If you equate Jesus with God, the point is a truism. If you take into account Jesus' personalization of God, it becomes a more illuminating point, a thing of some importance to a seeker. If you generalize this position to others such as Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, etc., then there is no problem of childish exclusivity / chauvanism.
That is still really hard to argue. Hinduism can have god manifested in many other gods, and animals and humans and other "hybrid" beings...these can all be actively worshiped in many styles and some of which i'm not even aware of.
Islam completely is absent of any type of physical manifestation of God, as well as any "splitting" of God
If you want to argue that Hindiusm is monotheistic I can understand on that technicality.
But no matter how you cut it, its going to be a VERY different kind of Monotheism that Islam falls under...which is probably one of the most strict (if not THE most strict? Is there a different religion that takes it more seriously? Perhaps Judaism?) religions when it comes to Monotheism.
Oh sh|t! I hope you don't find out that I'm really taking pictures so I can send to my terrorist buddies!
So I'm guessing there is a secret vast Muslim Conspiracy network to take over the world? Hmmmmm didn't we think that about the Jews? Or better yet - what about the vast right and left wing conspiracies?
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
That doesn't change the issue a bit. It still stands that unless you accept Jesus you are eternally damned.
These are all examples of putting religion above and before God. If you're interested in splitting hairs among types of worship and religions of God, you can, but the field's already covered with split hairs (and necks, etc.).
I did not put religion above and before God at all.
Furthermore this entire discussion is about how religious groups perceive each other. I never stated that I put religion above God or even inferred that. I barely explained my own feelings about God, and not in any detail. I fail to see how you interpreted that.
I merely stated that while I can agree Hinduism can be seen as monotheistic religion, and have no problem with this definition. However even with this general definition, a COMPARISON of the two religions does not stop at the simple title of "monotheism". That when it comes to comparing the RELIGIONS - there are very different views OF God.
Anyways that said as a Muslim I don't think anything really of Christians or Hindus...or other Muslims for that matter. Actions speak louder than words, and an arsehole is the same anywhere.
Some people, with their God-given freewill, choose to reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I do not know if hell is literally a firey place, but I cannot imagine how terrible is spending an eternity without God.
Jesus Christ freely offers forgiveness and grace. Why would you even want to spend an eternity with a God you reject, or Him with you.
The problem here is not Jesus per se, but the problem of eternal suffering. That is, even among those who "accept Jesus", with a fair mind, we're not likely to find many we feel are worthy of eternal bliss while the rest of us are damned.
We aren't even comfortable with the notion of eternal bliss were it to be applied to ourselves. How is it conceivable that this mind of mine would bear an eternity of anything? It actually is inconceivable.
So there are two problems here. Buddhism and Hinduism are clear in their interpretation of eternal suffering. Buddhism is not so clear about eternal bliss, but it almost gets there. The eternity of the soul, an element common to most religions, is a clue as to the scope of the problem.
Cheers.
Either you unconsciously posted a leading question or you truly do want to start a fight.
I think people need to LEAVE the individual and focus on the whole package when it comes to religion.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
You're just confusing the issue. It doesn't matter if you are or are not comfortable with the notion or not, the bottom line is Jesus said "No One Comes to the Father but by Me". Which means that if you do not accept Jesus you are damned. That's all there is to it. It really doesn't matter if you think you or others are worthy or not, that is a completely different issue.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
That's "some people". Again, that's a different issue. My question was about those who never knew him and couldn't.
It matters. It matters whether or not you think God is fair and good and great. You, as many others including myself in the past, seem to be using this line of argument to imply that the God of the Christians is unfair -- that only those who accept the person of Jesus are saved and no others, a rather trivial and arbitrary division. In a way it's a fair complaint as some Christians make this claim.
I've offered some suggestions as to how it's possible to interpret this more broadly so that it isn't such a trivial and apparently arbitrary rule, divisive in its effect on the world with no accompanying moral or spiritual depth.
You say this issue is clearly divisive and that's all there is to it. I say it cannot be that, and is not that. You seem to come from a point of view of discounting Christianity. I come from a point of view of trying to give all faiths their due. I don't argue that it is not in practice divisive. It clearly is. I say that it is not divisive in spirit, and that persons of other faith can also benefit from a deeper understanding of the point.
I see that we're not likely to come to an agreement on these points. I also think that some Christians will feel that the above simplifications don't give their faith its due -- this comment acknowledges that point. Hopefully God will straighten this mess out at some time.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Originally posted by: Madwand1
It matters. It matters whether or not you think God is fair and good and great. You, as many others including myself in the past, seem to be using this line of argument to imply that the God of the Christians is unfair -- that only those who accept the person of Jesus are saved and no others, a rather trivial and arbitrary division. In a way it's a fair complaint as some Christians make this claim.
I've offered some suggestions as to how it's possible to interpret this more broadly so that it isn't such a trivial and apparently arbitrary rule, divisive in its effect on the world with no accompanying moral or spiritual depth.
You say this issue is clearly divisive and that's all there is to it. I say it cannot be that, and is not that. You seem to come from a point of view of discounting Christianity. I come from a point of view of trying to give all faiths their due. I don't argue that it is not in practice divisive. It clearly is. I say that it is not divisive in spirit, and that persons of other faith can also benefit from a deeper understanding of the point.
I see that we're not likely to come to an agreement on these points. I also think that some Christians will feel that the above simplifications don't give their faith its due -- this comment acknowledges that point. Hopefully God will straighten this mess out at some time.
Ok, fine. So let me just ask you to explain what you mean in plain English without obscuring the point. The answer you gave before did nothing to answer the question as far as I'm concerned. Explaining to me what 'comes to the father' means or doesn't mean to you or to someone else still does not answer or define 'but by me'. I'm not asking this in a hostile way at all, hope you didn't take it that way.
Are you asking about the hypothetical tribesman who's grown up on an island cut off from all contact from the outside world and therefore has never even heard of Jesus?
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
Your post is one tired canard after another. Take this one: Non-Christians do not "reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." A person cannot reject something he does not believe to exist. Who would rationally reject the offer of Jesus Christ if they were convinced it was a real one?
I'm doing just fine without God right now, thank you very much.
This is a flat out lie. If the offer were indeed free, it wouldn't matter whether or not someone accepted or rejected it -- people would receive forgiveness anyway. That's what unconditional forgiveness is.
Well, it kinda got lost in the shuffle, then.
There are different views on the hypothetical tribesman question. One view is the whole predestination/free will debate. Some Calvinists will claim that the tribesman was not one of the predestined people to accept Jesus anyway. He wasn't chosen, so it doesn't matter. Arminianists would disagree with this view as they see salvation more on the free will side of the spectrum.
Another school of thought is that because God is omniscient, he already knew that the tribesman would not ever accept Jesus even if he was presented the Gospel. God put him on the island because he knew that tribesman would reject Christ anyway. Seems kind of like predestination and a capricious God, so not everyone goes with this.
One thing I have to interject (because it keeps coming up in this thread) is that we as humans can't put our own views of "fairness" on God. Even if something seems like it's unfair to us, God is so far above us that we can't even begin to place our moral standards on Him. I know, that sounds like a cop-out, but it's really just an appreciation of God's power and glory and an acknowledgment that who are we to know God's mind (Job is a good example and so is Isaiah). If something "seems unfair" to us, that doesn't mean that God doesn't do things that way. After all, He's God.
The way that I look at the tribesman question is to claim that the tribesman is not held to the same standard as someone who has heard the Gospel. That is where we come to Romans 1&2. Yes, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles, but if you look at what he is writing, he is saying that if you have the law, you are responsible for the law. If you don't have the law, you won't be held accountable for the law. He never says that this equates with Jesus, but Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Jesus was the new covenant, the new law. So by extrapolation, if a savage has not heard of Jesus (the new law), then he won't be judged by Jesus (the new law).
Well, this seems to contradict other parts of the Bible, especially John 14:6 ("Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'") Not necessarily. On the day of judgment, it will be Jesus who decides if we get into Heaven ("Well done my good and faithful servant" OR "Away from me, I never knew you"). If it is Jesus who is doing the judging, then John 14:6 can still hold. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but in Romans when Paul talks about being held accountable to the law or not, in the NOT situation (Tribesman) he says that this person will be judged by JESUS according to their conscience/what's in their heart. So, this person is still being judged by Jesus (fulfilling John 14:6) and is also keeping in tune with Romans.
Romans 1&2 also talks about how people have no excuse because God has made his presence known to the universe through it's beauty and complexity (DNA, a sunset, a child's smile, etc.). Those people who see the world and choose to worship the creation (idols, science, themselves) instead of the creator (God) then these people will go to Hell. So, if the Tribesman who's never heard of Jesus accepts the concept of God the creator (as God has put into all people's hearts), then he might go to Heaven. If the tribesman has a lot of animal spirit idols that he worships, then Paul says that he is wicked. Therefore, he probably will go to Hell.
I'll be honest, I don't know what the "right" answer is. I chalk it up to one of those things that I will never know this side of Heaven. In the end, the tribesman/savage question is getting less and less applicable. With the amount of missionaries going out and spreading the Gospel, the number of potential "tribesman" is shrinking. However, it is possible and therefore, it highlights the importance of the Great Commission/evangelism. If it is possible for the tribesman to go to Hell just because he's never heard of Jesus, then as a Christian I should do something about that. I should love that tribesman and make sure that he at least has a chance to hear the Gospel.
Sorry about the long winded answer to say "I don't know for sure", but there are several theories. I do know that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that I'm 100% sure where I'll spend eternity.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Originally posted by: kinev
Well, it kinda got lost in the shuffle, then.
There are different views on the hypothetical tribesman question. One view is the whole predestination/free will debate. Some Calvinists will claim that the tribesman was not one of the predestined people to accept Jesus anyway. He wasn't chosen, so it doesn't matter. Arminianists would disagree with this view as they see salvation more on the free will side of the spectrum.
Another school of thought is that because God is omniscient, he already knew that the tribesman would not ever accept Jesus even if he was presented the Gospel. God put him on the island because he knew that tribesman would reject Christ anyway. Seems kind of like predestination and a capricious God, so not everyone goes with this.
One thing I have to interject (because it keeps coming up in this thread) is that we as humans can't put our own views of "fairness" on God. Even if something seems like it's unfair to us, God is so far above us that we can't even begin to place our moral standards on Him. I know, that sounds like a cop-out, but it's really just an appreciation of God's power and glory and an acknowledgment that who are we to know God's mind (Job is a good example and so is Isaiah). If something "seems unfair" to us, that doesn't mean that God doesn't do things that way. After all, He's God.
The way that I look at the tribesman question is to claim that the tribesman is not held to the same standard as someone who has heard the Gospel. That is where we come to Romans 1&2. Yes, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles, but if you look at what he is writing, he is saying that if you have the law, you are responsible for the law. If you don't have the law, you won't be held accountable for the law. He never says that this equates with Jesus, but Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Jesus was the new covenant, the new law. So by extrapolation, if a savage has not heard of Jesus (the new law), then he won't be judged by Jesus (the new law).
Well, this seems to contradict other parts of the Bible, especially John 14:6 ("Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'") Not necessarily. On the day of judgment, it will be Jesus who decides if we get into Heaven ("Well done my good and faithful servant" OR "Away from me, I never knew you"). If it is Jesus who is doing the judging, then John 14:6 can still hold. I don't have my Bible in front of me, but in Romans when Paul talks about being held accountable to the law or not, in the NOT situation (Tribesman) he says that this person will be judged by JESUS according to their conscience/what's in their heart. So, this person is still being judged by Jesus (fulfilling John 14:6) and is also keeping in tune with Romans.
Romans 1&2 also talks about how people have no excuse because God has made his presence known to the universe through it's beauty and complexity (DNA, a sunset, a child's smile, etc.). Those people who see the world and choose to worship the creation (idols, science, themselves) instead of the creator (God) then these people will go to Hell. So, if the Tribesman who's never heard of Jesus accepts the concept of God the creator (as God has put into all people's hearts), then he might go to Heaven. If the tribesman has a lot of animal spirit idols that he worships, then Paul says that he is wicked. Therefore, he probably will go to Hell.
I'll be honest, I don't know what the "right" answer is. I chalk it up to one of those things that I will never know this side of Heaven. In the end, the tribesman/savage question is getting less and less applicable. With the amount of missionaries going out and spreading the Gospel, the number of potential "tribesman" is shrinking. However, it is possible and therefore, it highlights the importance of the Great Commission/evangelism. If it is possible for the tribesman to go to Hell just because he's never heard of Jesus, then as a Christian I should do something about that. I should love that tribesman and make sure that he at least has a chance to hear the Gospel.
Sorry about the long winded answer to say "I don't know for sure", but there are several theories. I do know that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that I'm 100% sure where I'll spend eternity.
Thank you for taking the time to type that up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really clear up the question, because as you pointed out there is a contradiction inherent however you view the problem. As a Jew, this doesn't really bother me too much, I just don't know how Christians answer this question to themselves. I don't think it's a question that one can overlook either, as it goes to the foundations of Christianity, namely, the acceptance of Jesus as a savior.
You say the problem is becoming less and less relevant. First off, I don't think that's true because if a child dies before he's capable of understanding and accepting Jesus, he's in the same boat. The question will apply to him just like the tribesman. Secondly, it really doesn't matter if it's relevant or not. The question does not only need to apply today. What about all the people who lived for years and years before Jesus was born? What about all the tribesmen who lived after Jesus but never heard of him? And even if it's completely hypothetical the question needs an answer.
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: kinev
Well, it kinda got lost in the shuffle, then.
There are different views on the hypothetical tribesman question.
...Snip...
Sorry about the long winded answer to say "I don't know for sure", but there are several theories. I do know that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that I'm 100% sure where I'll spend eternity.
Thank you for taking the time to type that up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really clear up the question, because as you pointed out there is a contradiction inherent however you view the problem. As a Jew, this doesn't really bother me too much, I just don't know how Christians answer this question to themselves. I don't think it's a question that one can overlook either, as it goes to the foundations of Christianity, namely, the acceptance of Jesus as a savior.
You say the problem is becoming less and less relevant. First off, I don't think that's true because if a child dies before he's capable of understanding and accepting Jesus, he's in the same boat. The question will apply to him just like the tribesman. Secondly, it really doesn't matter if it's relevant or not. The question does not only need to apply today. What about all the people who lived for years and years before Jesus was born? What about all the tribesmen who lived after Jesus but never heard of him? And even if it's completely hypothetical the question needs an answer.
Well, I don't think it should be overlooked either, but the Bible doesn't give a definite answer. There's no "In the case of a person never hearing about Jesus...." passage. I think God uses these types of things, though. I've just had the same question and looked at a lot of different passages to try to come to an answer. I may be wrong, too.
You're right, the foundation of Christianity is accepting Jesus as your savior. For the majority of people, it's cut and dry. There are the "what if?" exceptions that you bring up, though. Those people's salvation is not up to me. I don't make the decision. All I'm supposed to do is love them and tell them about Jesus and what he did for them. Then it's between God and that person. Again, I'm not trying to skirt the issue, but I don't see it as being a core issue. I told you what I think about the tribesman, but I'll admit that that may not be how God works. It's like the whole Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit) concept. I know that I don't have all of the answers. People a lot smarter than me have wrestled with questions like this for centuries.
I don't think that it's becoming less relevant. I may have worded what I said wrong. It's becoming less frequent with world travel, communication, and the number of missionaries going to remote locations. I think the tribesman question emphasizes the importance of evangelism.
As far as the child dying, that's a separate, but related, question. There, the whole "age of accountability" comes into play. However, this also isn't directly in the Bible. It's just stating that anyone who dies before they're even able to make a decision about Jesus would go to Heaven. There is no magic number in the Bible and most people think that it's probably different for every person (children, people who are mentally retarded, etc.) I've heard 13, 20, and it's different for everybody. But there's no verse that says "If your baby dies, then he/she will go to _______". I'm sorry, but the Bible doesn't give a direct answer.
However, like the tribesman example, this may not be how God works. Same situation. God could know that those children would never accept Jesus and therefore allow them to die young, or they could not have been predestined, or there could be some other explanation.
I know, I know, it sounds really unfair! Well, same thing with the tribesman, we CANNOT put our own, human standards on God. Who are we to know the mind of God? When we do, we're doing what Satan did. We're saying "I know how to do this better than you, God". We're putting ourselves (and our own judgment) above God. That's a big no-no.
You state that these questions need answers. I can totally understand that. But, if there was a definite answer to every question, there would be no place for faith. Hebrews talks about how faith is being certain of what we hope for and sure of what is unseen. It was Abraham's faith (and obedience, which requires faith) that God rewarded. God has decided that there are some things that we have to trust that he will take care of. Even though God doesn't give us all the answers, he does tell us how we can spend eternity with him. That's the core of Christianity.
If a person decides not to accept Jesus because there are not concrete answers to what happens to the tribesman, that's their decision. I can only tell you what possible answers I have come up with, which as I said, may be wrong. The key issue remains that everyone will be accountable for the decision that they make.
Dang, I wanted to not write so much this time. Sorry, I know it's a lot.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
Originally posted by: kinev
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: kinev
Well, it kinda got lost in the shuffle, then.
There are different views on the hypothetical tribesman question.
...Snip...
Sorry about the long winded answer to say "I don't know for sure", but there are several theories. I do know that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that I'm 100% sure where I'll spend eternity.
Thank you for taking the time to type that up.
Unfortunately, it doesn't really clear up the question, because as you pointed out there is a contradiction inherent however you view the problem. As a Jew, this doesn't really bother me too much, I just don't know how Christians answer this question to themselves. I don't think it's a question that one can overlook either, as it goes to the foundations of Christianity, namely, the acceptance of Jesus as a savior.
You say the problem is becoming less and less relevant. First off, I don't think that's true because if a child dies before he's capable of understanding and accepting Jesus, he's in the same boat. The question will apply to him just like the tribesman. Secondly, it really doesn't matter if it's relevant or not. The question does not only need to apply today. What about all the people who lived for years and years before Jesus was born? What about all the tribesmen who lived after Jesus but never heard of him? And even if it's completely hypothetical the question needs an answer.
Well, I don't think it should be overlooked either, but the Bible doesn't give a definite answer. There's no "In the case of a person never hearing about Jesus...." passage. I think God uses these types of things, though. I've just had the same question and looked at a lot of different passages to try to come to an answer. I may be wrong, too.
You're right, the foundation of Christianity is accepting Jesus as your savior. For the majority of people, it's cut and dry. There are the "what if?" exceptions that you bring up, though. Those people's salvation is not up to me. I don't make the decision. All I'm supposed to do is love them and tell them about Jesus and what he did for them. Then it's between God and that person. Again, I'm not trying to skirt the issue, but I don't see it as being a core issue. I told you what I think about the tribesman, but I'll admit that that may not be how God works. It's like the whole Trinity (Father, Son, Spirit) concept. I know that I don't have all of the answers. People a lot smarter than me have wrestled with questions like this for centuries.
I don't think that it's becoming less relevant. I may have worded what I said wrong. It's becoming less frequent with world travel, communication, and the number of missionaries going to remote locations. I think the tribesman question emphasizes the importance of evangelism.
As far as the child dying, that's a separate, but related, question. There, the whole "age of accountability" comes into play. However, this also isn't directly in the Bible. It's just stating that anyone who dies before they're even able to make a decision about Jesus would go to Heaven. There is no magic number in the Bible and most people think that it's probably different for every person (children, people who are mentally retarded, etc.) I've heard 13, 20, and it's different for everybody. But there's no verse that says "If your baby dies, then he/she will go to _______". I'm sorry, but the Bible doesn't give a direct answer.
However, like the tribesman example, this may not be how God works. Same situation. God could know that those children would never accept Jesus and therefore allow them to die young, or they could not have been predestined, or there could be some other explanation.
I know, I know, it sounds really unfair! Well, same thing with the tribesman, we CANNOT put our own, human standards on God. Who are we to know the mind of God? When we do, we're doing what Satan did. We're saying "I know how to do this better than you, God". We're putting ourselves (and our own judgment) above God. That's a big no-no.
You state that these questions need answers. I can totally understand that. But, if there was a definite answer to every question, there would be no place for faith. Hebrews talks about how faith is being certain of what we hope for and sure of what is unseen. It was Abraham's faith (and obedience, which requires faith) that God rewarded. God has decided that there are some things that we have to trust that he will take care of. Even though God doesn't give us all the answers, he does tell us how we can spend eternity with him. That's the core of Christianity.
If a person decides not to accept Jesus because there are not concrete answers to what happens to the tribesman, that's their decision. I can only tell you what possible answers I have come up with, which as I said, may be wrong. The key issue remains that everyone will be accountable for the decision that they make.
Dang, I wanted to not write so much this time. Sorry, I know it's a lot.
Again, thanks for the time.
You say there cannot be a definite answer to every question, and I get that completely. But again, as I understand it this is not a mere question that a Christian can be satisfied without having an answer to. You say it's not core, I think it must be. It goes to the essence of Christian dogma. If I were Christian, it would be troubling to me.
Hello.
Hearing the Gospel and then choosing to not believe in Jesus is rejection.
Hearing the Gospel and accepting it as truth but deciding you'd rather live a worldly life is even worse rejection.
The biblical scriptures do say that those who will receive the worst punishments are: Satan, people who harm children, people who distort Christ's teachings / i.e. false teachers (think televangelists), and people who accept the Gospel as truth but still decide to reject Christ as their savior.
Jesus offers complete forgiveness to those who accept Him as Lord and Savior of their life. Grace is indeed free. What this means is that there is no work you can do to earn it. And anyone can receive grace, even those who have done terrible horrible unspeakable things. Yes, even a person who spent their life killing Chrisitians and trying to disprove Jesus as the Son of God, can receive grace.. the person I am speaking of is the New Testament writer Paul.
1/3 of the angels in Heaven rebelled with Lucifer. Ponder that for a little while, and you will start to grasp how much God values his creations to have freewill. Freewill mandates that a person can reject God.. anything less would not be freewill.
There are many troubling questions. Here is just one question, framed for each group:
For the religious - Where did God come from?
For the non-religious - Where did the universe come from?
Not knowing the answer to this troubling question does not require one to stop and just give up.
Here is another: What happens to all the people killed in the flood? Did they all have access to Yaweh? What if they didn't?
This could trouble Jews, Christians, and even Muslims alike if they accept the Torah.
The point here is Faith. Faith that the holy scriptures reveal a perfect, loving, merciful God. Faith that not all of my questions will be answered but that God definitely has a plan and has revealed enough of it to me so that I can choose to have forgiveness in Christ and live with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and when I die spend eternity with God.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,727
- 16
- 81
That question doesn't trouble me in the slightest. I spent years studying my religion in a seminary, and trust me, that question is not one of the troubling ones at all. Even if I couldn't answer it, it doesn't go to the core of the religious dogma of Judaism. However, I believe this other question goes to the essence of Christian belief. But I think we're getting to a point where this conversation is moving beyond the scope of an internet forum. I appreciate your sharing your viewpoint. Thanks.
I'm happy to have a pleasant discussion on the subject, but it is a bit frustrating when I try to say something and you keep on saying "well that says nothing" -- there is some disconnect here.
"But by Me" is a claim of Godhood. An alternative is to think that Jesus was a member of God's civil service who let the elevation get to his head. By what right would any civil servant, regardless of how lofty, be able to act as a barrier to God? I can't think of any more precarious position.
Hinduism doesn't have a problem with such a claim of Godhood per se. As I've quoted here, it asserts that God comes down to man from age to age in this way.
The Qur'an, as I've quoted here, says that a believer must not distinguish between God and his Messengers. It also says that Jesus was a Messenger.
Hinduism, as I've also quoted here, says that when you faithfully worship one incarnation of God, you worship God himself. So again, mandating the acceptance of Jesus for Hindus for example is not a problem -- if Jesus is an incarnation of God, devotion to Krishna for example as an incarnation of God is equivalent to devotion to Him. If he isn't, then what he said doesn't matter. What Christians say of Hindus on this subject doesn't really matter -- by what right could they place a barrier between God and the Hindus?
It is generally easier for a person to focus devotion on an incarnation of God than on the abstract God. It's also been said that the proper worship of the abstract God changes in time to the worship of the personal or incarnate God. The fact of God coming down as a man in all these views is significant from a spiritual point of view.
==========
Another related point is as the Christians put it "not by your efforts alone". A divine guide is necessary, and in the end, the active assistance of such a guide is absolutely necessary. This point is well into the deep end, and I'm not going to claim to be able to explain it to you, but I would like to leave you with a excerpt of a poem, on a guide for those who don't have guide.
Hafiz, trans. A. J. Arberry
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter