Unique concepts of Christianity

[Confused]

I look at how Christianity has spread like wildfire since the time it became the "Official Religion" of Rome. Then I look at its scripture, its celebrations, its heritage and I have to wonder, what is so unique about it? Is there any portion of Christianity that is soley related to it alone? In other words, is there anything found within Christianity that doesn't have roots from an older religion? For example, the creation myth can also be found dating back to before the OT in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Many Christian traditions are celebrated on dates not coinciding with dates of the bible or they coincide with a previous religions/beliefs such as the birth of Christ was celebrate on Jan 6 in early Christian dates (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm) as was the Alexandria God-man Aion, the death and resurrection of Christ dates coincide also with the Mithraites Attis death and resurrection. Rituals done for Christians have a history of being done in other religions as well:

Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did: Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.

This along with many other things leads me to search for anything in Christianity that may be considered unique to Christianity.

[Jester]

Ok, we have switched from the concept of a Messiah, a crucifixion, and a ressurection to the concept of grace now being unique to Christianity.

I agree this is a swap to my own personal views. That’s always a frustration, isn’t it? One always has to debate against several contradictory forms of a given position in a debate (Conservative Christians, Liberal Christians, Strict Creationists, Materialistic Atheists, Non-theistic Spiritualists, etc, etc, etc).
Getting back to your actual point, I agree that other religions have savior/martyr/resurrection stories similar to Christianity.

First, I want to say that I don't claim the commonality between Christianity and ancient religions diminishes Christianity in any way,

All apologies for any implication that you had. I know that is how that comment read now that you mention this, but I hadn't read that into your statements.

Now, in regards to being good. Here we have a wide range of perceptions to what good really is in context to the bible.

This is the frustrating thing for anyone discussing a particular philosophy to which he/she adheres (such as Christianity). We all want to be the authority on how it should be interpreted. As such, I maintain that my own understanding of Christianity has a consistent and relatively straightforward concept of goodness, while admitting that not all interpret as I do. (Perhaps I should drop by the doctrine forum more often.)

So how exactly is this different than Osiris requiring good deeds to be done. And how does this not confirm that one must "do good" to enter heaven? Grace alone is specified in these passages as not good enough. Re: Bold highlights. Faith alone isn't good enough.

Before I go through the passages, I’d like to begin by admitting that this is a frustrating topic, and that this is hardly a settled debate within Christianity. I have, however, heard a great deal of teaching on this particular subject, and feel confident that the “salvation by grace” teaching is an accurate reading of the Bible.
Here we go (and apologies in advance for the length of this):

Matthew 5:15-17 (New International Version)
15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

For this one, I need only split from the most extreme fundamentalists. This passage establishes that Jesus Christ gives commands (or, at the very least, advice) to his followers. It does not establish that such are connected to any reward/punishment system.
God is asking that you do the right thing, but there is no promise of heaven or threat of hell attached. The reward, if there is any, seems to be that God will be praised if one does good. This would only be a reward to those who care about God being praised (as opposed to getting praise themselves for being such “good” Christians). This passage seems more in line with the teaching that one obeys out of love and as a reaction to salvation, rather than as seeking it as a reward.

Timothy 5:9-11 (New International Version)
9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

The opening statement to this section discussing widows is verse 3 ("Honor widows that are widows indeed.") Timothy is referring to the list of widows as a group of women who should be revered. Basically, this passage is saying: "Don’t look up to people that aren’t doing good things.” I believe that it makes no statement naming actions as a requirement for salvation.

1 Timothy 6:17-19 (New International Version)
17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.

This one is the most problematic thus far, though I still believe that there is a very strong case against the idea that this is a salvation by works statement.
First, the Bible is clear that there are many commandments given by God. The concept of grace is not a belief that there are no such laws, but that one may break the laws, then be forgiven and still enter Heaven. As such, a “law of God” is a requirement for grace to exist.
The most difficult part actually comes after the bolded text, in which Timothy refers to good deeds as storing up ones treasures in Heaven. This, of course, seems to present good deeds as something that will be enjoyed in Heaven, rather than as a means of getting there, but many believe it is still a works-oriented philosophy. I’d argue that that is true only insofar as one interprets “treasures in Heaven” as a payment for services rendered that appeals to one’s self-interest. I’d argue that “treasures in Heaven” refers to the pleasure that comes with having helped others, and lived out ones life purpose. As such, it is also in line with the concept of grace.


This next passage is probably the single most, works-oriented statement in the Bible. In fact, this passage is the main reason why this book was so controversial in the early church (it was one of the last to be included in the canonized Christian scriptures).
This one is difficult enough that I am going to break it up.

James 2:14-18
4What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

This section is the least difficult. It simply is maintaining that faith should be acted upon, and that faith that is not acted upon “is dead”. Thus far, it seems most reasonable that James is questioning the quality of the faith of a person who does not act on said faith. (Quick example: Saying that one has faith in an airline, then refusing to fly makes others question your statement).

James 2:19-26
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

This section, of course, contains the crux of the problem. First, I want to argue that the claim “faith without deeds is dead” does not run counter to the concept of grace. Here, he is merely arguing that action must be taken to keep faith alive. This does not mean that the quality of these actions are the basis for salvation.
Of course, the claim that “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” is much more difficult. My answer to this is twofold. First, I’ve always felt that James should have reworded that section a bit. It always seems a bit of an overstatement. Second, when one reads the whole passage, particularly in context of the entire Bible, this statement cannot be resolved literally.
James 2:10-11 reads:

10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

This is to say that James, before writing the passage on works, has just finished writing that everyone is responsible for breaking the entire law (as no one can keep all of it). This means that he has just said that there is no such thing as a “basically good” person that is good enough to go to Heaven. Why the thunderous “you must do good works” statement just after it, then? In context, he was writing to a bunch of people who were refusing to stop some very offensive and wrong practices, and was clearly frustrated with them. Also, Christian teachings (though we’ve deviated from this somewhat in the modern era) are traditionally characterized by a clear two-step pattern:
1. Establish the need for grace
2. Teach about grace

This is clearly what is going on for James. These points (though there are many others) can be observed:
No one is perfect yet. That is everyone has broken the law (general theme, first seen at 1:3)
Breaking any part of the law is the same as breaking all of it (2:10-11)
Putting up a front (i.e. faking religion) won’t cut it (general theme in the first three chapters, including the infamous 2:14-26)
Forgiveness for those who are actually believers exists. (5:15-20)

After writing so much on what must be done, James has said that God demands a pattern of behavior that is unachievable by any real human being. After reading the first four chapters, one would conclude that James doesn’t think anyone will get into Heaven; no one can actually perform the works he insists on. The close/climax of the letter, however, is as follows.

James 5:15-20
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elijah was a man subject to like sins as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. 18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. 19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

This is clearly a move from the harsh attacks of the beginning of the letter into a teaching that God forgives as a closing. Here, we see James calling people who have broken the law to pray in faith and be forgiven. This sort of teaching method is based on the Christian belief that one will not accept grace until one utterly realizes that one needs it. James' letter should not be viewed as a nullification of grace, but as a rhetorical means of presenting it to his audience.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading my babble about scripture (I love to discuss it).

[arayhay]

I look at how Christianity has spread like wildfire since the time it became the "Official Religion" of Rome. Then I look at its scripture, its celebrations, its heritage and I have to wonder, what is so unique about it? Is there any portion of Christianity that is soley related to it alone? In other words, is there anything found within Christianity that doesn't have roots from an older religion? For example, the creation myth can also be found dating back to before the OT in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Many Christian traditions are celebrated on dates not coinciding with dates of the bible or they coincide with a previous religions/beliefs such as the birth of Christ was celebrate on Jan 6 in early Christian dates (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm) as was the Alexandria God-man Aion, the death and resurrection of Christ dates coincide also with the Mithraites Attis death and resurrection. Rituals done for Christians have a history of being done in other religions as well:

Early Christians initiated converts in March and April by baptism. Mithraism initiated their new members at this time as well.
Early Christians were naked when they were baptized. After immersion, they then put on white clothing and a crown. They carried a candle and walked in a procession to a basilica. Followers of Mithra were also baptized naked, put on white clothing and a crown, and walked in a procession to the temple. However, they carried torches.
At Pentecost, the followers of Jesus were recorded as speaking in tongues. At Trophonius and Delos, the Pagan priestesses also spoke in tongues: They appeared to speak in such a way that each person present heard her words in the observer's own language.
An inscription to Mithras reads: "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." 1 In John 6:53-54, Jesus is said to have repeated this theme: "...Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (KJV)
The Bible records that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. One went to heaven and the other to hell. In the Mithras mysteries, a common image showed Mithras flanked by two torchbearers, one on either side. One held a torch pointed upwards, the other downwards. This symbolized ascent to heaven or descent to hell.
In Attis, a bull was slaughtered while on a perforated platform. The animal's blood flowed down over an initiate who stood in a pit under the platform. The believer was then considered to have been "born again." Poor people could only afford a sheep, and so were literally washed in the blood of the lamb. This practice was interpreted symbolically by Christians.
There were many additional points of similarity between Mithraism and Christianity. 2 St. Augustine even declared that the priests of Mithraism worshiped the same God as he did: Followers of both religions celebrated a ritual meal involving bread. It was called a missa in Latin or mass in English.
Both the Catholic church and Mithraism had a total of seven sacraments.
Epiphany, JAN-6, was originally the festival in which the followers of Mithra celebrated the visit of the Magi to their newborn god-man. The Christian Church took it over in the 9th century.

This along with many other things leads me to search for anything in Christianity that may be considered unique to Christianity.

try to put yourself in the Roman empire at this time and start a brand new religion and see what happens.

[Confused]

Jester wrote:
Quote:
James 2:19-26
19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"[e] and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.
This section, of course, contains the crux of the problem. First, I want to argue that the claim “faith without deeds is dead” does not run counter to the concept of grace. Here, he is merely arguing that action must be taken to keep faith alive. This does not mean that the quality of these actions are the basis for salvation.
Of course, the claim that “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” is much more difficult. My answer to this is twofold. First, I’ve always felt that James should have reworded that section a bit. It always seems a bit of an overstatement. Second, when one reads the whole passage, particularly in context of the entire Bible, this statement cannot be resolved literally.

Breaking it into sections seems to put a new light on it. I realize that faith without deeds doen't counter grace, only that it is a similar concept from a religion (belief) that predated Christianity, therefor while there are some distinct differences, it isn't "unique". Would we all not have preferred that the apostles had been more clear in their wording. Perhaps such common confusion could have been presented. I realize it cannot be resolved literally, which puts it in the metaphoric category which is what is so frustration, there are to many ways to interpret it.

Jester wrote:
James 2:10-11 reads: Quote:
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
This is to say that James, before writing the passage on works, has just finished writing that everyone is responsible for breaking the entire law (as no one can keep all of it). This means that he has just said that there is no such thing as a “basically good” person that is good enough to go to Heaven. Why the thunderous “you must do good works” statement just after it, then? In context, he was writing to a bunch of people who were refusing to stop some very offensive and wrong practices, and was clearly frustrated with them. Also, Christian teachings (though we’ve deviated from this somewhat in the modern era) are traditionally characterized by a clear two-step pattern:
1. Establish the need for grace
2. Teach about grace

This is clearly what is going on for James. These points (though there are many others) can be observed:
No one is perfect yet. That is everyone has broken the law (general theme, first seen at 1:3)
Breaking any part of the law is the same as breaking all of it (2:10-11)
Putting up a front (i.e. faking religion) won’t cut it (general theme in the first three chapters, including the infamous 2:14-26)
Forgiveness for those who are actually believers exists. (5:15-20)

After writing so much on what must be done, James has said that God demands a pattern of behavior that is unachievable by any real human being. After reading the first four chapters, one would conclude that James doesn’t think anyone will get into Heaven; no one can actually perform the works he insists on. The close/climax of the letter, however, is as follows.
Quote:
James 5:15-20
15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. Elijah was a man subject to like sins as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months. 18 And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit. 19 Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; 20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
This is clearly a move from the harsh attacks of the beginning of the letter into a teaching that God forgives as a closing. Here, we see James calling people who have broken the law to pray in faith and be forgiven. This sort of teaching method is based on the Christian belief that one will not accept grace until one utterly realizes that one needs it. James' letter should not be viewed as a nullification of grace, but as a rhetorical means of presenting it to his audience.

Your clarifications are greatly insightful. It is always refreshing to hear a new interpretation to lighten the blow of my own (mine is a bit biased of course). But none of this changes the fact that grace by means of good deeds isn't included in Christianity (ranging from a mild to a major role) nor the fact that it isn't original. A new spin on it, sure. But still an earlier concept of it existed.

[Confused]

.

try to put yourself in the Roman empire at this time and start a brand new religion and see what happens.

Why would I want to? If it is a compilation of previous concepts with new spins on them, is it really a brand new religion?

[arayhay]

.

try to put yourself in the Roman empire at this time and start a brand new religion and see what happens.

Why would I want to? If it is a compilation of previous concepts with new spins on them, is it really a brand new religion?

well so you can end up dead - not really - but that's what would / and did happen to anyone that tried to start a new religion inside the Roman empire.

seems kind of relevant to me, but then ... the Bible talks more about the time WE are in RIGHT NOW, and your interested in the fist century .

[Confused]

.

try to put yourself in the Roman empire at this time and start a brand new religion and see what happens.

Why would I want to? If it is a compilation of previous concepts with new spins on them, is it really a brand new religion?

well so you can end up dead - not really - but that's what would / and did happen to anyone that tried to start a new religion inside the Roman empire.

seems kind of relevant to me, but then ... the Bible talks more about the time WE are in RIGHT NOW, and your interested in the fist century .

I agree, starting a new religion inside the Roman empire after it declared Christianity its state religion, would have been a death sentence. Starting Christianity before it was declared the state religion was equally as deadly. This is relevant to the thread how?
The bible talks of the time we are in right now? I would be interested in knowing why you consider such to be the case.

[Jester]

I realize that faith without deeds doen't counter grace, only that it is a similar concept from a religion (belief) that predated Christianity, therefor while there are some distinct differences, it isn't "unique".

By those standards, I can’t say that my opinion is too far from your own. I suppose that we all must admit that there are both similarities and differences. So “unique” is probably too strong a word to apply to Christianity (or any one religion or philosophy for that matter).

Would we all not have preferred that the apostles had been more clear in their wording. Perhaps such common confusion could have been presented. I realize it cannot be resolved literally, which puts it in the metaphoric category which is what is so frustration, there are to many ways to interpret it.

Amen. Personally, it’s hard to hear a pastor say that Christianity is simple and all the answers are in the book. My first thought is “have you read that thing!?” I suppose the silver lining is that seeing through all the cultural/language barriers on top of figurative wording makes one think. I’ve always been a big believer that thinking is ultimately good. I’ve always thought that this was what make Socrates a better teacher than Aristotle: demanding that students think rather than attempting to answer every question for them.

Your clarifications are greatly insightful. It is always refreshing to hear a new interpretation to lighten the blow of my own (mine is a bit biased of course). But none of this changes the fact that grace by means of good deeds isn't included in Christianity (ranging from a mild to a major role) nor the fact that it isn't original. A new spin on it, sure. But still an earlier concept of it existed.

I’ve always felt that this was a much more positive and realistic version than I’ve heard from the “turn or burn” preachers, and am glad you enjoyed reading it.

As to the point of grace by good deeds, it would be an overstatement for me to say I have any kind of unequivocal proof that my interpretation is correct. I can only say that, the more I read, the more it seems that this is the theory that seems to line up the most cleanly with what is written.

Basically, the idea is that God, as he is defined in the Bible, doesn’t actually need our good deeds and could achieve them by force if he wished. On a general level, the lack of clearly dictated teachings and clear punishment for the guilty seems to indicate that God is looking for something more internal than obedience.

Thus far, my belief is this: Good deeds are a by-product of love. If you love someone, you will behave in a way that is beneficial to them (which is not necessarily how they want you to behave). This means that God is interested in love, but good deeds is a sign that your love is real, rather than lip-service to get into heaven. In fact, Jesus defines “the law of God” as: Love God and love everyone else. This means that “good-deeds” are, by Christian definition, whatever actions flow naturally from love.

The question remains: “Is this really unique?” Not completely unique, that is for certain, though I’d say that the emphasis-shift from actions to one’s inner attitude as the means of salvation is basically original and definitely a significant step forward in human philosophy.

[Confused]

Confused wrote:
Would we all not have preferred that the apostles had been more clear in their wording. Perhaps such common confusion could have been presented. I realize it cannot be resolved literally, which puts it in the metaphoric category which is what is so frustration, there are to many ways to interpret it.

Jester wrote:
Amen. Personally, it’s hard to hear a pastor say that Christianity is simple and all the answers are in the book. My first thought is “have you read that thing!?”

You had me busting out with laughter at that one. It is nice to hear that though I am an atheist and don't pretend to even partially understand much of scripture, there are theists out there who also don't understand all of it and think "Have you read that thing" when it comes to the sermons that say that all the answers are in that book and it is as simple as ABC.

Confused wrote:
I realize that faith without deeds doen't counter grace, only that it is a similar concept from a religion (belief) that predated Christianity, therefor while there are some distinct differences, it isn't "unique".

Jester wrote:
By those standards, I can’t say that my opinion is too far from your own. I suppose that we all must admit that there are both similarities and differences. So “unique” is probably too strong a word to apply to Christianity (or any one religion or philosophy for that matter).

That was my whole point. It wasn't any attempt to say that Christianity stole all its beliefs from older religions etc.... It was simply an attempt to find anything that makes Christianity unique or more specific, any concepts that were unique to Christianity. Finally, someone gets it.

Jester wrote:
The question remains: “Is this really unique?” Not completely unique, that is for certain, though I’d say that the emphasis-shift from actions to one’s inner attitude as the means of salvation is basically original and definitely a significant step forward in human philosophy.

I think it might be considered original as a specific trait, but not as a basic tenet simply because other religions (as already pointed out) do have a component similar to this included in it. I might consider it a significant step for man, but not so much for mankind. Philosophically, it is a new train of thought that can be applied at a deeply insightful view, but the fact that it has been abused by extremists to justify doing harm to man rather than good because ones inner attitude leaves no room for seeing others attitudes makes it questionable that it is can be applied to all of man rather than at an individual level. (did that make sense, been awake too long).

[Jester]

You had me busting out with laughter at that one. It is nice to hear that though I am an atheist and don't pretend to even partially understand much of scripture, there are theists out there who also don't understand all of it and think "Have you read that thing" when it comes to the sermons that say that all the answers are in that book and it is as simple as ABC.

I’m glad you liked that one; it makes me feel better that someone knows what I mean. At the very least, I feel less like Mugatu in Zoolander (“I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!!”)

That was my whole point. It wasn't any attempt to say that Christianity stole all its beliefs from older religions etc.... It was simply an attempt to find anything that makes Christianity unique or more specific, any concepts that were unique to Christianity. Finally, someone gets it.

I’m starting to feel like we’re taking a step up from debating into cooperative/comparative thinking. These are, by far, my favorite moments on this site. I definitely agree that one has to get pretty specific to point out something that is unique to Christianity. While I believe that the emphasis on/centrality of a “free ride” to heaven is the religion’s distinguishing characteristic (a point that many Christians want to ignore completely), perhaps a specific combination of ideas would turn out to be the most uniquely Christian concept.

I might consider it a significant step for man, but not so much for mankind. Philosophically, it is a new train of thought that can be applied at a deeply insightful view, but the fact that it has been abused by extremists to justify doing harm to man rather than good because ones inner attitude leaves no room for seeing others attitudes makes it questionable that it is can be applied to all of man rather than at an individual level. (did that make sense, been awake too long).

No, unfortunately, I’m not sure I followed that last sentence. I believe that you were presenting the idea that basing one’s actions on an inner motivation can lead one to judgment as their motivations are not one’s own (let me know if this is too far off). My first thought is that (if this was, in fact, your statement) the Bible predicts this same danger.

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that this power is of God, and not of us.

My belief is that any realistic reading of this verse would lead one to believe (the obvious truth) that Christians are no better than anyone else. The philosophy of Christ, in my understanding, teaches that we cannot see the hearts of others; we don’t know their life stories or their intentions. Therefore, we cannot presume to judge whether they are “good” or “bad”. Also, we are far too biased to rate ourselves. This is not to mention that judging/hating others is completely unproductive. If one follows these teachings of Christ, then one would never become judgmental toward others.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the Church’s favorite teaching to ignore. I definitely agree that these ideas have to be accepted or rejected by each individual. I’m glad they’re out there, but we each must decide what to do with them.

[bernee51]

I finally got a chance to look at the site you provided. Again, another late post by me.

Goose, let me first express my gratitude for your comprehensive reply – it is truly indicative of the seriousness with which you take your beliefs. The major point I take from your reply is your concordance with the fact that ancient religions were in a position to borrow from each other.

When waiting is full

I haven't a clue what that means. I'll assume you've given up trying to defend Kersey Graves' assertions.

When waiting is full is a quote from a Heinlein book…meaning whatever you want to take it to mean. I haven’t so much given up as not started – and I have no intention to. Graves’ work was the result of years of investigation...I have neither the inclination nor the time. What’s more…it isn’t even important whether Graves’ assertions are e100%, 90% or 50% accurate. For me the point is moot…god belief is just that.

Christianity either borrowed it's core doctrine,…

It’s core doctrine being…?

…which means it is contrived by men and therefore false, or it did not borrow and must be evaluated independently of any other claims to establish it's truth value.

All religions are contrived by men. It is men who wrote the books. It is men who, over the millennia, derived the philosophies. It is men who used this knowledge to affect control over those that were not privy to this knowledge.

What christianity (and buddhism for that matter) did was to bring this ‘secret’ knowledge, the knowledge and power of the priestly classes, to the masses. They both seek to show that the ‘sacred’ is not just the purview of the elite.

There IS an ultimate dichotomy here - Christianity is either true or false.

It is true for you and false for me. It is not objectively true and it cannot be shown to be.

To acknowledge the universality of the Golden Rule and then deny the Golden Rule as possible evidence for the existence of God is intellectual suicide.

I disagree…we would not be having this discussion it the golden rule had not evolved as a feature of human ethics. The ‘golden rule’ is evidence of evolution not god.

Has it clearly changed? Perhaps some have. The degree to which we accept the validity of religion and sacred texts have changed in society. But, the core of Judeo-Christian belief has not.

What’s the core belief? God exists?

Buddhist monks would not have been there to convert anyone...it is not a religion/philosphy of conversion...

Yet, they sent out "missionaries".

Thanks to recent history, ‘missionaries’ is rather a loaded word. Christianity is a religion that preaches salvation…my way or the highway. Buddhism is the exact opposite. It does not have a salvation theology. It does not demand conversion. It is possible to be a christian buddhist…or an atheist buddhist.

they would have just cited ancient traditions and quoted the buddha. Some sunk in.

Sure, but the question is, what were they citing from? We don't really know for sure. Buddhist tradition holds that nothing was put into writing until the late first century BC. I think it's more likely the Jew's quoted Hebrew scripture from the Septuigant and some of THAT sunk in on the Buddhists.

I have no problem with the fact that there is/was ‘cross-fertilization’ of belief systems. It has happened historically and continues to this day. One only has to look at the versions of christianity particular to specific cultures e.g. Ethiopian christianity is a mixture of old animist religion and new salvation theology.

Religious belief evolves. By that I mean, in the case of christianity, it grew out of Judaism. It obviously did not replace it, but rather included and transcended it. That is what evolution is…a process of inclusion and transcendence. Looking closely at christianity, vestiges of the process of evolution of religion are obvious – animist, magical and mythical.