Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: ...It is by the
    name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised
    from the dead, that this man stands before you healed.  He [Jesus] is 'the
    stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.'

      Salvation is found in NO ONE ELSE, for there is no other name under
      heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:8-12)

    Hmmm... does your Bible actually have those letters all capitalized?

    Or have you taken it upon yourself to place emphasis where none
    existed before?

>   Hmmm... does your Bible actually have those letters all capitalized?

    Is that the sum of what you got out of the passages?


>   Or have you taken it upon yourself to place emphasis where none
>   existed before?

    The intent is one of highlighting (to make easily seen) not emphasis.

    .3
    
    Highlighting is frequently done for the sake of emphasis.  :-}
    
    Richard
    

    Micheal, I admire your zeal in this.  And I thank you for what I believe
    is a sincere interest in the spiritual well being of others.  Really!
    
    I ask you to try to understand a couple things:  
    
    First, if I knew that the text in .0 and .1 are representative of the
    truth, the REAL TRUTH, then I'd be a believer in a heartbeat.  But the
    problem is that these messages come from the bible, a text which I do
    not accept as the absolute, unquestioned truth.  With that, can you
    understand why simply quoting these passages is not enough?  You have
    to answer questions like...
    
     - Why should I believe these passages while apparently false passages
       appear in the very same book? (Arks, Rivers of blood, living inside
       whales, etc...)
    
     - If some of the more fantastic passages in the bible should be taken
       as symbolic, then why should not the ones you cited in .0?  How
       literally can one take .0?
    
     - What did Jesus REALLY have to say?  The gospels were written decades
       after Jesus' life and by people who might have cause to be something
       less than objective.  How much truth is there in the rest of the NT
       being written, as it was, by people who were even ferther removed from
       Jesus' life and with an even more biased view of matters?
    
     - Why should I discard a system of analyzing the world that works time
       and time and time again in my everyday life?  It tells me that water
       will freeze when it gets too gold, it gave us medecine and automibiles
       and a sense that at least some of the bible is exaggeration and/or
       fabrication.  What makes the bible (or biblical passages in .0) the
       exception?
    
    Of course all of this is moot if there's a faith in the bible as being
    truth.  I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to find someone who believes 
    that the bible is fact and is not a devout christian.
     
    
    Second, in .0 you said "Just ask Him".  I did.  Many times over many
    years.  To some this would indicate that there's no one listening.  But
    I'm still very open minded about it.
    
    
    -dave
    

>    Is that the sum of what you got out of the passages?

    No.  It's just that I've recently been accused of selectively
    editing.  It was on my mind.  I wanted to show I was in good
    (yes, that's you :-) company.

    Actually, I think the name of this notes string should be renamed
    to "The exclusivity of Christianity."

    I must admit I have trouble with these phrases.  Part of me believes
    that they were spoken to the people present - that indeed to those
    there then Jesus was the only way out of the morass of institutional
    religion of the time.

    But still....

    For about two decades Christianity didn't speak to me at all.  For
    the first few years it was a dark time.  I then connected with
    a mystical psychic (no, she didn't have a 900 number, she was
    a student).  What she said made *so* much sense that it gave
    me hope.  A few years later I started to follow a yoga based 
    on Hinduism.  This gave me an even deeper connection with God
    and has helped me form much of my faith.

    As time went on this yoga fell away from me and I had no formal
    connection to a religious organization.  Then I started checking
    out churches.  I looked until I found one that spoke to me.  If
    I didn't know what I already believed, it wouldn't have spoken
    to me.

    Ultimately, I've come to Christianity through Hinduism.  Without
    it I doubt it would have happened.

    My point is, how can I damn a tradition as being from the devil
    after it has helped me out of my darkness and ultimately into
    a Christian congregation that I adore?  There is real love, real
    growth and real faith going on in other places than just Christianity.

    What I *haven't* done is looked at the Bible and decided that, 
    because I don't believe parts of it are true, that I'll dicard
    the whole thing.

    If you had the power to define who could be a Christian and who
    couldn't and said that a Christian had to believe the Bible in
    its entirety then I don't think I could do it.  But that still
    wouldn't keep me from loving God, Christ and my fellow wo/man.
    
    But then again, no one here is the final word on what Christainity
    is and isn't.
    
    Tom

    then again, how can you lay claim to a faith that exludes anyone born
    outside of India?  It was never intended to be a universal religion.

>    then again, how can you lay claim to a faith that exludes anyone born
>    outside of India?  It was never intended to be a universal religion.

    err...  huh?

    My understanding of Hinduism is that they hold the belief that
    *EVERYONE* is Hindu.  All the other religions are just part of
    Hinduism.

    In Hinduism all those gods are just different aspects of the
    same, single, God.  Only the ignorant believe otherwise.

    Tom

    Not according to the historical roots of Brahmanism and Hinduism.  Even
    PBS has shown specials on the subject where Indians basically laugh at
    anglos in India seeking enlightenment.  

    Some 18 years ago PBS had a series on about all the different
    religions.  The one on Hinduism was called "The 330 Million
    Gods".  I base my previous statement mostly on that documentary.

    As far as Indians laughing at anglos, who ever said that
    everyone who claims to practice a religion "has it right."

    We can't even agree what Christianity *is* in this file. :-)

    Tom

    I'd be very very cautious of western interpretations of eastern
    theologies and philosophies.  The english language is often inadaquest
    to express many of their ideas.  The transpations into western terms are
    often appauling to the point of being outright wrong.  They are very
    often misleading.  Read some of Alan Watts books.  He's a westerner who 
    understands eastern thought and does a good job of conveying the ideas
    to westerners in english.  You'll find that the explanations can be
    lengthy and often indirect (as there are no direct translations for
    much of it).  Ideas are sometimes described as what they are NOT of
    described as a feeling one might have.  After a time, you get a sense
    of what he's trying to say and an apreciation for the differences in
    culture and philosophies.
    
    I believe that what Tom said is true.  The various "gods" Hindus 
    "worship" are just manifestations of the same one god.  Here again, 
    the english word "god" and "worship" are VERY VERY misleading.  Buddhists
    do not worship the Buddha, they strive to become like him.  Over the 
    years, statues were made and the various "flavors" of the Buddha came
    into existence, but these were all peripheral and really unimportant.
    The core philosophy has not changed.  
    
    Claiming that buddhists worship many gods would be akin to claiming
    that christians worship 3 gods (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).  The claim
    is incorrect in both cases.  Claiming that Buddhists worship statues 
    would be like claiming that christians worship statue (Virgin Mary,
    Crucifix, angels...)  Again, it's incorrect in both cases and
    inconsistent with their founding philosophies.
    
    -dave

    The one god theory in Hinduism didn't appear until at the very end of
    the Rig Veda (Book X, hymn 129). See "A New History of India" by
    Stanley Wolpert (History Professor at UCLA).  It's on Oxford University
    Press, ISBN 0-19-507660-5.  It's considered to be the best work on
    historical India.
    
    Mike

    Again, the Buddha is not regarded as a god.  He is not worshipped. 
    He's regarded as a man who attained what translates to "perfect
    unexcelled complete awakewning".  Achieving this state is what true
    Buddhists strive for.  They "try" to become like the Buddha ("try" is a
    poor work do describe this).  The Buddha is not regarded as a man who
    had any sort of supernatural power.  The notion of worshipping the Buddha
    (in the same sense that a christian would worship God) is completely
    inconsistent with everything I've read and heard on this subject.
    
    -dave

    Dave, your information conflicts with what I've been exposed to.  I've
    just finished a whole semester on Asian Civilizations at a local major
    university taught by secular professors.  Buddha is worshiped and on a
    grand scale.  One only needs to see the temples and monuments built for
    Buddha all over India, China, and Japan to see this.
    
    As for Pureland Buddhism, it hit Japan in 1000 A.D. (China was a big
    influence on much of ancient Japan).  By the 12th century, Pureland was
    more dominate than Zen.  In Japan, it separated into 2 major sects
    known as Shinran and Nichiren.  Shinran Buddhism emphasizes *TOTAL*
    faith in Buddha for salvation with nothing coming from yourself.  Sort
    of a Calvinist view of Buddhism.  Nichiren focused on the Lotus
    scriptures as the key for salvation.  Parallels the accusations of the
    traditional Christians in here.  Nichirens started the tradition of
    Buddhist priests marrying.
    
    Mike

    I can't speak to every sect.  I can relate what I've read and heard and
    most of that is in line with Zen or fundamental Buddhism.  These regard
    the Buddha as being just a man "in touch with God".  I hate to use the 
    word "salvation" or "saved" because of the christian definitions they
    will conjure.  Other sects may indeed worship statues, icons, or even
    the Buddha as a god.  But then again, I've heard of people who pray 
    to saints at the fet of their statues, build churches in the name of
    other saints, etc... .  IOW, appearances can be deceiving.  
    
    The word "worship" is key here.  To the west, it might mean something
    like  praising and/or recognizing a diety.  But Buddhists "worship"
    Buddha by recognizing him not as a diety, but a common man who was able
    to attain complete awakening.  The statues remind the buddhist of what
    to strive to "become" (gulp! that word "become" is inexact 2-B-sure).
    The temples are not a place for worship, but a place for personal
    contemplation or practice in striving for a state of awakening.
    "Prayers" (another real bad translation) are more like mantras or 
    mental aids one uses in meditation to dissolve away distractions.
    
    From what I've gathered (and I'm not sure this belongs inthis note or
    conf)...
    
    By definition, "Enlightenment" cannot be defined with words because it
    cannot be conceived as an idea (sound familiar?).  It's a state of
    being where the individual is in touch completely with his/her TRUE
    nature.  The false notions of ego and self have dissolved away leaving
    the person living completely in the present, unfettered and
    undistracted by random thoughts or ideas (sufficient for the day...). 
    Nirvana!  Someone in this state practices unconditional love,
    forgivness, contentment, sacrifice... all the things which christians
    claim to be signs of the Holy Spirit.  An enlightened person behaves
    this way for the same reasons and with the same effort as you just
    demonstrated in taking a breath a few seconds ago!  You didn't think of
    doing it, you just did it.  It wasn't intentional, it just happened. 
    I'm probably stretching too far here, but it might be like "dissolving
    into the body of God".  It's claimed that all of this is possible for
    anyone and that it's right there, in front of your nose (the kingdom of
    heaven is at hand).  Everything you've learned and all your best
    efforts will not help you.  You need to throw all that away and just
    let it happen (born again).  You don't have to DO anyting (grace).
    Just let it happen (salvation).  
    
    (pardon my injections of parallels to christianity. to me, they're too
    striking to ignore.)
    
    It's claimed that the Buddha was enlightened, completely. He was the
    first.  He was and is regarded as an example, maybe a guide.  Maybe
    some worship him for that, I dunno.  But, again, from what I've read
    and heard, I think that the Buddha would discourage this sort of thing. 
    He did not regard himself as being a god.  What people did with his
    image after he died is, well, what THEY wanted to do I guess.  There
    seems to be a human desire to worship something (Ra, Zeus, Thor... )
    and maybe some sects decided that Buddha was a good candidate for
    worship.  
    
    Sorry for rambling.
    
    -dave
    

>    Sorry for rambling.

You got your point across.

One thing that bears mentioning here.  The state of enlightenment
is the complete dissolution of the ego which entails absolute surrender
to God.   This, at least, is what the Hindu guru tradition believes.
"Not my will, but Thine" taken to the extreme.

Tom

    Thanks for the info, but I respectfully disagree.

>    Thanks for the info, but I respectfully disagree.

Hey, if we keep using words like that we might actually
start being nice to each other.

    Re .16 (Tom)
    
    Yes, the dissolution of self/ego is key.  And the more one TRIES to
    do this, the more ONE will fail.
    
    Re .17 (Mike)
    
    All I can suggest is to consider that the text you read was tasked to
    describe eastern culture in wester terms without having to go into all
    the gory philosophical details.  So naturally a temple will be equated
    to a church where one worships, a statue of Buddha would equate him to
    be a diety, and mantras will be equated to prayers.  Those are the closest
    english/western synonyms (how ever distant they may be) and the ones
    that were used.  
              
    -dave
    

    Dave, I don't think so.  The instructor and text went out of their way
    to clarify possible misconceptions like that.

    Well, I haven't taken the course or read that particular text, so, I 
    respect your interpretation of both.  Just saying that my understanding
    on this stuff from my sources are very different.  Different to the
    point of being genuyinely dissimilar.  Something's missing here.
    
    -dave

    
    Hi Folks,
    
    I was in Asia recently and regardless of what the texts say, Buddha was
    worshiped in grand style - temples, prostrations, offerings, etc.
    
    jeff

    .22
    
    It is not what the founder intended.  The same might be said about much
    of Christianity, you will doubtlessly agree.
    
    Richard
    

    Worship of the founder of Christianity is mandatory.  Every knee will
    bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is LORD.

    .24
    
    Yes, Jesus is LORD.
    
    I'm at a loss, though, to recall the verses quoting Jesus as mandating
    that he be worshipped.
    
    Richard
    

>    Yes, Jesus is LORD.
>    
>    I'm at a loss, though, to recall the verses quoting Jesus as mandating
>    that he be worshipped.

If Jesus is LORD, and the LORD God has mandated throughout scripture and
history that he be worshipped, then Jesus has mandated that he be worshipped.

That was Jesus in the burning bush.

/john

    And worship means ritual animal sacrifices as Jesus prescribed to his
    chosen people in Leviticus, doesn't it?
    
    Richard
    

     That was the type and shadow of the new sacrifice,
     made by Jesus himself upon the Cross,
     and made present, bloodlessly, in the rite he left his followers.

    Jesus was also worshipped in the book of Revelation.

   And he was worshipped at his birth in the Gospel according to Matthew
   by the men from the East.

.30

>   And he was worshipped at his birth in the Gospel according to Matthew
>   by the men from the East.

Yes.  The light is often most clearly seen by outsiders.

God must have forgotten to mandate his own worship while occupying Jesus'
skin.

Richard

    Well, He never refused worship from people like all the prophets and 
    angels did.  He had plenty of opportunities too.  Look when He asked
    the disciples, "Who do you say that I am?"  (btw - nice play on words).
    Peter unhesitatingly called Him the Messiah, yet Jesus never corrected
    it because it was true.  The Tanakh is full of passages calling for the
    worship of the Messiah.  Yet God also says not to worship anyone but
    Him.  Obviously, and the ancient rabbis taught this, the Messiah is a
    physical manifestation of God.

    Mike