How does as according to the vast majority of orthodox christianity, a belief in the notion that a saintly man (or God made flesh) died for the sins of mankind cause mortality to become immortal not only in existence but with added spiritual blissful existence?

Philosophically speaking one belief is as good as another isnt it?

Mr Can-Opener, meet one can of worms.

IN MY OPINION ONLY...

Christianity worships misery and suffering, thus the sacrifice and torture of this God-made-flesh, satisfies the requirement for the believer to suffer for the indignity of being born in sin and suffering (as we are all 'separate' from God now, according to Christian tenet) and is therefore 'made worthy' (if a believer) of entrance into the Divine Presence.

The believer, therefore, is absolved of this suffering themself (although many of them still do, imo).

I would also suggest that one belief is NOT philosophically equal to another. Although it depends on what the belief entails, of course.

That is my question. How does 'becoming a believer' make one worthy? What is it within this particular belief that sets it aside from others, that in itself gives one immortal joy?




A belief that believes that one belief is not philosophically equal to another.

Simple. It doesn't. There is no one "true" religion. They all have their truths. But not everything in each religion is true, of course.

However, all belief systems are not equal. Any belief system that openly condemns anyone who does not follow that belief, cannot possibly be equal to those that preach (and especially practice) love and respect for ALL.

Edit: Oh, and if you don't agree with me, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!

I hold that all get added to that blissful existence. God is that huge , doesn't play wack a mole , doesn't discriminate , made all to Gods purpose . anything less and it's petty which would mean God is small and myopic.

I agree whole heartedly. However I still want to know from Christians how a belief or mental concept and faith in that mental concept change one from being a mortal to an immortal in a paradise heaven?

I agree with this. However from one angle I say all beliefs are wrong (no matter how theoretically correct) for the very reason that they are beliefs for belief by definition isnt knowing the truth but thinking one knows what it is. Therefore all of them are as good as each other in the sense that they all fall short of truth (this by the way is only my belief ).

My original question still stands though. How does having a certain belief or mental concept and faith in that mental concept in itself lift someone from being a mortal separated from God by sin to being immortal and united with God in paradise in an afterlife?

It doesn't.


Next question

Hahahahaha thank you for your answer! I am still curious about the question however. A shame no christians have been able to come forth and give more elaborate yet practical answers.

They won't. At best somebody will come and show you a big jumble of bible verses.

It doesn't, tis why I left Xianity for Judaism (that and all the inconsistencies in Xianity).

If you read the Old Testament and see what God required of people, and what he did when they followed and what he did when they didn't follow. It wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to insult God by saying he changed it all to being that you merely need to believe. That's foolishness. The Xian notion is that you can be a great person, following God's commandments (even though this is impossible according to Paul. However, NOWHERE did Jesus say it was impossible to follow the law or keep his teachings), and yet go to hell for eternity because you don't "believe" in some man who committed blasphemy on multiple occasions and then died on a cross to "save" the world from their sins. I don't know how anyone could be confused as to why the Jews don't accept Jesus as their Messiah.




It doesn't change you at all. Christianity is a religion of feelings, not actions, of lip service, not true devotion. That's why you only need to "believe in your heart and confess with your mouth". You don't need to change at all, or show evidence of being a good person even. Why? Beacause no one can do it.


The can't give you elaborate practical answers because there are none.

I thought so.

A biblically based christian might perhaps reply like this.

"Ah, but man was created immortal. As god had warned adam and eve, they only became mortal( will surely die) when they moved away from gods plan for them, and thus allowed sin including death, and corruption of both the body and the spirit , to enter, not omly into them, but into humanity and the world in general. "

A bilicaly based christian might argue that in sacrificing part of his god hood, in taking mortal form ,and then dieing for the sins of humanity, god gave back the promise and opportunity for immortality which he created within us.

All we, as individuals, have to do is avail ourselves of the opportunity (but this does involve getting with gods programme for us once again).

If we so choose, we will be restored basically to the form we had in eden, and to life back on earth restored to an edenic state in that form. We will again be immortal through the power of the treee of life, for there will be no death or corruption, and the world will be in natural harmony(the lamb will lie down with the lion)

Thats what a biblically based christian might say to your questions, anyway.

So our souls since Adam and eve arnt created immortal even though the 'Word is life and this life is the light of men.'?



So God didnt do it out of love but because he wanted a transaction paid back? God works on an eye for an eye level?



But this doesnt answer my question at all. How does accepting the belief that Christ is the savior and died for our sins actually turn us from mortal humans into immortal souls that will live in bliss in the afterlife? What is it about that particular belief and faith in it that magically makes one go from sin to justified?

Quite simply. There is no connection between Pauline christianity and a man whether he really existed or not called Jesus. St Paul never met a man called Jesus.

The souls are created by god at the time a new human is formed (in my view that is logically at conception, when the full genetic code for a new human is created)

The souls live while the human lives and sleep ( return to god for storage) while the human is dead.

When a human is resurrected the same soul is restored to them. The "saved" retain their souls for ever.

Those not saved are destroyed, and their souls are destroyed, utterly, with them (again biblically this is known as the second death, in which the body and soul perish)

I did not attribute motivation to god for his actions, you did.

I happen to believe from the evidence available to me that god acts out of love at all times, and thus it was pure love which motivated his own pain and sacrifice to win back for us our immortality. This seems an uncommonly generous act to me, rather than a selfish one.

A biblical christian might argue that we belong to god, body and sou,l and that everything we are, and possess, is his naturally. Because i believe in free will, i think that we are more than possessions or slaves of god. Again, in my experience, this is how god sees us and treats us(as free agents)

It is the act of belief and the acceptance of gods sacrifice and of his path for us which allows god to restore our immortal bodies and souls. its not magic(except in the sense that very advanced technology is seen as magic.)

It occurs through his ability to physically manipulate and transform matter and energy .In a more minor form this ability is displayed in gods physical miracles on earth. He reassembles our bodies, improves/restores them and retrieves the knowledge and abilities of our souls/sentience from storage then reprogrammes the body with soul and sentience.

However god can/will only do this with peolpe who have displayed a willingnes and an ability to live sinless lives(we dont actually have to do this because in human form we cannot), but if the intent, the willingness to follow gods will, and the love of god is there to motivate us, god can make us sinless and immortal, just as he can make our bodies immortal and end death and decay.

Dont forget, biblically speaking, god physically removed immmortality from us, by taking away the "tree of life" (possibly a symbol for energy or technology)once we had gained the knowledge of all things both good and evil. As he pointed out, an immortal race with the technological abilities conferred by knowledge, and lacking the moral/ ethical precepts we were yet to learn, was far too dangerous, both to itself and others, to be allowed.
Thus heaven will be a place with no spiritual,or physical corruption (no sin). This state cannot exist if sinners (people who will again choose to disobey god) are allowed in.

Fair? perhaps not, and yet biblically these are the conditions under which god created us and gave us life.

Again, personally, having lived a life living as god intended (as far as a human being can and with many failings,) i can only say that life l freely lived under such conditions is so wondrous in every respect that i would not choose any other alternative.

And yet, the alternative of just one life on earth, followed by death, does exist. And understandably, for many people thats a better alternative than having to live the life god asks of them.(particularly if they do not believe in a real and powerful god in the first place)
For me this is not such an alien concept, as it must have been for people in ages past. Humanity is, itself, almost on the threshold of physical and intelllectual immortality through our own science. Thus an entity with slightly more advanced technology or innate natural ability in this area is not difficult to envisage. And when, personally, you observe the physical miracles god can perform right now , belief becomes a moot point anyway.

How though? How does this act of belief restore our immortal bodies and souls? Why does the content of the belief count so much and have to be emphasized? What if I held the belief that all ought to be loved and respected for the sake of God or love and acted accordingly? What if I held the belief that Allah revealed such a message of love through his prohpet Muhammad and practice it? What if I held an atheist belief but believed that all ought to be respected and practice it? What if I held the belief that Krishna is a human form of God and practice love and devotion according to Krishna (which is more or less the same as christianity and all the other major religions).

Why is it that if I hold a different religious view that is morally the same as Christianity my belief and works is for nothing but if I hold the belief that Christ died for my sins I am 'saved'?

Why is it that a protestant fundamentalist christian from america who thinks bombing other countries for peace is moral, saved, while Mahatma Gandhi did all he did for nothing simply because he didnt like many self-righteous missionaries accept christ as his one and only savior (yet practiced what they ethically preached)?






This is highly speculative. For an example Sri Ramana Maharshi in my view from an early age liberated himself from sin (ignorance) and lived a life free from sin until he died. Likewise I would say the same of Sri Ramakrishna. Biblically speaking we can here on earth be free from sin. Christ says that if we follow his teachings we can be 'perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.' I believe many people before and since Christ have been such embodiments like the two I have just mentioned.



This depends on one's interpretation of the bible. I am inclined to interpret the garden of eden as leaving animal instinct to self-conscious choice.



I still dont understand how the concepts of one's belief are put above ones actions. God cannot be viewed as unconditionlly loving if you are loved only on the condition of the content of your belief system.

Damn, I enjoy this forum lol. Its nice to see that a lot of people believe this way. Still, I think the religions are essentially equal. I think the soul has much to gain from all the different faiths, and yes, even the more exclusive ones. See, all these different faiths seem to contradict each other, and create these paradoxes. You are individual, yet part of a whole, etc. So, the only way to really grow spiritually is to experience all of it in different incarnations. You may believe in a more universal god now, but in a past life you were probably a southern baptist lol. Every path has something worthwhile to take from it, even the seemingly intolerant ones.

From now on have to point out this is my pesonal opinion, based on my experiences and interpretations, and may not fit your classical biblical christians viewpoint.
Belief has nothing to do with the physical reconstruction of body and soul by god, but god will only restore and offer immortal life to people who chose to go and sin no more( to the best of their abilities).

What would be the point of placing sinners back in an environment which they destroyed before, not just for them selves but for everyone? To live an immortal life requires a level of spiritual development and commitment, and it is simply pointless, and too dangerous, to restore to immortal life people who have shown no interest in that spiritual enlightenment or commitment to living a good life

Personally(along with some other biblically based believers) i believe there will be many non christians in heaven but these will be basically good men and women, who place spiritual concerns above carnal(bodily )ones. Spirituality encompasses certain ethical /philosophical considerations but als practical things like those outlined in the 10 commandments

It ihas always been following the desires of the body (not just, or even mostly, sexual desires0 which has led humanity to poor choices.

In my opinion there is no wrong in fulfilling the bodies needs (some philosophers disagree with this) if this is done in accordance with gods design and wishes.

Man and women were expected to live physical lives by god in eden, and will do so again in the new earth(Despite some scriptural debate about this)



I dont believe this is so. Many good men from before the christian era, manty who died not hearing of christ, and even those who knew of christ but followed a differnt path to god may be in heave. Those denied will be those who choose willfully and consciously to break gods laws and commandments and thus cause harm to others



My bottom line>im not the judge , but i believe mahatma ghandi is far more likely to be in heaven than a person who kills outside gods law. I dont know the heart of teither only god does. Perhaps if the american sincerely believes his country and many innocent country men ar going to be saved by warfare god will take this into account. God appaently sees nothing wrong with state sanctioned killing of criminals who break either caeasars laws in harming the innocent or gods laws. He also approves of killing in war where that war is designed to protect his people and the ethical standards he promotes
The practical difficulties in this relate to humans not god Humans invoke god for many causesand reasons. We all need to examine our own consciences and read the many world religiuos beliefs before we decide when a war is just or justifiable. Personally i find many wars defensible although i wish there was a better way





I guess it depends on your definition of sin> ifind it difficult to believe given human nature that any human has never had what is considered a sinfull thought of greed or lust or anger. The best of us try to master these emotions and live on ethical principles. Some such as those you mention succed more than others, but in gods terms they are still sinners.Once humanity is given new bodies those propensities will be removed. There will be no sin in us. While we retain free choice we will be spiritually and intellectually advanced enough not to even consider sin. There wil be no need to. Our lives will be filled with such powerful positive energies and emotions that no other desires will fit in. we will have an intellectual and intuitive desire to think and do only good


Not sure i understand what you are saying here




God loves us all. Thats why we have choice. What we decide and how we act decides our destiny. God does all he can to help us come to the right decison but as free willed agents the choice is ultimately ours.
To god, i think, our actions mirror our beliefs.He judges our hearts.

So what appears a cruel act by a man to an outsider might be judged by god through the mans intentions .eg he killed one son to stop that son causing the death of all his other children. God would still expect the man to render to caesar what punishment was due to caesar(the state) but god would judge the mans heart and intentions rather than just the outward act.

This concept as far as i am aware first arose with the egyptians, where a mans heart/soul was metaphorically weighed against (from memory) a feather.. A good mans heart would weigh less than the feather and he would gain eternal life. An evil mans heart would be weighed down by his evil, and his actions, and weigh more than the feather and his soul would be lost. (all from memory .might have got the details wrong but the concepts there)

If as your opinion here outlines that there will be many good non-christians in heaven because they did good works (not just good works in the more commonly known way but good works that help inspire spirit and if successful from hard practice guide one to God-given works because their works are not ego driven but spiritually driven) from inspiration from teachings of a deity other than christ or from unitive love itself then why is it wholly necessary as the fundamentalists proclaim that only the belief in Christ in itself saves?




Likewise I agree. However many orthodox Christians would say they arnt in heaven because they never confessed that Christ is their one and only savior who died for their sins. Therefore people like Gandhi or a respectful atheist who loved and respected others loved for nothing, while a more unregenerate action doing christian is more justified and gets to go to heaven based that they hold mentally or spiritually a particular interpreted belief from certain scriptures.



God says to love one's neighbour as oneself and turn the other cheek and to love one's enemies (if you believe Chirst is God incarnate). How is killing other people for whatever reason in correspondence with Christ's teachings?

In my view God (from a personal creator point of view) loves us all unconditionally and even if his laws are broken he will look upon us kindly.





Sin to me means ignorance. When one has conquered sin one is then aware of one's true spiritual nature which is God (in a non-personal creator way but immanent and transcendental way) itself.




That the garden of eden is symbolic of when we were animals without reason or true spirituality. Run by pure instinct without will of our own but then somehow or another became more self aware, generalized and disconnected from the specialized intuitive instinctual animal bliss.





I interpret this differently. I think Jesus was being tongue in cheek. When Christ says 'render unto caesar what is caesar's and unto God what is God' I think it is to provoke the thought:

How can anything not belong to God? I think Jesus also in a way was conveying that he wasnt here to preach politics as much as love and spiritual deliverance.



Your posts are interesting Mr Walker. I am still at a loss though as to how does a belief system in itself, not as a means to an end but as an end in itself save instead of another more moral belief system (remember I am talking about orthodox Christianity here because many Christians believe that only by becoming christ like one is saved and not merely via the belief that he died for our sins)?

God clearly offers salvation to all. How could this be so if those who never heard of christ could not be saved? It is true that true belief (and accompanying actions based on that belief) is enough to save any man. For a christian perhaps this is true. Not good works, nor anything else will win salvation but faith in christ and his sacrifice. However there are self evidently many ways to god for those who are not christians, for god is not the god of christians alone but of all humanity





And you believe orthodox christians are necessarily correct? The bible describes a way to get to one name of god, but god has many names, to many people, and there are many ways to find your way to him, grasshopper.




Confusing isnt it? And yet even christ displayed anger. He told his disciples to travel the land armed for their protection. Perhaps christ recognised both principle and practice.

Love is the key to many things It all depends on which way you love yourself. I interpret loving yourself as caring enough about yourself to ensure your health and physical safety for example, among many other things. I would protect myself and my loved ones from harm by using the force necessary.

Jesus in the garden did not let his disciples try to defend him because he had to die, not necessarily because self defence was a bad thiing. Some of them at least were carrying swords at the time and jesus approved this.

By extension if i love my neighbour i will defend him with force if necessary ,as i would myself, and further extension allows the use of force by nations to defend like minded neighbours in a just cause. Right or wrong, this is a long accepted biblical interpetation.

In the old testament god used force to achieve his ends both personally and by proxy. In the new testament jesus, riding on a white horse and sword in hand, leads gods physical armies towards battle with the fallen angels and the damned.
Many people like to see christ as the peacemaker, and in the end he does bring peace but through force of arms. If one is going to be a biblically based christian one has to accept god as painted in the bible not create a oersonal image of him based on ones own personal preferences.

However god to a buddhist might be entirely differnt.


Both of those things are true but how does a parent treat a child he truly loves. In my opinion a parent who fails to teach his child right from wrong because he does not want to discipline that child does not really love that child. A parent who loves hos children will do all he can to protect them including showing them right and wrong and the natural consequences of doing wrong. When you read the bible you can see the love of god for humanity. Some readers criticise god for being violent or harsh, but when you read the stories and the study them you see what the writers understood and tried to explain. With self willed people sometimes it is necessary to harmone to save many and sometimes people bring their own destruction dowmn on them via nature or god through their own actions. However the bible makes it clearthatit pains god greatly when he is required to discipline his children. He does it for either the greater good, or to protect those who follow his laws from those who do not. So whose side would god take in a war between say islam and christianity?

My guess would be either neither, or the side which was most closely following the principles which willl lead humanity to spiritual enlightenment/salvation

In a real clash between these two groups, while technology would favour the west , i suspect god would see islam as the more spiritual faith in these present times( but this is pure personal speculation and based on an observation of the decaying western society with the extremely spiritual nature of many islamic societies.) This is one of the reasons the west has such great difficulty dealing with isalmic fundamentalists despite its huge technological superiority.

Thirty years ago i predicted the development of an islamic crescent arising around a decaying russia. While russia is hanging in there better than i thought it would that crescent has develpd and solidified just as it was clear that it would. Much of america and the westspower is presently directed at containing one section of it, but overall it continues to develop.(sorry got distracted here)




Ignorance of what?

At its heart, to me sin is knowing good and evil and choosing evil. What is evil? Thoughts and deeds which harm or lessen either ones self, or someone else. the bible gives many good examples of sin but so do alll the worlds major religions


Thats a fair analysis. My view is more literal. I believe we were meant to grow slowly and equally in technical/physical wisdom and moral/spiritual wisdom. However when we ate of the tree of knowledge we chose the physical technical wisdom over the spiritual ethical wisdom and put ourslves out of balance with gods plan for us.

have to get to the rest later have to get to bed and go to work tomorrow.

No I dont think orthodox christians are correct at all. Hence why I was inquirying.




No I believe it was to show them not to use them. He tell Peter off for defending someone else with the very sword he was told to get (it happened to be christ itself). Hence I believe Christ told them to get the swords perhaps to show them that those who live by them will die by them.



No Jesus never approved of any violence by his disciples (well there is none in scripture) and this is clearly manifested when peter put it to use.




A long accepted biblical interpretation doesnt mean it is correct. If one uses violence then one absolutely nullifies Christs teachings of loving one's enemy and doing unto other as you would have them done to you.




I think revelations ought to be looked at more symbolically. To bring peace through force of arms is a contradiction in terms. Violence begets violence and peace begets peace.



Ignorance of our Godhead nature.



As fascinating as your posts are it still doesnt explain how a belief in itself can give salvation.

Poor St Paul. He catches a lot of grief these days. I'd say there is a connection, unless you want to discount the encounter He had with the spirit of Jesus on the Road to Damascus in the Book of Acts. I mean, you could just throw that passage out of the Bible, if you want, you know, pretend its not there. Forgive my sarcastic tone, but I believe something mystical or pretty damned profound must have happened to Paul to do a sudden 180 from a huge persecuter of the church, to arguably its greatest champion. He devoted his life to Jesus, died for Jesus....the man who had stoned christians prior to Damascus. How can one ignore it? Paul himself admits he was a fool for this.

"How though? How does this act of belief restore our immortal bodies and souls? Why does the content of the belief count so much and have to be emphasized? What if I held the belief that all ought to be loved and respected for the sake of God or love and acted accordingly? What if I held the belief that Allah revealed such a message of love through his prohpet Muhammad and practice it? What if I held an atheist belief but believed that all ought to be respected and practice it? What if I held the belief that Krishna is a human form of God and practice love and devotion according to Krishna (which is more or less the same as christianity and all the other major religions).

Why is it that if I hold a different religious view that is morally the same as Christianity my belief and works is for nothing but if I hold the belief that Christ died for my sins I am 'saved'?

Why is it that a protestant fundamentalist christian from america who thinks bombing other countries for peace is moral, saved, while Mahatma Gandhi did all he did for nothing simply because he didnt like many self-righteous missionaries accept christ as his one and only savior (yet practiced what they ethically preached)?"


.....Its questions like that that made me leave the Christian church once and for all. People need to have a broader view of God and stop trying to drag him down into this little box.

Ah but youre probably asking the wrong person this question. I dont believe that simple belief can bring salvation. True belief will almost inevitably be represented in actions based on those beliefs. A person who professes belief, perhaps even honestly, will not necessarily achieve salvation. God will measure their hearts and not their deeds, but how could a person with sincere beliefs not act in accordance with those beliefs?



I knew that:)




That belief is predicated on your perception of jesus. That does not make it invalid, but jesus is the same god as that of the old testament, and therefore has the same qualities. To me it is better not to assume, but to try and extract logical literal meaning from the bible.

Even then of course we can both still come to diferent conclusions. My assumption would be that the area was dangerous. Travellers went armed for self protection. I see nothing in jesus words to suggest that a person who loved themselves would allow them selves to be killed.

Sure, first principle, reply to anger with peace, and to hate with love. But if this doesnt work, and if you have to kill, dont do it out of hate, but out of love.
Biblically god killed many people whom he loved very much, if the reasons were good enough. Letting someone kill you is placing your love for him before your love for yourself. It is also condemning him to eternal death. If you kill him with love, and for good reason, then just possibly both of you can be saved. Thus, in killing him, you give him a chance of eternal salvation. Who knows. Thats pretty convoluted but still arguable.
I appreciate some religious beliefs including some christians have a different interpretation as obviuosly do you.Again however we act. god will judge us by our heart snd iintentions. if they were to do his will as best we perceive it then im sure that will be satisfactory.



I think Ive answered this above but lets clarify. Basically you want him to kill you rather than kill him. Thus applyng your logic of doing unto him what you want done to you you should kill him first. Logical?

Jesus also reinforced the 10 commandments as gods laws. The commandment on killing was about murder only and specifically excluded state or god sanctioned executions and killing in warfare. So god and jesus both saw these as necessary at times. Again some people disagree about that interpretation , but a coherent and logical reading of all of gods word doesnt really leave any room for doubt. A lot of people try to take the new testament as their bible and create an image of jesus as somehow different from god. of course biblically he is an inherent and integral part of the same god as described in the old testament. Certeinly he came to teach new ways, including that the commandments should be obeyed out of love rather than legalistically, but he is the same god with the same nature and requirements as the god of the Ot



Many people see rev as symbolic, but then why use the symbol of a militaristic jesus leading the host to war on a battle charger, sword in hand?
Your second thought is a nice one, but non realistic. Given human nature (particularly present sinful human nature) it just doesnt work.

No society and no nation will long survive without the rule of law, enforced by peacekeepers. In fact enforcing the peace is often the only way to ensure it. I just wish the people in many places from Cyprus, to bosnia, to darfuur, had been given the benefit of effective armed peacekeepers before so many of them were destroyed. I guess as an historian i see that a srong armed defence, including the willingness to use it, is the only form of safety for many people.

I believe god intends us to build a better society on earth, using his laws to do so. This is as much a christians responsibility as living a life which will assure them a place in heaven. Abdicating my life just to ensure myself a place in heaven does not fit with my knowledge of what god expects of me.

On the new earth where human nature is restored to its original condition this wil not be necessary, but that world is a lot different and better place to the one we inhabit now.

There's no conflict about my comments and what you write. I'll forgive you your sarcasm if you forgive me my obscurity. The self and the world of self reflection we live in is happening all the time not just on the road to Damascus 2000 years ago. When the reflection stops and we see others for what they are then indeed it can be quite a shock for some. There's no need to dress it all up with fine words and form a religion about it though is there?

But Christ never once advocates violence because it is spiritually logical that violence never brings one closer to God. God is love. Love for thy neighbour as oneself should never in my view be interpreted as one should be willing to kill to protect one's neighbour because all of humanity ought to be considered as our neighbour. #

Christ also preaches 'resist not evil.' Love your enemies. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not do unto others as they have or would have done unto you.





I do. Because Christ states blatantly to turn the other cheek and resist not evil. How is killing someone loving them and doing unto them as you would have them do unto you?



How does one kill and and inflict pain out of love? How is killing thy enemy the same as loving them?



Letting someone kill oneself and not retaliating isnt placing love for them before love for yourself, not that there is anything biblically or spiritually wrong with that. It is out of love for love alone, and faith in that love, that love will look after us here and the hereafter without ever having to continue the circle of violence or stooping to a violent level. And that one is prepared to set an example of non-violence to the very end because of love.



I see it as insane. We could then justify bombing cities or countries because of their dictators and say that we did it out of love and by bombing them are giving them a chance for salvation??




Insane and not logical. No I dont want others to kill me and therefore will not kill others because I dont want it done to myself. This applies to all forms of violence.

No matter how much they do it to me I still dont want it done to me and therefore wont commit it (in theory).

There is a suggestion that Christ did not actually preach non-violence in self-defence.

You might point to his saying "turn the other cheek", however there is a cultural context in which this was said which changes how it should be interpreted...



source

.....That depends; on two things, chiefly I suppose. If Paul did not experience anything mystical, but rather got his ideas merely through reflection, I suppose that is questionable. On the other hand though; what if something mystical did occur, that he did see the risen Lord? In another verse he says that Jesus appeared to many, going so far as to state, paraphrasing 'many of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep'-as if its almost a challenge, like, if you don't believe ME go and ask THEM. If that is true, then yes, a religion should have been formed. The other thing to consider is whether Jesus truly was the Messiah of OT prophecy. By the accounts given, it would appear that He is, which means He is the fullfillment OF the Old Testament, which, again in my view, constitutes the forming of Christianity.

But even at its basest level, if you discredit the above, Jesus, nonetheless was a profound teacher along the lines of the Buddha, Mohammed and others. Even if He is NOT God, one should still follow the teachings of Jesus, as the PATH of Christianity IS, IMO a way to return the soul to Source.

There is a suggestion that Paul suffered a seizure - and not of the 'divine' sort - which resulted in his 'conversion'. I'm not sure if you are familiar with the discoveries being made about the brain and in neuroscience, but seizures can trigger a dissociative condition where one side of the brain (and mind) might seem a separate entity.

If you wish further information I can link to a good thread or two about this.

Interesting read. However I still believe that it should be interpreted as non-violence. It says here in the site:

The principle taught in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:38-42 would thus seem to be that Christians should not retaliate when insulted or slandered (see also Romans 12:17-21). Such insults do not threaten a Christian's personal safety. The question of rendering insult for insult, however, is a far cry from defending oneself against a mugger or a rapist.


I do believe that in the context of 'resist not evil' that turning the other cheek does imply non-violence and not merely non-resistance to insult. That is my interpretation anyways.

This here I thought was interesting. I found it in wiki but it was also said once by a retired anglican priest at a philosophical colloquy group:

A figurative interpretation relies on historical and other factors.[1] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue[citation needed], by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

Historically, what we know about jesus amounts to about 5 lines..... We do not know what he said or didn't say... the gospels are not intended to be fact they are the connviction and various expressions of evangalism and represent the mindset of humans that called themselves christians at that time and today........ The gospels say more about the lore that christianity was built on and how this came to be then about the man jesus who we really know little about........ IMO jesus represents a archetype or symbol more than an actual person and is meant to convey a universal collaboration/unity for christendom.... ....this is not to say that one can't beleive that the lore inferred a message of non violence, but in fact there really isn't historically valid data to support this ..

I am VERY open to the possibility that he didnt exist literally. I think there is more evidence to suggest his non-existence than there is to prove his existence. I am inclined to think that an obscure mystic(s) wrote the gospels and used Jesus as a fictional character to express their spiritual insights and conduct. This takes no value away from Christ's teachings and as far as I am concerned the teachings on a mystical level are purely valid based on the fact that there has been such a great succession of christian mystics and saints who have liberated themselves from their egos, i.e St John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St Bernard etc.

And Gandhi has also proven the practical validity in my view of the non-violent teachings (so have most Christian mystics) and so therefore whether Christ is just a Jungian archetype or was a real man makes no true difference. As the Buddhists would agree, what matters is that Christs teachings can be put into practice and give good spiritual results.

I concur Brave, and I almost mentioned ghandi or martin luther king as really valid examples of non violence.....i just personally can't make a determination on what this person named jesus taught as i know nothing of the guy or what he said or what he didn't say in all honesty ...I think its ST. Pauls philosophy as its been called pauline christianity many times...From that frame i do not see non violence and love as the prevailing message... I see conditional love and an inablilty to solve conflict without violence.....
lthe context of the so callled teachings are IMO made up to support the emerging idea of christianity and really center around pauls god sighting and have to taken within the context of the days in which they were written, take the gospels for example they do not agree on many things, case in point the ressurrection myth, which one how do you derive much from texts that don't agree or are clearly narratives???? if we look to input, output I can't say with any measure of confidence that the main theme is non violence, i can say this of ghandi or MLK, no problem.. ..... But, in your case i can see where that may not matter as mysticism is your field of expertise...


i do think you make a great point in a frame that makes sense...I have and will continue to delight in your pov...

If we are talking people who made none violent teachings I think its only fair we add Edwin Starr to the list, he could even make his teachings rhyme!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48KVZXroyjA

I totally agree. We could even add Country Joe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbBCfeM964s

Thank you Sheri. But if you read the Gospels and then Paul's epistles, you find that Paul doesnt quote Jesus once. Paul's interpretation of Christianity (and a good one it is) is just that an interpretation. I personally believe people ought to read the gospels themselves and use their reason and intuition on how it ought to apply to their lives etc.

Jesus in my view was quite a Buddhist in many aspects

Maybe. But I still think He existed quite literally. I fully believe Jesus was a man on the earth in ancient Palestine. Actually, I believe the Gospels, and that they are valid accounts of His life. I believe everything happened as they said it did; I just interpret the meaning differently than the fundamentalists.