Adam

God is not too clear about the afterlife. That's how such rampant speculation as mine about it is possible.
Are you asking can Buddhists achieve Buddhist goals even if Christianity is true? Or whether they can enter the New Jerusalem along with Christians? 'Yes' to one, I suppose, 'No' to the other--but which one? We probably would need to start a new thread--but I suppose you're just asking me for my opinion, which is all you can get for now.

Horatio Parker

I'm asking if there's an equivalency between faiths. If being non-Xtian does not mean damnation, doesn't it follow that there is non-Xtian salvation?

Let me ask this: is there an equivalency between nirvana and the NJ?

Adam

Well, animism is not equivalent to monotheism. But I've always assumed that one's fate after death is not Heaven or Hell depending upon your religion. So I have assumed salvation is possible for all--but that would not necessarily have to come before lot's more processing (reincarnation, Purgatory, whatever).Nirvana is a Buddhist term. If it means escaping the wheel of life, it could not be equivalent to any Christian term. But someone who seeks nirvana might find himself in the New Jerusalem instead. Is that what you're asking?

Horatio Parker

Salvation, nirvana, heaven etc are terms indicating transcendence of reality. It is a state beyond intelligibility, beyond words. Attaining it, words and therefore doctrine are left behind. So it seems odd to differentiate between salvations depending on ones belief in life. That sounds like the world.

An ultimate spiritual state after death would be the same for everyone. Intelligibility cannot be transcended when distinctions are still being made. "hey! I'm an enlightened animist" doesn't make sense to me; when you're enlightened, you're not anything.

If this is so, then the role of apologetics is diminished. We may wonder if Jesus robe was red or brown, wool or linen, but it doesn't matter, it has no spiritual significance(tho everybody needs a hobby). Neither does it matter whether events portrayed in scripture occurred as written, or if they occurred at all. Because the goal is comprehension of God, not a historical event. Scripture is a tool that, when properly used, aids enlightenment. Theologically, from the perspective of an ultimate spiritual goal, the "facts" of its content are transient and illusory.

When you made your comment about non-Xtians not going to hell, I wondered if your apologetics was an interest in history or a matter of faith. But I see you have your own consistency.

Steven Carr

Another person who thinks raising people from the dead is possible, but it is ludicrous to suggest that anonymous writers can tell lies.

The Gospels are as full of lies as the Book of Mormon and the Koran.

see http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm for documented proof of the frauds and forgeries perpetrated by the religious on the gullible.

The only excuse these writers had was that it is easy to shear sheep.

aChristian

Do you really think that God could not raise the dead if he wanted to? What is so incredible about that? Anonymous writers can tell lies, but that's not what we have with the NT. We know honest eyewitnesses or honest associates of honest eyewitnesses wrote it. (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John along with Peter and Paul)

Steven Carr

Your idol can't raise the dead. He can't even strike down non-believers. An idol can't do anything.

What is so incredible about a religion based on lies?

It happens all the time.

(Except your religion, of course. The only religion in history not based on lies, even if its Old Book looks like it is full of the same frauds that other religions Old Books have)

Adam

"If" I had only said it correctly....
Look above to where I inserted the big [IF]. Without it, I see how you could misunderstand my meaning as "if" I was asserting that my anonymous authors could not tell lies. No, I simply reasoned within myself that if such early dates of the gospels became known and accepted, then people who wanted to disbelieve would turn to dismissing those early accounts as conspiratorial lies. Such an outcome might be worse than the present state of things in which Christian origins are treated diffidently, but respectfully. Comparable to how most people love Socrates, a lot of people love Jesus although not believing He had divine powers. (Not you mythicists, of course.)

Nathan Poe

And how exacly do we "know" this?

Steven Carr

Because we know they were not fraudsters like Joseph Smith or Muhammad, even if their works show exactly the same signs of plagiarism as the Book of Mormon or the Koran...