Do you teach your children that your faith is the only correct one?

[Peek a Boo]

If I keep with my Christianity as a curry analogy, it's more that some curry eating people think it's ok, even good, to eat curry with condiments. ........

 

actually, the best analogy for Christianity would be [living] water :)

 

ANYTHING except that same sort of water would be considered an impurity ;)

[Peek a Boo]

...I know better than to think a child is some sort of robot I can program. I'm not raising a mini version of myself or my dh. I'm raising a human being who (hopefully) is capable of independent thought.

 

I do agree that if one thinks faith is about programming and loss of independent thought, then yeah, they are probably better off avoiding it. ;)

 

I do think I'll start threatening exile to the Degobah system this week...:lol:

 

and another :thumbs up: to reading thru this thread. :)

[Rosie_0801]

actually, the best analogy for Christianity would be [living] water :)

 

ANYTHING except that same sort of water would be considered an impurity ;)

 

I would have to disagree there. There are a lot of different beliefs that are encompassed by Christianity. As far as I know, no one is going to dispute the truth of water being H2O. That means my curry analogy was better. I was very proud of it, so don't pick on it ;)

 

Heheh,

Rosie

[Jenny in Florida]

You said "No religion has exclusive access to the truth." Is that the truth? If it is, then your belief is the only truth and therefore exclusive meaning you contradicted yourself because there can not be two truths that are contradictory. If it not the truth, than you have lied. I'm just pointing out the error in logic here and not calling you a liar.

 

Okay, I'm not Peela, but I think I get what she's saying. So, here's how I interpreted what she wrote: Truth may be out there, but none of us humans of any religion get the whole thing. I always think of it like that story about the blind men and the elephant: Each of them imagined a very different animal based on the small part of it he could feel.

 

Speaking solely for myself: I am well aware that I am far too puny to understand the secrets of the universe. I'm perfectly content to know that I--along with lots of other people--are still working on figuring it out.

[The Girls' Mom]

Absolutly I do. The only Way is through Jesus. If I did not teach my own children that, I would be commiting a sin that I would be held accountable for with God. Debate all you want, that doesn't change the Truth :001_smile:

[Lizzie in Ma]

Well I absolutely believe that there is only one God and that our salvation comes only through the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And that's the way I live my life so they definitely see that. But I also teach them that it is extremely important to respect others' beliefs and ideas. And I want them to listen to and care about others, no matter their beliefs. They see me living that way too. More than anything, I want them to be Jesus to the world.

 

 

I would definitely be sad if my children turned their back on God. That's why I spend so much time on my knees now.

 

:iagree: Well said Nakia

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Okay, I'm not Peela, but I think I get what she's saying. So, here's how I interpreted what she wrote: Truth may be out there, but none of us humans of any religion get the whole thing. I always think of it like that story about the blind men and the elephant: Each of them imagined a very different animal based on the small part of it he could feel.

 

Speaking solely for myself: I am well aware that I am far too puny to understand the secrets of the universe. I'm perfectly content to know that I--along with lots of other people--are still working on figuring it out.

 

See, there's the thing. In the Bible Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light."

 

When he said that, he was addressing all the major philosophies of the age and saying that he was the perfection of all of them. That in him could be found the harmony, reality, and enlightenment that people were searching for. In effect, he was saying, "I know the whole elephant, and if you follow my teachings you can know it too."

[Jenny in Florida]

See, there's the thing. In the Bible Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light."

 

When he said that, he was addressing all the major philosophies of the age and saying that he was the perfection of all of them. That in him could be found the harmony, reality, and enlightenment that people were searching for. In effect, he was saying, "I know the whole elephant, and if you follow my teachings you can know it too."

 

Okay, but when all is said and done, the Bible as we know it today was originally written by human beings. And it has been translated and interpreted by yet more human beings all over the world for about 2000 years. And there are many people, including me, who don't necessarily think they got it 100% right.

 

And, if you think, as I do, that Jesus was a teacher but not necessarily literally the son of God, then it's tough to buy the idea that he even knew "all the major philosophies of the age," let alone was speaking to all of them. (To quote Jesus Christ Superstar: Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.)

[sleepy]

Nope. My children are well aware that they are free to form their own beliefs.

[Tami]

and despite the intololerance for an exclusivist position, that is exactly what it teaches. Therefore, although we respect people of all faith or no faith, we believe the Bible declares that there is one God, one Son, and one Spirit who is the Father and Redeemer of the world. We believe that Truth can be known, and that Jesus Christ is Truth. The evidence for this is in the prophecies, in the sinless life that Jesus lived, and in the fact of His resurrection. One God revealed in three persons is what is claimed in the Scriptures, and we believe it with all of our hearts. However, loving people of all persuasions, faiths, and philosophies is a basic tenant of Christianity. "For God so loved the world..."

 

If you are not familiar with Scripture, I'll include a passage which is one of many form which I draw my conclusion. Many could be presented, but here is one.

 

John 10

 

The Shepherd and His Flock

 

1"I tell you the truth, the man who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. 2The man who enters by the gate is the shepherd of his sheep. 3The watchman opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. 5But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice." 6Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

 

7Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep. 8All who ever came before me were thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 10The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

 

11"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

 

14"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father."

 

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one."

 

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

 

33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I do agree that if one thinks faith is about programming and loss of independent thought, then yeah, they are probably better off avoiding it. ;)

 

FWIW, I don't think that FAITH is about programming and loss of independent thought. ;)

[Jenny in Florida]

FWIW, I don't think that FAITH is about programming and loss of independent thought. ;)

 

Nicely said.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Okay, but when all is said and done, the Bible as we know it today was originally written by human beings. And it has been translated and interpreted by yet more human beings all over the world for about 2000 years. And there are many people, including me, who don't necessarily think they got it 100% right.

 

And, if you think, as I do, that Jesus was a teacher but not necessarily literally the son of God, then it's tough to buy the idea that he even knew "all the major philosophies of the age," let alone was speaking to all of them. (To quote Jesus Christ Superstar: Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.)

 

Well, as far as the New Testament is concerned, ancient scriptural texts as old as the 3rd century still exist, and ancient external references quoting even older texts exist also. Translation of the scriptures has become a science in itself. I've studied this subject and am convinced that if there are any differences from the original they inconsequential. As for modern interpretations, they may be more problematic in the details, but they do not remove the essence of the over-arching theme of the scriptures

 

I believe that Jesus is literally the son of God. I believe it because that is why he was handed over to the Romans to be killed. He made himself out to be equal to God, which was viewed as blasphemy. It is all encompassed in this statement, "Before Abraham was, I am." "I am" is what God says about himself in the Old Testament.

 

The apostle Paul said that if Jesus was not who he said he was and if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then we are among all people to be the most pitied.

 

So be it. :)

 

ETA: To address the major philosophies: Jerusalem was a cultural hub. People from all over the (known) world, especially expatriate Jews came during the major holidays. The Jews were not ignorant, they knew about the teachings of the Romans, Greeks, and Persians.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Virginia Dawn

[hi_itsgwen]

I think the heart of your question is 'do you believe in abosolute truth?'

Those of us who do will, to the best of our ability, teach that to our children. I do believe that there is an absolute and exclusive truth, and that his name is Jesus, and that His story is the Bible. But there is more than a lifetime of digging, seeking, understanding, applying and enjoying this truth!

 

I teach my kids what I believe:

That God created all things. As the creator, He is the rightful King over his creation(s).

 

That God's story is written down in the Bible. It is the true story of God that covers the whole history of the earth from beginning to end. It was written by men under inspiration of God, and preserved by Him so that we can know Him, and know the truth.

 

I teach my kids that all humans are sinful. We choose to make ourself king over our own world and life. This causes all sorts of problems, but mostly, we are telling God 'You cannot be king of me'. The Bible says that the result (cost) of this rejection of God is death and separation from God.

 

I teach them that Jesus is God, and loved us so much that he laid down his rights and priveledges as God, and came here to live as a man. He alone was able to rightly worship God as King, and followed Him perfectly...he alone lived a life without sin. He did this so that he could lay his life down to pay the price (cost) of our rejection of God. This is called the gospel. This is the heart of the message of the Bible, and the essence of Christianity. The Holy Spirit leads us to understand and believe the gospel. When we believe, we are saying "Jesus is King of His world, and of my heart."

 

Concerning other religions:

I consider any person that believes the gospel (all of, and not in addition to any other means of salvation) to be my brother or sister in Christ. Worship styles and differences of opinion on other aspects of the Bible are just different flavors of Christianity. I like a variety of flavors. :)

 

I believe in loving others (believers and unbelievers), and caring for the needs of other as the Bible teaches. I try to teach this to my kids verbally and by example in daily life. I have always had lots of different flavors of friends from all walks of life and religions, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

The Bible is such an incredible living book. There is nothing else like it! It is so much more than moral teachings. When you are a believer, the Holy Spirit really makes the word of God come alive in study and application.

To only see a book of morals and prophets is to miss the profound beauty and message of God.

 

The message of the Bible (the gospel) is exclusive. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." So, this would be the perspective of a person who believes in the Bible.

[amsunshine]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laura K (NC)

In Buddhism the goal is nihilism. The Buddhist rejects created reality in an effort to get to nothingness/nirvana.

 

This is absolutely not true; you have misunderstood. Nirvana is not "nothingness", it is not a rejection of reality. The very word Buddha means one who has awakened. Nirvana means truly seeing reality without our human "blinders" and limitations, it is a state of profound wisdom. Buddhists do not reject reality, but in fact attempt to overcome human delusions that prevent us from understanding reality.

 

Buddhism teaches The Eightfold Path, so it is not morally nihilistic.

 

Buddhism teaches The Four Noble Truths, so it is not epistemologically nihilistic.

 

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the Buddhist teaching of "emptiness" as being metaphysically nihilistic?

 

The Buddhist notion of emptiness is often misunderstood as nihilism. Unfortunately, 19th century Western philosophy has contributed much to this misconstruction. Meanwhile Western scholars have acquired enough knowledge about Buddhism to realise that this view is far from accurate. The only thing that nihilism and the teaching of emptiness can be said to have in common is a sceptical outset. While nihilism concludes that reality is unknowable, that nothing exists, that nothing meaningful can be communicated about the world, the Buddhist notion of emptiness arrives at just the opposite, namely that ultimate reality is knowable, that there is a clear-cut ontological basis for phenomena, and that we can communicate and derive useful knowledge from it about the world. Emptiness (sunyata) must not be confused with nothingness. Emptiness is not non-existence and it is not non-reality.

 

The rest of this article, including an explanation of the teaching of emptiness, can be found here:

 

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/emptiness.html

 

Thank you for this post. I didn't have time myself last night to respond more completely to this very mistaken viewpoint about Buddhism.

 

This has been a very interesting discussion -- thanks to all for your passionate, yet courteous, participation.

[Jenny in Florida]

Well, as far as the New Testament is concerned, ancient scriptural texts as old as the 3rd century still exist, and ancient external references quoting even older texts exist also. Translation of the scriptures has become a science in itself. I've studied this subject and am convinced that if there are any differences from the original they inconsequential. As for modern interpretations, they may be more problematic in the details, but they do not remove the essence of the over-arching theme of the scriptures

 

Science has been wrong many times, especially when the people who are using scientific methods come at a question with an agenda. Humans are human.

 

What I've read is that even the gospels, themselves, don't all agree on some aspects of the story. So, clearly, even back then not everyone saw things the same way.

 

I believe it because that is why he was handed over to the Romans to be killed. He made himself out to be equal to God, which was viewed as blasphemy.

 

As I think has been said more eloquently by others in other threads, that is not my understanding of the story. As I understand it (and we just covered this in my son's religious education class), Jesus was executed because he was politically problematic. One source I read suggests that he was arrested because he had caused a disturbance in the Temple and that he was executed because the Roman authorities were concerned that he would spark a political rebellion.

 

I'm honestly not trying to attack your beliefs, just trying to explain that there is another way to see things. I don't claim to be "right," because all I'm saying is that I don't know. I understand that many Christians, as well as those of other faiths, believe they do know for sure. And, for all I know, you may be right. But that's not what my heart and mind tell me.

 

As long as those who do have a strong and specific faith don't feel the need to impose it on me or to treat me as lesser because I have a different view, I have no desire to interfere with their lives. As I've said many times before, I have tremendous respect for anyone who is able to define a belief system, clarify their values and then live by them.

[Peela]

See, there's the thing. In the Bible Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light."

 

When he said that, he was addressing all the major philosophies of the age and saying that he was the perfection of all of them. That in him could be found the harmony, reality, and enlightenment that people were searching for. In effect, he was saying, "I know the whole elephant, and if you follow my teachings you can know it too."

 

 

Yeah, but the thing is, what I was trying to say is, the essence of any religion will take you to it, too...so I don't deny what he said, even though I actually doubt anyone knows what Jesus, if he existed, said. Its just that that's not the ONLY way to know the whole elephant. For him, in his time, he was trying to show people the way through himself, his teachings, and he did it by denouncing what was going on in the name of religion in his time, naturally. He was trying to wake people up. Other people over the ages have done the same, in the context of their times. They try to show people, hey, all this stuff you are doing, that's not it, THIS is it. But then, everyone does to THEM and THEIR teachings what they did to all the others.

So, I dont have a problem with what Jesus apparently said, except that I think it has been twisted and taken out of context. His essential messages are beautiful, even the one you quoted, but I do think most people misunderstand it.

[phathui5]

Yes. I believe in Jesus and when he said there is no way to the Father but through him, I have to accept that, even if it's not what I would have picked. There are hard truths in the Bible, but I can't pick and choose.

Edited April 15, 2009 by phathui5

[Jenny in Florida]

I think the heart of your question is 'do you believe in abosolute truth?'

 

Respectfully, I don't agree. I think the question is whether you believe you know the absolute truth.

 

From my point of view, there is, of course, something that is true. However, I remain unconvinced that we flawed humans know or understand it all.

[Jenny in Florida]

ETA: To address the major philosophies: Jerusalem was a cultural hub. People from all over the (known) world, especially expatriate Jews came during the major holidays. The Jews were not ignorant, they knew about the teachings of the Romans, Greeks, and Persians.

 

Understood, but there is more to the world than what was "known" in Jerusalem at the time.

 

Of course, there is that whole theory that Jesus actually travelled to India and learned about Buddhism there, but I don't know enough about that to discuss it intelligently.

 

And I truly want to emphasize that I in no way intend to be disrespectful or to "prove" that you are "wrong." You may well be right. It's just not an approach that resonates with me.

[clwcain]

Ignoring all previous responses to answer the OP's question...yes. Why would I teach them otherwise?

[KidsHappen]

:iagree: Well said Nakia

 

I love the quote in your siggy. We use it all the time around here. :)

[KidsHappen]

You said "No religion has exclusive access to the truth." Is that the truth? If it is, then your belief is the only truth and therefore exclusive meaning you contradicted yourself because there can not be two truths that are contradictory. If it not the truth, than you have lied. I'm just pointing out the error in logic here and not calling you a liar.

 

 

I can't follow the logic between the first part of that paragraph and this conclusion. What does it mean?

 

 

I don't know if I am especially dense but I can't follow the logic of what you are saying either and I have read it at least 5 times. However, as both Peela and another pp posted below, I understand perfectly what Peela was saying and it made perfect sense to me. I will elaborate further on this below that post below.

[hi_itsgwen]

Originally Posted by hi_itsgwen

I think the heart of your question is 'do you believe in abosolute truth?'

 

Respectfully, I don't agree. I think the question is whether you believe you know the absolute truth.

 

From my point of view, there is, of course, something that is true. However, I remain unconvinced that we flawed humans know or understand it all.

 

The original question was "Do you teach your children that your faith is the only correct one?"

 

Believing that absolute truth exists (somewhere) or that it is reached from many paths doesn't make sense to me within my framework of faith in the Bible. (I hope I explained that in my post.) The all roads lead to Rome approach works only if you're dealing with a hub and spokes arrangement. I'm more of the 'there is only one set of stairs up to the temple' approach.:)

 

If I have faith in something, it is because I believe it to be abosolute truth. It doesn't make sense to me that I could absolutely believe in something while doubting that it was absolute truth. So that is where my statement come from.

 

I have never met a Christian that would say "I know and understand it all." We too believe in a path or journey, but that Jesus is the only path. ('We' meaning believers in the gospel)

[Jenny in Florida]

Believing that absolute truth exists (somewhere) or that it is reached from many paths doesn't make sense to me within my framework of faith in the Bible. (I hope I explained that in my post.) The all roads lead to Rome approach works only if you're dealing with a hub and spokes arrangement. I'm more of the 'there is only one set of stairs up to the temple' approach.:)

 

I understand that is your frame of reference. What I was trying to explain is that not everyone begins from the same presumptions. So, it is possible to believe in "absolute truth" and still teach one's children that there are many paths to reach it.

[Karen sn]

Pam,

I am terribly sorry that I offended you so much. I asked a sincere question. I did not claim the bible as my property, and I would love to see others embrace it as the word of the one, true, living God. I guess I just don't understand why people who don't believe the same way would quote the book ordained and given by God. It's certainly not my place to scold anyone. We are all adults, and I'm sorry it came across that way. I'm just trying to stand up for what I believe, but maybe it's best for me to stay out of these types of discussions.

 

Let's not forget that it was in Hebrew originally and much is lost in the translations. This is easily understood when you learn more about the Jewish culture and can understand the context of the original writings.

[KidsHappen]

I just see Truth as beyond all religions, because it IS, it is self evident, not subject to belief or disbelief, religions or no religion. Either Truth is Truth or it isnt. Its not personal or subject to personal whims. I see all religions as people trying to access that ultimate, highest Truth through various means.

 

Yes, exactly. The truth is absolute and I don't think that anyone is arguing otherwise. However, it is the height of hubris to think that any human can possibly know the truth. The fact that someone thinks that they know it has absolutely nothing to do with the objective truth of the matter and everything to do with the faith. But as I have said before believing something to be true does not make it so.

 

So the world falls into two groups regarding religious matters, those who think that they know the truth and those who have worked out what they believe for themselves but allow for the fact that they could be wrong or that their understanding is less than complete. But the is no objective proof one way or the other so regardless of our belief or faith in a matter there is no way to know the answer for sure.

 

Now I personally (and I believe that many others as well) have no problem with some people feeling that based on their faith and belief that they know the answers as long as they allow that I feel differently. ANd it seems like common curtesy for both sides to refrain from telling the other that they are wrong. There is a big difference in say I believe this to be the truth and this IS the truth. This is the source of the conflict. I don't see anyone telling Christians to give up what they believe or even that they are wrong. I just see people asking that you give non-Christians the same repsect.

[KidsHappen]

Okay, I'm not Peela, but I think I get what she's saying. So, here's how I interpreted what she wrote: Truth may be out there, but none of us humans of any religion get the whole thing. I always think of it like that story about the blind men and the elephant: Each of them imagined a very different animal based on the small part of it he could feel.

 

Speaking solely for myself: I am well aware that I am far too puny to understand the secrets of the universe. I'm perfectly content to know that I--along with lots of other people--are still working on figuring it out.

 

:iagree: and have elaborated on this further as a follow-up to Peela's post.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

What I've read is that even the gospels, themselves, don't all agree on some aspects of the story. So, clearly, even back then not everyone saw things the same way.

 

 

 

. As I understand it (and we just covered this in my son's religious education class), Jesus was executed because he was politically problematic. One source I read suggests that he was arrested because he had caused a disturbance in the Temple and that he was executed because the Roman authorities were concerned that he would spark a political rebellion.

 

.

 

Even Christians recognize that each gospel is written from a unique personal perspective. :001_smile:

 

 

Your understanding of the history of the time is also recognized by Christians, but it is missing a key ingredient. Religion. Religion and politics were inseparable in that age, indeed religion was integrated with every aspect of life. It is not possible to get a reasonably accurate view of events without looking at the religious mindset of the people. Of course Jesus was politically problematic, his followers wanted to make him the literal King of the Jews. But they wanted to do that because they believed he was the prophesied Messiah. The disturbance in the Temple was because of his supposed blasphemy and denouncement of the Jewish ruling class.

 

Josephus, an ancient historian who was not a Christian recounts the events of that time. His account tallies closely with Biblical accounts.

 

There is more than one kind of bias. There is also the bias of those who would try to prove that the scriptures are not accurate. I guess the two have no common ground.

[Jenny in Florida]

Of course Jesus was politically problematic, his followers wanted to make him the literal King of the Jews. But they wanted to do that because they believed he was the prophesied Messiah. The disturbance in the Temple was because of his supposed blasphemy and denouncement of the Jewish ruling class.

 

No, I understand that. My point was that the officials did not execute him because of his blasphemy, but because they were concerned that his religious views might encourage people not to respect their government.

 

There is more than one kind of bias. There is also the bias of those who would try to prove that the scriptures are not accurate. I guess the two have no common ground.

 

I hope you're not placing me in that camp. The truth is I'm not scholar enough to try and prove anything. I've probably done more reading on the subject than many non-Christians, but I absolutely do not claim to be an expert. My only point is that I, personally, do not view the Bible as infallible, because it has passed through so many human hands over the years. I am not arguing that you are wrong, just that I don't believe we can really know.

 

You believe differently, and I respect that.

[Hapax Legomena]

Okay, but when all is said and done, the Bible as we know it today was originally written by human beings. And it has been translated and interpreted by yet more human beings all over the world for about 2000 years. And there are many people, including me, who don't necessarily think they got it 100% right.

 

 

 

Jenny, It is not enough to merely say you don't necessarily think they got it 100% right. Which passage didn't they get right? How does that affect the message that Jesus is who He said He was, that He did what the Bible says He did and that He is the only way to the Father?

 

If you wish to reject the teaching of a passage (A) on the claim that it has been mistranslated, you must also show why you reject all of the other passages that teach (A). Have they all been mistranslated?

 

Second, the issue is not primarily one related to the translations. Rather it involves the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts themselves. They are not translations but copies of copies. Where discrepancies exist most are of no consequence whatsoever.

 

Based on the manuscript evidence, your view is very difficult to substantiate.

[Jenny in Florida]

Jenny, It is not enough to merely say you don't necessarily think they got it 100% right. Which passage didn't they get right? How does that affect the message that Jesus is who He said He was, that He did what the Bible says He did and that He is the only way to the Father?

 

I don't know which is "right" and which isn't. My hunch is that, at this late date, it would not be possible to tell.

 

But, since I'm not a Christian, I also don't have to worry about it too much. I view the story of the life of Jesus more as methaphor than fact.

[Greta]

I do know that people read and quote the bible who don't believe it is the literal word of God. I guess that I am just having hard time understanding why.

 

Speaking only for myself of course . . . I know the Bible to be the work of human authors and editors, and do not have faith that it the inerrant word of God. There are parts of it that seem profoundly human to me, that expose human failings. I am tempted to give an example, but don't wish to make you feel like I am picking on your faith, so I'll skip that. The point I wanted to get to is that there are other parts which do display the good, the true, and the beautiful, and I think those parts of the Bible are worth noting, repeating, and possibly even basing one's life upon.

 

My own faith is that all religions are attempts to understand and touch the Divine, and so all faiths have something of value to teach us. Therefore the Bible has value to it, even if I don't think *every* word of it is the word of God. The sacred texts of other religions also have value to me, even if i don't take every word of them literally or believe that every word is accurate and true. The Bible is the sacred text with which I am most familiar, and as an adult I have also familiarized myself with the teachings of the Buddha, so these are the sources of wisdom I turn to the most. I find many shared truths between the two, actually, and my tendency is to focus on those areas of agreement. My p.o.v. is that the truth probably lies in those areas in which the world's religions have agreed, and the areas of disagreement are probably where human failings have seeped in. So that's why I can quote parts of the Bible and believe them to be true, without actually being a Christian.

 

Did that make ANY sense??? :D

[Mary in VA]

Just to clarify the point discussed by Jenny and Virginia - The Romans actually wanted him executed because he was a political problem for them and his "movement" would cause unrest among the people. The Jewish religious leaders had no authority on their own to exeucte Jesus, so they took him to the civil authority, the Romans, and used that avenue to rid themselves of him. They wanted to do that because he commited blasphemy by claiming to be the son of God.

 

And as to the question of the OP - Yes we teach our children that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

 

This has been a very interesting thread :001_smile:

 

Mary

[Tap]

No, I believe there are many religions because different people need something that may look different that what someone else needs. I believe that religion is a means to an end, and the path is less important than the end result.

[Hapax Legomena]

I don't know which is "right" and which isn't. My hunch is that, at this late date, it would not be possible to tell.

 

But, since I'm not a Christian, I also don't have to worry about it too much. I view the story of the life of Jesus more as methaphor than fact.

 

Jenny, Thanks for your reply. At one time I held a view very similar to yours. I wasn't a Christian, rejected the Bible and never really cared one way or the other about it. However, after looking at the evidence I changed my view. Actually, based on the manuscript evidence it is not difficult to tell whether certain texts represent the original manuscript and whether current translations are correct.

 

Over 99% of the differences between manuscripts involve issues such as "Jesus Christ" vs. "Christ Jesus" or "Our Lord" vs "Your Lord." Theses differences do not affect the overall message of the Bible at all. The remaining differences do not affect the main teachings of Christianity either.

 

For a variety of reasons, people choose not to embrace the message of the Bible. However, I just want to point out that it comes more, as you say, from a hunch than from the evidence itself.

 

Using the rules of evidence courts use to determine truth from error and the trustworthiness of witnesses, it has been well-demonstrated that the testimony of the gospel writers must be accepted.

[Jenny in Atl]

No, I believe there are many religions because different people need something that may look different that what someone else needs. I believe that religion is a means to an end, and the path is less important than the end result.

 

If only more folks saw it this way... there just might be hope for the human race.

[Jenny in Florida]

If only more folks saw it this way... there just might be hope for the human race.

 

Agreed. What a lovely world that would be.

[Jenny in Florida]

At one time I held a view very similar to yours. I wasn't a Christian, rejected the Bible and never really cared one way or the other about it. However, after looking at the evidence I changed my view. Actually, based on the manuscript evidence it is not difficult to tell whether certain texts represent the original manuscript and whether current translations are correct.

 

Again, just to be very clear, I do not "reject" the Bible. It just doesn't rule my life.

[Jenny in Atl]

Again, just to be very clear, I do not "reject" the Bible. It just doesn't rule my life.

 

To me the Bible is the same as any other collection on mythological stories; myths to live by. Not sure if you could call it a rejection.

[Hapax Legomena]

There are parts of it that seem profoundly human to me, that expose human failings.... The point I wanted to get to is that there are other parts which do display the good, the true, and the beautiful, and I think those parts of the Bible are worth noting, repeating, and possibly even basing one's life upon.

 

My own faith is that all religions are attempts to understand and touch the Divine, and so all faiths have something of value to teach us... and my tendency is to focus on those areas of agreement...the truth probably lies in those areas in which the world's religions have agreed, and the areas of disagreement are probably where human failings have seeped in. So that's why I can quote parts of the Bible and believe them to be true, without actually being a Christian.

 

Did that make ANY sense??? :D

 

Greta, I think your comments nicely set forth your view. As I read them I had just a couple of thoughts.

 

The fact that the accounts seem so profoundly human is one of the reasons supporting the trustworthiness of the writers. When people are lying they often try to eliminate human failings and obvious difficulties.

 

Second, the areas of agreement between religions are interesting. However, when we examine the various views, we must also carefully consider the differences. For example, if what Jesus really did and said is true (and the evidence supports that position), then if we must accept another religion we must reject the Bible. If we accept the Bible we must reject the others. They cannot both be correct, even though they may all have some areas of truth.

 

Aside from Christianity, the major religions do not accept the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again for our sins. However, if He did not do so, then Christianity is a sham. It falls apart at at that point, and the gospel writers and apostles are false witnesses.

 

If He did rise from the dead, then the other religions are in error. For that reason, using the pick and choose approach is not consistent with the evidence.

 

Finally, the great false teachers and tyrannical rulers of the world have all said some good things that resonate with the human soul. The major problem lies in the things they said that were false.

[Jenny in Atl]

Greta, I think your comments nicely set forth your view. As I read them I had just a couple of thoughts.

 

The fact that the accounts seem so profoundly human is one of the reasons supporting the trustworthiness of the writers. When people are lying they often try to eliminate human failings and obvious difficulties.

 

Second, the areas of agreement between religions are interesting. However, when we examine the various views, we must also carefully consider the differences. For example, if what Jesus really did and said is true (and the evidence supports that position), then if we must accept another religion we must reject the Bible. If we accept the Bible we must reject the others. They cannot both be correct, even though they may all have some areas of truth.

 

Aside from Christianity, the major religions do not accept the fact that Jesus died on the cross and rose again for our sins. However, if He did not do so, then Christianity is a sham. It falls apart at at that point, and the gospel writers and apostles are false witnesses.

 

If He did rise from the dead, then the other religions are in error. For that reason, using the pick and choose approach is not consistent with the evidence.

 

Finally, the great false teachers and tyrannical rulers of the world have all said some good things that resonate with the human soul. The major problem lies in the things they said that were false.

 

Evidence? He only showed himself to a tiny group of people. People see all sorts of things that they wish to be true. Do and say all sorts of things based on what they think is right or real. If Jesus was the only way, then why only express this to a tiny few? I will give his followers the nod though for having awesome PR. What would the faith be without Paul? You really have to wonder.

[CalicoKat]

Absolutly I do. The only Way is through Jesus. If I did not teach my own children that, I would be commiting a sin that I would be held accountable for with God. Debate all you want, that doesn't change the Truth :001_smile:

:iagree: Amen.

[Hapax Legomena]

Again, just to be very clear, I do not "reject" the Bible. It just doesn't rule my life.

 

Jenny, I should clarify what I meant when I said I had rejected the Bible. I rejected it in the sense that I rejected its message. I didn't believe that the God of the Bible existed. I rejected what the Bible said about Jesus Christ. I rejected what Jesus said, and rejected the idea that the Bible had anything whatsoever to do with my life. Mostly, by rejection, I mean that I neglected all of these matters. Church and the Bible had nothing to do with my life and were not even a passing consideration.

 

However, I would have said that I accepted the Bible as being a great book and an example of great literature.

 

Those statements would have been based solely on my gut feeling rather than on any evidence. I hadn't read the Bible and could not have told you what it said.

[Remudamom]

Absolutely we teach ours that our religion is the only correct one. And what the rest of you teach is none of my business. Why even bring this up?

[asta]

To me the Bible is the same as any other collection on mythological stories; myths to live by. Not sure if you could call it a rejection.

 

You know, I was wondering when someone would bring this up: the bible is old. There are ancient texts. But being old doesn't equate to veracity, it equates to being old. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which claims an unbroken line from St. Peter to the present, views the bible as a "living" document; one that is understood in new and myriad ways as humanity "matures" to different levels of understanding.

 

People who claim membership in the Church of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) believe that the Book of Mormon is inerrant. Muslims believe the Koran is inerrant. Christians believe the Bible is inerrant. That's great. But to look at all of these "sacred texts" as if one were an alien from outer space - the alien would probably wonder why "The DVD of Bob's New Way" wouldn't measure up as well. Afterall, everything starts somewhere (just look at Scientology, which was officially created by L. Ron Hubbard).

 

Belief is, ultimately, someone's idea. It does not matter if a billion people believe X and two billion other people believe Y; they are still just beliefs. They aren't physical, like rain falling and hitting one in the face; they are internal, part of a person's thought patterns. Now, people may act on their beliefs, and the result of those actions may be physical, but that will be a human manifestation of a personal belief, not the belief (idea) itself.

 

I imagine that for many, life would be a frightening existence indeed if humanity didn't have the concept of "there's something else" to think about when things are bad, or to make order out of a seemingly chaotic universe.

 

If quoting scriptures or sura or whatever is quotable gives comfort to people who have decided that a particular set of ideas are "the one", then that's great. But it still doesn't prove veracity. It merely shows that history is written by the winners, or those who know how to market their idea, or those who write or tell a story well.

 

I'm not in the mood to get into the metaphysics of "well, who/what created the ability for humanity to have ideas/beliefs", so I'll leave that for later.

 

(and yes, I teach my kid what I believe, and I treat him as a human being who is capable of independent thought, ideas, and beliefs).

 

 

asta

[Mekanamom]

No, I believe there are many religions because different people need something that may look different that what someone else needs. I believe that religion is a means to an end, and the path is less important than the end result.

:iagree:

 

Well said.

[Mekanamom]

I do know that people read and quote the bible who don't believe it is the literal word of God. I guess that I am just having hard time understanding why. This board is exposing me to a lot of belief systems that I hadn't previously been exposed to. It is very interesting to me. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

These discussions are very interesting to me as well! I always learn something from them!

 

As for the Bible... it is on my shelf next to the Tao of Pooh, Tao Te Ching, The Prophet (Kahlil Gibran), and Socrates to Sartre (A History of Philosophy). I've found something worthwhile in all of them. :)

 

One of the first books I downloaded on my Kindle was the Bible. For one, it was free. ;) For another, it is extremely useful to use as a reference when reading the classics. I consider it a very valuable book, even though I'm agnostic.

[Greta]

The fact that the accounts seem so profoundly human is one of the reasons supporting the trustworthiness of the writers. When people are lying they often try to eliminate human failings and obvious difficulties.

 

I see your point, but it made me realize I did a poor job of expressing my views. I was hesitant because I do not want to upset any of the Christians reading this. So here's a disclaimer before you, or anyone, reads further. What I'm about to say will possibly be offensive. It is not my intention to offend, but to further this conversation, which has as its goal to increase the understanding between people of different beliefs, a goal which I feel to be worthwhile. So here goes.

 

What I meant is that there are points in the Bible where what I believe to be human failings are attributed to God. And that's why I can't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God. In order to explain that, I'll have to back up a little bit.

 

I actually have a panentheistic view of God, but I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, and that perhaps there really is a personal God out there. If such a being exists, I believe that by definition it must be a being of pure good ("good" really isn't a strong enough word, but it's all I can come up with at the moment). An all-powerful being that is not pure good is capable of evil, and an all-powerful being that is capable of evil is a devil not a God, right? So when *any* religious tradition (not picking on Christians!) claims that God is punative, wrathful, vengeful, violent, hateful, etc. I believe that they are in fact attributing human failings to God. Divinity is beyond these human failings.

 

I believe that Jesus recognized and taught this. That is why when they brought the adulteress before him, he said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. He practiced forgiveness, not punishment. When they brought before him the man who had been caught working on the Sabbath, he said the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath. God, in other words, loves Mankind and does things for us, not to us. He said, paraphrasing from memory here, I know you've been taught 'an eye for an eye' but I am telling you: love your enemy! That kind of unconditional love is Divine. Very very few of us are capable of that. But he was (he forgave those nailing him to the cross) and he was trying to tell us that that's how God loves us. Most of us, with our limited capacity to love and forgive, cannot understand that. But God's love and forgiveness is unlimited and perfect.

 

So knowing (well actually, believing) that God's love is limitless, I cannot accept the Bible as the word of God, when there are parts of the Bible that claim that God ordered people to kill their children if they were rebellious, to kill a woman on her wedding night if she didn't bleed sufficiently to "prove" she was a virgin, to kill a woman for commiting adultery, to kill a man for working on the Sabbath, to kill the inhabitants of this village because they're in the way, etc. It seems apparent to me that these were ordinary people, doing the stupid, selfish, and even outright hateful things that ordinary people do, but claiming they had God's approval to do it. And I, quite frankly, just don't buy it. I do not believe that God sanctioned or approved of these things at all, so I cannot accept the complete and unfailing truth of the Bible.

 

Second, the areas of agreement between religions are interesting. However, when we examine the various views, we must also carefully consider the differences. For example, if what Jesus really did and said is true (and the evidence supports that position), then if we must accept another religion we must reject the Bible. If we accept the Bible we must reject the others. They cannot both be correct, even though they may all have some areas of truth.

 

Is it necessary, by definition, for a Christian to accept the Bible as inerrant? Is it impossible for someone to believe in Jesus with all their heart, but also believe that the scriptures have been corrupted by human hands? I'm asking this sincerely. I do not know the answer.

 

I know there was more that you brought up, but I'm going to have to post this for now and get back to you later.

 

Thank you for the discussion. I truly enjoy this sort of pondering and hope that my intentions here are clear.

[Jenny in Florida]

I didn't believe that the God of the Bible existed. I rejected what the Bible said about Jesus Christ. I rejected what Jesus said, and rejected the idea that the Bible had anything whatsoever to do with my life. Mostly, by rejection, I mean that I neglected all of these matters. Church and the Bible had nothing to do with my life and were not even a passing consideration.

 

Well, that is quite different from what I'm saying. I don't "reject" any of it. I've read portions of the Bible and read many books about both the book and Christianity. It doesn't speak to me the way that it does to you. I have given the whole idea much more than a "passing consideration," and the Bible has as much to do with my life as any other religious texts I've encountered.

 

And, while I'm not a Christian, the religious/spiritual side of my life is far from neglected. I attend church most weeks, assist in my son's religious education class, read, discuss . . .

 

It's just that the Bible and Jesus aren't at the center of any of it.