What makes the Christian story so special?

What of helping your fellow human; being a "good" person; respecting, loving...are these all sins?If these things are righteous, and it is only through God that righteousness is granted, then surely God has granted it, not only, to those who have sought salvation?
or are they just "filthy rags"? So basically, you are saying that it is only through the grace of God that a person would attain Heaven?If that is the case, then you are slightly inaccurate in saying that Christianity is unique in this. There are even schools of Hinduism that advocate the same thing. That is, it is only by God's will, that one will attain Moksha (roughly equivalent to Heaven). This is a pretty heavy-handed statement. Surely you do not profess to know the essentials of all schools of thought and religion, that you could justify such a statement?The thing is, I don't have a problem with religion being taught in schools (not in science class, though); but no single one should be held up as "the answer" without any indisputable foundation for this.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Your source for this?You quite obviously have spent little to no time studying comparative religions and possibly a lot of time writing advertising copy. You are a salesman or adman of some sort I take it?lfen

Not at all. Its a glass-half-empty scenario Cookie. Whilst nigh on all people will do good things, they also will do bad things. And perfection is the only acceptable standard. God is not a god-of-the-weighing-scales. Its not a case of scraping into heaven with a D+. The report sheet must read straight A's. We can study all we like but it won't make a damn bit of difference. Christ, that most perfect of students has sat the exam on our behalf. And has a straight A report card for everyone who won't refuse it.It strikes me that the problem with a god-of-the-weighing scales is that there is going to the person who just manages to scrape it into heaven - and a person who misses out and ends up in hell. The difference between eternal bliss and eternal torment for them would be a little as say, eyeing up lustfully, that attractive woman who just moved into number 42 20 years ago. I got this from Wiki as a general overview of attaining Moksha. They go further on breaking it down into two main streams both of which involve you to do things.

quote:

---

There are believed to be four yogas (unions) or margs (paths) for the attainment of Moksha. They are the ways of selfless work, of self-dissolving love, of absolute discernment, and of 'royal' meditative immersion....

​

One must achieve Moksha on his or her own. An Arhat or a Siddha may inspire, but does not intervene

---

This probably isn't definitive but if you have something which indicates otherwise then I'd be interested in seeing itMoksha - Wikipedia I made the statement in the context of supposing that the end result of all religions is ones attaining position in an afterlife. Whether this means getting it at all (as opposed to the hell of having to come back here time after time) or avoiding a bad afterlife and getting a good one doesn't make a whole lot of difference. That is the point of Religion. If one takes that narrow focus and discards comparative window dressing involved then all the worlds Religions require that you do something to ensure the desired outcomeExcept Christianity. That makes it unique and if one is contemplating which exit to take off the spiritual roundabout then that might well be an indication as to its veracity. I said might. In that case we should not teach science either if definitive answers are what we want. Science helps us despite it supplying us with only tentitives. Any Religion can do the same thing.I don't know if this is unique about Christianity but God offers relationship with him while your here. HE is personal so if you are not having a personal relationship and know it then you have a reason to suspect its false. You don't have to die (x number of times) to find out whether it works or not. With Hinduism it appears that if you get it wrong it'll be too late after your gone to change your mind about itThis message has been edited by iano, 27-Feb-2006 10:48 AM

I've left myself wide open Ifen. You have a world of Religions to chose from. Pick one you think will contradict the statement and we'll go have a look see. In the area of "you doing things affects where you go" as I referred to with the word 'critical'. Why, thank you!This message has been edited by iano, 27-Feb-2006 10:22 AM

Wayne Liquorman is a contemporary American and uses American English to explain the teachings of advaita vedanta which is school of Hindu religion that was heavily influenced by Buddhism. The major difference between Advaita and exoteric Christianity seems to me is that Christians don't examine if there is a self but taking the ego for granted assume that the process of the ego will continue eternally. Advaita and Buddhism look not to an eternal prolongation of the ego process but to an awakening.Wayne says further in that interview: This is just a start. However this week I have extra paper work to get in so I may not be on here much or at all until the weekend.lfen

So would you say then, that a person who has lived their life immorally and unscrupulously, but accepts Christianity, wholly, at the end of his or her life, has a greater chance of entering Heaven than one who spent his or her life righteously, but was not Christian?
If this is the case, then it smacks of nepotism to me
Arguably worse than a "God of the scales".

quote:

---

Never does a man attain moksha by his own skill; by no means other
than the grace of Siva, the dispeller of evil, is such an attainment
possible. -- Paushkara Agama

---

quote:

---

6. Vishishtadvaita Moksha

​

Those who believe in this school believe that moksha means living blissfully in vaikuntha, which is the realm of the Personal God after the death of the devotee. A person who has attained moksha lives blissfully in vaikuntha in a spiritual body in the presence of God. He/she acquires many divine powers such as omniscience, etc., but unlike God he/she cannot create, sustain or dissolve the world. In spite of the exalted state the devotee has to remain subservient to God. They also believe that Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga are only aids to Bhakti Yoga. One can be liberated from the bondage of samsara only through God's grace. They suggest that Bhakti Yoga practices are the only means of obtaining divine grace.

---

Spirituality, Hinduism, Moksha or Liberation From Samsara

quote:

---

Liberation according to the Dvaita School of Philosophy

​

Dvaita or dualistic school of Vedanta maintains that the soul gets freedom only after the death. A person cannot become totally Free from the Ignorance while still living in human body. However, the human body is essential for the purification of mind, and thus making the aspirant fit for Liberation. These spiritual disciplines and scriptural injunctions a sadhaka has to undertake or follow are 1) internal and external purity of body, mind, and speech, 2) leading ethical and moral life of austerity, non-violence, non-attachment to senses, 3)total surrender to the Will of God , forbearance, and devotional worship and meditation on the Chosen Deity (like Vishnu, Hari, Sri Krishna). Following such not so easy life pattern the aspirant becomes fit for release or Moksha through the Grace of God. Some Dvaita philosophers maintain that everybody cannot attain to Moksha, only a select few become Free with God's Grace.

---

No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/neovedanta/aci.html
Hinduism is an extremely complex religion, with many differing schools of thought, so i cannot profess to know all of it. I don't quite understand what you're saying here... Do you mean that you're only considering those religions that specify an afterlife, and how to reach it?
The thing is, i'm not talking about Hell or Reincarnation. I'm talking about the means of getting there, same as you, and even with a narrow focus, there are distinct differences in thought, even within religions. Going back to Hinduism, again, There is even a school of thought that regards total inaction, roughly speaking, a freeing of oneself from worldly deeds, good and bad, as the path. And i'm pretty certain that there are others.Even if Christianity was unique, a case could be made that its uniqueness hints at it being the wrong path, as well. Implying that uniqueness is not a good indicator of truth.
Might, Iano? Someones getting soft... Does science still teach that the Earth is flat, or that little, fully formed babies are present in the semen of men? No.
The science that is taught, is that which is regarded as the best answer at the time, or at the least provides an argument for or against it. Science teaches the most supported, empirically, ideas.
Religion cannot do that. Neither one is more supported than another.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

A person doesn't make themselves a Christian. God does. The best that I can explain it at this time would be something like this.God attempts to draw a person to himself during their life in all kinds of ways (but none revealing himself directly):the wonder of nature causing us to wonder
the call of conscience
his Word: there is something about "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" that sets it above any other ideal that man has ever generated. What other moral guide can surpass it in its beauty and sheer simplicity. What can surpass "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" for beauty and sheer simplicity. Not bad for a carpenter from Nazerth...These actions on Gods part are designed to rotate us 180 degrees from our current position in darkness and turn us towards the source of these things - the light. He gave us free will - for it is relationship for which he made us and you cannot have a relationship with a non-freewilled being. Not you wife, nor your cat nor your dog.And so we are free to deny the rotational torque applied to us. We may feel, for instance, the insignifcance and discomfort welling up in ourselves when contemplating a clear, star-filled night....and 'come to our senses' with a "don't be silly - life is meaningless". We can hear our conscience as clearly as a bell telling us what we ought and ought not to do. Only ought. And we can choose to still its voice. We can seek to fill the void we all know resides within with cars, careers, clever philosophy and addictions...and pretend that they do what they cannotAnd so to the immoral person who turns at the end of their lives. In the first place they cannot turn themselves. If they turn to God it is because he turned them. And they allowed it. Allowing is not doing anything. Its doing nothing. It might be summed up as follows

quote:

---

A person in motion will rotate towards God unless acted upon by an interior force

---

The Bible talks about hardening of heart and if a person spents a life stilling the call of God by hardening their heart to it (denying the undeniable facts about themselves - they are sinners) then it cannot respond anymore. The person will have strangled the life out of themselves. God is under no compunction to continue calling to the end of a persons life. I imagine that he does but if the light is self-extinguished...well.This is not to say that an immoral-acting person cannot be saved after a lifetime of living so. Listen, there is NO difference between the immoral acting person and the righteous living person if neither are Christians. No difference in Gods eyes that is. You are falling into the understandable error of measuring according to your own standard of moral/immoral. God measures not by yours but by his standard. And by that standard everyone on earth stinks to high heaven. There might be shades of stink between the paedophile and the aid-worker but stink to high heaven we all do irrespective of that. I find it impossible to see how a Father who puts his own son to death for his enemies could be accused of nepotism. Except in the sense that he does to those who he adopts as sons that which he did to his son. And doesn't do for people who aren't sons. He crucifies them. He puts them to death. And resurrects them to new life starting whenever it starts. Hence the term 'born again' Assuming this denomination (is that what its called?) is true for a moment. Does that mean that I am automatically going to end up in Moksha if I live as I do? Or any other way I chose to?. If not why is that? Is the god involved arbitarily choosing who to bring to Moksha and who not to bring. There is a lot of doing on the persons part which means it fits the bill I proposed at the start: presumably if a person doesn't make themselves fit then gods grace will not be instigated?Maybe I can sum up the Christian position (as I best understand it) by saying that if a person is saved they have done nothing and God has done everything. If they are lost they have done it to themselves.I would point out in passing that, compared to Hindism, with its rather convoluted-sounding disciplines (that presumably must be understood in some way shape or form before they can be practiced) the calls of God are open to all men and women in the daily course of their lives. No religion is necessary to be turned by God. No churchs, no bible reading, no fasting, no good deedsAll a person has to do is ask. If they do, then its because he brought them to that point. And if they do, with their God-softened heart, then come he will.You don't have to wait until you die to find out if its true or not. Does that make Christianity unique?This message has been edited by iano, 28-Feb-2006 12:17 PM

In the narrow focus we are dealing with, there are I hold, no distinct differences in thought as to either enter the afterlife (the core sought after goal of the religion) or get a good afterlife as opposed to a bad (the core sought after goal of the religion)...between the worlds Religions. How does one do nothing without doing something to enable doing nothing first. One would presumably have to learn all kinds of disciplines in order to repress their humanity to the extent of them being able to do nothing The thread is about why Christianity is special. Not specifically about whether it is true. Uniqueness would I hope cause someone to chose it were they contemplating taking a turn of a spiritual roundabout. Simply a rare case of an evangelists good manners which Iano is trying to learn. There is no 'might' involved. But it is respectful to view it from your angle. I'm already in (Christ) and would desire that you would be too. Call it a case of attempting to "be all things to all men"

Not really. It sounds akin to many eastern religions...the ego (your hard heart) tries to throw hurdles and barriers and distractions from you realising that you are not actually your ego but seperate from the ego. Once you realise that the duality of life is an illusion and have attained the state of permanent 'no-ego' you are enlightened. You certainly don't need to die, you don't need rituals (though they can and do help with the process, such is the power of the ego (or the hardness of the heart)).Naturally, each religion has unique qualities.

What would make one realise the duality of life is an illusion if not practicing the Religion? Were it not for the Religion and the rituals involved could somebody expect to become enlightened? You place the emphasis on you to do the realising. Or is it that the god involved, by his grace, brings you to a realisation - much like God?This message has been edited by iano, 28-Feb-2006 04:08 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 28-Feb-2006 04:18 PM

Here is one example: As to uniqueness it a bogus rhetorical selling point. Snowflakes are unique. Almost everything with enough atoms by permutation and combination is unique.If the individuality of the runner is based on his running what happens to him if he loses his feet?What is unique to Christianity, and any other religion is either cultural trappings or errors. A world religion's truths would be universal as distinct from a personal religion which could very well be individual.lfen

By just being. Ironically, religion is a barrier to enlightenment. Religion acts as a crutch to slow the student at the end. Whenever the student says "I practice this religion", they fall. "I have no ego" falls on its face. The rituals are tools that can help as well as hinder. They aren't necessary, but they are useful.Kind of like going into the cupboard and saying the Lord's prayer. Actually that's just evidence of how little I know. As was that sentence Terms such as 'you' and 'I' are artifacts of the duality and seperation. There is no god involved. The path is walked alone, the obstacles are created by the student. Eventually the student understands that not only are there no obstacles but there is no path, they are already there and have always been there.

You seem to be continually contradicting yourself on this point. You say that it is God that makes one Christian, but one still has the free will to deny Him. But if it were only through God's action, then how can one still deny?
The implication is that, whether or not God brings one to the threshold, it is still upto one to cross it; ergo, it is up to you to make the choice - at least, according to your words.While this may sound simple, in my view, to truly, make the choice to become Christian is as theologically profound as any action in any religion. So, with all those words, basically, you're saying that this is the case. Towards God...possibly. Towards Christianity...not necessarily.Fact is, we could argue this, and the other things you brought up till the cows come home, but we'd just be chasing each others' tail.
Both of us can deny it all we like, but we can't help but to approach from a subjective basis. I truly don't know. Of course, one could ask the same question of your god. What ever is done, all boils down to devotion. Correct me if i'm wrong, but is that not expected of a christian? Total surrender to your lord god?In the the end, the difference, as far as i can see it, is that in Hinduism, there are many ways of attaining moksha. One basically does what one can. Sooner or later one will attain it. This is my "objective" view of it though. Whether or not its true or if i believe it, does not apply. I expect what's tripping us up here, is the defintion of "doing something".if we stick to the narrow definition, then simply the act of becoming christian, is doing something.
But this doesn't make a difference, for you to make such a statement, requires you to know the details of every religion, and every school of thought within those religions. No single person knows that.
so while i am open to the idea that christianity might have a unique outlook regarding this, i cannot accept your word that every single other religion is the same. More accurately, its about why its special in the context of teaching its views, solely, in the classroom. I based my questions, on what you said in your first post. If that is the case though; every religion is unique, and thus should be taught equally, as i said before. i'm glad that you wish to ply your good manners with me, Iano. It is often the case that there is a lack of manners, wherever you stand, on these issues. The last sentence is not needed and does not further the discussion.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-01-2006 10:34 AM

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

IrishRockhound,"So the question really is what makes the Christian creation story so special, and why should the world's other creation stories not be taught as well?" Currently in the United States, the creation story is not taught in public schools because of "the separation of church and state".Now why should the Christian creation story be taught? Don't you agree that truth should be taught?In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. God chose Israel for a chosen people and the Jewish people's history evidences proof of God's reality. God then walked the Earth as Jesus.For scientific evidences, I suggest Answers in Genesis

---

From death he did rise and will come again.
Move on with him now to be ready for then.

I looked at your site but I wasn't able to find any scientific evidence. Could you be more specific? Maybe open a new thread on what evidence you think is there?