Religion vs. Religion

[Boerseun]

This thread is falling to pieces, and mudslinging.

 

However, participants have failed to answer the question posed in the initial post. Believers are taking this as an attack on their personal faith. Statements such as 'preaching no religion is the same as preachhing religion' is bandied around, wilst flat-out false. Preaching no religion is all-encompassing, preaching religion, on the other hand, is religion-specific and have a chance of 1/n (where n is the total number of religions in the world). Preaching no religion is either 100% correct or 100% wrong. It is clearly not the same thing.

 

People believe things, and what they believe in are elitist and mutually exclusive. Christians and Muslims are both commanded through their Bible and Q'uran to beware of false prophets and religions, for they, and only they, are the practitioners of the one and only True Faith. They can clearly not exist together without both religions being flexible in certain basic principles of their teachings.

 

Say a Christian and a Muslim are friends and neighbours. The Muslim is commanded to put the non-believing infidel to the sword, but he's making an exeption here because killing his neighbour on biblical grounds won't stand up in court. Or is it because its his friend? Is this Muslim going to hell for putting civil law and institutions above Allah's commands?

 

How do we expect to proceed into the future whilst catering for theocracies like Afghanistan (and Israel?) If we want to make things happen smoothly in terms of international politics and human relations, there is only one possible answer: religion should be completely and utterly ignored. Else we're only going to keep the murmadons happy by pissing in the fobblydak's eyes.

 

If we want to do the whole Muslim bit, and we want to be consistent about it, we have to kill each and every person on this Earth who don't profess to being a muslim. Same with christians. Same with basically everyone else. So, for the most consistency and least effort, wipe 'em all off the table.

 

And TheBigDog, I have to take you to task on your liferaft story:

 

As well-intended as the analogy might be, you have to keep in mind that whilst those boats are floating around picking up people, they are actively denying the truth of the other boats. Some are even actively trying to sink the others.

 

The original question of how to reconcile the fact that there are plenty religions out there claiming to be the One and Only Truth, have still not been answered. Believers are saying that they are being set up; rather, I see the question being dodged. Clearly, one must be right and the other wrong. There simply is no other way. And religion, to the best of my knowledge, isn't a democracy. The one with the most adherents won't necessarily be the right one, either.

 

So - any takers?

[hallenrm]

Dear Boerseun, I think you are going overboard in your assertions. Not every Muslim swears by the name of Allah to eliminate every other non-Muslim, this is at best limited to a few fundamentalists, who will never become a majority as long as sense prevails in the adherents of other religions, say Christianity, who because of certain circumstances enjoy visibly more privileges. The root cause of the tension amongst adherents of different religions is economic inequalities between communities sharing a common religion, not really the religious teachings. :circle:

[Boerseun]

Dear Boerseun, I think you are going overboard in your assertions. Not every Muslim swears by the name of Allah to eliminate every other non-Muslim, this is at best limited to a few fundamentalists, who will never become a majority as long as sense prevails in the adherents of other religions, say Christianity, who because of certain circumstances enjoy visibly more privileges. The root cause of the tension amongst adherents of different religions is economic inequalities between communities sharing a common religion, not really the religious teachings. :circle:

The Q'uran clearly states that it should be done. Therefore, if a muslim doesn't do it, he's not following the teachings of Mohammed to the letter.

Christians are told to stone homosexuals, to not eat shellfish or pork, NOT to shave, etc., but they don't stone gays, and they do eat shellfish and pork, and most of them have taken up shaving. Have they fallen prey to Satan? :circle:

The mere fact that there are fundamentalist muslims blowing up non-muslims, and moderate muslims not doing it, also plugs into the initial question in this thread. It is not reconcilable. The one's interpretation of the Q'uaran is right, and the other's wrong. Which one is it, though? Don't dodge the topic through semantics now, hallen...:friday:

[Southtown]

Christians are told to stone homosexuals, to not eat shellfish or pork, NOT to shave, etc., but they don't stone gays, and they do eat shellfish and pork, and most of them have taken up shaving. Have they fallen prey to Satan? :eek:

You're thinking of the Jews. The law preserved the nation of Israel until the Messiah was born. Jesus then fulfilled the law for everyone. The law was never meant to save people through obedience.

 

The mere fact that there are fundamentalist muslims blowing up non-muslims, and moderate muslims not doing it, also plugs into the initial question in this thread. It is not reconcilable. The one's interpretation of the Q'uaran is right, and the other's wrong. Which one is it, though? Don't dodge the topic through semantics now, hallen...:)

You're right. But there is a difference between which is the right interpretation and which is the preferable interpretation. Be careful not to confuse the concepts.

[Spiked Blood]

You're thinking of the Jews. The law preserved the nation of Israel until the Messiah was born. Jesus then fulfilled the law for everyone. The law was never meant to save people through obedience.

 

What? God had to wait for the stars to align before he sent his son to earth? Your argument is bereft of logic.

[Southtown]

What? God had to wait for the stars to align before he sent his son to earth? Your argument is bereft of logic.

More transpired in Jesus' lifetime than his birth. The crucifixion is also important. In order for that to occur, there had to be a very specific environment and very specific players all converging into a very precise pattern of interaction. Think of it like calling the 8-ball on the break.

"

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me;

declaring the end from the beginning

, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it.

" --

Isaiah 46:9-11

Are you familiar with the Passover at all?

[Spiked Blood]

More transpired in Jesus' lifetime than his birth. The crucifixion is also important. In order for that to occur, there had to be a very specific environment and very specific players all converging into a very precise pattern of interaction. Think of it like calling the 8-ball on the break.

"

Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me;

declaring the end from the beginning

, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it.

" --

Isaiah 46:9-11

Are you familiar with the Passover at all?

 

So basically what you are saying is that God manipulated, interfered with events on Earth to get humanity to a point where we would kill his son? To pay for our sins... Seems to me the biggest sinner is your god. Also your argument just doesn't make sense.

 

This also contradicts what I was raised to believe about God proving to Satan that man couldn't rule himself. Clearly with greater beings manipulating events, we're screwed.

 

All this time I thought it was Satan I had to look over my shoulder for!:eek:

[Boerseun]

The way the crucifiction happened, and under what circumstances, is immaterial. What I want to know, however, is what makes you so sure that Jesus' sacrifice is your salvation, and not some swami who committed suicide in the Himalayas in 879BC? Maybe, in a fit of empathy, this swami stabbed himself to death to take all the world's sins on his shoulders. Maybe he did, and this Jesus fella is simply an imposter. Who's to say? The evidence for both is at least equally strong, seeing as most of the myth around the crucifiction as well as the deification of Jesus was achieved at the Nicean council, quite some years after the fact. This casts more doubt over the whole affair.

[catholiboy]

The evidence for both is at least equally strong, seeing as most of the myth around the crucifiction as well as the deification of Jesus was achieved at the Nicean council, quite some years after the fact. This casts more doubt over the whole affair.

 

You are quite deluded, and have clearly been reading too much Dan Brown.

The Nicean council took place in 325AD or thereabouts. The Gospel of John, which clearly discusses the divinity of Jesus was written in 125 AD or thereabouts. This Gospel, along with the Synoptics, was already well in circulation around the Christian world 100 years before the Nicean Council.

[Boerseun]

You are quite deluded, and have clearly been reading too much Dan Brown.

The Nicean council took place in 325AD or thereabouts. The Gospel of John, which clearly discusses the divinity of Jesus was written in 125 AD or thereabouts. This Gospel, along with the Synoptics, was already well in circulation around the Christian world 100 years before the Nicean Council.

Deluded? Not quite. But using your info, the Gospel of John was also written 125AD, or approx 95 years after the fact. How trustworthy was his sources? Did he have eyewitness accounts? Is this to be taken as fact? If Dan Brown is the extent and limit of your knowledge of the Nicean Council, then you should read up some. But regardless of that - if I tell you that a swami in the Himalayas preceded Jesus dying for your sins by more than 600 years, based on an old document I have in my possession, would it make it more or less true? Where does this leave Jesus, then?

Smoke and mirrors, my friend - smoke and mirrors.

[ughaibu]

About the shipwreck: clouds are the best indication of land, the boat that heads for (non-storm) clouds will have the best chance.

[Southtown]

So basically what you are saying is that God manipulated, interfered with events on Earth to get humanity to a point where we would kill his son? To pay for our sins... Seems to me the biggest sinner is your god.

Which is irrelevant if there is no more condemnation for sin because of it.

 

God promised a path to heaven in the Mosaic Law. The irony is that Mosaic Law also foretold of the one who would fulfill it. Jesus fulfilled Mosaic Law but then surprized everyone by taking the punishment of sinners (death). The miracle is that God's promise does not fall flat, because his law ends up saving even those who don't follow it.

 

Also your argument just doesn't make sense.

Please elaborate.

 

This also contradicts what I was raised to believe about God proving to Satan that man couldn't rule himself. Clearly with greater beings manipulating events, we're screwed.

How so?

[Dyothelite]

You are quite deluded, and have clearly been reading too much Dan Brown.

The Nicean council took place in 325AD or thereabouts. The Gospel of John, which clearly discusses the divinity of Jesus was written in 125 AD or thereabouts. This Gospel, along with the Synoptics, was already well in circulation around the Christian world 100 years before the Nicean Council.

 

Don't mean to be critical here but even though you are partially right...... Boersun is also partially right. The Nicean Council was convened because there was diffenent theological viewpoints of Jesus divinty all over the empire. In fact it was priamarliy convened to address Aruius and Arianism which said Jesus was just a regular human. The very Trinity and deification was solidified in Nicea to address Arius and other opposing viewpoints.

 

Furthermoere, even in the Book of John which has clear authorship distinctions fro the other gospels doesn't fully clarify the theology of christianity.

 

The Trintiy is only mentioned directly in the end of Matthew and most sholars believe that was added because of its difference from writing style.

[Dyothelite]

So basically what you are saying is that God manipulated, interfered with events on Earth to get humanity to a point where we would kill his son? To pay for our sins... Seems to me the biggest sinner is your god. Also your argument just doesn't make sense.

 

This also contradicts what I was raised to believe about God proving to Satan that man couldn't rule himself. Clearly with greater beings manipulating events, we're screwed.

 

All this time I thought it was Satan I had to look over my shoulder for!:friday:

 

You're point is very valid, however it is no longer an acceptable theology, especially in Judaism.

 

The Jews always believed that God willed all things to happen. So in turn when they were enslaved or dominated by the Egyptians, Babylonians, the Greeks and Romans their theological answer was that God was upset at them for not fulfilling the Covenant (or pact to follow God's law). After all they were "God's people".

 

Well if you follow that logic you have to tell a Jew today that they deserved the Holocaust for the same reasons. Jews today no longer see evil as part of Gods will, it is created by humans. So therefore even the fulfillment of Jesus horrific death has to be seen as caused by the evil men around him. It may have divine repercussions and in turn his death paved the way to salvation, but if you believe God puts people on crosses on purpose youd have to suggest that God caused the holocaust for a reason.

 

The thinking that all things happen because its God plan is theologically flawed and is not even accepted by the Jews today whose ancestors created that thinking.

 

In fact it was in 681 CE when the church offiically coined the greek term "dyothelite" (dyo- 2, thelema- will) to define the relationship of human will and divine will.

[catholiboy]

I'm fully well aware of this fact. I was simply making the point, however, that the concept of the divinity of Jesus was well underway 200 years before the Nicean council.

Have you heard of the Q Document?

[catholiboy]

If Dan Brown is the extent and limit of your knowledge of the Nicean Council, then you should read up some.

 

Not exactly. But the insinuation and theory of the Nicean council has been massively elevated by the importance it has for undermining Jesus' divinity in the Da Vinci Code.

 

But regardless of that - if I tell you that a swami in the Himalayas preceded Jesus dying for your sins by more than 600 years, based on an old document I have in my possession, would it make it more or less true? Where does this leave Jesus, then?

Smoke and mirrors, my friend - smoke and mirrors.

 

The question of course being, whether you do have the said document. Otherwise, you can't really say anything.

Moreover, what the hell would the point be in dying in complete anonymity? Sure, we'd feel a lot better in heaven afterwards, but without some kind of message, there would be a completely different (potentially worse) society. Imagine an Evangelical Hell House, all over the world.

 

The ultimate difference being that in the quantity and diversity of all of Gospels alone, we can discern that Jesus was a pretty important and probably existing guy. Whereas your document as a unique could have been faked or made up by anyone.

People aren't going to give up their lives to convince other people that a man was the son of God, when really he wasn't.

[Southtown]

But regardless of that - if I tell you that a swami in the Himalayas preceded Jesus dying for your sins by more than 600 years, based on an old document I have in my possession, would it make it more or less true? Where does this leave Jesus, then?

Smoke and mirrors, my friend - smoke and mirrors.

The difference is that Mr. Swami does not have a culture who has been expecting a messiah verifiably for more than a millenia.

 

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm