Has anyone ever thought about how selfish Christianity is?

[BishopM 114]

If God made Man in His Image, does not Something of the Creator lie in Man?

This is the best question I have seen on VJ in a long time +1.

I, personally, don't know the answer, but I have pondered this question for a couple of viewpoints.

1) In Christianity, God and Man are separate. Yes, create in His image, but separate.

2) In Hinduism, man has the ability to become God through liberation...so, not separate.

Volumes could be written on this topic!

For me personally, I believe that I am separate from God, but infused through Christ's sacrifice with the Holy Spirit. Its like a 'win-win' combination of Hinduism and Catholicism. Yes, still separate from God through His creation of mankind, but united with God through my belief in the Trinity and Christ's sending of the Holy Spirit as described through the Book of Acts.

I don't know if this answer helps at all, but your question is perfect.

Blessings,

VJBji

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

----

I really have to bite my tongue sometimes because I am so tired of rude people saying things such as people like me need to get their head examines. It's called difference of belief. No one has all the answers of this entire universe, and if they think so, they are kidding themselves. Some people just can't get off this whole "if God exists then why does He do this and that, or doesn't do this." No matter how many times people give their own explanations for why they believe, it doesn't make the questions stop. Just move on, people believe in something you don't. You don't need to ask them why all the time.

Some philosophies have a hard time coexisting, no matter how hard they "preach" coexistence. Inner peace breads contentment, and when you seek change, contentment is hard to find.

[scandal 951]

Curious...why would you say this?

H-D stated these things as facts, not as beliefs or opinions. I.e. "Jesus came back from the dead". I'm challenging that empirical assertion, not his faith. I have no quarrel with anyone who steadfastly believes in his faith, but I distinguish between what must essentially be based on belief from that which we can independently test and verify, and thus "know" on a quite a different level. I'm not trying to get deeply into the finer points of epistemology, rather just making a basic distinction between you and I both looking at, say, a man on a cross and thus agreeing that he is being tortured to death, and, say, you and I looking at that man on a cross and believing that he is something other than a man on a cross.

There is no empirical evidence that the things H-D says are factual things. The surviving written records (the Gospels) were written decades or perhaps centuries after the events took place, in locations far removed from where they took place (i.e. in Rome, Syria, Turkey). Think about it: that's something like you or I today in 2010 in the US deciding that we'll sit down to write the history of WWII battles in Europe or the Pacific which ended in 1945, based upon the oral recollections of those who told us what happened in the War. Sure, there is some basic historical accuracy (we'll clearly get the big events like D-Day or Stalingrad right) but it's hardly a verbatim record.

H-D, and you brother Mark, are Christians and believe that the Christian gospels are "true". That is certainly your right. But surely as reasonable men, you accept that not everyone shares your beliefs. I for one do not. You can tell me these things are true. I will disagree with you, and tell you that while you may believe them to be true, I do not accept them as true.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Tiffmal why are you singling out Christianity? Can you explain why Christianity is unique when it comes to this matter?

[BishopM 114]

Some philosophies have a hard time coexisting, no matter how hard they "preach" coexistence. Inner peace breads contentment, and when you seek change, contentment is hard to find.

Its possible that it is more the people whom embody individual philosophies than the philosophies themselves. Philosophy free of people has no argument other than observation.

[웃 910]

Scandal, do u believe that something was here forever and one day, many billions of years ago, got bored and created the universe?

I know you have Jewish blood like myself but just curious as u are one of the smartest guys I've ever met.

[BishopM 114]

H-D stated these things as facts, not as beliefs or opinions. I.e. "Jesus came back from the dead". I'm challenging that empirical assertion, not his faith. I have no quarrel with anyone who steadfastly believes in his faith, but I distinguish between what must essentially be based on belief from that which we can independently test and verify, and thus "know" on a quite a different level. I'm not trying to get deeply into the finer points of epistemology, rather just making a basic distinction between you and I both looking at, say, a man on a cross and thus agreeing that he is being tortured to death, and, say, you and I looking at that man on a cross and believing that he is something other than a man on a cross.

There is no empirical evidence that the things H-D says are factual things. The surviving written records (the Gospels) were written decades or perhaps centuries after the events took place, in locations far removed from where they took place (i.e. in Rome, Syria, Turkey). Think about it: that's something like you or I today in 2010 in the US deciding that we'll sit down to write the history of WWII battles in Europe or the Pacific which ended in 1945, based upon the oral recollections of those who told us what happened in the War. Sure, there is some basic historical accuracy (we'll clearly get the big events like D-Day or Stalingrad right) but it's hardly a verbatim record.

H-D, and you brother Mark, are Christians and believe that the Christian gospels are "true". That is certainly your right. But surely as reasonable men, you accept that not everyone shares your beliefs. I for one do not. You can tell me these things are true. I will disagree with you, and tell you that while you may believe them to be true, I do not accept them as true.

Ron, of course, I respect your opinion and thank you for your great response +1

However, though the written record (which you have stated correctly) of the crucification did occur 40-100 years after the event (depending on the author of the specific gospel) this does not nullify the event, or the facts of the witnesses. I won't go into the clever conversation that first century humans did not have VJ/facebook to scramble to and make their subjective observations on a 'real-time' basis because you know the facts of the era and the subjective vs. objective means of observation. With that said, it is stated in by a real majority (I respect your opinion to disagree, and what I believe are the cornerstones of your stance, because I too believe that we need a 'nation of Priests [Leviticus]) that Christ did rise from the dead. Josephus, the Jewish historian, also commented on the death/resurrection of Jesus attributing his historical basis on the witness of multitudes to the resurrection.

Blessins, M

[scandal 951]

Scandal, do u believe that something was here forever and one day, many billions of years ago, got bored and created the universe?

L.I. - I, personally do not believe in a "Creator" that made the Universe. That's a belief, just my private point of view. That the Universe was formed with its present physical laws in the Big Bang. The nature of matter and energy and the very dimensions of space-time itself in the universe, the stuff of the Universe, IS the Universe. It's pointless to talk of what gave rise TO the Big Bang, because the notion of "before" implies a temporal dimension, which is an artifact of our known universe and nonsensical outside it. This then gave rise to the galaxies, the stars, the heavier atoms ( > He) formed in the crucibles of the stars from which the planets were made. Certainly if there were an exterior creative force outside of that, we have no possible knowledge of it and I find it rather pointless to speculate about it. I do feel quite firm in my convictions that any exterior force there might possibly be would not have created a universe so vast, with such vast uncrossable spaces between the stars, and somehow then decide to focus all attention on one little rock revolving around one little star in some distant outback spiral arm of one insignificant galaxy among trillions. Oh, and that he would choose a period of roughly 2000 years out of a time span of 4 billion that this rock has existed, 1 billion that life has existed, and ~200,000 years that anatomically modern humans have existed to suddenly make a big deal of His Existence. Think about it - only 1% of the time humans have been around(2000 out of 200,000 years) has this Creator made himself known and demanded that humans take that into account. So what about those 99% of human generations that were around before he showed up? Hmm. Did He just not give ashit about them? Guess not.

At most, I guess I'd say that maybe there is something passive out there that could conceivably have had a role in the formation of the Universe, something "meta" to what we can understand and grapple with. But that something just logically to me couldn't be anything very much like the "God" described in conventional Judeo-Christian faith.

I know you have Jewish blood like myself but just curious as u are one of the smartest guys I've ever met.

Aw, gee thanks I like you too and I like reading your posts

Although ...

I'm still a Librul ** Socialist Commie though.

And I still think that day trading stocks on tips from "gurus" is a suckers game. Sorry to bust your bubble. :(

[scandal 951]

Ron, of course, I respect your opinion and thank you for your great response +1

However, though the written record (which you have stated correctly) of the crucification did occur 40-100 years after the event (depending on the author of the specific gospel) this does not nullify the event, or the facts of the witnesses. I won't go into the clever conversation that first century humans did not have VJ/facebook to scramble to and make their subjective observations on a 'real-time' basis because you know the facts of the era and the subjective vs. objective means of observation. With that said, it is stated in by a real majority (I respect your opinion to disagree, and what I believe are the cornerstones of your stance, because I too believe that we need a 'nation of Priests [Leviticus]) that Christ did rise from the dead. Josephus, the Jewish historian, also commented on the death/resurrection of Jesus attributing his historical basis on the witness of multitudes to the resurrection.

Blessins, M

Mark, the trouble with this Historical Record thing is that it, too, becomes an article of the faith.

It's precisely the same argument that I remember being used in Talmud class being used to "convince" me that Torah was literally handed to Moses at Sinai. How could it possibly be, the theory went, that THOUSANDS of people stood at that mountainside in the desert and watched Moses walk down the mountain with the tablets in his hands, unless it was literally true? Surely, the argument continued, it would not be possible to concoct a vast conspiracy theory to claim this were true, unless it literally were? Surely someone would leak, would snitch, would rat out Moses and Aaron as frauds, if that's what they were? And so, we're supposed to believe in this thing because "rationally" it's impossible for it to be untrue. Ah .. but there's that word. .. believe... article of faith.

Muslims, I have no doubt, have a similar rationale regarding the Ascension of the Prophet Mohammed to the Heavens. Certainly it must be literally true, it was a historically witnessed event, right?

Well, we know that in fact it's really not too difficult to have people believe en masse in things that did not historically happen. Lord knows that here in America today we have no shortage of believers in Area 51 Little Green Men, amongst other things. Fooling All of the People Enough of The Time is really no big trick at all, it turns out. So claiming "there were witnesses" when there really is no independent verifiable record. No the Gospels don't count, and no, Josephus is not a universally agreed authentic source on this matter - he is in fact a highly contested and controversial source, and even then does not attribute much of Christian dogma regarding Jesus (Virgin Birth, resurrection) to him.

Mark, I think it's a self defeating attempt by Christians (or Jews, or Muslims) to search for logical arguments to buttress their Faith. The very bedrock of Faith is just that : Faith. Believe it, because at your core, in your soul, you believe it's true. Don't look for rationality and persuasive argument where by design it is not to be found.

[BishopM 114]

L.I. - I, personally do not believe in a "Creator" that made the Universe. That's a belief, just my private point of view. That the Universe was formed with its present physical laws in the Big Bang. The nature of matter and energy and the very dimensions of space-time itself in the universe, the stuff of the Universe, IS the Universe. It's pointless to talk of what gave rise TO the Big Bang, because the notion of "before" implies a temporal dimension, which is an artifact of our known universe and nonsensical outside it. This then gave rise to the galaxies, the stars, the heavier atoms ( > He) formed in the crucibles of the stars from which the planets were made. Certainly if there were an exterior creative force outside of that, we have no possible knowledge of it and I find it rather pointless to speculate about it. I do feel quite firm in my convictions that any exterior force there might possibly be would not have created a universe so vast, with such vast uncrossable spaces between the stars, and somehow then decide to focus all attention on one little rock revolving around one little star in some distant outback spiral arm of one insignificant galaxy among trillions. Oh, and that he would choose a period of roughly 2000 years out of a time span of 4 billion that this rock has existed, 1 billion that life has existed, and ~200,000 years that anatomically modern humans have existed to suddenly make a big deal of His Existence. Think about it - only 1% of the time humans have been around(2000 out of 200,000 years) has this Creator made himself known and demanded that humans take that into account. So what about those 99% of human generations that were around before he showed up? Hmm. Did He just not give ashit about them? Guess not.

At most, I guess I'd say that maybe there is something passive out there that could conceivably have had a role in the formation of the Universe, something "meta" to what we can understand and grapple with. But that something just logically to me couldn't be anything very much like the "God" described in conventional Judeo-Christian faith.

Well thought out and inline with some of my thoughts. Specifically, in today's world and in a lot of LI's postings he is demonstrating the worst of what I consider what we define as 'God' today...a literal interpretation of a book (Bible) which is in no way(my opinion) meant to be taken in a literal manner. Contrast this to another Holy Book, the Bhagavad Gita <sp, sorry!> which also discusses the 'Spirit of God' but does it by utilizing 'historical, real human characters' (Krishna/Arjuna/The Pandavas/Duryhodana)who did walk this earth (much like David/Jesus). This is wise because it allows us mere humans to place context (through historical/definable persons) by which we try to, as Scandal has stated, 'Grapple' with a concept of God. In all reality, the Bible is not far from the Bhagavad Gita in terms that are historically accurate...but...the point of basing theology on historical evidence is not to define 'man's point of view' so that we can think in terms of human logic, which will fail us. We simply cannot yet think in these term despite our best scientific/theological efforts. We get kudos for trying, but in the end, we realize what Scandal has realized: We don't know. His statement following this realization that it is therefore unwise to focus on that which we cannot define I will attribute to the influence of his Thai wife, because this is a core tenement of Buddhism and is quite wise for a standpoint of expending personal energy.

This is one of the reasons that I am Catholic. For in the religion of Christianity, Catholicism is the only one which I found truly embraces more importantly leaves alone the 'Mystery of God'.

Blessings,

BishopM

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Its possible that it is more the people whom embody individual philosophies than the philosophies themselves. Philosophy free of people has no argument other than observation.

I find it hard to distinguish between religion, politics, and philosophy. There are Sunday Christians yes, as there fair weather fans of any sport. You could call it a lack of conviction, or simply a lack of faith. I just call it a matter of degree, and sometimes, degrees are part of the problem. After all, ultimately, we have to live in the world we create, not ideologies and theories.

[BishopM 114]

Mark, I think it's a self defeating attempt by Christians (or Jews, or Muslims) to search for logical arguments to buttress their Faith. The very bedrock of Faith is just that : Faith. Believe it, because at your core, in your soul, you believe it's true. Don't look for rationality and persuasive argument where by design it is not to be found.

Ron, this last statement of yours is my sentiment as well. I'll never claim to be one who can 'debate'. I will lose any debate.

I can 'defend' my beliefs as you well know...but I do realize that in the end it is 'faith'. From time to time you'll see me in here stating a article of faith and why I believe it. I can do this as well as anyone. However, I have no desire to be in the cross-fire of an intellectual battle of historical record or to debate the merits of, in the case, Josephus or even the Talmud or the resurrection. You and I know the points too well and we know each other's arguments. Its a waste of energy...but sometimes its nice to have the conversation to keep our razors sharp.

Blessings to you my JewBro!

MK

[tiffmal 6]

Tiffmal why are you singling out Christianity? Can you explain why Christianity is unique when it comes to this matter?

I didn't intend to single it out- I just know a lot of people who are Christian over any other religion which got me to thinking. I also added that this probably includes other religions too.

[tiffmal 6]

What is hell? Absence from God. God welcomes everyone with open arms - even the most wretched. It's up to each person to accept God's love or reject Him. No one is sent away by God. It is a choice and part of free will.

Hmm well if hell is the absence of God then I suppose I'm in hell. Its been pretty nice.

Its hard for me to rationalize what you said. I don't feel welcomed by God. I don't feel anything from God. Im just a wretch.

[tiffmal 6]

He did not do these things. You believe that he did these things. Those are not the same.

God didn't write the bible. The bible is comprised of stories that were chosen by men. The best of many stories made it into the bible- many were exempt. Those are the same men that were so ###### that god had to kill his son to save them. Likely story!