Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	Re: .0 Richard.

	Two separate and quite different questions, Richard.

	>What makes Christianity unique?

	It may sound cynical, but it most certainly is not so intended?
	I find that Christianity is unique in its diversity of inter-
	pretations of scriptures.
	This is possibly a result of the relative lateness of the emergence
	of Christianity from its "mother discipline" Judaism and the schisms
	of the early church: in particular the divorcing of Christianity
	from Judaism. This, plus the lack of any original texts of
	scriptures -- with the consequent discussions over authenticity of
	surviving copies -- has given birth to a rich and lively debate
	on the very basic tenets of Christianity. In this I believe it to
	be unique.

	>Does uniqueness tend to validate or nullify components of a faith?

	Wow! Let's try.

	Faith at the private level is highly personal and I do not think
	that an individual, holding a particular faith-based belief, asks
	himself "Am I alone in this? And, if I am, it nullifies/validates
	my belief." Which is not to say that a healthy mind is not open to
    	questioning and self examination.

	Globally, I think that those things which set a group apart, tend
	to be the things which hold a group together. This, although not
	strictly speaking a "validation", does have a self-reinforcing
	aspect which, within the group, would have the appearance of
	validation.

	I am aware that the two answers seem to have a certain inconsistency.
	The first says that the group's uniqueness is the disparity of its
	beliefs and the second requires a bond. However, my observation is
	that there are more commonalities amongst Christians than there are
	differences. Not the least of which is Christocentricity.

	Greetings, Derek.
                                          

re Note 911.1 by VNABRW::BUTTON:

> 	I find that Christianity is unique in its diversity of inter-
> 	pretations of scriptures.

        Is this really true?

        I have not studied other religions much, so I had never heard
        this before.

        Certainly Islam, at least, has a noticeable range of
        interpretation.

        We certainly know that modern Judaism has its range from
        orthodox to reformed.

        I would like to be told an example of a book-based religion
        that does not have a diversity of interpretation.  As you may
        recall, a major premise of mine is that natural language text
        is (almost?) unavoidably ambiguous.  A god who chooses a
        static written form to convey doctrine must reasonably expect
        the consequence of multiple interpretations.  Or perhaps that
        god encourages people to find multiple interpretations.


> 	This, plus the lack of any original texts of
> 	scriptures -- with the consequent discussions over authenticity of
> 	surviving copies -- has given birth to a rich and lively debate
> 	on the very basic tenets of Christianity. 

        I don't believe this is true.  I have never heard a doctrinal
        debate in this or any other forum which hinged on the
        differences between two manuscripts.

        Bob

 What sets Christianity apart as the only belief system that I choose
to trust, hinges on one single event:

	The death, burrial and resurection of Jesus Christ! 

 This miracle was reserved to Christ only, and no one else! as proof
to all that He is the fullfillment of the prophecies and that he is the 
only way of Salvation.
    
 Who else has the power to raise someone from death?  God only!
Check the different passages and compare them.

 In the passages below, Jesus claims that He will raise his own body 
from death and yet, in other passages we read that God raised his
body...(very interesting)

 What makes this event so crucial, is that if Jesus did not fullfill
the prophecies, then I would have to start questioning the accuracy 
of the scriptures...

    JHN 2:19 -  Jesus answered them, "DESTROY THIS TEMPLE, and I WILL
    		RAINSE IT AGAIN IN THREE DAYS."
        2:21 -  But the temple he had spoken of WAS HIS BODY.
    
    MATH 26:61- ..."This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple
		of God and rebuild it in three days."...

    MATH 26:32  "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into
     		Galilee."

    JHN 10:17   The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my 
		life -- only to take it up again.
	   18   No one takes if from me, but I lay it down on my own
		accord. I have the authority to lay it down and 
		authority to take it up again...

    EPH,1:20
    COL 2:12    (God raised him from the dead)
    (others)

   I PET 3:18 	For Christ died for our sins once for all, the righteous
		for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...		
		
   Oleg
    

    
    
    I do believe Christianity is rather unique in its attempt to convert
    others.  Most other religions are of the "live and let live" mode of
    operation.
    
            GJD

    .4  That's true to some degree.  I've never had a Buddhist actively
    pursue trying to proselytize me.  Hare Krishna, well, that's another
    matter.  There is some talk among Jews to begin engaging in overt
    proselytizing.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Some day I hope to be knowledgeable enough about world religions to be
    able to answer this question.
    
    I think of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr.  What was
    different and unique about the faith of each?
    
                                             Patricia

    
>  There is some talk among Jews to begin engaging in overt
>    proselytizing.

    True but rare. Generally speaking such efforts are attempts to bring
    people who are ethnically Jewish back to the faith of their fathers.

    		Alfred

    Re.6
    
    Patricia,
    
    I believe the only difference was that Gandhi did not believe that
    Jesus Christ was the only Son of God.  I'm not certain that King did
    believe this, however I do know that this was the only thing preventing
    Gandhi from not calling himself a Christian.
    
    Other than that, they were about the same, though I'm fairly certain
    that King and Gandhi did not have a direct relationship.
    
    Gandhi and Tolstoy had a direct relationship though, and one book -
    besides Gandhi's autobiography - that you might be interested in
    reading is: "The Kingdom of God (or Heaven?) Is Within You", by
    Tolstoy.  It was, as you can imagine, banned in Russia at the time, 
    and the Church didn't look well upon it either.
    
    Cindy

If the books of wisdom, Job, Ecclesiates, Proverbs, tend to be viewed as
lesser writings I think it is partly because they encapsulate universal
truths, truths hardly exclusive to the Bible.

Much of the wisdom contained in the books of wisdom have parallels
in other ancient writings.

It may be precisely because of their non-exclusivity that the intersections
with other literature are not seen as affirming, but ordinary.

Shalom,
Richard

    Years ago, I took a short course on the main teachings
    of 5-6 world religions.  We were told that for most
    of the religions, man/woman must become "better, purer..."
    to approach God.  Christianity was the only one where God 
    approached men/women to begin a relationship based grace
    and acceptance of where each person was at that time. 
    
    Haven't thought about that in a while but it really 
    impressed me at the time.  Still does. 
    
    But for the Grace of God....
    
    Dolores

    
	Re: 2. Bob.

	You're quite right to pick me up on my .1 Bob; I worded it much
	too ambiguously.

	I meant that no other religion has (such a) diversity of opinion
	on the person of its central figure(s). (Trinity, prophet, lesser
	God, archangel etc.) All of these (and more?) result from the
	interpretation of scriptures.

	Islam, Buddhism and others have their differences, but not in
	relation to the the nature of their central figures. In this they
	are absolutely agreed.

	>I have never heard a doctrinal debate in this or any other forum
	>which hinged on the differences between two manuscripts.

	Well, we may be coming from different directions, but I see the
	Hebrew texts and the Septaugint as different manuscripts. I see
	the NWT, KJV, Douay, Lutheran, Tyndale and Vulgate as different
	(translations of) manuscripts. Given this view, you might agree
	that there have been doctrinal debates which hinge on these
	differences. You might like to read the string on the exegesis of
	John 1:1 for example, or the discussion over the differences in
	"parthenos" vs. "alma". These are core, doctrinal debates which
	revolve around MSS differences. They also bear directly on the
	question of the nature of the central figure of Christianity.
	I know of no other religion which has this kind of debate.

	Additionally, I know of no other religion (outside of Christianity
	and Judaism) in which some of its followeres *actually believe*
	their creation myths; they acknowledge them for what they are:
	myths.
	
	Greetings, Derek.
                    

    Re.10                                  
    
    Delores,
    
    That isn't really true.  Hinduism, for example, throughout the ages has
    had many avatars come to Earth with the purpose of assisting humankind
    toward God.  Ram, Krishna - especially Krishna in the dialog with
    Arjuna which makes up the Bhagavad-Gita (part of the Mahabharata) was
    there be with him as he made the most difficult choice.  God's grace,
    especially, is emphasized in the form of Bhakti yoga, the yoga of
    devotion (different from the physical hatha yoga that you see practiced.)
    Bhakti yoga essentially is, "Let go and let God."
    
    In Buddhism, you have the Buddha and all the incarnations of the
    Bodisattvas that have come to Earth to support the people where they
    are at, and accepting them as they are.
    
    Even in Christianity, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Paul
    says, "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.", so that
    aspect of becoming 'better and purer' to approach God also exists
    there.
    
    Cindy

Note 911.12

>    Even in Christianity, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that Paul
>    says, "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect.", so that
>    aspect of becoming 'better and purer' to approach God also exists
>    there.
    
Cindy,

	Okay, Cousin.  I'll correct you.  ;-)

	T'was not Paul, but Jesus according to Matthew.  Luke's parallel
uses 'merciful' rather than 'perfect.'

Richard