|
Which spiritual truths? The basic message of most religions is to be groovy. Jesus isn't a spiritual aspect; nor is acceptance of Jesus. Those rituals cannot be part of the requirements for salvation any more than a latin mass is.
Yes and no. The problem is that there are some spiritual truths that are in direct contradiction to each other.
Finding comparative studies is not all that hard. Probably the hardest part is finding really good neutral ones...
Here are a few quick ones that I found between Islam and Christianity --
Here is one that seems to be rather pro Christianity.
Here is one that seems to be a fairly quick and dirty outline.
And here is a table that just lists factual differences.
My point with this is not to point out which religion is 'right' or 'wrong' but to show that there are more differences that who Jesus is or wasn't and that there is more to most religions that simply to "be groovy to each other".
Hope that helps a little.
Check the spoiler for the Bible passage (1 Corinthians 1:18 - 31).
All that says to me is, "Are you going to believe your own eyes or me?" Which is also my issue with "God works in mysterious ways." It is all a con man's doublespeak.
|
|
I dunno - how about direct evidence that he's the son of god. You are assuming your conclusion. The only evidence that Jesus is the son of god is the bible. To say that the bible is true because Jesus is the son of god because the bible says he is the son of god is circular.
On top of that, there are other segments of the exact same religion (e.g., the Jews) that acknowledge the existence of Jesus but say that he was just a prophet and not the son of God. Why shouldn't I believe what they say?
And, since we are taking the text of holy books at face value as if they contain actual facts, I'd like to direct your attention to the Book of Mormon, which claims that Jesus came to north america. Furthermore, the central prophet of Mormonism witnessed a miracle about a hundred years ago. Certainly we must give equal credence to this prophet as well. I mean c'mon - he's got a holy book!
The "fact" that Jesus is the son of God and/or the "fact" that he is actually God is (as Sebastian so eloquently put it) a matter of faith. At the same time, when you say that you want "direct evidence that he's..." I am not sure what evidence you are looking for. I think that no matter what evidence there was, it would still be a matter of faith.
|
|
Thank you for forwarding me your link to the other post. That does clear up your point of view for me a lot. The purgatory concept seems a little strange, but makes more sense then sending people to hell just because they haven't been exposed to Christianity.
It also gives me a better understanding of your whole free choice argument. I can see why you wouldn't have the patience to try to explain all that over again. It was well put.
Thank you. I appreciate this comment.
The "fact" that the Tooth Fairy is real is a matter of faith. At the same time, when you say that you want "direct evidence that the Tooth Fairy is..." I am not sure what evidence you are looking for. I think that no matter what evidence there was, it would still be a matter of faith.
|
|
... he's got a holy book!That about says it. This obsession with scripture being TRUE, being the infallible word of God yet recorded by men, totally escapes me.
There is just so much that is wrong with this in a linguistic sense I will NEVER buy it.
I'm not sure what you mean by "linguistic sense".
I do understand what you are saying though and I understand that it is kind of a point of contention with many atheists. If you were told that God himself came down and handed Moses the Bible, would that be more believable? Probably not. Just not entirely sure what you would "buy".
|
|
The "fact" that the Tooth Fairy is real is a matter of faith. At the same time, when you say that you want "direct evidence that the Tooth Fairy is..." I am not sure what evidence you are looking for. I think that no matter what evidence there was, it would still be a matter of faith.
So what are you saying?
I was saying that arguing whether or not Jesus is God is ultimately a waste of time.
Additional, verifiable sources.
Wasn't the Christian church divided between 'Jesus = God' and 'Jesus = Man' in its childhood? It seems to me that the church felt it was worth arguing about.
However, I think the point you are trying to make is that 'Jesus = part of the Holy Trinity'.
What I am trying to say is that 'faith' is the oldest and biggest con running.
|
|
What I am trying to say is that 'faith' is the oldest and biggest con running.
For some things you are most likely very correct. Does that mean that all faith is a con?
And for what it's worth, I am saying that you need to decide what Jesus equals. I can tell you what I believe and I can tell you what the Bible says. But in the end, it's you that needs to make the decision one way or the other.
No. Nor is all faith misplaced. My issue is when, after a lack of proof, someone tells me I just have to have faith. That sends up red flags for me.
I have already decided what Jesus equals for me.
I do not think you are trying to con me. Sincerely not meaning to sound condescending…I just think you got conned.
Agreed. I do believe that religion serves some good purposes. Generally, all religions provide some basic rules and offer explanations for things we do not understand yet. I have a personal theory that religion is necessary evolutionary step for sentient beings much like writing. I further believe that it is suppose to be replaced with something else. Philosophy perhaps, although I do not claim to know for sure what the next step is. If I did, I would be writing a book right now. I also believe that religion has 'stunted our growth' focusing our attention on god instead of values.
Damn it! Why did I let you draw me into this? :)
Additional, verifiable sources.Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't enough? At this point in history, what would be 'verifiable'? Truthfully, from your point of view there isn't anything that would be 'verifiable' enough to make it "fact".
"If Livy said that God made a cow to speak, and I disbelieve this, then my disbelief is in Livy, not in God." -Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, (probably mis-)quoted from memory). Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the whole bunch were people. One of the cornerstones of Christianity is that the Bible alone is infallible in terms of scripture. One of the cornerstones of a nutritious breakfast is juice (sorry, just seeing if anyone is reading any of this). One of the cornerstones of healthy agnosticism is that people invariably make mistakes in ANYTHING they do, even writing and transscribing supposedly divine wisdom. One of the cornerstones of my personal philosophy is that people are unable to see the entire "big picture," so the scriptures focus on bits as perceived by the people writing it.
Most of this debate would vanish immediately if Christians were willing to concede that (a) the Bible might not be 100% complete, infallible, and literal; and (b) what Jesus taught about God might be more important than what the Bible says about Jesus. Of course, in a binary world-view such as Mevers espouses, there is no room for that sort of understanding--that "wimpy compromising" represents to many people a lack of virtue. The same applies to Muslims, etc. Likewise, if atheists could budge a bit and allow for some supernatural/spiritual aspects of life. But people want to be ALL right or ALL wrong. They like package deals, not a-la-carte. So we have 40-page threads like this one.
The same applies to Muslims, etc. Likewise, if atheists could budge a bit and allow for some supernatural/spiritual aspects of life.
I am certainly willing to entertain the idea there is a god. I simply do not believe in the Christian god.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't enough?
No. To be quip, they were fan boys. EDIT: Joseph Smith has 11 witnesses who testify they saw the golden plates. I am no more inclined to believe him.
At this point in history, what would be 'verifiable'? Truthfully, from your point of view there isn't anything that would be 'verifiable' enough to make it "fact".
That is part of the problem, isn't it. Currently, there is a lot that can be neither proved nor disproved. However, in my experience, lack of evidence is not proof.
This doesn't really tell me what you are looking for.
Do you mean, "What are you looking for that would prove the existence of the Christian god?" Well seeing him with my own eyes would make it hard to deny. Of course that would destroy faith, wouldn't it?
|
|
Most of this debate would vanish immediately if Christians were willing to concede that (a) the Bible might not be 100% complete, infallible, and literal; and (b) what Jesus taught about God might be more important than what the Bible says about Jesus.
Of course I read your posts. (Just like you read mine -- I'm assuming.)
Speaking personally (and based on all the research that I have done thanks to this thread)...
I believe that the Old Testament is infallible. Something along the lines of God told the authors what to write and they wrote it. Not sure exactly how that looked -- if it was a 'burning in the bosom', literally hearing God speak, or something else -- but I believe that the Old Testament says exactly what He wanted it to say. The problem is that I also believe that this doesn't necessarily mean that He meant for it to be a literal representation of all the happenings in the Old Testament. Also, unfortunately, he didn't explicitly say "the following is not to be taken literally" and so we are left to our own devices to figure out which is which.
The New Testament is bit more difficult for me. The gospels were written long after the Pauline epistles. They weren't written as Jesus was walking around Israel doing his stuff. The church was already well on its way. And the remaining apostles/disciples who were eye witnesses were starting to realize that they were the last ones and that there still wasn't much of a written account of Jesus' time on the Earth. As I understand it, they each came to this conclusion on their own at different times and in different places and so they each thought that they were the only ones doing it. Each person felt that what they witnessed was important enough to make sure the record was written down. I don't know how "infallible" that makes it. I believe that it was inspired. I believe that they wrote down the events to the best of their abilities. I believe that they believed what they saw and I believe that they were there. Could they have 'missed' things? Absolutely. The gospels have enough different that makes me wonder what else they didn't write down. Is enough there? I believe so. And apparently I'm not the only one either. Is it absolutely 100% infallible? Possibly, but if it isn't I don't think that any parts that aren't infallible changes the message of the Bible any.
I understand that I am most likely in the minority with this viewpoint with regards to Christianity. But the way that I see it, trying to "prove" the Bible is infallible and is 100% complete is like trying to "prove" that Jesus is God.
I believe that the Bible is right. I will leave it up to myself to determine what "right" is and I will leave it up to you to determine what you believe about the Bible.
|
|
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John weren't enough?
No. To be quip, they were fan boys.
Cute. I had to laugh at this. But a little accurate. On the other hand, the eye-witness that weren't "fan boys" wouldn't write and say that he was God either. So who do we believe?
That is part of the problem, isn't it. Currently, there is a lot that can be neither proved nor disproved. However, in my experience, lack of evidence is not proof.
I never said that it was, either.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am certainly willing to entertain the idea there is a god. I simply do not believe in the Christian god.
Exactly. There's nothing that I have seen to recommend the bible over any other religious text. There is just as much evidence as to Jesus not being the son of god (Judism), that Mohammad was the prophet of Allah, or what have you. Choosing the bible as the authoritative text on the divine, and reading it literally, strikes me as completely arbitrary.
It's not so much that I require evidence of the existence of god, I'm also willing to entertain the idea of a supernatural force, but I need something more than "this is true" written in the bible to give it weight over any other religious text chosen at random.
I believe that the Bible is right. I will leave it up to myself to determine what "right" is and I will leave it up to you to determine what you believe about the Bible.
I believe that you should love your neighbor. I believe that Jesus, like the Buddha, was a man who saw more clearly than most what would lead people to suffer less. That truly following in Jesus' footseteps or walking the Eightfold Path (or whatever interpretation you make of those messages) will make you a happier person--call it the "holy spirit," call it Enlightenment, call it self-delusion if you want--it's all the same to me, but you can reach a state where you operate on a different level from the usual muck of life. The names, the trappings, the "begats," the orthodoxy, and the claims of infallibility and exclusivity are distractions. So, in my view, Christians and Buddhists and Atheists and Agnostics can all do the right thing. Unlike you, I put my faith in results, not in claims made in books. Unlike Mevers, I see no need to tell everyone else they're wrong when none of us are omniscient. Unlike many Muslims, I don't get offended if someone pokes fun of one of the trappings.
Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this Earth." The Qu'ran says that "God transcends all language and all human understanding." The atheists say there's no invisible bearded man in the sky. I don't see the need for a contradiction in any of these views. By many contemporary standards, that makes me an object of scorn, because I haven't taken one "package" and said it was the only "True" one. Many people would say this shows a lack of virtue on my part. I obviously feel the opposite is true: the results are obviously more harmonious if we don't go out of our way to grasp at technical distinctions and then proceed to brand each other "infidels" for disagreeing on the particulars.
|
|
Choosing the bible as the authoritative text on the divine, and reading it literally, strikes me as completely arbitrary.
Don't choose it at random. Do your own comparative study.
It may be completely arbitrary. Most religions (to me) are completely arbitrary when it comes to their idea of salvation -- except for Christianity. I personally don't like the idea of a God that may send me to hell even if I might have been really really really really good. As I understand it, Muslims believe that even if you are perfect, if Allah is having a bad day, he may still send you to hell.
You have in your mind some concept of God. Match it up with other religions. How does it match up?
But I am curious, forgetting Jesus for minute, why doesn't the Christian God match up with what you believe God should be?
|
|
I think that's the paizo goblins, not my browser. I'm using IE....some stuff that I can't see unless I use a different browser...What's the deal? What browser do you use that seems to take it forever to post even though it looks like it should be there?
Bad, Bad Goblins. I'm still not seeing your earlier post. Weird.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But I am curious, forgetting Jesus for minute, why doesn't the Christian God match up with what you believe God should be?
Because the Christian god requires the bible. I can't stomach a divine being that cares about my salvation but then hides said path to salvation in a book.
On top of that, I find the parental deity model to be absurd. I reject the idea that a deity cares about my decisions or how I live my life. To the extent a deity exists, I cannot comprehend what it thinks or what it wants any more than my cat can read a book, drive a car, or understand how it is that I find those little kibbles that I feed him every night. The bible claims that the deity does care, that he does have an agenda, and that said agenda is something I can comprehend sufficiently to play along. These concepts are incompatible with my idea of a deity.
At the end of the day, I don't see any religion as having a monopoly on divinity and most (if not all) of them claim as such. Religion is a tool built by man for control; it has nothing to do with any sort of divine being that I would consider worth acknowledging. It's probable that the religious texts have valuable insights, as do many books of philosophy, but to say that they contain all truths or that they are absolutely literally true strikes me as far too narrow to communicate something so grand.
It may be completely arbitrary. Most religions (to me) are completely arbitrary when it comes to their idea of salvation -- except for Christianity. I personally don't like the idea of a God that may send me to hell even if I might have been really really really really good. As I understand it, Muslims believe that even if you are perfect, if Allah is having a bad day, he may still send you to hell.
And many Christians would have me believe that if I call it the Eightfold Path and praise the memory of the Buddha instead of a magically-resurrected Jesus, then I go to hell, too--even if I'm really really really really really good. That strikes me as the height of arbitrariness: "here's my message, but I want you to focus on the letter of one statement of it instead of on the main point, or I'll consign you to an eternity of torment."
Why would He do that? One message I get is, "because you're worthless scum. I created you that way, although I claim otherwise, because my idea of 'free will' requires you to be useless." I personally reject the idea of a God who is so petty that he condones a proliferation of cant, nonsense, and parable in order to conceal that he's just pulling the wings from flies (but claiming they did it to themselves) and then telling them, "you have to say the magic word or I won't pick you up." That damages my suspension of disbelief, the lack of internal consistency between the supposed operator and the way he operates.
At the end of the day, I don't see any religion as having a monopoly on divinity and most (if not all) of them claim as such. Religion is a tool built by man for control; it has nothing to do with any sort of divine being that I would consider worth acknowledging. It's probable that the religious texts have valuable insights, as do many books of philosophy, but to say that they contain all truths or that they are absolutely literally true strikes me as far too narrow to communicate something so grand.
You and I seem to be on exactly the same page here. That's a bit disturbing.
|
|
Because the Christian god requires the bible. I can't stomach a divine being that cares about my salvation but then hides said path to salvation in a book.
Possibly debatable, but ok, I understand what you are saying.
The bible claims that the deity does care, that he does have an agenda, and that said agenda is something I can comprehend sufficiently to play along. These concepts are incompatible with my idea of a deity.
So, if I am understanding this right, your idea of a deity is like that mountain over there. Big and grand, but doesn't really do anything and doesn't really care what you do either.
|
|
And many Christians would have me believe that if I call it the Eightfold Path and praise the memory of the Buddha instead of a magically-resurrected Jesus, then I go to hell, too--even if I'm really really really really really good. That strikes me as the height of arbitrariness: "here's my message, but I want you to focus on the letter of one statement of it instead of on the main point, or I'll consign you to an eternity of torment."
Why would He do that? One message I get is, "because you're worthless scum. I created you that way, although I claim otherwise, because my idea of 'free will' requires you to be useless." I personally reject the idea of a God who is so petty that he condones a proliferation of cant, nonsense, and parable in order to conceal that he's just pulling the wings from flies (but claiming they did it to themselves) and then telling them, "you have to say the magic word or I won't pick you up." That damages my suspension of disbelief, the lack of internal consistency between the supposed operator and the way he operates.
Wow. I think that's the most "rankled" I've seen you get with one of my posts. :)
|
|
...here's my message, but I want you to focus on the letter of one statement of it instead of on the main point...
You may have hit on something without realizing it. Perhaps the question really is what the "main point" is or isn't. I'm not sure exactly what this means other than we may be doomed to disagree on this point. As long as I know what it is that we disagree on, I'm ok with it.
Why? More specifically, why entertain that there is a god at all?
For myself only, well... one reason to entertain that there is a god at all is because the religious (a rather large section of the population) are constantly exhorting me to do so.
Plus, the question (of a god or gods) came up long before I got here. It's not like the question can be unasked. Each person must attempt to answer the question for themselves, but it seems kind of ridiculous to just ignore it altogether.
As long as I know what it is that we disagree on, I'm ok with it.
I strongly disagree that Jesus' identity and "brand name" are more important than his message of love.
Wait! What? A message of love? Is that why we should stone homosexuals?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have in your mind some concept of God. Match it up with other religions. How does it match up?
Actually, I'd say it matches up very closely with your concept of God, I think. We've both matched our concept of God up to many of the religions of the world, and found those religions wanting.
The only difference between you and me is that after looking at most of the main religions, I have decided that they all offer glimpses of whatever true divine there may be, but that none of them are complete and exact enough for me to consider following them.
You think one of them has the right of it, where all the others do not.
I worry the following analogy will come across as offensive, but it's really not meant to be:
We talked earlier about ice cream, and arguing over religion being like arguing over a favorite flavor. And we used chocolate and vanilla as the flavors.
Well, to me, the religion thing is more like you and I have walked into a wonderous fantasy ice cream parlor, that smells delicious. The only problem is that instead of chocolate and vanilla, all of the flavors are things like "dog poop and peach ambrosia," or "ground glass and mint chocolate chip," or "fine dark chocolate with fresh berries and rancid whale puke."
I look at all the flavors -- they all have some of my favorite flavors, and it's clear the ingredients are of the finest possible quality, but they all come with something vile -- and I say "No thanks.". To me, it really seems like devoutly religious people have picked one, say the dog poop and peach ambrosia, and tasted it, and said "Wow! The dog poop realy brings out the deliciousness of the peach ambrosia, and is therefore not intolerable."
Meanwhile, I'm left looking at those people saying "Yeah, okay, whatever, I think I'm going to pass on the ice cream."
Except that once you do that, all the people who have picked an ice cream flavor get very upset with you and try to physically force you to eat some ice cream, preferably the flavor they like.
As long as I know what it is that we disagree on, I'm ok with it.
I strongly disagree that Jesus' identity and "brand name" are more important than his message of love. Let's look again at "It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—-that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption." I look at this and I see that wisdom is in righteousness and holiness. That Christ "has become" less important as a person than as a means of transmittal of that message. That makes sense to me.
On the other hand, you might read it to mean that God has somehow transformed Christ into a lightning rod to salvation--I know that's the main point that separates Christianity from other systems--but that idea to me is silly. When Christ says "No man comes to God save through me," I take it to imply that rejecting his doctrine of love and persisting in performing evil acts won't get you anything but suffering. Most Christians take it a lot more literally, to the point of making the "love thy neighbor" stuff almost like an afterthought--"oh, yeah, you gotta do that, too, I guess. But the main thing is brand loyalty."
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So, if I am understanding this right, your idea of a deity is like that mountain over there. Big and grand, but doesn't really do anything and doesn't really care what you do either.
Yup. Except said deity is also the pebble, and also my fingernail, and also the galaxy. So, it's not really much of a deity really, it's mostly just that I acknowledge that existence exists independent of myself.
And, seeing as how I am the center of the universe, I think you can appreciate how much it means for me to say that. ;-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You and I seem to be on exactly the same page here. That's a bit disturbing.
If I had a nickel for every time someone says that...
I swear, I could start a thread called "Sebastian really likes pie" and over half the posts would begin with "I hate to agree with Sebastian, but I like pie too." or "Wow. I can't believe I agree with Sebastian. I like pie also."
;-)
Sean, thank you-- your Ice Cream Parable is much better than my "tiny diamond buried in gangue" analogy! I love it.
Damn it, Sebastian. I am the center of the universe. We've already covered this.
So, if I am understanding this right, your idea of a deity is like that mountain over there. Big and grand, but doesn't really do anything and doesn't really care what you do either.
Yup. Except said deity is also the pebble, and also my fingernail, and also the galaxy. So, it's not really much of a deity really, it's mostly just that I acknowledge that existence exists independent of myself.
And, seeing as how I am the center of the universe, I think you can appreciate how much it means for me to say that. ;-)
This is more or less my concept of God, too. "God" is, to me, synonymous with "everything."
If I had a nickel for every time someone says that...
The check is in the mail.
|
|
Except that once you do that, all the people who have picked an ice cream flavor get very upset with you and try to physically force you to eat some ice cream, preferably the flavor they like.
I understand what you are saying. I hope that I am not coming across as trying "to physically force you" towards my thinking. My point is really why Christians believe the way they do -- I'm not trying to force issues of what's "right" or "wrong".