Christianity and The Truth

[Sam_777]

If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?

You mean defending itself from Satan and his pagan religions:
“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High*.*” (Isaiah 14:12-14).

Satan started by fighting Judaism from the beginning, then when Jesus came with the salvation plan for all nations, Satan completely lost his mind, and start fighting Christianity with all his power, from introducing false religions in the past to the excessive freedom in secular countries nowadays, and he will keep fighting till Jesus comes in his second coming to end all this miss.

 

[ralphinal]

In religion truth is subjective of course…

So, let us say that there is a driving force (forces) behind the universe. This force is aware, intellegent, and does desire some interaction with people. Would knowing that this force exists be subjective or objective?

 

[uglygal]

Please accept my heartfelt greetings.

I am Hindu, but I have some questions about Christianity.

If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?

It seems to me that if it is the true faith, it would be self-evident and would not need humans to defend it. God Himself would defend it.

To me it seems that Christians of all different sects are always very defensive about their faith and need to prove to the world that it is the “true faith” and need to convert “unbelievers” even though so-called “unbelievers” might indeed have a vital spirituality and are actually happy with it.

Why do Christians assume that the Bible is the only valid scripture and other scriptures revealed by God thoughout the ages have no intrinsic value?

Maybe I’m just ignorant. I admit that I haven’t been to university or had any formal “higher” education other than my own studies.

Please forgive my lack of understanding.

I have brought these questions up previously and started a rather contentious debate. Its is my intention to try to understand and be respectful

God have mercy on you my friend, you have entered a hornets nest in which you will feel many stings.

You are beautiful to God, he would re-create the entire world just for you.

there is a red and white rose on one branch … one is red, the other is white, both are equal in beauty and splendor in the sight of God because it is He who makes them bloom.

 

[VociMike]

Just because the RCC claims to be the one true Church doesn’t make much of a case. Negatives cannot be proved. Look it up. But neither can you prove that the Catholic Church is the one true Church other than by claiming that it’s true or citing some scripture, and I can’t accept that as proof.

In any case, proof isn’t necessary in matters of faith. Catholics make claims that people of other faiths just do not accept as true regardless of how much Catholics demand that they are correct.

That is the issue here. Why do Catholics need to be so special? Why can’t a Hindu be just as special? I believe that they are. Or maybe a Hindu is even more correct. Is that possible?

Sure it’s possible, if the Catholic Church is lying about what it is and who founded it.

Think through the logic here. If God exists (and if he doesn’t, exactly what “truth”, what “correctness” are we talking about anyway?) and if he has given a fullness of revelation to humanity, how could that fullness be found equally in two such totally different forms as Catholicism and Hinduism? When the two contradict, how can they be expressing the same truth?

And don’t forget that Jesus prayed for unity on the night before he died. How would that fit in with the disunity inherent in having equal portions of the truth in religions that are so totally different and contradictory?

None of this is to say that a Hindu couldn’t be “just as special” in the sense of seeking God and being a saint here on earth and forever after in heaven.

 

[Neil_LA]

Just what makes you believe that you know what God intended for humanity, ALL HUMANITY, ALL…? Again, incredible arrogance.

I totally agree with this!

Why would God give us only one way?

If we really believe that we are created in God’s image and likeness, we would look at the varigatedness and diversity of humans and then we could see that maybe there is varigatedness and diversity in God…

Being varigated in no way destracts from God’s oneness.

Saying that there is only one way to God actually is an offence to God because God, for one example, didn’t only create men only - he created men and women…so on that basis alone, God must be both male and female if we are created in God’s image.

We like to be able to have individual choise when it comes to everything in life. We like to have many brands of toothpaste, many flavors of ice cream. Why would God not give us choise how to approach Her? God is love and He loves us unconditionally.
I guess that is another of my divergences with Catholicism and Christianity. No matter what people might say, God’s love in these traditons is completely conditional.

You would think that if God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in mercy, God would make it very easy for us to approach Her. He would appear in many forms so that people of many kinds of tastes and tempraments would be able to approach Her.

 

[Neil_LA]

I’m no expert on anything else but I can answer this one! Look at the Golden Rule:

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEN DO TO YOU.

This has been proven part of every major religion on Earth, even atheist believe it. It is taught to primary school students. This is etched on every human heart. God’s way of showing his love. So we see that all religions have close to the truth. (Judaism is the closest considering that they are one step behind us) But “love your neighbor as yourself” is very central to our faith, and some religions denoce this teaching. See? Hope I helped.

I am praying for you. That you might see love and kindness here and maybe, just maybe find the truth that every human thirst for.
“I am the living water” -Jesus Christ

I don’t understand how this proves the Bible is true and other scriptures false.

Please elaborate.

If other religions teach this, and this is truth, then other religions are true.

 

[Neil_LA]

We’ve been over this already. It’s only arrogance if it’s not true. That should be obvious. So give your “arrogance” key a rest and demonstrate that Christianity, and in particular Catholicism, is not true.

Yes…Well I contend that the claims of the Church and the Bible are untrue. So therefore it IS arrogance.

 

[Neil_LA]

If I may ask: What is truth? Is Truth subjective or objective? Can it vary from person to person, or is there only one Truth?

God alone is Truth.

The question is: Why do Chistians, of all sects, believe they have a monopoly on God?

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says he is God.

Why are the claims of the Bible more reliable than the Gita?

 

[tessi]

God alone is Truth.

The question is: Why do Chistians, of all sects, believe they have a monopoly on God?

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says he is God.

Why are the claims of the Bible more reliable than the Gita?

Without the Holy Spirit is impossible to undestand the Truth. We catholics know that God is Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If I could prove it with all the science in the world, the world wouldn’t believe anyway because the Spirit teaches you, not the man.
The claims of the Bible are more reliable simply because they are the words of God and you won’t believe that unless the Holy Spirit tells you so.

 

[Neil_LA]

Simply present the evidence that the Catholic Church is not what she claims.

I have yet to see the evidence that the Catholic Church is indeed what it claims to be.

Just because someone says that its the “truth” doesn’t mean that it is the truth.

I guess it comes down to the basic “either you’re with us or against us” thing.

Either you believe in what Christianity teaches, or you don’t.

The more I attempt to engage with Christians of all sects, the more I believe that Christianity isn’t really a religion that will bring one to unity with God. (I don’t mean becoming “one” with God)

The more I try to ask Christians about what they believe and why they believe it, the more I strongly feel that Christianity is by its very nature divisive and is actually a hinderance to peace in the world and is actually the exact opposite of what it claims to be.

So this is the deception. Jesus (according to the Bible) said that he came to bring division and a sword. (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51)

It is deceptive to call someone who makes these statements, and presents the fruit of fighting, division and hatered throughout history (the history of Christianity) as “the Prince of Peace.”

If one looks at the facts, one would say that Jesus is the prince of war and hatred.

To call him the prince of peace is most certainly an untruth. This is one of the many untruths of the Church and the Bible.

Jesus could only be the prince of peace if the whole world became Christian and actually the particular sect of Christian that a specific person one talks to believes in.

 

[Neil_LA]

Hi Neil LA. Peace.

Like you, I am no scholar. I am a mere construction worker sweating it out daily… who also is still struggling with my English. There are so many good people here- they’ll understand us.

So, you’ve been a… Catholic? Baptized Christian then, correct?
Did you know that to be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ?
That to believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in His words?
To believe in His words is to also believe in His teachings?
To believe in His teachings is to believe those people whom He, while on earth, spoke with?
To believe at those people demand the requirement of exclusive authority?
To admit the requirement of exclusive authority is to admit the necessity of believing just that group of people (we call Apostles and His successors) who hold that authority?
To believe that there is that exclusive group of people is to believe in the Catholic Church- the only church today that can date its foundation back to the time of Jesus)?
To believe in the Catholic Church is to believe in Her teachings?
To believe in Her teachings is the same as believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ himself, as well?
To believe in Jesus is to believe in absolute Truth?

Now, is the “feeling of completeness” or of feeling being complete or search of self-fulfillment a teaching of Jesus? Of the Catholic Church? If your answer is yes… then please learn more for it is quite the opposite! Else, you can not be a true Christian!

So please do before you say …you are being deceived. God bless.

At one point, I tried sincerely to believe all that. And I said that I did. But I have given up trying to believe all that, so I don’t.

As far as “completeness” I mean a “complete” spirituality as a way of life that show one who God is.

I don’t believe the Church has that.

 

[Figaro_Jones]

If God exists (and if he doesn’t, exactly what “truth”, what “correctness” are we talking about anyway?) and if he has given a fullness of revelation to humanity, how could that fullness be found equally in two such totally different forms as Catholicism and Hinduism? When the two contradict, how can they be expressing the same truth?

Hinduism and Catholicism are not so contradictory as you seem to think–particularly when you consider their goals instead of their outward appearances: unity with God, selfless service toward others, love, charity. To that extent at least (and quite an extent it is), Catholicism and Hinduism are not so different.

 

[ralphinal]

God alone is Truth.

The question is: Why do Chistians, of all sects, believe they have a monopoly on God?

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says he is God.

Why are the claims of the Bible more reliable than the Gita?

OK. We can work with this starting palce.

God exists and God alone is Truth. Correct?

Now, does God want a relationship with people?

I will answer the other questions as we go.

I want to add that being made in the Image and Likeness of God does not eman we look like Him. It means we have an immortal soul, are rational beings, can put other’s needs before our own, have a capacity to love, and can judge good and evil.

 

[Neil_LA]

Why do you even care what we believe? Your eternal salvation, damnation or nothingness is between you and God. If you ask our opinion or the beliefs of the Catholic Church we will share them with you. But if you don’t believe in the Church, then why does it matter to you what it believes?

I care because Christianity (including Catholicism) seem to have a need to engage in missionary activity and try to convert others to their way of thinking.

You can’t deny that Christianity is primarily a missionary religion.

Many of the tactics used by missionaries over the years have proved destructive to other cultures and other belief systems, so that gives me great concern.

Again, if the Catholic faith were the true faith, what need would there be to be so violently engaged in missionary activity?

Simply present your views and leave it to the other person to accept or not.

Jesus makes it impossible to be compassionate to other people.
He himself says “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16: 15-16 NAB)

To me that is not the image of loving God. This is maybe a reason why Christianity is so full of violence and hatred and contempt of other traditions.

 

[Figaro_Jones]

So this is the deception. Jesus (according to the Bible) said that he came to bring division and a sword. (Matthew 10:34; Luke 12:51)

It is deceptive to call someone who makes these statements, and presents the fruit of fighting, division and hatered throughout history (the history of Christianity) as “the Prince of Peace.”

Careful with the selective quotations. Doesn’t the Gita take place during a battle? Doesn’t Krishna counsel Arjuna on being a warrior? Context is everything.

 

[Neil_LA]

Careful with the selective quotations. Doesn’t the Gita take place during a battle? Doesn’t Krishna counsel Arjuna on being a warrior? Context is everything.

Yes…the Gita does take place on a battlefield.

I don’t disagree that Jesus and Krishna were both fighting against Adharma.

What I do disagree with is the claim that a particular Christian sect has a monopoly on the complete fullness of ultimate reality and that ultimate reality exists in no other place.

 

[Neil_LA]

OK. We can work with this starting palce.

God exists and God alone is Truth. Correct?

Now, does God want a relationship with people?

Both are correct.

Again, my question is why do you assert that God can only appear in one place, at one time, in one form, to one people and the rest of the world and time is out of luck about having a relationship with God if they do not accept that particular way?

Why would God not appear in many times and places and thus maximize the ability of people to have a relationship with Her?

 

[Neil_LA]

Please forgive me if I seem to have lost my humility and respect.

I am just trying to express my questions and concerns.

I am afraid that I might not be very tactful.

This is wholly my shortcoming and I ask your kind indulgence.

 

[ralphinal]

Both are correct.

Again, my question is why do you assert that God can only appear in one place, at one time, in one form, to one people and the rest of the world and time is out of luck about having a relationship with God if they do not accept that particular way?

Why would God not appear in many times and places and thus maximize the ability of people to have a relationship with Her?

I am getting to that. Actually, I will skip ahead.

Here is my take on the whole thing.

I will accept the possibility that God has reveiled Himself to others. However, it seems like not everyone heard the message correctly. So, God tried another approach.

First, He showed Himself to Abraham, then Moses, then all of Isreal. The idea was that they would be a people set apart, a light unto the world of the One God. All would see how God had blessed them and turn away from other gods to Isreal. Then, in the fullness of time, God again showed HImself in the form of Jesus Christ. And that leads us to here.

Now, if you accept that there is one and only one God, then any polytheistic religion has it wrong. Is that arrogant? No, it is logical.

There is more to my thinking: an all knowing God would know that the different people would contact each other. Why would He create confusion and chaos when it comes to knowing Him?

You can accept any way to know God that you want. But, like a Calculus problem, at some point a wrong step can throw off the final answer. However, God does grade based on what you should have and could have known.

 

[Neil_LA]

I am getting to that. Actually, I will skip ahead.

Here is my take on the whole thing.

I will accept the possibility that God has reveiled Himself to others. However, it seems like not everyone heard the message correctly. So, God tried another approach.

First, He showed Himself to Abraham, then Moses, then all of Isreal. The idea was that they would be a people set apart, a light unto the world of the One God. All would see how God had blessed them and turn away from other gods to Isreal. Then, in the fullness of time, God again showed HImself in the form of Jesus Christ. And that leads us to here…

Again, this is assuming that the Bible alone is true.

Now, if you accept that there is one and only one God, then any polytheistic religion has it wrong. Is that arrogant? No, it is logical…

Since I am Hindu, I am assuming you are talking about Hinduism.
It is a common misconception that Hinduism is “polytheistic.”
Most schools of Hinduism assert that there is one God. The multitude of “Gods” that one sees in Hindu iconography are actually the various ways that the One God shows Himself to us. There is no contradiction in saying that their is One God that shows Himself in many ways.

Again, it is an example of Christian misunderstanding (intentional or not) to say that Hinduism is “polytheistic” and therefore inferior.

Say that the “other” is somehow wrong or untrue makes it easier to maintain an attitude of superiority. That doesn’t make one’s position actually true.

There is more to my thinking: an all knowing God would know that the different people would contact each other. Why would He create confusion and chaos when it comes to knowing Him?

Why are you assuming that God showing Herself in more than one way is creating confusion and chaos? It seems to me that it is human misunderstanding of God’s ways that creates confusion and chaos

You can accept any way to know God that you want. But, like a Calculus problem, at some point a wrong step can throw off the final answer. However, God does grade based on what you should have and could have known.

Again, your statement presupposes that there is only one way to know God.

As Arjun says in the 15th verse of the 10th Chapter of the Gita:

svayam evatmanatmanam vettha tvam purusottama
bhuttabhavana bhutesa deva deva jagat pate

O Supreme Person, Universal Father, Lord of all beings, Lord of the Universe, only You can know Yourself, by Your own Divine Potency