Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2002 05:07:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1948 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> >
> > > Believing that the God of the Hebrew Bible sent his son to Earth in the form
> > > of a human male 2,000 years ago to "save" us from our sins sounds very much
> > > like it is incompatible with other religions' theologies, and not at all
> > > independent of them.
> >
> > It is unique, and it has a unique message.
>
> In any case, it is futile to hang one's faith on claims of uniquely
> manifested divinity.
I'm not sure it was the divine manifestation to which the 'uniqueness' was
referring, but (as I took it) Christianity itself. IE that it is
Christianity that is unique, with a unique message. Not the
Jesus-being-the-son-of-God bit. I could be wrong, though, in which case,
Dave!'s totally right.
As for John's point, Christianity seems more to be unique insofar as:
- It was the 1st religion I'm aware of to focus 1st and foremost on morality
(though admittedly, hey, I may be wrong about its 1st and foremost intent--
it's certainly changed a lot as a religion since its inception)
- It's been (IIRC) the most successful "single" religion out there (dispite
its ridiculous variety of flavors, which may aid in its acceptance)
Hmm... can't think of anything else, mostly due to other more modern
religions which are based off of the moral examples set by Christianity, but
without the historical (or even various metaphysical) tie-ins.
BTW, what would people say defines a religion? (no dictionary quotes, now
[1]) I really can't think of anything that could encompass all things that I
would call "religions" except for "a set of beliefs". Of course, I'm of the
mind to allow various breeds of atheism or agnosticism to be considered
religions, if presented correctly... On the other hand, "a set of beliefs"
could also be made to fit such things that I *would't* consider to be
religions. As an offhand guess, I'd say that definition is missing a social
component; despite the fact that if only *one* person believes it, I
wouldn't disqualify such as being a potential religions. Hmm...
DaveE
[1] I hate those stupid dictionary quotes. I'm sure we're all perfectly
capable of looking up words in a dictionary-- even multiple dictionaries.
But just cuz it's in some reference book doesn't mean it's the accepted
standard or that it should be. To hell with dictionaries as far as
philosophic/metaphysical debate goes, I say! Conflicting semantics is half
the fun of playing! :)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) There are any number of self-contradictory assertions inherent in the Christian faith with which one could take issue, but this is the big one that needs to be exorcised whenever it's uttered. The whole God-incarnate-here-to-redeem-us theme is (...) (22 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
