Buddhism vs Gnosticism vs Christianity

Buddhism seems to want the opposite, to become nothing. Rather than facing life and overcoming challenges, really being involved in life, Buddhism seems to withdraw from life.

Given my limited knowledge of Buddhism, this is how I perceive it as well. This reminds me of Gnosticism where the material is treated as evil and something that the human essence must escape from. There is one important point, however, where I think Gnosticism edges Buddhism in this aspect, and this is the introduction of a third party component in the molding of the soul, i.e. the Holy Spirit. I just don't see how it is possible for a soul to become divine on its own. For instance, according the Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, soul development can be attained without dependence on any other entity--this defies common sense in the context of the law of conservation of energy. Gnosticism, and Christianity in general, provides a clear solution by providing the soul with the Holy Spirit, that is, it is the Holy Spirit that nurtures the human essence to attain divinity.

But there is more. Christianity does not only save the human essence (with its identity intact), but the material as well. Whereas Buddhism and Gnosticism promise to save the soul and condemn the body, Christianity promises the salvation of BOTH soul and body. This is why I think Christianity is the superior path.

Revelation and Authority

In other words, one cannot simply assert that something is true because it is revelation. Anything that is taken as revelation must be justified, as one justifies any kind of claim.

I agree, but only because I find this as a consequence of Sola Scriptura. Before, It was tradition that justified the revelation of Scripture. Once tradition was taken out of the picture, people were left with three options: (1) to validate Scripture using itself, (2) to apply scientific methods of validation, and (3) to combine with compromise the previous options.

All these options are problematic, in my opinion. First, validating Scripture using itself is circular reasoning. Second, today's methods tend to be materialistic, so they are not suited for investigating supernatural claims. Third, the act of combining two errors leads to even more errors.

Without tradition, there is no assurance that Scripture is God's Word. For Catholics and Orthodox, they know that Scripture is revealed and authoritative because tradition--their authority--declares this.

In other words, without the "authoritarian", there could be no such thing as "authoritative".

Liberals don't study

I don't understand. Liberals don't accept the authoritarian method, but I don't see how it follows that they don't study or pay any attention to church history, scrïpture, historical theology, etc.

The exercise is optional to the liberal, that's why. Matters such as the decisions of the ecumenical councils, the witness of the early church fathers and the testimonies of tradition are contradictory to liberal principles when taken at face value. As such, they don't affect liberalism in any concrete manner when studied, and in most cases, these matters become irrelevant when the authority associated with them is stripped. For example, it is of little consequence that tradition declares that Acts was written by Luke; for the liberals, their alternative methods are more relevant and trustworthy.

Rebellion is healthy

Resistance is healthy for the collective, and in most cases, doctrine is a direct result of rebellion. As long as the end result was decided by a body whose representatives are in the best position to judge, i.e. an ecumenical council, the collective can be confident of its own conclusions. History is a testament to this. For always, it was heresy that brought forth the councils of Orthodoxy, and members of the Church were expected to accept with confidence the decisions made. There were cases, however, that the councils made a choice out of desperation that caused public outrage, such as that of Florence.

Good News?

Studying the New Testament in the light of the Levitical laws is both good and bad. It's good because you'll have a better appreciation of what Jesus did at Calvary from the Jewish perspective, and bad because the love of God is reduced to a legal matter. It is this bad side of the atonement concept that we often hear in the evangelical circles; it is very common for preachers to say that unless you accept Jesus and wash your sins with his blood, you are going to suffer in hell forever. I reject this negative re-inforcement of building up faith. If it's all about ransom, what kind of a good news is that?

Old Testament Insights

Adam, Decay and Death

We inherited decay from Adam. He introduced decay that leads to more sins. I view death by decay in Cartesian terms, that is, the decay we inherited from Adam affected both the material and the immaterial self. My theory is that the decay of the immaterial was reversed at Calvary, and that the decay of the material body WILL only stop at the return of Christ. In other words, ALL souls have been made immortal already, but our bodies are yet to be fully deified. Christians have an edge because they will be the first in the universe to be deified.

Purpose of the Law

The purpose of the Mosaic Law was not to create sin but to remind man of its existence. That is to say, through the Mosaic Law, the Israelites were made conscious of their sins.

Sin > Decay > Death > More Sins > Law

1. Decay is due to the sin of Adam
2. Death is due to decay.
3. More sins are committed because of the fear of death.
4. The Law makes the Israelites conscious of their sins.

The crucial point here is that Jesus did not die on the cross in the context of the Mosaic Covenant. Applying the cross to the Old Covenant is an exercise in futility because the Levitical Laws were specifically developed for the awareness of sin--not its elimination. We must go back to the Abrahamic covenant to understand what Calvary is for (Gen 22:18).

Foreknowledge, Free Will and Divine Intervention

But I don't see how any intervention or agency is compatible with foreknowledge.

Without divine intervention in a free world, God will have end results that could either be favorable or unfavorable to Him. That's a dilemma. This can be expressed as:

1. {Favorable Results, Unfavorable Results} = Free Will

The introduction of divine intervention provides a means of fulfilling favorable predictions and eliminating unfavorable outcomes in a free-will-induced environment. Hence, we have:

2. Favorable Results = Free Will + Divine Intervention

Now, if a sensible theologian assumes that God has foreknowledge of future events, he/she is forced to assume that God is anticipating a favorable end result in creating man, and never an unfavorable one. Applying this to the previous equation, we have:

3. Anticipated (Favorable Results) = Anticipated (Free Will + Divine Intervention)

Or

4. Anticipated Favorable Results = Anticipated Free Will + Anticipated Divine Intervention

Therefore, it is clear that both free will and divine agency must be anticipated in order for absolute foreknowledge to work. In other words, in mathematical terms, all variables in equation #2 must become constants in absolute foreknowledge.

Given the final equation, the conditions for absolute foreknowledge are:

i. Free will is predictable because it is always anticipated.
ii. Divine intervention is always planned; ad hoc intervention is impossible.
iii. A loving and all-knowing God only expects a favorable result in the end of history, not an unfavorable one.

For example, if God knows (eternally and absolutely) that Jim kills Jones with an axe July 3rd, 2005 in New York City, can God intervene to stop Jim from killing Jones?

Your example is like a director changing the script in the middle of a stage play. Since a script is a constant, God will definitely not intervene because it will contradict His foreknowledge that Jones will be killed on July 3, 2005. For God to intervene, the result, free will and divine intervention should all be anticipated (see equation #4). So like a good director-actor, God knows when to come in and play His part according to the script.

Where, in the story of Jonah, does it say that God has absolute foreknowledge? I don't see anything that implies this at all.

In the long term, God eventually used Nineveh (Assyria) to punish Israel as if saving Nineveh had been planned all along. (And Jonah saw the short-term danger, that's why his participation leading to Nineveh's repentance was half-hearted.)

DUALITY

But if you read the story, God doesn't play according to a constant, foreordained "script". The text clearly tells us that God "changed his mind" with regard to his earlier plan, (3:10).

That is true if you assume that Jonah was talking to God the Father. That is contrary to my belief that the person of God whom Jonah was talking to was God the Son. In my theology, God the Father does not change His mind, and neither does He communicate with His creatures directly and actively. Jesus Christ, on the otherhand, participates ACTIVELY in the affairs of the created universe. The following sums up my stand on this matter:

DUAL NATURE OF GOD:

God the Father = Constant = Infinite = Absolute Foreknowledge = Passive Intervention

God the Son = Variable = Finite = Limited Foreknowledge = Active Intervention

"As if" is correct. While it may seem that God had planned it that way all along, the Bible tells us that it was actually the case that God had a change of plans

The Father planned it all along. The Son was pleasantly surprised.

If everyone's going to heaven, then why, exactly, was Calvary necessary?

Death is due to sin brought about by free will.

Death = Sin {due to Free Will}

If Calvary was not planned and executed, it is very likely that the great majority of human beings will die in hell because of sin in a not-so-perfect world.

Anticipated Death = Anticipated Sin

But a loving God would not create man and anticipate death. He wants man to live eternally, so He must be anticipating it. Therefore, a constant must be added into the equation so that death becomes life.

Anticipated Eternal Life = Anticipated Sin + CONSTANT

That constant is Calvary. Calvary (which leads to the millennium) was introduced to save mankind. It was an anticipated divine intervention. Its purpose was to counteract death UNCONDITIONALLY.

Anticipated Eternal Life = Anticipated Sin + Anticipated Calvary

This is consistent with the original equation:

Anticipated Favorable Results = Anticipated Free Will + Anticipated Divine Intervention

Is everything either contained within, or tangential to, finite human logic?

I think finite logic is as good as infinite logic. It should not be confused with knowledge or wisdom, because unlike the two, in order for logic to work, it must be given totally--never partially.