View Full Version : Jesus is the only way to salvation??
greenberg
08-17-08, 09:53 AM
How come Christians (and perhaps some others) hold that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and that following no other person or way or means can lead to salvation?
Whence this exclusiveness?
Jesus said so.
John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Matthew 28
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Jesus said so.
John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Matthew 28
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Has it occured to you that Jesus, if he existed, might have been nuts ? Yet another false prophet.
How come Christians (and perhaps some others) hold that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and that following no other person or way or means can lead to salvation?
Whence this exclusiveness?
By asserting people actually need salvation, the endless circular argument of salvation exists.
Maybe, no one needs salvation?
By asserting people actually need salvation, the endless circular argument of salvation exists.
Maybe, no one needs salvation?
Adstar does but I won't say from what.
Seems like something was lost in translation there.
Seems like something was lost in translation there.
Sheep. You've heard of lost sheep ? For Muslims read lost camels !
Sheep. You've heard of lost sheep ? For Muslims read lost camels !
TRUST IN ALLAH!!!
... but tie up your camel. :D
Sheep. You've heard of lost sheep ? For Muslims read lost camels !
Hmm, is that a dromedary? Considering Jesus' life goals, it would appear contradictory to his personal beliefs to lay down such conditions for salvation. After all, anyone willing to take on everyone else's suffering is hardly consonant with someone holding very high and mighty views of himself. This is more reflective of the philanthropists of today, who send teddy bears to make a statement about their beliefs and pat themselves on the back for their "achievements".
PsychoticEpisode
08-17-08, 01:20 PM
If you want to save yourself, become an atheist. It's the only way.
Based on my experience here, atheists are slaves to empiricism. Empiricism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
Empiricism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
Lies and fabrications on your part are thinly veiled, Sam.
But then, you're tied down by medieval cult doctrines, which are exactly "other peoples views of what you see."
:D
And you? You have no concepts except those by consensus. Independent thinking indeed.
PsychoticEpisode
08-17-08, 01:56 PM
Based on my experience here, atheists are slaves to empiricism. Empiricism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
Empiricism isn't watching my every move, isn't going to throw me into a fiery hell, isn't going to insight me to war, isn't going to get me soliciting door to door conversions, isn't going to get me to degrade women, etc.
Empiricism isn't watching my every move, isn't going to throw me into a fiery hell, isn't going to insight me to war, isn't going to get me soliciting door to door conversions, isn't going to get me to degrade women, etc.
So not a true believer then. What a surprise.
Hmm, is that a dromedary? Considering Jesus' life goals, it would appear contradictory to his personal beliefs to lay down such conditions for salvation. After all, anyone willing to take on everyone else's suffering is hardly consonant with someone holding very high and mighty views of himself. This is more reflective of the philanthropists of today, who send teddy bears to make a statement about their beliefs and pat themselves on the back for their "achievements".
To be honest , you give me the hump. We don't even know whether Jesus existed. As far as suffering is concerned, just look at the state of the world and ask yourself whether there is a loving Christian god. I am not interested in discussing this well worn topic.
For specific examples of suffering , look at the fanatical stoning and beheadings carried out in the name of Islam by proper Muslims, as opposed to idiots who do things in the name of Islam.
We have more respect for Muslims here than they have for each other. We have safe houses for young Muslim girls who are in fear of their lives for simply wanting to go their own way.
To be honest , you give me the hump. We don't even know whether Jesus existed. As far as suffering is concerned, just look at the state of the world and ask yourself whether there is a loving Christian god. I am not interested in discussing this well worn topic.
For specific examples of suffering , look at the fanatical stoning and beheadings carried out in the name of Islam by proper Muslims, as opposed to idiots who do things in the name of Islam.
We have more respect for Muslims here than they have for each other. We have safe houses for young Muslim girls who are in fear of their lives for simply wanting to go their own way.
This is not a discussion on Islam is it? Why did you feel as if you had to insert Muslims into your post? By the by, there was a time when people were escaping to Muslim lands to escape the horrors of secular policies. The influence of said secular policies has been very damaging to Muslim cultures. As I have mentioned before, stoning was unknown before the 18th century and the heaviest punishment given for apostasy was a fine.
And you? You have no concepts except those by consensus. Independent thinking indeed.
You will never understand what I am about to tell you but I shall say it anyway for the possible benefit of others. I became an atheist as a result of using my reason, uninfluenced by anyone else. You are as you arew because of your background.
I am an individual, not a member of some putative atheists' club, which only exists in your indoctrinated mind.
This is not a discussion on Islam is it? Why did you feel as if you had to insert Muslims into your post?
So, inserting Stalin into your posts, ad nauseum, is perfectly acceptable, when there isn't a discussion about Stalin?
Fucking hypocrite.
You will never understand what I am about to tell you but I shall say it anyway for the possible benefit of others. I became an atheist as a result of using my reason, uninfluenced by anyone else. You are as you arew because of your background.
I am an individual, not a member of some putative atheists' club, which only exists in your indoctrinated mind.
As a non-member of a non-club, what are you defending here? Your non-beliefs? :D
As I have mentioned before, stoning was unknown before the 18th century and the heaviest punishment given for apostasy was a fine.
"Stoning was a popular biblical use of stones (Ex 8:26; 17:4; Lev 20:2, 27; 24:14-23; Num 14:10; 15:35; Deu 13:10; 17:5; 21:21; 22:21-24; Josh 7:25-26; 1 Ki 5:15; 6:7, 18, 36; 12:18; 2 Ki 21:10-13; 2 Chr 10:18; 24:21; Lam 3:53; Ezek 16:40; 23:47; Mat 23:37; Mk 12:4; Lk 13:34; 20:6; John 8:7, 59; 10:31-33; 11:8; Acts 14:5). This was the official method of execution prescribed by the Law of Moses. Famous victims of stoning include Achan, Naboth, Stephen, and Paul (Josh 7:25; 1 Ki 21:13-16; Acts 7:59; 14:19; 2 Cor 11:25). The Israelites also threatened to stone Moses, Joshua, and Jesus. Indeed, our Lord called Jerusalem "the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her" (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34)."
http://ww2.netnitco.net/users/legend01/stone.htm
I'm talking about the Muslim world. The British were in the habit, at the time of eviscerating their victims and hanging bits of them around the counties. As a warning.
I'm talking about the Muslim world. The British were in the habit, at the time of eviscerating their victims and hanging bits of them around the counties. As a warning.
Quick! Avert your eyes from Sam's fabrications and look at what the British have done!
As a non-member of a non-club, what are you defending here? Your non-beliefs? :D
You can't or won't understand. I'm not defending reason because I see no need to do so. I'm simply expressing a view on theism.
I have no wish to discuss this any further woith you.
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 05:02 PM
I'm talking about the Muslim world. The British were in the habit, at the time of eviscerating their victims and hanging bits of them around the counties. As a warning.
Sam either say you strongly believe in the punishments or don't...
I openly say I would have liked to have something similar to the Sanhedrin, and people might disagree with it and call it archaic. But I believe it and won't waiver for others. If you believe stoning is an acceptible punishment for certain laws then agree with it!
Although to go on a side topic here (even though all of this was side topic). The Islamic definition of stoning is just insane and cruel, it's NOT the original definition of stoning.
Stoning used to be:
You would take a man to a tall cliff and you would push him off, then throw a stone on his chest from the cliff. It had to be possible that the cliffs fall could kill him, and it had to be likely the stone would kill him. FURTHER: If someone commited an act it needed 2 witnesses, those are the two witnesses that had to carry out the acts. If they wouldn't carry out the act, then the man walked free.
Source? From what I remember, Jesus said he who was without sin could throw the first stone. No cliff tops involved. My personal opinions are irrelevant.
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 05:14 PM
Source? From what I remember, Jesus said he who was without sin could throw the first stone. No cliff tops involved. My personal opinions are irrelevant.
Sources:
-Rashi, in his Commentaries (Vol. 1, pp.105-106) (Silberman Ed. 5733)
-Vayirka 24-14b
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.1
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 5.1-4
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 5.5
-Mishnah Sanhedrin 6.1-4
-Mishnah 7.4
*Sanhedrin mishnah was before jesus' time by atleast 700 years.
And ask any Orthodox Rabbi in the world...:bugeye:
That's actually an argument for why we don't believe in jesus. I personally don't believe he even existed. The things written in the books he's part of don't make any sense with any of the other books written. His definition of stoning is not is not accurate, and his definitions of many things is just plain wrong..
I thought the Romans destroyed the Jewish books which were [much] later reconstructed from memory? How do you know they were accurate?
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 05:25 PM
I thought the Romans destroyed the Jewish books which were [much] later reconstructed from memory? How do you know they were accurate?
There's a story in Tractate Gittin discussing this. When they seiged Jerusalem one rabbi got out of the city and spoke to the sieging general. He cured the general of an illness, and the general provided him a favor. One of those favors was 'Please don't seige the following lands.' It was granted. What the general didn't know is one of the cities spared was that where all of the great Rabbi's and Scholars lived. In this city and a few others all books survived. Not every city was destroyed, only the most heavily populated.
This is also irrelivant, as much of the books could be written through memory. The average sofer today and write the entire Torah with 100% accuracy. There's also the story of groups of people in Germany during the NAZI regime who were able to write down entire tractates with 100% accuracy after their books had been burned.
Does this story have an historical basis? What were the names of the lands?
I was an atheist once-very evangelistic about it, too.
I had an open mind, I would have said.
It would have been a lie; my mind was closed to religion.
It still is, that is to organized religion.
But I am completely open to God, who is soooo amazing, I have found.
We think we are so smart, we think we should be God.
Pure arrogance.
J
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 05:32 PM
Does this story have an historical basis? What were the names of the lands?
I don't recall the specifics, I personally don't own Gittin. But if you search in a talmud library or ask a more definitive source I am sure you'll find your answers.
The general discussed in Gittin is the same one that took over the throne as recorded by Roman documentation. Although I think he's called nero-Caesar or meaning proxy of Caesar. Also Titus included. The documentation is identical, accept Jewish documentation gives more depth into the situation.
I don't recall the specifics, I personally don't own Gittin. But if you search in a talmud library or ask a more definitive source I am sure you'll find your answers.
The general discussed in Gittin is the same one that took over the throne as recorded by Roman documentation. Although I think he's called nero-Caesar or meaning proxy of Caesar. Also Titus included. The documentation is identical, accept Jewish documentation gives more depth into the situation.
I was talking about Antiochus. This guy:
Far more destructive was the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV, who in 168 BC ordered Jewish 'books of the law' found in Jerusalem to be 'rent in pieces' and burned (1 Maccabees 1:56).
To strengthen his hold over the region, Antiochus decided to Hellenize the Jews by ordering the worship of Zeus as the supreme god.[2] This was anathema to the Jews and when they refused, Antiochus sent an army to enforce his decree.
(According to the Books of the Maccabees) ...upon seizing Jerusalem his soldiers entered the Jewish Temple and slaughtered a pig, then tried to force Jewish men to eat the pig meat (which is impure by Jewish law). The men refused and the soldiers cut off the men's hands, feet, and tongues, then scalped the men and burned them alive on the altar of the Lord.
It would seem odd that Jews kept their books other than in the temple.
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 05:45 PM
As far as I know he only seiged Jerusalem, and Judaea. Many of the kingdoms still existed. It also wasn't a long exile. There were young children who lived through the entire exile and saw the rebuilding of the temple. It even discusses them crying upon seeing the new Temple because of it's less grandeur.
Still none of this really is evidence that books were destroyed. Yes the Temple was, and desecrated, but the actual books were intact in the majority of communities, and all of Israel (which at the time was not the same thing as Judaea). The other 10 tribes there's not much value put in.
Quite possible. There were three seiges on Jerusalem as I recall, but Antiiochus is the only one I know who has gone on record as saying that the books of law in Jerusalem should be destroyed. I just wondered how successful he had been. And I know about the ancient Israel, it was apparently comprised of several foreign migrant communities which probably adopted the name of an existing large tribe. They did not even all speak the same language, according to anthropologists.
http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=118446&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201
greenberg
08-17-08, 06:04 PM
Please stay on topic.
Is Jesus the only way to salvation?
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 06:11 PM
Quite possible. There were three seiges on Jerusalem as I recall, but Antiiochus is the only one I know who has gone on record as saying that the books of law in Jerusalem should be destroyed. I just wondered how successful he had been. And I know about the ancient Israel, it was apparently comprised of several foreign migrant communities which probably adopted the name of an existing large tribe. They did not even all speak the same language, according to anthropologists.
http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=118446&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201
I've read your link.
I've heard this argument before, it's really not based on anything. The way they decipher languages of nations is through pottery and engravings. Which were things Jews didn't do. Proto-Phoenician isn't much like Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls dispute the language difference and also prove that the language was clearly in use during the time they discuss. How could it be that after leaving Egypt that they didn't all speak the same language?
Well they don't believe that they left Egypt and marched around the desert, and that the nation was founded as an uprising internally, mostly because they can't find evidence. But what evidence do you expect to find judging by the way they lived in the desert? How could it be that they didn't speak the same language after living together for 40 years? The distribution of land is described in Bamidbar.
Anthropologists are continuously wrong about datings, it's a pseudo-science and it shouldn't be taken all that seriously.
The success of destroying the books isn't discussed much. As a new king of Syria, there wasn't exactly much organization. There's even stories of Jewish communities living in caves with their books for the duration of the exile.
Theologically they should all be semitic languages ANYWAYS, since they all came from Shem. Non-semitic languages did exist, and were derivative of Ham and were seen in Sumer, AND Bavyl. These languages were later eliminated by the presence of Persian influence which was also of Shem. The inconsistency of Semitic languages is more than likely the integration of ham and shem rather than the degradation of shem. As Hebrew today (as a language) still contains all of the letters.
Finally the construction of 'Jews' occurred at Sinai, not before this. Moses himself was not a Jew, neither was Abraham, etc etc. When it says Abraham of Hebrew it means Abrham of the city (later known as) Hebron.
greenberg
08-17-08, 06:14 PM
Seems like something was lost in translation there.
Are you willing to risk eternity in hell for this stance that something was lost in translation?
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 06:15 PM
Please stay on topic.
Is Jesus the only way to salvation?
greenberg, if you actually read what I wrote you would realize I as proving 'No.'
His teachings were intended to fix Jewish law, but the book was as if he had no comprehension of the law. He came for Jews, not non-Jews (His claim not mine). His total lack of comprehension of the law proves that he was not a viable source. OR that the book its self was conscripted. It's been written that it was a propaganda book written by Roman scholars in order to incite nationalism.
greenberg
08-17-08, 06:18 PM
Based on my experience here, atheists are slaves to empiricism. Empiricism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
Similar could be said of some forms of theism -
Some theists are slaves to religious elitism. Religious elitism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
But again - who would be willing to stake eternity in hell on such a view?
I was an atheist once-very evangelistic about it, too.
I had an open mind, I would have said.
It would have been a lie; my mind was closed to religion.
It still is, that is to organized religion.
But I am completely open to God, who is soooo amazing, I have found.
We think we are so smart, we think we should be God.
Pure arrogance.
J
Why are you sooooooooooooooo sure ? Let me guess ! You hjave a personal relationship with god. Nothing new there !
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 06:22 PM
Similar could be said of some forms of theism -
Some theists are slaves to religious elitism. Religious elitism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
But again - who would be willing to stake eternity in hell on such a view?
What if I told you believing in Jesus would send you to hell?
Would you be willing to state eternity in hell on such a view?
I've read your link.
I've heard this argument before, it's really not based on anything. The way they decipher languages of nations is through pottery and engravings. Which were things Jews didn't do. Proto-Phoenician isn't much like Hebrew. The Dead Sea Scrolls dispute the language difference and also prove that the language was clearly in use during the time they discuss. How could it be that after leaving Egypt that they didn't all speak the same language?.
So Hebrew was a term used by Jews regarding themselves? According to the same anthropologists, there is no record of Jews using the term Hebrew about themselves, rather it was a slur used against them by Egyptians and Assyrians [hapiru, 'apiru = labourers]. I find it interesting because of DNA research (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378) from Israel which shows that Israeli Jews are closer to Kurds, Turks and Armenians, rather than their Arab neighbors, which means at one time they must have travelled down to Egypt in some point of their history [since Turks came down much later and Kurds never did come to Palestine]
Are you willing to risk eternity in hell for this stance that something was lost in translation?
Fortunately as a Muslim, I have no such hassles. We don't have any exclusive routes for salvation. But if I were a Christian, I would do what I thought was best, no one can be expected to do more.
The year is 2008 and people are still talking about hell. Am I dreaming , or should that be having nightmares ?
greenberg
08-17-08, 06:28 PM
Fortunately as a Muslim, I have no such hassles.
Lucky you, then. Were you born with "I am a Muslim" written on your forhead, or somehow "knew in your heart" that you are a Muslim and that this is who you really are?
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 06:32 PM
So Hebrew was a term used by Jews regarding themselves? According to the same anthropologists, there is no record of Jews using the term Hebrew about themselves, rather it was a slur used against them by Egyptians and Assyrians [hapiru, 'apiru = labourers]. I find it interesting because of DNA research (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378) from Israel which shows that Israeli Jews are closer to Kurds, Turks and Armenians, rather than their Arab neighbors, which means at one time they must have travelled down to Egypt in some point of their history [since Turks came down much later and Kurds never did come to Palestine]
Fortunately as a Muslim, I have no such hassles. We don't have any exclusive routes for salvation. But if I were a Christian, I would do what I thought was best, no one can be expected to do more.
Hebrew is a secular time. The language is called simply Omaer Choidesh. Roughly 'Holy Language'. There is no "Hebrews"
Your DNA argument is tiresome...
If you really want to use it, then why do Jewish Kohens have a 90% chance of carrying the Kohen marker? Whereas the rest of the world isn't even close...
If genetics is a viable argument, then shouldn't a 90% commonality rate be a better more sound argument? Jews aren't arabs!!! Jews are persians!!! Jews aren't Canaanites!!! Jews are Jews! Arabs are arabs. Persians are Persians. Genetic similarities are interbreeding...of which Arabs were fine with...
greenberg
08-17-08, 06:32 PM
What if I told you believing in Jesus would send you to hell?
Would you be willing to state eternity in hell on such a view?
I haven't thought of this.
It seems that no matter what one would do, there would always be someone who would say that one is doing wrong, will burn in hell for all eternity, or waste one's life.
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 06:34 PM
I haven't thought of this.
It seems that no matter what one would do, there would always be someone who would say that one is doing wrong, will burn in hell for all eternity, or waste one's life.
Great, so base your choices on logic.
greenberg
08-17-08, 06:35 PM
greenberg, if you actually read what I wrote you would realize I as proving 'No.'
His teachings were intended to fix Jewish law, but the book was as if he had no comprehension of the law. He came for Jews, not non-Jews (His claim not mine). His total lack of comprehension of the law proves that he was not a viable source. OR that the book its self was conscripted. It's been written that it was a propaganda book written by Roman scholars in order to incite nationalism.
Hold on. When you say "book" here, do you mean the Bible?
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 06:36 PM
Hold on. When you say "book" here, do you mean the Bible?
I mean the testaments written about his sayings.
Lucky you, then. Were you born with "I am a Muslim" written on your forhead, or somehow "knew in your heart" that you are a Muslim and that this is who you really are?
I was agnostic till my twenties, it really did not seem like a big deal to me to examine my beliefs at the time. I became interested in religion after moving to Saudi Arabia. I was lucky, I met some good religious sheikhs who pointed out some good sources for me to read. I like the religion, its logical and in concert with the way I think. I'm probably the only person in my family who is religious.
Jesus came to earth to remind us of who we are, and he came to 'save' us from the IDEA of death (because many people fear death). By waking up dead people and resurrecting, he showed us that death does not really exist, that it is just an idea, and we are eternal spiritual beings like him.
Michael
08-17-08, 09:36 PM
Hmm, is that a dromedary? Considering Jesus' life goals, it would appear contradictory to his personal beliefs to lay down such conditions for salvation. After all, anyone willing to take on everyone else's suffering is hardly consonant with someone holding very high and mighty views of himself. This is more reflective of the philanthropists of today, who send teddy bears to make a statement about their beliefs and pat themselves on the back for their "achievements".Not it is not contradictory.
Jesus is the Grecco-Jewish version of the Life and Death and resurrection Deity which would also include the following other Man-Gods: Baal, Horus, Osiris, Amun, Amun-Min, Atunis, Adonis, Cronus, Cybele, Dionysus, Orpheus, Persephone, Attis, Mithras, Aeneas, Bacchus, Proserpina, Damuzi, Inanna ... etc...
If we were talking about Aeneas it would be plain to you and you would agree with me. But, Jesus appears in the Qur'an and so it's not possible for you to think logically about Jesus.
Isn't that interesting?
We could actually be sitting here comparing Baal and Osiris and talking about the commonality of these man-gods and you'd "get it" but because you are superstitious in regards to Jesus you can look at the OBVIOUS facts sitting in front of you and completely ignore them to fit Jesus into some half-cock Arab mythos that came many many centuries later.
So, in summary, Jesus was the Grecco-Jewish response to a VERY common religous theme in which YES the man-God (in this particular case Jesus) does DIE to save humanity from it's sin so that joe/jane-common can enter into heaven/afterlife/ not have to die.
Michael
08-17-08, 09:45 PM
I was agnostic till my twenties, it really did not seem like a big deal to me to examine my beliefs at the time. I became interested in religion after moving to Saudi Arabia. I was lucky, I met some good religious sheikhs who pointed out some good sources for me to read. I like the religion, its logical and in concert with the way I think. I'm probably the only person in my family who is religious.I wonder, if, at this time in your life, you had instead moved to Hollywood - would you now be a LA only Scientologist?
Right now you'd be: I was lucky, I met some good Scientologists like Tm Cruise. I'm the only one in my family with the name Blinky-beta-5 :p
I wonder, if, at this time in your life, you had instead moved to Hollywood - would you now be a LA only Scientologist?
Right now you'd be: I was lucky, I met some good Scientologists like Tm Cruise. I'm the only one in my family with the name Blinky-beta-5 :p
Somehow I don't believe I would see Tom Cruise as a mentor. But thats just me.
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 10:03 PM
Why does everyone hate on Tom Cruise for his beliefs?
Yeah he acts strangely, but he's not harming anyone.
He helps people all around the world in whatever way he can, and promotes helping others.
He isn't really an idol worshipper like other religions...which is much worse.
I don't hate on Tom Cruise for his beliefs. I don't care about his beliefs.
I just consider him a complete arsehole for the shabby way he treated his wife.
dare I mention that the other two of the three abrahamic religions also feature a great deal of discriminatory exclusiveness? Including racism and persecution?
At least fanatical Christian's aren't allowed to burn people at the stake any more these days. :p
While I criticise all three said religions equally,
Now all we have to worry about is being beheaded or being called an anti-semite!
(while the former may seem considerably worse than the latter, the risk of the latter is considerably more likely) :D
Why does everyone hate on Tom Cruise for his beliefs?
Yeah he acts strangely, but he's not harming anyone.
He helps people all around the world in whatever way he can, and promotes helping others.
He isn't really an idol worshipper like other religions...which is much worse.
If you are wondering what all the criticism and protests are about,
I recommend you do some reading on the deaths and human rights abuses.
You can start with http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
those, and the "anti-psychiatry" conspiracy theories ingrained in the "religion".
They pretend to campaign for the rights of the mentally ill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights
as a way of fooling vulnerable people into joining scientology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrVW4rdLXT8&feature=related
(To any of you scilons reading this and planning to "fair game" me,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)
just try it, i dare you.)
CheskiChips
08-17-08, 10:42 PM
Huwy, I agree that scientology is a potentially dangerous cult. But no more dangerous than Christian scientists. They only hurt themselves (usually).
Michael
08-17-08, 11:22 PM
Somehow I don't believe I would see Tom Cruise as a mentor. But thats just me.Maybe?
Do you think that the people you met in KSA were willing to admit Islam is no more or less a valid religous beleif compared with Scientology? Did they say the superstitous views of Mohammad etal, ie Qur'an, are no more and no less valid then those of Ron Hubbard.
I'm just curious.
Perhaps Tom Cruise is more open minded and could have mentored you much better. Maybe if you had met The Living Prophet Tom, you would be able to say these words: Yes, the possibly exists there is no God.
All Praise Xenu,
Michael
Hmm, again, somehow I don't believe Tom Cruise would convince me of ANYTHING. :mad:
Michael
08-18-08, 12:10 AM
If you are wondering what all the criticism and protests are about,
I recommend you do some reading on the deaths and human rights abuses.
When they start burning people alive at the stake or strapping killing people for slight variations in doctrine - then we'll get worried.
On a side note, anti-depressants actually don't help most people who are prescribed them. Perhaps this is what the Scientologists are getting at in that regards. It does seem to be their "thing".
It's as if all superstitions have to have their "thing". Not eating pork or not taking blood by IV or some such crap. Scientology seems to be anti-depressants.
As for not letting people leave the "religion" you should ask Cris, I'm not sure but I think they kicked her out?
M
Michael
08-18-08, 12:11 AM
Hmm, again, somehow I don't believe Tom Cruise would convince me of ANYTHING. :mad:Come on SAM, we don't know Tom Cruise. It's just tabloid stuff.
He is the Living Prophet :p
Anyway, maybe back then you were more easily convinced of things. I mean, you did think the moon split in half pffffff :D
SetiAlpha6
08-18-08, 12:13 AM
How come Christians (and perhaps some others) hold that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and that following no other person or way or means can lead to salvation?
Whence this exclusiveness?
As Adstar pointed out, the Bible teaches, in some places, that Jesus is the only way to salvation. There are other verses in addition to the ones he quoted that say this same thing. But then again, there are other verses that seem to teach otherwise.
Jesus taught his own people that salvation was both by faith in Him and by keeping the Law. He taught that you could not have one without the other. Most modern Christians disagree with Jesus over the whole necessity of keeping the eternal Law of God. They seem to think that they know more about this than Him.
The Christian church teaches many conflicting versions of salvation because the source of their faith, the Bible itself, teaches many different versions of it.
Take Care!
Michael
08-18-08, 12:32 AM
The Christian church teaches many conflicting versions of salvation because the source of their faith, the Bible itself, teaches many different versions of it.Which is why we can simply recognize that Jesus is the Grecco-Jewish version of the Life/Death/Resurrection Hero-Deity. So we take a look at these other Man-Gods: Baal, Horus, Osiris, Amun, Amun-Min, Atunis, Adonis, Cronus, Cybele, Dionysus, Orpheus, Persephone, Attis, Mithras, Aeneas, Bacchus, Proserpina, Damuzi, Inanna and realize that yes Jesus IS the way to life eternal.
So, seeing as in the GreccoJews copied everything else from the Greeks that THIS being a central point was certainly copied.
lightgigantic
08-18-08, 05:33 AM
Jesus said so.
John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Matthew 28
18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
both these texts have been noted that they originally appear in a the present tense.
IOW "right here, right now , I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes ....."
given that he had to remind people that it is not ok to have sex with your neighbour's wife or steal, its not such a difficult idea to entertain .....
Captain Kremmen
08-18-08, 05:46 AM
http://www.withchrist.org/images/west.jpg
greenberg
08-18-08, 10:25 AM
Explain "salvation" ?
It can mean several things, to name some -
- A happiness that is not subject to change, aging, illness and death.
- Not burning in hell for all eternity.
- Not being reborn/reincarnated anymore.
Come on SAM, we don't know Tom Cruise. It's just tabloid stuff.
He is the Living Prophet :p
Anyway, maybe back then you were more easily convinced of things. I mean, you did think the moon split in half pffffff :D
Do you even know the story of the moon? You and (Q) talk like you've read the whole thing and arrived at a logical conclusion, when you haven't even bothered. :rolleyes:
Western historians such as A.J. Wensinck and Denis Gril, reject the historicity of the miracle arguing that the Qur'an itself denies miracles, in their traditional sense, in connection with Muhammad
I had read an article somewhere in which salvation was explained as being part and parcel to resurrection. In other words, an individual could not attain salvation without having their own personal resurrection, so to speak.
I'm sure many bits of 'cheese n' crackers' eaten late at night have been misconstrued as such.
It can mean several things, to name some -
- A happiness that is not subject to change, aging, illness and death.
- Not burning in hell for all eternity.
- Not being reborn/reincarnated anymore.
I guess we first have to establish whether or not hell and rebirth/reincarnation are realities..
Avoiding hell makes no sense if hell doesn't exist, same with rebirth/reincarnation.
Can you explain the first point to me ? To me that sentence simply says "afterlife".
greenberg
08-18-08, 04:18 PM
I guess we first have to establish whether or not hell and rebirth/reincarnation are realities..
Avoiding hell makes no sense if hell doesn't exist, same with rebirth/reincarnation.
Sure. But as far as I know, the way to prove that hell exists is to actually do the things that various scriptures say leads to hell - such as killing, causing harm, spreading lies ...
Can you explain the first point to me ? To me that sentence simply says "afterlife".
The happiness we usually experience in this world is subject to change - it comes and it passes, and it can more or less easily be influenced by a number of things. As such, this happiness is not steady, it is not reliable and working towards getting this sort of happiness eventually leaves us frustrated.
Conversely, in some religions, there is the notion of a happiness that is not subject to such change, a happiness that cannot be influenced by the usualy worldly factors such as aging, illness and death in all their forms.
Sure. But as far as I know, the way to prove that hell exists is to actually do the things that various scriptures say leads to hell - such as killing, causing harm, spreading lies ...
So it is essentially unknowable.
By the way, I am of the conviction that virtually everyone would go to hell if we were to take scripture literally.
The happiness we usually experience in this world is subject to change - it comes and it passes, and it can more or less easily be influenced by a number of things. As such, this happiness is not steady, it is not reliable and working towards getting this sort of happiness eventually leaves us frustrated.
Conversely, in some religions, there is the notion of a happiness that is not subject to such change, a happiness that cannot be influenced by the usualy worldly factors such as aging, illness and death in all their forms.
But still this just sounds like afterlife to me, heaven specifically.
Explain "salvation" ?
it means that you are saved from death and other bad things.
greenberg
08-18-08, 04:45 PM
So it is essentially unknowable.
I don't think so. It is unknowable only if you refuse to investigate it.
By the way, I am of the conviction that virtually everyone would go to hell if we were to take scripture literally.
Yes, if we take only some parts of scripture literally, and ignore the other parts that speak about what one can do in order to avoid hell.
I don't think so. It is unknowable only if you refuse to investigate it.
Investigating is impossible because it would require sinning and then dying to find out.. and that's assuming you'll remember who you was and what you were investigating before death.
Yes, if we take only some parts of scripture literally, and ignore the other parts that speak about what one can do in order to avoid hell.
I don't think so.. it's a sin to have sex before marriage, right ? How many people do that, even religious people ?
What about all the atheists (and that's including all the people praying to the wrong God) ?
Medicine*Woman
08-18-08, 04:57 PM
it means that you are saved from death and other bad things.
*************
M*W: Why is death a bad thing? Death shouldn't be feared, because we will all face it at some time or another.
it means that you are saved from death and other bad things.
I take it you mean physical death ?
I never know with you..
M*W: Why is death a bad thing? Death shouldn't be feared, because we will all face it at some time or another.
death isn't actually a bad thing, and there's nothing to fear about it. but many people don't know what death is, so they fear it. for example, there are some people who fear that they will go to hell. and others fear that they will cease to exist. none of these two assumptions are correct.
I take it you mean physical death ?
I never know with you..
what other kind of death is there than physical death? you can't be "saved" from physical death because everything that is physical dies. consciousness never ceases to exist, so there is nothing to be saved from, except the false ideas of death.
Explain "salvation" ?
it means that you are saved from death and other bad things.
I take it you mean physical death ?
I never know with you..
what other kind of death is there than physical death? you can't be "saved" from physical death because everything that is physical dies. consciousness never ceases to exist, so there is nothing to be saved from, except the false ideas of death.
So you don't believe in salvation ?
Michael
08-18-08, 08:10 PM
Do you even know the story of the moon? You and (Q) talk like you've read the whole thing and arrived at a logical conclusion, when you haven't even bothered. :rolleyes:Tell me SAM, do the majority of Muslims think that the moon split into two peaces or not? Do the majority of Muslims think Mohammad rode on a winged fairy creature or not? Do the majority of Muslims think that the Qur'an is "perfect" (whatever that means) or not?
Please!
So you don't believe in salvation ?
not exactly...
not exactly...
How exactly then ?
both these texts have been noted that they originally appear in a the present tense.
IOW "right here, right now , I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes ....."
given that he had to remind people that it is not ok to have sex with your neighbour's wife or steal, its not such a difficult idea to entertain .....
Jesus is right here right now. Jesus lives and His words are to people who live right here right now. Down throughout the centuries each person who has heard the Words of Jesus have had their turn at being With Jesus right here right now.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
lightgigantic
08-19-08, 05:25 PM
Jesus is right here right now. Jesus lives and His words are to people who live right here right now. Down throughout the centuries each person who has heard the Words of Jesus have had their turn at being With Jesus right here right now.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
sure
anyone who follows the instruction of a bonafide spiritual representative gets the result.
you can even argue that a particular representative is more effective than another (all the way up to issues of a representative being effectively non-different from godhead itself)
However I think you have to put a better case for jesus being the absolute one and only for all eternity since most of the world for most of history didn't have the opportunity to approach his teachings.
Mike Honcho
08-19-08, 06:37 PM
When Jesus was crucified, he changed the Universe forever.
He reconciled God with Man. By establishing this connection he provided a way for all to be with God. This is what is meant by salvation is "through him".
It literally is through him. God will burn no one forever because they don't prescribe to the proper flavor of religion. Those found unacceptable will merely never enter his presence.
Similar could be said of some forms of theism -
Some theists are slaves to religious elitism. Religious elitism is limited by consensus. It would be a complete waste of a life to live it tied down to other people's views of what you see.
But again - who would be willing to stake eternity in hell on such a view?
Anyone with the courage of their convictions.
greenberg
08-20-08, 11:17 AM
However I think you have to put a better case for jesus being the absolute one and only for all eternity since most of the world for most of history didn't have the opportunity to approach his teachings.
But this isn't really the issue here. The standard Christian comeback at this is that God will take care of those people as He sees fit.
What is the issue is that there are people who nowadays (supposedly!) hear the message of Jesus (like you and me), and who still refuse to accept Jesus as their savior.
At what point can one really say that one has heard Jesus' message? How are we to be sure what we have heard indeed is Jesus' message, and not some distortion of it?
Who has got it right about what Jesus' message is? There are numerous translations and interpretations of the Bible, there is no unbroken and authoritative lineage of teachers nor a unified authoritative body within Christianity. There are only many different traditions, each one of them more or less openly accusing the other of being the distorter of God's Word.
I do not think it is is fair that Christians in general put the whole burden of proof on seekers; being left to oneself like this is a recipe for delusion.
But this isn't really the issue here. The standard Christian comeback at this is that God will take care of those people as He sees fit.
What is the issue is that there are people who nowadays (supposedly!) hear the message of Jesus (like you and me), and who still refuse to accept Jesus as their savior.
At what point can one really say that one has heard Jesus' message? How are we to be sure what we have heard indeed is Jesus' message, and not some distortion of it?
Who has got it right about what Jesus' message is? There are numerous translations and interpretations of the Bible, there is no unbroken and authoritative lineage of teachers nor a unified authoritative body within Christianity. There are only many different traditions, each one of them more or less openly accusing the other of being the distorter of God's Word.
I do not think it is is fair that Christians in general put the whole burden of proof on seekers; being left to oneself like this is a recipe for delusion.
It's not about fairness. Christians have no proof to offer. All you can expect is hearsay, personal( emotional) experiences and quotations from the Bible which is taken as a given.
If you cannot accept the Bible as the word of god, there is nothing to discuss with Christians. The ball is in your court. Either accept external authority or work things out for yourself.
vicarious torment
12-02-08, 03:40 AM
Not everyone will come to know him in life ,but at the end of time all shall know him in death and prior to resurrection.Many in the afterlife do so now.In an interim condition between heaven and earth.They are not in hell...coz hell is the lake of fire,but they do recognise that they need to be in communion with him to be happy.So self chastisement and contrition in this middle condition will save them from hell even if those souls did not know Jesus was the only way whilst they were alive
Not everyone will come to know him in life
You don't actually know any of that.
greenberg
But again - who would be willing to stake eternity in hell on such a view?
In a heartbeat.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.