that since "I have been put in my place" by others in here, because they make irrelevant argument and attacks for whatever reason, that you revel in delight. Do you treat others who appear to "lose" the same way?

Take care of yourself.

[Parthian King]

Actually, it was directed towards those who call themselves Christians, and finding out what they think about Christianity. I can see that some posters have gone off subject (I myself being one of the posters) but the discussion so far has been extremely interesting. I also find it a bit amusing, but I won't go into detail.

Precisely what I thought. Although I have found the exchange with WG to be somewhat entertaining and enlightening ("somewhat" because we have dealt with the same nonsensical talk before), I have to recognize my culpability here since I had already felt what you said: This is a family issue you have raised. A Buddhist (or Hindu, or Muslim, or Jew,or atheist, and anything else) doesn't grasp what born again means either experientially or doctrinally. WG denies the resurrection (whch is fine for a Buddhist), which is the very basis for the doctrine and reality of the new birth in the Christian believer. Anything WG therefore has to say about the issue therefore carries as much weight as anything she would say about, say, the long term emotional effects of living on the surface of Mars. And with you, I find that rather amusing.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Aravis,

Thank you for your kind wishes of "I pray that soon, you will not blinded to the truth of Christ's love, and that Christ will open your heart for what He said." I know what he said, according to the Bible, and I understand the various perspectives of Christianity (yes, there are many, as you even just pointed out). I just disagree with the perspectives, because I see no accuracy with SOME of the beliefs. With others, I find great respect. No, this is not "picking and choosing", because I am not Christian. It is observation, and reason WHY I am NOT Christian.

"Christianity has never been as popular as Wicca, Scientology, Mormonism, Buddhism, Islam, etc..." Do you really believe that? When entire governments build their ruling of their people on Christianity? Or is Catholicism not Christianity to you?

The followers of Christianity have not always followed the same rules, even to this date. Look at how many will follow parts of Levitical law, dismiss others. Then, there are those who will not follow anything pre-Jesus. Then, there are some who take the ENTIRE Bible and use ALL of the rules to live their lives.

"Christianity (or rather Judeaism, sp?) has been around longer than any other religion on the face of the earth." Please check your facts, again. Hinduism predates Judaism, and then many of the Animist beliefs predate Hinduism as do many tribal beliefs in spirit. If you want references, please ask.

Sorry, but you are adding apples and oranges, again, when you add Buddhism in your list of theistic beliefs, as it has nothing to do with theism. As it is not theistic in nature, but more, to the common person, a philosophy, this is why, as stated probably too many times, Buddhist Christians, Buddhist Jews, and even Buddhist Muslims, to name a few.

Thank you for your input, however, I am surprised at your mistaken, but belief that since "I have been put in my place" by others in here, because they make irrelevant argument and attacks for whatever reason, that you revel in delight. Do you treat others who appear to "lose" the same way?

Take care of yourself.

That is not what I meant. What I meant was, I'm seeing so much sarcasm (not necassirly, sp? from you, but from others, like what magic1 said about one of your posts) I love watching the discussion because it gives me, and other members, insight into others' lives. I'm sorry if what I said offended you; it was certainly not my intent.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Precisely what I thought. Although I have found the exchange with WG to be somewhat entertaining and enlightening ("somewhat" because we have dealt with the same nonsensical talk before), I have to recognize my culpability here since I had already felt what you said: This is a family issue you have raised. A Buddhist (or Hindu, or Muslim, or Jew,or atheist, and anything else) doesn't grasp what born again means either experientially or doctrinally. WG denies the resurrection (whch is fine for a Buddhist), which is the very basis for the doctrine and reality of the new birth in the Christian believer. Anything WG therefore has to say about the issue therefore carries as much weight as anything she would say about, say, the long term emotional effects of living on the surface of Mars. And with you, I find that rather amusing.

Then let me ask you this: was I laughing or reveling in the fact of WG's (pardon me if you're a guy) "losing her way?" did that come across to you, PK? Certainly not to me.

[Wendygirljp]

Parthian -

"A Buddhist (or Hindu, or Muslim, or Jew,or atheist, and anything else) doesn't grasp what born again means either experientially or doctrinally. WG denies the resurrection (whch is fine for a Buddhist), which is the very basis for the doctrine and reality of the new birth in the Christian believer. Anything WG therefore has to say about the issue therefore carries as much weight as anything she would say about, say, the long term emotional effects of living on the surface of Mars. And with you, I find that rather amusing."

On the contrary, I understand why the Christian believes in Christianity. I just disagree with that aspect, having to do with the resurrection having to do with the major basis of a belief. I did not say whether or not I agree any resurrection happened - or not! Making assumptions because I say it "may not" have happened for other reasons does not seem what one might call fair. If you want to know what I believe, ask.

I don't understand what "born again" means? I disagree, especially if one is a Buddhist Christian, or anyone else of any other religious belief who has had a "born again" experience. Yes, it is not the "Christian born-again" concept exactly, but it is, according to many, including myself, every bit as valuable. It also fits (how I read what Jesus taught) in Christian theology. You act as if I have never studied Christian theology. Just because I do not follow the path does not mean I do not understand it, nor does it mean I do not respect it. Like I have said continuously, and only two people, of which I am aware, have ever taken up my offer.

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis,

Let me make this public instead of just private message - again, thank you for your clarification and your post. I understand, now, what you mean. Thank you.

P.S. The moniker, Wendygirl, is in respect for a philosophy teacher of mine. I am male, which may explain some of my "more than average" assertiveness, especially being from a Japanese society.

[Aravis Kenobi]

What exactly is a Buddhist Christian? How can you mix Buddhism and Christianity? It just wouldn't work as far as I can see.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Aravis,

Let me make this public instead of just private message - again, thank you for your clarification and your post. I understand, now, what you mean. Thank you.

P.S. The moniker, Wendygirl, is in respect for a philosophy teacher of mine. I am male, which may explain some of my "more than average" assertiveness, especially being from a Japanese society.

Thanks. (I didn't want to embarass you if you were a guy, and I didn't try to rectify that)

[Wendygirljp]

Aravis,

Never a problem. I appreciate the compassion in your mind/heart, and the thinking in your brain.

Many people who do not understand Buddhism would say "one can not be both Buddhist and Christian", because the common perception is that Buddhism is a worship of the Buddha - making it a theistic religion. It is a philosophy/path of ethical behavior with which to alleviate one's own self-created suffering. Reaching the concept of Nirvana, as many people have posted as being the Buddhist goal with literal reincarnation, is, according to scholastic Buddhism, the "extinguishing of one's own light (ego)", realizing that ALL are ONE - not All, and ME. We are all part of the same network. That is Nirvana.

Much of the ethics mentioned previously was taught by Jesus as well - which makes me think they are universal concepts. I have found them in many religions of the world - theistic and non-theistic alike. Therefore, there would be no conflict. One's ethics could be Buddhist/Christian and the spiritual path would be Christian.

Did that help?

[Ephinie]

P.S. The moniker, Wendygirl, is in respect for a philosophy teacher of mine. I am male, which may explain some of my "more than average" assertiveness, especially being from a Japanese society.Holy crap, you're a guy!? I am so sorry... all this time, I've thought you were a girl because your screen name says WendyGIRL.

[Wendygirljp]

Ephinie -

Not a problem. We do assume many things in life, don't we! Aren't you glad I am an XYY person!!

I get the same issue when it comes to when people hear me speaking. "You don't sound Japanese!" Amazing how everyone from Japan has to have a certain sound. I was trained for radio and television, so any accents have been erased, as well as building up more of the bariton ranges. What fun. Look what some folks do with Charlie Pride - the poor guy.

Bottom line, what difference does it make whether I am male or female, unless we are discussing issues of gender?

Again, apologies if it caused you confusion.

[Saruman]

I am so grateful and appreciative of your contribution and your thoughts, Wgjp. However, I just wanted to know something concerning your personal choice in beliefs. You say (unless I misread you) that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to "alleviate one's own self-created suffering". Now my question is, how do you plan to achieve this goal? I believe in so many ways that what Jesus Christ taught mankind is the complete opposite of what was taught by the "enlightened one." Jesus taught and demonstrated to mankind the need to rely upon Him, and that He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father" but by Him. He eliminates all other philosophies and man-made perceptions of how we might be able to "deal with" our own "self-created suffering", and boils everything down to Himself. Being God (a claim He made persistently and consistently through various miracles), He alone has the authority to tell mankind just what is and just what is not.

Do you believe it is possible for man to achieve harmony in and of himself? Can you live in perfection, without desiring (say) to spite your neighbor, or to flip off someone who cut you off on the freeway, or eliminate all possible feelings of lust towards another person? I know I am certainly not able to free myself from the fleshly habits that are so common among men. This is why Jesus Christ taught us to give ourselves completely over to Him, to the Good Master, because He has, through His death on the cross (and His resurrection three days later), given man the opportunity to be forgiven of all sins, if we will but confess Jesus Christ and repent before Him. "Take up your cross, and follow Me."

And, in the end, what is to become of you after this life? Do you know?

[Wendygirljp]

Saruman - thank you for asking your questions. It is appreciated, greatly.

You wrote that I stated "the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to "alleviate one's own self-created suffering"". Yes. That is true. Siddhartha (who is commonly called "The Buddha") was obsessed with the concept of suffering. He felt there had to be some way of ending the various forms of suffering, including that of disease, hunger, emotional imbalance, etc. He came up with "A WAY", not "THE WAY" to do so, much like a physician would treat a sick patient. That was known as the "Four Noble Truths". 1. There is suffering. 2. There is a cause of suffering. 3. There is hope - a way to cease that suffering. and 4, the medicine, which is known as the "Eightfold Path", eight basic ethics of living one's life.

Jesus taught about loving one another, including not judging what we do not know about others (maybe even self), to be honest, to do one's actions with the heart, not just for impressing another, basically, doing everything with love. Buddhism teaches the same thing.

The Buddha was not teaching about salvation, about spiritual aspects of any "life hereafter" in any literal terms, but in this thing we call life. He was a philosopher, living some 600 years before Jesus. Yet again, the message of the ethics, are remarkably nearly identical - however culturally, stated differently.

"Do you believe it is possible for man to achieve harmony in and of himself? Can you live in perfection, without desiring (say) to spite your neighbor, or to flip off someone who cut you off on the freeway, or eliminate all possible feelings of lust towards another person?"

Another excellent question. Yes, I believe it is possible - except it is not a "harmony in and of himself". It is a universal harmony. It is said that, once the illusion of ego is shed, that one sees the perfection in everything. Have I reached that point of enlightenment? Absolutely NOT! However, following the ethical path I have taken, along with the spiritual path I take also, I have found much more of the "perfection" and far less suffering than when I was much younger. I have also seen how the suffering I did as a child was perfect - for me. I would never wish anyone the same suffering, and I do everything I can to alleviate that kind of suffering for others, but I do see my lesson in the experiences mentioned.

"And, in the end, what is to become of you after this life? Do you know?"

Firstly, this is not relevant to Buddhism. It is relevant to spiritual belief, for me.

Do I know what will become of me? I will be the first to say "No, I have no idea!" I have some very good ideas or possibilities, but death is rather opaque as a door. It is difficult to see what lies beyond it until we step through it. My spiritual beliefs teach some ideas, but again, staying as objective as possible, I have no earthly idea. I just hope my beliefs are right, much as you believe yours are right.

[Ephinie]

Wendygirljp, nice reply to Saruman there. It was very informative. I have a question.

It is in regard to this concept of suffering. I don't know if you ever saw the movie, "Anna and the King." Of course, it is just a movie - I realize that. However, there is one point in the movie where someone makes the statement,

"All life is suffering." Does that statement in any way reflect the four points that you listed regarding suffering and the alleviation of suffering? I can see there is a difference between the statement that there is suffering and the statement that all life is suffering. I was just wondering if the latter had any relevence to the Buddhist point of view.

Also, in regard to this statement that you made:Much of the ethics mentioned previously was taught by Jesus as well - which makes me think they are universal concepts. I have found them in many religions of the world - theistic and non-theistic alike. Therefore, there would be no conflict. One's ethics could be Buddhist/Christian and the spiritual path would be Christian.
The Christian persepctive says that ALL truth is God's truth, no matter where it is found. Therefore, if there is truth found in the Buddhist's path, that means the truth came from God. Given this assertion, we as Christians would have no reason to say we are Buddhist/Christian. Christianity is not just a spiritual path, but a moral and ethical path as well. It is all-encompassing. It touches every aspect of our lives, not just the spiritual. Thus, we would simply say that we are Christian, nothing else. We may find studying the Buddah's teachings to be helpful and enlightening; but no matter how insightful they are, we would always hold Jesus and scripture to be the highest authority - the FINAL say on any matter. So, in any case where Buddhist doctrine conflicts with Christian doctrine, we would adhere to the Christian doctrine. This is why for a Christian, calling oneself a Buddhist/Christian would be... well... redundant. It would also be somewhat inaccurate, as Buddhism and Christianity are not 100% in harmony with each other. If they were, then they would be the same religion. And, as I said, Christianity is a religion that encompasses EVERY aspect of a person's life - spiritual, ethical, physical, mental. It is not exclusive to one area, such as spiritualism. In fact, it is impossible to BE a true Christian unless one is willing to allow Christ a say in all areas of life.

Basically, what I am saying is that it is pointless to say someone CAN be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time, just as it is equally pointless to say that someone CANNOT be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time.

[Wendygirljp]

Ephinie,

Thank you for your kindness.

""All life is suffering." Does that statement in any way reflect the four points that you listed regarding suffering and the alleviation of suffering?"

In "Buddhism 101", that is shown to be incorrect, as what was said that there IS suffering, not that life IS suffering. It may be a cultural translation difficulty, or the embellishment which happens. In English, the statement of the first Noble Truth is that "There is suffering."

"Christianity is not just a spiritual path, but a moral and ethical path as well. It is all-encompassing."

I agree. It makes perfect sense to me.

Being a Buddhist Christian is more than just looking at the Eightfold Path and comparing to the teachings of Jesus. It means one also practices the Five Great Vows - No stealing, intoxication, murder, lying or sexual impropriety. This includes just the consumption of ANY intoxicating beverage or chemical unless if for a medicine.

There are also issues of if one follows the Vows of the Bodhisattvah, which is to do everything one can do to alleviate suffering of others, in addition to one's own self. There are 29 vows there, few which are in Christianity.

In essence, those who practice the Five Great Vows, or these vows plus the Bodhisattvah vows, would not just be Christian, but Buddhist Christians.

From a purely Buddhist perspective, (mine), the source of the truth is not as important as the actual truth itself. If the source of the truth is God (which I also believe it is), then fine, but it is whether we work on these truths, or if we decide to just live any way we wish to in an anarchist way, what good is it? It is an issue of "beingness" vs. "doingness". We can just "do" the practices but not actually "be" it within in order to, maybe, impress others, or we can actually "be" what one believes, and the "doingness" comes cleanly, naturally, without any reason, but to be one's true self in action.

I hope this helps.

[Ephinie]

From a purely Buddhist perspective, (mine), the source of the truth is not as important as the actual truth itself. If the source of the truth is God (which I also believe it is), then fine, but it is whether we work on these truths, or if we decide to just live any way we wish to in an anarchist way, what good is it? It is an issue of "beingness" vs. "doingness". We can just "do" the practices but not actually "be" it within in order to, maybe, impress others, or we can actually "be" what one believes, and the "doingness" comes cleanly, naturally, without any reason, but to be one's true self in action.

I hope this helps.To a Christian, the source of the truth is every bit as important as the truth itself simply because Christ himself IS truth. I stated before that all truth is God's truth, no matter where it is found. To the Christian, Christ is the fullfillment of every truth that exists, and is in fact, the embodiment of truth. It is impossible to seperate the source of the truth from the truth itself, because they are one and the same thing.

One could say they believe in Jesus's words to love one's neighbor, so as long as they do that, they're all right. After all, the message of truth was to love your neighbor - the person who said it is unimportant. What happens here, then, is that someone is acting on a partial truth. They are getting part of the truth right, but they are still missing out on a lot.

You make an important distinction between being something and doing something. Yeah, we as humans can do one thing and say another. We can claim to believe in something and then not act out that belief. But that sort of thing is the result of falsehood being a part of our nature. We are not perfect, and we lie. Truth itself is incorrputible, and there is no falsehood in God.

Also, could you elaborate more on the 29 points that you mentioned? I can see where you would say that a Buddhist/Christian would be a Christian who follows these teachings. I'm still not sure why any Christian ever WOULD have a reason to be a Christian yet follow Buddhist vows as well. Christian theology would, logically, be more than enough to satisfy any desire to live with moral excellence. Of course, that sort of question would best be directed to someone who actually is a Buddhist/Christian, and I've never met one, soooo....

[Wendygirljp]

I am not meaning that the source of the truth is not important, but that one believe and follow that truth which is most important. Again, this is from my perspective. Personally, I think God has given ALL major religions the truth. The culture of the particular religions make the words different, but the meaning still remains.

Mainstream Christianity is about salvation. For whom? Self, correct? Nothing wrong with that. Again, salvation (from the Christian definition) is not relevant to Buddhism as Buddhism is about the here and now. The Bodhisattvah Vows (the 29 of which I mentioned) are solely about the alleviation of suffering for others, and through that helping others, you help yourself as well. (Vows, not points)

"One could say they believe in Jesus's words to love one's neighbor, so as long as they do that, they're all right. After all, the message of truth was to love your neighbor - the person who said it is unimportant. What happens here, then, is that someone is acting on a partial truth. They are getting part of the truth right, but they are still missing out on a lot."

Jesus did not say to "do it only if you believe in me, Jesus." He taught to love one another, period. It was a simple commandment. As one theologian said, "When Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 Commandments, they created all sorts of caveats to the point where they ended up with 613, not just 10. Jesus came along and said 'Okay, you can't handle 10, how about making it just one - love one another!'" Obviously, not literally, but it was an interesting perspective he had on the subject.

Personally, I find what Jesus taught to be from God, which means it is a universal truth, embedded in every atom throughout the universe. That is, again, why many others have taught the same lessons. This may sound like I am minimizing Jesus. I am not. I am saying, however, that I believe Jesus did get the same truths as did other people from the same source. And again, it is important to practice the lessons, no matter what one's religious beliefs may be as they are Universal.

"I'm still not sure why any Christian ever WOULD have a reason to be a Christian yet follow Buddhist vows as well."

That's fine. I am not suggesting all Christians practice Buddhism, either. There ARE some, including some ministers (ordained through seminary, not self-ordained) who do so. In other words, while you may not see any reason for a Christian to also practice Buddhism, that is fine. It is not YOUR path. It is for some others, however.
The same applies for Buddhist Jews and Buddhist Muslims as well, yet there are people who are those as well.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Mainstream Christianity is about salvation. For whom? Self, correct?Incorrect. Death.

[Wendygirljp]

POTW

"Incorrect. Death."

Still looking for fault, I see, by attempts at wordplay.

Do you really mean Christianity is about death - that death is your goal, and that life is not important? Your response, to me, was unclear.

P.S. I see you still have not put me on "ignore". Any comments about your threat level, yet?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

No, I meant literally, death. Christ promises to save those who follow Him from death. "Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.'" (John 11:25, 26) Christ says that those who believe in Him will never die.

Now, since believers in Him have been physically dying since the early days of Christianity, we have to conclude that either 1) Jesus was lying, or 2) He meant something other than physical death. Hence Christians believe that Christ will raise us from death and give us new bodies and new lives beyond death.

Of course, there is that pesky "he who believes in me" clause...

[Parthian King]

Then let me ask you this: was I laughing or reveling in the fact of WG's (pardon me if you're a guy) "losing her way?" did that come across to you, PK? Certainly not to me.

No, it didn't. But WG's sense of perception is very different than mine.

Boy, I'm not sure how "If you're religious, are you a born again Christian?" became a chat session regarding "The relativity of Christian ethics vis-a-vis other great world religions especially Buddhism." This is particularly bewildering given that Aravis has clarified what was already implicit, i.e., that the question refers to the many who name Christ in an ecclesiastical setting, yet may do so in a purely habitual fashion without having a genuine relationship with Him. That this has to even be expressed seems odd, since it is rather self-evident that a very religious Muslim (or whatever else) will never become a "born-again Christian" by means of his or her devotion. And if someone would retort that their devotion may nevertheless lead to God, there have been other threads addressing that question.

Dutifully expressing a mea culpa for my involvement in this rabbit-chasing, I would say I don't think I've ever seen a thread so off track. But then again, that's just my perspective. Perhaps "If you're religious, are you a born again Christian?" could mean, "Let's talk about Buddhism and how Jesus' teachings are metaphorical," since it all comes down to personal perspective, everything is relative, and who the heck needs those bothersome dictionary definitions anyway? POTW, I appeal to you as a mod: There should be no threads or categories at all. These strictures are sheer oppression. We should all just jump in and talk about whatever, whenever, and who cares what anyone said (including ourselves) in previous posts. Ah, the winds of freedom. I am seeing the light. I am reminded of a recipe...

[PrinceOfTheWest]

What we've got to keep before us is that there are, and always have been, two different schools of thought about supernatural things.

The first outlook holds that religions were invented by man. In the early days of history, as he lumbered about dragging women into caves by their hair, he sought to understand and bring meaning to the world he lived in. He saw order in the movement of the stars and changing of the seasons, and imagined that sentient beings caused that order. As he built societies and civilizations he found that certain behaviours worked better than others, and thus laws and morals were born. In time he pondered things, and wrote or crafted out of his ponderings, and thus art was born. Some men deemed that societies would run more harmoniously if people believed that some Greater Power wanted them to obey the laws, so they invented stories about how the gods had handed down the laws, along with dire penalties for disobeying them. This proved a useful tool for getting people to toe the line, so the government was linked with the gods, and religious practice was linked to secular power. Ignorant folk were held captive by superstition and overawed by priestly castes and governors who ruled by divine power.

In time, though, as men became better enlightened and educated, they began to see these structures for what they really were. The power of superstition was weakened, and dogma gave way to an understanding that beliefs were there to serve individuals and help them live more meaningful and fulfilled lives. People might fit into broad frameworks like Christian or Muslim for the sake of comfort or cultural convenience, in the final analysis religions and belief systems were there to serve the individual, and should be tailored to fit each person's perspective on life.

I call this the "Religious Studies" outlook, and though my summary is brief and rough-cut, it serves the purpose. (If you want more detail, anything by Joseph Campbell should do.) The point to recognize about the RS view is that it is first and foremost anthropocentric - that is, it is centered around man. The works and words of man are the greatest things in view. Either there is no god, or god is functionally irrelevant. His existence may serve for men to hang attributes on or use as a psychological comfort, but in the end he is at most a background figure, smiling benevolently on all men while he encourages them to be the very best they can be. God's existence or non-existence is a moot question - the point is that God is a useful concept for man's utility. What really matters is man: his outlooks, his beliefs, his perspectives. The presumption here is that the needs of man are the source of all things. Visits from the gods? Helpful inventions of man's imagination to explain the inexplicable. Divine Law? Rules of social order writ large. Mystical visions? Psychological projections rising from the tortured complexity of the human heart.

The perspective of someone who holds the Religious Studies view is detachment. An RS man stands aloof - after all, he is in the know; he understands. He critiques all beliefs from a distance, for he is above them all. He can select what he wishes from all belief systems and craft an outlook that suits his view of life. If any systems teach inconvenient or uncomfortable things? Well, those can be trimmed away - after all, they are but vestiges of an earlier, darker time. We enlightened ones have moved beyond such superstitions. For him, the important thing is the act of belief itself. That one should believe, and believe strongly - ah, that is the central thing. What is believed in is not as important as that it is believed firmly, and that the belief brings meaning and comfort to the holder. This is why almost the only sin the RS man recognizes is implying that the beliefs of others may not be correct. After all, if another person holds a belief that is meaningful to him, than what right does any other man have to say that belief is wrong?

In contrast to the Religious Studies view is what I'll call the Revelational view. This view holds that there is, in fact, a God. God exists apart from human existence; He existed before there were men to respond to Him, and if there were no men, He would still exist. This view holds that men are not accidents - this God made us for purposes of His own, and our existence depends on Him (instead of the other way around). The Revelational view holds that God has told men things about Himself (revealed things; hence the name), and that man is expected to respond in certain manners to this knowledge. For instance, since God designed man sort of like a man would design an engine, God knows what is best for man and can state this knowledge in the form of laws (much as a man might write up a manual to explain how to use and care for an engine). The Revelational view holds that God can and does explain Himself to man, and though men might distort and misuse this knowledge, at the core it is knowledge given by God. Above all, the Revelational view holds that God is an objective reality, and what men believe or don't believe about Him has no impact on His existence.

The Religious Studies view is very popular these days, and has been since the Romantic Movement in the 1800s. Interestingly, one of its most steadfast and eloquent opponents was C.S. Lewis. In all his writings, both scholarly and fictional, he rejected the Religious Studies view and championed the Revelational view. Consider this cut from That Hideous Strength, where the protagonist Jane Studdock - well educated in Religious Studies - realizes something about how she views religion:"Religion" was kind of an exhalation or a cloud of incense, something steaming up from specially gifted souls to a receptive Heaven. Then, quite sharply, it occurred to her that the Director never talked about religion; nor did the Dimbles or Camilla. They talked about God. They had no picture in their minds of some mist streaming upward; rather of strong, skilful hands thrust down to make, and mend, perhaps to destroy.This is Jack Lewis' view of God, for he is one of the most fervent of the Revelational types - an orthodox Christian. We Christians believe that God didn't just stand at a distance and send truths down, but He came Himself. He didn't just teach, but He died to take away the effect of our sin. And He didn't just die, but He rose from the dead, walking out of cold tomb under His own power - and that His feet left footprints on the grass as He walked.

One reason that people who hold the Religious Studies view have such a hard time understanding the Revelational view is that they misunderstand what we mean by "belief". To them, the act of believing is what is sacred, and the object (i.e. what is believed in) is secondary. For us, the object of belief is the important thing. The Revelational view is theocentric - God-centered. It isn't that you believe, but who you believe, and why. Christians like C.S. Lewis believed that Jesus Christ was speaking objective truth, and historical incidents like the Resurrection were intended to confirm the validity of what Christ said. Lewis understood that people can believe wrong things and reap the consequences of that wrong belief (see chapter 5 of The Great Divorce). In this and other threads, WG has been propounding the Religious Studies view, while myself, Parthian King, and others have been advancing the Revelational view. We are nowhere near as eloquent as C.S. Lewis, so we recommend all to read a lot of his works. That will help you better understand what is being said, and denied, in this discussion.

[iamperfectlyme]

I'm sayin gthis threading on very thin ice here. No matter what you debate here, youre probably not going to change anyone's mind or opinion. Don't be so hostile when debating, because most likely, no one is going to change their mind because you made a comment against what they believe. (This doesnt go to anyone in particular, by the way)

[Parthian King]

I'm sayin gthis threading on very thin ice here. No matter what you debate here, youre probably not going to change anyone's mind or opinion. Don't be so hostile when debating, because most likely, no one is going to change their mind because you made a comment against what they believe. (This doesnt go to anyone in particular, by the way)

Of course not. Lewis was an apologist, and while Christian apology (read: defense of the faith) is directed towards unbelievers in form, it is directed towards believers in substance. If you think, WPMLover, that anyone is attempting to convince WG of anything, you are misreading our intent.

[iamperfectlyme]

Just by reading what was said back and forth I thought maybe some were a little bit, but yes as a Christian I really do believe in mistering to people. Its just that in a debate like this, most people's minds are made up and sometimes they get defensive over chalenges to what they believe. Thats all I was saying. But yes to the ORIGINAL SUBJECT, religiousity and being born again are 2 totally different things.
You can go to church every Sunday, but you wont go to Heaven just for going to church. Jesus said that all go to the Father through Him. not all go to the Father through singing in the choir every Sunday morning.

[Parthian King]

But yes to the ORIGINAL SUBJECT, religiousity and being born again are 2 totally different things. You can go to church every Sunday, but you wont go to Heaven just for going to church. Jesus said that all go to the Father through Him. not all go to the Father through singing in the choir every Sunday morning.

I agree. Keith Green ( contemporary Christian musician from way back) used to say "Going to church doesn't mean you're a Christian anymore than going to McDonald's means you're a hamburger." A bit hyperbolic, but it makes the point.

[iamperfectlyme]

Im loving the object lesson lol! But yes I think that was what I was trying to get across.

[Aravis Kenobi]

POTW, that was a very long post. I didn't read all of it, but I'm sure it's good. Does anyone think I should rename the thread?

[inkspot]

You can rename the thread if you want it to continue as a discussion of Buddhism compared to Christianity, or we can come back to the original topic:

Is everyone who attends a Christian church, in fact, "saved" in the Christian definition of salvation?

your choice ...

Wendygirl - I am on vacation and haven't been online in a while and did not realize you are a guy! Sorry for the confusion. :)

[Aravis Kenobi]

You can rename the thread if you want it to continue as a discussion of Buddhism compared to Christianity, or we can come back to the original topic:

Is everyone who attends a Christian church, in fact, "saved" in the Christian definition of salvation?

your choice ...

Wendygirl - I am on vacation and haven't been online in a while and did not realize you are a guy! Sorry for the confusion. :)

I like both topics. I might add a subtitle to it.

[Wendygirljp]

Inkspot - no problem - gender is not relevant, imho, to the topics at hand.

I hope your holiday was enjoyable.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Have we exhausted all possible discussion on this topic?

[Solya]

Is everyone who attends a Christian church, in fact, "saved" in the Christian definition of salvation?

No, of course not. That would mean that you wouldn't have to pay attention to what you believe and what you don't believe because you can simply go to the church and be saved after all. :rolleyes: I know a lot of people who think that they'll be saved if they do but I find that pretty sad... it's like they don't want to think about their connection with God... but they go to church "just in case" there really is a life after death and everything. I think it is the same in other religions.

Anyway, I always say "it doesn't matter how you show your belief... but it matters what lives inside of you". :) Going to church and participating in every other outward 'show' of religion won't save you and eventually bring you to heaven. It matters what you believe deep down inside of your own heart and soul. I firmly believe in God and in an after-life, but yet I am only a Christian by matter of upbringing. But that doesn't mean that I don't place my life in God's hands and it doesn't mean that I'm not going to do what God tells me to do.

I believe that the decision of whether or not you ascend to heaven lies more in what you do with your connection to God than in the way in which you choose to express your belief in God. Non-Christians who live a good life and who have embraced God in different ways are also brought to heaven... or at least, that is what I believe because I can't get over the fact that God will differentiate between one religion and the other in the end.

[xx_Williamgirly_xx]

hey guys.......
i'm a born-christian...
thaught, i can write..^^

[Aravis Kenobi]

Is that all you're going to share? Great that you're a born-again Christian, though!

[xx_Williamgirly_xx]

are u a born-christian, too??

[Aravis Kenobi]

Yes. Glad you noticed.

[xx_Williamgirly_xx]

cool... i like, that on this fan-site are so much christians...=)

[Aravis Kenobi]

I know what you mean. My sisters in Christ have supported me more in the last few days than I could say.

[xx_Williamgirly_xx]

=)) yeah.. i like it really,....

[Aravis Kenobi]

It's nice, except when some people attack you and take things out of context.

[DaughterofGondor]

i am! yay! whoo hoo! in my town msot people are so i don't have to worry about being made fun of or anything, i like that.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I pretty much always ask people this when they first post in this thread: what is your definition of a Christian?

[DaughterofGondor]

I think it is a person who belives in Jesus Christ ( who is also God)as their savior.

[Aravis Kenobi]

That, and also someone who has a personal relationship with Christ. The latter is my definition.

[AderStor]

Nope. Old-fashioned. Born-again Christians actaully make me uneasy, for some reason or another...

[Aravis Kenobi]

Might it be because you think they might actually be right? And that the Holy Spirit is making you that way so you'll keep thinking about it?

[Quentilian]

think deeper... why are they making you so uneasey? is what Avaris said right? just think about it and ask around. who knows maybe a person in scool or even one of your friends is a born-again christain, and are you uneasey around them?

[Aravis Kenobi]

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still here. I forgot I even started it. :rolleyes: Seems like this thread has lost its discussion point.

[Copperfox]

Aravis, it's just that points lead to related points, which lead to still other points.

There's a right reason and a wrong reason for being uneasy with Christians. It's perfectly natural, even healthy, to be uneasy with FAKE Christians--and with the persisting shortcomings of not-yet-perfected real ones. But there are times when people are specifically reacting against Christians on the very points those Christians are RIGHT about. Someone said that a stubborn sinner "can't find" God for the same reason a thief "can't find" a policeman. There are times when someone claims to be uneasy about Christians because the uneasy one really knows he's wrong about something, pridefully refuses to admit it, and hates being even passively reminded of it.

[Aslan's Beloved Daughter]

I am a real born-again Christian!

[echoscot]

Copperfox, what a well put statement. I am a born-again Christian, but can understand some people being uneasy because of all of the commercializing of the phrase over the last 30 years or so and the various themes it has come to represent which undercut the very meaning of Christ's original and very simple statement to Nicodemus.

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

I heard someone say it is not enough now days to be a Christian so we must be Disciples.

[Shadow Hawk]

I'm a born again Christian. :D

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

Yes I am too...I am listenin' to Jesus Freak cause I am one

[Copperfox]

Have you heard the saying "If you're not moving forward, you're moving backward"? Without bothering to raise such questions as eternal security or the relationship between faith and works, it can be simply stated that anyone who loves Jesus will not WANT to be stagnant. If you know Him at all, you will want to know Him better, and follow Him more consistently. This IS discipleship. It is not dependent on any particular program or organization, although obviously we have more chance of growing in grace if we accept the input of those more experienced than we are. Proverbs 13:20 assures us: "He who walks with wise men becomes wise."

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

Could someone give me the Defintion of Religion because I think by the comment I maybe putting a long comment on religions

[Copperfox]

"Religion" is sometimes taken to mean ANY set of beliefs that purports to explain the meaning (or meaninglessness?) of the universe. This would then include materialistic secular humanism--which casts a new light on the contemporary efforts of secular humanists to convince us that no religious view is allowed to be heard in the public square EXCEPT secular humanism.

But more often, "religion" means a system taking in inspired writings, ritual sacraments, and rules of behavior, intended to place us in a right relationship with a supreme supernatural power. Many will narrow the definition just a little farther, to mean writings, rituals and rules WHICH ARE INVENTED BY PEOPLE. While the atheist would say "They're all invented by people anyway," a Christian can see sense in this last narrowing of the term...because we Christians maintain that a relationship with God through Jesus is NOT something we made up--it IS a divine reality.

[Gryphon]

Christianity, by the world's standards, is a religion. We believe in a god, worship and serve a god, follow his teachings and converse with other people who believe in the same things.

The only thing is, we know our god. He's God. He's the biggest, and I know a lot of religious people out there are gonna disagree with me, but I'm speaking mostly to the Christian populace who, even now, are slowly nodding their heads in agreement.

When you get into the heart of Christianity, its all about knowing God, not just worshiping him. I mean, lets think about that logically, Jesus our Lord and Savior, came and died for a relationship, not a religion. He wanted us to not just understand and follow his teachings, but love Him and know Him intimately.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

[Aravis Kenobi]

Christianity, by the world's standards, is a religion. We believe in a god, worship and serve a god, follow his teachings and converse with other people who believe in the same things.

The only thing is, we know our god. He's God. He's the biggest, and I know a lot of religious people out there are gonna disagree with me, but I'm speaking mostly to the Christian populace who, even now, are slowly nodding their heads in agreement.

When you get into the heart of Christianity, its all about knowing God, not just worshiping him. I mean, lets think about that logically, Jesus our Lord and Savior, came and died for a relationship, not a religion. He wanted us to not just understand and follow his teachings, but love Him and know Him intimately.

The thing that strikes me most about the difference between Christianity and other religions is this: we know our God. He's a personal God. The other religions are just about pleasing their god, worshipping him, blah blah blah. Our God is personal; He longs to have a relationship with us.

[Sain]

Religion does not equate to being saved. There are many religions in the world; many people even become seemingly religious over secular things such as the NFL. Salvation come through the sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ and a true change of spirit. Empty rituals will get no one to heaven.

[Rosalind]

NO!

Assuming you mean with Christians... a lot of people go to church for popularity, socializing, because mom and dad made them, or just to get a one-way ticket to heaven, but whether you went to church every Sunday or not, what makes you Born-Again is whether you have accepted Jesus as your Savior. Even just believe in God might not just cut it.

Jack Lewis' parents went to church just because they were against Catholicism or something... not actually for the religion. That turned Jack off to Christianity until he finally converted.

Pretty much most, if not almost all except me, of the kids (even teachers, too) who attend my school and are "Christian" just go to church and pray and all that stuff because mom and dad make 'em, though I doubt most of them care much whether Jesus died for them. In fact, most challenge the faith and I thought they were atheists until I found out the were Catholic or another branch of Ch. Maybe it's unfair of me to say so, but that's how it comes off to me.

[Copperfox]

I was fortunate, in a roundabout sort of way, that I did NOT believe in Jesus, nor in any definite deity, until I was in college. That way, once I did start following Jesus (in part because of what I learned about Biblical history in college), no one could dismiss my new faith by saying, "You only believe that because your parents taught you to!"

[Aravis Kenobi]

Religion does not equate to being saved. There are many religions in the world; many people even become seemingly religious over secular things such as the NFL. Salvation come through the sincere acceptance of Jesus Christ and a true change of spirit. Empty rituals will get no one to heaven.

Exactly. Think of it this way:

Religion: man's way of reaching towards God< through good works, stuff like that

Christianity (where a relationship with Christ is prevelant (sp?)< God reaching down to man through His Son, Jesus Christ.

[LifeMaiden]

Exactly. Think of it this way:

Religion: man's way of reaching towards God< through good works, stuff like that

Christianity (where a relationship with Christ is prevelant (sp?)< God reaching down to man through His Son, Jesus Christ.

I'm not an Evangelical ' born again' . I am a Catholic. When I first came here I was not saved because I had denied Christ for years. My big question of the day was...how different is Christianity from 'any other religion?' One big difference that was made in my own life was the emphasis from members here was that Christianity deals with, as you said, Copperfox, a RELATIONSHIP with God. It's not about being so far away and removed from Him that He's untouchable or unreachable. No other 'religion' promises any kind of salvation.

[Copperfox]

"Evangelical" is a term with some flexibility. There are Roman Catholics who would consider themselves in a way to be _evangelical_ Roman Catholics, because, without discarding the Roman understanding of sacraments and worship, they properly place a great emphasis on the necessity of an individual commitment to Jesus. As a matter of fact, just last night I was at a charismatic prayer meeting with a bunch of my Catholic friends who fit this description; they were rejoicing with me at the recent news of my daughter's becoming a Christian.


Joseph Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"

[Aravis Kenobi]

"Evangelical" is a term with some flexibility. There are Roman Catholics who would consider themselves in a way to be _evangelical_ Roman Catholics, because, without discarding the Roman understanding of sacraments and worship, they properly place a great emphasis on the necessity of an individual commitment to Jesus. As a matter of fact, just last night I was at a charismatic prayer meeting with a bunch of my Catholic friends who fit this description; they were rejoicing with me at the recent news of my daughter's becoming a Christian.


Joseph Ravitts, author of "Southward the Tigers"

Your daughter became a recent Christian? That's awesome. I guess you can call me Protestant; since the Baptists originated from the Protestants.

[Copperfox]

I had an ecumenical first marriage: me an all-over-the-road evangelical, married to a Catholic-raised woman whom I had first met at a Catholic charismatic prayer group. My Mary would fit the description what I call "evangelical Catholics"--emphasizing the personal relationship with God, and never falling into the delusion that the body of believers begins and ends entirely and only at the Vatican. HOW my Mary must be celebrating now, looking down from Heaven upon the daughter for whose redemption she had prayed so long and fervently! When Janalee move to where Annemarie and he husband Anthony live, we will probably attend the evangelical church they go to.

By the way, a funny thing about Baptists: they were originally known, in effect, as those who DIDN'T get baptized! That is, because they didn't baptize BABIES, the liturgical churches called them Anabaptists, meaning roughly "the unbaptized," though what they did was simply to _postpone_ baptism till a person could understand what was happening. "Anabaptist" was later shortened to the now-familar term.

[LifeMaiden]

Even though my great grandfather was a Baptist minister, his son, my grandfather, attended a few other Christian churches, including Presbyterian. But at heart he was a Baptist.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I had an ecumenical first marriage: me an all-over-the-road evangelical, married to a Catholic-raised woman whom I had first met at a Catholic charismatic prayer group. My Mary would fit the description what I call "evangelical Catholics"--emphasizing the personal relationship with God, and never falling into the delusion that the body of believers begins and ends entirely and only at the Vatican. HOW my Mary must be celebrating now, looking down from Heaven upon the daughter for whose redemption she had prayed so long and fervently! When Janalee move to where Annemarie and he husband Anthony live, we will probably attend the evangelical church they go to.

By the way, a funny thing about Baptists: they were originally known, in effect, as those who DIDN'T get baptized! That is, because they didn't baptize BABIES, the liturgical churches called them Anabaptists, meaning roughly "the unbaptized," though what they did was simply to _postpone_ baptism till a person could understand what was happening. "Anabaptist" was later shortened to the now-familar term.

Wow. In history, I'm currently reading about the Protestant Reformation and came across that info about the Anabaptists.

[Copperfox]

Many Protestants lose out on great blessings by refusing to bother studying the span of Christian history running from the completion of the Bible to just before they themselves became Christians. On the other hand, I would be disappointed in the Bible if it were NOT possible to study just it by itself and obtain (by the Holy Spirit's enlightening) sufficient spiritual and moral wisdom to live an effective Christian life.

This reminds me somehow of a very silly thought I once had. I imagined an experiment, comparing two groups of recently-converted believers. The goal of the experiment would be to see if much difference was made in their Christian growth by differing selections in their first year of Bible study. Both of my groups would have the entire Old Testament available to them, but the New Testament would be split between them. One group would be allowed, in the New Testament, to read only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Book of Acts, the NON-Pauline Epistles (counting Hebrews as non-Pauline), and Revelation. The other group would get the Gospels of Luke and John, the Book of Acts (thus the only NT book seen by both groups), and all of Paul's Epistles. After a year of this program, I would have everyone in each group write a paper about what they were learning of the Christian faith, and see if there were noticeable group differences.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I can't read all your post right now, but I have to subscribe to this.

[Copperfox]

If by "subscribe," you mean something to do with my writings, I can in fact offer you a way to see more of my work WITHOUT dropping your anti-internet-stalker defenses. You can go to my weblogs, which have NO software to track down those who visit. Note that the first is less argumentative than the second.

http://ut-fidem-praestem.blogspot.com

http://empowered-anti-nonsense.blogspot.com

[Mrs.Moseley~QueenofNarnia]

i am Christian myself, Mormon, to be more exact, but i don't think you nessicarily have to be Christian to be relgious. being religious just means that you love your religion(basically everything about it), you strongly believe in god, your religion is a big part of your life. there are many people outside of the Christian religions that are very religious. my religion is a very big part of my life as well. i want to live the best i can, to go back to heaven and be with my heavenly father, brother Jesus, Grandfather and great-grandmother. in my opinon, the second coming isn't far off. signs are being fulfilled. this is what makes ME religious, trusting in my heavenly father and Jesus with my life that if something bad happens to me, they will be there to catch me when i fall.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Many Protestants lose out on great blessings by refusing to bother studying the span of Christian history running from the completion of the Bible to just before they themselves became Christians. On the other hand, I would be disappointed in the Bible if it were NOT possible to study just it by itself and obtain (by the Holy Spirit's enlightening) sufficient spiritual and moral wisdom to live an effective Christian life.

This reminds me somehow of a very silly thought I once had. I imagined an experiment, comparing two groups of recently-converted believers. The goal of the experiment would be to see if much difference was made in their Christian growth by differing selections in their first year of Bible study. Both of my groups would have the entire Old Testament available to them, but the New Testament would be split between them. One group would be allowed, in the New Testament, to read only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, the Book of Acts, the NON-Pauline Epistles (counting Hebrews as non-Pauline), and Revelation. The other group would get the Gospels of Luke and John, the Book of Acts (thus the only NT book seen by both groups), and all of Paul's Epistles. After a year of this program, I would have everyone in each group write a paper about what they were learning of the Christian faith, and see if there were noticeable group differences.

Interesting. When I meant subscribe to this, I meant subscribing to this thread. I had cleared out all my subscriptions and am building them back up. But thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

[Copperfox]

MRS-MOSELY-QUEEN-OF-NARNIA:

Concerning your statement that to be a Mormon is to be a Christian: I bear no ill-will at all to you personally, but a few facts need to be examined. What I am about to say, I get from reading substantial portions of "Doctrines and Covenants" (less publicized than the Book of Mormon, but important in their church teaching), plus things that Mormon missionaries themselves have said to me when they were trying to convince me they were right.

In _real_ LDS doctrine, at least in most branches of the LDS, there is a crucially important claim which they don't usually state up-front to the public at large. The claim is that the God we know in the Bible was NOT really eternally existent from eternity-past, but rather that He had a _beginning_--from a _previous_ God. That earlier God, still existing somewhere, arose from a _still_ earlier God, and that one from an even earlier one, and so on in infinite retrogression. (I'm told that the Reorganized LDS Church is dropping this doctrine, but others retain it.) This is in absolute contradiction to Isaiah 43:10, where THE God says, "Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me."

Mormons try to dodge around this flat statement by saying it really means that the Biblical God "is the only one with Whom _we_ have dealings;" but that's denying the screamingly obvious meaning of the Scripture. God did not say "Before Me no god was formed in this neighborhood;" He made an ALL-encompassing declaration that there IS NO other God AT ALL. Oh, and the "after Me" part is also significant, because Mormons of most branches are taught that _they_ can become gods, even eventually creating their own worlds.

If Mormonism were true, then the Chronicles of Narnia could not be a faithful reflection of spiritual truth unless Aslan informed the children that the Emperor came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor, and so on.

Not only do Mormons have "extra scriptures" to go by, they also change the meaning of the _real_ Scriptures. In "Doctrines and Covenants," for instance, I have seen a statement that God told Abraham to have sex with the maidservant Hagar in addition to his wife Sarah; but what Genesis _actually_ says is that _Sarah_ thought of this idea for herself due to her infertility. This intentional alteration of God's Word was convenient for Mormon founder Joseph Smith, as justification for himself and his close buddies to have harems. But I sure wouldn't care to follow a "prophet" who makes a point of interpreting God's will in a way that gives the "prophet" expanded sexual privileges.

And then there's the "martyrdom" of Joseph Smith. Mormons would have us believe that he died heroically for his faith. Here's what really happened:

When the first Mormons established themselves at Nauvoo, Illinois, Smith set himself up as an autonomous ruler, complete with his own militia. After some years of Smith running things, one man in the community decided that the leader's self-indulgence could not really be the way of a God-given prophet; so this man started a newspaper called The Nauvoo Expositor to denounce the ruling elite. Smith's response was to show how much he cared for anyone's freedoms other than his own: he sent a goon squad to destroy the presses of the Expositor. This provoked the governor of Illinois to inform the Nauvoo elders that, if Smith did not immediately submit himself to arrest, federal troops would be called in to disarm the Mormon militia. Smith turned himself in at the Carthage County jail. That was where a mob eventually murdered him--NOT because he was a saint, but because he had shown himself to be a petty dictator. Although it was not right for Smith to be killed without having been found guilty of any capital crime, the fact is that he brought it upon himself by his arrogance.

All major points I have made here are VERY well documented; and this is only PART of the proof available to show that Mormonism is NOT synonymous with Christianity. If anyone protests that I am being too "exclusive," I reply that JOSEPH SMITH HIMSELF argued that all other churches of his time were illegitimate, so that he was needed to restore the "true" faith. Since Mormons _began_ by excluding the rest of us, they have no grounds to complain if I now point out the differences. And I haven’t even said everything I know.

[Aravis Kenobi]

MRS-MOSELY-QUEEN-OF-NARNIA:

Concerning your statement that to be a Mormon is to be a Christian: I bear no ill-will at all to you personally, but a few facts need to be examined. What I am about to say, I get from reading substantial portions of "Doctrines and Covenants" (less publicized than the Book of Mormon, but important in their church teaching), plus things that Mormon missionaries themselves have said to me when they were trying to convince me they were right.

In _real_ LDS doctrine, at least in most branches of the LDS, there is a crucially important claim which they don't usually state up-front to the public at large. The claim is that the God we know in the Bible was NOT really eternally existent from eternity-past, but rather that He had a _beginning_--from a _previous_ God. That earlier God, still existing somewhere, arose from a _still_ earlier God, and that one from an even earlier one, and so on in infinite retrogression. (I'm told that the Reorganized LDS Church is dropping this doctrine, but others retain it.) This is in absolute contradiction to Isaiah 43:10, where THE God says, "Before Me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after Me."

Mormons try to dodge around this flat statement by saying it really means that the Biblical God "is the only one with Whom _we_ have dealings;" but that's denying the screamingly obvious meaning of the Scripture. God did not say "Before Me no god was formed in this neighborhood;" He made an ALL-encompassing declaration that there IS NO other God AT ALL. Oh, and the "after Me" part is also significant, because Mormons of most branches are taught that _they_ can become gods, even eventually creating their own worlds.

If Mormonism were true, then the Chronicles of Narnia could not be a faithful reflection of spiritual truth unless Aslan informed the children that the Emperor came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor who came from a previous Emperor, and so on.

Not only do Mormons have "extra scriptures" to go by, they also change the meaning of the _real_ Scriptures. In "Doctrines and Covenants," for instance, I have seen a statement that God told Abraham to have sex with the maidservant Hagar in addition to his wife Sarah; but what Genesis _actually_ says is that _Sarah_ thought of this idea for herself due to her infertility. This intentional alteration of God's Word was convenient for Mormon founder Joseph Smith, as justification for himself and his close buddies to have harems. But I sure wouldn't care to follow a "prophet" who makes a point of interpreting God's will in a way that gives the "prophet" expanded sexual privileges.

And then there's the "martyrdom" of Joseph Smith. Mormons would have us believe that he died heroically for his faith. Here's what really happened:

When the first Mormons established themselves at Nauvoo, Illinois, Smith set himself up as an autonomous ruler, complete with his own militia. After some years of Smith running things, one man in the community decided that the leader's self-indulgence could not really be the way of a God-given prophet; so this man started a newspaper called The Nauvoo Expositor to denounce the ruling elite. Smith's response was to show how much he cared for anyone's freedoms other than his own: he sent a goon squad to destroy the presses of the Expositor. This provoked the governor of Illinois to inform the Nauvoo elders that, if Smith did not immediately submit himself to arrest, federal troops would be called in to disarm the Mormon militia. Smith turned himself in at the Carthage County jail. That was where a mob eventually murdered him--NOT because he was a saint, but because he had shown himself to be a petty dictator. Although it was not right for Smith to be killed without havng been found guilty of any capital crime, the fact is that he brought it upon himself by his arrogance.

All major points I have made here are VERY well documented; and this is only PART of the proof available to show that Mormonism is NOT synonymous with Christianity. If anyone protests that I am being too "exclusive," I reply that JOSEPH SMITH HIMSELF argued that all other churches of his time were illegitimate, so that he was needed to restore the "true" faith. Since Mormons _began_ by excluding the rest of us, they have no grounds to complain if I now point out the differences. And I haven’t even said everything I know.


Wow. I didn't know a lot of that. Thanks for that Copperfox. In my opinion, the arguments are as solid as God's kingdom.

[Jack of Blades]

I don't beleive Christianity to be a religion.
Its a relationship.
Christian litterally means 'Little Christ'

The bible refers to us as Jesus's bride. Thats where the relationship comes in.
But it should be obvious that just reading the Bible and going to church every Sunday does not make you a born again Christian.

[Sir Benjamin the Lion]

I agree Thomas. It's not a ceremony. We are Christians. A day to day thing. We do not stop whorshipping and praying because the Relationship is there every single day.

[fernshirehobbit]

I agree Thomas. It's not a ceremony. We are Christians. A day to day thing. We do not stop whorshipping and praying because the Relationship is there every single day.

yes. Are christian walk should be a real thing to us. we should take it to heart.

[Aravis Kenobi]

I don't beleive Christianity to be a religion.
Its a relationship.
Christian litterally means 'Little Christ'

The bible refers to us as Jesus's bride. Thats where the relationship comes in.
But it should be obvious that just reading the Bible and going to church every Sunday does not make you a born again Christian.

I agree completely. (though I didn't know that Christian meant that; I learn something new every day. :D )

[Skulblaka_Shur'tugal]

I agree. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian. You need Jesus in your heart. It wasn't until I was thirteen when I invited Jesus into my heart, even though I had called myself a Christian before. I actually made the choice right after seeing Narnia. I was so amazed by how Aslan died to save Edmund, and Jesus died to save me. And everybody else on this forum, and the world.

[Copperfox]

Note that it's not automatically wrong to HAVE traditions and rituals, but they are NOT what saves us. Going from tradition with no relationship, to an actual relationship with Jesus whether you have traditions or not, is like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz" going from a black-and-white world to a world full of color.

[Skulblaka_Shur'tugal]

True. My church denomination has the tradition to go four hours over the allowed time for a sermon (a bunch of zzzs in the back rows), along with a few more traditions. But we all know that God saves only if we ask him to.

[Aravis Kenobi]

Glad my dad doesn't preach that long. :p But seriously, calling yourself a "Christian" is like calling yourself a "Muslim" or a "Buddhist"; to some, it's just a title, with no sincerity attached. It's something that they think is cool to call themselves, but not necessarily one who has said the prayer, asked Christ into their lives, and is actually living like a born-again Christian.

[inkspot]

Glad my dad doesn't preach that long. :p But seriously, calling yourself a "Christian" is like calling yourself a "Muslim" or a "Buddhist"; to some, it's just a title, with no sincerity attached. It's something that they think is cool to call themselves, but not necessarily one who has said the prayer, asked Christ into their lives, and is actually living like a born-again Christian.
That's true. In the USA people think they are a Christian because they aren't Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist, and maybe their parents went to church or there is a church they go to on Christmas and Easter ... That's like a "cultural" Christian. But there is so much more to life with Christ, living the Christ life and allowing Him to be the center of your life. That's more what Christianity is. :)

[Aravis Kenobi]

Or people think they're Christians because their parents were; or what's called, "inherited belief" which will not send you to heaven. If your cousin were a terrorist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.. would that automatically make you like them? Of course, you'd have their blood in you, but just because you do, it doesn't make your nature like theirs. Or your religion like theirs.