Christ not the only way to God

[CallMeDave]

Sounds like you too believe you se ethe whole elephant.

Yes, I DO see the whole elephant ; everyone can with just a little bit of gumption to investigate Christ, the historical evidence, the scientific evidences , and the credibility of the New Testament which reports on him. God wants us to see the 'whole elephant' so we arent kept in the dark --- he more than anyone wants us to have a real dynamic personal relationship with him. The ball is in our elephant court ! Will we return the ball to him ???

[Kurieuo]

Sounds like you too believe you se ethe whole elephant.

Yes, I DO see the whole elephant ; everyone can with just a little bit of gumption to investigate Christ, the historical evidence, the scientific evidences , and the credibility of the New Testament which reports on him. God wants us to see the 'whole elephant' so we arent kept in the dark --- he more than anyone wants us to have a real dynamic personal relationship with him. The ball is in our elephant court ! Will we return the ball to him ???

My statement was in reference to buddhawarrior

[domokunrox]

Buddhawarrior, you are still on the hook here.

A quick response on the Elephant analogy.
The elephant analogy isn't an arguement. Its a really poor analogy.
A really poor relativist/pluralist analogy. It makes a poor assumption that self destructs. Truth cannot he known or there is no truth.

If the truth cannot be known or does not exist

Is THAT TRUE? It simply is not consisant with itself. It fails to relativize itself.

It literally says, no one knows the truth except for me.

As Bart has well pointed out as well as a few others, it does not follow logic and disregards its own contrdictrary nature.

Buddhawarrior, you are on the hook here. This is just 1 of 3 in my response to you. You must address this. I will not waste my time until you resolve contradictions or acknowledge your views implications.

Buddhawarrior,

2+2=4 is true in the symbology of math and logic

The key word here is, LOGIC. I adhere strictly to the rules of logic to avoid contradiction. Contradictions reveal falsehood.

Your attempt to relativize the problem is invalid. Bringing in improper adjustments to the proposition is fallacious and attempting to pluralize truth. 2+2=4, end of story.

but when encountering, let's say, different cultures, where....then there is not 1 exclusive truth

Wrong again, sir. This is called the genetic fallacy. Cultural differences do not invalidate propositional value and the law of non-contradiction.

you can see from my above argument...

Your arguments are invalid in trying to avoid contradictions. You've only attempted to alter propositions to pluralize truth claims.
Its not consistent, sir.
It has to be exclusively true that 2+2=5 to validate it as knowledge
Trees bark at dogs on top of cats

In otherwords, you are out of touch with reality because you don't know the truth. Argument from ignorance is a fallacy, sir.

Again, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Only 1 is logically and exclusively right.
You need to get your facts straight on your own view, sir. Monism does not include Dualism. You're attempting to assimilate Dualism. It does not work like that.
Your "better" described view of monism is flat out wrong. Its a fatal error. What is even more fundamentally wrong is you just said you're "describing" it. This is a serious critical error.

Is your description absolutely and exclusively true? You've practically contradicted yourself within the contradiction.

Right here, sir. Here is your chance. From this point on, you will either contradict yourself every step of the way OR you will finally KNOW the TRUTH. You KNOW that something is true, otherwise you wouldn't have attempted to avoid contradictions. So, you're not really a relativist, afterall. Here you are telling us we are in error, but in order to detect errors, you need to KNOW TRUTH. But we put it to the test here and you utterly failed.

You get to experience knowledge right here. Follow the rules of logic and the truth will be revealed to you.

I ask you once again.

What is knowledge? What is the criteria for knowledge?
What is truth?

Remember don't contradict yourself in answering.

[B. W.]

Buddhawarrior - I do not think you realize some historical facts. King Solomon (who died around 931 BCE) was called the wisest man that ever was, and he eventually strayed into Idol worship. About 400 years later. Buddha was born. That is 400 years after King Solomon. Much of Buddha’s writing reflect King Solomon’s wisdom quotes and quips; therefore, it is safe to conclude that Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE) was influenced by the wisdom of Solomon and those writings, had traveled the distant land of Buddha as it had 400 years to do so.

Likewise, Buddha strayed into Idol worship. He was influenced by King Solomon, yet, did not know the God of Israel. Buddha borrowed from from his wisdom as it mirrors some of King Solomon’s writings. Buddha was not enlightened as you term enlightenment. All indication is that he mirrored the known wisdom of his day and time and collected it and from it developed his codes, etc, dogmas. This is a work of man.

No work of man can earn their own salvation as even wisdom itself can become an Idol. You are an Idol worshipper of men, you think are enlightened. Jesus was not a follower of Buddha or Hinduism. In fact, Hinduism roots can be traced to the prehistoric religion in India to the Harappan period around 5500–2600 BCE. The marks of this belief system are classed as the Vedic Religion (1700-1100 BCE). Its beliefs and practices clear demonstrate it was influenced by proto-Indo-European pagan religious systems. These system were polytheistic and involved Idol worship and some really perverted sicko practices. The Vedas religious systems worship deities such as Indra, Varuna and Agni, and on the Soma ritual. Fire-sacrifices, called yajña were performed, and mantras were chanted to conjure up spiritual influences. At first there were no temples or idols involved but this later developed as Hinduism evolved.

This is contrary to the Bible teaching on who and what God is and is like. It is in contradiction with the bible’s warnings and commands to never get involved in idol worship or conjuring of spirits as these things produce ruin and lead to practitioner’s demise. Conjuring spirits is forbidden in the bible and those that do are warned of the dangers of familiar spirits. What you pose is in complete disregard for such warnings from the One True God who Loves you enough to warn you and plead to you to come to your senses and repent. You are walking a dangerous path – not to bliss – not to a paradise of Nirvana – or enlightenment but to a place where those familiar spirits will be tossed into that deceived you.

Jesus Christ came to set you free. The freedom you think you have is bondage and soon those things will turn on you as is the nature of the familiar spirits do with those that listen to them. You need Jesus Christ.

I think it best for those reading this to begin telling you who Jesus Christ is and what he has done – the gospel message as you are walking a dangerous path. You really demonstrate that you do not know the slightest truths about Jesus and the Gospel message. So for those reading please feel free to chime in and preach the Gospel to this person.

[buddhawarrior]

Thank you BW and Domo for your thoughtful responses and genuine concern for me. However I do not wish to waste anymore of your time. I do not need to WIN any argument of debate, and I do not claim to have truth or am with out contradiction. In fact I claim instead to Not know and Not have truth and am comPletely in contradiction. Additionally I recognize truth and contradiction to be but the two sides of the same coin.

However, to me, life is a dance and it simply is not enough just to know the notes. Both of you are indeed very educated and well learned, but that does not advance me in my life purpose. One can not learn Love, compassion, understanding and forgiveness from books and arguments. And if you can not recognize this then you are ones who are lost. Though I have no doubt that you are loving and compassionate to close family and friends and other Christians who do not contradict you, but that's not enough for me. Mine includes the love of those who do not agree with me or cause contradiction to my way of thought, and beyond that, love for ALL of Gods creations.

Truth is relative, that is the extent of the elephant example. And your ideas of ultimate truth will still be just one of the infinite perspectives humans have about it, no matter how many people you convince or how stubbornly you defend your position, or how offensive you are to those who are unconvinced.

I do not follow out dated Hindu traditions, jus like you do not rape and own slaves like the bible commands.

Perhaps one day we will come to know each other in person and that will dispell any unwarrented judgements brougt on by the poor form of communication that is Internet forums. And we will see that we are indeed genuine human beings with the hope for a moral and ethical life and strive for a greater understanding of love and truth.

Best

[buddhawarrior]

Which is an amazing way to know God, but it does not make the christian "bhagavan" any more correct than the bhagavan of another religion.

When there are contradictions, you think everyone can be 'just as correct'?

The contradiction only exists in your mind. In Chinese the word for dog is "go" in English it is dog. Is there a contradiction there?

[buddhawarrior]

Sounds like you too believe you se ethe whole elephant.

Yes, I DO see the whole elephant ; everyone can with just a little bit of gumption to investigate Christ, the historical evidence, the scientific evidences , and the credibility of the New Testament which reports on him. God wants us to see the 'whole elephant' so we arent kept in the dark --- he more than anyone wants us to have a real dynamic personal relationship with him. The ball is in our elephant court ! Will we return the ball to him ???

Just a question, you quote Hume in your signature...

"I never asserted such an absurd proposition, that something could arise without a Cause" -- staunch atheist Philosopher David Hume

Why do you use this quote?

[buddhawarrior]

Sounds like you too believe you se ethe whole elephant.

Yes, I DO see the whole elephant ; everyone can with just a little bit of gumption to investigate Christ, the historical evidence, the scientific evidences , and the credibility of the New Testament which reports on him. God wants us to see the 'whole elephant' so we arent kept in the dark --- he more than anyone wants us to have a real dynamic personal relationship with him. The ball is in our elephant court ! Will we return the ball to him ???

My statement was in reference to buddhawarrior

In no way shape or form do I see the whole elephant. But I suppose that's just humility and recognition of ones place in the universe.

[buddhawarrior]

Interesting, is the problem with the elephant analogy that Christians think they know the entirety ofthe elephant and that all others are blind?

Well, lets examine this rationally ; if a religious Leader comes along and declares he is going to die the way that was predicted he would some 600 years prior (before his method of death was even invented) along with having performed bonified miracles and living a sinless life...then proceeds to die and rises from the death after 3 days as validated by eye witnesses of the account (over 500 total) and of which some wrote specifically about which is further validated by NON-christian historians from that time period....then unless a religious Leader has done something greater and more miraculous since or in the past...why shouldnt THAT person be viewed as the one to follow and why wouldnt THAT person be the one with the real ultimate truth about God and how to be completely reconciled to him ? Has Buddha done anything remotely miraculous ? Has any other world religious Teacher ?

No doubt that the miracles of Jesus was great. But ther have been many other who have done just as great. I can give many examples, and even ones I've witnessed with my own eyes. But this is not a competition of who have more powers.

I see miracles every second of everyday. The very fact that I am alive is the most incredible miracle to me. Watching the sun rise is tear jerking, seeing my son grow evokes the Divine. I don't need to see any more super human demonstrations to believe in God.

My reason for sharing this is not to say that Jesus isn't awesome, but to say that other ways work too. As long as someone is awakened to the glory of God, it matters not if his path had a road sign labeled Christian.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Interesting, is the problem with the elephant analogy that Christians think they know the entirety ofthe elephant and that all others are blind?

Well, lets examine this rationally ; if a religious Leader comes along and declares he is going to die the way that was predicted he would some 600 years prior (before his method of death was even invented) along with having performed bonified miracles and living a sinless life...then proceeds to die and rises from the death after 3 days as validated by eye witnesses of the account (over 500 total) and of which some wrote specifically about which is further validated by NON-christian historians from that time period....then unless a religious Leader has done something greater and more miraculous since or in the past...why shouldnt THAT person be viewed as the one to follow and why wouldnt THAT person be the one with the real ultimate truth about God and how to be completely reconciled to him ? Has Buddha done anything remotely miraculous ? Has any other world religious Teacher ?

No doubt that the miracles of Jesus was great. But ther have been many other who have done just as great. I can give many examples, and even ones I've witnessed with my own eyes. But this is not a competition of who have more powers.

I see miracles every second of everyday. The very fact that I am alive is the most incredible miracle to me. Watching the sun rise is tear jerking, seeing my son grow evokes the Divine. I don't need to see any more super human demonstrations to believe in God.

My reason for sharing this is not to say that Jesus isn't awesome, but to say that other ways work too. As long as someone is awakened to the glory of God, it matters not if his path had a road sign labeled Christian.

You have a very overloaded definition of 'miracle'. The normal definition of a miracle includes those things outside of the scope of science. All of your examples are scientific.

Also, your viewpoint about religions all being equal and Jesus being 'one of many ways' is ridiculous. He claimed to be God in the same text that describes what He said about morality, ethics, and miracles. If He was lying, then He isn't a very good teacher. He said He was the ONLY WAY. Every religion does. All claims are exclusive. It is infantile to pretend they can all be correct because only infants couldn't see the blatant contradictions.

And for the record, no other 'teacher' was as great. Any atheist (besides the pop atheists) historian would tell you that no single person in human history has had a bigger impact on humanity. There is no one else that compares. I'm curious to hear who else you think has had as significant an impact on history.

[kmr]

Buddhawarrior...

You often bring up the concept of different languages in your "arguments". For instance, your demonstration that 2+2=4 is only true because of our numerical and mathematical system, and the example of different words for the same thing in different tongues.

I understand your logic, but you must understand, a different language does not constitute a different reality, as a different lens does not constitute a different substance. We are not talking about perspectives, we are talking about abstract truth. When you look at evidence in different ways, yes you can "draw" different conclusions, but the evidence stays the same. For instance, if a man with normal vision and a colorblind man try to tell what colors a vibrant poster contains, they may draw different conclusions, but the substances that form the poster remain the same, as do the proportions of photons released from those substances. The interpretation is all that changes.

Likewise, if three contradicting religions are placed together, I.E. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, although the followers of these religions have all drawn different conclusions, the actual truth behind the religions implies that either one or none of them can be correct, no more. They cannot all three be correct because they contradict each other, different lens or no. I suppose one could say that they do all point to the same truth through different lenses, but take the lens away and the truth stands firm regardless of perspective.

Surely this makes sense?

[kmr]

And no, you cannot find true fulfillment through books and knowledge, only through experience. I agree with this completely. But based on the context of your previous posts, you are offering this up in order to derail all of us Christians and our "book logic" arguments while you yourself can sit back on your own arguments. If we are "lost" in our pursuit of text and logic, and if our arguments prove that, then how can you not be?

And if you think that all of these are just among infinite human perspectives and that the truth can never be known (that is your perspective), then why bother to sit there arguing that the truth can never be known to a bunch of fools who think that the truth can be known? And what if, after all of this, it turns out that there is an abstract truth that can be known... will you still think that it cannot be known, in the sense that it is just human perspective? That no perspective is correct because we exist in a mind that observes reality by means of perspective?

Well, in that case, I have this to say: All humans are capable of perceiving reality one way or another. Therefore, in the end, all humans have the capability of perceiving the same perspective and, perhaps, one perception is the one that most ultimately fulfills human logic. In this case, it is the perspective and way of thinking that most directly relates the evidence to the conclusion. And one perspective is always able to do this better than another one, although which one that is is not always clear.

[buddhawarrior]

Hi KMR, thank you for posing some great questions. I will try my best to respond. I will try and paraphrase what I think you are asking, and respond accordingly. If I'm misreading the question, please correct me.

I understand your logic, but you must understand, a different language does not constitute a different reality, as a different lens does not constitute a different substance. We are not talking about perspectives, we are talking about abstract truth. When you look at evidence in different ways, yes you can "draw" different conclusions, but the evidence stays the same. For instance, if a man with normal vision and a colorblind man try to tell what colors a vibrant poster contains, they may draw different conclusions, but the substances that form the poster remain the same, as do the proportions of photons released from those substances. The interpretation is all that changes.

I think what you are saying here is that there are some certain things that have qualities inherent and those qualities, whether perceived or not, remain true about itself. An example, perhhapes, is an apple. It is a fruit that holds seeds and have varying qualities that allow for it to reproduce. And no matter who or what animal perceive it, the inherent qualities of the Fruit remains the same. It may taste sweet to me, but bitter to a bug, but it's chemical/molecular makeup remains the same.

I agree with this completely.

For the purpose of our discussion in regards to exclusivity of religion, let me extend the analogy a bit further. Let's say the apple is inside a dark box, and one can only experience it by probing it thru a tiny hole in the box. Someone who probes it a lot and writes down his findings will have a better grasp on what the thing is in the box. Someone who probes it once obviously has less data on the object and therefore has a less accurate approximation of what that thing is.

Let's say a scientist has probed it a lot and wrote a book about it. There will be a certain amount we can learn from that scientist and his book. Let's say I find 12 more scientists who have also probed at it and wrote books on it, I can learn from those people too. And this give me a greater picture of what that thing could be. I've expanded my data set.

Now let's say for whatever reason, the students of one scientist thinks that theirs is the only data set that matters, and that their method for measurment is the only one that is correct, then they might be limiting themselves to a smaller dataset. That is not to say that the students of this scientist can not know the thing in the Box. In fact, there might never be a need to have more data than is already collected by the first scientist.

However, If I am a student of another scientist, and have come to know the thing in the Box thru their method, is my idea of what's in the box wrong? And if the first scientist and the second grew up at different epoches of time, and spoke different languages, and was under different cultural and political and religious regims, would the written description of what's in the Box differ?

Likewise, if three contradicting religions are placed together, I.E. Christianity, Judaism and Islam, although the followers of these religions have all drawn different conclusions, the actual truth behind the religions implies that either one or none of them can be correct, no more. They cannot all three be correct because they contradict each other, different lens or no. I suppose one could say that they do all point to the same truth through different lenses, but take the lens away and the truth stands firm regardless of perspective.

Like you said earlier, There are some truths that are true no matter the perspective. And this is where no contradictions of religions matter, because the contradictions only exist in our minds and the lines we draw. The three blind men example says one man thinks it's a snake, and one man thinks it's a wall, well, both from their respective perspectives are right, but the truth is that if you add up both of their experiences you get a better approximation of the total object. But if one man stubbornly ignores the others perspective because he thinks that it's a contradiction, then he will simply have a smaller picture of the total truth.

Allow me to quote a modern philosopher Robert Anton Wilson, he explains the contradictions in Quantum physics quite nicely, and I think it applies quite nicely to the perceived contradictions between religions.

"when I moved from los angeles, we moved to what we thought was santa cruz, then we had something stolen from our car and reported it to the police, and as it turns out we didn't live in Santa Cruz, we lived in a town called Capitola, The post office thought we lived in Santa Cruz, but the police thinks we live in Capitola. I investigated this and a reporter told me that we neither lived in Santa Cruz or Capitola, but in an unincorporated area called Live Oak. Now, quantum mechanics is just like that, but in the case of Santa Cruz, Capitola, and Live Oak, we don't get too confused, because we remember that we invented the lines on the map. But Quantum physics gets confusing because a lot of people think we didn't invent the lines, so it seems odd to understand how a particle can be at three places at once without being anywhere at all. But if you remember that we invented the lines, then quantum mechanics seems no more mysterious than how I can live in three places at the same time. "

You see, people drew the lines in religion and created the contradictions, but really no contradictions exist, if you remember that people drew the lines.

And no, you cannot find true fulfillment through books and knowledge, only through experience. I agree with this completely. But based on the context of your previous posts, you are offering this up in order to derail all of us Christians and our "book logic" arguments while you yourself can sit back on your own arguments. If we are "lost" in our pursuit of text and logic, and if our arguments prove that, then how can you not be?

Let me explain my personal process. I had long ago realized that books and logic are dead ends to enlightenment. So the path has been "practice". When I was Christian, I prayed and practiced loving kindness, and it showed me what Christ Love was like. At first, it didn't come naturally. Loving your enemies was especially challenging. But it was thru the practice that I came to know Christ Love. Then as I read the Bible, and other spiritual texts, I realized that the text was trying to point towards the experience of Christ love. As I continued in life, I came across Buddhist, Hindu, zen, Taoism, etc. Their text also describes the same experience, except they had different ways of explaining it, or called it different things. I knew though, thru my practice that it didn't matter what cultural and religious tradition these text came from, that the experience they point the aspirant to is the same.
And as my life circumstances grew and shifted, I found that some of the practices perscribed by these other faiths fit my personality better. I am not as book smart, and more of an artist type, and love poetry and music, and have an extremely short attention span, etc, there are certain ways of training for "loving all" that just worked better and fit me better.

I only point out the "book Logic" thing as an example of how one can become stuck on one's ego and lose sight of the real purpose of Jesus' teaching.

And if you think that all of these are just among infinite human perspectives and that the truth can never be known (that is your perspective), then why bother to sit there arguing that the truth can never be known to a bunch of fools who think that the truth can be known? And what if, after all of this, it turns out that there is an abstract truth that can be known... will you still think that it cannot be known, in the sense that it is just human perspective? That no perspective is correct because we exist in a mind that observes reality by means of perspective?

It has been on my mind quite a bit as to why I'm on this forum. It is difficult to have a civil discussion when most have taken personally defensive or offensive positions. But what I have gotten out of it is a better understanding of fundamentalism, and a better understanding of my own views and perspectives. And also learned how to spot my own emotional ups and downs as my believes are challenged, and how to properly have a discussion while avoiding hostility. It allows me to spot where my ego lies. And to avoid egoic traps while maintaining the practice of understanding and compassion.

I like to keep a mental perspective of "not-knowing". It seems to work the best for me. Here is a little Taoist parable about a Farmer who held that perspective.

"An old farmer who worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. "Such bad luck," they said sympathetically. "May be," the farmer replied. The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. "How wonderful," the neighbors exclaimed. "May be," replied the old man. The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune. "May be," answered the farmer. The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son's leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out. "May be," said the farmer."

Well, in that case, I have this to say: All humans are capable of perceiving reality one way or another. Therefore, in the end, all humans have the capability of perceiving the same perspective and, perhaps, one perception is the one that most ultimately fulfills human logic. In this case, it is the perspective and way of thinking that most directly relates the evidence to the conclusion. And one perspective is always able to do this better than another one, although which one that is is not always clear.

Yes, I agree that if the truth can be known, that certain perspectives work better for certain individuals. And that is why people chose for themselves what works best for them.

You might try this exercise with your church members. Meet outside of a building that no one has been to. Have everyone walk in at the same time and take a 2 minute look around, then leave the building and reconvene outside. Now have each on write down what they observed.

You will get some overlap in answers, but it will most clearly demonstrate that even though everyone had the same external experience, that their perceptions are drastically different.

Here is another exercise to try. Have everyone take off their watch, and make sure there is no clock on the wall. Have everyone close their eyes. The facilitator then choses a random amount of time between 1-5 minutes. Have everyone sit quietly and the facilitator will let everyone know when the secret amount of time has passed. People then open their eyes and write down how much time they think have passed.

You might get some overlap, but again, you'll see that perception is very different from individual to individual.

We see this occur even in Church. Given the same passage of bible to study, the individuals of the group will often have very different interpretations of the passage. Of course it depends on the type of church you go to. Some churches might have one authority figure that tells you exactly what the passage says, or some might like to take multiple perspectives and discuss, some never discuss it and believe that your relationship with Christ is yours alone and not to be shared. (Of course differences in perspectives are not limited to Christianity or even religion alone. Differences in perspectives is a universal truth amoung humans, animals, insects, etc.)

If you find a perspective, a method of reaching enlightenment that works for you, that's great, but to make it law and force a population to adhere by the penalty of condemnation, it's becomes tyranny, not spirituality. The aim of spirituality is to help all reach enlightenment with whatever method that works best.

But all said, this is just my perspective. You need not agree. But I welcome discussion and clarification in the hopes that it will advance our collective understanding.

Thanks,

[kmr]

Now let's say for whatever reason, the students of one scientist thinks that theirs is the only data set that matters, and that their method for measurment is the only one that is correct, then they might be limiting themselves to a smaller dataset. That is not to say that the students of this scientist can not know the thing in the Box. In fact, there might never be a need to have more data than is already collected by the first scientist.

But we DON'T think that ours is the only perception that matters. I'd be surprised if anybody on this site hasn't spent a great deal of time studying other ideas and religions. We have all simply come to the conclusion that Christianity is the best one. Like you said, putting all of the studies together offers up the best approximation of the truth, which is what we have done. Instead of saying "nobody can have the correct answer" or "everyone's answer is a little bit right", we have gone further to say that "Christianity is the most correct" based on our experiences.

[jlay]

warrior,
You are missing the basic error being pointed out.
If there is a box with something in it, then what is in it, is not determined by the one peering inside.
One can not claim to be touching part of the elephant without first presuming a whole complete elephant.

2+2=4 is objectively true. We have tokens and symbols that represent numerical values. For example this token, '2' represents a specific number. The invention of the token does not determine the truth. The token is man identifying an objective truth, and forming a language to work with it.

The reason the word 'water' has meaning, is because it represents an objective truth. Just because a different language calls it "agua" doesn't mean truth has changed. In fact, through set reason and logic, we can know that both words represent the same object.

The three blind men example says one man thinks it's a snake, and one man thinks it's a wall, well, both from their respective perspectives are right, but the truth is that if you add up both of their experiences you get a better approximation of the total object.

How is being wrong, right? An elephants tail is not a snake. It's side is not a wall. It is an example that is flawed in its conception.

You see, people drew the lines in religion and created the contradictions, but really no contradictions exist, if you remember that people drew the lines.

Saying contradictions exist but really don't exist is absurd. Why are you trying to convince us that you are right if that is the case?

I had long ago realized that books and logic are dead ends to enlightenment.

Man you are a basket of contradictions. YOu say that logic is a dead end, yet you are attempting to use logic to even make the statement.

It is difficult to have a civil discussion when most have taken personally defensive or offensive positions.

Funny. What's the difference? Without logic, how do you arrive at this? How do expect one to be civil when one party says logic doesn't matter, and that contradictions don't matter, and that different things are the same. How would you deal with an irrational person?

I like to keep a mental perspective of "not-knowing".

So, you are an ignoramous?

Yes, I agree that if the truth can be known, that certain perspectives work better for certain individuals. And that is why people chose for themselves what works best for them.

And so what if we chose for ourselves that Christ is exclusive. Or, what if we chose for ourselves that Buddhist need to be prejudically eliminated?

If you find a perspective, a method of reaching enlightenment that works for you, that's great, but to make it law and force a population to adhere by the penalty of condemnation, it's becomes tyranny, not spirituality. The aim of spirituality is to help all reach enlightenment with whatever method that works best

What are you doing here but implying that we need to adhere to your ideas. That we in fact are condmned by being wrong.
You need to be enlightened. Repent and have your mind renewed. Turn from the contradiction, and put your trust in Christ.