The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The second person of the Trinity: the Son > Comments

The second person of the Trinity: the Son : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 11/10/2017

If a kindly Father God was looking down from above ready to intervene for his Son he must have turned aside so as not to see.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. All
To Yuyutsu.

You said earlier that you did not want to debate the errors in the bible because you did not want to harm my faith. I thank you for that kind of kindness. It seems like I'm at a similar point now, where discussing Hinduism and Christianity potentially could harm your faith. If I go too far let me know and I'll stop. I don't want to harm you anymore then you want to harm me. None the less how can I teach you if you don't think the bible is reliable? How can you teach me if I don't think Hinduism is trustworthy?

I hope you can forgive that last part but to go further, there's a difference between Hinduism and Christian teachings that I can't ignore. That being that 1) if Chrustianity is right then Jesus is the only way to God. And 2) Jesus's teachings (as well as the old Testiment in the bible) of condemning a false witness, and in general a liar.

If these two elements have merit then, though you can accept my faith based on it being focused on God, I can't give the same kind of acceptance because of the first issue. With the second issue I can't reccomend for you to accept Christianity because if you see it as based on a lie then I can't in good conscience try to teach a lie if I am against lies. Nor should I recommend that you believe me if you believe it came from a lying source.

(...Continued...)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 4 November 2017 2:25:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In order to continue, there is the risk of harming eachother's faith. In order to teach better I'd like to be able to confront what you say is the errors of the bible. (I'm not a bible scholar, so it's likely that I might not be able to answer the errors you see). And failing to approach that aspect we both might be in the same element of respecting eachother's beliefs as their own, but have a barrier between us that keeps us from further acknowledging those beliefs to accepting them.

I respect you and enjoy our discussions. I am concerned though. Talking about both Hinduism and Christianity will likely approach the areas that if challenged would challenge eachother's faith. I think I'm ok to continue and be challenged by your doubts and critisms. I don't think you would say them in a way that others sometimes do to try and break a person's beliefs down, or in some cases belittle them.

I don't know enough about Hinduism to challenge your beliefs (perhaps that's a good thing, I don't want to harm you either), but I figure that if I can answer your doubts and critisms, then that would be more then enough of a counter challenge to your own beliefs. Let me know what you think.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 4 November 2017 2:26:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After the beatitudes in Mathew's sermon on the mount Jesus continued with two metaphors. Again after these posts I'll try to comment on the critisms from the web page AJ Phillips presented earlier.
__________________________________
Jesus taught that we are the salt of the earth, but warned that if salt loses it's saltiness, it's worthless. Likewise in Luke's comparable sermon Jesus compaired us to a tree and it's fruit. Saying, "No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of."

Jesus also taught that we are the light of the world. But Jesus also said that a light was not meant to be covered, but to be held high to light up everything around it. Comparably in Luke 11, Jesus says a light is not meant to be hidden, and adds on to it saying, "Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness. See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness. Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you." Once more in Luke. In Luke 12 Jesus says, "Be dressed ready for service and keep your lamps burning, like servants waiting for their master to return from a wedding banquet, so that when he comes and knocks they can immediately open the door for him."

(...Continued...)
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 4 November 2017 2:36:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...Continued...)

It should be pointed out that Jesus elsewhere said He is the light of the world, and also that He is whe way, the life, and the truth. For Jesus to say we are the light is I think a calling to be like Jesus, and an encouragement. In the same way we need to testify for Jesus and not shy away. Be bold to be a light by our actions, and not falter. And be brave to teach when God gives us an oppurtunity. And focus not on darkness but set our eyes on what will fill ourselves with light. Going back to Jesus is the light of the world, for us to also have light in us we need to remember Jesus, and focus on Him.
Posted by Not_Now.Soon, Saturday, 4 November 2017 2:38:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Not_Now.Soon,

ĞI can't give the same kind of acceptance because of the first issueğ

I have no problem with Jesus' words: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me":

"The way" is through God's grace; "The truth" is God; and "the life" is the only true and eternal life, in God. Jesus could say all this because he already realised that "me and my father are one" and as he tells in the next verse: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father".

"By me" can be similarly explained as by what Jesus really is (which he knew, but Thomas didn't), rather than by Jesus the historical human. However, in the context, I think that this response to Thomas was actually more down-to-earth, a criticism of the prevailing Jewish rituals (like animal sacrifices) and hypocrisy that lacked the spirit that Jesus taught. In other words, "this won't get you anywhere, Thomas, follow me instead".

In any case, while it is possible that the Jewish deity of "Father" cannot be reached except through Jesus, I am seeking God rather than that particular deity.

Ğif you see it as based on a lie then I can't in good conscience try to teach a lie if I am against lies.ğ

Christianity is not based on a lie: it is based on the teachings of the enlightened soul, Jesus!

There seems to be just one difficulty, however: the old testament and the 'one iota' statement.

Jesus' path did not require the old testament, yet he said what he said about the law and the prophets, and this needs to be addressed.

Yes, it's my conviction (based on critical/scholarly reading rather than on Hinduism) that the old testament as we know it has been tampered for political reasons. It could best be described as "The book of the Jewish nation". It includes law, religion and words of the prophets, but also history and mythology; and it were the historical parts that were tampered with the most, to suit the Jewish political/ethnic ethos.

[continued...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 5 November 2017 9:19:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...continued]

But was Jesus speaking of the "old testament" as such?
The old testament was only finalised around 200A.D.

One possibility is that he spoke of the untainted version of the actual law and the actual prophets, perhaps even a censored version that we no longer have in writing.

I could offer some other explanations for this very statement of Jesus which changed the course of history, but with your permission I rather stop here: what matters most, is that in the following verses, Jesus uses the OT law as a launching pad for higher standards and upgrades the former social code into a spiritual practice.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 5 November 2017 9:19:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 22
  7. 23
  8. 24
  9. Page 25
  10. 26
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy