Religion vs. Religion

[Buffy]

While most of the wheel spinning in this still very young forum to date has taken the spin of "Science vs. Religion", a clear spin off from this that has shown up several times is the issue of Religions natural conflict with one another based on differences in beliefs both large (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism) or small (e.g. interpretations of requirements for salvation within Christian sects).

 

My question for this thread is two fold (which may mean splitting rather quickly, although they are intertwined):

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

Discuss.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[IrishEyes]

Excellent thread topic, Buffy!

I look forward to reading the posts in this one when I return. And I will gladly add my 2 as well...

:)

[Mr. Potato Head]

All the small factors and differences are endlessly debatable, but the real answer lies in our scientists ability to determine the beginning of the universe and the (true) direction it is headed (predict the future). So if you are a researching scientist looking for answers, I'm waiting! :)

 

PS. You all have to agree on the answer for it to be the right one. Focus!

[Buffy]

Uh.... I'm sorry I wasn't clear: this is a question of theology, not science... I would not expec the C word or the E word need to be mentioned at all in this thread! If you don't follow, please ask questions and I'll be glad to help you into this discussion...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[jerryo]

While most of the wheel spinning in this still very young forum to date has taken the spin of "Science vs. Religion", a clear spin off from this that has shown up several times is the issue of Religions natural conflict with one another based on differences in beliefs both large (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism) or small (e.g. interpretations of requirements for salvation within Christian sects).

 

My question for this thread is two fold (which may mean splitting rather quickly, although they are intertwined):

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

Discuss.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

> 1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

 

'Belief' implies there is an individual >believer<

This should solve the second half of your question :)

[jerryo]

its always the same.

 

The question comes from the answer you already have

 

...

 

the questions will end

when you ask a question :)

 

ps: i was just curious about 'light speed'...that was all

[Southtown]

Thanks for starting the tread. =P I'll start where we left off. Sorry for the misunderstanding in the other thread, Buffy. For the record, I just enjoy explaining my beliefs (not forcing them) because they are so rarely understood, it seems. =|

 

The two questions are very broad, and one can only hope to tackle spotted issues, instead of answering them in toto. So, to start things off I'd like clarify the "free salvation" issue.

 

Sinful behavior is never OK in Christianity. (Just because works can't save doesn't mean they can't condemn.)

But then its really not "free"! If sin has an impact, then you're required you to do/not do other things as a prerequisite... In fact, even avoiding sins--mortal or venial--living a selfish but unsinful life being good enough lets Scrooge in too, over and above the folks who have the wrong faith. Same point....

Salvation is a return to righteousness (a prerequisite for the new creation. Revelation 21:27) Free salvation is worthless to people who don't want to be righteous. You can't dry off until you get out of the pool, so-to-speak. Not that people have to be perfect, it's a journey. Through humbly seeking God's way of life, we continually practice at being good. That's what is meant by faith in God. We believe He's right, and that His will and His promises are sure. Works are the sign of sincerity, but they don't count directly. God weighs the heart (1 Samuel 16:7,) and He knows who has genuine commitment regardless of deeds.

 

For clarity, I don't think a person surrenders their free will when they are saved. I think they can change their mind, and often many do when the religious life doesn't meet their expectations. Some will disagree with me claiming "eternal security," but I researched it, and I don't follow that line. (can o' worms?)

 

You've got a very limited definition of God here, and I actually believe that the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT and the gal in the Koran is different still, claims by interpreters of these works to the contrary notwithstanding the scrutiny of the very different worldviews these deities describe! And that's actually getting back on topic, because the Benevolent God of the NT is inconsistent with Yahweh, the wrathful and demanding God of the OT!

You have a good point. On the surface OT Jehova can be quite different that NT Jehova. But at a deeper level, there's really no conflict. Wrathful Jehova hates evil, He just can't allow it to go unpunished anymore than a judge can wink at crooked corporations (and still consider himself just.) While loving Jehova cared so much for the world that He diverted His wrath for the sake of mankind by providing the sacrificial Christ. If Jehova didn't punish evil, He wouldn't be just, and if He just condemned all of humanity, He wouldn't be loving. But the crucifixion testifies to both qualities, simultaneously. And consistency is maintained.

 

If its not your "one God", then its gotta be either "no god" or a cow? Are you serious?

I was just asking for an example of another god, other than object worship. Can you do it? =P

[geokker]

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

 

They aren't. My God is the true God. You are a blasphemer.

 

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

A gradual secularisation is taking place. Religion is waning.

[Southtown]

They aren't. My God is the true God. You are a blasphemer.

Have you ever heard of a "strawman" argument, geokker?

 

I have a couple scriptures as to why Christians should not make statements like the one above, even though "gecko" was just being sarcastic. (Isaiah 1:18; Isaiah 40:28; Romans 2:1) Granted some Christians will act like that anyway, because frankly nobody's perfect.

 

A gradual secularisation is taking place. Religion is waning.

In the media maybe ...and politics ...and hollywood ...and academe, but none of those are reality. =P Jehova is a fire on the soul (Luke 3:16; Luke 24:32) that cannot be put out, not even by death, and whose spread will never cease.

 

Be careful casting off the bonds of morality and virtue, that door swings both ways.

[MEL555]

religion vs. religion ???

 

why debate?

 

the most obvious feature of

religion is religion vs. religion(arrogance)

 

which leads to war.

 

Religion is a business. $$$ :rant:

 

The xtians dont even care about

the real Jesus. :)

They only care about the religion

that is built up around a Jesus

that THEY WANT. :hyper:

 

http://www.wildapple.co.uk/writers/barbra.htm

 

The real Jesus was sane and rational. :eek:

.

.

[geokker]

Have you ever heard of a "strawman" argument, geokker?

 

My point is that true faith prevents the acknowledgement of alternatives.

 

Jehova is a fire on the soul (Luke 3:16; Luke 24:32) that cannot be put out, not even by death, and whose spread will never cease.

 

What does all that mean? Yes, people will either adopt the words of others or invent their own belief systems from fear and the desire to conquer fear. The claim current mainstream religions have on thought and action I believe is weakening - people are getting smarter and are exposing the constraints, contradictions, corruption and segregation that seem inherent to religious institutions.

[Southtown]

...people are getting smarter and are exposing the constraints, contradictions, corruption and segregation that seem inherent to religious institutions.

Ahhh, good point. But a man's faith is only between him and God.

[Southtown]

religion vs. religion ???

 

why debate?

 

the most obvious feature of

religion is religion vs. religion(arrogance)

 

which leads to war.

 

Religion is a business. $$$ :eek:

 

The xtians dont even care about

the real Jesus. ;)

They only care about the religion

that is built up around a Jesus

that THEY WANT. ;)

 

http://www.wildapple.co.uk/writers/barbra.htm

 

The real Jesus was sane and rational. :hihi:

.

.

Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and the Savior of the world, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." (John 14:6) Either He was correct, or He was a malicious liar, or He was seriously deranged. He could not have been a normal person of dignified intelligence and/or morality.

 

P.S. You're right the churches are lacking, but that only testifies to the truth that all are imperfect sinners in need of the forgiveness that Jesus claimed to provide.

[Buffy]

Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and the Savior of the world, "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."...Either He was correct, or He was a malicious liar, or He was seriously deranged. He could not have been a normal person of dignified intelligence and/or morality.

 

P.S. You're right the churches are lacking, but that only testifies to the truth that all are imperfect sinners in need of the forgiveness that Jesus claimed to provide.

Hmmm. I sense a lack of willingness to contemplate the implications of this thread. Your post flirts with it but runs away: How do you deal with the notion that "he may have been a liar or deranged"? How do you deal with others who say so based on their religious beliefs? How do you address your beliefs to those with opposing ones? I think its great that you can admit the possibility that your beliefs may be unfounded, but you don't seem to want to walk through what that means for how you interact with others. That's the point here.

 

Reminder "opposing views" in this thread are not "science." Question here is how we deal with for example, Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah (who is yet to come).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[UncleAl]

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

1) Test of faith!

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

 

2) Northern Ireland, 30 Years War, War of the Roses, India and Pakistan, Crusades, Israel and Arabia... Roman Catholic male children routinely being sodomized by consecrated priests. Problems? Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods rain nothing but blessings upon their pious bloodthirsty adherents. Test of faith!

[Southtown]

Hmmm. I sense a lack of willingness to contemplate the implications of this thread. Your post flirts with it but runs away: How do you deal with the notion that "he may have been a liar or deranged"?

I sense that you did not grasp my meaning. I implied that given the New Testament account, the notion that Jesus was an upstanding normal man is an impossibility, since He claimed to be God's only Son and the promised Savior of the world. He was either right, or He was a lunatic. This statement is in response to the link posted by MEL555. Outside of the NT, of course, one only needs to either deny Jesus ever existed, or that he ever made such claims.

 

How do you deal with others who say so based on their religious beliefs? How do you address your beliefs to those with opposing ones?

Um... individually.

 

I think its great that you can admit the possibility that your beliefs may be unfounded, but you don't seem to want to walk through what that means for how you interact with others. That's the point here.

It seems I am indicative of all Christians here. How do I interact with others?

 

You want me to admit that I might be wrong about Jesus being Savior, and I simply don't believe that. However, I will not deride you (or anyone else) for disagreeing with me. And I am perfectly willing to walk interested people through my beliefs, and discuss any part of them.

 

Reminder "opposing views" in this thread are not "science." Question here is how we deal with for example, Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah (who is yet to come).

 

Cheers,

Buffy

Gladly, I thought you would never ask a theologically specific question. First of all, I'm not familiar with the Jewish case against Jesus. The lineage of David has been lost by the (prohesied — Matthew 24:1-2) destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Give me some time to dig up of some Jewish scriptures concerning the Messiah. In the mean time, consider Isaiah 53 and how odd it might appear in the Judaic context of Levitical traditionalism.

 

1) Test of faith!

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/religion.htm

Hysterical. Drink sh*t and die. HAHA

 

2) Northern Ireland, 30 Years War, War of the Roses, India and Pakistan, Crusades, Israel and Arabia... Roman Catholic male children routinely being sodomized by consecrated priests. Problems? Omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent gods rain nothing but blessings upon their pious bloodthirsty adherents. Test of faith!

Test of faith in what? In man? In institutions? God did not ordain those acts. (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 5:38-48; Romans 13:9; James 5:9)

[Buffy]

I sense that you did not grasp my meaning. I implied that given the New Testament account, the notion that Jesus was an upstanding normal man is an impossibility,.......He was either right, or He was a lunatic.....Outside of the NT, of course, one only needs to either deny Jesus ever existed, or that he ever made such claims.

Islam considers him a prophet for example, but he is not the son of God. Jews agree he existed and he may well have said all these things, but he was an egotistical rabble-rouser, and he was not necessarily crazy. So the either-or interpretation you give here is only accepted by a few.

It seems I am indicative of all Christians here. How do I interact with others?

With controlled equanimity that ofttimes betrays your views by accident! There are a wide variety of views among the Christians here, and I don't think its hard to see the differences in both approach and form, and the discussion of those differences is the point in this thread, which it seems by this statement you are denying. As a simple and concrete example, if you inspect some of the posts on the site there those that would disagree with your opinion that Catholics are Christians.

You want me to admit that I might be wrong about Jesus being Savior, and I simply don't believe that.

I have no desire to do so and that is not the point. The point is how you *interact* with those who do. So while you say:

However, I will not deride you (or anyone else) for disagreeing with me. And I am perfectly willing to walk interested people through my beliefs, and discuss any part of them.

This avoids the critical issue here of how the *differences* influence your world-view. Many religions contain teachings that "unbelievers" will not receive the same benefits of "believers", yet these religions in many cases come with lists of "exceptions" to handle the most egregious cases of "unfairness" that this causes, for example some Christian faiths support the notion that an exception is made for all people who died before Christ, and they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven anyway because they couldn't do anything about being born too soon. This is an example of a faith attempting to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "good" being treated as "evil" because it does not have the right beliefs.

First of all, I'm not familiar with the Jewish case against Jesus.

I pulled this quote because its another example of bias being drapped in unbiased clothing: you're making an assumption that there has to be a "case" against Jesus, when to many, he may well have been a magician and con artist like Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swagart. To some, its the sociological effect of being persecuted--as the Jews were by Christians for most of the past 2000 years from intermittent Pogroms, to Passion Play-like slander, to the Holocaust--and leaving an easy and natural opinion that any religion that has caused so much personal pain and death could possibly have been led by "the Messiah." Its obvious: its not that there has to be a theological reconning...

 

Keep thinking, keep posting.

 

Cheers,

Buffy