Religion?

[Master J]

What's your religion.

[shunyadragon]

Baha'i with a strong leaning to Buddhist/Taoist thinking.

[nzric]

Taoist Atheist. "God doesn't exist - who cares?"

[thekingster]

Unashamedly Christian

[Aegis]

Atheist. Not really much explaining needed for that one

[hwardo]

Philosophical Taoist

[Disciple]

Christian (Roman Catholic)

[fluffydoc]

Atheist. Why are you interested?

[Ein]

Christian, but I don't believe in religon. I think I should be free to warship god in the way I seek best. I listen to the stories though, and I believe some are true, but I don't believe oh this religion is wrong because whatever...I think whatever way you want is fine...as long as you warship god in the way you want...just don't kill anybodt doin it.

[RubyMoon]

I'm just your average New-Age Buddhist Christian Hindu Pagan Muslim Universalist Taoist Humanist goddess-worshipping tree-hugging witch. Any more questions?

(I may have left a few out...)

[Grifter]

I dont really belong to any religious groups. I have my own beliefs about that stuff. I dont need some guy reading out of a book telling me what god wants and doesnt want me to do. And the bible was translated anyway, so who can we be sure it was translated correctly??

[kungfuprincess7]

Definately Christian.... in fact my father is a ordaned pastor and he we own our own dojo... he is the sifu... or sensei. We teach various styles of karate,TKD, Aikido, Kung Fu(shaolin... so on).. Heiwado Dojo... so if you are in tucson and like a christian background dojo... come here plus we offer the lowest price in tucson :) the only reason we charge is so we can pay the rent.. we dun get any extra money all goes to the dojo.

Kung Fu Princess

[Alias]

No religion.

I am an atheist, although if someone pushes the semantics I will explain that I am an agnostic/atheist.

Or: freethinker, skeptic, secular humanist, god-hating infidel scum :rolleyes:.

[RubyMoon]

I don't believe in atheists because you can't prove they exist. Sorry guys! :love:

I haven't decided whether I believe in agnostics or not...

[Drealoth]

Well, I'm agnostic, so you'd better decide quickly ;)

[Southern Mantis]

I am a Christian too.

[47Ronin]

Currently in between religion and so far I have found Shintoism to be of my highest favor.

I don't thing you should really mix religion with Martial Arts unless you are at a Shaolin temple or so.

[thekingster]

This last quote is the reason I don't tell people I'm involved in a "religion". Religions are arbitrary rules made by men with different opinions. Instead, I advocate a relationship with Jesus the Christ, the Holy One of Glory, The King of Kings.

I realize that this might even be an unpopular sentiment to be expressed on this board. That's OK - free will necessitates that we all can make our own choices. Just make sure you can articulate "why" you believe what you do...not that you accept someone's philosophical ideology because it's the path of least resistance for you. I have met many purported atheists who one time believed in God - and then when God didn't respond to a particular situation, precisely the way they thought he should...then, and only then, did they choose not to believe he exists.

Just my $.02.

[#1 Stutta]

Christian (Southern Baptist)

Philippians 4:13 says, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

I love that verse. It means: If you truly believe in Jesus Christ and what He did, then you can do anything through Him.

[surgingshark]

Catholic...but I've hung out in Buddhist Temples, Mormon Establishments, and Born Again Christian Concerts on more than one occasion :)

RubyMoon---> What kind of trees?

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by surgingshark
RubyMoon---> What kind of trees? I'm a non-denominational, equal-opportunity tree hugger. I have tree-friends of all different species! ;)

Have you hugged a tree today? :love:

[Trent Tiemeyer]

My religion is just like Christianity, minus the rules and guilt.

[thekingster]

Originally posted by 1ONEfighting
My religion is just like Christianity, minus the rules and guilt.

Hopefully one day the people that post in these forums will offer Christians the same deference they seek from us. Why the ad hominem attack? Why the disparaging reference? Your youthful naivete speaks volumes...

[Jack]

Buddhist.

Dear kingster, its been my experience that converting Christians have a forced sense of guilt put upon them by their families. Plus they must free themselves from the fear of being damned to an eternity in hell that is often unfortunately pushed on them from a young age.

Jack

[thekingster]

Jack,
I respect your opinion...all I ask is that regardless of how one feels I came to my belief structure...that it fundamentally be respected. I will not toss disparaging comments at anyone else here.

[DexterTCN]

Kingster, no-one I am sure would deny you the right to freedom of worship.

But I have to point out that we were only asked our religions.

Instead, I advocate a relationship with Jesus the Christ, the Holy One of Glory, The King of Kings.

That is preaching.

[harhar]

Originally posted by Ein
Christian, but I don't believe in religon. I think I should be free to warship god in the way I seek best. I listen to the stories though, and I believe some are true, but I don't believe oh this religion is wrong because whatever...I think whatever way you want is fine...as long as you warship god in the way you want...just don't kill anybodt doin it.
heh worship god the way YOU think best?? you're not a christian then. Stop calling yourself christian.

[Paratus]

Well then, this thread has struck a nerve with some members.....

Anyway, I'm non-practicing Roman Catholic. Which means I have a vague notion of God and that I'm Catholic by being in a family of Catholics, but disagree with some of the teachings of the church. Lets say I'm a free-agent of religon, I don't turely belong to any religon

[thekingster]

Originally posted by DexterTCN
Kingster, no-one I am sure would deny you the right to freedom of worship.

But I have to point out that we were only asked our religions.

That is preaching.

Since the question was not qualified, anyone can deduce the design/desire of the original posters intent. My original response merely attempted to establish my understanding of my "religion". If it were read as preaching, I can not apologize. After all, if you're not willing to stand behind your belief - you shouldn't espouse one at all.

Bear in mind that I have given considerable latitude to fellow posters who have obviously posted religious preferences, that by their definition can not be Christian. While philosophically I would be inclined to dismiss those beliefs on purely theological grounds, it would be a breach of ethics not to respect the choices of each respondent. You'll also notice that I did not retort to immature, flippant remarks intended to polarize and inflame anyone.

To this end I ask that my stated religious beliefs be respected, as well.

[DexterTCN]

Well stop coming back and arguing. :)

[thekingster]

Originally posted by DexterTCN
Well stop coming back and arguing. :)

Argue, has two senses intransitively:
1 : to give reasons for or against something : REASON
2 : to contend or disagree in words : DISPUTE

#2 - is not my intention
#1 - is my goal - to merely give reasons for my response.

No harm, no foul - I just enjoy the dialogue. :D

[DexterTCN]

Yeah, I was just winding you up. :p

[Tatsuma]

I was involved with satanism a while ago, but I was still agnostic at the time.. and I am... it's hard to define, i'm between agnostic and atheist, but it's a bit mixed up...

and you gotta throw in some nietzsche, smith & others as influences, as well as sources like Oscar Wilde or others as diversified.....

It's more a structure of ideas rather than beliefs...

[Jack]

Originally posted by thekingster
Jack,
I respect your opinion...all I ask is that regardless of how one feels I came to my belief structure...that it fundamentally be respected. I will not toss disparaging comments at anyone else here.

Very true, I see where you're coming from! Christianity does have my respect, it is a beautiful religion that has bought happiness to many lives.

[blaksun]

Er... neo-avant-gardist or anarchist...take your pick.

[Tatsuma]

And see, Christianity does have my respect, it is a beautiful religion that has bought happiness to many lives.that is exactly where I disagree... Well I agree, but show the other side of the medal....

again, diversity of opinions :)

[Jack]

Tatsuma, with Christianity, like any religion, place, time, social group, or anything in this world, there will be good and bad. I think, in this situation especially, it is important to show recognition and respect of the good in others and their beliefs.

[DexterTCN]

Gandhi said: I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians, they are not like your Christ.

[Maximicus]

Geez luis, Jesus says to follow him, and follow the bible, and thats it. But Christians cant seem to figure that out.:rolleyes: Have you read the bible? Oh, and as my title says, I am my own god. Take it however you want to.:Angel:

[Bulldog]

I follow Christ...

[DexterTCN]

I read the Bible.

I just have trouble with the whole lack of a rape law/sin thing.

[Maximicus]

The Bible doesn't say to be monogomus, or not to do drugs, or not to drink, but it DOES say not to eat pork, and to outcast women while menstruating (hate to be the guy to enforce that).

[nzric]

I'm always confused about the whole Christian thing - all the denominations ... roman catholic, baptist, protestant, quakers, jehovahs witnesses, mormans, anglican, satanists (which is another variation of the Christian faith) etc etc etc.

Is there a list on the internet about what all those labels mean, and also which Christians think the other Christians will go to hell for not believing that certain brand of Christianity is the right one?

[DexterTCN]

They all think each other will go to hell, basically.

[Maximicus]

Pretty much ALL christan groups claim to be te only prevention of hellfire and brimstone.:rolleyes:

[Tatsuma]

Tatsuma, with Christianity, like any religion, place, time, social group, or anything in this world, there will be good and bad. I think, in this situation especially, it is important to show recognition and respect of the good in others and their beliefs

And I totally respect the right of people to choose christianity. But I also respect my right to dislike most of the principles of the religion, of the church, of how the followers are acting, the effects on the mentalities and the effect it had worldwide historically on mankind... But so is the same judgement I have for most religions, on different aspects of them, sometimes the same...

They can follow whatever they want to... I don't believe in the "pc" crap "whatever you believe in is good".. Sorry if I sound harsh, I tend not to be such a person, but the hypocrisy around religions on so many subjects is just so much (the "all religions are based on totally crazy ideas... except mine" symptom, or the "since it's new, it's not credible but oooh this one is old with lots of history, let's not question it" symptom as well, etc....)

Believe what you want to believe, I respect your right to do so :)

[DexterTCN]

You know..the only place where rape is condemned in the bible..the punishment is that the raped woman has to marry the raper forever.

I asked my wife about that and she kinda disagreed. :)

Anyway, never mind that. Bats are not birds.

[Tatsuma]

Oh well, I mean, the bible is a pretty neat book

I love to follow a book that considers gathering wood on sunday or not being jewish a mortal offense

not even mentionning following someone that advocates mutilating yourself in the name of God

[Bulldog]

Originally posted by Maximicus
The Bible doesn't say to be monogomus, or not to do drugs, or not to drink, but it DOES say not to eat pork, and to outcast women while menstruating (hate to be the guy to enforce that).

I have to smile when I saw this...for I say this as only a pivotal thinking point for others...

I am by no means an expert in ANYTHING...
I "must" point out that when it comes to speaking on religions, beliefs and mostly the bible...it seems certain that people have zeroed in on one or two things...and therefore dismiss the rest...altogether...and it comes from a lack of understanding the sum of the parts as a whole...

The Bible says a lot of things...and perhaps if you opened it up, read it, studied it, got a Hebrew/Greek dictionary, did some word studies/translation comparisons and believe it or not, got through the whole thing (many pages, I know)...you might see a more complete picture of it's intent...This is not to be taken in a sarcastic or derogatory manner...I'm just stating that if you desire to know something or someone...you spend time with it...and the more you do...the more you understand and comprehend...just like the arts...I hope that makes sense...

Many of the things posted by others who do not subscribe to a Biblical, Christ as Saviour, etc faith (I'll save the sermon!) are very relevant and most importantly...issues that the church usually just A. runs away from B. Slaps a "THAT IS THE WAY IT IS, AND YOU ARE WRONG FOR QUESTIONING IT"

I thank you for your sharing your thoughts, stances and opinions...it encourages me to see that there are some people who, although I don't agree with in every aspect, are at least not afraid to profess who they are and how they got to that...Regardless of whether it agrees with my choice of life and practices...I'd rather have a conversation with an atheist or agnostic who knows that's what they are, then a "Christian" who only wants to be one on Sunday mornings, Wednesday eves and especially Christmas and Easter...:)

You folks are fab...I learn more from this forum than I ever thought possible...

Sincerely,

One of those "Christians"

PS...Thanks for keeping me in check...and accountable...As I have heard said...

"Don't shoot the wounded...someday you might be one..."
:Angel:

[shadow warrior]

There is nothing wrong with a person who has particular religious beliefs per se..The problems begin when a person attempts to impose their way of thinking on another person.

If religion is by nature the relationship between a person and the 'universe', then each human must come to terms with their OWN relationship within this context.

The more personal the interaction is, the less clouded the experience will be.

Peace, love and understanding are all found in organized religions. However, the practical application is somewhat lacking.

Karma is the root of self correction...

Help and respect others and you shall receive the same.

S*** on someones head and the universe will find a way to make it clear to you that you made a mistake..

The BIG PROBLEM is that you may need a thousand lifetimes to realize it.

[Saz]

[Moderation in progress]

A few of the posts in this thread are pushing the boundaries a little (this isn't aimed at anyone in particular)

Lets keep in mind when posting that religion is a topic thats always controversial, and comments can easily be taken to cause offence when they really didn't have that intention.

[/Moderation in progress]

:)

[shunyadragon]

My main difficulty with most religions is that their books are very old and the laws and guidelines are for a time long ago. It would be difficult to follow all the laws and instructions in Holy Books of Hinduism, Judism, Christianity and Islam and relate to todays world. All of them do teach some common spiritual values, but they also believe in some degree the exclusiveness of their 'Way' and to be 'Saved' you must follow their way only.

Tolerance is a way to deal something that is foreign or different. If you don't view other people as some way lesser, different or foreign there is no need to tolerate them.

Seperation is the root of violence and suffering. Most religions, especially Judism, Chrisitanity and Islam believe in a sense of superiority and practice seperation from other faiths and peoples of the world. Historically the statement of 'My God vs your God or Gods' dominates this the view of these religions towards none believers. People believe they are seperated from the other people of the world because they choose to do so of their own free will and their affiliation with the beliefs of the religion they chose.

In terms of the older religions, Buddhism relates best to the world today because the principles are more universal and with out the long list of worldly laws and rules found in other religions. But Buddhism has evolved into a haighly introverted temple religion with statues and ritual that the Buddhas of the ages taught was wrong. Buddhism is the only major religion of the world other than Baha'i that has not waged a Holy War against another religion or nation. My personal spiritual philosophy is primarily Buddhist in nature.

I am a Baha'i mainly because of it's belief in the fundimental unity of all the beliefs of the world. The different religions of the world reflect the progressive spiritual evolution of the world. It is also the first religion of the world to condemn slavery, embrace the principle of the equality of women in social and legal matters, the independent investigation of truth, the harmony and unity of science and religion.

[Overmind1984]

I do not believe in religion, it has seem to cause to many problems in the world. Although, I believe it is possible that there is a higher being, because I have no proof to say otherwise. On the other hand, I am more inclined to believe in evolution.

[Southern Mantis]

Most often it is people who cause war, not religion. Peolpe simply use religion to justify actions that are in no way condoned by their religion.

I think it is misguided to say that because people have gone to war in the name of religion, that the religion is therefore to blame and must be discounted - people give religion a bad name.

Generally people fight because they are intolerant, which, unfortunately remains with them despite them following a religion e.g. Christianity, which argues that all beliefs must be respected.

people just don't seem to learn.....

[zun]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
..... Islam...the exclusiveness of their 'Way' and to be 'Saved' you must follow their way only.


With regards to Islam, this is incorrect. All good people get saved. A bad person regardless of religion does not get saved. It's worse for a bad muslim - they get condemned because they should know better.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
...Islam believe in a sense of superiority and practice seperation from other faiths and peoples of the world.


With regards to other religions - I don't know.
However, the above is incorrect. Muhammed lived, worked and fought side by side with Jews and Christians. Tolerance of others and their religions is decreed an obligation.

In my view, (almost) all religions encourage people to do good. Unfortunately some take religion to extremes and sadly use mis-information a weapon.

[Coyote]

I'm a Unitarian Universalist.

I'm just curious (and probably about to get butt-whupped): why do so many people (Christians included) behave as if they believe the Bible, as a text, is a dead book. For a religion to be valid, doesn't it have to adapt to the world that we all live in? Is it possible for it to really work in any other way?

Like I said, I'm curious. I know this is a controversial question, so I hope you (the collective you) will think about it some before answering. If you think I'm just playing semantics, tell me-- but back it up, too.

[Southern Mantis]

The point made in the Bible is that God's word is unchanging. His word is truth therefore what has been written, is truth forever. It is up to the world to change according to his views not for God to change according to the whims of man. It is supposed to provide an eternal truth in an everchanging world. an anchor, if you will.

To be honest, most of what is siad in the Bible has been adopted as eternal truths by man - do not kill, steal etc. and I think that has provided quite a strong moral foundation for sosciety to function.

[shunyadragon]

Unfortunately the bible does not condemn slavery. It alows slavery to exist as an institution in both the old testiment and the new.

To Zun

In Islam all good people are NOT saved. Where di this myth come from. Salvation is reserved for people of the book who do not worship idols or statues and obey the Holy Laws of the Koran. Those who are totally ignorant of the Islam have a special dispensation like in Christianity, but once they know of the Laws of the Koran they must give up idolatry and their pagan ways and follow the Law of the Koran.

Moslems do indeed invoke the belief of superiority. It is true that people of the book include Jews and Christians, but if they have statues in their temples or churches they are infidels.

People who are not 'People of the Book' are infidels and untouchables. Particularly if they have statues in their temples. This includes Buddhist and Hindus.

Ask a Suni Moslem what he thinks of the Shiite or ask a Shiite what he thinks about a Suni.

When the Moslems invaded India they exterminated the Buddhist population in the north and leveled all Buddhist temples.

This is why the famous great Buddhist statues of Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban. They were following the instructions in the Koran.

The Koran does not prohibit slavery and recognizes it as a legitamite institution. It instructs Masters to treat their slaves with honor and respect especially if they are believers.

Moslems were great slave traders in history and even sold the first slaves to Americans in the South.

The Koran does not recognize rape as a sin and there is not a word in Arabic for rape.:woo: :woo:

[Coyote]

Fair enough-- if you accept that the Bible, as it is currently translated, is still the word of God. Unfortunately, due to the vagaries of translations and politics, etc, you would be very hard pressed to find a copy of the Bible currently in use that actually conforms exactly to the intent of the original document(s). Even within certain books you will find contradictions. Therefore, I believe the Bible MUST be open to interpretation and intelligent discourse. Otherwise, all the changes and corruptions to it can never be ferreted out, and we operate on a false assumption, namely that the written Bible is actually the same as the Word of God despite the changes made by men.

Certainly there are "eternal truths" in the Bible. Also, there are good rules to live by and important insights into the nature of God, man, and nature. I don't dispute this. I merely think that, in order to acquire the maximum value out of the text, we must be free to analyze, interpret, and, yes, judge its value for ourselves.

[shunyadragon]

To Zun

Moslems definitely do not recognize religons that come after Islam. The believers of these religions are considered Infidels and to believe in these religions is punishable by death.

To be a Baha'i in most strongly fundimentalist Islamic countries is punishable by death and the religion is prohibited in other Moslem countries.

[Bulldog]

Salute to all who are participating in this thread...
It just reaffirms my joy...that in diversity there comes unity...for those who are willing to work for it...:)

Even though many of the post contradict what I believe, practice and confess, I do not condemn...

I would add this to my previous posts...What good is ones' religion, if it doesn't work? ha ha

[Southern Mantis]

Dear Coyote,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The Bible was written in ancient times and phrases and words, even contexts were quite different in many aspects. Many do interpret the bible differently and to be honest a lot is open to interpretation. To be honest I don't have a problem with that. But I do think there are things in there that are self-explanatory - like killing, stealing etc.

I think that without interpretation, the bible is open to abuse, where figures in authority can (and have) use it to enforce a rather dogmatic view on the masses, which just so happens to boulster their authority, world view etc.

All in all, God just wants people to believe in him and trust him, and let him guide their lives. Of course he wants us to follow certain rules, but he is more concerend with us having a relationship with him and letting him guide us. People forget that he is a loving God, who forgives us just like parents forgive their kids. Unfortunatlely a lot of people forget to mention this and prefer to teach people guilt for doing things wrong, condemn them to hell etc. This is when religion is used to control rather than emancipate, and this is what gives it a bad name.

Right, I'll come off my soap box now.

[Coyote]

Hey, Southern Mantis-- thanks for that.

For the record, I am NOT anti-Christian. Nor am I anti-shinto, buddhist, or pagan. I have some trouble with satanism, but mainly because, IMO, it doesn't have an internal belief structure of its own-- it pretty much exists as a dark mirror to Christianity.

I have never personally been able to muster much faith in organized religions because of the propensity for politicization and abuse. That probably explains why I like being a UU so much despite being raised Presbyterian-- there's no way that UUs could be called organized! ;)

[aikiMac]

Originally posted by DexterTCN
You know..the only place where rape is condemned in the bible..the punishment is that the raped woman has to marry the raper forever.
I'm familiar with the Bible. I suppose that you are reading Deut 22 without the aid of context and Hebrew. Quite amazing what a little bit of Hebrew and a little bit of knowledge about the rest of the Old Testament can do.


by Shunyadragon
Buddhism is the only major religion of the world other than Baha'i that has not waged a Holy War against another religion or nation.
I'm no expert in history, but I imagine that missionaries into Asia would strongly disagree with this statement, as would the losers after any given war between Buddhist lands in Asia.

[Bulldog]

An interesting note here...

The "Christian missionaries in Asian were there for about 100 years and made little impact on converting and maintaining a "Christian" body there...(at last check there were less than 3 percent in China professing the Christian faith) the Communist party got their message out in about 10 years...and everyone China especially knew about communism from the dramatic and continous flood of written materials and teachings...The communists told the many missionaries that we (Communists) have done what you (missionaries) could not do...Preached a message with effectiveness...even though the message was not widely accepted with open arms (communism)...the People of China knew all about communism...

I'm not trying to say that all the work of Christian missionaries was for naught...but, many people will believe whatever you want them to believe when you are feeding them, building schools, churches and hosptials...To me, it is simple...you can give a man bread to eat...and he will appreciate you for the gift...You can give a man money to buy things he needs and he will appreciate the gift...You can give a man medicine and he will appreciate the gift...But, anyone can give those things...Christians, Buddists, Communists, Atheists, Agnostics...
But, I firmly and faithfully believe...if you show a man how to live free, abundant, whole, with power, faith, love and blessing...he would gladly give up the "gifts" to recieve what every person desires...Peace....

Again...as a "Christian" I'm probably going to get some flack for "beating up" the Church...The bottom line is this...If you want to be effective in "converting" someone to your faith, no matter what it is...I know without a doubt it is better recieved if you live like them and among them...it's easy to preach a "gospel" of salvation while living in a hotel room 100 miles away and having a driver take you to the villages and towns to "preach"...but, if you had to live in a hut...with rice to eat, rats, sickness and disease all around...poverty...etc...and then preached your "gospel"...you bet your last red penny that they would pay attention then...

Sorry to ramble...but, as a "Christian"...I just am not content anymore to hear about "charitable" donations and social work...it has no lasting impact...and ultimately puts people in more bondage by giving them a "wellfare" mentality...It's put up or shut up...live the life...use your faith, instead of good intentions...
The only way Christians are ever going to be effective is to do what they were told to do...Preach the gospel of Christ...lay hands on the sick, minister to the poor (not just give them money and food), look after the widow and the orphan...the stranger...

How has the Church missed the easiest instructions given by Christ himself? I don't think building hospitals and churches are bad things...don't get me wrong...

I just know from my own life experiences...Preach the Word...and the Word is life...Let the Word do what God says it will do...Change a life, change family, change a city, change a state, change a nation...change a world...

Ok...let the stones be thrown...

Aaron

[DexterTCN]

Originally posted by aikiMac
I'm familiar with the Bible. I suppose that you are reading Deut 22 without the aid of context and Hebrew. Quite amazing what a little bit of Hebrew and a little bit of knowledge about the rest of the Old Testament can do.


Yes I am totally ignorant...just as you imply. :)

Feel free to correct me...but next time try using some facts instead of just passive-aggressive sneering comments. If I misread your post, apologies.

[aikiMac]

I assume that Deuteronomy 22:28 is the verse you're talking about. This verse is actually about consensual sex, not rape. No English translation does a good job with every phrase or every word or every sentence of the original Hebrew text. On this verse, unfortunately, most English translations incorrectly lead one to believe the act is rape. Again, that verse is about consensual sex. Verse 25, however, is about rape, and you see there that only the man is punished.

I'm sorry for any implied sneering. I didn't mean an insult.

[DexterTCN]

If you look at my posts...what I say is that rape is not a sin in the bible. Male, female or child.

[aikiMac]

Yes, it is a sin according to the Bible. The verse I just cited is one place where that is seen.

[thekingster]

Semantic debate about the word "rape" notwithstanding...

Folks...here is the deal.

Yes, the Bible is an "old" book - as far as when the original autographs were recorded. What is the Bible - in short, it is a histiography of the founding of the nation of Israel, the establishment of the davidic kingdom, and ultimately the arise of a Great King through it's lineage. Those in Jesus' progeny "turned the world upside down" and were even willing to die for their faith.

Now I can imagine the responses - martyrdom doesn't imply truth - look at idiots like Jim Jones and David Koresh - which would be a valid argument. But misses the point entirely...

What is "core" to a "religious" belief? Look for it...it's implied in the last word - BELIEVE. Yes, folks, one must have FAITH - in the religious convictions they choose. One must arise above parental and cultural baggage to determine if their chosen belief structure is viable in their own mind. Then, once having chosen it, be able to say - "why" they chose it in the first place.

Christianity, by it's own tenets, is naturally exclusivistic - how could it not be? But that doesn't mean it's not tolerant. Isolated examples in history can be invoked to see that certain wars have been started on grounds of mass conversion - but the essence of the Christian faith is one of tolerance. Remember, however, that tolerance is not the postmodern slight of "your truth is good for you and mine is good for me." Tolerance instead means that Christians will live at peace with those who "choose" other religions - but - if a Christian is asked about "Do all paths lead to God" he will answer honestly.

[shadow warrior]

Reading this entire thread with an open mind you can't help but be struck by the confrontational undertone running throughout the posts.

A mirror for todays world situation.

The more people depend on words from old religious texts, the less they experience life with an open mind. It is easy to see how much these books are open to interpretation.

Peace, love and understanding are NOT resticted to just one religion.

A religion which is most suited to today's needs would be one which can live in harmony with other religions and will allow a person to believe what they what, as long as they did not try to impose their beliefs on others. Opps... lost a couple of the big ones there.

There have been more wars fought in the name of religion (God is on our side) than ANY other single cause.

Maybe if we put ALL the major players in ALL organized religions in caves for a few years to meditate on peace and co-operation, things might quiet down for awhile.

In the meantime remember; Karma is a B****.

[Bulldog]

One last thing...
Christianity is exclusive in this...it is centered around a person who was murdered, died and then came back to life...not reincarnated...and will come again...

If I'm misinformed about any other religions that claim or profess that...please, but of course correct me...

PS...I still love ya all, no matter what you post!

A.

[shunyadragon]

God is not a chess player with the white pieces.
God is the sea and we arethe fishes.

[Bulldog]

I hear he actually prefers checkers...:)

[shunyadragon]

The belief that the Bible is the 'Word of God' is based on faith and not even supported by any quote in the Bible. Any reverence to the 'Word of God' refers to all or part of the book in which it was writen and not the Bible as a whole document. The Bible is a compilation or selective patchwork of different texts from Judaic and Christian traditions. It contains only about 15% of the known texts about these religions. Many works about Christ were destroyed when the New Testiment was compiled by the Romans, a most unrelyable authority.

The authors of the New Testiment books are unknown except for those that wrote the letters.

The oldest known scripture of the Bible comes from a book that is not in the BNew Testiment, The Gospel of Thomas.

There is no record of the Life of Jesus Christ out side the Bible made during his life time by Jewish or Roman historians or records of the time.

Other examples missing books are the Book of Jasher is quoted in the Bible, but is not there and the many variations of books like the Book of Revelations known to exist.

[Lucky]

The oldest known scripture of the Bible comes from a book that is not in the BNew Testiment, The Gospel of Thomas

The oldest known fragment is a piece of John from about 110 AD.

Josephus the great Jewish historian writes of Jesus.

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.'

Josephus was alive and recounted the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. A fascinating work detailing the war and destruction of the city. There are many online references to the work, and also here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

The first Epistle of Clement written in about 80 AD is a great work as well.

[shunyadragon]

I'm no expert in history, but I imagine that missionaries into Asia would strongly disagree with this statement, as would the losers after any given war between Buddhist lands in Asia. [/B][/QUOTE]

Buddhist have most often been the losers. When the Moslems invaded Northern India the Buddhists were exterminated and their temples and monasteries were leveled. The Buddhist Kingdoms of North India were basically peaceful kingdoms.

Of course through general ignorance of other religions and philosophies of the world Christian missionaries will say anything.

I'm puzzled by what you refer to as Buddhist Lands in Asia. China, Japan and Korea are not Buddhist Lands. Japan's government has been Shinto since the 1860's. Only a minority of the population of China is Buddhist. The religion of China is basically a mix of Taoism, Buddhism and traditional beliefs. The social and political structure is traditionally based on the philosophy of Confucius.

The only predominantly Buddhist country that I know of is Burma and it has not been a country known to make war on other countries.

War has never been waged in the name of Buddha or Baha'i.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Lucky
The oldest known fragment is a piece of John from about 110 AD.

The fragment from the Book of Thomas is older.


Josephus the great Jewish historian writes of Jesus.

Josephus was alive and recounted the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. A fascinating work detailing the war and destruction of the city. There are many online references to the work, and also here:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/


Josephus was born after Jesus died. His testimony and records are second hand. We don't have the complete original work of Josephus. All we have is an edited incomplete copy.

Like I said there are no records of the life of Jesus recorded during his life time by historians or in the records of the Roman government.

The first Epistle of Clement written in about 80 AD is a great work as well.

[shunyadragon]

Another comment on Josephus

His writing refered to those who are preaching about a Messiah called Jesus and the were not direct references to him during his life.

[Maximicus]

The bible has a LOT of books. Many contradict.

[Lucky]

His writing refered to those who are preaching about a Messiah called Jesus and the were not direct references to him during his life.

Granted. Josephus lived from about 36ad to 100 ad. The witness of Josephus is considered to be reliable. As is the quote ascribed to him above.

I think the Gospel of Thomas your refering to is given an age to about 200 ad. If you have other info would you mind posting a link ? And i should correct myself the fragment for John is dated to about 125 AD.

[zun]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
To Zun
Moslems definitely do not recognize religons that come after Islam. The believers of these religions are considered Infidels and to believe in these religions is punishable by death.


Sadly, some moslems, like many followers of others faiths, are ignorant. :( To believe in other religions makes your ascent to the heavens very difficult (ie life after death is where you are punished for your deeds). Good people will go heaven. Just that good moslems with go to a better heaven.

Recognising a religion and tolerance are two different issues, my friend. Everyone - regardless of religion, creed and colour are to be tolerated. Like I say Mohammed lived and fought with people of other religions.

Please note however that religions such as buddhism and sikhism are recognised by many muslim countries and muslims.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
To be a Baha'i in most strongly fundimentalist Islamic countries is punishable by death and the religion is prohibited in other Moslem countries.

I am sorry to hear that. And, this is not the intent of Islam - only some ignorant people who call themselves muslims. Fundimentalism goes against the grain of Islam. For instance, in Islam women are treated equally. Unfortunately, in fundamentlist countries they are denied the right to a education. This is plainly wrong. Many muslims were up in arms when the Buddhist statues were destroyed by the fundimentalist Talebans.

I sympathise with you for the persecution of Baha'i. And I suspect perhaps that it is not to do with the fact that it is a new religion rather that Bahá'u'lláh believed himself to be a prophet equal to Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. The persecution in the strongly fundimentalist countries I would imagine is probably for the blasphemy. But many of the other muslim countries you note are tolerant.

Originally posted by shunyadragon

In Islam all good people are NOT saved. Where di this myth come from. Salvation is reserved for people of the book who do not worship idols or statues and obey the Holy Laws of the Koran. Those who are totally ignorant of the Islam have a special dispensation like in Christianity, but once they know of the Laws of the Koran they must give up idolatry and their pagan ways and follow the Law of the Koran.


You're own words: know of the Laws of the Koran . Once a person knows better, they should do better. It's okay for good people to do the good they do as long as they are ignorant. However, once they're aware of they ways of koran and they wish salvation, then and only then must they give up their pagan ways. This is the same with Jews and Christians.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Moslems do indeed invoke the belief of superiority. It is true that people of the book include Jews and Christians, but if they have statues in their temples or churches they are infidels.


Infidels = disbeliever. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a non-muslim.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
People who are not 'People of the Book' are infidels and untouchables. Particularly if they have statues in their temples. This includes Buddhist and Hindus.


No. Sorry, I disagree. I have been bought up as a muslim and, like my friends, am actively encouraged to seek out and learn about other religions. For example, at the moment I am actively researching Taoism.

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Ask a Suni Moslem what he thinks of the Shiite or ask a Shiite what he thinks about a Suni.


This about people of a sect. Not the religion per se. For instance - in Ireland - ask the protestants what they think of the catholic and vice versa. Same response as in the above.

With due all respect. The facts that you present are not indicative of Islam, and refer to the people of a fundamental sub-section. Mormons do not represent Christianity and in the same way Talibans do not represent Islam.

I urge you to further research into Islam, preferably Sunni Islam and unravel the peaceful intent of Islam away from the hatred of the fundamentalist. Islam is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. And because of this, more people convert to Islam than any other religion.

[thekingster]

The belief that the Bible is the 'Word of God' is based on faith and not even supported by any quote in the Bible. Any reverence to the 'Word of God' refers to all or part of the book in which it was writen and not the Bible as a whole document. The Bible is a compilation or selective patchwork of different texts from Judaic and Christian traditions. It contains only about 15% of the known texts about these religions. Many works about Christ were destroyed when the New Testiment was compiled by the Romans, a most unrelyable authority.

Interesting...but the Bible does bear witness to itself as being the Word of God. Peter commended Paul, and vice versa, as writing the very words of God. The New Testament was not compiled by the early church fathers, who were Roman Catholic. A study of this formation alludes to possible exclusion due to the political influence of the church. In college, I was asked to survey books like The Didache, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, etc., to determine possible reasons why they were excluded. The standard we understand was that books to canonized is an impressive study. Books were accepted for hundreds of years and then were cast out as "spurious". Admittedly, that's hard to understand. Herein lies the issue of faith, once again. To wit, if I can believe in an omnipotent, omniscient Being, who wanted me to understand Him based on writings which he inspired humans to write---then it's not too far a leap of faith for me to accept he sovereignly guided the process.

The authors of the New Testiment books are unknown except for those that wrote the letters.
True...but this might be by design...or lack of accurate records. Oral tradition concerning all these people abounded for many centuries after their deaths.

The oldest known scripture of the Bible comes from a book that is not in the BNew Testiment, The Gospel of Thomas.
Actually, the Book of Job is considered to be the oldest book of the Bible.

There is no record of the Life of Jesus Christ out side the Bible made during his life time by Jewish or Roman historians or records of the time.
Didn't Josephus mention Jesus? :)

:cool:

[thekingster]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Another comment on Josephus

His writing refered to those who are preaching about a Messiah called Jesus and the were not direct references to him during his life.

How on earth do you think he came up with the data? Research man, research!

[DexterTCN]

This is obviously unfair. The xians here are far too learned for the heathens. :rolleyes:

How about a little fuel for the fire?

Warning: flammable (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) :D

[shunyadragon]

Most of my information comes through Biblical Archeology and Bible Review. These are two reputable publications that also publish books.

The three oldest fragments of Christian scripture are pieces of John, Thomas and a fragment called the Edgerton fragment. These date from the early second century. When I lived in the US six years ago the Thomas frgment was considered the oldest, but on a second check of recent references there some dispute as to which is oldest.

My reference to the oldest known Gospel as Thomas refered to the New Testament and not the Old. The Complete Gospels by Robrt J. Miller considers Thomas older than the other gospels.

To Thekingster

How can the Bible bear witness to itself when the book did not exist at the time the men spoke the words? Those who used the phrase 'Word of God' could in no way refer to a book that is compiled hundreds of years after they spoke the words. I still consider the Romans as unreliable compilers of a Holy Book based on what we know of their history.

Josephus was born after Jesus died and his book (an edited incomplete copy is all we have) I think mentions Jesus only twice and these are heresay references that refer to those who teach or tell about a Messiah called Jesus.

Most scholars do not consider this an important testimony to the life of Jesus. Actually we have other sources of archeological and historical evidence that there were Christians spreading the message of Christ just after and likely during the life of Josephus without his reference.

[Knight_Errant]

There is no record of the Life of Jesus Christ out side the Bible made during his life time by Jewish or Roman historians or records of the time.
In all fairness, I'd like to point out that there is no record of anybody's life at that time outside of those of jewish, greek, roman, mayan or Greek historians...

[Lucky]

When I lived in the US six years ago the Thomas frgment was considered the oldest, but on a second check of recent references there some dispute as to which is oldest.

The fragment P52 of John i think is undisputed to be the oldest. The Gospel of Thomas is an interesting text, way to contraversial in my view and is neither recorded in the Muratorian Canon which is also dated to about 175-200 AD. If i understand correctly the Gospel of Thomas is spoken about by the early Church fathers, but is dismissed as a gnostic text which was/is mostly the reason the Jesus seminars, who the author that you mentioned, is a fellow and more or less dealt with the most important tenets of Christianity and pretty threw them out the window. Interesting stuff.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Knight_errant
In all fairness, I'd like to point out that there is no record of anybody's life at that time outside of those of jewish, greek, roman, mayan or Greek historians...

This reply is confusing. The Roman records throughout the empire did record and name people and events as in Josephus's history. The problem is Josephus wrote his history after Jesus died snd hts references are second hand.
:woo: :woo:

[thekingster]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
To Thekingster

How can the Bible bear witness to itself when the book did not exist at the time the men spoke the words? Those who used the phrase 'Word of God' could in no way refer to a book that is compiled hundreds of years after they spoke the words. I still consider the Romans as unreliable compilers of a Holy Book based on what we know of their history.

Josephus was born after Jesus died and his book (an edited incomplete copy is all we have) I think mentions Jesus only twice and these are heresay references that refer to those who teach or tell about a Messiah called Jesus.

Most scholars do not consider this an important testimony to the life of Jesus. Actually we have other sources of archeological and historical evidence that there were Christians spreading the message of Christ just after and likely during the life of Josephus without his reference.

Just to chew on...the OT was in circulation on parchment during the NT period...that was what the Scriptures were referring to. Peter...notably after Paul...referred to Paul's writings as authoratative.

Remember - what I've said all along...belief requires believing requires FAITH.

'nuff said

[Bulldog]

The history of the Jewish people is quite possible one the most easily traced and best kept...The Jews themselves don't deny that Christ was a living breathing person...The history of the Roman empire is actually IMO being taken totally out of context...The Greek historians were very adamant about making sure things were correct in lineage and Paul's life is well documented by the Greek and Roman history...he was a Roman citizen and his ministry came very close after Christ ascended...I think that most people can without much arguement believe that Christ existed...I think most do not choose to believe his purpose, ministry, and the extent of the miracles or acts he is credited with accomplishing...

The Jews will tell you that he was crucified and will tell you about his ministry...it is WELL documented...again, by people that reject him as Messiah...

I really don't think there is an arguement by any religion that Jesus existed...I think again...the discussion is this...was he who he said he was? And did he do what is written about him...

Does that make sense? I hope so...

To me it's like this...You would have to believe that you had a great, great, great, great, great grandfather...even though you don't have pictures or written testimony to his existence...you are here because of him...Bethlehem and Jerusalem are still here...and so is there history and documentation of events, people and places...

In America we act like our history is ancient and we are less than 300 years old...but, many other cultures and countries have indisputable proof of their existence...even if they don't exist now...

[Dante]

D'you know, it's a blóódy good job we're not all in the same small town, because I think it's hospital / surgery would currently be overflowing from the casualties resulting from this thread! ;O)

For the record, I feel that all religions have something to give. But I disagree with at least one point (ususally a fairly major one) in each of them, so I guess i just generally try to be cool to everyone regardless! (Please bear in mind this is only my opinion, and I fervently respect everyone's right to their belief).

May <<Deity / belief structure of your choosing>> Bless you all! ;O)

[Bulldog]

Good word there Dante...

I just find it amusing in a great sense that there is more than enough evidence that Buddha existed...Christ existed...Mohammed (Probably didn't spell that right)...all of them...

So, I guess the discussion will continue! Hopefully, there have been no casualties...just new perspectives to those who have the ability to see where their fellow man and woman are coming from...

[Dante]

Oh, and just a quick point:

Several religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell, and if you worship any other god, you will go to hell.

Does anyone else see the delicious irony implicit there??

(Once again, I respect averyone's religious beliefs! Please don't be mad!) ;O)

[Bulldog]

Most religions believe in 1. higher place or "heaven" 2. Hell or a place of unrest and judgement or seperation from gods or God or 3. a middle level

And yes, I would suspect that most religions believe that you are going to "hell" if you don't subscribe to their faith or system of beliefs and practices...

[CKava]

originally posted by shunyadragon
Japan's government has been Shinto since the 1860's.Japans government has been nothing since the defeat of Japan in WWII, State Shinto was abolished in 1945 and the Japanese constitution was ammended to include religious freedom as a right and the permanent seperation of state and religion. Japan is indeed a Buddhist country (as much as any country is a Buddhist country) as for a start Shinto and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive in Japan, in fact if you know any Japanese people ask them and you'll find very likely they where taken to a Shinto shrine when they where born yet they will be taken to a Buddhist temple for their funeral ceremony when they die...

Id be curious as to what you classify as Buddhism if you think "China, Japan and Korea are not Buddhist Lands." If your suggesting that they dont practice the pure original form of Buddhism I think it would be a bit hard- seeing as how its gone! Any country that Buddhism has spread to will contain elements of the indigenous religions and customs that existed before and after its arrival. The original form of Buddhism is Indian and as their no longer exists the original Buddhist tradition of India pure untainted Buddhism is just a pipedream. And when you suggest Burma as the only Buddhist land what about Thailand, what about Tibet, what about Nepal and so on? Tibetan Buddhism even specifically claims its authenticity as a result of being a direct transmission from India...

War has never been waged in the name of BuddhaThats not that impressive when you dont consider any country as being Buddhist besides Burma and didnt the mongols convert to Buddhism while they where rampaging around Asia? (though in fairness I doubt they ever charged into battle saying for the dharma!) Still if you dont classify them as Buddhists because they killed people I dont think its fair to classify the Crusaders as Christians either...

[Dante]

We're all going to hell.

Búgger. :(

[thekingster]

Originally posted by Dante
We're all going to hell.

Búgger. :(

I am not planning on it.

:D

[Bulldog]

I knew that was coming sooner or later...LOL

[Dante]

I tried SO HARD to refrain.
:Angel:

[Bulldog]

You folks make me laugh more than a great rerun of the Simpsons...

[Dante]

That's good to know.

...

And just who the hell IS Ron Popeil, anyway?? :confused: :confused:

...

So, I looked him up.
:o

This is getting off the subject, isn't it?

[Bulldog]

It's been a good discussion...and all good discussions turn to humor, sooner or later...at least mine do...I can't be too serious for too long or I get a headache...

[Dante]

I think we killed this thread.

*Runs away for fear of being 'moderated'*

:eek:

[Bulldog]

The ending of a matter is always better than its' beginning....

[thekingster]

Nah...only religious zealots will read it anyway...

LONG LIVE THE THREAD.

That's why I don't advocate religion---I am embroiled in a relationship. SHHHH! Don't tell the naysayers here...it'll just be more fuel for the fire.

:D

[Bulldog]

Brother...what I posted was straight out of Proverbs...

[Deep]

Santaria. yeah I know kinda spooky:D

[Kwajman]

Interesting questions, strange answers in some cases...

[thekingster]

Originally posted by Bulldog
Brother...what I posted was straight out of Proverbs...

Sorry, dude...I don't have the book of Proverbs committed to memory.

:D

[Bulldog]

I wasn't slagging on you...and I don't have the book of Proverbs committed to memory either...That was my whole point...

We can use the Bible and we can misuse it...Many verses are in my opinion abused...please don't ask me for an example, cuz, I could write a book...

Like what I posted....

The end of a matter is better than it's beginning...between you and me, who both confess Christ as Lord...IT HAS TO BE TRUTH...right?

Now, we are looking at trying to understand that verse and gaining application thru discernment, wisdom and knowledge...I may get a revelation that is different from yours...but, with both of us communicating...we may be able to put it together...still following me?

So, when one person quotes scripture like...

Wives obey your husbands...

Most people think...well...that's not real harsh, but, what if a husband is a putz...

I have been where I believe a lot of people are with verses like that...but, then you find verses in Isaiah...where it says,

The Lord your God is your husband...so, that would make me a wife...Christ is the bridegroom and we are the bride...still following me? That verse, "wives obey your husbands" now means something a little different when you get the context that God sees His relationship with those that choose Him as a Husband/Wife relationship...it has nothing to do with sexual organs or gender...So, I throw this out...

How could you be a good "husband" to an earthly wife, if you did not know how to be an "obedient wife" to God...IMO too many churches, pastors, teachers...blah blah blah...don't even consider the impact of their words...too often I feel like Christians come off sounding like they know more about God than God does...:) And I can see God sitting there shaking His head, going, "who and what does this person think he is?...Please get a clue"


The bottom line is this...Christians (me included) often tend to speak before we have understanding...I have discussions all the time with pastors, professors and non believers all the time about the mystery being revealed thru scripture...if we confess that Christ is Lord and that the Bible is the absolute Word of God...we must also confess and acknowledge that the Word became Flesh...and that means Christ is the Word and the Word is Christ...there can be NO arguement...if you want to know Christ, you must know the Word...if you want to become like Christ, you must do it through the Word...for the Word became flesh...that's what is happening to the body...we are to become the Word in our flesh...Thru Christs' death and resurrection...we have been made spiritually perfect, for the Word says, we are the righteousness of God thru Christ...or we are His right standing...The Church is told specifically to NOT regard ANYONE in the flesh any longer...but, by spirit...so, when we get on folks who are struggling with something like smoking...The word tells me that I am not to condemn the world...as Christ said, I did not come to condemn the world ( THE WORLD WAS ALREADY CONDEMNED!) He did say he came to bring judgement...and the judgement was not on the flesh...but the spirit...to see the Word do what I believe it is intended to do...you must direct it to the spirit and not the flesh or what human eyes see...

Ok...I have so much more I want to type...but, this is long enough...

Sorry everybody...

Aaron

[shunyadragon]

The OT was not in circulation at that time. Many books were in circulation, inclding many books not in the OT or NT like the Book of Jasher, which is quoted in the Bible.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Bulldog
The history of the Jewish people is quite possible one the most easily traced and best kept...The Jews themselves don't deny that Christ was a living breathing person...The history of the Roman empire is actually IMO being taken totally out of context...The Greek historians were very adamant about making sure things were correct in lineage and Paul's life is well documented by the Greek and Roman history...he was a Roman citizen and his ministry came very close after Christ ascended...I think that most people can without much arguement believe that Christ existed...I think most do not choose to believe his purpose, ministry, and the extent of the miracles or acts he is credited with accomplishing...

The Jews will tell you that he was crucified and will tell you about his ministry...it is WELL documented...again, by people that reject him as Messiah...

Frank says:

I went to Isreal and talked to many Jews about what they thought about Jesus and other religions. Not all Jews consider Christ a real person and his life is not documented at all outside the Bible. Most said it was not important whether he was a real person or not.

The Moslems do acknowledge Jesus is a real person and so do Baha'is, but their view of Christ is somewhat different. I am a Baha'i and I believe Christ was a real person. I'm in this debate because I think Christians tend to over state evidence, interprete the Bible selectively, condemn evolution based flimsy circus theatrics and misrepresent historical evidence like Josephus.

Christianity today is basically a Roman religion based on Roman theology.


In America we act like our history is ancient and we are less than 300 years old...but, many other cultures and countries have indisputable proof of their existence...even if they don't exist now...

Frank says:

In America our history is ancient the Native American Five-Nation Confederation is the oldest democracy known and it is still a soverign government to day. They had a religious tradition including a Messiah and the promised return of a Messiah.

On big problem is Christianty does not recognize the spiritual traditions of others and considers everyone else as heathen, pagan, condemned or demonic. This has created a lot of wars over the years continuing today.

[Yama Tombo]

I didn't read all of the thread, but I've glanced over it. I detest myself as a human. Its when I see comments full of spite of each other. God was right and is right in my eyes:

2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is all of us! Yeah, someone may say,"This stuff has been around forever!" No, look through history and you'll see! Its not widely accepted as it is now!

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zun
Sadly, some moslems, like many followers of others faiths, are ignorant. :( To believe in other religions makes your ascent to the heavens very difficult (ie life after death is where you are punished for your deeds). Good people will go heaven. Just that good moslems with go to a better heaven.

Recognising a religion and tolerance are two different issues, my friend. Everyone - regardless of religion, creed and colour are to be tolerated. Like I say Mohammed lived and fought with people of other religions.

Frank says:

Like all religions what the prophet taught long ago only has meaning if the believers follow it today.

Please note however that religions such as buddhism and sikhism are recognised by many muslim countries and muslims.

Frank says:

Not so, they are highly restricted and limited by law on what they can do. Moslem countries do not allow the teaching of any other faith in their country. They are definitely bot considered equal in the eyes of the law.


I am sorry to hear that. And, this is not the intent of Islam - only some ignorant people who call themselves muslims. Fundimentalism goes against the grain of Islam. For instance, in Islam women are treated equally. Unfortunately, in fundamentlist countries they are denied the right to a education. This is plainly wrong. Many muslims were up in arms when the Buddhist statues were destroyed by the fundimentalist Talebans.

I sympathise with you for the persecution of Baha'i. And I suspect perhaps that it is not to do with the fact that it is a new religion rather that Bahá'u'lláh believed himself to be a prophet equal to Moses, Jesus and Mohammed. The persecution in the [b]strongly fundimentalist countries I would imagine is probably for the blasphemy. But many of the other muslim countries you note are tolerant.

Frank says:

Please, name one tolerant Moslem country. Tolerance is only necessary when you consider someone different or lesser than you.

This not true, other Moslem nations are not tolerant of Bah'i and it is forbiden to be a Baha'i, to convert to a Baha'i or teach the any other faith including Baha'i. As a Baha'i visiting a Moslem country I am restricted even as a visitor and we are given a list of these restrictions we must follow by our institutions.

You're own words: know of the Laws of the Koran . Once a person knows better, they should do better. It's okay for good people to do the good they do as long as they are ignorant. However, once they're aware of they ways of koran and they wish salvation, then and only then must they give up their pagan ways. This is the same with Jews and Christians.

Yes, and I don't agree with the Jews or Christians either. They also fight wars over this.

Infidels = disbeliever. Nothing more, nothing less. Just a non-muslim.

Yes but they are still condemned as are those that preach what Islam defines as blasphamy and these beliefs are not in step with the modern world including the Islamic view of women and rape.

No. Sorry, I disagree. I have been bought up as a muslim and, like my friends, am actively encouraged to seek out and learn about other religions. For example, at the moment I am actively researching Taoism.

Frank says:

You are unique I have visited Moslem countries and the books you mention are not available generally to the public, nor do Moslems traditionally study other religions such as Buddhism or Taoism.

Your view of Islam is very idealistic and not intouch with reality.


This about people of a sect. Not the religion per se. For instance - in Ireland - ask the protestants what they think of the catholic and vice versa. Same response as in the above.

Like in Christianity you condemn each other in Islam. Sunis call Shiites a sect and Shiites call Sunis a sect. Thus, as in Christiantiy more and more wars.

With due all respect. The facts that you present are not indicative of Islam, and refer to the people of a fundamental sub-section. Mormons do not represent Christianity and in the same way Talibans do not represent Islam.

Frank says:

No, but up until recently many islamic nation did support them and even today large populations of Moslems from Indonesia, Pakistan and the Arab countries still support them.

The religious wars go on and on in the name of God.

[thekingster]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
I didn't read all of the thread, but I've glanced over it. I detest myself as a human. Its when I see comments full of spite of each other.

I haven't intended to slight anyone in this posting - and my posts have not been full of spite.

Religious discussions always bring out interesting sides of everyone. :rolleyes:

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
I didn't read all of the thread, but I've glanced over it. I detest myself as a human. Its when I see comments full of spite of each other. God was right and is right in my eyes:

2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Frank says:

The same claim of Paul, medevil scholars, Mormons, Millerites, and preachers today

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Frank says:

Has this really changed? This has been a tradition of men in bars since at least the time when Egyptians drank themselves into a stupor in the cliffs above the Nile and wrote porno on the walls of the caves about their leaders.

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Frank says:

More Shakespear and Greek tragedies.

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Frank says:

Sounds like Greek tragedies, comodies, Rome, Shakespear and the politics of government today


5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Frank says:

Most of the world didn't accept Christ throughout history and most of those in Rome did not convert volintarilly. There have been wars fought over Christianty from almost the time of Christ to today. Things haven't change.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

Frank says:

Sounds like Oprah

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is all of us! Yeah, someone may say,"This stuff has been around forever!" No, look through history and you'll see! Its not widely accepted as it is now!

Frank says:

Fortunately or unfortunately human nature hasn't changed for hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of years.

[shunyadragon]

What is the oldest book in history?

Hints: It is not the Bible or any book in the Bible. Unlike the Bible, we have most of the original text and the author.

[Yama Tombo]

Originally posted by thekingster
I haven't intended to slight anyone in this posting - and my posts have not been full of spite.

Religious discussions always bring out interesting sides of everyone. :rolleyes:

Well I cannot repeal anything that I said despite what your intentions were. Even I still feel that way from the comments I've seen. I don't think anyone should hate or atleast make fun of anyone no matter what belief. Though, yes religion discussions can bring out interesting sides.

[Yama Tombo]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
I didn't read all of the thread, but I've glanced over it. I detest myself as a human. Its when I see comments full of spite of each other. God was right and is right in my eyes:

2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Frank says:

The same claim of Paul, medevil scholars, Mormons, Millerites, and preachers today

**True

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Frank says:

Has this really changed? This has been a tradition of men in bars since at least the time when Egyptians drank themselves into a stupor in the cliffs above the Nile and wrote porno on the walls of the caves about their leaders.

**I said widely accepted ( I meant the world at once) this is only one example of one culture

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Frank says:

More Shakespear and Greek tragedies.

***....You've gotten close but the timeline is a stretch between Eygtians and the British.....

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Frank says:

Sounds like Greek tragedies, comodies, Rome, Shakespear and the politics of government today

****Still the samething.....


5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Frank says:

Most of the world didn't accept Christ throughout history and most of those in Rome did not convert volintarilly. There have been wars fought over Christianty from almost the time of Christ to today. Things haven't change.

*****But the number has increase and is seen as a part of society of today's many cultures. If I was a Pilgrim, and turned away, I would have been hanged; Medevil times I would have been called a heretic and hated.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

Frank says:

Sounds like Oprah

******Yeah it does, I have to agree with you there....

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is all of us! Yeah, someone may say,"This stuff has been around forever!" No, look through history and you'll see! Its not widely accepted as it is now!

All this stuff may have had an impact at one time of another over time. But it's made the MAJOR impact in today's world in one decade which is short in contrast with 500 years pass.

Example:

--If you just move into a house near a railroad track. For about the first few months or weeks you can't stand the sound of the train going by at 3:00 a.m every morning.
--For the next month it only slightly bugs you.
--By the next few months you barely notice it. But you still get up from the noise.
--By a year or so the train comes by and you sleep right through it no problem. You've final accepted it.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
Originally posted by Yama Tombo
I didn't read all of the thread, but I've glanced over it. I detest myself as a human. Its when I see comments full of spite of each other. God was right and is right in my eyes:

2 Timothy 3
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Frank says:

The same claim of Paul, medevil scholars, Mormons, Millerites, and preachers today

**True

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Frank says:

Has this really changed? This has been a tradition of men in bars since at least the time when Egyptians drank themselves into a stupor in the cliffs above the Nile and wrote porno on the walls of the caves about their leaders.

**I said widely accepted ( I meant the world at once) this is only one example of one culture

I can give many examples from China to the Native American people in myths, legends and stories, but my point is human nature has not change and all these things you mentioned are a part of human nature and not unique or more apparent today than any time in the past.

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Frank says:

More Shakespear and Greek tragedies.

***....You've gotten close but the timeline is a stretch between Eygtians and the British.....

The examples I site are through out history and not a stretch. The problem is shortsightedness by focusing on today and saying for some reason we are different.

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Frank says:

Sounds like Greek tragedies, comodies, Rome, Shakespear and the politics of government today

****Still the samething.....


5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Frank says:

Most of the world didn't accept Christ throughout history and most of those in Rome did not convert volintarilly. There have been wars fought over Christianty from almost the time of Christ to today. Things haven't change.

*****But the number has increase and is seen as a part of society of today's many cultures. If I was a Pilgrim, and turned away, I would have been hanged; Medevil times I would have been called a heretic and hated.

Frank says:

A sad witness of the virtues or lack of such among the pilgrims. There was also the unfortunate witch hunts in Massachusetts. Our forefathers were not only slavers and butchers of the Native Americans, but at times exterminaters of disent.

Fortunately some but not all modern governments tend to tolerate diversity of thought more and not exterminate those that disent or protest.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

Frank says:

Sounds like Oprah

******Yeah it does, I have to agree with you there....

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

This is all of us! Yeah, someone may say,"This stuff has been around forever!" No, look through history and you'll see! Its not widely accepted as it is now!

All this stuff may have had an impact at one time of another over time. But it's made the MAJOR impact in today's world in one decade which is short in contrast with 500 years pass.

Example:

--If you just move into a house near a railroad track. For about the first few months or weeks you can't stand the sound of the train going by at 3:00 a.m every morning.
--For the next month it only slightly bugs you.
--By the next few months you barely notice it. But you still get up from the noise.
--By a year or so the train comes by and you sleep right through it no problem. You've final accepted it.

Frank says:

Poor example. I think these problems have always caused a major impact in all people and cultures throughout history. In the past we often lacked any haven for diversity and disent of the intolerant majority so diversity and disent was often exterminated like in Rome in the early years of Christianity when it became the State Religion.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by CKava
Japans government has been nothing since the defeat of Japan in WWII, State Shinto was abolished in 1945 and the Japanese constitution was ammended to include religious freedom as a right and the permanent seperation of state and religion. Japan is indeed a Buddhist country (as much as any country is a Buddhist country) as for a start Shinto and Buddhism are not mutually exclusive in Japan, in fact if you know any Japanese people ask them and you'll find very likely they where taken to a Shinto shrine when they where born yet they will be taken to a Buddhist temple for their funeral ceremony when they die...

Japan's government is not a Buddhist government like Buddhist governments since the 1860's. Japans history as a Buddhist Kingdom before the 1860's was mostly preoccupied in defending Japan from invasion (Mainly from China) and foreign domination.

When the Shinto emperor's rulled China from the 1860's they assumed the role of the Manifest destiny of Shino that they were destined to rule the world. After this the government of Japan devoted itself to modernization, militarism and wars against Russia, China, Korea and eventually the Allies in WWII.
Shinto was not ablolished after WWII. The Shinto emperor remained.

The wars after the 1860's were waged in the name of the Shinto Emperor. Some Buddhists often protested against the wars

Id be curious as to what you classify as Buddhism if you think "China, Japan and Korea are not Buddhist Lands." If your suggesting that they dont practice the pure original form of Buddhism I think it would be a bit hard- seeing as how its gone! Any country that Buddhism has spread to will contain elements of the indigenous religions and customs that existed before and after its arrival. The original form of Buddhism is Indian and as their no longer exists the original Buddhist tradition of India pure untainted Buddhism is just a pipedream. And when you suggest Burma as the only Buddhist land what about Thailand, what about Tibet, what about Nepal and so on? Tibetan Buddhism even specifically claims its authenticity as a result of being a direct transmission from India...

Frank says:

Whether Buddhism is practiced as a pure form or not is not the question. I've studied Chinese history and culture and lived in China for six years. China could never have been classified as a Buddhist Land in it's entire history. At times Buddhism blossomed and prospered, but at other times it was persicuted. The religious reality of China is the reverse. The religion of China is primarilly traditional religious beliefs and Taoism with Buddhist influence.
Confucian ideals and principles have always ruled the government and the social structure of China.

Even the Arts of the Way brought by Buddhism have lost their original nature. They have become the Warrior Arts more in line with Chinese history and traditions.



Thats not that impressive when you dont consider any country as being Buddhist besides Burma and didnt the mongols convert to Buddhism while they where rampaging around Asia? (though in fairness I doubt they ever charged into battle saying for the dharma!) Still if you dont classify them as Buddhists because they killed people I dont think its fair to classify the Crusaders as Christians either...

Frank says:

These other Buddhist countries you mentioned have not waged wars on others in the name of Buddhism.

The Mongols did not become Buddhist rampaging through Asia.
The Mongol religion was mostly their primal religious beliefs. Some but not all became Buddhists in China after they settled down and established the Yuan Dynasty. But Buddhism was never a strong religion among the Mongols, but after the conguered China it played more of a role in their lives like the Chinese.

Concerning Christian on a religious crusade. Unfair?

Oh, history shows that Christians are indeed great crusaders in the name of Christ long after the horrendous distructive disaster called the Crusades which also resulted in burning and sacking a great Christian City, which contributed to the eventual fall of the Bysantine Empire to the Moslems.

Christian conversion in the lands conquered by Christian Rome was not voluntary. When the British Isles and the rest of Europe became Christian the other religions and faiths were put to the sword if they did not convert. Few Native Americans converted voluntarilly. The English basicaly practiced extermination, forced migration and later the reservation system where until recently Native American languages and religion were forbidden in the schools operated primarily by the churches. The Spanish and the Portuguese simply raised the sword and said convert or die.

When the Moslems ruled Spain it was a nation of great universities and Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace and practice their faith. When the Moslems were defeated in Spain. All Moslems and Jews were forced to convert or die.

The persecution and extermination of the Jews of Europe was done with the strong religious motives of a Crusade against the Jews. Even though Hitler was atheist, he could not have done what he did without the cooperation and encouragement of the Christians of Europe.

In more modern times the ethnic wars and extermination of hundreds of thousands was done in Africa in the name of Christian Churches. The UN has documented the role of the leaders of Christian Churches in these horrific tragadies. Those responsible included a Bishop of the Roman Church

Canada recently published an extensive letter of apology to the Native American peoples for a history of this type of Crusade against them.

The list goes on and on and on . . . . .

[DexterTCN]

I hate it when religious people get all holier-than-thou.

[nzric]

Bada boom

[DexterTCN]

Ever notice how big their posts start to get?

It's like watching lawyers arguing about embezzlement.

If you could put it in a bottle you could sell it to insomniacs. :p

[nzric]

Notice that the topic of this thread is "What's your religion?" - that only requires a one-line answer folks.

I've been wavering about Jedi but I think I'll stick with Taoist Atheist (sorry Yoda) - it has a nice ring to it.

[shunyadragon]

Taoist is not atheist. They believe in the Tao. Atheists believe in nothing.

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Taoist is not atheist. They believe in the Tao. Atheists believe in nothing. Actually Taoism is quite compatable with atheism. Taoism is a philosophy, not a religion. The "way" can be interpreted in many ways. An atheist might interpret it simply as the way of nature. Like other belief systems, there are many different "flavors" of atheism.

It is even possible to be a Buddhist atheist. Some Buddhist sects adhere to a pantheon of gods and goddesses (many with Hindu counterparts), but others do not. It is not necessary to acknowledge any higher power in Buddhism, only to seek enlightenment by freeing one's self from desire and ego, and by recognizing the interconnectedness of all things.

[shunyadragon]

I've heard people say they are an Aheist Christain, Buddhist, Jew or Taoist. Any one may claim to be anything, but these beliefs are not compatable with the original teachings of the faith and the scriptures of those faiths.

Laozi said: If you know the Tao it is not the Tao. Atheist claim to know God does not exist. The Tao is unknown, whether it exists or not.

Buddhists by the teaching of of many Buddhas believe that everything comes from and returns to the 'Source'. There is the the teaching of the Universal Buddha who does not come to earth, but sends the teachers, Buddhas to enlighten the world.

The difference between the western God or Gods and Buddhism is that the 'Source' exists but it is unknowable, like in Baha'i.

God is simply a three letter word that people use to describe the source.

Oddly reincarnation is not a Buddhist belief, even though many Buddhist believe in it.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by nzric
Notice that the topic of this thread is "What's your religion?" - that only requires a one-line answer folks.

I've been wavering about Jedi but I think I'll stick with Taoist Atheist (sorry Yoda) - it has a nice ring to it.


Guess what! Like nature, threads evolve naturally, and not according to the insecurities of those that want to limit the posts.

One liners are okay, but they don't tell the whole story.

[Bulldog]

I sincerely hope that you all know and accept that I am in know way attempting to sway or swoon anyone with my words...I have opinions based on what I know...and what I know, I would never call "vast"...I have heard just about everyones opinion on the planet earth when it comes to ones personal faith...:)

Let me say this...Do I believe that I have the complete, word for word, exact words from every person, every story...ect...in the present day Bible that most "Christians" use? No...Have I come to engross myself in Hebrew and Greek studies to gain better translation/definitions? Yes...Have I tried to understand the history of the people or nations involved in compiling the books we call the Bible...Yes...

Do I wish it was easy and that I could just reach up to my book shelf and pull it down so that every question I have ever had or will have will be answered unto me? Yes...

Are there legitmate disagreements by others apart from me about verses, books that have been allegedly or purposesly omitted, interpretation, translation, historical uncertainty, lack of physical or overwhelming physical evidence? Yep...

Although I really do like this discussion...I would like to withdrawal after this for no other reason than I am not adding anything that will benefit a final solution! :) I will continue to read and browse repsonses...a few more words and then it's time for Bulldog to go back to his doghouse:)

Evolution? I won't even comment...Oh yes I will...


Not only is it scientifically impossible for DNA to be changed by more than .0002 % without death of the organism, let alone species...I'm not talking about cloning...I'm talking about the genetic altering of DNA to EVOLVE it or progress it...Science of course is important, but, it again is as limited as my own opinion...because it simply comes from man...and you can get almost any result you want scientifically by controlling the enviroment and "ingredients"...

That's my opinion...Just like I won't convince those who believe that we evolved from a monkey any different...I simply will never budge from the belief I confess...that I am God created...LOL

As far as Scriptures...God...Religion...Faith...

Are those who don't subscribe to my faith condemned by me...?
I hope I NEVER COME ACROSS THAT WAY...EVER...
It's hard to set a tone of discussion when you can't interpret the persons manner in which they are speaking...I hope that makes sense...My posts, I hope are always taken in gentleness and respect to all others...

I do have some questions about anyone from the Jewish faith saying that they don't believe Christ existed...the whole foundation of Judaism is the coming of messiah...or am I incorrect?
Christ was not accepted by the Jewish "leaders" and "rulers" of the day as Messiah, but, I have spoken with many Jews who simply said, "he was a good teacher, but, he wasn't the Son of God"....

I can see that most opinions are represented here...
and mine is no more important or valid than anyone elses...
The proof, they say is in the pudding...

I hope whatever god you follow does what he says he can, has and will do...I'll stick with what I got...:)

And you are all still invited over to my place anytime...:)
Without threat of hanging, crucifiction, beheading, stoning, whipping, firing squad, declaration of war, brainwashing attempts, fistacuffs, nah nah nah nee boo boo, or anyting else resembling intolerance for you or your opinions...

Hope that's cool with ya all...

BD

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by Bulldog
Hope that's cool with ya all... Is that cool with me? Yes. Do I have a problem with the content of your post? No. Do I find it annoying when someone writes half their post by asking questions and then answering them themselves? Certainly. Do I think you'll agree with me? I hope you will.

Is this post over? Definately.

[Bulldog]

RUBYMOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

WORD...heard that loud and clear...:)

I write to ask questions and sometimes to answer questions...and yes, sometimes I answer my own questions in the same post...

Sometimes I forget that discussions are not journal entries...but, then again...sometimes for me they are...:)

And I'll be in Florida next month...coffee? Tea? Or how about Fudruckers? I love those Ostrich burgers...LOL

[Yama Tombo]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Frank says:

Poor example. I think these problems have always caused a major impact in all people and cultures throughout history. In the past we often lacked any haven for diversity and disent of the intolerant majority so diversity and disent was often exterminated like in Rome in the early years of Christianity when it became the State Religion.

To amount to the fact it maybe a poor example, still the meaning shows through. Tolerance has deteriorate over time and acceptance of the problems has increase. And right now, there is a middle line just so that standards and the problems may "co-existence." Even some christian religions promote the attitude "No matter what you do, you'll still go to heaven if you believe!!!!!!! SO BUY NOW!!!" So, it should actually make it ok for murderers to be set up free if they claim to have faith in God!! God, won't actually mind if the person murders to their desire (...after all it isn't it called "Laissez Faire")

[nzric]

"Taoist is not atheist. They believe in the Tao. Atheists believe in nothing."

Wrong shunyadragon - that's a common misconception of atheism. Atheism is NOT a belief system so it is not a "belief in nothing". It is a "disbelief in something". Think about it. As far as I have seen, learned and experienced, nothing has convinced me of a supernatural cause for what I see around me. Religion just isn't necessary. But I don't hold a belief - that would mean I find it difficult to change my beliefs, which I don't.

Also, I know the definition of the Tao, and I also know that the universe is so complex that there are some processes that are beyond the boundaries of human comprehension (like some quantum physics and why Madonna has sold out).

My interpretation of the Tao is an understanding that there are innate flows and processes in the universe (we know of seasonal and millenial changes in the universe, but what about seasons of millions of years?). I just understand that it is better to "go with the flow" of the universe, of human interaction and the environment, which includes acting with compassion and goodwill toward people. Karma is scientific because you don't exist in a void - everything effects you.

See - an atheist knowledge system based on love and compassion without the need to believe in a deity. Also, it's not based on guilt or in order to get a reward at the end. Works for me. I don't mind what other people think, as long as they don't try to influence me, or others in a negative way with their beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

You misunderstood my lines. My whole message was in reference to the belief of a diety or higher power like God, Tao or what ever you want call it.

I was referring to the concept of the diety, atheist believe there is nothing, no diety, and not your value system.

To Bulldog

One remark I hear a lot from Christians is 'your god, my god'

Do you actually believe in polytheism. Is there more than one God?

I know belief in the trinity and the devil can be probably interpreted as four Gods. Are there more?

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
To amount to the fact it maybe a poor example, still the meaning shows through. Tolerance has deteriorate over time and acceptance of the problems has increase. And right now, there is a middle line just so that standards and the problems may "co-existence." Even some christian religions promote the attitude "No matter what you do, you'll still go to heaven if you believe!!!!!!! SO BUY NOW!!!" So, it should actually make it ok for murderers to be set up free if they claim to have faith in God!! God, won't actually mind if the person murders to their desire (...after all it isn't it called "Laissez Faire")

What some Christian religions do at one time or another is a mixed bag in the Roman and Medevil times you could buy your way to heaven regardless of your sins, to day some churches preach 'Once born again your sins are forgiven for life', but I don't think they mean that you can commit murder without the consquences. Some people still try and buy their way in. Some even use other peoples money.

In Christian Rome sin and religion genuinely coexisted. They owned slaves, fooled around alot and lived a rather hedinous lifestyle.

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by Bulldog
And I'll be in Florida next month...coffee? Tea? Or how about Fudruckers? I love those Ostrich burgers...LOL Gee, you just can't seem to win today. I don't drink coffee or tea, and I'm a strict vegetarian (almost vegan). How about a mineral water and some nice Chinese food?

[thekingster]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I know belief in the trinity and the devil can be probably interpreted as four Gods. Are there more?

No credible source would ever conceive of Satan as a god. He was a created being - an angel of the highest order. Christians do not endorse a pantheon of three gods in the Trinity.

There is one God who is manifested in three personages, namely: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While it's not a perfect analogy - consider liquid water, steam, and ice. Each are three different representations of the same "essence" - water.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by thekingster
No credible source would ever conceive of Satan as a god. He was a created being - an angel of the highest order. Christians do not endorse a pantheon of three gods in the Trinity.

There is one God who is manifested in three personages, namely: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. While it's not a perfect analogy - consider liquid water, steam, and ice. Each are three different representations of the same "essence" - water.


You actually didn't answer the main question.

Like I commonly hear from Christians you referred to my God . . . your God. Do you based on this concept believe there is more than one God?

As to the Trinity and the devil.

What scholars and critics describe as a pantheon of Gods in Hinduism and Buddhism is actually one supreme being and other lesser created beings, or different aspects or attributes of the one supreme God as in the Christian Trinity.

I think different churches describe the Trinity differently. I was raised in the nightmare of the Roman Church (Catholic Chruch to the believers). We were taught to believe that the Trinity was three distinct beings, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit that are also One. This a very different concept than what you describe as water, steam and ice.

In the same line Mary in the Roman Church can be easily be described as a lesser God able to intersede on the behave of God and answer the prays of the believers, but in the Protestant Churches she does not have the role of a lesser Deity.

The devil may be a created angel he is given a realm and authority in the same way as lesser Gods in other religions. He is given the power to contest the will of God.

A wiseman from India traveled to the west and visited many countries. He described the religion as having many Gods with many statues and the society had a strong cast system. He was puzzled though, the highest cast consisted of movie stars and musicians of great wealth that the common people were not allowed to touch or talk to.

[Shaolin Dragon]

One could argue that by giving us free will, God has given us all the power to contest His will. I would argue that it is not a question of contesting His will, but of being part of it.

[shunyadragon]

Splitting frog hairs over how the Devil's will is defined does not address the original questions.

One important point was that the divine nature of Gods Chrisians call a pantheon of Gods or polythesim in Hindu and Buddhist religions is not much different than the Christian pantheon of divine beings.

Still not answered does the, 'My God . . . your God' indicate the belief in more than one God?

[nzric]

Good point. What defines a 'god'? If the christian god created 'man' in his image and man has the power of free will over the word of god, you could say in the christian interpretation, individuals are 'gods' as well (without even going into the whole menagerie of angels in the bible).

[shunyadragon]

Polytheism in the Bible is an interesting topic.

In the original teaxt of Genesis, 'Humans were created in 'Our' image.

[nzric]

Huh?

It's like Adam & Eve's kids going off and marrying outside the family. How did that happen? (yes, before everyone send a smart answer, I know it's because from an anthropological pov Adam and Eve are metaphors for the tribes that settled in the Fertile Valley, but isn't that section of the bible a stick in the spokes for those people that believe in the literal truth of the bible?)

[quartermaster]

i think i might have already answered this but i cant remember, so here it is (again)

i dont believe in religion
i dont believe in telling someone that they are in the wrong and that they will go to hell. (no implications intended, i just got swamped by a nutter one day)

i do believe in certain religious ideals, that shall remain my business and no others'

with humility

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Ginger Fist
i think i might have already answered this but i cant remember, so here it is (again)

i dont believe in religion
i dont believe in telling someone that they are in the wrong and that they will go to hell. (no implications intended, i just got swamped by a nutter one day)

i do believe in certain religious ideals, that shall remain my business and no others'

with humility

Religion is simply a word that means unity. To not believe in 'religion' or what people called 'organized religion' is a common scapegoat for the problems of the world. The use of 'religious' is simply the adjective for the nature of 'religion'

Not all religions have this strong belief in their own exclusiveness and sense of superiority over other beliefs. Both the Unitarians and the Baha'i Faith are very open and inclusive of othr beliefs.

[nzric]

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

There's a difference between a religious belief and a philosophical/moral/political belief. The term religion is grounded in the supernatural. Without faith in supernatural processes, it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on unity.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by nzric
re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn) n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

There's a difference between a religious belief and a philosophical/moral/political belief. The term religion is grounded in the supernatural. Without faith in supernatural processes, it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on unity.

I never drew that conclusion. Unity is a concept that is in religion, philosophy, moral and political beliefs.

I was referring to the origins of the word. The Unitarian Church is classified as a religion. Belief in the supernatural is not a necessary part of a religion. Generally Unitarian does not believe in the supernatural.

I'm a Baha'i and I don't believe in the supernatural, because the concept is that the occurances or the belief cannot be explained by natural laws, above natural law or in contradiction with natural law. Baha'is for the most part believe in the Harmony of the Science and the Spiritual realms. There are not two sets of laws in existence; natural and supernatural.

The belief in the supernatural usually occurs when people think that science cannot or is incapable of expaining certain things. Through the passage of time science has been able to explain things that were previously considered supernatural. No one knows what the future holds.

The word following 'miracle in most dictionaries is 'mirage'.

[thekingster]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
[B]You actually didn't answer the main question.
Actually, I directly addressed your question.

As to the Trinity and the devil.

What scholars and critics describe as a pantheon of Gods in Hinduism and Buddhism is actually one supreme being and other lesser created beings, or different aspects or attributes of the one supreme God as in the Christian Trinity.

I think different churches describe the Trinity differently. I was raised in the nightmare of the Roman Church (Catholic Chruch to the believers). We were taught to believe that the Trinity was three distinct beings, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit that are also One. This a very different concept than what you describe as water, steam and ice.

Not so, an orthodox viewing of the Trinity understands that there is difference in persons (in terms of relational function) yet the different members are of the same essence. (That's why I invoked the "water" example - which I indicated was not a perfect analogy in the first place.)

In the same line Mary in the Roman Church can be easily be described as a lesser God able to intersede on the behave of God and answer the prays of the believers, but in the Protestant Churches she does not have the role of a lesser Deity.
It is baffling how the phrase "mother of God" can lead someone o this conclusion in the Roman Catholic faith.

The devil may be a created angel he is given a realm and authority in the same way as lesser Gods in other religions. He is given the power to contest the will of God.
All God's creation with rational faculties were endowed with free will capacity - Satan is no different. Not deified in any sense - but certainly of a different power than a "regular" angel...if anyone can comprehend what power structure they have. Conjecture, speculation, all ANYONE can deduce about it.

[thekingster]

Originally posted by nzric
Huh?

It's like Adam & Eve's kids going off and marrying outside the family. How did that happen? (yes, before everyone send a smart answer, I know it's because from an anthropological pov Adam and Eve are metaphors for the tribes that settled in the Fertile Valley, but isn't that section of the bible a stick in the spokes for those people that believe in the literal truth of the bible?)

It's not a leap for biblicists -

Adam - mankind
Eve - mother of all living

Could be individuals and metaphorical...who, pray tell, would ever know?

[Tireces]

Theres a lot of things in the bible that make little sense thanks to not only metaphor, but translation. The book was hand-copied by bored monks for YEARS before it was even translated. And when translated, things probably got changed that shouldnt have been. Thats just how it is. If I want to know the whole story, I'll just ask the big cheese himself. Won't be more than one hundred years when I get the chance.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by thekingster
Actually, I directly addressed your question.


Not so, an orthodox viewing of the Trinity understands that there is difference in persons (in terms of relational function) yet the different members are of the same essence. (That's why I invoked the "water" example - which I indicated was not a perfect analogy in the first place.)


It is baffling how the phrase "mother of God" can lead someone o this conclusion in the Roman Catholic faith.


Oh! I forgot the title. With that title she surely is s greater and not a lesser God than God.


All God's creation with rational faculties were endowed with free will capacity - Satan is no different. Not deified in any sense - but certainly of a different power than a "regular" angel...if anyone can comprehend what power structure they have. Conjecture, speculation, all ANYONE can deduce about it.

You didn't answer the question that these analagies fit descriptions of other religions described as polytheistic.

I am decidedly not alone in my line of thinking historically the break up of the Roman Church centered around some of these issues.

[Shaolin Dragon]

HA! The breakup of the RC church had very little to do with religion and a lot to do with politics. That is the trouble with religion - people use it to justify themselves and their actions when it does nothing of the sort.

[Shaolin Dragon]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
Splitting frog hairs over how the Devil's will is defined does not address the original questions.


Splitting hairs is what religion is all about!!!

I am no longer a practicing Catholic. I believe in one God who has many facets, so that one religion does not exclude any other.

What is God? The Bible tells us that God created man in His own image. I do not believe that God is a "person," but something else.

This is where my personal beliefs start to get confused, as I am by nature a scientist and my interpretation of God is as a being and as a "force" at the same time. I think it is merely the inadaquacies of the human mind that constrict Him to being something more human.

It is something that is beyond true human interpretation; such as the concepts of infinity, space-time and quantum probability, which exist in theory as abstract concepts.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Shaolin Dragon
HA! The breakup of the RC church had very little to do with religion and a lot to do with politics. That is the trouble with religion - people use it to justify themselves and their actions when it does nothing of the sort.

HA! :woo: :woo: In those days religion and politics were not considered seperate. The Church and state were one. The right to rule and govern the people was a DIVINE right. The seperation of the state and the church didn't come until later.

The debate concerning the Trinity and the role of Mary (Mother of God?) were very much issues debated by the schisms of the time. The power and authority of the Biship of Rome as the succesor to Peter was also an issue and also how many wives Henry the VIII wanted, but underlying issues of the nature of the theology of one God or Gods was a big issue.

The early Unitarian Universalists broke away on this very issue and were persecuted viciously.

Those question you described as beyond 'true human interpretation' are sincere questions being addressed in the more abstract modern side of math and physics. In the past it is common to describe things as beyond human 'comprehension' when later science was able to provide an adaquate understand of these questions. Comprehension is a better word, because 'interpretation' has a lot more wiggle room. We often give free riegn to the interpretating things we do not comprehend well.

[nzric]

Who has been to Italy to see the base of the Christian faith (Vatican)?

What surprised me is the amount of death involved in Italian christianity. Every church you go to, there are real human skulls on the walls and saints/pieces of saints (often under glass) on the altars. I went to the bone church in Rome (a little smaller than the one in Prague), and saw nuns chanting to a decapitated head in Siena.

What a lot of people don't understand is how different Christianity is around the world. There are the countries that have blended Christian faith with their own beliefs, as well as militant christianity in a lot of countries. Then there's the split between different christian faiths in the US, in particular the upsurge in Evangelical/fundamentalist christianity in the last few years. You can't talk about the 'Christian' faith as one entity - in many places the beliefs are almost polar opposites.

[Lava3000]

Christian...... read John 3:16 and you'll understand why

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Lava3000
Christian...... read John 3:16 and you'll understand why

This quote only has meaning for those who believe and most Christians don't agree that other Christians understand or truely believe.

One over used quote can do little to understand the purpose behind anything. Less than 15% of the Bible is quoted and well understood in Christian churches, and less than 15% of the known Christian and Jewish scripture of the world is in the Bible.

The result and witness of a religion, church or faith over the centuries must be considered. People must address the question 'Why?' in more depth, and everyone should be more aware of the concequences of belief and take respondsiblity for the results in the world.

Violence and suffering is the greatest witness of the religions and churches of the past.

[Lava3000]

Christian.....read John 3:16 to find out why

[Lava3000]

Christianity isn't about going to church, following rules, or anything. Christianity is simply a spirital relationship with Jesus Christ. I know some pretty bad christians who have sinned alot and I'm not perfect either. The beauty of christianity is that we can confess all of our sins to Jesus and he will forgive them forever. It isn't a religion but a relationship. The only way to god is through Jesus Christ. John 3:16 is God speaking directly through his prophets, it's the whole non-decieving truth.




-(Sorry about posting my previous reply twice......computer problems)

[Lava3000]

any questions??

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lava3000
[B]Christianity isn't about going to church, following rules, or anything. Christianity is simply a spirital relationship with Jesus Christ. I know some pretty bad christians who have sinned alot and I'm not perfect either. The beauty of christianity is that we can confess all of our sins to Jesus and he will forgive them forever. It isn't a religion but a relationship. The only way to god is through Jesus Christ. John 3:16 is God speaking directly through his prophets, it's the whole non-decieving truth.

Of course Christianity is not about going to church. (another over used phrase). The purpose of none of the religions of the world is about attending religious services.

The statement that Christianity isn't a religion is another over used phrase. It is a typical scapegoat by many churches and faiths of the world to claim they are not a religion and other beliefs are somewhat lesser because they are. Religion is simply a word that refers to the different religious beliefs of the world and not a stone to throw at others.

Just as you can use certain quotes to justify what you believe in the Bible, I can also use quotes to justify the following:

Jesus Christ is not God and should not be called God.

Your sins are forgiven by Christ, but redemtion is only for the sincere. You must be sincere and not continue to repeat your sins without consequences. Even though you are not saved by good works, without good works you are not saved.

The Bible allows slavery to exist as a social institution. There is not a spiritual law or statement in the Bible that forbids slavery.


Perfection is not the issue, but the witness of Christianity in history is.

Even though certain books in the Bible refer to the 'Word of God'. why should not be called the 'Word of God'?

[nzric]

Jesus isn't the only person who ever preached love and compassion. He was a good guy but he made a lot of mistakes and he didn't even leave any original writing. There is as much evidence for the christian faith as there is for any other major religion so why not just forget all the spiritual stuff and learn to respect each other as human beings - not to get a reward by being allowed into heaven?

Would the message that Jesus spread be less valid and worthwhile if he were just a man? No... so who cares whether he was or not?

As someone who has no religious belief whatsoever, I believe the most important thing is human dignity. Religion is a system of state control over citizens - it is icing and tradition which is put in heavier and heavier layers over what is at the root a universal message - to treat everyone with respect. I don't understand why people don't just follow that message, instead being tied up with the 'faith' and 'denomination' issues which foster contempt and division between groups of people.

[thekingster]

All other baggage aside...and whether isolated people believe it's "an over used phrase"...

Christianity is not a religion - it's essence is a relationship. Whether ANYONE likes it or not...it is not a leap of reason to invest one's faith in a Bible. Those who choose not to are free to formulate their opinions like anyone else.

No human has the "right" to tell another - your quotes are "over used". Who gives that person the right to denouce the sincerity of another? No one. That's called intolerance...tolerance does not imply that you have to accept another's opinions. People are free to believe whatever they wish.

The study of the canonization of Scripture is very interesting - but I doubt, save those who were there, that ANYONE can suggest that the Bible contains only 15% of scripture. What an absurd saying...how could anyone possible know if we even have record of some of what was written.

Now...we come back to the real issue. Some choose to have faith...other's don't. Some believe...other's don't. Free will indicates you can believe whatever you like. Some have figures of Buddha sitting on their mantles - they believe they are worshipping God. I belive they are not. We who have embraced Christianity do not believe all paths lead to God. This offends the human sense of "fairness" and "oughtness". We don't like anyone challenging our ability to believe as we desire. After all, most of us are pretty selfish at the core. I can feel the "how dare you" sentiment arise in this room.

You think my understanding of Christianity is futile? Then fine, don't embrace it. It's not my job to convince you otherwise. But...don't be surprised that I actually believe that those who don't accept Christ WILL spend eternity in Hell. Don't be suprised when I tell you that my chosen religion teaches that all paths don't lead to God. I don't believe that Islam, Bahai, Raelians, etc., all have it right. But again...what is the pivotal word there? BELIEVE.

Christianity is not about perfection - it's about serving a perfect Savior. An application to one's life that requires faith to believe that God desired to share with mankind his "way" to get to him. It requires faith to believe that God inspired 40 or so authors to write a collection of works over about 1200-1500 years that would contain all that was necessary for salvation. Is it possible that politicizing has "marred" what actually has made its way to current bible translations? Of course - but HERE is the catch...if a Christian executes faith in God to start the process...then it's not a leap to believe that God superintended the process. If I believe that God exists and if I believe that He sent His Son to die for me - it is that - BELIEF. I cannot challenge someone else's belief on the basis that I am selfish and think it's unfair.

You are free to believe as you wish - just respect the beliefs of others. Too often the eccentric religions of the world expect tolerance/respect for their beliefs...but desire to denigrate Christianity for its beliefs. What wanton hypocrisy exists where someone actually assumes- I don't buy your religion because I just don't buy it.

For further discussion to be fruitful...understand the necessary launchpad of the Christian. We have embraced the Bible as God's authoritative word. If two attempt to discuss this matter and don't have the same starting point...they can never intellectually cross paths...they are going in opposite directions from the beginning.

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by thekingster
...don't be surprised that I actually believe that those who don't accept Christ WILL spend eternity in Hell. Don't be suprised when I tell you that my chosen religion teaches that all paths don't lead to God. I don't believe that Islam, Bahai, Raelians, etc., all have it right. But again...what is the pivotal word there? BELIEVE.Defending intolerant views behind a buzzword like "belief" doesn't change the fact that you think every non-Christian is, essentially, a heretic and unworthy of the same respect as yourself. This is precisely why Christianity has such a bloody history. How can you not understand why expressing such a belief is insulting and offensive to the other 90% of the people in the world who are not Christians?

If your "belief" is that everybody is damned to an eternity of cruel suffering, except for yourself and the relatively small minority of people who believe exactly the same way--all because they don't accept some obscure historical figure as their lord and savior--then I think it would be prudent to keep that belief to yourself.

You are free to believe as you wish - just respect the beliefs of others. Too often the eccentric religions of the world expect tolerance/respect for their beliefs...but desire to denigrate Christianity for its beliefs. Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours. Unfortunately, your beliefs make such a mutual respect impossible. In one sentence you asked people to respect your beliefs, but in the very next sentence you proceeded to disrespect other religions by calling them "eccentric." You want respect yet are bound by your faith not to give it in return. Did I hear someone mention hipocracy?

I have known several more enlightened Christians who believe Christ can come into people's lives in many different forms. Whether you call him by one name or another, it makes no difference. In this way, it is understood that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, and others all have the same opportunity to reach heaven as you. They may use different words, but those words describe the same divine experiences. The bible is just one means to a common end. Good people are not sent to hell for all eternity simply because they experience the divine spirit through Shiva instead of Jesus.

By the way, none of the many millions of people who practice the religions I listed above think you are going to hell. Think about that.

[thekingster]

Originally posted by RubyMoon
[B]Defending intolerant views behind a buzzword like "belief" doesn't change the fact that you think every non-Christian is, essentially, a heretic and unworthy of the same respect as yourself. This is precisely why Christianity has such a bloody history. How can you not understand why expressing such a belief is insulting and offensive to the other 90% of the people in the world who are not Christians?
Belief is inherently personal - if 90% of the world accept what I classify as untruth...that is their decision.

If your "belief" is that everybody is damned to an eternity of cruel suffering, except for yourself and the relatively small minority of people who believe exactly the same way--all because they don't accept some obscure historical figure as thier lord and savior--then I think it would be prudent to keep that belief to yourself.
An interesting point - and entirely your own opinion. I can easily dismiss your entire statement in much the same way. Opinion - belief - free will - believe what you want. There is a huge following of Christians. Truth will be born out some day. Interesting that Jesus is listed as an "obscure" historical figure...who so changed the world that he altered our very calendar.

Respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours. Unfortunately, your beliefs make such a mutual respect impossible. In one sentence you asked people to respect your beliefs, but in the very next sentence you proceeded to disrespect other religions by calling them "eccentric." You want respect yet are bound by your faith not to give it in return. Did I hear someone mention hipocracy?
Apparently you don't understand the meaning of eccentric...especially as it related to my discussion. That's, OK. Understand it as deviation from accepted norm...and didn't I say that "to me" that was Christianity? So...you've chosen to respond in total ignorance to my post. Being aligned with my faith, which stipulates that non-Christianity can not be correct, does not make me a hypocrite. I am tolerant of many views which I find to be implausible and devoid of truth.

I have known several more enlightened Christians who believe Christ can come into people's lives in many different forms. Whether you call him by one name or another, it makes no difference. In this way, it is understood that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, and others all have the same opportunity to reach heaven as you. They may use different words, but those words describe the same divine experiences. The bible is just one means to a common end. Good people are not sent to hell for all eternity simply because they experience the divine spirit through Shiva instead of Jesus.
The people are "enlightened" because they appeal to your selfish sense of "oughtness" as I pointed out before. I stipulate that those who do not accept JESUS only are not Christian anyways.

By the way, none of the billions of people who practice the religions I listed above think you are going to hell. Think about that.
Perhaps the tenets of their respective faiths don't compel them to live for something. The postmodern idea of "your truth is good for you and mine is good for me" denies absolute truth. I believe (notice that word again) that the Bible contains ABSOLUTE truth. Your desire to refute it because "it's just nicer to let everyone do what they want" misses the point entirely.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by thekingster
All other baggage aside...and whether isolated people believe it's "an over used phrase"...

Christianity is not a religion - it's essence is a relationship. Whether ANYONE likes it or not...it is not a leap of reason to invest one's faith in a Bible. Those who choose not to are free to formulate their opinions like anyone else.

Frank says:

You use religion in this post to describe what you believe. See note below. What is wrong with the word religion?


No human has the "right" to tell another - your quotes are "over used". Who gives that person the right to denouce the sincerity of another? No one. That's called intolerance...tolerance does not imply that you have to accept another's opinions. People are free to believe whatever they wish.

Frank says:

'No human has right' are pretty strong intolerent words. This is a debate and the words I used express an opinion have not been close to harsh language that could be interpreted to be offensive in a debate. Describing a phrase 'over used' as a denunciation is a stretch. It's actually pretty mild compared to the offensive words like 'cult' and 'demonic' that Christianity uses to describe other faiths.


The study of the canonization of Scripture is very interesting - but I doubt, save those who were there, that ANYONE can suggest that the Bible contains only 15% of scripture. What an absurd saying...how could anyone possible know if we even have record of some of what was written.

Frank says:

When the Bible was compiled by the Romans hundreds of years after Christ lived many books were left out. when the Protestants decided on their Bible they removed the Greek books of the OT.

The following is only a partial list. There are books quoted in the Bible that are not there like the Book of Jasher. Many gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, were not included. There are many known Books of Revelatons known in the early years. The Jewish Kabalah (sp?) is not included.


Now...we come back to the real issue. Some choose to have faith...other's don't. Some believe...other's don't. Free will indicates you can believe whatever you like. Some have figures of Buddha sitting on their mantles - they believe they are worshipping God. I belive they are not. We who have embraced Christianity do not believe all paths lead to God. This offends the human sense of "fairness" and "oughtness". We don't like anyone challenging our ability to believe as we desire. After all, most of us are pretty selfish at the core. I can feel the "how dare you" sentiment arise in this room.

You think my understanding of Christianity is futile? Then fine, don't embrace it. It's not my job to convince you otherwise. But...don't be surprised that I actually believe that those who don't accept Christ WILL spend eternity in Hell. Don't be suprised when I tell you that my chosen religion teaches that all paths don't lead to God. I don't believe that Islam, Bahai, Raelians, etc., all have it right. But again...what is the pivotal word there? BELIEVE.


Frank says:

I never said nor implied your belief was futile.

PLEASE NOTE: You used the word religion to describe what you believe. Just curious why the word religion is offensive to you? Check the dictionary. It's odd that I have heard people in many churches, Jews in Isreal, Moslems and others deny that what they believe is a religion.

Christianity is not about perfection - it's about serving a perfect Savior. An application to one's life that requires faith to believe that God desired to share with mankind his "way" to get to him. It requires faith to believe that God inspired 40 or so authors to write a collection of works over about 1200-1500 years that would contain all that was necessary for salvation. Is it possible that politicizing has "marred" what actually has made its way to current bible translations? Of course - but HERE is the catch...if a Christian executes faith in God to start the process...then it's not a leap to believe that God superintended the process. If I believe that God exists and if I believe that He sent His Son to die for me - it is that - BELIEF. I cannot challenge someone else's belief on the basis that I am selfish and think it's unfair.

Frank says:

I do believe that ones belief and faith is a question of faith. I'm puzzled by what you say 'it's not a leap to believe . . .' , this does not reflect anything that I writen.

You are free to believe as you wish - just respect the beliefs of others. Too often the eccentric religions of the world expect tolerance/respect for their beliefs...but desire to denigrate Christianity for its beliefs. What wanton hypocrisy exists where someone actually assumes- I don't buy your religion because I just don't buy it.

Frank says:

I did not realize that this was a debate on the freedom to believe.

This statement does not reflect the reality of my posts. I have disagreed with different posters and I have never denigrated the belief of anyone. Hypocrisy actually has a different meaning from how you use it. Hypocrisy means to say or believe one thing and in reality not act in the many you believe or say. Most other beliefs you describe as 'eccentric religions' do not attack Christianity in the way Christianity attacks them. The use of 'eccentric' here has distinctly negative meaning as do 'cult' and other words Christians use to describe other beliefs and scientific concepts like evolution.

In this debate we will certainly disagree and this should not be considered an attack.

For further discussion to be fruitful...understand the necessary launchpad of the Christian. We have embraced the Bible as God's authoritative word. If two attempt to discuss this matter and don't have the same starting point...they can never intellectually cross paths...they are going in opposite directions from the beginning.

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by thekingster
So...you've chosen to respond in total ignorance to my post. Your defensive response simply drives my point home. You continue to demand respect for your beliefs while simultaneously telling everybody else how ignorant and unworthy they are. What rubbish.

Don't ask for respect unless you are willing to give it in return.

[nzric]

First of all - Christianity is a religion. It is a structured, politicised belief system based on a supernatural deity. What else could it be?

Any belief system that says those who turn up at church on sunday and read a certain book are somehow more worthy of respect and reward than someone who embodies the principles of love and compassion but happens to reject that religion... in my opinion, that is a dangerous belief. In modern times, that kind of message fosters contempt and hostility.

Although I am non-religious, I have every respect for other faiths, but I think certain brands of Christianity are dangerous. Look at the Vatican compliance with the Nazis, the division between faiths in Ireland, the recent pseudo-religious American campaign. I respect the christian faith, it has so much to offer, but not those who turn ANY faith into a political tool.

I worked in Kosovo refugee camps after the war and personally saw missionaries come to the camps and only hand out money if they could come inside and try to convert the muslim families to christianity. I taught children who didn't understand a word of english but could sing every word of "jesus loves me" (they didn't have a clue what they were singing). These are people treading on years of indigenous tradition for the sake of personal gratification, and that is something I can't stand.

[shunyadragon]

I grew up in South America and toured the world in the last 30 years. The behavior of missionaries everywhere I went was less than admirable. Not always offensive like you described in Kosovo, but definitely not in touch with local religious beliefs and culture.

I live in RP China and the lack of religious freedom is not good, but it has throttled the Christian missionaries.

[CKava]

For everyone in the entire world (this board included :))arguing about religion I feel inclined to mention that assaulting your own opinions and assumptions is always much more beneficial than assaulting the opinions or assumptions you perceive of others.

You can change yourself but you cant change others...

[DexterTCN]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
I grew up in South America and toured the world in the last 30 years. The behavior of missionaries everywhere I went was less than admirable.

The behaviour of the doggies and the 69ers was just as bad.

[Sub zero]

Could i just ask.
How do any of you religous folkes (unlike mys self) define something as untrue.

I mean you can't use any logical means to disprove any religion. Their religions have just as much evidence for their gods and beliefs as any other.

Secondly if you believe it is all down to "Just knowing" or "feeling" then would you belive what a dilusional person said. I mean to them tehy "just know" whatever they believe. BUt how is this any different form religion

BTW i respect religous practice and have many religous friends. BUt that doesn't stop some friendly disscusion. So don't take anything i say personaly?

NZRIC I'm alitle confused. U said you were a taoist apheist. I was under the impression that taosits had gods.:S

[Yama Tombo]

For me I don't just defend the existense of God, but also the clarity of God. And a handful of religions do contradict their beliefs. Not only through what they do physically, also through what they say:

Example--The Trinity the belief that three beings in one Godhead. There are so many views like this, but Jesus is viewed as "The Only God."

*A christian will say,"Jesus is God."
---If Jesus is the "Only God" or "Almighty" how come Jesus prayed, esspecially for power? Why did Jesus refer to another God as "The Father"? Why does the another God refer to Jesus as "begotten son"?

My conclusion Jesus is a God, but not the "Almighty God." Think of it as God as King and Jesus as Prince. So Jesus is not his father.

A christian might say,"Jesus and God are equal, even if Jesus is not 'The Almighty' God."
-- Why does jesus pray at all to this other god?
They reply,"It was his way of showing he was humble."
--But they are equal?? Why does the bible say,"God is the God of Gods, King of kings"?

In my conclusion they're not equal. If they were equal Jesus wouldn't need to show an example of being humble to "Equal" God.

[nzric]

"...NZRIC I'm alitle confused. U said you were a taoist apheist. I was under the impression that taosits had gods.:S..."

:) You're right - they have some pretty scary gods too, but I thought it better to try to bundle my life philosophy into an easy pigeonhole than to write screeds on my individual meaning of life.

I'm not a taoist, and I'm not an atheist, but I respect those two systems because taoism links easily with science (evolution/flow/even fractal structure of the universe can all be seen as relating to the concept of the Tao). Also, I have no religious belief so by definition I'm an atheist (although I resent the fact that many people believe atheism is a belief system in itself. It's not!!).

[Kat]

Religous Daoism has as many rituals and traditions as any other religon.Western Society has often seen to embrace Philosophical Daoism without the burden of its religous(and cultural) brother.This may be a good thing or a bad thing, nevertheless the interpretation of Daoism in the West is often quite different then its understanding in the countries of Origin.

[Sub zero]

NZRIC, mi think we share a common kind of philosophy. I take things from many religions on. Taoism makes alot o sense to me personally. BUt i am not taoist or anytrhing else.

Onee thing that i do notbelieve in is a god but i do believe thereis a high liklit hood tha there are much more complex and powerful beings than us somewhere.

As for the diffeent gods of different religions.........they all worship teh same god so i don't know what teh argument is about. they simpl have different ways of representing them. (Even taoism , hinduism and buddhism)

But with all of that said i am promaialy an athesit. BUt believe there is most likely something else but do not subscribe to any religions of this something else.Nor do i totaly exclude the possibility.


I make no sense :D

[Lucky]

Originally posted by Yama Tombo
For me I don't just defend the existense of God, but also the clarity of God. And a handful of religions do contradict their beliefs. Not only through what they do physically, also through what they say:

Example--The Trinity the belief that three beings in one Godhead. There are so many views like this, but Jesus is viewed as "The Only God."

*A christian will say,"Jesus is God."
---If Jesus is the "Only God" or "Almighty" how come Jesus prayed, esspecially for power? Why did Jesus refer to another God as "The Father"? Why does the another God refer to Jesus as "begotten son"?

My conclusion Jesus is a God, but not the "Almighty God." Think of it as God as King and Jesus as Prince. So Jesus is not his father.

A christian might say,"Jesus and God are equal, even if Jesus is not 'The Almighty' God."
-- Why does jesus pray at all to this other god?
They reply,"It was his way of showing he was humble."
--But they are equal?? Why does the bible say,"God is the God of Gods, King of kings"?

In my conclusion they're not equal. If they were equal Jesus wouldn't need to show an example of being humble to "Equal" God.

The Trinity is a tough one. :) There's a lot of support either way for Jesus being and not being God. I personally strongly believe that he is the Father. There's lots of Scripture to support a Trinity position. Who would best know than His own hand chosen Apostle's that Worshiped Him and wrote about others Worshiping Him. Were they really breaking the 1st commandment ?!? Thou shall have no other Gods before Me ? Nah.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by CKava
For everyone in the entire world (this board included :))arguing about religion I feel inclined to mention that assaulting your own opinions and assumptions is always much more beneficial than assaulting the opinions or assumptions you perceive of others.

You can change yourself but you cant change others...

The problem is separation. The question of change should not be separated between yourself and others. Self reflection and change is rare and requires some degree of enlightenment. Most people do not want to change outside the 15% of the reality their comfortable with. They will often change churches, but rarely change religions.

People rarely ask the question WHY are the Christian and others are Moslems, Jews or whatever. 95+% of all people have the same basic religious beliefs of their parents or the piers they grew up with. Most people will say their religious belief was their choice but most people in reality accept what they are taught as children and they do not chose their faith based on the 'Individual investigation of truth'.

Despite people mostly staying where they are and not changing. They for the most part do not now their own world well.

I have changed my religion and my profession several times and moved around the world. My total life is nothing like my brothers and sisters who remain relatively unchanged.

The basis of change is knowledge. Most people are relatively ignorant of the world arond them literally swimming in a sea of digital knowledge in computers. For an example I will offer a simple question that I will bet no one will be able to answer.

What is the oldest book in the world? Not literally a bound book with pages, but a story of the size of a novel with characters and a plot. Hint: It is older than any record related to the Bible. Unlike the Bible we have most of the text complete in original stone and clay tablets.

[Sub zero]

Sorry for going off topic here but i couldn't help but recognise the word scripture. This has for a long time inteersted me.


If a scripture written today by a man considered on the fringe of society, stating that something was wron in some christian belief or another. Would oyu beive him.

I don't see why not, you believe the same sorts of people (not jesus) who worte the same sorts of thing years ago (this is where i bring it back on topic).

Someone sadi something earlier about chritianity not comflicting i think (correct me if i'm wrong). This confuses me some what. Firstly there are many contradictions in the old/ new testament with each other. Which laws should we take to be true? I know some hristians who say that the old testament is only thee for historical background but thtis makes little sense to me.There are so mnay lessons there.


Take for example teh entire US capital punishment. It is based on "an eye for an eye" Which is old testament which completly contradicts teh teachings of Jesus "turn the other cheek":confused: yet the american system claims to be a christian one.And tehy read out something concerning God in teh judgement b4 they execute them.

Can someone explain???

[shunyadragon]

The Bible mainly describes a world of religion fighting religion in wars. Capital Punishment is very much a part of the Biblical world.

Thou shalt not kill should be Thou shalt not murder. The punishment for murder was death.

Slavery was also very much a part of the society of the Jews, Romans and Christians.

Christ instructions of 'love' and 'turn the other check' are more for social and personal interactions and not to be taken as the rules in the court of law.

Christ's promise of a world united and enlightened under more spiritual laws without wars was for a later age when the Prince of Peace would come and not the age which he brought with his message.

[Tsing Tao]

First off id like to state that the U.S. may claim to be a christian one but stands for nothing that our forefathers based america on a little over 200 years ago.

Now about capital punnishment ant the Turn the other cheek contradiction. you must look at it from a different angle. God is a merciful and Just God. This means he is long suffering he will let us "get away" with sin for a period of time allowing us the chance to get right with God on our own. But how often do we get right on our own? it seemes that He always has to rebuke us before we get right with Him. Is not this long suffering Turning the other cheak? and when we sin and He has to rebuke us is that not also for our good? Is not capital punnishment for those who did not get right on their own? Why is it a contradiction? Do you expect God to give more mercy to those on death road than he did his own son on the Cross?

[Yama Tombo]

Sorry for going off topic here but i couldn't help but recognise the word scripture. This has for a long time inteersted me.


If a scripture written today by a man considered on the fringe of society, stating that something was wron in some christian belief or another. Would oyu beive him.

****In the scriptures gives in:

---Matt. 24:24:"False Christs and False prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to misled, if possible, even the chosen ones"
---Matt. 7:15-23: Be on the watch for the false prophets....Many will say to me in that day,'Lord, Lord, did we not perform many powerful works in your name?' And yet the I will confess to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness."
---(King James Bible)1 Cor. 12:29, 30:"29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?"
---(New American Standard Bible) 1 Cor. 13:8, 9:8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away.

I don't see why not, you believe the same sorts of people (not jesus) who worte the same sorts of thing years ago (this is where i bring it back on topic).

Someone sadi something earlier about chritianity not comflicting i think (correct me if i'm wrong). This confuses me some what. Firstly there are many contradictions in the old/ new testament with each other. Which laws should we take to be true? I know some hristians who say that the old testament is only thee for historical background but thtis makes little sense to me.There are so mnay lessons there.

****The old Testament are historical record of actions between God and man. God struggled with the Israelites giving them chances upon chances to keep up their end of the covenant that God gave them. (The agreement was basically they worship God and listen to God. God would continue to keep them in his favor and bless them with gifts of sorts.)
They kept breaking the covenant repeatedly through their actions, and God kept forgiving. And the Ten Commands was the first written law for man, but Israelites kept breaking those laws. As it was explained to me, everytime the israelites sinned they would offer up a scarifice to God to atone for sins.
(heres the twist)
;As the bible goes on(into the New Testament), Jesus was born; preached the word of the bible; showed man that the Ten Commandments can be held up, through the all the torment he received from humans; and basically, his death was the utlimate scarifice for the atonement for the action committed against him and the father. And Jesus said the only greatest laws were:

1.) Love God with your whole mind, soul, and heart
2.) Love your neighbor as yourself.

---His death brought man back in line for a state of perfect life, which adam lost for man.

What made him the perfect scarifice?
1 Pet. 2: 22: WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;

Heb. 7: 26: For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens;

Take for example teh entire US capital punishment. It is based on "an eye for an eye" Which is old testament which completly contradicts teh teachings of Jesus "turn the other cheek" yet the american system claims to be a christian one.And tehy read out something concerning God in teh judgement b4 they execute them.

---> Jesus made Sunday just another day. So "eye for an eye" is no longer valid anymore. But if the government perceives that condition of law let it stand.

Can someone explain???

[shunyadragon]

****The old Testament are historical record of actions between God and man. God struggled with the Israelites giving them chances upon chances to keep up their end of the covenant that God gave them. (The agreement was basically they worship God and listen to God. God would continue to keep them in his favor and bless them with gifts of sorts.)
They kept breaking the covenant repeatedly through their actions, and God kept forgiving. And the Ten Commands was the first written law for man, but Israelites kept breaking those laws. As it was explained to me, everytime the israelites sinned they would offer up a scarifice to God to atone for sins.

There are at least several writen codes of law older than the ten commandments. The Egyptian, Babalonian, Hitite and the first Vedic laws are all older.

The obvious is that laws are always broken by the people who should obey tham.

]

I think Jeasus still endorsed the sabbath, but demonstrated the hypocrasy of how the many observed the Sabbath.

[thekingster]

Apparently, many have evaluated my posts as being inflammatory - for that I apologize, it has not been my goal. In earlier posts, somewhat denigrating information had been aimed at Christians, in general...that's why I responded at all.

Spirited discussion is good - but if it get's too out of hand then we should agree to disagree. No one's mind will be changed based on the information of this forum.

[Sub zero]

Originally posted by Sub zero
Sorry for going off topic here but i couldn't help but recognise the word scripture. This has for a long time inteersted me.


If a scripture written today by a man considered on the fringe of society, stating that something was wron in some christian belief or another. Would oyu beive him.

I don't see why not, you believe the same sorts of people (not jesus) who worte the same sorts of thing years ago (this is where i bring it back on topic).

Someone sadi something earlier about chritianity not comflicting i think (correct me if i'm wrong). This confuses me some what. Firstly there are many contradictions in the old/ new testament with each other. Which laws should we take to be true? I know some hristians who say that the old testament is only thee for historical background but thtis makes little sense to me.There are so mnay lessons there.


Take for example teh entire US capital punishment. It is based on "an eye for an eye" Which is old testament which completly contradicts teh teachings of Jesus "turn the other cheek":confused: yet the american system claims to be a christian one.And tehy read out something concerning God in teh judgement b4 they execute them.

Can someone explain???



uhh huuuuuu.

So did jesus go and people who had killed other people? NO he tried to help them. He's a funny bloke like that..

So your saying that he ment this only to betaken in social intractions? if you can show me a reference from teh bible i will agree with you.

Andas for christian society condoning it..............jesus didn't in my view. But teh CHRISTian societies did. Using religion as a method of control. even up until this day in some ****ires. Ans not the religous freedom that should be practiced.

[shunyadragon]

[
So did jesus go and people who had killed other people? NO he tried to help them. He's a funny bloke like that..

So your saying that he ment this only to betaken in social intractions? if you can show me a reference from teh bible i will agree with you.

Frank says:

I don't feel Christ abolished the Old Testiment Laws. He revealed new principles of belief and conduct and I feel his laws more focused on the personal behavior of the individual than how law should be administered in the courts. He did change some laws like those concerning divorce which is universially disobeyed today.

[Shaolin Dragon]

Originally posted by shunyadragon
The basis of change is knowledge. Most people are relatively ignorant of the world arond them literally swimming in a sea of digital knowledge in computers. For an example I will offer a simple question that I will bet no one will be able to answer.

What is the oldest book in the world? Not literally a bound book with pages, but a story of the size of a novel with characters and a plot. Hint: It is older than any record related to the Bible. Unlike the Bible we have most of the text complete in original stone and clay tablets.

I believe it is called "The Epic of Gilgamesh," written about 1800 BC. Also, you should say the oldest KNOWN book in the world.
Incidently the world's oldest known actual "book" is an Etruscan offering made out of six 24-carat gold pages.

I do hope I'm right or this little bit of showing off will make me look quite stupid.:D

[RubyMoon]

Originally posted by Shaolin Dragon
I do hope I'm right or this little bit of showing off will make me look quite stupid.:D No guts, no glory! ;)

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Shaolin Dragon
I believe it is called "The Epic of Gilgamesh," written about 1800 BC. Also, you should say the oldest KNOWN book in the world.
Incidently the world's oldest known actual "book" is an Etruscan offering made out of six 24-carat gold pages.

I do hope I'm right or this little bit of showing off will make me look quite stupid.:D

You're right on both counts. Though the Epic of Gilgamesh is likely older.

[Shaolin Dragon]

:D
Yes , the epic of Gilgamesh is nearly 4000 years old, but is not an actual book as such. The Etruscan "book" is only about 2500 years old, and has yet to be translated as I understand (because nobody can read Etruscan).

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Shaolin Dragon
:D
Yes , the epic of Gilgamesh is nearly 4000 years old, but is not an actual book as such. The Etruscan "book" is only about 2500 years old, and has yet to be translated as I understand (because nobody can read Etruscan).

Even though the Epic of Gilgamesh was writen on clay tablets and stone, it was definitely a book in the concept of a story with an author, chapters and a plot. Most historians realize that books may take different forms. A book today may never be printed and bound today. It can be in digital, or audo form. Gilgamesh may be called the oldest historial novel.

[Shaolin Dragon]

To me, the word book will always mean the physical item. If it is not printed and bound, then it isn't a book, even though it can still be a story or a play. But this is just semantics.

My understanding was that the Epic of Gilgamesh was indeed a story, but was more like a play than a novel.

[shunyadragon]

Originally posted by Shaolin Dragon
To me, the word book will always mean the physical item. If it is not printed and bound, then it isn't a book, even though it can still be a story or a play. But this is just semantics.

My understanding was that the Epic of Gilgamesh was indeed a story, but was more like a play than a novel.

I guess another way to put is Gilgamesh is the first literature. I highly recommend you read it. To understand the human story on earth it is best to egin with the first story. It is in some way of interest to those studying the Arts. Gilgamesh fights Ekido his natural alterego, but neither can win.

It is an epic narrative originally told as a story handed down from on generation to another. I don't think it should be called a play.