Help needed to save love

[raghu]

 

 

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

 

 

<DL><DD>Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. </DD></DL><TABLE borderColor=#000000 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=boxborder001 style="PADDING-TOP: 15px" vAlign=top colSpan=4>

Romans 2 4)So, when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves.

 

 

 

</TD></TR><TR><TD class=boxborder001 style="PADDING-TOP: 15px" vAlign=top colSpan=4><SUP>15</SUP> They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defence . . . on the day when, </TD></TR><TR><TD class=boxborder001 style="PADDING-TOP: 15px" vAlign=top colSpan=4><SUP>16</SUP> according to the gospel that I preach, God, through Jesus Christ, judgesall human secrets.

 

 

 

...these statements are taken totally out of context. When read *within* context, it is obvious that these statements are a criticism against hypocrisy and NOT a validation of other forms of worship, religion, etc. Hence:

 

13

 

 

 

<DD>For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

and

 

AND

 

 

 

 

 

<DT>17 <DD><SUP>7</SUP> Now if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast of God <DT>18 <DD>and know his will and are able to discern what is important since you are instructed from the law, <DT>19 <DD>and if you are confident that you are a guide for the blind and a light for those in darkness, <DT>20 <DD>that you are a trainer of the foolish and teacher of the simple, because in the law you have the formulation of knowledge and truth-- <DT>21 <DD>then you who teach another, are you failing to teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? <DT>22 <DD>You who forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, do you rob temples? <DT>23 <DD>You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?

 

 

 

 

 

 

</DD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts. The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation which will include all the nations. 1 Corinthians 5) For that reason, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes; he will bring to light everything that is hidden in darkness and reveal the designs of all hearts. Then everyone will receive from God the appropriate commendation.

 

 

 

Your verse numbers appear to be incorrect - is this Corinthians chapter 1 verse 5?

 

 

Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

 

No doubt Christians give lip service to the Old Testament. But Christians would never accept the Vedas. So you are quite mistaken - Christianity means to accept the Bible and only those sources directly related to it.

 

 

As are the Muslims linked to the violence of the Moors. And let's not forget the Bhagadvad Gita was about a violent battle. Arjuna was exhorted to do what was his duty according to his station in life. The Crusaders were also doing what they believed was right. We know now that it wasn't right. The extremists Muslims also sincerely believe that what they are doing is right.Show me.

 

The Muslims and Crusaders were guilty of deliberately carrying out violence against non-combatants. This is a known historic fact. Trying to compare this with the Battle of Kurukshetra, which was a battle between two *armies,* is dishonest in the extreme. Unless you can show me scriptural or historic evidence in which the Mahabharata warriors attacked civilians. Can you?

 

 

Jesus never said he was the only way. In John 14:6 we read, ”I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.” In the original Greek version of this scripture, the word for “comes” is erchetai and it is very present tense meaning it does not apply to all people for all time. This verse applied only to those people Jesus was talking to at that time.

 

I respect you for trying, but the problems in your logic remain:

 

1) Catholics do seek converts. Just go to India and you will see Catholics bribing Hindus (usually the ones on the social fringe) with jobs and other financial incentives in exchange for conversion.

 

2) Catholics would not seek converts if they truly believed that others could gain salvation by sincerely following their own religion. Why build churches and send missionaries to foreign lands? Your theories are not even consistent with reality.

 

3) These Catholics who are seeking converts are not fringe believers - they have the sanction of the highest levels of Catholic orthodoxy. Or would you have me believe that the Pope and the bishops are not Catholic? Please have a look at http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8706&size=A in which the Pope speaks up in favor of conversions. And he does NOT qualify that to indicate that other religions are valid in some sense.

 

4) The "present-tense" argument as used above is an oft-repeated one given often by new-age religionists (i.e. iskcon devotees). The problem with this logic is that, by extension, much of Jesus's teachings can also be held to the same standard - i.e. that they were not meant for all times but rather for the specific time and context in which he spoke them. Then how can you develop a timeless religion around statements that were spoken for a specific time period? You should instead reject Christianity as being for its time and place only, and seek out something else, if you truly accept the above logic.

 

 

In the Aramaic Bible, Jesus’ own language, the word for “I” in this scripture is ena-ena or I-I. The meaning is not the same as ena which is an individual “I.” Ena-ena is a cosmic “I” or I AM THAT I AM (Ex. 3:13 -14). In another scripture, Jesus tells us that we make a mistake if we think he is good, “Why do you call me good?” ‘Jesus answered.’ “No one is good - except God alone.” (Luke 18:19). And again: “By myself I can do nothing.” (John 5:30). The way to reconcile “I am the way...” And “Don’t call me good...” is to understand that it is the I AM (ena-ena) that is talking in John 14:6.

 

 

Another way to "reconcile" them is to accept the obvious conclusion that they are inconsistent, and that the Bible has inconsistencies.

 

 

The I AM is bigger than Jesus in the same way that all the water on this earth is more than any individual lake. By analogy, Jesus, Buddha and Krishna are lakes filled with the one living I AM.

 

Some more problems with your "logic" (though I'm sure the iskcon types would be lapping it up by now).

 

1) Krishna is not a mere prophet - He is the Lord Himself, as He states numerous times in the gItA and is stated to be elsewhere. Even the iskcon free thinkers know and understand this. If Krishna's words are valid, then one cannot simply ignore them and argue that He was a mere guru or prophet in contradiction to what is said about Him.

 

2) Buddha's religion was non-theistic. Hence, the "I AM" which filled the "Buddha lake" cannot be the same as the "I AM" which filled the "Jesus lake." Unless you now wish to claim that Jesus was an atheist.

 

 

In another scripture, Jesus clearly says the only requirement for attaining eternal life is loving God and loving our neighbor:Luke 10:25-28 “On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the Law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.'" If believing in Jesus were necessary to attain eternal life, Jesus would have been guilty of lying to the temple official in this scripture.

 

Nothing in the statement you quoted supports or refutes Christian exclusivity. In fact, the statement is obviously a general principle and one cannot infer anything from it about other religions and their validity.

 

 

Not a single time did Jesus ever warn us about other religions.

 

Excuse me?

 

Leviticus 19:4:

<SUP id=en-ESV-3286>4</SUP><SUP>(A)</SUP> Do not turn to idols<SUP>(B)</SUP> or make for yourselves any gods of cast metal: I am the LORD your God.

 

In fact there are multiple, *MULTIPLE* such warnings throughout the Bible. Clearly the Biblical god wanted that his followers distinguish themselves from the various pagan/pantheistic religions that existed during that time. Trying to claim otherwise is just blatantly false.

 

 

Rather, he said, “And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.” (Luke 9:49-50).

 

Well, the Bible also says:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<DT>Deuteronomy 12:15 <DD>"However, in any of your communities you may slaughter and eat to your heart's desire as much meat as the LORD, your God, has blessed you with; and the unclean as well as the clean may eat it, as they do the gazelle or the deer. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

<DD>

 

 

 

 

 

<DD>I am against animal slaughter. So logically I must be against Christianity.

 

 

 

 

 

</DD>

[Amlesh]

Christianity is not a champion when it concerns compassion for animals.

It is quite restricted in terms for compassion..

 

But I should thank lord Jesus for his immense contribution.

[Smiley]

 

Christianity is not a champion when it concerns compassion for animals.

It is quite restricted in terms for compassion..

 

But I should thank lord Jesus for his immense contribution.

 

If you are a Hindu why would you call a Biblical personality "lord"?

Do you also agree with having a cross on the Rs. 2 coin?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM4UTMvMz7E

 

www.hamsa.org

 

........ width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM4UTMvMz7E&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM4UTMvMz7E&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br>

[Catholic devotee of Christ]

 

Christianity is not a champion when it concerns compassion for animals.

It is quite restricted in terms for compassion..

 

But I should thank lord Jesus for his immense contribution.

http://www.all-creatures.org/ca/index.html

 

There are a few of us, Amlesh.

[Catholic devotee of Christ]

I am grateful for your challenges. You are forcing me to learn more about my faith. This is a good thing.

 

I apologize for my errors in typing and such. It may take me a while to get back to you on your last post.I want to make sure that what I say is correct.

 

I admit that many of my fellow Catholics may view me as somewhat of a heretic. But, I am convinced in the universalism of all faiths. i came here to learn more about yours. It seems the tables have turned, however.

 

I shall endeavor to provide a rebuttal.

[raghu]

 

I am grateful for your challenges. You are forcing me to learn more about my faith. This is a good thing.

 

I apologize for my errors in typing and such. It may take me a while to get back to you on your last post.I want to make sure that what I say is correct.

 

I admit that many of my fellow Catholics may view me as somewhat of a heretic. But, I am convinced in the universalism of all faiths. i came here to learn more about yours. It seems the tables have turned, however.

 

I shall endeavor to provide a rebuttal.

 

Catholic,

 

Christians do not believe in the "universalism of all faiths."

 

I do not think any religion does, because it is impossible for one to logically justify accepting other religious traditions with ideas that are different and often contradictory to one's own.

 

But what makes Christianity self-defeating is this idea that you get one shot at salvation, and either end up in eternal heaven or eternal hell based on what you do. So, all other religions are wrong, and their followers go to hell. Which means if you live in a corner of the world without Christianity, then you automatically go to hell. If you were born before the advent of Christianity, you go to hell, etc etc.

 

This makes the "god" of Christianity partial and cruel. More on this later.

 

Unless of course you over-interpret the use of the present tense in John 14:6 in which Jesus gives his definitive statement of exclusivism. Interpreting in this way may allow you to suggest that Jesus is "presently" the only way to God - but then that still excludes other people who were sincerely following their respective religions during the same time period. Would a Jew in a far-flung corner of the Roman empire automatically be damned to Hell because he was not following Jesus when Jesus was living? That would be the logical conclusion of your interpretation. Another logical conclusion is that the remainder of the Bible is only valid for the specific time in which those teachings were spoken, which would again invalidate Christianity today.

 

The god of the Old Testament is, without a doubt, a very cruel and whimsical god who inflicts pain and torture on innocent people. In the Book of Exodus, we read that "God" repeatedly inflicts pain and suffering on the people of Egypt because pharaoh refused to heed the demands of Moses. This view of God along with all other ideas like some people are "chosen" by God are not very palatable to intelligent people. In the Vedic tradition, Sri Krishna is guilty of becoming involved in the political affairs of man when His devotees prayed for His intervention, but He did not torture civilians just to enforce His superiority. Quite the contrary - He gave Arjuna the option of listening to His teachings or ignoring them entirely. Sri Vishnu is not a "jealous God" who punishes people for engaging in wrong forms of worship.

[Catholic devotee of Christ]

 

Catholic,

 

Christians do not believe in the "universalism of all faiths."

 

I do not think any religion does, because it is impossible for one to logically justify accepting other religious traditions with ideas that are different and often contradictory to one's own.

 

But what makes Christianity self-defeating is this idea that you get one shot at salvation, and either end up in eternal heaven or eternal hell based on what you do. So, all other religions are wrong, and their followers go to hell. Which means if you live in a corner of the world without Christianity, then you automatically go to hell. If you were born before the advent of Christianity, you go to hell, etc etc.

 

This makes the "god" of Christianity partial and cruel. More on this later.

 

Unless of course you over-interpret the use of the present tense in John 14:6 in which Jesus gives his definitive statement of exclusivism. Interpreting in this way may allow you to suggest that Jesus is "presently" the only way to God - but then that still excludes other people who were sincerely following their respective religions during the same time period. Would a Jew in a far-flung corner of the Roman empire automatically be damned to Hell because he was not following Jesus when Jesus was living? That would be the logical conclusion of your interpretation. Another logical conclusion is that the remainder of the Bible is only valid for the specific time in which those teachings were spoken, which would again invalidate Christianity today.

 

The god of the Old Testament is, without a doubt, a very cruel and whimsical god who inflicts pain and torture on innocent people. In the Book of Exodus, we read that "God" repeatedly inflicts pain and suffering on the people of Egypt because pharaoh refused to heed the demands of Moses. This view of God along with all other ideas like some people are "chosen" by God are not very palatable to intelligent people. In the Vedic tradition, Sri Krishna is guilty of becoming involved in the political affairs of man when His devotees prayed for His intervention, but He did not torture civilians just to enforce His superiority. Quite the contrary - He gave Arjuna the option of listening to His teachings or ignoring them entirely. Sri Vishnu is not a "jealous God" who punishes people for engaging in wrong forms of worship.

I do believe in the universalism of all religions. I don't think that arrogantly insulting another persons faith is going to resolve the issue at all. it only compounds the problem.

 

You worship your God and I will worship mine. If you really care about people then you would do your best to see the issue resolved instead of promoting hate.

[raghu]

 

I do believe in the universalism of all religions.

 

Then you do so in clear violation of Biblical tenets as described previously.

 

 

I don't think that arrogantly insulting another persons faith is going to resolve the issue at all. it only compounds the problem.

 

You worship your God and I will worship mine. If you really care about people then you would do your best to see the issue resolved instead of promoting hate.

 

The problems in your religion become apparent when one simply points out the very things your scriptures say, and people like you respond with vehement accusations of "promoting hate" and "arrogance." Why spew your venom at me? Have I said anything that is incorrect? On the contrary, it is all there in the Bible for everyone to see.

 

My experience with Christians is very similar to this. You are only too happy to preach your views to others, but when others question the validity of your views with reference to some of the disturbing things described in your scriptures, you become very hostile and defensive.

[Catholic devotee of Christ]

 

Then you do so in clear violation of Biblical tenets as described previously.

 

 

 

The problems in your religion become apparent when one simply points out the very things your scriptures say, and people like you respond with vehement accusations of "promoting hate" and "arrogance." Why spew your venom at me? Have I said anything that is incorrect? On the contrary, it is all there in the Bible for everyone to see.

 

My experience with Christians is very similar to this. You are only too happy to preach your views to others, but when others question the validity of your views with reference to some of the disturbing things described in your scriptures, you become very hostile and defensive.

whatever...:rolleyes:I think you're alright. I just have to be open to all forms of the godhead. I feel like the veteran of a thousand psychic wars... you know...everyone wants to prove their point. i am sometimes feeling like I do not care anymore. Why should I? What is there to gain?

 

I do not wish for you and I to be at odds. I only know what I experience. I never meant to be hurtful. I just do what i think is right. Sometimes it is not right.

 

The similarities between religions are there for all to see. They just don't want to see them because politics get in the way. One needs to be able to move past the narrow-mindedness of our ancestors and establish the love they talked about but wouldn't do because of the politics and emotion and ego they couldn't see past.

 

Love not bombs. If I seem defensive it is only because I felt attacked.

 

He who screams the loudest has the least to say.

[raghu]

 

whatever...:rolleyes:I think you're alright. I just have to be open to all forms of the godhead.

 

Catholic,

 

The God I worship, the God of all beings, did not throw plagues at the Egyptians and slaughter their first born simply because their leader was a stubborn idiot. Whoever that was, it was someone else.