navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Religion vs Reason
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic Religion vs Reason Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
The Shadow in Blue
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493
EL, Michigan

0 posted 2006-07-29 03:40 PM


I know there are other threads that are currently debated religion and it's authenticity,but to me I am a little confused. I think I am alone on the issue that religion and the existence of a supreme being/God/Goddess is on the false side. I don't know but it just seems to me that religion has caused more wars and strife then helped.

First, I don't really see much evidence, at least from what I know that materials like the bible have any backing. I mean Jesus did exist, but he was just one of many "prophets" in the Roman era. And because of that I find that all the "miracles" and parobles he did  were just propaganda for the followers of Christianity, etc.

Plus peoples blind following of their religious beliefs all through history have led to many bloody wars and strife. Just look at The Inquisition, The Nazi's, North Ireland (Catholic vs. Protestant), The Gaza Strip (Palestinians vs. Iraelies), etc. I mean seriously the majority of wars have caused by differences in people's belief of God.

Sure religion has helped some people by giving them something to belief in when they had nothing, but it is hard to belief when the Church and it's leader have sat idely by when rights are taken for granted. Just look at the government today. In the laws of the USA there is seperation of state and religion ,but that is turning out to be a sham. Look at Bush's adminstration for example. He has used the Christian Coalition and sited the bible for what he thinks is right. But in the grand scheme of it all the bible  is as outdated of a text as possible.

Let's just say I'm little confused on if religion is even that great now a days. All you really need, in my opinion is to treat people with respect and equality and use intellect where blind faith has been. Logically then there wouldn't be problems with the Islam faith and other slightly biased main stream religions.

I'm just wondering what other people's opinion on religion and if it is necessarily where the best interest is for the world's nations.

~J.

I'm taking my own chances to find truth between the lies.
Its kinda like just what it is.
http://www.myspace.com/theshedevil05

© Copyright 2006 Jill Slamka - All Rights Reserved
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
1 posted 2006-07-29 06:17 PM


I think trying to blame religion is like trying to blame an apple for a bruise on the apple.  However the more you blame it the more it is likely to become more bruised, because you are not blaming what is really causing the harm: disrespect and bad manners that hurt and insult people and things that are very close to a person's heart, such as a religious belief.

Why will you blame the apple instead of the violence that bruises it?


iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
2 posted 2006-07-29 06:54 PM


Organized religion serves a very good purpose, especially for the young.  It provides the roots to expand.  However, I believe the problems that exist in religions today is that teaching/learning peaks at a certain point, and in many cases is kept there because of the structures and perimeters of doctrines set down by each organization, but 1 Corinthians 13 advises differently, at least the way I interpret it.  To me, it says, when we grow up (and become "adults") in our faith, we need to continue to explore and trust like a curious child would....that stopping our learning when we think we know the answers turns us into only poor reflections of what we could be.  

1 Corinthians 13

"1) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2) If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3) If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. 4) Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5) It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6) Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7) It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8) Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; [b]where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9) For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10) but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11) When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12) Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. 13) And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."


The Shadow in Blue
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493
EL, Michigan
3 posted 2006-07-29 06:54 PM


That's a good point Essorant. I guess I unintentionally used my biased ignorance as an excuse. All I can say is that some people in history used religion as an excuse for their plots. That is probably where I got this logic from.


iliana- That is one part/book of the bible that I agree with. But one thing I don't get in the bible is the hatred and cold shoulder towards true love, even though it comes in different forms with different people. And that is contradictory to Corinthians. I sort of turned my back to religion a little bit when the election happened in 2004 with the opposition to gay marriage. I guess I'm more about equality and the bible in some verse is contradictory towards that.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
4 posted 2006-07-29 07:16 PM


Shadow -- religions are not perfect....no argument -- they have politics like everything else in the world, unfortunately.  But....the words of the Christ are perfect and they are layered in meaning which unfolds even deeper in its meanings the older we grow...if you love the Christ, then I would focus on his teachings and not dwell on the rest of the Bible.  My own personal opinion is that the complilation of the Bible was manipulated for political reasons during the first and second Councils....writings which did not fit the agenda of the organized Church at that time were tossed. Even King James had the Bible edited for his own selfish purposes. But, today, there are so many different churches and some of them are very open and loving, really.  I have encountered a couple in my 55 year journey....but what is more important than the church is that we live our lives with faith, hope and most of all love....if you miss a church and the fellowship, look around until you find one that offers friends that have these qualities.....just advice from old mom, here.   And, I'd add, look for one that does not stiffle your spiritual growth.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
5 posted 2006-07-29 07:23 PM


"I sort of turned my back to religion a little bit when the election happened in 2004 with the opposition to gay marriage. I guess I'm more about equality and the bible in some verse is contradictory towards that."

Did you know that gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere in the bible?


The Shadow in Blue
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493
EL, Michigan
6 posted 2006-07-29 07:30 PM


Most Anti-Homosexual supporters site King Jame's bible where it is said,
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Also in Leviticus 18 and 20 there are verses about openness involving stoning/violence.

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
7 posted 2006-07-29 07:31 PM


It is certainly true that many conflicts, wars and other attrocities have been perpetrated over the centuries in the name of religion. There is a vast difference though in personal religion (faith in a supreme being) and formal organized Religions. The latter are interpretations, not necessarily factual or sometimes even reasonable.

The Shadow in Blue
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493
EL, Michigan
8 posted 2006-07-29 07:33 PM


I actually sorta belief in faith,but not necessarily God. I guess sort of like the whole Buddist outlook on religion.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
9 posted 2006-07-29 07:35 PM


Shadow, here's a link that is interesting:    http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/king-henry.html

Also, Queen Elizabeth (the first one) also ordered a translation.  Every time a translation occurs, I believe that leaves plenty of subjective wiggle room.  

That you are searching is a good thing.  Seek, and ye shall find.  *smile*

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
10 posted 2006-07-29 07:43 PM


That's good, Shadow.....I kinda think Jesus was very Budhist in his teaching except he refered to God as Father and in Budhism, there is no father.  I think that Christianity, in particular, trys to put God in man's terms, when in fact, there is no way we could ever comprehend what God truly is.  We can only understand what God is as we are able to perceive.  For that reason, I like to think of God as the Creator of All (and in that sense, God is a father/mother). *smile*

[This message has been edited by iliana (07-29-2006 11:39 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
11 posted 2006-07-29 08:53 PM


It basically comes down to the old principle:  

Don't believe everything you read!!!

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

12 posted 2006-07-29 09:47 PM



Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
13 posted 2006-07-30 12:37 PM


There's a saying in Korean, "The soldiers win the fight, the generals win the credit"

The general in religion does not speak except through an infinitely interpretable text.

When one does something in the name of God or following the word of God, perhaps the question might be, "And if it weren't the word of God, would it still be the right thing to do?"

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
14 posted 2006-07-30 12:50 PM


What's the difference between blindly following a human-general's words or blindly following what is deemed to be God's words?  Both are "blindly" following something that could be wrong. I think that is the fault.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
15 posted 2006-07-30 03:29 AM


Essorant....the only thing that should be blind...is love?
XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
16 posted 2006-07-30 05:26 AM


I am very drawn to the doctrine that the one who is blind, deaf, and illiterate clings to.    The relationship that arises between "you" and the "Source"...without having ever heard or seen the concepts that drive the rest of the world.     I enjoy the teachings of every religion, but I always end up back in the "lap of Mind".     :: shrugs ::

[This message has been edited by XOx Uriah xOX (07-30-2006 06:04 AM).]

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
17 posted 2006-07-30 05:14 PM


I would like to pose this question to you. A few of you seem to put great stock in jesus. Consider this however. Jesus came to earth knowing god was real and that he was god's son. So he was not a man was he? He knew with absolute convivtion that he was gods son and that god was there for him. He did not come to earth as a man, but rather as THE SON OF GOD. There is a very large difference between the two... If he came to earth as a true man, and had to suffer as he did, Do you still think he could have preached the same way he did? Suffered as he did for us? Found the light? I do not.

My advice, through personal experience. Although the church of christ offers many great ideas, it has its flaws as do any other religion. Rather live as someone guided by their own personal beliefs and try to improve upon yourself as a human being. Do not believe in some deity that will forgive you all your wrong doings if you repent but rather make peace with the fact that you are flawed, imperfect sinfull. And live despite that. Accept the fact that you will make mistakes and simply deal with the consequences.

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
18 posted 2006-07-31 09:38 AM


The Shadow in Blue:
quote:
I don't really see much evidence, at least from what I know that materials like the bible have any backing. I mean Jesus did exist, but he was just one of many "prophets" in the Roman era. And because of that I find that all the "miracles" and parobles he did  were just propaganda for the followers of Christianity, etc.


I'd recommend that you do some more searching.  There's no solid reason to suspect that the Gospels do not reflect the purist narrative of what really happened, concerning Jesus.  Alternate histories don't have the same textual support as the Bible (which is very good- with manuscripts exceeding that of all ancient literature), since Gnostic writings are dated later, with pseudonymnous claims of authorship.  


There are many other things to consider apart from manuscripts, along the lines of historiography.  If the followers of Jesus, knew that his miracles, and in particular, his ressurrection were fictitious, then one can hardly find a good reason why they might abandon the entire framework of their cultural / religious life, for a lie.  In its cradle, Christianity was a sure way to be excommunicated from Judaism, and ostracized from the Jewish community.  Second generation zealots, who are deceived, may go to such extremes and even suffer martyrdom for a lie genuinely believed.  But you really won't find that kind of devotion among the primary group, who knows whether or not the claims are true.


Many, many other things to consider.  I would recommend you look into the likes of Gary Habermas, or N.T. Wright, if you're interested in whether or not Christianity has firm historical roots, rather than propaganda.  I, like you, have no desire to believe a man-based religion, and especially one with historically flimsy claims.  But I have examined to the best of my ability the historical aspects of the Christian faith, and have found it very convincing.


quote:
Plus peoples blind following of their religious beliefs all through history have led to many bloody wars and strife. Just look at The Inquisition, The Nazi's, North Ireland (Catholic vs. Protestant), The Gaza Strip (Palestinians vs. Iraelies), etc. I mean seriously the majority of wars have caused by differences in people's belief of God.



This shouldn't be surprising, since religion is one of the most passionate convictions in the human heart.  Things of the highest value or meaning, are the things that incite zeal and therefore the desire to "fight for" what is right.  


If this is true of religion, it is also true of ideology in general.  The 20th century proved to be a devastating century of killing based upon materialist ideology as well.  In that sense, atheism has been as bloody as religion, proving that religion cannot be the scapegoat for our blame about war.


Seeing that the blame for war is a bit wider than religion, I would emphasize the question of whether particular religious claims are tenable, truthful, or enlightening.  You shouldn't judge a system or a teaching, based upon its bad examples.  Especially when such examples explicitly contradict the teachings of the founder.  All the things you mentioned are contrary to the teachings of Jesus.  
  

quote:
But one thing I don't get in the bible is the hatred and cold shoulder towards true love, even though it comes in different forms with different people. And that is contradictory to Corinthians. I sort of turned my back to religion a little bit when the election happened in 2004 with the opposition to gay marriage. I guess I'm more about equality and the bible in some verse is contradictory towards that.



The answer from a Christian standpoint, is really a question.  What exactly is the "true love" which you feel the Bible denies?  


If you're referring soley to homosexuality, I don't see how that can be equated with "true love".  Not even heterosexuality can be equated with "true love", since the sexuality of a relationship can be quite separate from love.  


With that in mind, it's not the "true love" which may be involved in a homosexual relationship that is condemned.  Nowhere does the Bible forbid concern, camaradarie, friendship, tender feelings, etc ...  What the Bible does identify as sinful is the homosexual aspect of such relationships, which may or may not be accompanied by "love".  


I understand that such a thing would be pragmatically difficult to sort out, but when assessing the Biblical teaching about such, this distincition has to be made.  There is no kind of genuine "love" that the Bible condemns.  Yet homosexuality, per se, is sinful.  


quote:
All you really need, in my opinion is to treat people with respect and equality and use intellect where blind faith has been.



Blind faith is harmful.  But I think that the Biblical version of "faith" is not of that description.  Nor does reason have to pitted against the Christian faith.  In fact some feel that apart from the world-view of Christian Theism, that reason itself becomes doubtful.  I am one of those who feel this way.  


I've got lots of material which examines the faith, in light of reason, and vice versa.  If you're interested e-mail me.  I really believe that the Christian-Worldview is very fufilling intellectually, and can be appreciated without mindless devotion.  Devotion is necessary, but the mind need not be left out.  


quote:
Most Anti-Homosexual supporters cite King Jame's bible ...
  


Just for clarification, the King James Version is only a 1611 translation of ancient manuscripts.  There are many versions of the Bible, including many fine contemporary English ones, which are translated from the same manuscripts.  And all accurate translations pretty much relate the same textual / doctrinal content.


Iliana:
quote:
I kinda think Jesus was very Buddhist in his teaching



In what ways was Jesus or his teachings "Buddhist"?  


quote:
I think that Christianity, in particular, trys to put God in man's terms, when in fact, there is no way we could ever comprehend what God truly is.  We can only understand what God is as we are able to perceive.



I think you're concern is valid.  But don't make the mistake of confusing accurate knowledge with comprehensive knowledge.  It's really a matter of faith in God himself, whether or not he could get to us a reliable revelation of himself that is accurate and true.  That doesn't mean that we could ever know it all ... but it does mean we can know something real about God through his chosen revelation to us.  


Christianity is the story where God place "His things" in man's terms, even in humanity itself through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.  Don't be fooled by the humanity, or think that such a treasure can not be held in "earthen vessels".  If we don't understand that, we may mistake the true revelation of God, as a construct of men alone ... when in reality, sanctified humanity need not be a barrier to God's communication.


We may be too proud for such a revelation as "human" as that.  But God wasn't too proud  to give it, and become it.  That's the whole point.


quote:
The general in religion does not speak except through an infinitely interpretable text.


I would say, Brad, that it's nowhere near "infinitely" interpretable, though its applications, poetry, and scope are anything but tame and simple. I would rather say that it's closer to being infintely changeable and contortable.  But staying true to the text, and especially the "Holy Spirit" of the text, allows freedom without autonomy.  There is form with freedom, but not freedom from form.

quote:
When one does something in the name of God or following the word of God, perhaps the question might be, "And if it weren't the word of God, would it still be the right thing to do?"


A transcending question would be "If there is no word of God, where does one get the idea of a 'right thing'?


quote:
I would like to pose this question to you. A few of you seem to put great stock in jesus. Consider this however. Jesus came to earth knowing god was real and that he was god's son. So he was not a man was he? He knew with absolute convivtion that he was gods son and that god was there for him. He did not come to earth as a man, but rather as THE SON OF GOD. There is a very large difference between the two... If he came to earth as a true man, and had to suffer as he did, Do you still think he could have preached the same way he did? Suffered as he did for us? Found the light? I do not.



The Christian doctrine is that Jesus was God AND man.  He was all God, and all man, as it were.  His humanity is just as real as his divinity.  Limitations are not the same as sinfulness, and he was a man in every respect except for moral sin.  


Thinking that Jesus was an "inhuman" divine being with only the appearance of humanity is a heresy known as Docetism.  The biggest problem with it, is it makes the historical life of Jesus non-sensical.  How could he pray "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" if he were not human?  There's just too much data we have that indicates, in spite of his divine nature, he was nothing less than human.  


quote:
Do not believe in some deity that will forgive you all your wrong doings if you repent but rather make peace with the fact that you are flawed, imperfect sinfull. And live despite that. Accept the fact that you will make mistakes and simply deal with the consequences.



That leads to one of two tendencies:  1) Fatalism-  We're sinners, and forgiveness and grace is therefore unthinkable and unrealistic.  or 2) Euphemism-  We're not really sinners, we're just making a few mistakes, and everything will be okay.


When God deals with a person about sin, it comes in two forms ... An inability to minimize it, because of a revelation of ourselves ... and inability to despair over it, because of a revelation of the love of God.  


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
19 posted 2006-07-31 12:20 PM


I once wrote a little poem about the false dichotomy between faith and human reason.



If reason and faith lie worlds apart
Both in the human mind and heart
If rational thought be Heaven’s treason
Then Soren thought “To hell with reason”
And I must admit, I do admire
Such devotion as reckless as a fire
Willing to cast the Earth away
And For Christ embrace absurdity
But why charge God with ill design
Or a confusion that is only mine?
Why claim his work and words are broken
When mortal ears betray what’s spoken?
No, faith and reason are not averse
But rather in this present curse
Are like two lovers who have their fray
and yet will see their wedding day.




Stephen.

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
20 posted 2006-07-31 02:47 PM


quote:
The Christian doctrine is that Jesus was God AND man.  He was all God, and all man, as it were.  His humanity is just as real as his divinity
Then by your own words he had divinity. Which is exactly my point, DIVINITY the thing humans dont have. He is man and GOD making him inhuman. While he had all the human experiences and emotions, he is still GODLY in that he knew with absolute conviction heaven was real. He never had true despair and hoplesness.

quote:
How could he pray "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" if he were not human?
Yes he did pray that. But he still knew that gods was real. He did not question if god was real only if god was with him. While in some aspects he was human in others he was inhuman. He never fell in love with a woman now did he? (Conspiracy theories aside) He never questioned the existance of God? Never wondered if everything he believed was but a joke, something society had forced upon him.

quote:
1) Fatalism-  We're sinners, and forgiveness and grace is therefore unthinkable and unrealistic
I dont say that is what being fatalistic means. This would be my meaning: I am human, i make mistakes, Im not perfect. The things i do will lead to consequences, either good or bad and they must be dealt with. I am more than willing to die. If i was to die today i could do so happily knowing i lived my life the way i wanted to and am at complete peace with myself. What is wrong with that. I can die with no hesitation, nothing holding me back. No i dont say in the end everything will be ok, but can i live with that, yes. If I go to hell i go to hell. If not then i dont. Accept life as it is, Yes there is a God. But remember you must choose to follow him because you want to, you want to spend your life working for him. Just following him because you want to be a better person is not the only way. You can strive to better yourself without god.

quote:
and inability to despair over it, because of a revelation of the love of God.
And what if you have that without God?  

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
21 posted 2006-07-31 07:57 PM


Digital H:
quote:
Which is exactly my point, DIVINITY the thing humans dont have. He is man and GOD making him inhuman. While he had all the human experiences and emotions, he is still GODLY in that he knew with absolute conviction heaven was real. He never had true despair and hoplesness.



Well, if Jesus was divine, then at least one human had divinity.  For whatever philosophical reason, you may think this union impossible, there is still the data to deal with.  Jesus said and did many things which indicates that he was very much human.


He did doubt.  And at least he was tempted to despair.  I don't think he had the same view on Earth of The Father, that he had in Heaven.  Earth was a "veil of clouds" to him as well, especially since he was taking upon himself the weight and burden of the sins of the entire human race.  Hopeless?  Pretty much, yet not completely.  


And really it's the same with us.  We may have pain and uncertainty, but through God and Christ, we may stop well short of despair and hopelessness.


quote:
in some aspects he was human in others he was inhuman. He never fell in love with a woman now did he? (Conspiracy theories aside) He never questioned the existance of God? Never wondered if everything he believed was but a joke, something society had forced upon him.




I don't think you can say that he never encountered such temptations.  As I recall, Satan tempted him with the "IF you are the son of God ..." questions.  I'll bet during the wilderness times, that "IF" reverberated in his mind, though he did have the victory.  There is a verse in Hebrews which tells us that in all points he was tempted like we are, yet without sin.


quote:
And what if you have that without God?



I don't think any man can ward off final and irreversible despair without God.


Tell me, is that last little quote about hell on your page spoken by someone with or without God?


Stephen.  

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
22 posted 2006-08-01 03:31 AM


"Beware all you who seek first and final principles, for you tramp down the garden of an angry god." The topic of Christianity has been debated and destroyed many atime. Why then do we still seek to implicate ourselves within it?

Kitherion

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
23 posted 2006-08-01 03:33 AM


quote:
Well, if Jesus was divine, then at least one human had divinity
I would rather say that One god had humanity and not a human divinity.
Yes i agree with you he did many things which demonstrate his humnanity. But he also did many things that a human would not. That he could only do as the SON OF GOD and not as a man.

quote:
He did doubt.  And at least he was tempted to despair
NO he did not, Please show me where in the bible he says GOD DOES NOT EXIST? He felt that god may have forsaken him, left him too his fate. But he did not question if GOD EXISTS. He doubted his purpose, his strength, purpose.

quote:
himself the weight and burden of the sins of the entire human race.  Hopeless?  Pretty much, yet not completely.
I would rather say its sad, yet very noble. He was willuing to sacrifice himself for us. Hopeless in your eyes?  

quote:
And really it's the same with us.  We may have pain and uncertainty, but through God and Christ, we may stop well short of despair and hopelessness.

God and christ are not the only way.

Yes he was tempted, but did he ever have to go through the heartache and despair of falling in love and losing that? Did he ever question if God was real? no.

quote:
I don't think any man can ward off final and irreversible despair without God.

I disagree. I no longer have god, and the people who share the darkness with me keep me from despair. Hows that for a final solution?

quote:
Tell me, is that last little quote about hell on your page spoken by someone with or without God?
Wihtout, since the line obviously intends for the man to walk into hell. And do so happily. And its not a quote. The lines "abandon hope all ye that enter here" is the real inscription on hells gate. and we all know About the road paved with good intentions... I just added my own emblemishment to it. So that they match my character. And its something i intend to do one day...



hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
24 posted 2006-08-01 03:39 AM


I maintain nonetheless that Ying-Yang dualisimn can be overcome. Soon we will be able to have mind without body, morals without thought... but untill then we should continue towards the path towards enlightenment.

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
25 posted 2006-08-01 07:22 AM


Kitherion:
quote:
I maintain nonetheless that Ying-Yang dualisimn can be overcome. Soon we will be able to have mind without body, morals without thought... but untill then we should continue towards the path towards enlightenment.


No offense, but could you explain how that relates to this thread?


Stephen.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

26 posted 2006-08-01 11:05 AM


quote:
I'm just wondering what other people's opinion on religion and if it is necessarily where the best interest is for the world's nations.


I believe, if it wouldn’t be for religions, this world might be a better place.  

Yes, religions (including atheisum) provides our desires with a lot of comfort, and hope, as people do need comfort and hope in their lives, not to mention, something to believe in…and some need a set of regimented rules like the rules of religion, but there is so much more…

I don’t believe God intended WARs and the loss of life to be, otherwise, he would not have created us on an intellectual level…and religion is the one single reason why, more then any other reason in history, why wars are fought, which brings me to another theory….I’ve oft contemplated that religions may in fact, be the demons of the world?  They certainly do divide and stagnate freedom of thoughts and beliefs, not to mention, fear any progression, even to the point of deciding which is life and taking it one step further, which life is more important?

I think religion has greatly contributed to obstinance and bigotry which obscures reality.

People have been exploited, enslaved or burned as witches in the name of religions…and Christianity as all other religions began to explain a mystery or a supernatural happening that frankly, to me, becomes doctrines, and are more destructive then constructive.

I think God allowed us to evolve to an intelligence to develop it, to use it and to live our lives not based on superstitions (religion) and will not, in my way of thinking grant a pass to anyone in the afterlife.

Spirituality is more of a deeper form of faith, along with Intelligent Design and Science, and just for the intriguing factor of it all, adds to this forms of spirituality (supernatural) or mystery.  And to me, God is a supernatural designer that is endless and free of boundary and defies natural laws, however…all this probably contradicts reality?  

Yet, in all of this, without Religions, there can be no absolute standard of wrong or right…which would result in chaos…(with no internal moral compass) for which man lives by.

So, religion as Ilania put it, does both good and bad… Just my two cents, anyway, I could be wrong?




jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
27 posted 2006-08-01 12:26 PM


Shadow:

quote:
I'm just wondering what other people's opinion on religion and if it is necessarily where the best interest is for the world's nations.


I don't know about whether it is in the best interest of the world's nations in general, but I do know of one community in Kenya that has received direct benefit from the generosity of Christians in my congregation.  A community that previously had to hike five miles to dig into dry river beds to get to dirty water now have a number of deep wells, and will have cattle and beasts of burden to assist them with farming.  Where secular government units have failed to rise to the occasion of providing needy people with the necessities of life, the church has stepped up and delivered.

I don't think we should believe for one minute that international conflict is routinely about religion.  More often, I think, it is about land and hegemony.  Can religion serve as the vehicle for tyranny?  Sure.  But so can racism (e.g., Arianism) and militant nationalism (e.g., post-colonial Africa).

Just my opinion.

Jim

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
28 posted 2006-08-01 12:29 PM


"God has no religion" --- Mahatma Ghandi
Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
29 posted 2006-08-01 04:32 PM


quote:
I believe, if it wouldn’t be for religions, this world might be a better place.
I agree fully with this.

The narrow close mindedness of religion has only lead to problems. Even christianity, one of the most accepting and open beliefs still holds that one fatal flaw. The belief that it is the only way to god. That ideology is what leads to problems as it shows that no matter what is said, it is irrelevant as it is ultimately incorrect.

Once you decide something is absolutely right and unnegotiable, you close your mind on it and reject any further ideas on it. You close your mind to the possibility that there may be something that is better.

quote:
without Religions, there can be no absolute standard of wrong or right
Can man not by himself develop a set of morals and standards without the need of some higher being of unfathomable power?

Are you saying that by himself man can therefore not strive to better himself and attain a kind of goodness that has come from within?

Good and bad yes, It gives hope,strength and respite too the weary soul. And yet it single handedly is the greatest divide between people. And responsible for far more damage than anything else in the world. Perhaps as you said religion is the true face of the devil. Dividing the churches over simple doctrinal differences, ideas and small customs. Turning loving men against another.

I think these words from a song express it so beautifully

quote:
Christian sons with hearts of anger
Bring the book, the cross, the chancre
Hallelujah, hallelujah, kiss the cross or they will burn you
Hallelujah, hallelujah, they have come to rape and murder


and

quote:
Across a sea of tears and blood
Across a scape of murdered babies
They will cleanse and purify
For their Christ and for their Lady
They will take the joy of love and
name it as a badge of shame
They will steal and they will plunder
They will tell you you're to blame


and lastly
quote:
On the wheel and on the gibbet
Broken bodies, broken dreams
In the churches, the sheep, the traitors
Now they are both pure and clean


those words i think are most definately A very true expression of religion.

the song is called "Wake Of The Christian Knights" by INKUBUS SUKKUBUS.

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
30 posted 2006-08-01 11:10 PM


quote:
A transcending question would be "If there is no word of God, where does one get the idea of a 'right thing'?


That's not a transcendent question, it's a different question.

If you're doing something you think is right, do you really need God to back you up?

Do you really walk around saying, I don't know, I love my children because God tells me to?


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2006-08-01 11:30 PM


quote:

I believe, if it wouldn’t be for religions, this world might be a better place.



I understand the premises and conditions that might lead one to this conclusion, but, anthropologically speaking we wouldn't have 'this world' without religion and we certainly wouldn't be the humans that we are.  

Religion provided a common understanding of the universe, a common code of conduct, a code of remedy, and provided coherence for the development of tribes and nations in cooperation.  The insertion of superstition and mythology is as natural and as reasonable as assuming that expecting when we plug our computers into the power outlet and the ethernet/cable modem/ dialup -- that we're going to be able to turn it on and hop onto the internet.

It is our chief survival mechanism to understand and interpret the world around us -- we don't have saber teeth -- we don't have long necks to graze in trees-- we have brains.  So, we attempt to understand and therefore reason and predict the approach of predators, the change of seasons, the causes of illness -- anything that might threaten us individually or as a species.  

In order to work together common paradigms of what the universe was and how things worked was a necessity.  

There is an old saying though that goes like this -- if a nation has two religions it will always be at war with itself -- if a nation has one religion it will always be at war with it's neighbors -- if a nation has 20 religions it will live in peace.

The reason is simply that when a nation has 20 religions the common paradigm has become tolerance and acceptance -- one might even say that reverence for a Constitution might supplant the core codex that would constitute a religion in previous societies.

We see religion and science at odds with each other because of the competition for a worldview -- science is happy to leave matters of 'faith' and mythology to religion -- but to some religions 'faith' means that a particular worldview must be dogmatically maintained.

When two religions with differing worldviews collide -- watch out.

But, as Jim very rightly pointed out -- in the absence of religion we'd still fight over money and power.  (which is ultimately a fight over sex/reproduction)

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
32 posted 2006-08-02 03:31 AM


Digital, your constant search for an answer is honestly touching, but really... a world without religion is like saying that we could exist on this planet without a source of oxygen or evn a source of light.

Yes, I do uinderstand that you are confused about the entire religious system, but as it was said you don't neccesarily have to have to believe in a God but still faith is essential for all human existance. Like the old religion (by this I mean wicca) for example, does not require that you celebrate every sabbat, or esbat, but it is based on the amount of faith that you posses that you would celebrate them for example.

I don not mean to be insulting in anyway - note it should be mentioned that if I was you can speak to me... cue dramatic music - but I just find it rather humerous that one so enlightened as you claim to be still exists in this confined soace of debating whether or not a God/Supreme being exists, and whethere they should be worshipped.

Anyway... blessed be.

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
33 posted 2006-08-02 03:34 AM


To reply to you Stephanos:

I qouted that due to the l;arge amountsa of ideas that were floating around the thread at the time. I believe that therer will soon be an age where all your questions will be answered "a mind without body" if you will.

Hope that this clarifies things.

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

34 posted 2006-08-02 08:52 AM


Digital Hell

quote:
Can man not by himself develop a set of morals and standards without the need of some higher being of unfathomable power?


No, I don't think in the beginning Man thought it could be, and my point exactly, as to why I believe the Bible was invented....again...I believe the Bible is a very good book to live our lives by...but I also question it's authenticity through man's desires for power and material wealth...

Man is always somehow diverted from the real issues of peace, good will towards men, consideration for others, before one self...knowing that we are visitors here, leaving this place a bit better then when we found it....the only thing we truly own is our own spirits and the free will of them...which to me, there is no other greater gift that man could have, other then bearing children...but, please always keep in mind, there is good and bad in everything...(except freakin cramps)

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
35 posted 2006-08-02 09:26 AM


quote:
a world without religion is like saying that we could exist on this planet without a source of oxygen or evn a source of light.
So you are saying that man cannot exist without religion? SO then by that definition atheists who deny the existance of a God or supreme being cannot exist by your logic?

quote:
but I just find it rather humerous that one so enlightened as you claim to be still exists in this confined soace of debating whether or not a God/Supreme being exists, and whethere they should be worshipped.
I didnt claim to be enlightned. And if i did i appologise, (please show me here where i said I am enlightned) I dont debate gods existance. I debate whether or not we as humans need him. If existance without him is possible. If we cannot without his supposed guidance and love reach our own understanding of right and wrong.(though these two terms are still relative)

LeeJ

quote:
I believe the Bible is a very good book to live our lives by...but I also question it's authenticity through man's desires for power and material wealth...
I agree with you here. I do feel that the bible is a good book and that it has helped. But as you do, i question it.

quote:
.the only thing we truly own is our own spirits and the free will of them...
I agree with you here. But here i would like to ask a question. If God (i use it in the generic sense of a supreme being. Not only christian) has a plan for all of us, does that not seem akin to fate or destiny? And in doing so removes what free will he gives us?

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

36 posted 2006-08-02 09:40 AM


I think religions are like um...say a stairmaster.

You can acquire one of those things, and say that you have it, but until you use it, it's just another object.

Religion is a process, methinks, that must be made personal by the application of whatever device suits your personal needs and goals.

I personally don't care if ya worship purple dinosaurs and sing the Barney Song.

If it works for you--I am all for it.

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
37 posted 2006-08-02 10:21 AM


I agree with Witchy Poo.
ALL paths are glorious.  
Even the person who "thinks" he chooses No Path...walks one.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

38 posted 2006-08-02 10:31 AM


Digital Hell

quote:
I agree with you here. But here I would like to ask a question. If God (i use it in the generic sense of a supreme being. Not only christian) has a plan for all of us, does that not seem akin to fate or destiny? And in doing so removes what free will he gives us?


No, I don't believe so and here's why.

God gifts us the advantage of life...perhaps with a plan for us in mind...but, I don't believe he really knows what we're going to do with the free will of free choice.  

So so many Christains believe God waves a magic wand and fixes things if we pray? He doesn't, we are in control of our own destiny, we must fix ourselves...and it is by our choices, that we can either grow, or wallow in self sympathy, stagnating our growth...deluding ourselves into believing we should hang onto the past, instead of changing...going forward and doing our souls better.  If we do that, we then, touch so many other lives in a positive way?  Yes...and that, is our destiny...including the people we meet, which is what I believe, anyway?  

Sometimes what we pray for, does materialize, but mostly thru free will, and making things happen.  Which brings us to the Question, does God intervien...I believe in some cases he does...but then there is the illnesses, the storms, the earth quakes...all part of nature's cycles...just like a body in motion...things happen, the bad things to learn from and remind us, how sweet the good times are?  Making the good times, all that more valuable to our essence.

But, if in fact we are as his children, then can any parent predict what they're children will do?

Doesn't say this perception is right, just things I think about....

we must always always keep an open mind, considering other factors, keeping our minds active...cuz God also gifted us with not only an intellect, but curiosity...which to me shows his greatness in gifting us with resources in the shadows of all things.


XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
39 posted 2006-08-02 10:40 AM


and oh...
"Witchy Poo" was meant as a term of endearment.
No offense was intended.
Now...I'm going to listen to Larry Raspberry and the Highsteppers. (finally got my album back)

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
40 posted 2006-08-02 10:45 AM


I would rather believe the earth is flat than always question and criticize what I or someone else believes in.  If you always question what you believe in that may hardly be a very strong belief or comforting at all.


LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

41 posted 2006-08-02 11:29 AM


Ess

quote:
I would rather believe the earth is flat than always question and criticize what I or someone else believes in.  If you always question what you believe in that may hardly be a very strong belief or comforting at all.


You could be write on one hand, but on the other Ess...Curiosity is part of man's nature...according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity
it is man's makeup to do so, any natural inquisitive behaviour, evident by observation and the very essence of who we are, it's a natural instinct...bringing to mind...

quote:
BY Albert Einstein...
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.


which brings to mind, if only humans could realize the potential of change, and not fear progression...both with religion and everyday life...

do you remember being curious as a child? it was like a natural hunger for knowledge...but along the lines, as we grow, society dictates to us what we should believe, how we should do things, live our lives, and we should seek acceptance & approval for our own happiness?  

One cannot help contemplating the mysteries of reality for structure or of eternity, or of spiritual phenomenon, it is actually a necessity to live life, to seek, to observe, to question.  

Without curiosity, we would not have air conditioners, and I'd be sweeting unmercifully today and my cohorts would be walking around with clothpins on their noses...

Seriously...it is the fuel of growth, the light switch of a cycle of learning, and I cringe to think about how farther along we'd be today, if it wouldn't be for society's fears and need to control...fears of being wrong, strangling the blessed inquiry of curiosity.

Our poetential is awesome and unfathomable...not to mention, a gift and wealth from God, in His Image.  Humans fear answers, and the powers that be, surpress it.

Curiosity must live, otherwise, all will soon wilt and die.


Karen, (shaking head enthusiastically while saying)uhhh huh.....I'm with ya gal....



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
42 posted 2006-08-02 12:18 PM


"You could be write on one hand, but on the other Ess...Curiosity is part of man's nature...according to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity  
it is man's makeup to do so, any natural inquisitive behaviour, evident by observation and the very essence of who we are, it's a natural instinct...bringing to mind..."

I'm not denying that, LeeJ.  
But I think saying or approaching religion as if it should be questioned all the time is like saying that I should question the arrangement of the furniture in my house endlessly, even though it is arranged in such a way that gives me and my family what comfort we like best.  Indeed, some of our furniture is not what others may like, some of it is old and not very modern, some of it is passed down from ancestors and held on rather obstinatly: but we are sentimently and physically comfortable.   Once in a while a change is no harm.  But questioning and rearranging the furniture everyday would hardly be a "home" to me.  I would rather live in a broken down old shack with cheap comfort, than in some household that expected the furniture to be questioned and rearranged all the time for always trying to seek something better.



jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
43 posted 2006-08-02 12:40 PM


A question for the group:

Can you accept that religious belief and reasonableness can coexist in the same person?

If so, then perhaps the antithetical "religion vs. reason" is flawed to begin with.  If not, then why?

Jim

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

44 posted 2006-08-02 01:17 PM


Hey Ess

quote:
But I think saying or approaching religion as if it should be questioned all the time is like saying that I should question the arrangement of the furniture in my house endlessly, even though it is arranged in such a way that gives me and my family what comfort we like best.


oh my yes, if that's your comfort zone and where you want to be, then by all means, what ever works for you...yanno, but in the same, please try and understand, it doesn't work for other folks...like me...

I want to know more, and absorb all I can and come to my own spiritual levels and conclusions...not just because my mom tells me, The Bible is the absolute truth, or because some minister, who is a man, or some priest, who is a man, says its the almight truth...its just not in my mind...enough, theres more out there, I just know it deep inside...

On the other hand, if I may be so bold to say so, is...try and understand, there is no personal attack against your character or your beliefs from me.  No insults or any form of mockery or judgements due to your beliefs...

Its just that my needs are, to not only dig deeper but to vocalize those ideas, you see, even though we've shared some differences of opinions, the big picture is, we shared, and I for one learn that way, without starting a big war...

allowance and tolerance...which is so needed in our world today...I think Ess that is what we all mean to try, but somehow we get caught up in taking someone else's ideas as a personal attack, or as if they are saying we're wrong, and that is so difficult for man's ego to accept.  And walla, people get offended, come back with insults, then before you know it, the other one must retaliate, a war starts?  And By God, it's so silly, so childish, and so wrong.

Thanks so much for your input...and understanding



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
45 posted 2006-08-02 02:02 PM


"I want to know more, and absorb all I can and come to my own spiritual levels and conclusions"


I don't mean to make ado but how may you come to any conclusion or contentness if you are always seeking to know more and absorb more, rather than cultivate what you already have and make the most thereof?  

More knowledge doesn't make you for sure a better farmer in Wisdom's fields.  In fact if someone already struggles with the acres he undertakes, to bring forth the fruits, or even if he doesn't struggle much and has graceful success, I think adding more and more acres all the time just threatens the ability and grace to take care of what acres he already undertakes, because now he can't attend as specially at a smaller expanse but must attend more superficially at a wider one.  

I think few humans do better with more of basically any knowledge, than they do with a sustained and successful cultivation of what is most important and closest to the heart.  


LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

46 posted 2006-08-02 02:02 PM


Hey Reb

I apologize, didn’t mean to appear to ignore you...as you’ve bought some very interesting concepts to the table which I’d like to add to, and it took some time...and in case I forget, thank you…

quote:
I understand the premises and conditions that might lead one to this conclusion, but, speaking we wouldn't have 'this world' without religion and we certainly wouldn't be the humans that we are.


Yes, I agree Reb, as I believe I stated, there are good things that branch from religion, but there are also bad things, like fear of change, or fear of questioning authenticity, due to man’s inability to be perfect, like God, along with man’s incapable mind to see what’s important whic are the things he cannot see, taste or feel…?  I think Religion has stagnated man’s ability to excel to a greater mental, spiritual and technological capacity…along with the cause of many divorces today…(as society deems it necessary to be married to be successful) is just one aspect of my assumptions… where does that idea come from?  Why, from the old school of religion, doesn’t it?

quote:
Religion provided a common understanding of the universe, a common code of conduct, a code of remedy, and provided coherence for the development of tribes and nations in cooperation.  The insertion of superstition and mythology is as natural and as reasonable as assuming that expecting when we plug our computers into the power outlet and the ethernet/cable modem/ dialup -- that we're going to be able to turn it on and hop onto the internet.


Wull darn it, I want to hop onto the supernatural internet…   seriously, I hear ya.

quote:
It is our chief survival mechanism to understand and interpret the world around us -- we don't have saber teeth -- we don't have long necks to graze in trees-- we have brains.  So, we attempt to understand and therefore reason and predict the approach of predators, the change of seasons, the causes of illness -- anything that might threaten us individually or as a species.
  

yes, your right, but think about this…why is it so much easier for man to think that causes are one reason, vs many reasons.  People don’t do things for one reason, but many.  Things don’t happen for one reason, but by many reasons.  

We as a society are willing to accept so much dirt, gloom and doom, and illnesses, oh, illnesses, must be caused by the devil…wull I don’t believe so..illnesses are in my belief, caused by bacteria, location, bad water, bad food, taking medications, drugs, passed down genetically, etc.?   Also Reb, are we to lazy a society to think for ourselves, to delve deeper into an event and ask questions?  Why is it, when the debates come on TV, the public doesn’t ask both sides questions, they just accept what those politicians are saying to them?  Why…Don’t answer that, that’s just an example.  

Another Example is global warming real…yes, it’s possible & probable, but, to, there are other reasons, not just one?  Weather is nature, and nature has patterns and cycles, just like humans…so, there are I think, several reasons & causes that work into creating this event…

quote:
In order to work together common paradigms of what the universe was and how things worked was a necessity.
  

Yes it was and still is, although math, and other theories also work into the event, doesn’t it?  Along with other assumptions, concepts, values, and practices, perhaps my reality, isn’t yours…yanno?  Especially intellectually…now, we figure in concepts of our Great Masters…etc?  Yes?

quote:
There is an old saying though that goes like this -- if a nation has two religions it will always be at war with itself -- if a nation has one religion it will always be at war with it's neighbors -- if a nation has 20 religions it will live in peace.

The reason is simply that when a nation has 20 religions the common paradigm has become tolerance and acceptance -- one might even say that reverence for a Constitution might supplant the core codex that would constitute a religion in previous societies.


Wull, I’ll agree with ya there, now, lets root for 20 political parties, instead of two, whataya say?
Seriously, yes, I agree, but to me, the core codex for the Constitution, to me is to preserve peace and liberty for all men?  And yes, I believe it in fact then was a core religion, as several of those who signed were Free Masons.

quote:
We see religion and science at odds with each other because of the competition for a worldview -- science is happy to leave matters of 'faith' and mythology to religion -- but to some religions 'faith' means that a particular worldview must be dogmatically maintained.


I beg to differ a little on this concept, as I believe people are starting to believe that Science and God are more related then anyone was ever before able to admit.


quote:
When two religions with differing worldviews collide -- watch out.

But, as Jim very rightly pointed out -- in the absence of religion we'd still fight over money and power.  (which is ultimately a fight over sex/reproduction)


I’m sorry Reb, not grasping the part where you say which is ultimately a fight over sex/reproduction, can you please explain?


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
47 posted 2006-08-02 02:14 PM


Jim

"Can you accept that religious belief and reasonableness can coexist in the same person?"

Good question Jim.  Just like the words "pitch" and "stress"  betoken a predominance of one or the other in an accent that always includes both pitch and stress, I think the words "religion" and "reason or science" as well betoken a predominance of one or the other, not a seperate state.  In other words every lore always has both religious belief and reason/science, but when the religious belief is the predominante aspect the conjunction of religion and reason is called "religion" and when the rational aspect is the predominate aspect the conjunction of religion and reason is called "reason" or "science"   Both are always together in oneness in one way or another, but according to the chief character or difference that penetrates the compound "accent" of both religion and reason the accent becomes known as "religion" or "reason"/"science".  


LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

48 posted 2006-08-02 02:17 PM


Ess,

I disagree, knowledge is power...and when we conclude, that we know everything there is to know about a topic, any subject as you exampled, that's where we stumble and stagnate...for there is always, always someone who knows more...from which a person can learn...not to mention...the stagnation of the mind is to me, a waste of God's gift.

I grew up with the Pennsylvania Dutch and immigrant Germans, and believe me, some of them can be so stubborn absolutely thinking they know all there is to know, and will stand there and argue with you up and down, back and forth, before admitting they are wrong and learn something new.  They stagnated their growth, in that they refused to learn more...shutting down their minds, and living in their own little worlds, which doesn't open doors to the possiblity of change or progression, for self, and for family, those after their generation...meaning they feared education, feared admitting they are wrong...and you know something...it slows down the mind, is unhealthy and it's proven, that an inactive mind contributes to altzimers disease.

Does that make sense?

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
49 posted 2006-08-02 03:50 PM


perhaps in this chaotic world there is no reason, only madness?

quote:
knowledge is power
Power corrupts if it is left too run free. However i am in full agreement with you. Once you decide you are absolute correct on a topi you close your mind too it and refuse any further possibilities of learning in that area.This is wrong as it is entirely possible that there is someone who has a better understanding that you have. And even just listening to them, is good and it increases your view point on the topic.

Perhaps the reason people dont want to change their views or accept new ones is fear. Fear of the unknown?

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
50 posted 2006-08-02 03:54 PM


Knowledge is power
Ignorance is Bliss

LOL    duh huh    yup !

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
51 posted 2006-08-02 06:34 PM


Lee, here's $2 for you.

DH, here's another $2 for you.

The two of you now owe me five bucks ... unless, of course, you are absolutely sure that two plus two actually equals four?

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea
52 posted 2006-08-02 08:45 PM


quote:
Can you accept that religious belief and reasonableness can coexist in the same person?


Of course.

Yet, there is a strain of thought that argues against the entire Enlightenment tradition and at least now it seems to be playing on religion.

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
53 posted 2006-08-03 02:55 AM


quote:
The two of you now owe me five bucks ... unless, of course, you are absolutely sure that two plus two actually equals four?
No i am not absolutely sure. While i would concede that in current times 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. I am entirely willing to be open to the possibility that there might be a someone out there who has proved that 2 is in fact not not 2. Speaking of mathematics, anything to the power of 0 is 1. And yet 0 to the power of 0 is reasoned as undefined. Mathematiccs are not absolute, after all how many theorems have been roved wrong.

What is man's purpose on earth but to seek enlightment and eventually enter heaven? Christiandom believes this...

hells gate reads Abandon hope all ye that enter here
shall we go?
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Will you walk with me?

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
54 posted 2006-08-03 03:02 AM


Now now Digital, you're twisting my words. I actually said that saying God/Supreme being doesn't exist is like saying we don't need oxygen to exist. It has been proven that people need to believe in something (in the case of atheiests themselves). This is not to say that they don't actually exist, but rather that they do not reach the enlightened state thet others MAY reach (key-word: MAY!!!!).

Blessings

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
55 posted 2006-08-03 05:50 AM


quote:

It has been proven



By whom?  When?  Where?  What study?  What conditions?  Sample size?  Replicated?

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

56 posted 2006-08-03 07:09 AM


Reb

Changing life style modifications help to prevent Alztimer's Disease, keeping active both physically, mentally and socially.  

Information on Alztimer's Disease
http://iadc.iupui.edu/pdf/reflections_winter_03.pdf
http://www.alz.org/maintainyourbrain/overview.asp
click on the Learn More tools
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-04-16-brain-fit_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
http://myhealth.barnesjewish.org/healthyliving/familyhome/may06healthy.htm
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/full/66/6/E21

of course, there are other factors involved, but studies prove that by staying active mentally certainly is a preventative tool which helps to prevent Dimencia and Alztimer's Disease.

To expand on my comment, Knowledge is Power....
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(p0mf024540fqqp55apviwtir)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,6,7;journal,26,46;linkingpublicationresults,1:102464,1

Focusing on vast numbers of small, rural communities in the poorest of regions of society studies have identified population growth, poverty, and degradation of local resources often fuel one another. The collected research has shown that none of the three elements directly causes the other two; rather each influences, and is in turn influenced by, the others. This new perspective has significant implications for policies aimed at improving life for some of the world's most impoverished inhabitants.
Uriah...

lack of education contributes to poverty and crime
knowledge is an additive in crime prevention

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcpu53.pdf


take any subject, the more you know about it, the more you explore and gain information on a subject, the more knowledge one gains, alleviates fear.

Example
Have you ever been told by a doctor that you have a disease or sickness that you never heard of before?
Your horrified...but in days to follow, as you seek out information, in talking to others you find out, there are so many people out there with the same illness, you learn, your not the only one, and the more you learn, the less fearful you become.  Same with any issue.


jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
57 posted 2006-08-03 09:28 AM


Brad & Ron:

quote:
Brad wrote: "Yet, there is a strain of thought that argues against the entire Enlightenment tradition and at least now it seems to be playing on religion."


quote:
Ron wrote: "The two of you now owe me five bucks ... unless, of course, you are absolutely sure that two plus two actually equals four?"


Brad, if the lines of thought you are alluding to are what I think they are, those lines of thought attempt to cast doubt on the reasonableness of just about anything.  My question would be, besides an Enlightenment-like worldview, what is the alternative?  A position that we cannot view the world at all?

Ron, I think you're touching on the issue I wanted to raise.  The reason/religion dichotomy might exist, but, if so, so does a reason/mathematics dichotomy.  We can have a reasonable basis (in varying degrees) for our beliefs about God, math, science, and who in the NFL has the coolest uniform (clearly, the Oakland Raiders), but I think applying a standard to religion one is unwilling to apply to all other "classes" of knowledge is ... well ... unreasonable.

Ess:

One of these days I promise I will more fully comprehend how you communicate your thoughts.     Not a bad thing ... you simply have an intriguing way of seeing the world.  In this case, I think I understand and agree with you.  We tend to categorize and constrast things in a way that makes sense to us, but if we drill down on the subject we realize that those constructed categories are often arbitrary, and that it is better to consider the whole as well as the parts.

Am I on the right track here?

Jim

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
58 posted 2006-08-03 10:25 AM


quote:
No i am not absolutely sure. While i would concede that in current times 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. I am entirely willing to be open to the possibility that there might be a someone out there who has proved that 2 is in fact not not 2

So send me my five bucks. And every time someone hands you change for a purchase, you should give at least half of it back to them just to make sure you aren't cheating them. They, after all, may not be quite so mathematically enlightened as you are.

Of course, until my five dollars arrive in the post, I think I'm going to assume that you say one thing and practice something quite different. No matter your words, you will continue to live your life as if two plus two really does equal four. You will get out of bed every morning and put your feet on the floor with the unspoken assumption that gravity will hold you to the Earth. You will walk into a room with the full expectation of finding breathable air being dispersed. You will continue to expect hot things to cool and cold things to warm.

Don't feel too badly, though. The faith you have in physics and a life-long history of experience is a pragmatic necessity. You couldn't long survive without blindly assuming that what was true yesterday will still be true today. It's good to have an open mind about things. It's suicidal not to ever be sure of anything. And it's semantic foolishness to confuse the two.



Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
59 posted 2006-08-03 12:34 PM


I once had a physics prof who exhibited the strangest behavior. When writing at the chalkboard and the chalk would break (as chalk often does) he invariably looked up instead of down where the pieces invariably fell. When finally questioned why he did this, his answer was, "There is a small but still finite probability that the broken piece of chalk will fall up instead of down. If that happens I damn sure don't want to miss it." Now is that an act of faith or what?

Digital_Hell
Member
since 2006-06-05
Posts 202
Amidst black roses
60 posted 2006-08-03 12:52 PM


quote:
Of course, until my five dollars arrive in the post
A postal adress?

quote:
It's suicidal not to ever be sure of anything
Well then i suppose im suicidal... But let me ask you how can we be absolutely sure of anything? Name one thing that is absolute, that cannot change.

quote:
"There is a small but still finite probability that the broken piece of chalk will fall up instead of down. If that happens I damn sure don't want to miss it." Now is that an act of faith or what?
Now this is amazing. I loved it. This is the sort of thing i am talking about. To keep a completely open mind and be wholly open too pure chance. To believe in the unbelieavalbe and not resort to complacency. To view each new day as a day of infinite possibility. Each dawn a new and unique one, to be looked at with open unclouded eyes.

A sign in  the wind
ringed by the falling petals
Alone
Amongst black roses

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
61 posted 2006-08-03 01:21 PM


There was a time, as a child, when all I knew concerning Jesus or "religion" could be summed up in one line of a childrens song...
"Yes, Jesus loves me..."
It was all I knew.   It was all I needed to know.  
It was Faith.  Without even knowing that it was "Faith".   Feeding from the Tree of Knowledge will never bring you back to that blissful state...and "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein."
It took many years of regurgitating the "Knowledge" I had eaten...   before I finally got back to the simple truth..."Yes, Jesus loves me."
As a child...you were free and carefree.  I am a firm believer that it is the "knowledge" that the child is buried beneath that imprisons it.   Oh yes...knowledge is needed to function in the "World", the "System".   But we are speaking of "religion".  I am not aware of a religion that teaches us to gain knowledge so that we may function better in "Man's World".  Most that I am aware of tell us to...  as Jesus said for example...Be no part of it.  
"Knowledge" will not bring you Liberation.
Liberation is only sought...due to there being the concept of Bondage.
All thoughts of "gaining" Liberation...only further increase the thought that you are not Free.
Unity is sought...due to thoughts of Seperation.   The quest for Unity...only furthers the concept that you are Seperate.
It is only the concepts held within the mind that you are striving to be free from.
and luckily...
A well furnished mind is not needed to go beyond the mind.

"The intellectual man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell." --- Simone Weil

It is only my "opinion"    But, I agree.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

62 posted 2006-08-03 02:36 PM


hmmm, Uriah, very interesting stuff you've brought, thank you

but I'm wondering, then why were we given a brain more evolved then any other thing on this planet, that is in fact still evolving, and of which we only use 1/3 of?

and oh, Uriah, when I speak of knowledge, it is thus, so much more then the intellectual level, as growing within the spirit of all things, boy, I don't exactly know how to explain this...please forgive me, as I do ramble, and cannot always explain myself clearly...and it becomes very hard and frustrating for me...

I mean, there are all kinds of intellectual levels and knowledge, such as how to control temper, or sit in quiet as a listener, or to clear out the conditioning and become more patient, loose the anger, ego, etc.  

Then to, there is a curiosity to learn about cultures, religions, nature, science, history...not that you want to be a know it all, or flaunt it, but better one's mind, keeping it active? Consider other forces, dimensions, Einsteins theories, I mean doesn't all that information excite you?  

Do you understand what I mean?

Just curious?

oh and by the way, you said

quote:
"The intellectual man who is proud of his intelligence is like the condemned man who is proud of his large cell." --- Simone Weil


oh so true...

I just want to keep learning, take every moment to absorb stuff, yanno...

and I really hate it when people are to ego driven to help teach, or try to look down upon you because you are not of the intellectual level they are...where does that come from and why and how can people be so mean, so cruel?  I don't get it?

Anyway, I just think God gave us a brain to work things out, together...to help each other, to nurture each other along, and to mentor others?  

Just my thoughts, stupid as they may sound?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

63 posted 2006-08-03 02:55 PM


"Lee, here's $2 for you.

DH, here's another $2 for you.

The two of you now owe me five bucks ... unless, of course, you are absolutely sure that two plus two actually equals four?"

LMAO

For a second there, I thought Ron meant that Lee and and DH owed him five bucks each, so I thought he was getting back TEN. Then I thought, gee, y'can tell Ron's from Louisiana!

Now y'see what I get for thinking?

winkie wink nudge!

gleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


coffeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
64 posted 2006-08-03 03:49 PM


"better one's mind"
Ah   Where is it?    Is Mind your possession?
Does it belong to you?   Or...Does this "you" belong to IT ?
We can lay the brain upon a table and examine it.  It is an object.  
Where is the mind?

Yes, gather all the knowledge you wish.  Have a ball !!!!!    Enjoy!    This is as it should be.  But...do not think that you can "attain" peace from it.   You cannot attain what you have always possessed.  The very thought that you may be able to "attain" it...prevents you from realizing it.
No matter.    Enjoy    
Even thoughts of "lack" or "suffering"....Enjoy.    In Truth...YOU are prior to "knowledge"   prior to "suffering"   prior to the "body" and "brain".  Prior to the "world".    You think you exist within it...but it only exist within That which YOU Are.   So...Enjoy!!!!   You know you do.
You even enjoy the suffering.   Oh, You may think and say that you dont...
but that's cool...
You enjoy that also.  LOL
And its as it should be.
That which you are is totally unaffected by any of it.
There is only Perfect peace.   There is only total Bliss.
So....Enjoy!!!!!
::smiles::
Matchbox   Tiddly-wink    Blah blah blah.

:: bows ::

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

65 posted 2006-08-03 04:19 PM


to better one's mind...

smiling here

My mom once said that I would prolly die in a classroom.

I replied that if I wasn't trying to learn something, I was already dead.

Shrug. It's not like I have something else to do and I'm sure it looks quite insane for someone to watch me unshelve books, and re-shelve books, only to toss some and hug others.

My particular life situation right now is very much how I picture Federal Prison.

Except I haven't been offered a book deal.

Yet.

:curtsy:

Ya'll are great company too, btw. so thanks

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
66 posted 2006-08-04 01:03 AM


quote:
Stephen: A transcending question would be "If there is no word of God, where does one get the idea of a 'right thing'?
Brad: That's not a transcendent question, it's a different question.

Well, aside from my theistic idea of "transcendence", this question does supercede your previous statement, which amounted to saying that "right" should be a thing-in-itself, rather than originating in the character of God.


At least I can point out that you've attempted some kind of "final" answer, with the idea of a self-authenticating rightness ... which is pretty much disallowed for a post-modernist such as yourself?  


Actually, I do think about the nature of God as it relates to the love I have for my children.  I'm not saying that I wouldn't love them, even if I didn't believe as I do.  But I also attribute that to the grace of God, in virtue of his creation.  You were created (imago Dei) to love your children, and that's a hard mould to deny, your philosophy notwithstanding.  


This much is presupposed in Jesus' parable where he asks "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?"


And for those out there who really are asking "why should I love, or even care?", I think it is God who can provide a spiritual orientation and answer, from which love may begin.  


Jim:
quote:
if the lines of thought you are alluding to are what I think they are, those lines of thought attempt to cast doubt on the reasonableness of just about anything.



Maybe that's another way of saying that while Christianity reasonably casts doubt upon autonomous reason, postmodernity has sought to do the same with all reason.  


BTW, good to see you both (Brad and Jim) around.  

Stephen.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

67 posted 2006-08-04 07:45 AM


hey Uriah...your a hoot!

thank you for your input.

On Knowledge

All forms of the word KNOWLEDGE in the Text of the Scriptures, sorted by relevance.

2 Pet. 1: 2-3, 5-6, 8
  2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the aknowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

  3 According as his divine power hath given unto us aall things that pertain unto blife and cgodliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us dto glory and evirtue:
      •  •  •
  5 And beside this, giving all adiligence, add to your faith bvirtue; and to virtue cknowledge;

  6 And to knowledge atemperance; and to temperance bpatience; and to patience cgodliness;
      •  •  •
  8 For if these things be in you, and aabound, they make you that ye shall neither be bbarren nor cunfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Alma 32: 21, 26, 29, 34-35

  21 And now as I said concerning faith—afaith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
      •  •  •
  26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.
      •  •  •
  29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.


Isn't nature of him?  Isn't science and everything else upon this earth of Him, why then, would it be bad to search for more?  I believe that is what we're supposed to do, to improve...to grow, mentally...to continue to evolve...

But Uriah, I do understand what your sharing as well...and it makes sense...it is simply my belief, and I'm not arguing yours, I just think, we are meant to explore and discover more...

I believe in it's own way, religion needs to evolve...and that is the reality of religion

Some forms of the word RELIGION in the Text of the Scriptures, sorted by relevance.

For example:


JS-H 1: 5, 12, 21-22, 75

  5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “aLo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.
      •  •  •
  12 Never did any passage of ascripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects cunderstood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.
      •  •  •
  21 Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as avisions or brevelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them.

  22 I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great apersecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an bobscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me.
      •  •  •
  75 We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time, and this, too, by professors of religion. And their intentions of mobbing us were only counteracted by the influence of my wife’s father’s family (under Divine providence), who had become very afriendly to me, and who were opposed to mobs, and were willing that I should be allowed to continue the work of translation without interruption; and therefore offered and promised us protection from all unlawful proceedings, as far as in them lay.



Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
68 posted 2006-08-04 08:23 AM


quote:
Isn't science and everything else upon this earth of Him, why then, would it be bad to search for more?  I believe that is what we're supposed to do, to improve...to grow, mentally...to continue to evolve...

Ah, so you believe that men and women should be promiscuous, Lee? Moving from one relationship to the next, always looking for the greener grass?

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

69 posted 2006-08-04 09:23 AM


RON???????
NOOOOHHHHHHH, absolutely not

did I give you that idea?

I'm talking about mental stimulation, knowledge, education, exploring nature...(watch the beasts of the fields and learn from them) climate patterns, atmospheric patterns, how the universe works...we know that unique way in which some whales and porpose communicate, they are just learning that some white sharks have actually formed patterns together, hearding and hunting seals...
Science, technology...paranormal...


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
70 posted 2006-08-04 10:38 AM


So, Lee, why should your relationship with God be any different from a relationship with a man?  

I've spent a couple of days writing a response to something Karen said earlier, not because my response is real complex or anything, but just because it's hard to find time to pull my thoughts together. I'm mulling, I guess. At any rate, I'll prelude that coming post with the suggestion that, while it's often good to be open-minded and eager to explore, there's also something to be said for monogamy. We stick with two plus two equals four, not because it's particularly exciting or attractive, but rather because it consistently works.

The time to look for something new is when the old stops working for us, not when we simply want a new adrenaline rush. I think that holds true for marriage, for science, and most especially for religion and philosophy.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
71 posted 2006-08-04 10:50 AM


Ron,


I know we don't always see eye to eye, but you just made me proud.


Stephen.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

72 posted 2006-08-04 11:05 AM


Ron:

ahhhh, (the light bulb goes on) point well taken...it shouldn't be any different...

well, I agree with you to a degree Ron, and yes, it does work, but it doesn't, as it's usually the foundation for disagreements, leading to wars, then murder.

Another point is....and getting back to the topic, I have something else to share/ question....

look thru all religions, and you are sure to find in all of them, an attempt to seperate from reality, be it spiritually, or an attempt to escape material confines thru meditation...(Meditation being listening to god, Prayer being talking to God)

Atonement and ritual Christianity tries to reduce religion to myterious forces in defiance of reality.  i.e. ancient rituals of sacrifice created by demons, parting of the waters, pray and the Lord will create miracles...

Yet, Christ said, in terms of reality...do unto others...and by the way, we humans are forever seeking those mysterious forces of spiritual truth...but he says, do unto others?

Isn't truth in reality an agreement with reality?  The path to reality and life, is to unlearn sin?  Sin cannot live in the light of honesty, so a person might determine that in order to problem solve, we need more knowledge, to help ourselves.
  
For instance, the more you give to the poor, the more they accept it as an expectation to live and survive, you make them lazy, with no desire to work for their needs.  But if you give the needy honesty, truth, then they can figure out their own problems on their own...right?  

What I'm saying is two things

1.  Religion does go against reason in some ways...yes?

and, 2.  education, knowledge is important to manifest understanding, growth...yes?





XOx Uriah xOX
Senior Member
since 2006-02-11
Posts 1403
Virginia
73 posted 2006-08-04 11:17 AM


There was a time when due to me having a great hunger and thirst for a deeper "knowledge" or "understanding" of  "God".
I set about...  feeding myself.       As my "knowledge" increased, there were many discussions and debates with "others" who were also striving to feed themselves.    Yes,  One would say, "Lo, here"   and another would say  "Lo, there".    
I could listen to the opinions of one denomination, concerning certain teachings, and understand completely how they came to their conclusions.      I could also listen to the opinions of ANOTHER denomination, on the same teachings, and completely understand how they came to THEIR conclusions, which were entirely different from the first group.     In almost every case...there was also the conclusions that  " I "  had come to....which differed from all the others.    They each held "truths" that could be shown and explained.
Which one was correct?      They had made their decisions and chosen the "banner" that they would stand beneath.   Some stood under the banner of "Mormon".     Some under the banner that declared..." I am Seventh Day Adventist ".    Some "Jehovahs Witness".  "Catholic"    etc.       It stretched on...   "Buddhist"      "HIndu"    etc.
Each member of each had made their choice.    Which do I choose?     I can see and understand what THIS one says...   But, I also see and understand what THAT one says.      Which do I choose?       I struggled with this for a long time.    I wrestled with it.  
Then...  I realized...   " I " cannot "choose".     I quit !      I surrender !      It is not up to "me" to decide.
I recalled the story of the Tower of Babel  (confusion).     They were trying to make their own way to God.   Through THEIR efforts.  Through their WORKS.     Now....They have broken up into various groups.   Each group having its own understanding.   And each group...still trying to make their way to Heaven...through THEIR efforts.    Within my Being...I kept hearing the cry..."Babylon has fallen!"
"Come out from her !"      "Come out from the Confusion !"
I surrendered.    I threw up my hands and declared, "No More !!!"       It is not for "me" to decide.    I entered into Rest... and in faith...waited for whatever I was to "know" to be revealed.     That day I vowed that whatever is gathered from then on...will be what is given to me.   I will cling to none of it and whatever takes hold...takes hold.      The wrestling was over.      A great peace came upon me that day and has remained.     It is like the story of Jacob, wrestling with the angel...   It is when he ceased his struggling...  When he loosened his grasp...  That he received the blessing.
The next day I came upon the first words I ever saw from Meister Eckhart...     "He who seeks and finds, finds not.   He who seeks and finds not, shall find."      I saw the ones who stood under their "banners".    Declaring , "Lo, Here !"    They had sought....and found...and made the decision...."This is it"       But, they had not "found"....They had simply decided to pick up a stepping stone and stand still while embracing it.   Or....With some....They carry the stepping stone, clinging to it as they try to travel on, and it becomes a stumbling block.
I have learned that ...this is perfectly fine too.   LOL      
Every crossroad we come to...whichever route we take will ALWAYS be the one that we needed.   It may not be the route "prefered" but... "preference" so often tends to spoil the moment to moment.    LOL      Regardless....The next message you need will ALWAYS come...exactly where you are.
Yes...There "seems" to be an...evolving.    But, it is not dependant upon your efforts.   You cannot WORK to "gain" so that you evolve.
It comes as it comes.    The potential of the oak tree lies within each acorn...and the acorn need not "struggle" to bring it forth.    The chicken was within the yoke...regardless of the yoke's "efforts".
Yes, study the beasts of the field.    Which one wrestles with their BEing?     Which ones are discontent with their nature?
In the beginning....Let us make man in our image.   After our likeness.     So....There ya go.      Ah  But Man says....Let us "Do" this and that...so that we can "be like God".   LOL     Always trying to fix what isn't broken.  
And this too....    is perfectly fine.  
So yes.   Seek     Search     Study     Increase knowledge through your own efforts.    Its all good.
In the end...You will not gain anything that was not already yours.
Enjoy !

and...please forgive my boring excessive rambling.

:: bows ::    

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

74 posted 2006-08-04 12:53 PM


boaring excessive rambling???? I think not!!

makes sense...and a much broader wisdom which most do not comtemplate...I love to hear other's opinions on things...and yours is certainly not exempt.  

I wish, I owned your patience....

have a great weekend and many thanks.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
75 posted 2006-08-04 05:12 PM


Jim,

Thanks for your comment.  That is sort of what I meant.  But I also I believe a difference never means a seperation of something from something else.  Every difference is just a variation of the same thing: a same existance, a same universe, a same matter, a wholeness.  But the distinction we make is a distinction of a different shape or manner of that very same thing.  The same universe simulatenously becomes a circle in one place while it becomes a triangle in another, therefore we name it thus a "circle" here and thus "triangle", it there, but it is still the same universe.  Likewise the same universe becomes religion and reason by and among us and therefore we thus call it a "religion" here and "reason" there.  This goes all the way.  Not only are religion and reason different shapes of the same thing, but you and I are too    



The Shadow in Blue
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493
EL, Michigan
76 posted 2006-08-04 07:59 PM


Ummm...wow...It is possible to be more confused about religion now, then before. You all raise interesting points and from what I skimmed they have validity (is that a word...) to some extent. So now I am going to go back and read through all of the comments and then make a more useful and intellectually sound post. I'm kind of glad I actually posted this topic because I'm learning a little bit more about spirituality and faith.
The Shadow in Blue
Member
since 2006-05-18
Posts 493
EL, Michigan
77 posted 2006-08-06 07:21 PM


From what I have read on this thread I find that religion and reason "sometimes" can coexist. But in certain circumstances people are too obsessed with either end of the spectrum. (I guess I would fall under that category sometimes...) Sometimes you can't put complete faith in something when you don't have all the knowledge that you need. And in certain times, when a few people overuse an avenue of thought (ie:faith/reason) it puts them off a little.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that religion is a necessity for the past/present/future, but you have to consider logic. Without  something to belief in you may not get far in life, but at times it is better to use your head. I can't really believe completely that we as a human race wouldn't be passionate and as compelled to love and live without God. I just can't.

I guess that when the few manipulative people use religion as a scapegoat, it spoils it for some. That is partially what happened to me. I can't truely put all my faith back religion yet, but the thing that is good about spirituality as a whole is the fact that  the church always accepts you back when you need it. I guess you can't completely turn your back on the church/God.

Basically,religion will always be around as long as their is life on this Earth. And their will always be the negative and positive aspects explored through natural human curiosity. But really it is through that curiosity that we learn more about ourselves and  the world as a whole. Nothing is perfect and I guess religion is no different.

~Jill S.

I'm taking my own chances to find truth between the lies.
Its kinda like just what it is.
http://www.myspace.com/theshedevil05

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

78 posted 2006-08-07 07:16 AM


Dear Jill
just wanted to drop by and thank you for this interesting thread.  It was great hearing the views of others, and yes, your right, religion will always exist...and as in everything, there is bad as well as good which comes from it...enjoyed reading the perspectives from everyone...hugs and many thanks.

Kitherion
Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181
Johannesburg
79 posted 2006-08-25 05:48 AM


Boring Excessive ramblings of Christians trying to promote their own faith... Sigh, why can't we all just get along and be happy? Why does religion always have to be christian? There are so many other religions in the world, why not focus on something else?

Within the path of the Goddess I walk, she guides my every step.. into the oblivion called life.

jbouder
Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
80 posted 2006-08-25 12:12 PM


Kith:

One reason might be that the Christian worldview is reasonable (even if some Christians fail to notice that it is or practice their faith as if it isn't).  Claims that Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead are historical claims that can be tested using legal-historical research methods.  So it makes sense that when reason is presented in contrast to religion, that those ascribing to a faith with a reasonable foundation will speak up.

I'd be happy to discuss the reasonableness of Wicca, Buddhism, Shintoism, Islam, or any other religion for that matter.  The bottom line for me, and this might stem from a misunderstanding of such religions, is that most other religions rely far more heavily on personal experiences to define belief and practice.  That's not good enough for me.  I'm a doubting Thomas.  I'm not so interested in figuring out whether the burning in my bossom is the Holy Spirit or acid reflux as I am in knowing with a reasonable amount of certainty that my faith is founded on fact.  If I can't put my hands in the hands and side of Christ himself, I want to be able to test incredible claims like that of the resurrection with well established means of historical inquiry.

Jim

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
81 posted 2006-08-25 08:59 PM


"Claims that Jesus was crucified, died, and rose from the dead are historical claims that can be tested using legal-historical research methods"

In other words, it is written.   Well things are written in other religions too.  And those are just as much facts that help uphold those religions.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
82 posted 2006-08-25 09:40 PM


Not exactly Essorant ...  Most other religions do not even claim to be the kind of Historical writings Jim is speaking of.  That's one of the tests of Historiography: The internal test.


http://www.apologetics.org/books/historicity.html

Of course, I might add this to what Jim is saying:  Historical veracity is only part of what constitutes Biblical Faith, but a very important part.


Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
83 posted 2006-08-25 10:38 PM


That is because Jim is talking about Christian historical claims in respect to Christian historical writings, not about other religions' writings.  Speak about other religions' writings, and then you will find claims of other religions being of those--their own-- kind of historical writings.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
84 posted 2006-08-25 11:11 PM


There are only a handful of religious Texts that claim to be historical in the sense that Christianity does.  (actually, the only ones I can think of are Islam and Mormonism).  If anyone was interested I'd be glad to discuss how the historical claims of these are not substantial.


Would you prefer to speak of specifics rather than generalities?  It's too easy for you to claim historical egalitarianism simply because you hold a philosophy which believes everything should be equal.  (even truth and lies)  When speaking of historical reliability, you have to begin to speak of specific claims somewhere.  Firstly, you have to believe such distinctions are even possible.  Until then, discussing historical veracity is moot.


If you can convince me that you're not proposing this prima facie equality of all texts, then we'll talk about historical particulars.  If not, then I honestly feel like I would be wasting words.


Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
85 posted 2006-08-25 11:35 PM


"There are only a handful of religious Texts that claim to be historical in the sense that Christianity does."


Once again if a belief or religion is not Christian, why would or should it claim to be historical in the sense Christianity?  Why would or should it claim to be historical in any other the sense that they most believe in and in the sense than what it involves believinng in most, and what is inherited thro the evolution of the religion?  How is it right to expect other religions to live up to the ideal of "historical in the sense of Chrisitianity", when they are not Christianity?


"Would you prefer to speak of specifics rather than generalities? "

I don't know.  Why not just let the discussion flow to generality or specificness as it will?  I don't think we need to force it especially in one direction or another.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-26-2006 12:10 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
86 posted 2006-08-26 12:03 PM


Essorant,

I'm not saying that they should claim to be historical in the same sense.  But the fact that they don't tells me something about them.  To me, neither do their philosophies make any good sense out of the history as presented in the Bible, in particular the New Testament.  A comprehensive system of belief, or truth, should be able to make sense of those facts.  


It is the very uniqueness of Christianity, that it is not founded upon mere ideas, philosophy, or ethics.  It has a very definite historical foundation, in claiming that God acted in Space-Time, through the person of Jesus Christ.  As Francis Schaeffer put it, it is true in the sesne that "if you were there that day, you could have rubbed your finger on the cross and got a splinter on it".


And therefore philosophies or religious world-views can be evaluated based on what God has revealed both doctrinally and historically.  


I'm not saying that all aspects of other religions are wrong. But I am saying that philosophical teachings which contradict the Biblical revelation I have found to be philosophically gratuitous.  And "historical" claims which contradict the Gospels, I have found to be historically unsupportable by methods of historiography.  (And no, you don't have to be a historian to understand them).


Again, that brings us to the point of discussing particulars or not.  But if you can't recognize the difference between a divinity based in history, and one based in mere thought, then maybe we're still unable to proceed to discussing particulars.


As I said, it does no good to discuss "history" if you can't yet concede a difference between events and ideas.  Not that ideas aren't important.  


Stephen.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
87 posted 2006-08-26 11:33 PM


That just strikes me as obstinatly biblio-centric, Stephanos.  Other religions shall say the exact same thing about the bible that you will say about their works: that it doesn't make good sense of the histories and lore that they have and believe in.  What you seem to be trying to say is "this is best".  But that is what almost every other religion is saying about its works too.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
88 posted 2006-08-27 12:49 PM


quote:
Other religions shall say the exact same thing about the bible that you will say about their works: that it doesn't make good sense of the histories and lore that they have and believe in.


The only religion of antiquity that has any historical criticism of Christianity is Islam.  But there's very little reason to believe what Mohammed, in the 6th Century A.D., said about Christ, over and above what companions and eyewitnesses said about him in the 1st Century.  


Hinduism is not a historically concerned religion, and can easily brush history under the rug, making Jesus just one more mystical deity to add to the pantheon.  But it fails in that it doesn't square with history as history.


Buddhism is also not all that concerned with history, since it is mainly a non-theistic philosophical system.  That way any "history" that doesn't agree with it's philosophy it can circumvent.


So you are wrong in saying that "other religions shall say the exact same thing about the Bible that you will say about their works".  I'll support this with two propositions:


1) Non-Historical religions don't criticize the history of Christianity, they ignore it, or reconstruct it.  

2) The Historical religions (which claim a unique and meaningful history of actual events in Space Time) don't possess the same historical authenticity as Christianity.  



My criticism of your method of argument, Essorant, is that you are not willing to discuss whether my propositions (1 and 2) are true, using particular reasons.  You are obfuscating the whole discussion by saying that other religions "say the same thing".  But you haven't shown me that you even know what they are specificially saying.  Until you are willing to discuss that, your argument stands in limbo, and in effect only reiterates that other people disagree.  I already knew that.  That is no defense or argument.


You are standing (as you do on countless other issues) on an automatic egalitarianism.  And that can never open up into any kind of real discussion.  According to you Lies are already as valid as the truth, lore is already on equal footing with history, and all histories are equally authentic before any evidence is considered.  Your way of arguing comes from a philsophical dogma of monism, whether you recognize that or not.  


If you'll back up, and concede that Christianity is criticized on quite different grounds than it's own criticism of other religions ... and ask what those grounds might be, and whether they are equally valid, then we can continue.  Unitl then we're stuck.


Stephen.    
  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
89 posted 2006-08-27 09:54 PM


"But there's very little reason to believe what Mohammed, in the 6th Century A.D., said about Christ..."


I)  So if Christ said something about Mohammed and Mohammed came many years before Christ, wouldn't you believe what Christ said too?

II)  If you were born in Islam would you still believe there is very little reason to believe what Mohammed said?


It seems easy to trivialize something that is not in your own religion.  But for those that believe in it and have it in thier religion, they take it just as seriously as you take something Christ said.

Try being born in Islam and see if you still believe the same.

"Hinduism is not a historically concerned religion..."

"Buddhism is also not all that concerned with history"


I don't agree.  Just because they don't focus on the same things as Christianity does doesn't mean they aren't "historical" They have their own focus, traditions, teachings, literatures, evolved thro history and based especially on history they experienced, just as Christianity.  Again, it is easy to trivialize the historical traditions of a religion that you don't believe in.  But for those that are born among it, experience the culture and tradition,and lore, I have no doubt they know its important historical worth.

"The Historical religions (which claim a unique and meaningful history of actual events in Space Time) don't possess the same historical authenticity as Christianity. "


You just need to say "Religions" to me Stephanos. "Historical" is a given to me.

Maybe they don't possess as many stamp of "authenticity" by Christians. But they do by those that believe in them.


"According to you Lies are already as valid as the truth"

No; I think you mistook my words.  I said to you earlier in discussions that I don't believe beliefs are lies or in lies.  Beliefs to me are beliefs and in truths, not lies.  Lies to me are lies, not beliefs.  That is not the same as saying "lies" are truths.  
  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
90 posted 2006-08-27 10:08 PM


"No; I think you mistook my words.  I said to you earlier in discussions that I don't believe beliefs are lies or in lies.  Beliefs to me are beliefs and in truths, not lies.  Lies to me are lies, not beliefs.  That is not the same as saying "lies" are truths."

~ Have you ever read Gulliver's Travels? Seriously, put down those Lewis' books and pick that one up, it may do you good.  

"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
91 posted 2006-08-28 12:04 PM


Not yet.  But thanks for saying it.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
92 posted 2006-08-28 12:16 PM


JCP:
quote:
Have you ever read Gulliver's Travels? Seriously, put down those Lewis' books and pick that one up, it may do you good.

So far I'm not even sure you've read "Gulliver's Travels".  You never comment on it, or explain why it should apply to the discussion at hand.  Be verbose, like I am about C.S. Lewis.  That's how you spark interest, and demonstrate relevance.  Try me, I'm an avid reader and am certainly not opposed to reading it, though I'm already somewhat familiar with the story line.  Ever read "The Brothers Karamozov" by Dostoevsky?


Essorant,

I'll reply later.  No time at the moment.


Stephen

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
93 posted 2006-08-28 02:21 PM


Good point, Stephanos.
Although I am not sure JCP meant it to be an especially literary point.

This is sort of how it came across to me:

"wake up and smell the coffee" or "snap out of it"      



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
94 posted 2006-08-28 05:24 PM


Neither was I being especially "literary" when I asked him about Dostoevsky.   Smerdyakov and Ivan Karamazov were especially memorable characters.
  


Stephen.  

JesusChristPose
Senior Member
since 2005-06-21
Posts 777
Pittsburgh, Pa
95 posted 2006-08-28 05:49 PM


"So far I'm not even sure you've read "Gulliver's Travels".  You never comment on it, or explain why it should apply to the discussion at hand."

~ I had to read it for a college class that I took quite some time ago.

~ I haven't explained why you should read it because to explain why would spoil why you should read it.

"Be verbose, like I am about C.S. Lewis."

~ Yes, you are.

"That's how you spark interest, and demonstrate relevance."

~ That is how who sparks interest?

"Ever read "The Brothers Karamozov" by Dostoevsky?"

~ No, I haven't. Is it something I should read?


"Melvin, the best thing you got going for you is your willingness to humiliate yourself."

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
96 posted 2006-08-29 12:27 PM


Essorant:
quote:
So if Christ said something about Mohammed and Mohammed came many years before Christ, wouldn't you believe what Christ said too?


If he said something patently false about Mohammed, I would have to conclude he probably wasn't the Christ.  But that's the kind of problem you run into with conjectural history.  


In actual history, the 7th-century Koran makes patently false statements about a 1st-century Christ, in contradiction with 1st century writers.  I know that his sources were people he met on the Caravan routes, practicers of eclectic religions blending a little history, a little Roman Catholicism, a little gnosticism, and a lot of fiction.  So it may have not been an intentional distortion, but nevertheless it is lacking in historical soundness.


BTW, Don't think I am unware that the best of histories are piecemeal and have thier share of fuzziness.  That doesn't mean that we don't have some very real, sharply focused pictures, true to form.


quote:
If you were born in Islam would you still believe there is very little reason to believe what Mohammed said?



Are you asking if deception is possible?  Of course it is.  I can only hope, that by the Grace of God, and with the right information, I might search out the claims of Islam.  I don't deny that cultural upbringing is a major influence on an individual.  But that doesn't negate the fact that claims may be either true or false.  


Regardless of these kinds of questions you are asking, particular evidences must be discussed at some point.  Even coming into religion with no pre-commitments, I was sure that all the contradictory claims could not be right.  That's what you are missing.  It's not that there isn't a measure of truth and beauty in all these systems, but that their fundamental historical and philosophical claims are at odds.  


As Ravi Zacharias said, "it makes more sense to say that all religions are false, than to say that they are all true."


quote:
It seems easy to trivialize something that is not in your own religion.



Bringing up specific problems is not necessarily trivializing.  Might you not be trivializing ALL religions by not taking their fundamental claims seriously?  Aren't you just patronizing by praising their "virtues" and not caring for their claims, even enough to diagree?  With my view, I can't help but to offend the Muslim.  With your view you offend both Christian and Muslim, by dismantling their distinctness.


Again, in analyzing religious claims, we must examine specifics, not make platitudinous claims of intrinsic equality.  I'm sounding like a broken record I know.  But we're still stuck!


quote:
But for those that believe in it and have it in thier religion, they take it just as seriously as you take something Christ said.



I already knew that.  Therefore let's examine what was said, specifically.  The "taking seriously" is part and parcel with all religious followers.  The question of "why" is not as common among the "faithful".


quote:
Try being born in Islam and see if you still believe the same.



You know Ess, I tried a full 5 minutes to no avail.  I couldn't travel back in time, nor could I convince my Mom to move to Iran.     I think I already addressed the question of culture above, and how it is important, but not wholly determinate of truth.


You have converts from one religious culture to another too.  How do we differentiate what is true then?  I think that here we must discuss claims, rather than restate obvious things like influence of culture and universal devotion.  


quote:
I don't agree.  Just because they don't focus on the same things as Christianity does doesn't mean they aren't "historical" They have their own focus, traditions, teachings, literatures, evolved thro history and based especially on history they experienced, just as Christianity.



I never said that they didn't have a cultural "history".  What I meant was that they are not historically centered religions.  Christianity preaches events that happened in Space-Time (the incarnation, the crucifixion of Christ, the resurrection).  And without these events, there would be no Christianity.  History validates that these things happened.  And philosophically-based religions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism) do not view history as all that important.  When you believe that there is no universal truth, and that human life is something to be escaped from, this is not surprising.  But with Christianity, we have events that are shocking, and that speak in stark contrast to that view.  Life is good, and despite the grievous fall we're in, there is hope for restoration, not dissolution.  


So I'm right in saying that Hindu-Buddhist-style religions minimalize history.  I believe even they would say so, in light of their philosophies.  


quote:
You just need to say "Religions" to me Stephanos. "Historical" is a given to me.



That's not what I meant.  I was referring to the nature of each religion and how "history" is viewed within it.  Even the "Heaven's Gate" Cult had a "history".  But that doesn't mean history has much meaning within their escapist framework.  Nor does it mean that their beliefs sprung from any objective historical events beyond ideas and deceptions in the form of conspiratorial paranoia.  


quote:
Beliefs to me are beliefs and in truths, not lies.  Lies to me are lies, not beliefs.



You've never offered any compelling reason to think that lies can't be believed, just as truths are.  I heard a story the other day that a Charge-nurse at a hospital allowed some "maintenance men" in to do some work.  Turns out they were theives who stole several purses from the break-room, and not workers at all.  That Charge nurse believed a lie.


(shaking head)  Feel free to disregard that last part Essorant.  I don't really want to do this again.  


JCP:
quote:
I haven't explained why you should read it because to explain why would spoil why you should read it.



I already know the story line, as well as some of the contemporary interpretations.  How could you spoil it, by simply saying what's on your mind?


quote:
That is how who sparks interest?



My mistake.  So you're saying that showing relevance and sparking interest doesn't apply to you?     Seriously though, I'm aware that controversy sometimes inadvertently creates interest.  True to form.


quote:
No, I haven't. Is it something I should read?



Most definitely.  It's a long one though.  No quick hills or bumps, catered to deep philosophical thought and long views, like the Russian landscape itself.  Each character, like Smerdyakov for example, is a type of different kinds of people.  The Pious, Rationalist, embittered, or impassioned ... each fate is traced out with existential precision that made me shudder.  Though it's a slow breath, it really is a breathtaking read.


Stephen.
        

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
97 posted 2006-08-29 03:19 AM


Stephen, to quote you:  "Again, in analyzing religious claims, we must examine specifics, not make platitudinous claims of intrinsic equality."

Call me curious, because I have read the Koran and just can't remember any lies about Jesus, as you purport.  Please do elaborate with specifics....comparisons with one holy book to the other, please.  

Also, though I understand where you are coming from with the "historical" thing, I believe that the Koran was "put to press" much quicker than the Bible was.  

One could argue that the Bahai faith is the only truely historical religion being Bahá’u’lláh walked the earth during modern times (19th century) and left a written record during the time he was here.  But then again, I believe The Mormans have a similar situation there.  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
98 posted 2006-08-29 04:04 AM


Stephanos,

"In actual history, the 7th-century Koran makes patently false statements about a 1st-century Christ, in contradiction with 1st century writers."


And then you turn around and accept the way the heathen gods are portrayed in the bible as devils or demons---the worst thing one could ever call a being someone truly believes is a god/divinity.  I guess it only goes one way in the Christian approach.  It expects other religious texts to portray Christ accuratly, but doesn't give a whit about the extreme misportrayal in the bible of pagan gods,  making them out to be the worst possible thing you can think of: devils and devilworshipping.
  

"So it may have not been an intentional distortion, but nevertheless it is lacking in historical soundness."

I agree; so is the bible's distortion of pagan gods.  

But is it a muslims', or else pagan text we should go to for accuracy about Christianity?  It is a Christian text we should go to for accuracy about Heathenism, or Islam?  I don't believe so.

An English teacher and his writings may have some distorted notions and statements about Mathematics, if he only mostly knows and teaches English and is quite distant from mathematics.  But it is not up to English teacher and his writings to be Mathematics "professionals" That is up to the Mathematics teacher and the mathematics book.  Likewise it is not up to Muslims and their writings to be the Christianity "professionals"  That is up to Christians and their writings.  

The best accuracy about Christianity is in Christianity. The best accuracy about Heathenism is in Heathenism.  And the best accuracy about Islam is in Islam.  



"As Ravi Zacharias said, "it makes more sense to say that all religions are false, than to say that they are all true.""


I believe every religion is innocent until proven guilty.
   

"Again, in analyzing religious claims, we must examine specifics, not make platitudinous claims of intrinsic equality.  I'm sounding like a broken record I know. "

Bring them forth any time Stephanos.  Just because I use "fire, water, earth and air"  doesn't mean you can't use the periodic table.

"And philosophically-based religions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism) do not view history as all that important. "

I don't agree.  That would be like saying Philosophy isn't an important part of history or that Philosophy doesn't view history as all that important.  I believe it does.  And I believe that both strongly feed off of each other.   Thoughts are just as much historical deeds as actions are.  They exist as much as the earth under our feet.  And they are ever important to all civilizations.  Without thoughts we couldn't really be doing any such discussion as we are right now, and without the evolution and background that cultivates thoughts, we couldn't do it anywhere as strongly and evolvedly.  Philosophy is history too Stephanos.  Therefore more philosophical religions are just as historical as less philosophical religions, just in a more philosophical way.  Although I know that there are certainly more physically descriptive writings involved in those religions too, especially in Hinduism.



"So I'm right in saying that Hindu-Buddhist-style religions minimalize history.  I believe even they would say so, in light of their philosophies.  "

No, I think it is your approach or Philosophy that is minimalizing Philosophy and its important part of being History.  What part of those religions minimilizes Philosophy in such a way?  I am more inclined to say they do the opposite of minimilize it, and maximize it as History.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (08-29-2006 12:13 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
99 posted 2006-08-30 01:28 AM


quote:
Me: "In actual history, the 7th-century Koran makes patently false statements about a 1st-century Christ, in contradiction with 1st century writers."

Essorant: And then you turn around and accept the way the heathen gods are portrayed in the bible as devils or demons---the worst thing one could ever call a being someone truly believes is a god/divinity.  I guess it only goes one way in the Christian approach.  It expects other religious texts to portray Christ accuratly, but doesn't give a whit about the extreme misportrayal in the bible of pagan gods,  making them out to be the worst possible thing you can think of: devils and devilworshipping.

Calling the Bible's descriptions of Paganism an "extreme misportrayal" is itself an extreme misportrayal.  Let me explain.


When read as a whole, the Bible's descriptions of Pagan religious practices are more complicated than you describe.  And saying that the Bible calls paganism "demonic" and "the worst thing" really isn't accurate.


Let me lay it out as I see it:  Firstly, Pagan religious practices are always describe negatively where the Nation of Israel is concerned.  When Israel is involved in such practices it is referred to metaphorically as "harlotry".  Since God's covenant relationship with Israel is described as a "Marriage", the propriety of such language is easily understood.  As not following the "One True God", Israel was often unfaithful to her husband.  That accounts for much of the negative language that is used by the prophets to chide the infidelity of Israel.  


But when the Heathen nations are the practicers, the description is more one of "darkness" than marital unfaithfulness.  These nations worshipped such idols, because they had not yet recieved the Divine Revelation that Israel had.  Nevertheless they are still portrayed as practicing worship in the context of darkness and ignorance, and harm is not necessarily minimized because of ignorance.  This kind of language is not flattering of course.  But neither is it as contentious as you make it out to be.  

Those are the "metaphysical / relational" reasons why pagan religion is describe in negative terms both for the nation Israel, and for the other nations.  


Now for the historical aspect ...  The Bible's historical descriptions of pagan religion were as wide as the actual practices were.  G.K. Chesterton, in his book "The Everlasting Man"  described a Pagan Mythology that was child-like and innocent, and also a much darker side.  The Bible too reflects this distinction in it's descriptions.  Let me give you a couple of examples.  In Genesis Chapter 31, Rachel the wife of Jacob is said to have " ... stolen her father's household gods", while he (Laban) was outside shearing sheep.  The fascinating part about this whole episode is that scripture doesn't once pause to offer censure or praise, apart from the obvious dishonesty of stealing.  The writer just moves along in the narrative seemingly morally disinterested in these pint-sized objects of worship.  This was probably because it was simply a fact of life in those times.  "Household gods" must have been as common in their times, as house cats are in ours.  


On the other end of the scale, in Jeremiah 32:35 there is a great and terrible moral denunciation of the worship of "Molech" and the sacrifice of living children.  Human sacrifice was not unheard of in pagan religions.  Also common was temple prostitution, as fertilitiy rites in Baal worship, making the charge of "harlotry" not merely a metaphor for infidelity with God, as I described earlier, but a historical description, albeit morally denuncitory.


So, whether or not you agree with the interwoven moral censure, I don't thing that your statement about "historical inaccuracies" in the Bible concerning Paganism, is sustainable.  Don't confuse moral censure with historical misportrayal.              


quote:
The best accuracy about Christianity is in Christianity. The best accuracy about Heathenism is in Heathenism.  And the best accuracy about Islam is in Islam.



That sounds great.  But it is a naive statement.  Consider these complicating factors:  1)  The Patriarchal characters of the Bible lived in a world of paganism, and were themselves well versed in paganism, making their descrptions valid.  2) The Heathen texts we do have, seldom if ever, contradict what the bible says about them, historically speaking (again, don't confuse moral censure with historical descriptions).  and 3)  Islam's own religion is based in a large degree upon is historical inaccuracies about Christ.  It deems Jesus as merely a prophet, not someone who claimed to be the "Son of God" and not someone who died on the cross.  Therefore the best commentary about the Islamic doctrine of Jesus Christ, would naturally be the earliest, most authentic writings about Jesus (1st-2nd century) rather than the Koran of the 7th century.


quote:
I believe every religion is innocent until proven guilty.


My statement was concerned with "true / false".  You said "innocent / guilty".  There is a difference.


quote:
That would be like saying Philosophy isn't an important part of history or that Philosophy doesn't view history as all that important.  I believe it does.


Of course history and philsophy are related.  But I wasn't making a statement about that relationship ... but about how history is interpreted and placed within a given philosophical system.  Neither was I talking about philosophy and history in general terms, but about Hindu-Buddhist philosophy in particular.  Maybe you'll get it if I put it to you this way:  Let's say that Philosophy X denies that history even exists.  That Philosophy may have a history.  But within it's own assumptions, it has devalued history.  See my point?  You're still caught up in general statements, while I have moved on to particular claims.


Can you even summarize Eastern Monistic Philosophy, in the Hindu or Buddhist tradition?  I'm not yet convinced you know it well enough to tell whether or not it minimalizes the importance of history.


quote:
 Philosophy is history too Stephanos.  Therefore more philosophical religions are just as historical as less philosophical religions, just in a more philosophical way. 


You're still missing my point.  I am saying that Christianity is a religion where historical events are indispensable to it's central claims.  If those events did not exist, then there would be no Christianity.  Remove historical events from Hindu-Buddhist framework, and the religion stays intact, because history is not ultimately of any importance according to their own metaphysical beliefs.  That makes these of a very different nature.

quote:
No, I think it is your approach or Philosophy that is minimalizing Philosophy and its important part of being History.  What part of those religions minimilizes Philosophy in such a way?  I am more inclined to say they do the opposite of minimilize it, and maximize it as History.


I'm not at all minimizing ideas.  Rather I'm insisting on a wholeness.  The Eastern Philosophies tend to sacrifice history at the altar of philosophy, whle Christianity is comfortable with both.  It's more true to life, in that regard.


Iliana:
quote:
Please do elaborate with specifics....comparisons with one holy book to the other, please.  


Give me some time Iliana.  And I will try to do so.  Though I enjoy these discussions, this kind of excercise is labor intensive.  


later,

Stephen.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
100 posted 2006-08-30 12:23 PM


Stephanos,


"When read as a whole, the Bible's descriptions of Pagan religious practices are more complicated than you describe.  And saying that the Bible calls paganism "demonic" and "the worst thing" really isn't accurate. "


I wasn't speaking about descriptions about religious practices though, but about how the bible refers to pagan gods.  That is not how they worshipped, or what rites were involved in worshipping, but whom or what they worshipped.

The gods are almost always either called "idols" or "devils/demons".

Consider Paul's saying in Corinthians 1.

How would you like it if some text had such a saying referring to "Christians" instead?

"But I say, that the things which the Christians sacrifice, they sacrifice to the Devil, and not to God:  and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table and the table of devils".

Not an extreme distortion?  


I think treating Christ as only a prophet is a lot more respectful than that, even if it doesn't "represent the whole picture"  At least Christ was a "prophet".

I only have time to focus on this point for now Stephanos.  But I hope to address your other points later on.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
101 posted 2006-08-30 12:54 PM


Essorant:
quote:
I wasn't speaking about descriptions about religious practices though, but about how the bible refers to pagan gods.  That is not how they worshipped, or what rites were involved in worshipping, but whom or what they worshipped.

Either way, Essorant, I already described to you that the demonic is certainly not ruled out.  Who or what else would be behind the doctrine that children are to be sacrificed ... an extreme instance I know, but at least you might concede the point with the most obvious examples.  Also there is the fact to be considered that the Bible does describe idols as "nothing", made of wood or stone or men's imagination.  However, it also establishes the truth that anything which ultimately pulls proper worship away from the One True God, is demonically touched somewhere in the process.  This is in accordance with the Christian view that our actions are almost always part of a bigger scheme, of angelic powers vying for recognition and "worship".


You're simply not going to change the fact that that is the Christian world-view.  You may disagree with it.  You may disagree with the moral censure.  But that is the philosophical / theological description of idolatry.  I can only support that with philosophy or theology (though I could historically point out that a devilish strain in paganism has existed too).  


In any case, what you are now criticizing is not the "Historical" description of pagan practices, which was your initial allegation against the Bible.  "inaccuracies" I think you called them.  When I mentioned the "historical" description of practices, you switched tactics and pointed out passages of moral censure.  Well we all know that, but that can neither be supported or attacked on the level of historical description alone.  Your charge of "historical inaccuracy" is therefore misplaced.  If you're going to argue against the moral / philosophical position of the Bible, concerning pagan worship, then you'll have to argue on those grounds.  Of course I can also argue the philosophcial rightness of the Biblical view ... but for now, I'm just trying to keep your arguments in their proper bounds.

Stephen.
      

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
102 posted 2006-09-01 05:32 PM


"Who or what else would be behind the doctrine that children are to be sacrificed ... an extreme instance I know, but at least you might concede the point with the most obvious examples."

I think trivializing life or death, whether it is someone else's or one's own for the sake of glorifying God or for another life beyond is something that reared and even still rears its gruesome head in almost every religion.

In the bible we see Abraham willing to sacrafice his son for his God, if he believed need.  Abraham didn't sacrafice his child for God; he was stopped.  But the willingness and principle of doing such a thing was there.

Nor do I I think it is not a similar principle behind the doctrine of the martyr, when he will sacrafice his own life--no less a human himself than a child--for God, or for his belief, or for the next life, etc.  It is the same principle, but instead of sacraficing someone elses life it sacrafices one's own life.

Almost every religion I know seems to have examples of this same or similar principle.  If you claim what was behind it for pagans was a devil or something demonic, then that stands for Christians, Muslims, and others that treated life as less and sacraficed it for something believed in and thought as "more".


"In any case, what you are now criticizing is not the "Historical" description of pagan practices, which was your initial allegation against the Bible. "

I'm not locking myself to "historical" or "philosophical"  manner, Stephanos.  I'm arguing against the treatment of pagan gods as devils and worthless things because I don't believe that pagans believed in devils or worthless things, anymore than I believe you believe in devils and worthless things.  You say that it is part of the Christian view.  That is no argument.  The belief that Christ is only a prophet is just as much part of views, and that doesn't stop you from arguing against it.  

All you are doing is using your own religion to justify inferiorizing other religions' gods, something that any other may do to your God.



Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
103 posted 2006-09-02 09:51 AM


Essorant:
quote:
In the bible we see Abraham willing to sacrifice his son for his God, if he believed need.  Abraham didn't sacrafice his child for God; he was stopped.  But the willingness and principle of doing such a thing was there.



This has done nothing but illustrate the truth Essorant ... that human life is contingent upon God for it's ultimate value.  Only if you place human life as supreme above God, can you come to such a conclusion as yours.  


Also Jesus' words ring true that "Whosoever saves his life shall lose it.  But whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it."  Whenever human life is placed in it's proper context, then the benevolence of God is revealed.  

So in the story of Abraham and Isaac, what God seemed to take away with his right hand, he gave back with his left. Abraham should have been willing to do anything for God (as we all should) who is the all-powerful Soveriegn of the Universe.  But because he was willing, God's heart was revealed to him through the word that spared Isaac, as God's true estimation of human life.  God would never demand and take what Molech did, the lives of children for his own pleasure.


Also you miss the beautiful portrait of Christ in the Passage.  God wasn't really going to allow Abraham to give his son up to death, for God's sake.  But Abraham saw in that very instance, what God really would go through in giving up his own son for Abraham's sake.  It was a revelation of the love and pain of God ...


and the opposite of what you make it out to be Essorant.  It was a picture of God's love for the human race that he would give his own son for us.  If you missed that in reading the story, you misunderstood the story.  


God merely had Abraham walk a mile in his shoes ... but stopped short of that second mile that really led to the cross.


quote:
Nor do I I think it is not a similar principle behind the doctrine of the martyr, when he will sacrafice his own life--no less a human himself than a child--for God, or for his belief, or for the next life, etc.  It is the same principle, but instead of sacraficing someone elses life it sacrafices one's own life.



We already discussed the Martyr.  And I already explained that Martyrdom was a violent taking away of someone's valued life.  With murderers offering as the only way to escape, a chance to shamefully do what is wrong, in denying an even greater life ... God's own.  


Only if human life is made the highest, and above all else, would your position be tenable.  But that's only if there is no God.    And maybe for you, at this time in your life, that is what you feel.


quote:
I'm not locking myself to "historical" or "philosophical"  manner, Stephanos.  I'm arguing against the treatment of pagan gods as devils and worthless things



I understand that Essorant.  But what I am saying is that the Bible doesn't portray all paganism as "demonic".  Those cases are selective and the rebuke is aimed at things which were frankly demonic, such as sacrficing children.  I pointed that out earlier that Pagan religious "ignorance" is expressed far more often than blatantly demonic.  So you are not being true to the text.  


Consider the Apostle Paul's treatment of the "Unknown god" at Mars Hill, in Athens, as described in the book of Acts.  There is an example of Pagan worship where we have a two-fold thought:  1) The worship was inadequate to bring the true knowledge of God.  2)  The worship was preparatory for the message of the true knowledge of God.


There's a positive and negative view of paganism in there.  And I'm only insisting that you've greatly exaggerated the negative.  Though I don't deny it's there.  But I maintain that it should be there, for a total picture.  


quote:
You say that it is part of the Christian view.  That is no argument.  The belief that Christ is only a prophet is just as much part of views, and that doesn't stop you from arguing against it.



So you're saying that just because something is someone's "view", that all arguments are therefore equal?  The mistake that you continue to make, though I have adressed it several times, is arguing only that all arguments are equally valid.  That's nice to say, but are you sure that the much later Koran can be defended as accurate data about Jesus, over and against the data of the 1st Century?  It does make a difference, for a man who himself claimed to be anything but just another prophet.


My point is, don't dismiss arguments, or try to equalize arguments you're not even willing to discuss or explore.  I don't do that when I disagree with certain positions.  I don't mind the challenge of Christianity from the standpoint of defending other traditions.  But I don't accept a dictated prima facia equality of all positions.  And even if not all the time, you've been depending upon that argument too much.


Stephen.        

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
104 posted 2006-09-02 06:00 PM


"Only if you place human life as supreme above God, can you come to such a conclusion as yours. "


Not so, Stephanos.

I don't put life above God, but neither do I put God above life.

To me God and life are equally supreme, because they equally depend on each other.

If you take away life, there is no God, because God needs life to live.
If you take away God, there is no life, because life needs God to live.  

Without one you can't have the other.
  
"Also Jesus' words ring true that "Whosoever saves his life shall lose it.  But whoever loses his life for my sake shall find it."  Whenever human life is placed in it's proper context, then the benevolence of God is revealed.  "

Not for me.  In my world when someone loses his life it is sadly lost.  When someone saves it it is thankfully saved.

Reversing that in the sake of Christ is like someone saying: "if you get beheaded for me, you will find your head!"

I think there's something seriously amiss with that bargain!

" God would never demand and take what Molech did, the lives of children for his own pleasure."


I think if you attribute the wrongs of those that believe in another God, to their God,
then by the same principle, you attribute wrongs commited by those that believe in your God, to your God.  


"But what I am saying is that the Bible doesn't portray all paganism as "demonic"."


I agree.  But a book doesn't need to have slander  every time it mentions something still to include a harsh slander about what it mentions.

"So you're saying that just because something is someone's "view", that all arguments are therefore equal?"

No not at all.  I obviously don't find the bible's "argument" equal, nor your argument that pagan gods or even paganism in general are treated  correctly in the bible.

I'm just saying the bible treatment of pagan gods is equally a form of distortion or incomplete picture (however intentional or unintentional) as the Koran's treatment of Jesus Christ.

Although, unlike the Koran that shows respect for Christ, the bible doesn't show any apparant respect for the gods the pagans worshipped.  It cuts out saying anything about what gods really were as believed in by the pagans, and fills it with its own theology, only a very negative and demonizing one.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
105 posted 2006-09-05 03:30 AM


Essorant:
quote:
don't put life above God, but neither do I put God above life.

To me God and life are equally supreme, because they equally depend on each other.

If you take away life, there is no God, because God needs life to live.
If you take away God, there is no life, because life needs God to live.  

Without one you can't have the other.


The scriptural view of God is that he created us seperately from himself, and though he values and loves us supremely ... he is not "dependent" upon his creation.


Now you could argue that God was, by his very nature, bound to create life.  And I would agree with you.  But that's a different argmument than saying "God is dependent upon human life".  If you believe in a god where human life = god, you wind up in humanism again.


And I will add that only the Judeo-Christian view allows man to esteem God greater, and God to esteem man great enough to die for.  The story of God and man is a Romance.  that's the pardoxical glory.  God is supreme enough to lose our lives for, and yet gave his life for us.  If Christ had taken your egalitarian view, would he have died for your sins?

quote:
In my world when someone loses his life it is sadly lost.  When someone saves it it is thankfully saved.

Reversing that in the sake of Christ is like someone saying: "if you get beheaded for me, you will find your head!"

I think there's something seriously amiss with that bargain!



So you could never appreciate someone risking their life to save yours, and your family's?  That's a very prosaic way to look at life, in my opinion, since you could never honor that kind of "hero" without saying he did the wrong thing.  I understand that there are a myriad of ways to be heroic short of dying, but when talking about the martyr or the death of Christ, or rescue workers who die in service, we are talking about special circumstances ... circumstances which your view can't make sense of.  At least I can't see how.  


quote:
" God would never demand and take what Molech did, the lives of children for his own pleasure."


I think if you attribute the wrongs of those that believe in another God, to their God,
then by the same principle, you attribute wrongs commited by those that believe in your God, to your God.



Essorant, I don't think that Molech ever existed as a reality beyond artifice.  I attribute the wrongs to those people.  It just so happens that idolatry was part of that process, and was rightly denounced by the prophets of Israel.  


The ethical problems with the Bible will doubtless be from the Old Testment.  So I'll comment on that first ...


Though there was war in the Old Testament sanctioned by God, I note two things:  1) War is not always unjust.  2) The Old Testament was primarily a dispensation of Justice, designed to underscore the need for grace and mercy, and 3) The War practices of the Jews were kool-aid in comparison to many of the surrounding nations, such as Assyria and Babylon.  Thus it could be said that the teaching of God at least mitigated the typical bellicosity involved with war, in the case of Israel.    


When it comes to the New Testment you'll have a harder time pinning wrongs on the religion itself.  Since God has spoken with propositional truth, we have his commands.  And "Killing in Jesus' name", is unsupportable from the New Testament.  In fact it can be said to be antithetical to the teaching.


Temple prostitution was certainly central to the religion of Baal worship.  And child sacrifice was central to some Pagan relgions as well.  That's very different than a people disobeying their religion to commit shameful acts ... that is keeping their religion to commit shameful acts.  


quote:
I'm just saying the bible treatment of pagan gods is equally a form of distortion or incomplete picture (however intentional or unintentional) as the Koran's treatment of Jesus Christ.



My criticism of the Koran is primarily (for the purposes of this thread) historical.  Your criticism of the Bible is moral, theological, philosophical.  You don't see it a shame to worship other gods because you don't see that one has any claims over any others.  In that sense you are a polytheist.  And though I don't agree with your theological moral estimations, we have to take each subject in turn.  


Jim mentioned historicity.  I went with that idea.  You have gone into an "everything" kind of criticism where you will not be "limited".  But limitation is necessary for discussion I think.


The historical aspect is what I mentioned first.  And thus far you haven't been willing to discuss historical particulars.  Would you be willing to?  The problem we have with the Koran is that it ignores the words of Jesus himself, who claimed to be something very different than a mere prophet.  A prophet is an honor, I admit.  But to call someone a prophet when he was more, in his own words, and in his own deeds, is not necessarily honoring.  It would be like me calling the head Administrator of the hospital where I work an "employee".  That's true, but it's missing the mark if I were relating him to others.  And when corrected, if I said "No he's not a CEO, he's just another employee", I might be looking for another job.  


I think you can at least understand where I'm coming from.  You have to acknowledge the particular data we have about Jesus in the most authentic documents (The gospels of the New Testament) if you really want to explore whether or not the Koranic title "prophet" is honoring to Jesus.  


My problem thus far with our conversation Essorant, is that you've so stayed in general ethical outlooks, that we've never gotten to talk about the real data.  Yeah, you've mentioned it, but I think Jim was suggesting a bold claim that the real historical particulars surrounding the Christian Faith lend to a greater authenticity than other claims (such as Islam).


Soon, I will try to answer Iliana's questions about Christianity and Islam, and that will launch us into some further dialogue.


Stephen.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
106 posted 2006-09-09 05:27 PM


Stephanos:  "I know that his sources were people he met on the Caravan routes, practicers of eclectic religions blending a little history, a little Roman Catholicism, a little gnosticism, and a lot of fiction.  So it may have not been an intentional distortion, but nevertheless it is lacking in historical soundness."

Stephanos, how do you know who his sources were?  According to what I've heard from devout Moslems, he received the Holy Koran while he was in a cave for 40 days and nights and that it was actually dictated to him by angels and he wrote it down.  Western scholars believe he wrote it over years.  

"According to the traditional account the Koran was revealed to Muhammad, usually by an angel, gradually over a period of years until his death in 632 C.E. It is not clear how much of the Koran had been written down by the time of Muhammad’s death, but it seems probable that there was no single manuscript in which the Prophet himself had collected all the revelations. Nonetheless, there are traditions which describe how the Prophet dictated this or that portion of the Koran to his secretaries."
http://www.secularislam.org/research/origins.htm

I'm still waiting for your comparison pointing out specific lies about Jesus.  I hope when you compare and contrast that you will use the words of Jesus versus Mohammad's words.  





[This message has been edited by iliana (09-10-2006 02:40 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
107 posted 2006-09-13 12:56 PM


quote:
Stephanos, how do you know who his sources were?  According to what I've heard from devout Moslems, he received the Holy Koran while he was in a cave for 40 days and nights and that it was actually dictated to him by angels and he wrote it down.  Western scholars believe he wrote it over years.


Looking at the influence of various sects of Christianity at that time, upon the Arabs, one can see that this influenced Mohammed's views of Christianity and subsequently the text of the Koran.  Some of these sects included the Monophysites, Ascetic Monks in North Arabia, and Christianized Arab tribes: "Judham" and "Udhra".  This influence is also evidenced by the Koran's statements, such as referring to the trinity as "Father, Son, and Virgin Mary", reflecting some of the Heretical Christian beliefs in Arabia.  Also the belief that Jesus didn't really die on the Cross was a reflection of earlier gnostic beliefs.  There's also a tradition which reports "Christian" artifacts in the Ka'bah, at Mecca.  And Mohammed is reported to have befriended Christian Monks, and learned from them.  So in summary, his mind on Christianity was a product of the eclectic sources that he rubbed elbows with in the Caravan routes.


And yes, even in Islamic tradition, Mohammed is thought to have wrote it down over a long period of time, on scraps of leather, stone, palm-leaves, etc ... It was compiled later by others.  Of course there may be a more extreme Islamic view that Mohammed wrote it down in a much shorter time, but I'm not sure about that.


quote:
I'm still waiting for your comparison pointing out specific lies about Jesus.  I hope when you compare and contrast that you will use the words of Jesus versus Mohammad's words.



okay ... finally.      

There are 93 verses in the Koran which speak of Jesus.  Many of them make statements which are believed by Christians, and true to the Gospels.  These beliefs may be summarized as follows (I've given a few verses from the Koran to illustrate):

1) Jesus was a prophet and received revelation from God.

"We have grated revelation to you (Muhammed) as we gave revelation to Noah and the prophets who came after him.  To Abraham also we gave revelation, and to Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes, to Jesus and to Job, to Jonah, Aaron and Solomon.  To David we brought the Psalms. ..." (4:163)  


2) Jesus was born of a virgin, and his birth announced to Mary by an angel:

"To Mary, the angel said: 'Mary, God gives you glad news of a word from Him.  His name is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary.  Eminent will he be in this world and in the age to come, and he will have his place among those who are brought near to God's throne.  He will speak to men in the cradle and in his mature years, and he will be among the righteous.'  

Mary said: 'Lord, how shall I bear a son when no man has known me?  He replied: 'The will of God is so, for he creates as he wills.  When his purpose is decreed he only says 'Be!' and it is.  God will teach him the scripture, the wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, making him a messenger to the people of Israel.
" (3:45-49)

3) Jesus performed Miracles.

And to Jesus he will say: ‘Jesus, son of Mary, remember my grace towards your mother when I aided you with the holy spirit, so that in your cradle and in your mature years you spoke to men.  Remember how I have you knowledge of the Book, and the wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, and how by my leave you fashioned clay to the shape of the bird and when you breathed into it it became a bird by my leave, and how, by my leave too, you healed those born blind and the lepers and how, by my leave again, you brought the dead back to life once more” (5:110)


With the exception that the “pigeon miracle” is not recorded in the canonical gospels, but is narrated in the later pseudepigraphal “The Gospel of Thomas”, the statements above are perfectly compatible with Christianity.  And many passages in the Koran reiterate these truths.  


But there are significant differences, where the Koran parts ways with historic Christianity.  I will summarize those doctrines below with supporting scriptures from the Koran:


1)  It is blasphemous to elevate Jesus to the level of “God” or to call him the “son of God”

Truly they have lied against the truth who say ‘God, he is the Messiah, son of Mary.”  Say: ‘Who can arrogate sovereignty from God in anything?  If God but wills it, his power could annihilate the Messiah and his mother and everyone else in the world.  To God belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and of the earth and all that is within them and he is omnipotent over all.” (5:17)

They have ascribed invisible beings as partners to God, though he created them, and their total ignorance they have attributed to him sons and daughters.  Glory to Him and exalted be He above what they allege.  The very Creator of the heavens and of the earth, how could there be a ‘son’ to him there never having been a ‘spouse’ to him.  He who created everything and who is omniscient over all things?” (6:101-102)


2) Jesus was not crucified.

As for their [Christians] claim that they [the Jews] killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God, the truth is they did not kill him nor did they crucify him.  They were under the illusion that they had.  There is a lot of doubt about this matter aong those who are at odds over it.  They have no real knowledge but follow only surmise.  Assuredly they did not kill him.  On the contrary, God raised him to himself- God whose are all wisdom and power.  And before they come to die, the people of the Book, to a man, will surely believe on him.  On the Day of ressurrection he will be a witness against them.” (4:157-159)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In summary, these are the main points of difference with the Christian faith.  Though there are also verses which denounce the Trinitarian doctrine, these basically hinge on the question of whether Jesus was God in the flesh ... and historically whether or not he claimed to be.  Whether or not one beleives in Jesus’ claims of divinity, it is not historically sound to deny that he at least claimed to be.  With the texts we have, and the events surrounding the early church in the context of 1st Century Judaism, we are faced with the “trilemma” as proposed by C.S. Lewis.  Either Jesus was a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.  Either he was what he claimed, or we have to say he was either crazy or very immoral.  

Such reasons, are why it’s not so simple as to say “The Koran honors Jesus”.  The question is not whether it is an honor to be called a prophet.  It certainly is.  The question is whether it is an honor to be called “merely a prophet” when the stakes are much higher.  


With my next post, I'll go into the Gospels and give you Jesus’ own words (and the words of the Apostles) concerning who he was, along with the historical narrative of the events surrounding his crucifixion.  This is where we have the discrepancy of earlier documents versus much older documents.


But I'll let you absorb these first. (thanks for your patience Iliana)


Stephen.

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
108 posted 2006-09-13 06:21 AM


Thanks, Stephen.  That was alot of work for you.  I had already read these and knew the difference.  I tend to go with the Gnostic gospels on some things so it does not offend me.  

When Jesus was brought before the high priests, he was asked if he was the son of God.  He answered by saying that that is what they called him.  To me, the way I interpret the Koran, they claimed it blasphemny for Jesus to be put in the position of the only son of God, arguing that God is the creator of all -- in other words our Father, too.  In fact, Jesus himself instructed his disciples to pray, "Our Father."  The Bible also refers to Adam as the son of God.  There is also a reference about the sons of God in Genesis.  My point is that Jesus would admit, I believe to being a son of God, but I wonder, would he have ever said he was the only Son of God.  I think he wanted us all to accept our heritage of being sons and daughters of God.  He took on the weight of the world as one individual, but symbollically for all of us as the "son."  

I have known a number of devout (moderate) Moslems not only in Indonesia, which is predominantly Moslem, but here in the States.  I know they would be very offended to think that people believe they do not hold Jesus in a very special light.  The five pillars of Islam are their prophets.  When they refer to a prophet, they speak his name with venerating adjectives in front of it, like "Blessed be his name."  

I guess my argument is, how do you know for a fact, that their truth is not just as true as your truth.  Jesus said, he was the light and we had to go through him in order to get to the Father.  Well, I do not see how the Moslems I know have any different thought in that direction.  

"Either Jesus was a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.  Either he was what he claimed, or we have to say he was either crazy or very immoral."

Stephanos, I do not believe that is the only conclusion one can reach.  

The very discussion you and I are having is what split the Church apart with the Nicean Councils...whether Jesus was God on earth or whether he was a man filled with God.  

I am of the latter persuasion because to me, a man completely surrendered and filled with the spirit of God is the light of God.  And Jesus accomplished this.  There is no dispute that Islam believes that the emaculate conception occurred and that Jesus was the Messiah, especially tasked by God with his path which he surrendered and followed.  It is all semantics....all the arguments and wars over interpretation...I honestly do not believe the Jesus I know would have wanted that.  

The Christian trinity concept was an invention long after Jesus walked the earth.  Christianity did not start out with the concept of the Trinity (although I believe there have been discussions before about the trinity concept prior to Jesus.)

The message Jesus got through to me was we should have no one before God....this is the message that Islam teaches, along with surrender.  The word Islam, means surrender -- surrender your will to the will of God.  To them, this is what Jesus and the love of God showed through him.  Now, radical Islam, that is another story.  Focus has been placed on addendum writing and many different Islamic scholars.  The fact that they take their faith so seriously and that surrender is a big part of it, makes them more vulnerable to be swayed by an imam preaching the wrong message.  This is why Islam has grown so rapidly in third world countries where poverty and education prevent the masses from knowing or learning any more than what they hear through the Imam at the Masjid.  Other radicals, like Osama, for instance, have another reason for preaching holy war toward the West.  And religion is being used as a political tool today just as it always has been, especially in Christianity.  This is what Jesus opposed!    

In most all situations, it is the interpretation of a religious text which creates dispute, not really the text itself.  Our perception influences our understanding and reaction.  

You did not mention any valid sources on where you came up with how Mohammad may have been influenced by tales along the trail.  That is mere conjecture.  There are historical Islamic sources which record when Mohammad wrote some things and how he received it, and none of those mention him picking it up from caravans.  If you can point to some authentic sources, I'd sure like to hear them, and not someone's supposition.

But this is good exercise, isn't it?  

Oh, forgot to mention something, did you read the Surah that shows that Mohammad said Jesus (Isa) was the Messiah.  That's a pretty important one, don't you think?  

As for the resurrection story, have you ever read the Christian Gnostic Gospels, Acts of John, "Mystery of the Cross?"  

XCVIII - "And having thus spoken, he showed me a cross of light fixed, and about the cross a great multitude, not having one form: and in it (the cross) was one form and one likeness. And the Lord himself I beheld above the cross, not having any shape, but only a voice: and a voice not such as was familiar to us, but one sweet and kind and truly of God, saying unto me: John, it is needful that one should hear these things from me, for I have need of one that will hear. This cross of light is sometimes called the word by me for your sakes, sometimes mind, sometimes Jesus, sometimes Christ, sometimes door, sometimes a way, sometimes bread, sometimes seed, sometimes resurrection, sometimes Son, sometimes Father, sometimes Spirit, sometimes life, sometimes truth, sometimes faith, sometimes grace. And by these names it is called as toward men: but that which it is in truth, as conceived of in itself and as spoken of unto you, it is the marking-off of all things, and the firm uplifting of things fixed out of things unstable, and the harmony of wisdom, and indeed wisdom in harmony. There are of the right hand and the left, powers also, authorities, lordships and demons, workings, threatenings, wraths, devils, Satan, and the lower root whence the nature of the things that come into being proceeded.
XCIX - This cross, then, is that which joined all things unto itself by a word, and separate off the things that are from those that are below, and then also, being one, streamed forth into all things, making all into one. But this is not the cross of wood which thou wilt see when thou goest down hence: neither am I he that is on the cross, whom now thou seest not, but only hearest a voice. I was reckoned to be that which I am not, not being what I was unto many others: but they will call me (say of me) something else which is vile and not worthy of me. As, then, the place of rest is neither seen nor spoken of, much more shall I, the Lord thereof, be neither seen nor spoken of.
C - Now the uniform crowd around the Cross is the Lower Nature, but those whom thou seest in the Cross, if they have not also one form (it is because) every Limb of the One who came down has not yet been gathered together. But as soon as the Higher Nature and Race, coming to me in obedience to my Voice, is taken up, then what does not hear me now will become as thou art, and shall no longer be what it is now, but over them even as I am now. For until thou callest thyself mine, I am not that which I am, but if thou hearest me attentively, thou too shalt be as I am, while I shall be what I was, as soon as I have beside myself thee as I am. For from this thou art.
CI - Nothing, therefore, of the things which they will say of me have I suffered: nay, that suffering also which I showed unto thee and the rest in the dance, I will that it be called a mystery. For what thou art, thou seest, for I showed it thee; but what I am I alone know, and no man else. Suffer me then to keep that which is mine, and that which is thine behold thou through me, and behold me in truth, that I am, not what I said, but what thou art able to know, because thou art akin thereto. Thou hearest that I suffered, yet did I not suffer; that I suffered not, yet did I suffer; that I was pierced, yet I was not smitten; hanged, and I was not hanged; that blood flowed from me, and it flowed not; and, in a word, what they say of me, that befell me not, but what they say not, that did I suffer. Now what those things are I signify unto thee, for I know that thou wilt understand. Perceive thou therefore in me the rest of the Word (Logos), the piercing of the Word, the blood of the Word, the wound of the Word, the hanging up of the Word, the suffering of the Word, the nailing (fixing) of the Word, the death of the Word. And so speak I, separating off the manhood. Perceive thou therefore in the first place of the Word; then shalt thou perceive the Lord, and in the third place the man, and what he hath suffered."


Perhaps, this is what the Koran is speaking to.  Here's a time table for you, Stephen.  You will find that Gnostic Gospels were among the first to be recorded.   http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
109 posted 2006-09-16 09:12 PM


Iliana,

Stay tuned ... I'm preparing a response.  You mentioned so much in so little time, that I don't want to just brush over it.


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
110 posted 2006-09-17 12:45 PM


Iliana:
quote:
I have known a number of devout (moderate) Moslems not only in Indonesia, which is predominantly Moslem, but here in the States.  I know they would be very offended to think that people believe they do not hold Jesus in a very special light.  The five pillars of Islam are their prophets.  When they refer to a prophet, they speak his name with venerating adjectives in front of it, like "Blessed be his name."



As I said before, on the surface, calling someone a 'prophet' would seem to be an honor.  It's only in light of the revelation of who Jesus claimed to be, that this title becomes problematic.  It's not the positive aspect of the statment, but the potentially negative.  The epithet "prophet" may become a denial of something else.  Christians understand that Jesus is a prophet, but do not typically limit him to that, in light of certain scriptures where he certainly (even if couched in enigmatic language) declared his deity.

But given the importance of such things, and the zeal of Islamic belief, potential offense (on both sides of the question) shouldn't be surprising.


quote:
When Jesus was brought before the Pharisees, he was asked if he was the son of God.  He answered by saying that that is what they called him.  To me, the way I interpret the Koran, they claimed it blasphemny for Jesus to be put in the position of the only son of God, arguing that God is the creator of all -- in other words our Father, too.  In fact, Jesus himself instructed his disciples to pray, "Our Father."



There are many many Biblical scriptures which speak of the deity of Christ.  Some are more clear than others.  And the one you mentioned is a good place for us to start.  I want to let you see this scripture with the surrounding verses:  


"And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying, 'Art thou the Christ? tell us'.

And he said unto them, 'If I tell you, ye will not believe'.  'And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go'.  Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.

Then said they all, 'Art thou then the Son of God?'

And he said unto them, 'Ye say that I am.'

And they said, 'What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth'
." (Luke 22:69-71)


First of all, I only used the King James Version because it is one of few translations with the phrase "Ye say that I am".  I'll go ahead and make my case with the text that seems most disadvantageous to my view.  But most other translations correctly use dynamic equivalency to convey that this idiom meant something like our contemporary phrase, "You said it."  And though I may be oversimplifying by comparing it to one of our own colloquialisms, there's no doubt that saying of Jesus was an affirmative reply, in accordance with current usage, not a denial.    


And this view is evidenced in the KJV text, by the reply of the scribes and priests in verse 71: "What need we any further witness?  For we ourselves have heard of his own mouth."  It would seem that Jesus had got himself off the hook, if his statement was a denial of claiming to be the son of God.  Remember that his whole charge was one of religious blasphemy (on part of the Jews), and political subversion (on part of the Romans).  Whatever one may think, it's evident that these religious Jews took Jesus' statement to be affirmative.  And in context of the passage that makes sense.


It is further affirmed by other sayings of Jesus, such as:

"He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?'

Simon Peter answered and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'
" (Matthew 16:15-17)


Why would Jesus affirm the confession at one point and deny it at another?


quote:
I guess my argument is, how do you know for a fact, that their truth is not just as true as your truth.


First of all, I don't hold that two contradictory statements can be true.  Either Jesus claimed to be more than just a prophet, or he didn't.  And the case for the former is not something that I can prove in a philosophy forum, beyond showing that it makes the best sense of the data we have.


quote:
Jesus said, he was the light and we had to go through him in order to get to the Father.  Well, I do not see how the Moslems I know have any different thought in that direction.



Colin Chapman, in his book "Cross and Crescent" said the following:

"The basic reason Jesus cannot be seen by the Qur'an as 'more than a prophet' is that he does not fit into the Islamic understanding of how God has revealed himself to the world ... Islam rules out the possibility of God revealing himself through an incarnation.  For Muslims, therefore, however exalted Jesus may be, he cannot possibly be anything more than a person of 'surpassing greatness'."


Islam views Jesus as a necessary carrier of the message of God for his time.  Beyond that, according to Muslims, he is not necessary for anyone to "go through" to get to the Father ... at least no more than any of the other prophets, especially Mohammed.


Now the question is, did Jesus really speak of himself in such local terms, or in much more universal language?  Aside from what you personally believe, I think if you study this out, you'll find that there really is a difference in the way the Bible portrays Jesus' role, and the way Muslims do.  


The way that Islam has gotten around the texts of the New Testament, is to claim them to be corrupted.  But this is little more than a claim, based upon theological differences.  There is no evidence given to show that the gospels and early Christian writings were "corrupted" by those who came later.  This is where Islam runs into historical recontructionism.  


quote:
Me:"Either Jesus was a Liar, a Lunatic, or Lord.  Either he was what he claimed, or we have to say he was either crazy or very immoral."

Iliana: Stephanos, I do not believe that is the only conclusion one can reach.


I already know you believe that.  But if the data we have in the gospels is accurate, as to what Jesus did and claimed, then there is really no other alternative.  And if you are making a case otherwise, you are right in choosing to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the canonical writings, because it’s pretty much futile to try and make a case for the mere humanity of Jesus from the New Testament as it stands.  But as the discussion continues, I will try and make a case for Jesus’ divine nature from scripture, and explain why the canonical gospels are more historically valid than the Koran, or the pseudepigraphal writings.

quote:
It is all semantics....all the arguments and wars over interpretation...I honestly do not believe the Jesus I know would have wanted that.


But you just told me that you believe Jesus to be a mere man, filled with God ... rather than God incarnate.  Which tells me that you don’t really think it’s all “just semantics”.   But, let me add, that I don’t think any amount of disagreement gives you or I the right to be nasty to each other.  So I agree with your distaste of the contempt that has flowed from religious disagreement.  However, the debate, and the tedious process of looking for some degree of precision in communication, I think was (and is) necessary for understanding.  Even Jesus said he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.  I gather from that, that the controversy of truth doesn't always unite people.  Still that doesn’t make the intensity, an excuse to sin against someone else.

I guess my point is that the degree of controversy over something (and the boiling over of controversy into despicable acts) is no evidence that it is pointless, or unimportant.  Rather it is only evidence of our sinfulness and immaturity to handle the subject at hand.  But thankfully, I feel that you and I are busy being exceptions to that rule.   

quote:
The Christian trinity concept was an invention long after Jesus walked the earth.  Christianity did not start out with the concept of the Trinity


That’s really the question at hand, whether or not Trinitarian doctrine was a contrived doctrine, or a natural outflow of the data we have in the New Testament.  I don’t really see any alternative to Trinitarian doctrine if Jesus is the incarnation of God.  It is a doctrine which was deductively arrived at by the premises found in scripture.  And so rather than argue with you about the obvious fact that the word “Trinity” isn’t found in the New Testament, I’d like to visit some of the scriptures which illustrate (in varying degrees) the deity of Jesus Christ.


I’ll start with a few passages out of the Gospels (with relevant phrases underlined):

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.  In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.  The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ...

And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'


(John 1:1-5,14-15)


(Jesus said) ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.’

So the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?’

Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.


(John 8:56-58)


And He (Jesus) was saying to them, ‘You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.

(John 8:24-25)


And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’

But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, ‘Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?’

Immediately Jesus, aware in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, said to them, ‘Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts?’

‘Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven'; or to say, 'Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk'? But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’--He said to the paralytic, ‘I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.’
"

(Mark 2:5-11)


And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are certainly  God’s Son.’

(Matthew 14:33)


But Jesus kept silent.  And the high priest said to Him, ‘I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God’.

Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’

Then the high priest tore his robes and said, ‘He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy’.


(Matthew 26:63-65)


Jesus heard that they had put him out, and finding him, He said, ‘Do you believe in the Son of Man?’

He answered, ‘Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?’

Jesus said to him, ‘You have both seen Him, and He is the one who is talking with you.’

And he said, ‘Lord, I believe.’ And he worshiped Him.


(John 9:35-38)


And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit ...’

(Matthew 28:18-19)



There are many more passages, especially in the epistles of Paul, and other canonical writings.  But I wanted to demonstrate that the deity of Christ was not some kind of political invention which sprang out of the council or Nicea, or 3rd century Christendom, but was present in an unsophisticated form from the very earliest times.  

quote:
You did not mention any valid sources on where you came up with how Mohammad may have been influenced by tales along the trail.  That is mere conjecture.


Detailed documentation isn’t needed when there are things in the Koran like misrepresenting the Trinity as “Father, Son, and Virgin Mary” ... a definite reflection of a Christian heresy / distortion.  Also there is reference to Jesus changing clay pigeons to real ones, which is from the “gospel of Thomas”, an aphoristic and fanciful gnostic text of the 2nd Century.  Not only are these there, but we have Mohammed’s life history, where we have Islam sources citing his personal relations with Christian Monks.  Also Mecca and Medina were both towns on a caravan route.  And Mohammed himself was a member of prosperous trading family, and was even a trader himself.  His exposure and influence by coptic Christianity and various sects and blends of doctrine, is a given.  


quote:
Oh, forgot to mention something, did you read the Surah that shows that Mohammad said Jesus (Isa) was the Messiah.  That's a pretty important one, don't you think?


Yes it is.  But there’s a wide definition of what is meant by “Messiah”.  It is important to note that according to the Gospels, many of the Jews had a conception of “Messiah” with political overtones that Jesus outright rejected.  I’m only trying to suggest that calling someone a title, doesn’t guarantee accuracy.  That’s why other assertions in the Koran should be considered in our evaluation, alongside titles like "messiah" or "prophet".

quote:
As for the resurrection story, have you ever read the Christian Gnostic Gospels, Acts of John, "Mystery of the Cross?"  


The “Acts of John” dated 150-200 A.D. is a text that is almost universally recognized as reactionary, or based upon the gospel of John.  Therefore its gnostic view of a mystical rather than historical crucifixion, has to be an addendum.  

quote:
You will find that Gnostic Gospels were among the first to be recorded.


I'm not to impressed with the link you gave me, as it blurs over so much without too much scholarly reference.  Though I'm not saying it's all wrong.  But rather than you and I debating over an entire encyclopedic attempt to present an alternate history, I would prefer to discuss one example at a time ... such as “The Acts of John”, which is clearly a text which borrowed from the gospel of John, and added its own gnostic flavor.  


The coexistence of a few gnostic texts, alongside canonical texts, really only serves to show that gnostic thinking predated Christianity.  Such texts, if any, are few since most of them post date the canonical writings.  But the character of such texts reveals that historic Christianity was something absorbed and assimilated into pre-existing gnostic views ... rather than something that originated from the gnostic tradition.

Enough for now.

Stephen.  

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
111 posted 2006-09-17 05:16 AM


Stephanos, thank you for sharing all the research you have done.  It is quite a journey, isn't it?  

I am currently reading a book called, "Jesus The Man."  It is written by Barbara Thiering, an Australian who holds a masters degree in theology and is a specialist in languages and interpretation of historical and biblical writings.  The book I'm reading addresses the historical facts of the times surrounding the coming of The Messiah, all the politics, etc.  Her work is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls which have been dated from the century or so before Christ up until the time of the destruction of the Temple, as well as her knowledge and research into Old Testament and New Testament.  It is believed by many scholars that Jesus was either an Essene or he was connected to them, and Thiering makes a very, very good argument to that effect.  I would recommend the reading highly.  Interestingly enough, Jesus is not mentioned at all in the Dead Sea Scrolls; however, Satan and The Teacher of Righteousness were.  The Essenes' purpose was to restore a pure religion and put a Davidian king on the throne again; and Mary being the line of David would have been associated with the Essenes.  Thiering goes to great lengths to prove her case and her book gives much insight into the times and politics surrounding Jesus, not to mention the evolution of early Chrisitianity -- the book is scholarly, but well written and jammed packed full of many, many documented historical facts.  

You know, as a result of this discussion, I found out something that I never knew before.  That is that there is not one historic document that was written in the time of Jesus referencing him.  Not one.  Some people believe it is a legend; I am not one of those -- I do have faith.  And for you to say Mohammad got the Koran through Caravans and stories is no more true than for me to say that the New Testament came about in a similar fashion.  I think we just have to agree to disagree.       

Another thing, I'd like to point out is that when John the Baptist baptized Jesus, the Spirit of God descended upon him.  If Jesus was God, then why was it necessary for the Spirit of God to descend upon him?  Additionally, why would Satan tempt him if he were not a man?.  How could Satan possibly tempt the Creator of All and All that is All, the inconceivable?  The fact that I believe Jesus was a man 100% filled with God's spirit and perhaps not God but man, does not make any difference in my level of reverence for him.  For the man who was 100% surrendered and filled with the light of God flowing through him was a perfect channel of God and he was guided by God to show us the right way to live.  Jesus' life, teachings and sacrifice are no less meaninful to me.  

We may perceive God through Christ as much as we are capable, and I believe that was the gift; and that Jesus was especially given to us because of God's mercy so we could perceive the nature of God's love.  It is even more meaningful for me to think that Jesus was faced with choices as all humans are.  See, I do believe he was divine, but I also believe that he showed us that we can rid ourselves of our lower nature and return to our own divine nature.    

"Mere prophet" is an unworthy argument, as until you really get to know some educated Moslems, you may not have a concept of just how much reverence they have for Jesus.  They take God's 1st commandment very literally -- there is only one God and thou shalt have no gods before God.  For us Christians, there were many prophets and so our perception is not the same.  For Moslems, these were the bringers of the faith and the teachers of God's laws, the martyrs and the seals of God's covenants.  Again, I reiterate, they do not deny that he was the Messiah, that he was emaculately conceived, and that his teachings were perfect.  




Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
112 posted 2006-09-21 04:01 PM


Iliana:
quote:
Her work is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls which have been dated from the century or so before Christ up until the time of the destruction of the Temple, as well as her knowledge and research into Old Testament and New Testament.  It is believed by many scholars that Jesus was either an Essene or he was connected to them, and Thiering makes a very, very good argument to that effect.



Actually there are very few scholars who think that Jesus was in any way connected to the Qumran community.  There is certainly no mention of Jesus or Christianity in these writings, which are almost monolithically accepted by scholars to be dated B.C..  Though I'm not denying that the scrolls can shed some light upon the Jewry of 1st Century B.C. and up to the time of Jesus.  


But Theiring represents historical reconstruction at its, um ... best.


quote:
You know, as a result of this discussion, I found out something that I never knew before.  That is that there is not one historic document that was written in the time of Jesus referencing him.  Not one.



So the gospels don't count as "historical"?

But aside from that, there are instances of "secular" writings, not far removed from his times, which mention Jesus a historical person.  Though they only mention him passingly with almost no detail of historical note.  It is not surprising to me that a religious figure of Israel would not catch the literary interest beyond his local settings.  And it is from his local settings that we have many historically pertinent writings as evidenced by codex manuscripts.


quote:
Some people believe it is a legend.


Very few scholars (believing or unbelieving) think that Jesus didn't exist as a historical person who was crucified under Roman authority after coming into religious conflict with the Jewish leaders.  


quote:
And for you to say Mohammad got the Koran through Caravans and stories is no more true than for me to say that the New Testament came about in a similar fashion.  I think we just have to agree to disagree.



Of course we can agree to disagree.  However, the difference is striking.  The Koran's statements about Jesus and Christianity include only a few sparse passages of Mohammedan ideology, reiterations of various Christian beliefs of 7th Century Arabia, and almost no historical narrative concerning Jesus.  The gospels are full of detailed narrative history surrounding the actual time of Jesus.  And regardless of whether you believe in their authenticity, the gospel narratives about Jesus cannot have been derived anything like the Koran's statements about Jesus.

quote:
Another thing, I'd like to point out is that when John the Baptist baptized Jesus, the Spirit of God descended upon him.  If Jesus was God, then why was it necessary for the Spirit of God to descend upon him?  Additionally, why would Satan tempt him if he were not a man?.  How could Satan possibly tempt the Creator of All and All that is All, the inconceivable?


There are many such questions that would arise, if Docetism were true.  Docetism is the doctrine that Jesus was a God and not really a man at all. And this is what you may be misaking for the Orthodox Christian view.  But because the scriptures teach a unity of complete deity and complete humanity, we have a seeming paradox but not an inconsistency.  If Jesus was tempted, it had to do with his humanity for our sake.  If Jesus uttered words and did deeds that only God could do, it had to do with deity for the Father's sake.  How the two can dwell together I do not know.  But there are just as many questions on the other side of the coin.  How could Jesus say and do the things he did, if he were not divine?  

Since the data perplexes on both sides, rather than throw one half of it away to achieve a contived and tidy solution, Orthodox Christianity chooses to retain all of it in it's wildness.  Therefore the Trinitarian answer to your questions, is that Jesus was indeed a man.  But the Trinitarian answer to the questions that your arianism (the belief that Jesus was merely human) can't answer, is that he was also God.  But since it accepts this strange marriage of two natures, it fits all of the data that we have of what Jesus Christ did and said.  Of course its aim is to ecompass the mystery of divine incarnation as it is presented, not to explain in detail how it can be.          


quote:
Mere prophet" is an unworthy argument, as until you really get to know some educated Moslems, you may not have a concept of just how much reverence they have for Jesus.

To wrap this up, I will demonstrate from scripture that the inadequacy of seeing Jesus as merely a prophet was already described and anticipated in the Christian Scriptures ... making this an intractable difference bewteen the doctrine of Muslims and Christians (not merely a difference of attitude), as long as we are to take these as Jesus’ words:


"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?'

They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'

'But what about you?' he asked. 'Who do you say I am?'

Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven'
"

(Matthew 16:13-17)


At least you can see that a Muslim would have issues with this passage of scripture, even though written literally hundreds of years before the Islamic religion existed.  The Muslim has two problems with this basic self assessment, and companion assessment of Jesus.  1)  Jesus is called "Son of the living God".  2) Viewing Jesus as a great prophet is assumed here to be a lesser truth than that that which is revealed to individuals by divine revelation.  Either assertion is an affront to Muslims since it contradicts what Mohammed said about Jesus.  And one can easily see why the Islamic view is unaccepted by Christians.  


Though I would like you to agree with me, in my assessment of Jesus ... right now I'm just asking you to acknowledge this difference.


Stephen


(PS ... Thanks for bearing with my slowness in responding.)

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-22-2006 01:29 AM).]

iliana
Member Patricius
since 2003-12-05
Posts 13434
USA
113 posted 2006-09-21 09:06 PM



Stephanos:  "the belief that Jesus was merely human"

Stephanos, I did not say I believed Jesus was merely human and nor do Moslems that I know.  Sometimes, a person gets so wrapped up in defending their own truth that they cannot accept or see the things the way another perceives.  If you will reread the sections above, quietly and in a surrendered state, perhaps you will see what it is I am saying.  *hugs*

I can say that I agree that you and I have different interpretations and perceptions of the same or similar material.  We agree more than you are aware.  For each of us, that interpretation or perception represents our own spiritual truth.  

It is like this for me:  when I switch on the light above my head, I call it light.  But, the process or how the light is produced involves several steps.  First, there has to be a working bulb, then there has to be a willingness for me to turn on the switch, and finally there has to be a source of power and I have to have paid my bill (lol).  The fact that the bulb emits a translation of energy from the source does not make the lightbulb the source.  However, we do see an aspect of the energies of the source.  

Another, probably better, analogy would be that of fiber-optics.  Fiber-optic lines are strands of optically pure glass as thin as a human hair that carry digital information over long distances. What I believe and until I am swayed differently through my own spiritual experience, is that Jesus had the capacity to surrender so deeply that his connection with the Source was like a fiber-optic thread....a pure transmitter...where the message of God came straight from the Source, thru the thread and projected thru him.  In that sense, we see and hear the particular aspects which God wanted to teach/show us through Jesus' acts and words.  

I've already put my argument out about his divinity...I said I believe he was, but so are all of God's creation.  If we surrendered and received direct guidance from the Source of All, and then acted upon that guidance without dredging up our lower nature, I believe we would all reflect aspects of the divine Source.  We, however, or at least most of us, have not been inspired or gifted with the particular task of changing the thinking of mankind forever.  I believe Jesus was tasked with that chore -- to cause a paradigm shift in the perception of human thinking.  

Stephanos, it has been nice talking to you.  


[This message has been edited by iliana (09-22-2006 12:17 AM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
114 posted 2006-09-22 01:31 AM


Iliana,

It has been great talking to you as well.  I appreciate your input and thoughtfulness.  


Let's take a "Selah" for now.


Stephen.

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » Religion vs Reason

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary