Jesus Christ versus the Buddha......

[DivineNames]

.



Oh, and by the way, Divine names .... I didn't copy and paste any parts of any articles in reply to that post you made to me. All I copied and pasted in reply to "you" were scriptures. All the rest of that post, were my own words. So Sir, no offense, but, you need to pay attention. I make it clear what words are mine and which are not. .

You made your post a complete mess. One look at it, and I simply didn't care where it came from.

 

[Free]

I mentioned William Law as evidence that Christianity (at least sometimes) uses a notion of salvation that seems easy to harmonize with the idea that various religions can provide a way of salvation.

It's not Christianity that uses that type of notion of salvation, but individuals within Christianity or at least those who claim to be Christian who put forward such notions of salvation. That was my whole point in stating that Hick's theory disagrees with the majority of Christians and probably all statements of faith of every major denomination.

Now of course Christians are (also) going to believe in the atonement, and that salvation is through Jesus. But when it comes down to it, could Christianity actually (at least sometimes) be using a theory of salvation that can easily be disconnected with Jesus? And is the theory, as Hick says, "concrete and empirically observable" in a way that the Jesus sacrifice simply isn't?

Do you believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he is and that he did what the Bible says he did? If Jesus is who the Bible says he is and did what the Bible says he did, and died and rose again as the atonement and propitiary sacrifice for mankind, then no, salvation cannot be disconnected from Jesus, at any time.

First you make some childish statement about it, "appealing to the carnal mind", then another childish statement about, "rebellion against God", and then you put forward very superficial argument. This is the kind of thing that I have come to expect from many Christians.

What is so childish about my statements? Pluralism is appealing to the natural man but goes against what God has revealed in Scripture. I don't think it is a superficial argument at all but rather that my point has been proven by one who thinks they are so spiritual. For those who don't believe in Scripture and what it reveals about God's plan of salvation, pluralism would be very enticing indeed. It is base, it is common, vulgar.

Hick's view of salvation is not especially concerned with having to believe the "right" doctrines, that appears correct.

Which is where he errs and why pluralism becomes the only alternate, albeit unreasonable, solution.

Christian scripture may well contradict the message found in Islamic and Hindu scripture, but how on earth would that affect Hick's own theory of salvation?

Because it shows that pluralism cannot be true, as explained below. His theory is refuted by itself.

In case you have misunderstood, Hick isn't saying that the Christian idea of salvation is true, (Atonement), and a different theory of salvation which contradicts it also happens to be true. Hick is suggesting that his own theory is true.

Yes, but his theory is contradicted the claims of both Christianity and Islam; there is no salvation apart from ways put forward by both those religions. There is no difference between saying that the way of salvation of each religion is true or saying that there is a way outside of each religion that is true which contradicts the way of salvation in each religion. All that does is create another religion with a way of salvation that contradicts the ways in the other religions. He hasn't solved the problem, only further complicated it.

 

[DivineNames]

Now of course Christians are (also) going to believe in the atonement, and that salvation is through Jesus. But when it comes down to it, could Christianity actually (at least sometimes) be using a theory of salvation that can easily be disconnected with Jesus? And is the theory, as Hick says, "concrete and empirically observable" in a way that the Jesus sacrifice simply isn't?

Do you believe that Jesus is who the Bible says he is and that he did what the Bible says he did? If Jesus is who the Bible says he is and did what the Bible says he did, and died and rose again as the atonement and propitiary sacrifice for mankind, then no, salvation cannot be disconnected from Jesus, at any time.

You haven't tried to answer what I said.

With regard to Jesus, neither of us can be at all certain what he did or didn't say. And whatever he said, that is no guarantee of its truth.

 

[DivineNames]

I mentioned William Law as evidence that Christianity (at least sometimes) uses a notion of salvation that seems easy to harmonize with the idea that various religions can provide a way of salvation.

It's not Christianity that uses that type of notion of salvation, but individuals within Christianity or at least those who claim to be Christian who put forward such notions of salvation. That was my whole point in stating that Hick's theory disagrees with the majority of Christians and probably all statements of faith of every major denomination.

That Hick's theory would disagree with orthodox Christianity is obvious. What I would say, is that what Hick is saying can be seen as being supported (to whatever extent) by Christianity. That there is an element to Christian salvation (at least sometimes, or which some people emphasize) which is exactly what Hick is talking about.

 

[DivineNames]

What is so childish about my statements? Pluralism is appealing to the natural man but goes against what God has revealed in Scripture. I don't think it is a superficial argument at all but rather that my point has been proven by one who thinks they are so spiritual. For those who don't believe in Scripture and what it reveals about God's plan of salvation, pluralism would be very enticing indeed. It is base, it is common, vulgar.

More childish argument...

 

[Soma-Sight]

It is not necessarily the practices that are evil, but the end focus and intent of those practices. Eastern meditation essentially teaches clearing one's mind of everything, including oneself, for the purpose of becoming one with the universe, or whatever. Christian meditation is quite the opposite; it is focusing on God, as a wholly other being, or Christ or something else Christian, with the goal of growing closer to Christ. Eastern meditation is an emptying; Christian meditation is a filling; they are very different.

Actually this is incorrect.

The whole purpose of mediation as explained in the Gita is for the purposes of God Realization - aka - your connection with God

Therefore, always remember Me and do your duty. You shall certainly attain Me if your mind and intellect are ever focused on Me. (8.07) By contemplating on Me with an unwavering mind that is disciplined by the practice of meditation, one attains the Supreme Being, O Arjun. (8.08) One who meditates on the Supreme Being (ParBrahm)

I am easily attainable, O Arjun, by that ever steadfast yogi who always thinks of Me and whose mind does not go elsewhere. (8.14)

Ignorant persons despise Me when I appear in human form; because, they do not know My transcendental nature as the great Lord of all beings (and take Me for an ordinary human), and they have false hopes, false actions, false knowledge, and delusive (Taamasik) qualities

JESUS?????

(See 16.04-18) of fiends and demons (and are unable to recognize Me). (9.11-12) But great souls, O Arjun, who possess divine qualities (See 16.01-03), know Me as immutable, as the material and efficient cause of creation, and worship Me single-mindedly with loving devotion. (9.13) Persons of firm resolve worship Me with ever steadfast devotion by always singing My glories, striving to attain Me, and prostrating before Me with devotion. (9.14) Some worship Me by acquiring and propagating Self-knowledge. Others worship the infinite as the One in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

 

[DivineNames]

In case you have misunderstood, Hick isn't saying that the Christian idea of salvation is true, (Atonement), and a different theory of salvation which contradicts it also happens to be true. Hick is suggesting that his own theory is true.

Yes, but his theory is contradicted the claims of both Christianity and Islam; there is no salvation apart from ways put forward by both those religions.

Well his theory will presumably contradict them in some ways. And?

There is no difference between saying that the way of salvation of each religion is true or saying that there is a way outside of each religion that is true which contradicts the way of salvation in each religion. All that does is create another religion with a way of salvation that contradicts the ways in the other religions. He hasn't solved the problem, only further complicated it.

What problem is Hick supposed to be solving?

Hick has put forward a theory of salvation. You could find support for that theory in Christianity and in some other religions I am sure, (as an element of those religions). If we imagine that the theory is true, then various religions and believers could participate in that truth. So you have a provisional pluralism. (As I said.) What would be wrong with that exactly?

 

[DivineNames]

Of course I have an open mind

Not only is it rebellion against God and his revelation in Christ...

If something doesn't fit with your belief system, are you always going to consider it, "rebellion against God"? If so, is that what you mean by having an "open mind"?