Title pretty much says it all.

I'm guessing most of the Christians that post in RGT will say yes, including me. I think if you leave the question broad enough most Christians in general would say yes. In many cases they'll think those valuable insights are subsumed under Christian teaching though

See for example The Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions in Vatican II.

I can't find a great reference but I know eastern orthodoxy tends to take a similar view to Vatican II. I've heard protestants say similar things as well

Some valuable insights:

In Buddhism, the concept of pratītyasamutpāda and its exposition in Buddhist teaching on suffering and the Noble Truths.

In Hinduism, the relation between Brahman and an Iṣṭa-devatā, that is the Divine beyond all forms and names, and the Divine recognized in a particular cherished form. Also understood as Nirguna and Saguna Brahman.

I feel like in Hinduism and Buddhism some of the valuable insight might not be theoretical as much as in the attitude towards life. Sannyasa and sunyata, the middle way, that sort of thing as practice more than theory. The experience of the immanence of the Divine in Hinduism and not just the rational ideal of a Supreme Being. The value of initiation and a teacher in Hinduism and Sufism.

Probably lots of other stuff but I'm rambling

I personally couldn't answer the question without it being more specific. "Insights into God" while plain enough to understand, can mean different things. First thing that came to mind is Buddhism, though.

You're not rambling, that's a great post.

What is it about Christ's message do you think is unique and sets it apart from all other religions/mythologies?

In a sense, given my view of religion, I don't emphasize so much the uniqueness of Christ's teaching, although I emphasize the uniqueness of his existence, but even there, taking into account the distinction between the "essence" of the Divine and various forms and experiences. The uniqueness of Christ is not necessarily in the specific historical and cultural understanding that is Christianity. Paul preached the unknown God at the Areopagus, who may also be known (in part?) by other names.

What is most profound in Christian teaching to me though is the kenosis of the Divine. "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone. But if it dies, it bears much fruit". And the greatness of it is not just as a teaching for people to emulate, but as a description of the Divine in and of itself, because Christ is God, and yet "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant". The humility of Christ is the power of God, rather than the exercise of raw power or authority. I think this is foundational to a Christian worldview.

The only thing that matters is that one accepts Jesus as the one and only Savior and in doing so become born again - get baptized in water and in your heart. It is this or nothing.

I believe you qualify for my math SAT challenge.

Anyone ever take you up on that?

Hey jokerthief

Hello Zumby.

Anyone who could pass a lie detector test that believing that Jesus is the son of God is both necessary and sufficient to get to heaven is not in the top million in math aptitude. Few are in the top billion. So no.

What exactly is your challenge?

Genesis chapter 6 could be how the greek mythology came to be. Angels forsaking their supposed dwelling place and having relations with human women resulting in the birth of these huge terrifying Nephilim. These guys went and took multiple wives for themselves - they were probably very beautiful and women couldn't resist them. They went through terrorising the Earth.

I don't know too much about greek mythology but I recall some gods coming down having sex with human women, they then gave birth to these demi-gods who grew up to be these muscular, powerful men who could perform superhuman feats.

Probably something in there.

νεφέλη (nephele) is "cloud" in koine Greek. Obviously because the Nephilim came out of the sky

QED

While not commenting too much on the challenge itself, since I would personally prove your implication and then some, there is also the implication that you will never change your views to that of the Christians you challenge, and the same goes for other intellectuals capable of completing your challenge.

Am I wrong in seeing that? What stops someone who is your intellectual equal or superior from accepting Christ, and how can you be so sure that future David will not relent on his position against Christ?

Also, are you familiar with Gene Ray, and Time Cube? Just reminded me of his challenge to disprove his theory for $10k. Not to compare you two, since this guy is kind of a lunatic, there's no other resemblance other than the challenge. His website is a proper mess, and just as incoherent. Worth a look for anyone not familiar with this.

My best friend when I was a kid would absolutely pass a lie detector test and got an 800 on his SAT math. What does he win?

I think you may be confusing the ability to understand something nonsensical like Christianity and the blind faith to still believe in it.

Jesus Christ called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."

Challenge this guy:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/about...ress-full-bio/

Intelligence doesn't make believing nonsense impossible. Just a lot less likely.

Yes, on that, we can both agree. Besides, I'm not even really sure that getting an 800 on your SAT math is actually a sign of real "intelligence", but that is a completely different discussion.

I'm not sure he fits my criteria since he says you can be unsaved. and he would be an underdog against me unless I've gotten senile. But those are fine points that do little to ameliorate the disturbing fact that someone that smart can believe the stuff he does.

So MIT is wrong to dismiss 720 scorers out of hand? Or are you saying that math/science/logic ability is not real intelligence? But how can it be that people who are not as good at questions where there is a definite answer are on average as smart as people who are good at it?

I'm curious if you're claiming you could get a Ph.D. in math from Harvard. If not, what's the point of beating him on the SAT, assuming you could, which is somewhat inexplicable in itself.

It's disturbing that you don't see why it isn't disturbing.

Edit: Also curious where he says one can be unsaved. He's a Calvinist which has almost complete uniformity on perseverance, which means no one once saved ever loses that salvation.

"We should also say that joining the church brings a person into a kind of covenantal
relationship with God, since the person makes promises to God at the time of his baptism. But
being baptized does not guarantee that a person is eternally saved. The Bible frankly described the
possibility and the reality of apostasy—some people fall away from a faith that they earlier professed:
“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have
continued with us” (1 John 2:19). The “going out” describes apostasy, falling away from the
Christian community, the church. Apostasy is like a negative condition. If you are to be saved, you
must not apostasize. "

I have very little doubt that getting an 800 on the SAT correlates very strongly with intelligence. But correct me if I am wrong, my memory is that the bet involved the SAT taken in 1/2 the usual time. That is a little bit of sleight of hand, isn't it. Cutting the test time in half does not necessarily make it more discriminating and could actual lower its validity.