No. We should not ignore them. We should understand them in the light of the Word of God in other religions as well.
It will be easier for me if you pose some question, please.
Adam sinned and disconnected with God. The Redeemer helps us reestablish a conscious connection with God. Jesus is Redeemer par excellence.
I would be surprised if there is only one or two atheists or people from other faith here. I find the thread quite interesting as a Christian who does not believe in a physical resurrection and who has a radically different understanding of the atonement to everybody else here.
I would say that you are a Christian if you put your faith in Christ and try to do what he told us to do. I do not believe in acts of magic that fulfill my materialistic desires but in acts of logic that point me to the working of God. I look at the birth of Jesus in its logical context of living under brutal military occupation as a sign that Mary and Joseph allowed this pregnancy to have a happy ending and turn an act of hate and oppression into a beacon of love and hope when they submitted to the word of God to love thy neighbour like thyself - thus the word of God becoming flesh. It gives me a logic context about Jesus that is intellectually satisfying and logically coherent with a metaphysical God interacting with physical reality. To change the outcome of an act of evil by submitting to God brings about a miracle or profound change in reality that Abracadabra just won’t cut, and more important, that in obeying the word of God myself I can change reality when I do his will
The same goes for Jesus death by submitting to the authority of the father and accept this gruesome death, not only to overcome the suffering involved by doing so, but also to make the transition from the cross straight into the heart of those who hear the story. He atoned me to God - not God to me as in suddenly forgiving me my sins, but by understanding that my sin is forgiven, my sin as to choosing my own authority over the authority of God. Jesus redeemed me as in paying off Satan not God, as he was the one holding us to ransom to stay separate from God for wanting to be our selves. God never demanded our death for sin as his judgement is not our physical death anyhow, but our eternal destiny. Death is the logical consequence of sin - e.g. to claim authority over the judgement of good and evil as in defining ourselves by our authority over our own physical body. In doing so we break the link to eternal life which is to live in God as he lives in us. Genesis does not say that for eating from the tree God is going to kill us, but if we define ourselves in our time dependent material “selfs” physical expiry is going to be a problem. In fact physical resurrection as in becoming an eternal physical self that is therefore distinguishable / physically separate from God as being a self would be eternal torture to me as not becoming part of him again, integrated into the overall self, the desire of becoming an eternal self would be my understanding comitting the eternal sin. And if Jesus eternal life would mean him existing as a separate physical unit I would find it difficult to think of him as living in my heart. Thus my Christianity is based on the desire to live in his heart as part of him, as he lives in mine.
If Jesus resurrection was physical and not metaphysical, how could you close him or feed him when he was poor… how could you see him in those who are suffering? Making the material resurrection the core of our hope for eternity is as problematic as looking at Jesus first miracle as an act to turn the water of purification into fine wine to create a fake reality. To defile this water by turning something that, when applied to you, cleanses you as to step into the presence of the Lord into a drink to indulge in, that makes you merry but definitely does not make you more presentable to the Lord is only worthy of admiration by materialists who value the physical over the metaphysical. The message of the master of ceremony would turn into hollow praise as to leave the audience not aware of Jesus intervention to admire a fake reality and those who were aware of it with the admission that they find the fine wine an upgrade to the water of purification. If one has things to wash off oneself that require alcohol to do so - one has a serious contamination problem 
There are better disinfectants available that have a 5 log kill
Whilst it is noble to try to harmonize the intend behind the religions as leading to our salvation and its common ideas, it is also important to emphasize the differences in how this can be achieved and the problems arising from each worldview. In fact to compare the religions at this more impersonal level of looking at it as an abstract world view it allows people to shift between them without encountering issues of “existential angst”. It then allows one to look at the issues of how social structures are embedded in those worldviews and the problems they impose on society and where they are internally coherent or not as it should lead us to the truth of reality
Most people here seem to be Christians. There has only been one Jewish participant.
Okay.
What is God’s writ?
Are the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books inspired Scripture?
How many Sacraments are there? None? Two? Seven?
How do we regard the Eucharist? Just a memorial? The Real Presence? Transubstantiation?
Which ecumenical councils should we accept? What about The Chalcedonian Definition of the Faith? What about Vatican I? Vatican II? Are you going to go to Rome and call for a Vatican III, as I suggested?
Remember, you can’t change people’s beliefs unless you know what those beliefs are.
Minor suggestion. Instead of “emphasize” shall we use “note”? I agree with the rest of what you wrote.
I like this. Can you explain how the metaphysical resurrection took place? [My sense is that our souls wander in the sky after death and they can appear as psychic entities to those living on the earth. This is not “rebirth.” It is like a soul in he purgatory descending psychically. My query is whether the 12 followers of Jesus saw him physically or psychically after resurrection?]
John 6:45: Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.
The objective of this world is for all souls to connect consciously with God. That is God’s writ.
Deuteronomy: Yes; Apocrypha: No.
There are so many issues that would require much study on my part. Happy to do if specific question is raised.
Yes, yes. That is why I am here.
A writ is a written command. Are you making one up?
You don’t know the meaning of Deuterocanonical
I just asked you a bunch of questions, and you didn’t answer most of them. It is obvious that you are not ready to launch your new religious vision, since you don’t understand most religious issues.
btw, the Anglican church is in dialog with both the Roman Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox church, searching for common ground and the unity that Jesus wanted. It’s a long, slow process. The participants really have to know their stuff.
If you understood Christianity, you wouldn’t.
Happy Diwali, by the way!
I don’t think you’re here to learn. You’re here to preach at us.
1 Like
A composite counterfeit won’t fly.
True. I’m really not interested in a “Heinz 57 variety” religion.
1 Like
I have nothing to say.
Yes. I made a mistake of not researching before I replied. I don’t think I have enough knowledge at the moment to take a clear position. My general approach is that those texts are holy that have brought succor to billions. These I consider to be the Word of God. I am not aware of the differences between Septuagint, Masoretic, Hebrew Canon, and others. I would certainly look these up if there is a specific point of difference that is pointed out.
Thank you. Join the festivities.
1 Like
Shouldn’t you already be familiar with religious issues?
What about all my other questions? You will need one whole afternoon on Wikipedia to fully understand the four world religions you are trying to address!
Some more questions:
Are we saved by faith or by faith and works?
What about Purgatory?
You object to the historic creeds. Why? Please be specific.
What about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, and “Science and Health with Keys to the Scriptures”–are they inspired scripture?
What about the various catechisms like the Baltimore Catechism? Do keep them or reject them?
I didn’t say that Adam made a morally wrong choice.
A “wrong choice” is not necessarily immoral. Picking the wrong answer on a multiple choice exam is not immoral.
So choosing wrongly on a “life/death” choice is not necessarily a moral choice. So the wrong choice is not necessarily “evil.”
1 Like
There is no possibility of being familiar with ALL the religious issues–OT, NT, Quran, Hindu, and more. I do not have Universal Knowledge. I have at least once read these texts. I look into whatever question arises in more detail.
Asking me to be familiar with (all) religious issues would be like asking a cook to be familiar with all the vegetables, their contents, their country of origin etc. It will only clutter up the mind and distract from the central matter–the quest to reach God.
So, please be kind and specify what exactly is the point in the “religious issues” that you find relevant to the present discussion. I assure you I will try to respond.
Generally, I ONLY accept the Bible, Quran and Upanishads as Word of God. All the rest is “secondary.”
I agree. The point in this string was Resurrection. Whether Adam’s choice was wrong or evil makes no difference. The common point is a break with God. Jesus is one of the ways in which we can reconnect–resurrection or not.
1 Like