quote:

---

That's just it, though. Atheists always think that being a christian automatically means we neve rquestion our beliefs, when in fact it is very rare that a christian DOESNT question their beliefs.

---

The first post was made and the next lot of posts from Christians were all about how they hadn't, and didn't need to study the other religions. I don't know many Christians who have taken more than a glance at other religious studies. Especially from my more devout friends. Their studies usually go straight into why the religion is false.

Homsar, the reason it is drivel is because every religion could say the exact same thing and there can never be a counter-point. It is a feel good statement that seems to differentiate Christianity somehow. But in actuality it would only be agreeable if the person was already a Christian. To any type of non-Christian that statement is meaningless. It's like saying "because Christianity is true." Obviously, that's the entire point, is to figure out which religion is true.

For those of you who think you don't need to study other religions, why do you expect others to consider the message of Christianity if you are not willing to extend the same courtesy? How can you effectively witness to people of other religions if you don't know what they believe or care enough about them to understand where they are coming from, effective differences, etc?

Saying "I only know A, and that is what I choose" is one thing. But trying to convince others of that without having looked at the other options is ignorant.

quote:

---

Homsar, the reason it is drivel is because every religion could say the exact same thing and there can never be a counter-point. It is a feel good statement that seems to differentiate Christianity somehow. But in actuality it would only be agreeable if the person was already a Christian. To any type of non-Christian that statement is meaningless. It's like saying "because Christianity is true." Obviously, that's the entire point, is to figure out which religion is true.

---

Then you should easily be able to name one other major world religion that doesn't involve individuals working their way to heaven or God or whatever is promised.

whaaa....? Christians aren't working their way to heaven?!?

Slackers.

quote:

---

Is it irrational to believe something unless one first carefully studies all of the competing claims? For example, is one irrational in believing in global warming or the existence of the quark unless they first personally study and discard every contradictory claim?

If I have good reason to believe I was at home all day today, do I have to also have good reason to believe I wasn't at the beach or in the mall?

---

Excellent post.

The obvious answers to these type of questions serves as a nice response to Wakebrad's post.

I do not discourage reading about other religions outside of one's own. In fact I encourage for a balanced reading of all sides in a good debate. Reading about others will often increase the probability that you are making a correct decision. Even if you don't change your beliefs in the process of reading about opposing viewpoints, I find that by reading about others you learn a lot about your own in the process as well. Think of what knowledge you gain from a compare and contrast of any viewpoint to another.

Anyhow, simply put, I think reading about all other views is nice, but it is not necessary in order to have true belief in comparison to an opposing belief which stands in contradiction to it.

What matters is when you think you've reached a point where you're sufficiently justified in your own beliefs. If that point is where it exclude other religions being true, then you don't have to know other viewpoints in great depth in order to know that they are false. At that point, you know they are false because contradictions cannot be true.

quote:

---

....the following faiths: Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism

---

In-between my formative years when my family attended first an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church (Worth Baptist, Ft. Worth), then Southern Baptist churches (Matthew Road, Grand Prairie; First Baptist, Euless) and my conversion to Orthodox Christianity, I did study Buddhism and Taoism. Growing up, I went to my best friend's synagogue (Congregation Beth Shalom, Arlington). In college I had gone from my Baptist roots (First Baptist, Bryan) to non-denominational (Grace Baptist, College Station). When my then fiance and I started talking about churches we visited churches based on her background as well (St. Thomas Episcopal, College Station). We ended up halfway between our faith backgrounds (A&M United Methodist, College Station).

Our pastor there, Buddy Walker, a Baptist convert himself, helped me start to understand issues such as infant baptism. When I brought my thoughts about Buddhism to him, he also made the point that the same Christ that said to love our enemies probably wouldn't have much problem with most of what Buddha said.

I have in the last two years done fairly extensive reading on Baha'i and Islam. What I have found in all of my reading and participation is that there seems to be something innate in most people that draws them to be part of something bigger than themselves. I concur with prof. gradoo that I'm likely to have approached all of my study through the lens of some basic "Christian" assumptions, but I've also shattered some of those assumptions along the way (e.g. OSAS, Sola Scriptura).

The assumptions that I have left are that we are intentionally created (though I don't take a dogmatic position on how or when); that Christ is God; and that our calling is to love one another. Besides Christianity, Buddhism & Taosim come the closest to providing a framework for understanding my experience. The difference for me between these two and Christ is that instead of the person being subsumed in an everythingness of Being, in Christianity, the person becomes an integral part of unity in God, but retains his personhood. For a great meditation on Lao Tzu as a pre-Christian prophet (ala Aristotle) see Christ the Eternal Tao by Fr. Damascene Christensen.

Coming to Orthodox Christianity, I struggled with some concepts (e.g. veneration of icons, the role of the Theotokos, confession) more than others that were more familiar in my upbringing (e.g. the Trinity). What I discovered is that while there is a wealth of texts and traditions in Christianity, so too there are a wealth in other faith traditions as well. This is, finally, what I think faith is. I decided that I would trust Christ's word that he had established a temporal church and that it would persist (Matt. 16:18) and be led by God into all Truth (John 16:13). Along with trusting that Christ’s church existed and persisted to our times and had preserved Christ’s teachings intact and unaltered, I had to trust that those things which I didn’t cognitively understand would be made clear.

With respect to the comparative religion, I don’t disbelieve Judaism but think that Orthodox Christianity is a fulfillment of the Law and Prophets in Christ (and Judaism post-Javneh has a flavor of damage control for the “Christian problem”). Islam is a radical monotheistic reaction to Christianity. Baha’i is a universalist reformation of Islam. Buddhism/Taoism, like many pre-Christian religions (including Native American religion and Zoroastrianism) reveal mystical truths which are fully revealed in Christ. I’ve not studied Confucianism, Hinduism, Jainism, or Sikhism in any depth past casual reading. Confucianism is more of an system of ethics than a faith, and as such isn’t necessarily at odds with Christianity. In the case of Hinduism and Jainism, I think that multiple gods and/or ancestor worship can be influenced by evil spirits and/or point to later, more fully revealed truths in Christianity. Sikhism also points to a “Universal God,” which is beyond human ken…also has the ability to be interpreted as fulfilled through the Trinitarian understanding we have of God as uncreated and outside of time.

The bottom line to comparative religion for me is a truth that I discovered in Orthodoxy (it certainly wasn’t an aspect of the Evangelism Explosion training I received in the Baptist Church) is that I am called to focus on my own salvation, to work that out in “fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12) and not worry about what someone else is or isn’t doing, but to love them as icons of Christ.

Forgive me a sinner.

Christ is in our midst!

"At the Last Judgement I shall not be asked whether I was successful at my ascetic exercises, nor how many bows and prostrations I made. Instead I shall be asked, Did I feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners? That is all I shall be asked"-Mother Maria Skobtsova

"Modern commerce and social agendas *are* at war with their values"-titan

"If you're aware you sin everyday, you're living in sin."--janag81

"anytime you stop talking about specific goals and objectives and start talking about killing a thousand of them for one of us to show them, you've just deposited your humanity in the toilet." --utut

"There is something right about this world. There is a plan, and we are too human to be making the decision as to whether a life full of potential stays or goes." --TCLTC

"It is not cowardice to stand up to a bully government and it's moronic leader.' -- MH99

"We need to be creating a world that we would like to live in when we're not the biggest power on the block." -- William Jefferson Clinton

"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"Jesus also said to 'clean the inside of the cup', then the outside. I am still too busy cleaning the inside of my cup to worry about what it looks like on the outside." -- ramblinag02

"I am a free market person. But to rely on the free market to correct everything is irresponsible when the playing field is not level." -- DayDuck91

Homsar said it better than any could.

"The effort of God to reach man."

WOW!

Hah, the effort of god to reach man, oh yes, cause that's def. unique to christianity

BMED:

quote:

---

Not if they are truly objective, no

---

How would one know whether they were being "truly objective?" The assumption that one is being objective is in and of itself subjective.

quote:

---

The majority of world religions can be disgarded simply on historical fallacy alone. Examples are Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, etc.

---

Historical fallacy??? I'll get to that in a minute...

quote:

---

All of these religions have glaring historical falsehoods as part of their core doctrines. Obviously, if what the religion says happened can be historically disproven, it cannot be "correct".

---

This brings up an old thread about the hypocrisy of Christians who use science to knock other religions, but ignore science contrary to their own beliefs. If you say you indeed use science to support Christianity, it is cherry picked science.

quote:

---

Christianity, on the other hand, cannot be historicall disproven. In fact, there is fairly concrete historical evidence (outside of the bible) that Jesus existed and much of the accounts of biblical history can, in fact, be proven. Now obviously, people rising from the dead and parting seas has to be taken on faith, but it cannot be disproven.

---

Oh... well... can't creating fish, wine, parting seas, etc. be disproven in a lab setting? It's NEVER been done and will never be done. One certainly cannot hold a staff over a body of water and part it under any conceivable theory. One cannot create fish and wine from existing matter- I think that's one of Newton's laws, but I don't hold myself out to be a scientist. It's disproven because it is not physically possible. And the flooding, yes salt on an old wound, is also not scientifically supported in light of the quantity of water the Bible discusses, which is not here.

quote:

---

The bible is the ONLY religious text ever accpted by the Smithsonian as a legitimate historical document.

---

So why does the sprinkling of valid historical references necessarily make the underlying religious/unscientific themes/miracles true? Further, why is the Smithsonian now a religious authority?

BMED- I've argued with you in previous threads over, generally, this same issue. You tend to dodge the issue.

Much of the Bible is NOT, I repeat, NOT scientifically valid (whatever the proper terminology is). Can it be "disproven?" I refer back to the above, where if it's not scientifically possible, then it is disproven in my book. (But again, no scientist here, just using common sense).

SO... the point I am really trying to make is this. Believe in the Bible, believe in Christianity, just as I do.

But don't wave this historical/scientific argument as if there is only one objectively true church on the face of the earth.


[This message has been edited by JMJLAW (edited 7/16/2008 10:10a).]

the "general" answer is,

where were you born?

quote:

---

Then you should easily be able to name one other major world religion that doesn't involve individuals working their way to heaven or God or whatever is promised.

---

You really think that's a logical conclusion? That lack of work means God reached man instead of the other way around?

You understand that any religion could say "God reached down and gave us these commands to follow. He told us to work for what was promised."

The idea of pretty much any religion is that God "reached to man" and told him what to do.

Anyone who is impressed with your statement has a severe lack of perspective. Sure, making a statement like that to a bunch of like-minded believers can make sense. But when discussing other religions with people of different beliefs it shows an acute ignorance of any world-view other than your specific Christian beliefs.

No one cares to debate my thoughts on being an educated witness? No one feels compelled to do some study so that you can effectively do what the Bible commands you to do; spread the gospel?

Homsar-

Your original post is elegant in its simplicity. The central tenet of Christianity is that God became flesh in the person of Christ to effect our salvation, so yes, this is a difference between Christianity and other religions...and I'd argue a sufficient difference.

Your further argument that there is no concurrent movement of man toward God falls out of orthodox theology. The Church has always taught that, while man can not effect his own salvation, he must cooperate with the grace freely given to all to participate in that salvation.

quote:

---

We do cooperate, or participate, in our salvation precisely because salvation is relational – it is union with God – and relationships are not a one-way street. As human beings created in the image of God, we respond freely to God’s love and to his restoration of our fallen human nature.

---

"Beyond Justification: An Orthodox Perspective" - Valerie A. Karras [/url]
(The article quoted above is a nice exposition of why Orthodox soteriology shouldn't be understood as semi-Pelagian).

[This message has been edited by jkotinek (edited 7/17/2008 8:10a).]

quote:

---

quote:Then you should easily be able to name one other major world religion that doesn't involve individuals working their way to heaven or God or whatever is promised.


You really think that's a logical conclusion? That lack of work means God reached man instead of the other way around?

You understand that any religion could say "God reached down and gave us these commands to follow. He told us to work for what was promised."

The idea of pretty much any religion is that God "reached to man" and told him what to do.

Anyone who is impressed with your statement has a severe lack of perspective. Sure, making a statement like that to a bunch of like-minded believers can make sense. But when discussing other religions with people of different beliefs it shows an acute ignorance of any world-view other than your specific Christian beliefs.

No one cares to debate my thoughts on being an educated witness? No one feels compelled to do some study so that you can effectively do what the Bible commands you to do; spread the gospel?

---

A simple "no" will suffice next time.

quote:

---

Your further argument that there is no concurrent movement of man toward God falls out of orthodox theology. The Church has always taught that, while man can not effect his own salvation, he must cooperate with the grace freely given to all to participate in that salvation.

---

Are you meaning to capitalize "O" in orthodox? What does this cooperation look like? While I agree with you, it is important to understand that, unlike other world religions, it is not the cooperation that necessitates the salvation. The cooperation is indicative of the salvation.

quote:

---

A simple "no" will suffice next time.

---

[This message has been edited by Wakebrad (edited 7/17/2008 10:48a).]

If posting that dulls the pain of your inability to form a cogent argument, then sweet.

Homsar-

quote:

---

Are you meaning to capitalize "O" in orthodox? What does this cooperation look like? While I agree with you, it is important to understand that, unlike other world religions, it is not the cooperation that necessitates the salvation. The cooperation is indicative of the salvation.

---

I intended the little "o"; my understanding is that non-synergistic theories of salvation are relatively recent. Certainly within the Apostolic Church, the emphasis has always included mankind's response to God's grace.

Cooperation or participation in our salvation in Orthodox theology is described as theosis or becoming like God. St. Gregory Palamas puts it this way, "becoming by grace what [Christ] is by nature." . Orthodoxy holds that one can be imparted grace directly by God, through prayer and fasting, but more regularly by participation in the sacraments, including Holy Communion.

I don't disagree that grace doesn't compel cooperation, but participation is also not simply indicatory. In Orthodox soteriology, salvation is relational, and as such dependent on man's response.

[This message has been edited by jkotinek (edited 7/17/2008 5:45p).]

quote:

---

I intended the little "o"; my understanding is that non-synergistic theories of salvation are relatively recent.

---

Yes, if you mean in the past 500 years, it is relatively recent. Reformed orthodoxy holds that man is saved by grace through faith alone, not of works. Works are simply indicative of a faith relationship, not synergistic where justifying grace is actually imparted with the work that is performed.

Yes, in the history of the church, 500 years is relatively recent.

However, it is important to understand that for 1500 years, Scripture was interpreted in two or three vacuums, the authorities of the churches.

It was not until the invention of the printing press that other interpretations were considered (for better or worse!!!).

quote:

---

However, it is important to understand that for 1500 years, Scripture was interpreted in two or three vacuums, the authorities of the churches.

---

One might go further and suggest that there was a single vacuum, until there wasn't. And I do agree that it is an important fact to understand, along with the fact that the canon was developed within and to support Holy Tradition...but that's probably a topic for a different thread.

JK

quote:

---

Then you should easily be able to name one other major world religion that doesn't involve individuals working their way to heaven or God or whatever is promised.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism


HTH

Christians think all the time. One would have to be really stupid to believe that Augustine, Aquinas, Mother Teresa, Billy Graham, Pope Benedict XVI, etc., do not think. We are just convinced of The Truth of Jesus Christ. Some are convinced by reading the Bible, some are convinced through life experiences, and some are convinced by just looking around at countries where the predominant religion is Christianity vs. Hinduism, Islam, or Judaism or atheism. I prefer to live in a country where the predominant religion is Christianity.

I can't work for my salvation.. i can't get anywhere close to being perfect.

Thank God for grace, otherwise i am screwed

quote:

---

I can't work for my salvation.. i can't get anywhere close to being perfect.

---

quitter

quote:

---

If posting that dulls the pain of your inability to form a cogent argument, then sweet.

---

That's pretty funny for a guy who just ignored a convincing argument that the original question is irrelevant.

And yes, often times posting pictures can dull the pain of trying to debate with dimwits. I guess I can take comfort in knowing that you will never be effective in communicating your beliefs to anyone outside of your belief system. That way you can't infect others.

amercer,

From your link...

quote:

---

Active participation in life through good thoughts, good words and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep the chaos at bay.

---

Wakebrad,

quote:

---

And yes, often times posting pictures can dull the pain of trying to debate with dimwits. I guess I can take comfort in knowing that you will never be effective in communicating your beliefs to anyone outside of your belief system. That way you can't infect others.

---

Yeah, okay. You are smarter than I am. I surrender.

holy hell