Christianity Important?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by aardappelvreter, Oct 3, 2003.

  1. aardappelvreter Jezus Christus Leeft Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    37
    "Christianity is either true and of infinite importance, or it is false and of no importance whatsoever. The one thing is cannot be is moderately important." -C.S. Lewis

    If what Christianity says is true, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that He has died on the cross and rose again on the third day, and that He died for each one of us to forgive us of our sins, if that is true, is Christianity then not of utmost importance?






    -------------------------
    Jezus Christus Leeft
    -------------------------
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. A4Ever Knows where his towel is Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    But if it is true that Wintermute will gain self consciousness and 'become' the Internet (or more advanced: the Matrix), than is joining the First Church of Wintermute not of the utmost importance?

    First Church of Wintermute
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    And what if Yahweh is, in truth, the Ugarit Deity Yw (Yam)? If that is true, is Christianity then not the most foolish of superstitions? Be careful how you answer: Ba'al is watching. (Just ask M*W)
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Re: Re: Christianity Important?

    That's like saying "what if time is actually an absolute"? It might have been once, but as people learn, they have to redefine what they think they know. Even God in the Bible was not always known by the same name.

    Genesis 17:1
    When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am El-Shaddai; walk before me and be blameless."

    Exodus 6
    2 God also said to Moses, "I am the LORD (YHWH). 3 I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them.
     
  8. heart Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    Is that disco music I hear? Ohhhh...it's you, how ya doin, Jenyar?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Hi heart. What I said must seem like news to you, but it's really nothing new. God is not in a name. But names are the only means of identification we have available to us - orignally, and in the Bible, it reflects who a person is. How accurate the name describes that person is dependent on your knowledge, but who the name refers to is more important. "I am" can only refer to one: the God that is.
     
  10. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Jenyar,

    It seems God is in a habbit of appearing before different people in different names. It follows then God could have appeared before people in farthest places in different names and appointed different prophets unknown in bible.! Jesus could have potential co-brothers (elder) in Lord Krishna, Lord Buddha (though buddha never said he was a prophet) etc., then.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I am happy to know this that God could be really a Global Lord.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Everneo,

    That's not really what I meant. The idea is that it is not just any god under any name, but God as He revealed himself to successive generations of believers. From the Bible we can see that God regards continuity highly. And that is what I'm trying to emphasize: God does not disregard history each time He reveals himself, He makes it clear that He is the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", or the "God of Israel" or the "God who rescued you from slavery out of Egypt". The Israelites had the habit of confusing God with Baal (the golden calf), but every time the prophets showed them that no image could point to God.

    Why I conceded the Ugarit name could be a possible precursor is because we don't know where Abraham got his monotheism from. We don't know how he came to know God or what he called God before God identified himself as El Shaddai, we only know it was because of his faith that God chose him for His covenant.

    We don't know everybody who God chose to use as prophets, but Jesus has a specific history that is inseparable from the Israel of the Old Testament. Krishna, Buddha, Muhammed, they all have the possibility of leading people towards the one God of Abraham, like rivers that lead to the ocean. But none of them are sufficient on their own, or can provide salvation. They can be false gods, images, names or prophets depending on how their believers experience them. But there is only one God who is Spirit, as revealed by Jesus. It's pretty hard to confuse Him with any other god anymore.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2003
  12. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    Re: Re: Re: Christianity Important?

    You presume too much. There is a good deal of scholarship suggesting that many, if not most, of the various names of God (e.g., El, El Elyon, El Olam, El Shaddai, El Ro'i, El Berit, Eloha-Elohim, Adonai, YHWH) reflect the conflation of different traditions associated with the different Gods of the early West Semitic Pantheon.
     
  13. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    But you don't get that idea when you read the Bible. There, it is clear they all refer to the same God, unless you have read some Scripture that I haven't.
     
  14. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Jenyar,

    Though i don't question the authority of Jesus, the preachings and the paths advocated by Krishna and Buddha are not indicating any falsehood IMO. The eight fold path of Buddha dharma leading to liberation (Nirvana) or Krishna's 18 disciplines through which one can attain liberation (Moksha / Mukti - uniting with God) are not appearing to be like falsehood but are rather noble and counter any sort of evil /ignorance.

    BTW you know, the Gospel probably could not have had any effect on the restive tribes in arabia. Even influential Mohammed had to face life threatening situations for his advocacy of peace and monotheism. Ultimately he could have realised to take the sword to have his way against his enemies. That resulted in far reaching consequences later, that is debatable. Do you really think peace loving christian missionaries could have established Gospel in arabia and the far-middle east before instant death.? God sends resquers according to the prevailing situation, IMO.
     
  15. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    No, you don't get that idea when you read the Bible. A growing array of scholars, from Joseph Blenkinsopp to Wellhausen and De Wette, from Frank Moore Cross to Mark S. Smith view things differently.

    Tell me, Jenyar, can you suggest a single non-fundamentalist scholar who rejects the concept of early Jewish henotheism, with El and YHWH initially representing different deities with their own cult?
     
  16. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    everneo
    That's my opinion as well, which is why I called them rivers leading to the same ocean. I don't call their claims to the truth evil or ignorant, but incomplete. Just like Jesus was at the right place and the right time, so was Mohammed, and probably Buddha. That is what makes a prophet a prophet.

    The gospel might or might not have had an effect. Mohammed did what needed to be done, but what he called the Injeel (which is the gospel) is now thought by Muslims to be lost.
     
  17. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    You are right on the money everneo,

    I personally believe that Buddha is a prophet just like Jesus, Mohamed, Abrahamm, Moses, ect. I too believe that the message of god is global. Buddha talking about uniting with god implies that god is ONE, afterall, unity is one, and thus praying to millions of god like the Buhdist do is a wrong concept. I feel that anybody who think that salvation comes from Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, Moses, have completely missed the point of the message and is contributing to the problems of our world.

    The Quran stresses the fact that every country have received a local messagner that spoke to them in a language that they understood. Even the native Americans had messangers and a message.

    Jonah
    [10.47] And every nation had an apostle; so when their apostle came, the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be dealt with unjustly.

    God tell us that he will judge between the nations based on the message. No injustice will be commited because one person speak chinease and the other speak arabic, or because one read the Quran and the other reads a bible.
     
  18. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    I think you (or these authors) also might assume too much. After all, people use the word "god" for every deity they might or might not believe in all through the world. And we can't dismiss the effect of culture and language on the use and meaning of a name - especially the name of the god associated with a specific culture. Simply making the statement all gods are "god" or all "El"s are "Shaddai" is simplistic.

    You can trace each word used for "god" or "God" in the Bible etymologically and culturally, but does that mean you trace the God it refers to, "back to its source" as well? No, that's a fallacy. "El" means "god", but did all "El"s refer to the God of Israel? No. Once again: the name is not the god - except one name "I am", which is directly connected with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God was saying "I am that same God".

    I'm sure you have seen this many times, but here is a table of names attributed to God in the Bible. If you look at their meaning, you'll see they could name any god if you wanted them to. But in the Bible they refer to the God of Israel.
     
  19. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Flores,

    Actually Bhuddha never talked of God. The concept of Nirvana is liberation from bondage and attaining eternal bliss or peace. Buddhists don't worship the image of Buddha but pay respect. It is Krishna who, in bhagavad gita, describes 18 subtly different ways, which demands, equally difficult but not impossible, dedication taking into account various levels of mind and its maturity, to attain Moksha/uniting with God.


    The problem comes only when asserting who is the ultimate gateway for all.!
     
  20. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    The naive arrogance exposed by this sentence is remarkable and pathetic. So deep and reflexive is your need to protect your fundamentalist outlook that you zealously embrace ignorance and dismiss scholarship. You're truly a poster-child for fundamentalism.
     
  21. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    Did you want me provide a list of names of scholars who oppose your sources? I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of such a pillowfight. You are welcome to discuss the other gods who were believed at any stage in history, you are probably more informed about them than I am.

    I didn't intend to dismiss your precious scholarship. But you created the impression that your sources have each (or at least the majority) of the names of God in the Bible as a historically different God. I can see how you would think this somehow fatally reduces the legitimacy of a God who represents an amalgamation of these deities, but I don't see why it should. Abraham represents the faith under one God, and Moses represents the law under the same God. Jesus merged the two under still the same God.

    What people at different times called Israel's God or any other gods really has no effect on who the God is that I worship. It does show that people can call different things by the same name, and the same thing by different names. If that was your point, you've made it.
     
  22. Medicine*Woman Jesus: Mythstory--Not History! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,346
    Well, hi, Jenyar. Haven't heard from you in a while. By the way, congratulations on winning the Intercontinental Christian Dance Championship while you were away. Welcome back!

    You are right! (I can't believe I'm actually saying this!) God can NOT be identified by a name. However, I didn't know God was a "person." I didn't even know God had a personality! My interpretation of the "I am" means that God is "all." God is "everything." Therefore, we are also included in that calculation. Therefore, we, too are God. To say that human beings are "not" God is to deny God. If we didn't have God dwelling in us, we wouldn't be alive. I bet you can do a really mean disco. You wouldn't happen to look anything like John Travolta, would you? I can just imagine you out there on that dance floor!
     
  23. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    I'll compromise: give me three peer-reviewed scholars outside the camp of Christian fundamentalism.
     

Share This Page