Religion
Related: About this forumChristians; how do you regard Hinduism?
Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Do you accept that their belief in multiple gods and reincarnation can be valid and true. If so, how does that align your beliefs in the one true God, Jesus and the Bible? If you think they believe in things that aren't true (no parsing here, many believe in the absolute reality of their gods), how do you remain so convinced that what you believe is true in the face of hundreds of millions who have beliefs in what amounts to a fiction?
Please don't miss the point, of course people have to right to their beliefs, we also have the right to question them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)In one of my meditations.
She wasn't very pleasent, to say the least. I have since then abndoned any study into Hindi gods.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Who is to say everything in the bible is true.
I was raised in nondenominational beliefs. Went to churches with friends ( Baptist, Jewish, Catholic, ,Quaker, Lutheran), and I could go on.
Today I have my own beliefs that are a combination of religions. Buddhism is very close to my beliefs.
I don't force my ideals on anyone and do not discuss them.
As long as people are not injuring/persecuting others I feel folks can believe what they want.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I think being exposed to many kinds of people and many different religions is most likely to lead people to where you are.
goldent
(1,582 posts)and I'm not bothered by the beliefs of Hindus. Whatever floats their boat!
Maybe God is like Hostess Ding Dongs: It's a cake, it's a candy, it's two taste treats in one!
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)
edhopper
(33,554 posts)the idea that faith can lead you to believe in something not true, inaccurate or just wrong is something you don't want to think about.
goldent
(1,582 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Instead, you chose the reply that displayed your ignorance. Well done. Great job.
shraby
(21,946 posts)At least that's what I think you meant.
edited to add:
As far as religion goes, to each his/her own, as long as it doesn't step on or restrict mine or is physically harmful to anyone.
Last I looked, there's that thing called free will.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I rely on spell check far to much! 
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Is the intentional retardation of cognitive ability considered physically harmful or just mentally harmful? And is there a difference?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Or you don't want to think about hundreds of millions of people who have beliefs that directly contradict your own. And what that means to your own beliefs.
Again, OF COURSE people have the right to belief what they want. But what this thread is about is how that reflects on your own beliefs.
If you don't care to discuss that, fine, but PLEASE don't respond that people can believe what they will and you don't care. That is not at issue here.
If you are a Christian, with a firm believe in your God, Jesus and the Bible, how do you reconcile that reality with the alternative reality of Hindus?
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Did they try to force you to change your religion?
What is your reason for your question?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)as far as veracity. I was just picking a religion with a big following that was very different in all aspects from Christianity for the sake of discussion.
My reason is to discuss how one can see the faith of others might not be in a true religion, while holding there own must be true based on faith.
I believe if someone wants to believe in a fire god in a volcano it does not bother me at all. If they chose to try to convince me their religion was better than mine, as has been done with Christianity for many years, it would annoy me.
However who am I to say there religion is wrong and mine is right.
Just maybe God is working in ways they can understand.
I will never judge anyone's religion unless it is physically harming someone.
hardcover
(255 posts)It works for me.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Your question seems to allow the person answering to describe the place of doubt in their approach to their beliefs. That's different from asking them to reconcile their beliefs with others that may be contradictory. So long as they describe the role of doubt, as well as the values that govern their interfaith relationships, your original question should be satisfied.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)is generally a test of faith that is meant reinforce the faith in the end.
So no it isn't satisfied.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Why aren't you interested in allowing people to answer as they will/ If you have further questions based on their responses, then ask them as well?
Or are you just trying to corner people?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)'live and let live' variety. I specifically said in my OP that that IS NOT the point of this discussion.
If someone of faith doesn't want to think about this, fine.
But I wish they would not answer with something I plainly stated I did not want.
All I see is cognitive dissonance and avoidance.
You call it corner. I call it an open discussion about a real question.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The are the "one wayers" and they think that there is only a single path to salvation. But many see religions as compatible and believe there are many ways.
It's not about *reality*, it's about beliefs. If those beliefs do not infringe on your own, I don't see a problem with there being different belief sets.
Perhaps it is just various interpretations of the same unknowable things.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)The God of the New Testament is no more valid than Zeus or Baal or Moroni?
He might not exist at all, but it's only your belief in him that is important?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They are beliefs, unique to the individual and sometimes shared by groups.
I do think a person's individual beliefs are important and should be respected, unless they infringe on the rights of others.
Until someone can present convincing evidence of existence or non-existence, it makes no sense to treat it otherwise, imo.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)either have a real, physical existence, or they exist only in the minds and imaginations of believers. Much as I know you hate it, those are the only two possibilities (yes, sorry...sometimes things ARE black and white). You and the others on this thread can dance around it all you like (and you seem to like to quite a bit), but there IS an underlying reality, whether you close your eyes to it or not.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Your using all logic and reasony talk.
What about other ways of knowing? And all that good vibration.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Other Ways of Knowing. Maybe because their misbegotten proponent hasn't been around to fling that poo in a while.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Is Madame Bovary real? For that matter, is the alphabet itself real, or mathematics, or the laws of physics? You are confusing "real" with the tangible or material. Reality is not confined to the material.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)You can take my statement to say that existence is either physical or conceptual. I maintain that there is no convincing evidence that Hindu (or any other) gods are anything but the latter, which falls short of what is actually claimed for them. The alphabet and mathematics do not suffer that deficiency, there being abundant evidence for the reality that is claimed for them, so your analogy really doesn't wash.
LTX
(1,020 posts)you are suggesting that gods are conceptual, but mathematics and the alphabet (as just two examples of effective immaterialities) are not.
Or is it your point that mathematics and alphabets are conceptualizations that have measurable physical effects, whereas the concept of "god" does not? If so, I think you are overlooking a rather enormous quantity of human history. The measurable physical effects of our notions of "god" extend from art to war to law. And yes, even to science.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)as well as those of Christianity and Judaism are claimed to have an actual, physical existence independent of any particular believer, to be capable of conscious action, and to deliberately influence and be influenced by events in the physical world we experience, but that the actual evidence fails to support that type of existence for them. Unlike mathematics and the alphabet, they are claimed to be more than simply conceptualizations that have physical influence only through the actions of those who conceive of them. There is, on the other hand, no aspect of the claimed existence of mathematics or the alphabet for which there is insufficient evidence.
So no, you were not reading me correctly.
LTX
(1,020 posts)To the extent that claims are made for the physical, or material, existence of supernatural entities or beings, I fully concur with your assessment. But I cannot agree with your penultimate sentence. There are many aspects of mathematics and the alphabet (again, confining the discussion to these two effective immaterialities) for which evidence is lacking. What is often perceived as a banal question actually captures the essence of the evidentiary gaps rather well -- Is mathematics (or are the various alphabets) discovered or invented? It is a question for which either answer is fraught with disquieting implications. What is your view of the answer?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)
they are utterly and completely arbitrary and invented. Why is that difficult? And it's not "aspects" of mathematics or alphabets that are being discussed as lacking evidence, but the concepts themselves.
LTX
(1,020 posts)There is a school of thought that universal mathematical notations and alphabets are invented, as opposed to discovered, but it gross overstatement, in my view, to say that alphabets (or mathematical notation systems) are "arbitrary." Neither alphabets nor mathematical notation can properly be classified as "arbitrary."
The evolution of symbolic representations of abstract ideas is nested in the evolution of the abstract ideas themselves. There was a turning point to universality in both alphabetic and mathematical notation that roughly coincided with the realization(s) that the underlying abstractions themselves had non-parochial applications (language to alphabet preceding mathematics to mathematical notation). While we know in (very) rough terms the historical timeline of universal notation systems, we have very little evidence of why universality was so long in coming, why it appeared when it did, and what functions of consciousness permitted their "invention" (or currently permit their use). We are now so accustomed to these universal notation systems that we blithely ignore both how unique (and bizarre) they truly are, and how powerful they are.
I don't have a firm position on whether mathematics was invented or discovered, or whether universal mathematical and alphabetic notation systems were invented or discovered. I can appreciate the arguments on both sides of that debate. But what you dismiss as "not that difficult" is actually profoundly difficult, and profoundly interesting.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)then convince me that people on another planet devising a system of written symbols to represent their spoken sounds would have necessarily come up with ("discovered"
something resembling an earth alphabet.
On the other hand, we can be quite sure that they would discover the same elements that we would, or that their descriptions of the laws of physics would closely resemble ours. Those things ARE discovered, and not arbitrary from one culture to another.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 5, 2013, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)
There are a great many iterations of alphabetic notation right here on earth, and they are superficially quite different. What the effective ones have in common is universality, permitting re-combination and expansion of vocabulary. I need only learn the cryillic or chinese alphabet to de-code cryilic and chinese script. To the extent that an alien alphabet has that universal quality, the same would apply. Notational universality was an enormous (and very poorly understood) breakthrough -- and it is anything but arbitrary. I have no particular reason to believe that alien universal constructors would develop anything systematically different, for language or mathematics.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)My claim has always been that the set of symbols used is arbitrary. I've said nothing about the very general using of them to allow recombination and a virtually infinite vocabulary, among other things. And I would have thought that it would be self-evident that the symbol "A", evolved from a pictograph of an animal indigenous to earth, is not something that is simply out there for an alien culture to "discover". If that's not obvious to you, I can't help you.
And btw, Chinese does not have an "alphabet", and does not permit the same type of expansion of vocabulary that alphabetic languages do. You do understand that's why English and French have fewer than 50 symbols, while Chinese has thousands, don't you?
LTX
(1,020 posts)But I was responding to your assertion that there is "no aspect of the claimed existence of mathematics or the alphabet for which there is insufficient evidence." I still maintain that this is rubbish. Whether the symbols are chosen "arbitrarily" (a proposition I also disagree with, unless by "arbitrary" you mean "culled and adopted by tacit agreement over time" or systematically, what is not well understood, and what we have little evidence of, is the unifying characteristic of effective alphabets - their universality as tools.
And I still have no particular reason to believe that a sufficiently advanced alien culture would lack a decodable, universal notation system, irrespective of the discrete symbols chosen.
As for Chinese, while there is no original alphabet, there are and have been many Chinese alphabets, both discrete and adaptive to western alphabetic notations. They are principally the reason that China can communicate with the rest of the world, and the world with China.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)As concepts and as sets of physically written symbols. There is more than sufficient evidence to show that that they exists as concepts and as sets of physically written symbols. That was my claim, and if you couldn't understand it or chose to misinterpret it, that's your problem. And "arbitrary" simply means that there is no necessary connection between the symbols and the sounds they symbolize, any more than there is anything inherent in "+" that means "addition". The choice of + to mean addition was completely arbitrary, and any other symbol COULD have been chosen and worked just as well. Why yo keep dragging the "universality" of alphabets into the discussion when I made no claims about it, I can only take as a desperate need for distraction. It is not even inevitable that a culture would develop or adopt an alphabet, no matter how useful it is.
And who gives a rat whether an alien culture would have an alphabet or not? Another thing I made NO claim about. I said that if they did, there would be absolutely no reason to think that their symbols would resemble ours at all, as something that is discoverable (which an alphabet is not) would. Prove to me that an alien culture would have to have a symbol like "A" in their alphabet (or "B" or "Q" or stop beating the wrong horse. Because that's all my claim was about, if you could manage to understand it.
LTX
(1,020 posts)LTX
(1,020 posts)I don't view alphabets as mere conglomerations of arbitrary symbols. They are in fact universal notation devices that permit not just re-combination and expansion of vocabulary, but also access to meaning through decoding, irrespective of the language spoken by the decoder. I can see the argument that such notational universality was invented, but I can also see the argument that its ubiquity and qualitative uniqueness suggest that notational universality was a discovery of a pre-existing property.
Similarly, I can see the alternative arguments for invention or discovery of mathematics and the laws of physics.
What we have little evidence of is the actual nature or source of the underlying abstractions (there are no alphabetics, mathematics, or laws-of-physics particles), and the mechanism by which the human computer either made its shift to use of universal notations, or currently uses such universal tools with remarkable and adaptive alacrity.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)look it up.
LTX
(1,020 posts)What you dismiss as mere "fiction" has a long history of influence on reason, logic, and the the processes of consciousness. Do you also label mathematics, alphabets, and the laws of physics mere fiction?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)your word games are tired and irrelevant.
This is almost as inane as talking about belief in God and political beliefs.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 05:22 PM - Edit history (1)
are in "reality" of profound interest to science. Something, I take it, to which you claim allegiance (if, apparently, a superficial allegiance).
A line of inquiry for you -- what is metaphor, and what role does it play in consciousness?
Or is that line of inquiry as "inane as talking about belief in God?"
edhopper
(33,554 posts)And condescending to boot.
If you do not understand the difference from Madam Bovary being a character in a real book. And the very real claims of Jesus' divinity, miracles and presence in Heaven, you are showing a particular lack of clarity in your thinking.
LTX
(1,020 posts)And the particular lack of clarity. Because.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Probably out of print by now, but worth at least a half-serious scan if you ever happen to run across it.
patrice
(47,992 posts)relationship for a fulfilling and durable motive in life? and then make a histrionic and profoundly self-brutalizing fatal mistake about how to react her own realization of her errors?
k, 
patrice
(47,992 posts)The differences could be described as the respective levels of inference that different minds are comfortable with and, though, inference is less likely to be valid, it is not necessarily invalid, a problem that rationalism deals with by relegating it so certain very limited subsets of the instruments of significance found in descriptive and, ultimately, theoretical statistics. Believers do not try to control for the probabilities of error introduced by inference; rationalists do, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)does not equate to the gods themselves existing independent of any believer. That's the very simple point that you're trying rather lamely to obscure with word salad.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)The idea that humans are in need of salvation is itself a Christian dogma. It claims we are all damned for a non-crime committed by non-existence ancestors and that only grace through JC will save us. Obviously, Hinduism does not teach that, so they are contradictory. Further, Christianity claims to be monotheistic (someone implausibly) while Hinduism is a non-Abrahamic polytheism. That is also a contradiction.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I was raised christian and was never taught any of the things that you say in your post. You have chosen fundamentalism and have ignored all the rest.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for humanities sins and was resurrected is a belief held only by a small part of Christian fundamentalist.
What do make of the 8 in 10 Americans who believe in angels?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The data is overwhelming from this notoriously reliable source!! 
You win.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)What faults can you find with the methodology of the poll cited?
Or are you completely unable to back up your declarations with facts, and thus have to run away?
Leontius
(2,270 posts)shraby
(21,946 posts)to mine.
They don't need to clash unless one finds a need to override the other religion. Then that opens the door to religious wars which are really not necessary to the well-being of anyone.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)you choose your own reality and not to live in a fact based world.
hmmmm?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Be careful here. Your agenda is becoming increasingly transparent.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I am an atheist trying to get believers to engage in discussing a fundamental problem with basing a view of reality on faith alone.
So yes, I went there.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You are a faith baiter trying to get believers to discuss your fundamental problem, which is intolerance. Good luck with that. You and I may well be atheists, but our view of reality is as different as a Hindu's is to a Xian.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I did not know faith gets special protection from questioning?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You are not questioning. You are trying to trap people into your interpretation of Christianity. Sounds like you were indoctrinated, at some point, into a fundamentalist belief or maybe you've been exposed to the whacko preachers on American Fundie Radio. Well, guess what, lots of Christians, don't believe in the Bible, or in one true manifestation of God. They follow the teachings of Jesus, who I think was a pretty cool guy. He preached tolerance and humility. He reached out to the poor and infirm. That's what being Christian is about, not believing a collection of ancient stories. The Bible seems to be a place where fundies of all stripes, including atheists, go to mine for texts to support their own intolerance.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Your armchair psychoanalysis is hilarious, and as inaccurate as could be.
Second, some have responded that way and I have accepted their response. Jesus was a cool guy who said some good things. That's fine.
But their are many (and not just fundamentalist) who believe that he is the son of the one true God of the Bible and was born of a virgin to die for our sins. That probably describes the majority of Christians. So if they believe that based only on their faith, why is their faith better than others who have completely different and irreconcilable beliefs?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)How do you know what the majority of Christians believe? I would wager most Christians believe that most atheists are intolerant bigots, because those with loudest mouths claim to speak for the rest. You see, it works both ways. Try looking for the good things in life and you might find yourself enjoying it a little more.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)really has you upset.
I personally don't think there are questions that should not be asked.
No one on this forum is compelled to answer, or even read the OP.
So I'll leave it to others to put blinders on and not seek the truth.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
A new low, ST. Well done.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The fact that it is failing miserably should tell you something about your preconceived ideas concerning people of faith.
But calling those that disagree with you republicans, when that is the clearly identified opposition group on this site, reveals a whole other agenda.... and one that has been used elsewhere quite effectively as a matter of fact.
You've shown virtually no interest in engaging in a discussion, only in telling people that they are missing your point, dodging your question and in high fiving those on your team.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)it was an analogy. Another point missed.
Yes that is the point of my question, to challenge peoples faith.
It seems to me that the believers here refuse to engage in the discussion. My question succeeded in showing how hard it is for some to question their own beliefs.
Do you think faith gets special exemption from challenge.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Let's try this. You say you are an atheist, right? And you seem pretty firm about your lack of beliefs.
How do you reconcile this with the fact that the majority of people in this world believe in a deity?
How do you remain so convinced that the position you hold is true in the face of hundreds of millions who experience things completely differently?
Do you just think they are all wrong?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)"So like the Republicans
you choose your own reality and not to live in a fact based world.
hmmmm?"
The word like shows it to be an analogy, or perhaps a simile.
Context is important.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
edhopper
(33,554 posts)For believers when the God of the bible was only worshipped by a small tribe in the desert and 99% of the world didn't, did that make him invalid?
Did the gods of Rome exist when most of Europe worshipped them?
Truth isn't a popularity contest.
Does it hat answer it?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I asked how you squared your lack of beliefs, which you seem to hold with some certainty, with the fact that so many people hold a contradictory set of beliefs which are incompatible with your own.
If you are so convinced that you are correct in your position, do you then just think that they are all wrong?
Do you have the one way? Or are you just dodging?
Lol, these are rhetorical question. I don't really expect an answer. I respect your position and have not reason to think you are more right or wrong than anyone else.
Nice talking to you. I hope you find someone, somewhere who gives you the answer you expect.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I base it on rational thought.
I don't "believe" that God does not exist. i do not look inside myself and see if my faith tells me if God is real.
In fact part of my becoming an atheist was the realization that if i could see the errors in others beliefs, why were any of mine any more accurate. I don't see the veracity in anything based only on beliefs.
i look at the evidence over the course of human history. i look at what the claims are about God and Gods, and i see no evidence for Gods existence.
People believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Fairies, ghosts, Esp, alien visitation.
I see no evidence for any of those claims either.
Critical thinking and rational thought.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But your experiences are just that - your experiences.
Others may have had distinctly different experiences that are no more or no less valid than your own.
Why the need to see yours as correct and those of others as false? Seeing that that is your frame of reference helps me understand your OP. Working from that premise, I can understand why you think others must share it. But the fact is that many do not.
They see that beliefs and lack of beliefs can take many forms and accept that without finding it a challenge to their own. You come from a totally different place.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)In the scientific method the results are not base on the individual, or even an individual experiment, they must be independently verified, often with blind studies, to confirm the results. I actually think the experiences of my youth lead me to believe in things that turned out not to be real. So I try not to rely on my subjective viewpoint to shape my ideas in many areas. Self deception is to easy.
I try to live in a fact base world.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You win again! Are you sure that belt is going to be big enough for all those notches?
I'm being snarky, of course. You are very convinced of your position and there is not a chance in the world that you will change it.
Perhaps we can talk another time about another subject, but this has just gotten dull.
See you around the campfire.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)You sure know how to throw the shit in the fan when you realize you have lost a scuffle. I think this comment should be posted somewhere as one of the most unrealistic and rhetorically baseless comments DU has ever seen... outside of the gungeon of course.
There are times when I almost agree with "some" of your points concerning tolerance of philosophies, but then this? Gees, you just contradict any usefulness you may have fostered. I think you are all about the argument and not the slightest interested in being honest OR tolerant. You are the one who is incapable of changing.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The member has taken the position that he holds the truth and everyone else is deluded.
How do you think I have *lost* the scuffle? I don't see this as a win or lose proposition. I would like to see more tolerance, more understanding, more unity. Perhaps you missed my sarcasm here.
I was merely conceding that there is no point in further debate with this member. He has decided that he has the correct position, the higher ground, the truth and everyone else is wrong.
Despite seeing member after member independently state that they endorse tolerance and do not feel that their beliefs are threatened or diminished because others hold different beliefs, he continues to maintain that they are just avoiding the issue or deluding themselves.
I honestly don't see how you came to the conclusions you did about my post, but I am sincerely interested in your POV on this. It was not my intent to come across as I did to you.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Tolerance is not the issue.
Every body here who responded that others faith doesn't impact their own, by default, is saying their faith is true, if the other faiths are incompatible with theirs, the others are therefor, not true.
It's not about denigrating others faiths, it's about looking at the basis of your own.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Well, yeah.
okasha
(11,573 posts)A good many respondents have by now told you that the disparity in your OP is irrelevant to them. That's a fact. Instead of trying to "teach" the poor benighted theists just how benighted they are, why don't you do something original and pay attention to what they're telling you? You just might learn something.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)that liberal democratic religious folk are tolerant? i assumed that.
If they want to talk about that, i suggest somebody start a thread about it, cause this one ain't about that.
No I have learned that they find it very hard to actually answer what I am really asking.
okasha
(11,573 posts)is simply a non-issue to many of your respondents. That you assume you have nothing to learn from their answers says more than anything else in this thread that you're not serious about wanting said answers.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)if they are not interested?
As I said, a assumed already that folks here are tolerant of other religions, so what is it I don't want to learn?
That people don't want to think about the inherent conflicts with believing their own theologies as divine truth while ignoring that others have beliefs that deny those very truths?
okasha
(11,573 posts)that you're not asking a productive question. If this were a meeting of Buddhists, the responses you'd be getting would sound like a whole herd of cows: Mu! Mu! Mu!
And I think I'll just let you look that up instead of explaining . . ..
edhopper
(33,554 posts)why did so many respond at all?
And I don't think you should be judgmental about what is a productive question and what is not.
Are you saying there are questions that shouldn't be asked?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Were you raised in or otherwise once part of a fundamentalist Christian denomination? I could be wrong but I really am getting that feeling.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)With Liberal Democratic politics.
No real scars from my religion except drinking bad kosher wine at Passover.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I do think they are all wrong. Just as I believe the ancient civilizations were mistaken about Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Juno, et al. I opine that today's believers in god(s) are equally mistaken. The ancient Greeks were no less earnest in their prayers nor fervent in their faith than modern believers; their devotion, no less authentic.
Either one or none of today's religious belief systems hold the keys to the Truth™. In any case, the righteous religious are far outnumbered by those who are wrong. If I am wrong, it truly is a shame that the path to god's kingdom is so poorly marked, and navigation instructions so susceptible to wildly disparate interpretation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And that's cool.
But why the need to extend your own lack of beliefs into judging other's beliefs?
Your statement that "Either one or none of today's religious belief systems hold the keys to the Truth™" is not shared by many religious people, including, it appears, most of the religious people posting here.
Why should this matter to you at all, except in cases where people's beliefs are infringing on your or other's rights?
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Historically and contemporarily, religion doesn't confine itself to the personal. For example, proselytizing and spreading the Good News is one of Christianity's edicts. It is culturally destructive. The anti-science quality of religious fanaticism throughout our history is well documented. Religious zealotry has repeatedly impeded and retrogressed our human quest for a sound and rational understanding of our universe. Religious belief foments ethnocentrism and demands conformity. A personal God may be benign, but those who would impose theocracy exist symbiotically with tolerant believers, and are empowered by them. This is highly dangerous and extremely frightening.
That said, I can't reconcile the misogynistic, homophobic, classist, militant teachings of the Abrahamic religions with my own world view. Even though those nearest and dearest to me have been able to accomplish the mental gymnastics required to accomplish this reconciliation, I find it disingenuous to conveniently ignore the inconvenient scriptures while embracing others. It is my experience that religious teachings can be personally destructive. As I compose this argument, I find that my dissatisfaction with religion is long and deep and extends even into the personal. I wish this were not so, but I find that it is.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)say that others need to be okay with that.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)was a poor one. It's essentially Reductio ad Hiterum. But using the Republican Party instead.
Useless debate tactic.
I have no problem with questioning faith, but that pretty much made my eyes glass over.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)sometimes the easiest canard to use isn't the best choice.
I was going for comparing a group that we all obviously agree are wrong in to a post about choosing our on reality.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)how we all choose our own reality, and I suppose on some level we all do it by what we choose to read, study, focus on in life.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)independent of us. We do choose what aspects to focus on though.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)a bit. I do believe time and events happen. But we, as human beings, bring our own subjectivity to the experience. You can hear 15 people explain the same exact stimuli through different terms. Is it that they are focusing on different aspects? Or is it that their interests or life experience trains them to experience new things in a certain way?
If we all eat a potato, it should taste savory like a potato. But an individual's sense of taste might be altered by smoking or a burn on the tongue, inhibiting a sense of salty. The potato is reality. But each of us might taste it in slightly different ways.
I'm just thinking out loud right now. This is not meant to be an analogy about God or religion. I'm stuck on mundane reality and how it may differ amongst individuals.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)experimenting and testing while eliminating as much of the subjective as possible.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)I'm thankful that it exists. I'm a huge proponent of medicine and vaccines, and I'm thankful we live in a time in which I don't have to worry about my child contracting polio or the small pox because of science. I'm also thankful for the technology that we use which makes life easier to live. Air conditioning. Computers. I'm thankful we can communicate through this website because of science.
But there is a place in society for literature, sociology, philosophy, the arts, etc. (I'm excluding theology bc of the obvious butting of heads that occurs in these forums.) They are subjective and individual disciplines with a variety of interpretations. There is no definitive. And I find that beautiful to study, as well.
And I think that they can co-exist in our society. I don't think anyone here would argue that.
PS Just so you don't think I'm running off if you respond, I'm signing off this wonderful technology for tonight. I'm going to catch up on Game of Thrones. BC of technology and science, I don't have to watch it on Sunday nights at 9 pm!!!!!
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Perhaps you perceive the color purple in the way that I see green. We have no way of comparing our experience at all except to call that color experience by a common name. Perhaps we actually see something entirely different when we look at the blues of the skies and the greens grass. Can we agree, though, that the length of the light waves can be empirically measured, and from there can we find a commonality beyond perception?
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)This is an interesting exercise in considering perception.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It's a Kurosawa movie and the bottom line is that the same incident can be experienced in many different ways by different individuals and there is no way to know what the absolute truth is.
This has also been shown to be the case using scientific method, which is why the criteria are strict. Bias and perspective are extraordinarily strong variables that are hard to eliminate.
When you get to really mushy things like religious experience, variables are impossible to control.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)I think we own that movie in a 50 best art house collection we have. I haven't yet seen it!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)It is one of the few movies that I have chosen to watch on multiple occasions. It is very powerful.
Have you seen other Kurosawa movies? Do you like them?
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Rashomon is a wonderful film, though I'm partial to the late Shogun films (Ran and Kagemisha). On the other hand, I'm indifferent to Hidden Fortress
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)but I'm not overly familiar with his films. I've heard that Roshomon is hauntingly beautiful, so I'd love to watch it. (We got our film set about four years ago. We've watched ten of them, then had a baby. It's been difficult to find the time for art house films with a two and a half year old in the house!)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I know what you mean, having raised a gaggle myself.
It's a movie worth seeing and the takeaway really helped me see the world differently.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Other people can follow their faith and share that with me all they like. I love to learn about other faiths and how they worship and their doctrines.
I believe their worship is as good as mine to God. I believe they will go to the same place Christians go. Heaven!
I don't believe in hell.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Or do you think they are praying to entities who aren't there?
Their right to do so is not in discussion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)As I said before just maybe this is Gods way of reaching people.
Having been in a sweat lodge in SD and found it fascinating I can tell you I will never question the Lakota religion. It doesn't change mine but again who are we to say God isn't in this too.
shraby
(21,946 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)It's a theological discussion, not one of tolerance.
You have a firm belief in your faith. Yet here are people who believe in a theology that in inconsistent with yours.
Do you accept that the Greek Pantheon could be real and worshipers of Zeus were just as valid as yours?
What about the Mayan and Aztec gods?
You say your belief is in something real and that the God of your Bible is the divine force in the Universe and Jesus was his son.
How do you "know" that, when there are so many that "know" their gods are equally and literally real as well?
Is your "knowing" better than theirs? Could they be right and you be wrong? If so, what is it that supports your belief?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)And it seems that is the majority of believers here.
But those of other faiths are welcome to reverse the question and answer as well.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)I'm a Reconstructionist Jew. (By the time you realize what that means, you should have the answer.)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)and "Q&A" as you call it is in the Socratic tradition of discussion.
It is not a forum to sit around and sing Kumbaiya.
demwing
(16,916 posts)and the fact that people are answering as they wish, not as you wish, illustrates the truth of that
edhopper
(33,554 posts)my question at all and simply fall back to "Yeah, whatever, but that's like, your opinion, Man."
demwing
(16,916 posts)I tried to keep it from you, but you guessed...
edhopper
(33,554 posts)the Big Lebowski.
demwing
(16,916 posts)[img]
[/img]
demwing
(16,916 posts)but I take comfort in that...
asjr
(10,479 posts)in the hemisphere we can all take our choice. It always astounds me that there are so many "true religions" we can choose from.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)with others who have equally strong beliefs in something utterly different?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do not believe that people of other faiths or no faith go to hell. I think the divine understands that we have a limited understanding of it.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)
and none of the religions or holy texts have it right to what it is?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)a human understanding. We can be wrong. Maybe a religion on this planet has gotten it right or maybe not.
Can we totally know the divine, probably not in the end. IMO it all works out in the end.
LTX
(1,020 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 05:16 PM - Edit history (1)
Or that the "divine something or other" is precisely the source of the myriad conceptualizations of god? Religious belief is as evolutionary as language, philosophy, law, literature, art, and culture, and it proceeds on its course in much the same way as these other intra-species facilitators. What is momentarily fixed as dogma is generationally re-interpreted, abandoned, re-discovered, or incorporated into new iterations.
We are as a species preternaturally inclined in our developmental stages toward exploration of that "divine something or other," perhaps as a methodological precursor to our species-specific need, or drive, for explanations. We invent and then use immaterial abstractions to understand and to manipulate the material world. That "divine something or other" could turn out to be related to our currently inexplicable propensity to do so, and to its rather startling result -- evolutionary production of a universal constructor.
When some one says that God or Jesus or Vishnu or Jupiter or Isis is very real and acts on our physical world, despite the complete lack of evidence that any of it exists, no i don't think they all are right.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)bad phrasing on my part.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)a hand in this world but that they may have mental issues. Or am I still getting this wrong?
I did not mean to infer "right in the head" just they believe in something that does not exist. The are mistaken in their beliefs.
If you wish to call that mental illness, go ahead.
But that is another discussion.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)By the way I do not believe God decides what happens in this world. I believe God gives us strength to get through this life, but God does not decide who lives or dies. He does not decide what happens at every point in our life in my opinion.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)and I am not bating, just curious. Of those of any religion who believe in the more literal aspects of their faith. Who think God and others (like Satan and evil gods) take an active roll in the World.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)for our own actions. As for things like possession I am a huge skeptic.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)i am a Christian and intellectually have no problem with that anthropological explanation of religion.
asjr
(10,479 posts)They all think theirs is the "true" religion. I will always remember when I was a child and accompanied my grandfather to a late afternoon tent revival meeting in the summer, I was scared out of my wits. I just knew I wouldn't make it home before I went to Hell. So, whatever religion one wants is okay by me.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)The fact that I believe The Doors were an overrated, shitty band should have no effect on someone who thinks The Doors were fantastic and Jim Morrison was the Messiah.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)logical fallacy you used there.
I am sure it is more than one.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)I find your post nonsense and don't feel like spending my time with that.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)to ask a question. Now I see what that gets me.
Have a blessed day.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Many of the people who have already answered you have indicated that they feel no such need.
This is your problem, not theirs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)in there being one?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Other "less liberal" religious people would blurt out the answer that cannot be spoken without hesitation.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Do you think the religious people here are not honestly expressing themselves?
This is a site for liberal/progressive democrats. There may be some religious people who would come up with a definitive answer, which might be that they are right and all others are wrong, but I don't see many of those people around these parts.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)as can be seen from many of the answers.
Why would you assume that is the only answer?
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)to the question being posed, but avoidances of it.
"All answers are responses, but not all responses are answers"
okasha
(11,573 posts)because it gives him a "gotcha."
Neither this post nor the OP shows any interest in what believers actually think--they just want to tell us what they think we must think.
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)a discussion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Despite claims to the contrary, I don't think there is really any sincere interest in what others have to say most of the time with these kinds of threads.
But, many of the answers have been quite interesting..
goldent
(1,582 posts)How more transparent can it get? There are some people who are awfully serious about religion here.
cbayer
(146,218 posts) okasha
(11,573 posts)Has that changed?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But some groups do have specific rules about calling out other members.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)been hiding that I am challenging one of the foundations of most people's beliefs.
I just used a Socratic example rather than a more abstract question.
No one needed to answer my challenge, but instead most seemed to ignore the central question and instead reply with what I explicitly stated was not the reason for the thread.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Instead it is one avoidance our diversion after another.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)not much to add here, so I'll just do a little dance:
<
^_^<
(>^_^)>
^(^_^)^
v(^_^)v
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)don't presume to speak for me.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me." Isaiah 45:21
Seems pretty clear to me. One true god. That would make the other gods people believe in not true gods. That would make them bullshit gods.
Waffle on.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I do not believe there are other Gods. But if someone else believes that I respect it and I will not tell them they are false. I believe all worship no matter what goes to the divine whatever it is. I also accept I can be wrong and someone else's view of the divine can be legit. I also accept that you in the end may be right and there is no God and there is nothing after death.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I do not believe there are other Gods. But if someone else believes that I respect it and I will not tell them they are false.
Got it. Thanks for confirming exactly what I stated up thread.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I don't think it is necessary to tell them what he believes in the name of civility.
I do find it consternating that people here, absent confrontation of others, won't say what they believe about others' faiths.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rude and how the hell am I to do so. Do I tell you that you are wrong for not believing? No nor would I.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But when I post
The honest answer of a true believer is that the other gods are bullshit.
Don't act all huffy. That would be the honest answer if you were being honest.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)but your answer here is besides the point.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)But clarity is always preferable.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)this isn't about how you interact with people of other faiths, it's about what you THINK about their beliefs!
Why is it so hard for people to get that simple premiss.
There are other threads about interfaith discourse, this ain't one of them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)as portrayed in their ancient texts, with all their interactions with mankind are true?
Or do you?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)thucythucy
(8,043 posts)the fundamental questions about the nature of existence, about life and death, and how to live a moral life in a material world that often seems to encourage greed, violence, and the exploitation of others.
The Bible, like the Bhagavad Gita, is the written account of one culture's attempt to grapple with those questions. The Greek Scriptures (commonly called the New Testament) is an attempt to reconcile Hebrew Scripture with the Roman-Graeco world-view. As such, all these scriptures are influenced by and bound to their specific cultural contexts.
For me, being a Christian means taking to heart the two commandments that Christ told us were the most important to come out of all of Hebrew Scripture:
1) You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
2) You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The Bhagavad Gita has a core message pretty much identical to this: you should love God, and you should do good in the world. In fact, all the world's major religions have an analogue to "the Golden Rule"--beyond which all else is cultural iconography.
And so the Hebrew and Greek scriptures get bogged down in all sorts of extraneous, culturally-tied admonitions about ritual and cleanliness and the like, while the Hindu scriptures (from what I understand of them) also often reflect what might be seen as cultural/political/social messages extraneous to the basic core message of seeking Godhead as the source of all life and love; and reflecting that love as the love of others, and abandoning the centrality of one's own life as set against the vast reality of existence. Just as Buddhism--which in its earliest form had no "god" at all--has down through the years been adapted by a variety of cultures in different ways. Sometimes this reflects an attempt by those who "get" the message to offer analogies and symbols people can understand (and remember, almost all these writings originally come down to us as oral traditions, then written texts in an era when the overwhelming majority of human beings were illiterate). Sometimes the messages are diluted, mis-translated, or, in the case of post Constantine Christianity, co-opted by the political powers that be in an effort to retain power by claiming "God" is on their side. Sometimes, though, the core truth shines through, and what has lasted reflects what has proved most useful to multitudes seeking these answers.
As a Christian I see no reason to try to push, convince, or even reconcile my beliefs in the validity of those two "commandments" with any other faith, though the more I learn of Hinduism, the more it seems to me that the search for self-realization in truth and the quest to be more compassionate to ourselves and others is at the heart of that faith as well. Remember, Mahatma Gandhi was a devout Hindu, as well as a political revolutionary, perhaps the most successful of the twentieth century. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a devout Christian, and also a political revolutionary, perhaps the most successful in American history. King adopted his non-violent campaign for African American civil rights directly from Gandhi's "Satyagraha"--which was not only a campaign of non-violent disobedience to political authority, but also a religious practice firmly based in Hindu theology. So evidently Rev. King had no trouble reconciling one with the other, and if the two were to meet, I doubt they'd quibble about which faith is "true"--as opposed to how best to apply their faith to meeting injustice with justice and hatred with love.
BTW, your vision of Christianity accepts the most reactionary, fundamentalist version of that faith as indicative of the entire theology, just as your vision of Hinduism seems hardly well informed. To me, the more one learns and studies the heart of both beliefs, the more one delves into the underpinnings of both, the less there is to "reconcile."
Folks I would consider genuine--and not facile--Christians abandoned all that nonsense in Leviticus long ago as Bronze Age effluvium irrelevant to Christ's central message, just as the modern Hindu scholars I've read separate out the caste system and cultural misogyny from the central truths offered by that ancient and profound theology.
As I said in an earlier post, try reading some Christopher Duraisingh for an answer to precisely the question you're asking. And if you haven't read Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God" you should check it out for its amazing (if slightly dated) overview of how all the world's major religions resonate with the same basic messages.
There is a whole world of religious thought out there that bears no resemblance to your stereotype of what constitutes progressive Christian thought. If you're really interested in answers to your questions, there is a wealth of material to help you in your quest.
Best wishes!
edhopper
(33,554 posts)as for this
"BTW, your vision of Christianity accepts the most reactionary, fundamentalist version of that faith as indicative of the entire theology, just as your vision of Hinduism seems hardly well informed. To me, the more one learns and studies the heart of both beliefs, the more one delves into the underpinnings of both, the less there is to "reconcile." "
My vision? Are you denying that the majority of Christians don't believe in the legitimacy of a good portion of the Bible as true.
Take a look at any poll on the matter. It is not only the fringe fundamentalist who think so. And I do not think all Christians are young Earth creationist. But they do believe in the Biblical depiction of Jesus, from virgin birth to resurrection.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57347634/poll-nearly-8-in-10-americans-believe-in-angels/
I don't think my view of most Christians is skewed at all.
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)Christians and non-Christians, believe in angels. Considering your depiction of Hinduism as inherently polytheistic, this would seem to provide yet another area where Christianity and Hinduism can be easily reconciled. "Angels" for one group of people can be transmogrified into divine avatars for another. So wherein is the conflict?
I haven't seen any recent polls on what the majority or even the plurality of Christians believe, re: the virgin birth, resurrection, etc. You asked "Christians" how they might reconcile their faith with Hinduism, and I gave you an answer. Basically, I can speak only for myself. Bear in mind that there are something like two billion Christians on the planet, which would seem to indicate a wide spectrum of belief in the literal truth of scriptures. Certainly, religious "leaders" can hardly be seen as representing the "faithful." Among American Catholics, for instance, the use of contraceptives is more or less on a level with the rate of use among non-Catholics, despite repeated edicts by the various Popes. And many of the Christians I know understand that the virgin birth is an accretion to Christ's teaching that derives from the attempt to make it more palletable to the Greek-Roman world of the first century ("virgin birth" was a popular Graeco-Roman theme). You might want to check out the work of Marcus J. Borg, for instance his book "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time: the Historical Jesus and the Heart of Contemporary Faith" for some insight into all this. I would think the popularity of his work, which is a Christian analysis of historical Christian mythology, indicates that mine is not as much a minority view as you might think.
And how does a belief in the virgin birth, or for that matter in the literal resurrection, contradict the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita? Indeed, there is an (admittedly obscure) branch of Christian thought that believes Christ spent the "missing" years of his life--that is from age 12 to age 30 or so--traveling in India, sitting at the feet of Hindu teachers, thus explaining the similarities between certain aspects of Gnostic Christianity and Hindu spiritualism. Personally, I don't know enough about this to comment intelligently, but it's interesting--in light of your question--to know that this school of thought even exists.
And while I appreciate your appreciation of my "long and thoughtful post" the gist of it doesn't seem to have quite registered for you. You asked how "Christians" could reconcile their beliefs with the beliefs of Hinduism. I believe I answered your question, at least to the best of my admittedly limited ability. Do you have a reply to this? Are you intending to check out the work of Duraisingh on just this question? Duraisingh, btw, will no doubt lead you to other theolgians, Christian and otherwise, who explore the correlations--and divergences--of what are widely regarded as "western" vs. "eastern" religious thought. If you are truly interested in answers to your questions, he makes a really good start.
Whatever the case, I've made an honest if inadequate attempt to answer what I hope is a serious and honest question. Whether or how you choose to pursue this is of course your own affair.
Best wishes, and best of luck in your theological pursuits.
Thucy
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I had a problem with your portrayal of what I think most Christians believe and don't think they align with yours as much as you do.
perhaps that is a discussion for another time.
But I took your response as you speaking for yourself.
eomer
(3,845 posts)came to be your beliefs by way of the violent suppression of opposing views?
Clearly the reason you believe in Trinitarianism is that it came to you in the teachings of Christian orthodoxy. Do you know that proto-Unitarians were burned at the stake in order to defend that orthodoxy and thereby bring it through the ages to you? One example is Michael Servetus, burned at the stake on October 27, 1553, solely because he refused to drop his Unitarian views and admit Trinitarianism. John Calvin advocated for mercy, asking that he be beheaded instead. His last words as he roasted were said to be “O Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have pity on me!” If only he had been willing to switch the order to "O Jesus, Eternal Son of God" he would have been spared.
Like you I was raised in Christian churches and at one time believed their teachings. One of the causes for losing my beliefs was learning the history of how they came to be in the body of teachings that were delivered to me. Would it give you pause to know this about your own beliefs?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yes I know these stories, but no I will not change my beliefs. I believe in the blessed trinity.
eomer
(3,845 posts)about how you reconcile yourself to it. Do you accept without being disturbed by it the fact that you would believe different things if a different group had been the more effective killers? Do you not care? It's quite troubling to me; hard to imagine it's not also to you.
This is very closely related to the question in the OP. The reason that the people in different regions of the world hold the beliefs they do is because of which religion(s) won the struggles. These struggles were sometimes merely academic rather than genocidal but even that doesn't seem much of a basis for going ahead and believing.
I do understand you're likely to continue believing. My belief is that it is of highly questionable morals to do so. But that's of course my belief, obviously different than yours.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I believe it and yes a lot of people who claimed to believe it were rotten people, but I can not change that.
Yes the winners write history, but as I said Trinitarian thought would have developed in war or peace.
eomer
(3,845 posts)The only reason you believe Trinitarianism is because it survived the struggles in your region of the world in order to be delivered to you. You never would have thought of it on your own. You would have been a believer of some completely different things, in your heart.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)Whether they are brilliant and regardless of how many of them are brilliant, if Unitarians had won the fight then the millions of Trinitarians would instead be millions of Unitarians, you among them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And I am sure someone would have thought of it.
eomer
(3,845 posts)The point is that someone thought of both; the one you ended up believing was decided by violent struggles, sometimes including genocide.
I didn't actually think about whether it was a joke or not but just was responding to the content. It's truthfully not a very funny subject to me.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I know people died in religious srtuggles but that is not my fault and there is nothing I can do about it.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Which is the point of the OP. By bringing to people's attention the fact that their beliefs that they believe in their hearts are what they are only because of the respective regions of the world they were raised in and the respective winners of often violent struggles in those regions, by that we are doing something about it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)These are the things that I believe in my heart, I appreciate the exchange with you as a way to act on them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Are you a member of a faith if you don't mind my asking?
eomer
(3,845 posts)I was raised in Southern Baptist churches in Texas. My wife was raised Catholic so we were members of a Catholic parish for a number of years, then dropped out for a while, began exploring, and we ended up joining the UU together. She is still Christian, I am atheist.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)when we found the UU, even though our beliefs are so different.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)eomer
(3,845 posts)While my wife was exploring. Some very welcoming and nice people.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)I think it would be foolish to assert that any religion is immune to history. Our experiences feed into our beliefs and practices, shaping religions and the mentalities that support them. The relationship between religion and the state, the organization which pursues war, is complex, religious leaders and institutions supporting the projects of the state in order to gain some share of power. However, I don't think all ideas are a direct reflection of power relationships. Religious leaders often project images of deities that encourage practitioners to think that hierarchical power relations are natural. Trinitarianism doesn't necessarily do that better than unitarianism. Although trinitarianism may have won by the sword, it does not necessarily mean that if reflects the values of the sword. Indeed, trinitarianism was, in part, an outgrowth of Neoplatonic thought married to early Christian theology. In its genesis, it is not imperialistic.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that you belong to a culture that slaughtered several million Native Americans to establish "democracy" in the Americas?
Just to be clear--I'm not holding you responsible for what your ancestors did. I don't believe you should hold someone responsible for what his spiritual ancestors did, either.
eomer
(3,845 posts)And as a result I already do that which I would urge hrmjustin to do (while not imagining that he is likely to). Rather than embrace and support American "democracy", I denounce and reject it both for the way in which it came about and for what it really is in contrast to its mythology. I do not embrace it as my own but rather fight it as it should be fought.
Please do hold me responsible. I already do those things but am sure I can and should do more. Please feel free to feed me more facts and arguments. You're preaching to the choir on this one but sometimes the choir can learn some new angles even if they already bought in to the big picture.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Handing over the entirety of Turtle Island to the Native American nations?
Moving "back" to Europe?
Learning the local Native language where you live and assimilating to their culture?
eomer
(3,845 posts)Rather than attempting to return to the past, I think it would work out better to look to solutions informed by it. In other words, I personally would propose working for an equitable future rather than a map that looks like a snapshot of some arbitrarily chosen moment in the past.
Which is the political analog of what I was suggesting to hrmjustin on religion - not that we should confiscate the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church and give it to the Pagans but rather that awareness of how all the varied belief systems came about should cause thinking people to pause, reflect, and, for some of them, make the adjustments that such awareness points to.
okasha
(11,573 posts)seemed to be that since awareness of the violence in Christianity's past in part led you to leave the faith, he would do well to follow suit. Or as you refer to it, "make the adjustments that such awareness points to."
eomer
(3,845 posts)What I meant to suggest was to somehow alter beliefs to fit those facts. One way of doing that would be to stop believing altogether. Another way would be to find a set of beliefs in the divine that doesn't conflict - for example, to believe that the various religions are different because they come from imperfect glimpses of the divine and are all true enough and equally plausible. Or another alternative, that they are the result of intentional inspiration from a divine who meant the variety for some reason. Or maybe there's some other set of beliefs that can reconcile with the facts that I was bringing out.
okasha
(11,573 posts)working for an equitable future" within Trinitarian Christianity might be a better response to its past injustices than abandoning it altogether? You don't seem to consider it necessary for you to abandon North American "democracy" to demonstrate your displeasure with it, perhaps because that might cause you more personal discomfort than you're willing to embrace.
As for me, I go for the option that the various religions are different because each culture's struggle to apprehend the divine is different and reflects its--that is, the culture's-- own internal changes.
eomer
(3,845 posts)I'm discomfited considerably by living within it, not at all averse to abandoning lots of it, maybe most depending on the details.
And, on your last paragraph: so I would say you've already adopted one of the adjustments that comes to my mind (although maybe it was what you always thought rather than a later correction).
okasha
(11,573 posts)expresses the view resulting from being the child of one Baptist and one Episcopalian parent who was sent to a Catholic school while being instructed in Native American religion by a shaman grandfather and also being exposed to indigenous Mexican customs and beliefs. "Choose just one" never made much sense to me, nor did "Only one can be right."
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Guilt and memory in history are topics I care about greatly, but really aren't being given appropriate airing in this thread.
You are right to point out the repression of plurality in Christian development, particularly as it relates to the structure of of the Christian deity. However, those were discussions within Christianity, and I don't think it is the moral equivalent of the dispossession of Native Americans. The Christianization of the Roman Empire was very much an internal matter to the empire: the state was erecting its own official religion, whose institutions Christianized politicians were able to take over. A Christian army didn't as. Of course, that dynamic holds only in the central areas of the empire: the Italic peninsula, Greek cities and Asia Minor.
eomer
(3,845 posts)Do you have any favorite sources easily at hand? I've been reading on the history of the Bible (Ehrman) and I think that non-biblical history of Christianity and things Roman around the turn of the era would be good to take up next.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Most of my knowledge of Late Antiquity comes from more political/cultural studies, all very academic. The 3rd century, when the imperial sun cult was established, is a difficult period to study: the sources aren't as good, it's not as popular among scholars, and doesn't sell nearly as well. It's been almost ten years since I cared about this period, and at least a few new books have come out. Since your are interested in religious repression, I would recommend looking at Diocletian, Constantine, and Julian. That would give a rich outline of how the Roman state started to use religion to combat the disintegration of power (particularly at the peripheries) by creating a central ideology and a focus of devotion, and how that religion became Christianity. On the other hand, the religious movement of the 4th century are very satifying to read about: the aestics, arianism, Manichaeanism. The latter, imo, was the best alternative of Christianity, as Mithraism seems to have been more a cult of the aristocracy and the soldiers. The Internet History Sourcebook is a good place to get relevant snippets of first hand evidence.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)My most beloved parents believe that religious understandings are analogous to blind men and elephants. They believe that everyone has some portion of the Truth and none can claim a complete understanding of the Mind of God. (Capitalization intentional.) To say that in order to believe in one dogma it is necessary to also reject the validity of all others isn't, to my mind, an intellectually valid argument.
You and I have rejected belief in all of the various gods for good and valid reasons. I don't expect nor hope to disrupt my parents' unshakable faith. The good thing is that their god does not condemn me to eternal damnation because of my unbelief. That's a good thing, as far as family relationships go.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Yes of course there are various religious belief systems that do not claim to have a "True Belief", that is they do not claim that their belief system is the "true" belief and others are not. Unfortunately that does not describe almost all variations on christianity.
What does is the following:
(The bible, both new and old parts, is explicitly clear on this.)
There is one god, only one god, the god of the bible, and all other gods and their religions are wrong, false, invalid, etc.
You did not mention your parents actual religion, however I suggest that if you asked them if belief in Krishna is equivalent to belief in Jesus they would not answer "yes".
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)Something to this effect: I believe in God. God has seen fit to reveal himself to me in this way, therefore my understanding is divinely inspired.
My parents are much like our liberal protestant Christian friends here on this board. My family is of the United Methodist clergy flavorish-ness. Distilled to its simplest form, "god is love" suffices for them. Left there, I'm almost certain I could be fine with that. However, the evidence of god at work in the world, in my experience, does not conform to that simple theorem.
As to Krishna=Jesus, you are correct that they would not answer affirmatively. Much like Muslims acknowledge that Jesus was a great and wise prophet, though not the resurrected messiah, my parents would embrace that about Krishna that is in agreement with their understanding. I think. Also, my parents do acknowledge and decry the great proliferation of religious hoaxers in our time. They are confounded right along with me as to how some people can be as gullible as some people are.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)My son knows me as Dad, my dad knows me as Son. To my boss, I am "D," the 4th tech in the corner seat, and to my ex, I am known as...well, I prefer to keep that name to myself.
My point is that I am known to different people by different names, based on the time, place, and circumstances that surround each relationship.
One guy, different names, different relationships.
And so it is with the relationships that believers have with their God. One God, different names according to different relationships.
Does my relationship with my son invalidate or challenge my relationship with my dad? Of course not.
Does a Christian's relationship with God invalidate or challenge a Hindu's relationship with God? Of course not.
shraby
(21,946 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)n/t
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)there's just one big blobbish god thingie out there that everyone calls different names. Do you have any evidence that that's the case?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)why dwell on a 33 year period in ancient history so much?
demwing
(16,916 posts)I'm not proselytizing here, just answering the OP as directly as I can, based on my personal experience and belief. I don't understand organized religion, it runs counter to what I've learned about spirituality.
And to answer you directly: No, there is no evidence that I - or anyone - can ever provide for you. If you are ever inclined to pursue the question, you may find evidence that makes sense to you, or you may not. Read the title to my post again...
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)you're free to cling to them and convince yourself that they're sensible, even if they're not. Just don't expect others to take them remotely seriously based only on what convinces you.
And why do you presume that I have never been "inclined to pursue the question"? Why do you presume that I've never thought about this issue or the evidence involved, for my entire life, until this thread was posted?
demwing
(16,916 posts)read it as given, nothing more.
I make no presumptions about what you've done in the past, do in the present, or plan for the future--my comment was only an indication of what I perceive as a truth - No one can give you the evidence that you asked me to provide. That evidence either come to you through your own experiences, or it does not. What you believe, and how you makes sense of your beliefs, is personal.
If I were worried about what you thought was sensible, I would have consulted you before I posted.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Hold up any object. Rotate it. It looks different. Does that difference undefine the object? No. It just adds complexity. You can also rotate it to such an angle that it looks entirely different from how you first encountered it. It's still the same object.
Why would something that would be what a god would be necessarily be as simple, "It's either this, or it's blobbish" as you assume it would be, not to mention that I think we've already agreed that evidence is about rationalism and, though, there are theologians who say spiritual apprehension can be approached rationally, one of the biggest rationalist criticism of it is that it is not DEPENDENT upon rationality.
demwing
(16,916 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)from six different directions can walk over to it and see that it is one object. But "God" somehow seems to warrant special pleading from those who have a deep-seeded need to believe that everyone's religious beliefs MUST be equally valid and everyone's "god" MUST exist, so they just invent this entirely unsupported notion to comfort themselves.
patrice
(47,992 posts)
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)but to listen respectfully to those of other traditions--and in listening we may learn something which enriches us.
It is not like a mountain where different religions attempt to climb to the same summit, but by different paths---but a mountain range, growing out of diverse cultures. Any religion of good will is our friend and colleague.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)It is truly amazing that almost all of the responses are saying what I exactly said was not at issue ans refuse to engage in the question I ask.
shraby
(21,946 posts)The thinking you're trying to expouse here is the same kind that led to these events:
The Crusades
The Spanish Inquisition
Spain driving the Moors out of Spain
Bloody Mary in England
The mass killing of Jews in World War II
The vilification of Muslims today
and this is an incomplete list.
We've had enough of that kind of thinking. It's too destructive to a person's well being, so I would suggest you pack it in and do a little introspection on why you ask such a question.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
It seems that unlike any other phase of humanity, you want special treatment to religion, where it is improper to discuss the core beliefs and differences.
Using you logic, pointed out the flaws in Republican strategy and saying they should not be given validity is tantamount to declaring civil war.
Republicans have the right to their views, but should we just let them go unquestioned and say, well that is their reality?
shraby
(21,946 posts)Religion is a very private thing, kept in people's hearts and minds to comfort them through the tough spots in life.
It's not really proper to compare religions. They all are meant to do the same things for people, comfort them.
Differences in how many gods they have or whether they face the east to pray or wear a hat or shoes in their place of worship is immaterial. That is what the posters in this thread are trying to tell you in different ways. You just don't get it. That's why I told you that maybe you should sit back and reflect on why you think the differences are important enough to discuss them.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)You say you are not giving special treatment and then say it is private and improper to ask. Irony much?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)And the moors conquering Egypt, and north Africa, and trying to conquer Spain...
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Sort of silly argument there, but if true then a good reason why religion would be suppressed.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)relative to it belong to Islam and many other religious traditions as well. Apparently you want those abolished as badly as we do, the best way to do that is to confront the religious about the nature of their religions.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)"Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty."
Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 47
In other words, you have a right to ask what you like, but not to to expect a certain type of answer, or any answer at all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)No I do not believe in it but I respect it and the followers of it.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)An exact answer.
I regard Hinduism, as an important member of the family of world religions which have grown up out of a great variety of cultural and historic circumstances. Having made an academic study of Eastern religions, what produced them, and how they relate to the philosophies out of which they grew, I regard Hinduism as an authentic example of how culture, philosophy and religions are intermingled, and I have a great respect for the way religions developed--particularly Hinduism.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)you ignore the context of my whole question and give a non answer to the larger question.
Nice evasion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)"you have not said what I want you to say, therefore you are dodging my question"
edhopper
(33,554 posts)How do you reconcile your beliefs with others equally firm belief in gods you do not think exists. If you are mainly going on faith, what about others equal faith in nonexistent thing?
I think my question and reason for it is quite clear. TMO absolutely dodged the question and tried to be cute.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Beliefs are personal and individual. It is not necessary for anyone else to see or experience the world as I do. It neither strengthens nor weakens my own set of values, morals or beliefs/lack of beliefs.
You, on the other hand, seem to want to hear a very specific answer that would bolster your notions (beliefs?) about people of faith.
Perhaps it is you that is most afraid of the challenge to your belief set about religious people.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)but I see billions of people with different, irreconcilable beliefs, who all think theirs are true. Based solely on an internal barometer.
Please challenge my ideas of reality and and the Universe all you want. I only got here by constantly challenging myself. By always asking the next question.
BTW We are only talking about the existence of Gods. Bringing in values and morality conflates religion with morals.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And that being the case, instead of asking yourself if perhaps your preconceived notions might be erroneous, you take the position that the people responding to you are dodging or just don't understand your question.
You might consider using some of that "constantly challenging myself" that you refer to above.
Or you can continue to cling to your beliefs that all religious people see their way as the only way and that everyone else's beliefs are fiction.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)unwilling to think about the question.
So you accept the existence of Zeus and Ball or Vishnu? Or are those who fervently believed in those gods and prayed and sacrificed to them mistaken in their beliefs?
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Perhaps they don't hold an ideal of an absolute truth (or its ability to be known). They may instinctively subsume their private, personal interests in order to create a forum for constructive dialogue with people who think differently. Being right may be less important than being together.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)but we have talked about that in this forum and this is a place for no holds barred discussion on religion.
No one needed to post a reply if my thread offended.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)In their real world encounters--you are interested in reality, not just logic problems?--they dismiss their religions' pretexts to being absolutely true in order to foster cooperation and dialogue. I can't speak for everyone religious person here at DU, but I suspect that they would rather say that their religion could be wrong rather than maintain a principle that would create a division between themselves and another. In another forum, you would likely find attitudes that place religion above public discourse. Here, this is who people are, how they have been raised, and how they have developed through their experiences.
ETA: conversely, why don't you engage them on the substance of their responses rather than refer them back to the question.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)And missing everything else.
I have no idea if there is a god or gods nor do I anticipate ever knowing. Therefore I am not in a position to say anyone is mistaken in their beliefs.
And neither are you.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)not Christian?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)it would be apatheist.
I don't know if there is a god or gods, nor do I particularly care. What I do care about is the rights of those that believe or don't believe and the promotion of alliances when they share common goals.
What I care about is erasing bigotry towards believers and non-believers who are working for the things I care about - social justice and human equality. Divisiveness, such as is displayed in your OP, harms the cause, imo.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)is not a fault. The amount of harm that believing in things that are not real can also be great.
I do not think any belief or idea is beyond debate. And that is the reason for this forum. Not to hold hands and sing hymns.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I don't see anything wrong at all with holding hands and singing whatever we want. We share a common cause here and divisiveness defeats that purpose.
Debate and seeking enlightenment may be a part of the process. Putting down groups of members for their beliefs does not move us forward in the least.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)scintilla of evidence to support what they claim.
But I simply asked a legitimate question, and that question alone seemed to upset and unnerve people.
Since when is questioning some ones beliefs, putting them down.
Do beliefs get special exemption from questioning?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)and most here question all the time.
And the most upset and unnerved person in these parts seems to be you.
See you around the campfire!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)Also because I am a theist in the same way a man can be a feminist.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)the majority of believers here are Christians. But any one can substitute their faith and another to answer the question.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)An an atheist says; I see how faith can lead so many people to so many different incompatible beliefs, with no evidence outside themselves.
So i will not base my thoughts about God and religion on non verifiable faith.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)They also can see how faith can lead to a wide variety of belief systems and do not base their own thoughts about god or religion on non-verifiable faith.
That is what people here are telling you. You are only working from the presumption that when you do it, it makes sense, but when they do it, they are just lying to themselves.
Edited to add the observation that non-believers that post here tend to use the first person plural much more than the believers do. What do you make of that?
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I have seen over and over again, including many times in this thread, that they believe without any demonstrably evidence, but there is an inner faith or "knowing" that tells them their faith is true.
So yes that is exactly what people of faith are saying.
What do you think they are basing it on? The number of other people who share their faith?
I am more than open to a discussion of beliefs based on critical thinking and demonstrable evidence.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Here is where I think you wanted us to head.
1-there is such a thing as absolute propositional truth. Any fact about God is either in line with that truth or is in error.
2-Christians have a clear notion of what that truth is. It is written in the Bible.
3-Hindus (name any religion) have a very different propositional statement about what is true.
4-Therefore, to be a Christian is to deny absolutely the so-called truth in Hinduism.
If you could put aside what you wanted us to say, and just hear what we have said, you will see that the whole construct which you suggest is not where we are. So we cannot answer your question using the presuppositions at the core of your inquiry. Nice try
rug
(82,333 posts)That poor horse hasn't moved or breathed once since the thread started.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)The question is really on how to reconcile the complete faith you have in your own belief while acknowledging that there are others, equally faithful, whose beliefs you find untrue.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)I hope at least you realize that you miss the point of the question.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)"Do you accept that their belief in multiple gods and reincarnation can be valid and true. If so, how does that align your beliefs in the one true God, Jesus and the Bible? If you think they believe in things that aren't true (no parsing here, many believe in the absolute reality of their gods), how do you remain so convinced that what you believe is true in the face of hundreds of millions who have beliefs in what amounts to a fiction?"
What part don't you understand and i will try to be clearer. Remember I am not asking if you feel it is okay that others have different beliefs. If you do not accept any of the Christian Bible to be true and only stories that point to some divine dimension, then I guess you would see all religions of being literally untrue but pointing to some unattainable truth. But if you believe the stories of the OT an NT are True, that that version of God and Jesus is real, how do you look at a religion that completely rejects that in lieu of a different set of gods.
1-Yes it can be valid. There guess is as good as mine.
2-Either they are right, I am, or someone else is right.
3- I don't base my faith on what others think. I base it on my thoughts. You can say the same to any group of people that millions or billions don't agree with you so why do you believe or not believe. I could care less what others think.
I look at any religion that believes in other Gods with respect. On I do not agree that there is multiple Gods but I respect their opinion and would never try to convert them. In the end I believe their Worship of the divine goes to the same place mine does. To the divine. In the end We all go to the same place in the end, Heaven.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)That was your first question, and if it doesn't lead to the others, let it go.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)it could have been any religion whose tenets and beliefs vary greatly from your own.
I don't care what people think about Hinduism specifically, it is an example.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)which seem to be deist/agnostic I understand. But I don't think you are indicative of a firm Christian believer.
I do think you answered my question from your POV.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)you got the jist of me.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)sorry
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Thanks
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Not all Hindus are polytheistic. OP just seems like shit stirring.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Just trying to ask a Socratic question using a specific.
Trying to get people to discuss a core part of beliefs. if that is stirring shit, so be it.
rug
(82,333 posts)The various gods and goddesses are considered aspects of a godhead.
I once asked a Hare Krishna at one of their Sunday feasts, when they still had their temple in Brooklyn Heights, what they thought of souls. He said as expected that living things have souls and will reincarnate according to their karma.
As he said this he was eating a carrot. I asked him about the bacteria on the carrot. Without missing a bite, he told me in a pure Brooklyn accent, "You have to draw the line somewhere."
I think you're drawing a false distinction. Validity and truth are two different things. Different beliefs can be valid, have value and be beneficial regardless of what measure of truth you apply. Be assured, there is no one measure of truth.
hoping not to get bogged down. For the purposes of this discussion I am reffering to Hindus who are polytheistic and Christians who accept the God and Jesus of the Bible as real.
demwing
(16,916 posts)"It is the nature of the material creation that one living entity eats another, directly or indirectly. The goal is to escape the material, and return to the spiritual environment.
"While here, strive to act only in the service of God. Accept food stuffs as a gift from God. Before eating, offer your food preparations back to God. Divorce yourself from the pride of procuring or preparing the food. Spiritualize the process, and free yourself from the positive AND negative karma associated with all action."
That's what the Brooklyn devotee should have said, assuming he had been around long enough to understand that philosophy.
rug
(82,333 posts)I know the Dalai Lama eats meat on occasion and gave a similar answer when asked about it.
What was more interesting to me was the point at which it is believed a living thing has a soul that is subject to karma.
demwing
(16,916 posts)And there are other rules that cover cheeseburgers. Some obscure thing about Hindus not eating cows
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)vegetables are living things, but we never afford them souls. They are just a very early split in life forms on this planet.
demwing
(16,916 posts)In other cultures, every living thing--from the largest to the smallest--has a soul.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)but not others? I suppose that "You have to draw the line somewhere" comes in here, I have to admit that any religion I created would have that as it's tenant.
demwing
(16,916 posts)read my post #84:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121882026#post84
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Craziness!
rug
(82,333 posts)Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves; and let them rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals, and over all the earth, and over every crawling creature that crawls on the earth.”
edhopper
(33,554 posts)the Royal "We".
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Maybe start tomorrow.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)to see where they lost it in translation.
rug
(82,333 posts)The plural appears another time in Genesis 3:22.
"I am who am" spoken to Moses is also quite deliberately singular.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)How do Christians reconcile the contradictions in the bible? let's take this one specifically: is there one god, is he schizophrenic? is it just a carry over from the stories that the bible was based off of? Is it something that we don't question because it's god's will and you just don't question it? something completely different? Burma-shave?
rug
(82,333 posts)Your first question's been answered in this thread.
Your second question reveals an ignorance of schizophrenia.
Your third question has some truth in it.
As to your fourth question, I think questioning is essential. It's in our nature to do so. Doesn't mean we'll get answers.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)How is this reconciled? Or just point me to the post which contains it. Also, not ignorant of Schizophrenia (just it's spelling).
You assume the positions need to be reconciled.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)That lets you feel superior to us atheists who just can't comprehend the intricacies of spiritual thought, but it is actually a non answer that deflects from the question. If it doesn't need to be reconciled then nothing in the book means anything because you can just make it up as it suits you. Like how people choose what to follow in the bible, you either pick and choose, which means you aren't following God's word, or you follow all of it, and then you are rightly called a monster.
If you follow the bible the only logical answer to the main question in the thread is that they are wrong and will be punished by god. If you claim other wise, you're not following the bible.
rug
(82,333 posts)And why are you referring to yourself in the plural?
Given that we're not dealing with a mathematical formula (not that I intend to speak for you; feel free to consider it a mathematical formula) the equation need not balance.
No religion teaches it contains the whole and entire truth. To do so would elevate that religion to the status of a god, thereby negating the need for a god, let alone a religion that teaches about it.
Rather, most religions contain glimpses of god, some clearer than others. As to why people choose one over the other, leaving birth aside, that religion holds for that person a consistency and an appeal and an understanding that others do not. The whole purpose of dialoguing with other religions is to both gain a more accurate understanding of that religion and, perhaps, of one's own.
It's a hell of a lot more productive than constructing straw men of religions and snickering with the gaggle.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)You really want to stand by that statement?
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
rug
(82,333 posts)Does that sentence explain God?
I'm all ears.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)that no religion claims to have absolute truth?
Obviously they don't to your satisfaction, but are you saying none make that claim?
Absolute and complete truth.
If you have any in mind, point me there.
What I have found, is that many religions claim to have the path of truth, or, claim that their way is God's way, but I haven't seen any claim to have the whole and complete truth. To the contrary, the argument seems most often to be that no one can comprehend God but this is the way to follow his will.
That's another thing altogether.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)VATICAN CITY (Catholic Online) – The Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostolic church of Christ, while other Christian Orthodox and Protestant denominations that “suffer from defects” share elements of “sanctification and of truth,” said the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.
Released July 10 under the title "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," the 1,200-word document was signed by U.S. Cardinal William J. Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and congregation secretary Archbishop Angelo Amato, and approved by Pope Benedict XVI before publication.
rug
(82,333 posts)If it did, there would be no need for mysteries.
Maybe you should have looked more closely before you left.
The article you cite refers to the position of the Catholic Church in comparison to other Christian churches. Its claim is that it has the correct teaching of what has been revealed.
That's a far cry from claiming it possesses absolute and complete truth. There is a difference between claiming it is the true church founded by Christ and claiming it possess all truth.
Go back to your catechism and read paragraphs 841 - 845.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)some truth. Maybe not all, but the truths it does claim are absolute.
rug
(82,333 posts)
edhopper
(33,554 posts)when these truths that are based on faith from various religions are incompatible, doesn't that show faith to be a poor way to gain truth. Since some peoples faith have obviously lead them to believe things that are not true?
rug
(82,333 posts)What is common to religions is that the truth is received, not gained. Gautama received enlightenment, Abram received a dream, Mohammed encountered Gabriel, and so on.
No one gained the truth. The religions are based on revelation, a revealed truth, not a gained one.
I suggest that, while the surface beliefs are clearly incompatible, there is a common truth in each of them. It is a simple matter to measure Shiva, Allah and Jesus and find them each wanting, but that is not the point. If someone believes, it is important for that person to understand both what and why he or she believes. It is then more fruitful to find the same about others. The answer is often more likeness than difference.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)But my point is not misplaced, For as surely as you believe these things based on your faith, why is that better than another's faith that you would agree is more damaging?
rationally we can discuss why, but if it is only left to faith, why should one trump another.
Understand, i am not saying faith leads people to bad beliefs. I just don't think faith alone is a good arbitrator.
What is the criteria you use to judge this gained knowledge?
rug
(82,333 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)written in English.
And I'm STILL having trouble with the fact that the basic criticism of religion is that it is not rational and yet this whole thread demands rational assumptions about religion. If religion is not rational, these rational questions don't make rational sense.
I'm not saying that critique can't be made, just that you shouldn't expect something that is not rational to be rational, which is what the whole theological comparison bit does: "Rationally, how can you NOT condemn other religions that contradict yours".
The strange gods that Christians are warned against in the first commandment includes those constructed by Christian minds, else, what would a God be, since, all of his functions and being could be apprehended by our own.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)this thread IS NOT about condemning other religions.
It's about questioning how you can see the faults in other faiths and be convinced yours is still true.
It is refusing to see the beam in your own eye.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Pretty much every religion frames it's self as the truth, and that only through them will you attain salvation. In fact many of them come right to your door to tell you that you're going to be tortured for eternity unless you subscribe to their newsletter which contains the truth.
Why are you so afraid to answer questions about your faith?
rug
(82,333 posts)Take this one for example.
Usually comes upon when someone doesn't like the answers.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)What's so bad about your faith that you deflect and change the subject when someone asks you a direct question about it?
rug
(82,333 posts)Didn't you write this?
You're not very good at it.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I never claimed to be, but you're doing all kinds of low tricks to avoid answering questions.
rug
(82,333 posts)You don't like the answer, argue with me.
But you're not qualified to deem an answer you don't like is not an answer at all.
That just becomes a stupid conversation, a short, stupid conversation.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)All I've gotten are insults and diversions. If you don't want to say, just say so.
I found this conversation very enlightening.
rug
(82,333 posts)If you find this enlightening it's time for you to come out of your narrow world view.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and "Red" doesn't answer "2+2=?"
rug
(82,333 posts)Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Last edited Sun Jun 2, 2013, 11:20 PM - Edit history (1)
so they accused the OP of not liking the answers instead. Is it really that difficult to describe your faith? Is there something that you want to hide? is it so fragile that any shaking of it will cause it to crumble, so you lash out instead?
rug
(82,333 posts)Senseless, but without your pop psychology ad homs. I can only imagine what went through your head as you were editing and composing them.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Just love the irony in your reply, I needed a good chuckle.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Yes there are contradictions in the bible. The people who wrote these stories were human. The bible should not be read literally. Yes there are things i take literally like his death and resurrection but I don't take revelation literally. I don't take the creation story literally.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)As actually happening?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I was raised with the faith nominally. My parents sent us to Catholic school but were not real believers. None of my family really are believers but I stuck with it. I joined the Episcopal Church at 18.
As to why I can accept some things and not others all I can say is I just believe what makes sense to me.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)and am surprised that you are pretty much the only one who will give a straight forward one, and I have tons of respect for you, and it grows with every post.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My faith is very simple but sometimes hard to explain.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)You believe these things because your faith tells you they are real (I know that is awkward phrasing) But if someone comes to you and says Satan is real and people are going to Hell, and they know because their faith tells them, why is their faith mistaken. If a Muslim says to you, Jesus was a prophet, but just a man, and it was Mohammed who is the true messenger of God, and he believes this with all his heart because his faith tells him it's true, why has their faith telling them something wrong.
I am not talking about people like yourself who are looking at something unknowable and trying to grasp the divine. But if your faith tells you Jesus was sent here by God, died and was resurrected, why can't your faith lead you astray as it does others?
It's about how others' faith reflects on your own.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)not challenge their views, unless it is something nutty that requires hurting or oppressing another human being. As to that last point I think God wants us to treat people with respect and leave others alone. I have plenty of Muslim friends here in Brooklyn and we discuss our faith all the time and they give their view points on religion and we respect each other. The only thing I challenge them on is the treatment of women and gays, but that goes the same for members of my faith as well.
Can our faith lead us astray? It is possible that all of these religions were all made up and there is another truth out there and we are missing it. It is possible there is nothing and religion while helping some to lead a happy life, it will have served to oppress others and rob them of the existence they deserve. Who is to know. In the end as long as a persons or religions view does not oppress and harm others I am cool with that.
Now some will rightly say that if you look at the scriptures of religion that you can find plenty that is oppressive. Very true! This is why believers must be mature enough to accept that the scriptures were written at a different time and while many of the values of the book are the same today others are clearly not. This is where my faith comes in. The three legged stool of scripture, tradition, and human reason is how I form my faith. It is the Anglican/Episcopalian way of doing things.
I hope this answers some of what you are asking.
Thanks
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..the christianized pentateuch substitutes 'God' for quite a variety of names for the unnamable. 'Elohim' is a plural feminine form .. as opposed to the far more common 'Adonai'.
rug
(82,333 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..there was a lot of wordplay at work.. double meanings, etc. john allegro (in)famously argued that the angels were named after herbs held sacred by the fertility cults that preceded and informed the authors of early jewish myths.. in particular playing with egyptian and sumerian word forms.
judaism wasn't always monotheistic. i think that's why that word was used in that particular spot.. during the primordial moments of the creation story.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Vishnu, and Shiva of whom Brahama seems to be the thesis/source in a dialectic with Vishnu and Shiva.
MFM008
(19,803 posts)Ive never discussed beliefs with one, but to a christian it seems confusing . Queen Elizabeth l had a philosophy on religion that is good for all christians to keep in mind...... paraphrasing of course.... only Jesus matters, the rest is meh...
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...than any I've seen recently. DUer edhopper poses a straightforward question that addresses the conflicting objective realities of multiple religions, and the responses are like dodge ball played by circus contortionists.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)sounds like a lot more fun.
demwing
(16,916 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)only a glimpse into something divine.
You don't accept what the Bible says about God and Jesus?
demwing
(16,916 posts)just not real for me.
One god, different names, and different relationships based on time, place, and circumstances.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)instead of real.
rug
(82,333 posts)Else it would be hard to give this statement any credence.
patrice
(47,992 posts)reconciliations between different non-rational systems?
OP is a pointless question that assumes absolute knowing about that which isn't KNOWN, it is BELIEVED.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Note the theme that Hindus and others in complete ignorance of Christianity cannot in fairness be damned, which explains why missionary work is so important.
LuvNewcastle
(16,843 posts)Yahweh is one of them, along with Baal, Krishna, Vishnu, Zeus, and Quetzalcoatl. I think people see them as Gods, but they aren't Gods in the truest sense of the word.
I believe the different Gods are or were actual beings that existed in another plane or dimension. The one we are most familiar with in our culture is Yahweh. Yahweh interacted with people and required their obedience solely to him, claiming he was the absolute one God and the Creator. He admits over and over again that he is a "jealous God." He isn't the Universal Soul, but he would like for people to believe he is. Like people and all other living beings, Earth's Gods share part of the Universal Soul, but they are not the Soul itself, nor are they Creator Gods. They deceive men when they tell them these things. They exist in time and they can die.
To a fly, humans must seem eternal and all-powerful, but we know we're not. If we could communicate with the flies, we might enjoy the awe we inspire in them and each of us claim that we're better and more worthy of adulation than other humans. But in the end, we are all creatures who die and return to the Soul who gave us life. The Gods of the Earth are just the same.
Peacetrain
(22,874 posts)in the heading of your post.. with your last statement..
"Please don't miss the point, of course people have to right to their beliefs, we also have the right to question them."
I would guess most Christians view Hinduism the same way Hindus view most people outside their religious belief systems..
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)it has been interesting, to say the least.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)that "Buddhism is like voodoo."
Translation:She is ignorant. All she knows is what her ignorant preacher tells her. It's not Jeebus, therefore it's bad.
She has a large ancient Roman torture device in her yard proclaiming her faith.
I tried to tell her about Buddha but she would not listen.
The Christians around here are hateful and intolerant. They think their religion is the state religion and should be promoted at all times. They think non-Protestants should be expelled from the United States.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I feel your pain.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)They believe all non-Christians are going to hell but they refuse to say it. It would be at odds with their view of themselves as accepting others. Christians can be backed into hilarious corners: Oh, no, why we don't believe anything, you can believe whatever you want and be a Christian. Not true.
I've had this argument before on DU. They will tell you you don't have to believe in the basic doctrines of Christianity which are absurd and exclusionary and destructive to people in the extreme.
Yes, Ed, they dance around. Their religion is illogical and ridiculous, written by men who were flawed, used for political purposes.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)was that many believers, here and elsewhere, claim that they base their belief on an inner faith. If they can see that others have just a strong belief in something they don't see as real or correct, what makes their inner faith right and others, with equal certitude, wrong?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)But they won't say that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)many do.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)How could they harmoniously unite against the big, bad, mean atheists if they didn't? Infighting is not good if you're striving toward a common goal.
patrice
(47,992 posts)definitive.
We're talking about what would be a "God" after-all. I just don't see how all absolute statements on the subject are anything but blasphemy. They are statements that are more about us than they are about something that would meet a definition of "God".
I just don't see how you can even have a definition of "God". This is one of the reasons I like Hinduism, because, as you missed mentioning in your reference to thousands of Hindu gods, Hinduism also believes that at a higher level there is a trinity, Brahama, Vishnu, and Shiva, of which, Brahama is like the source of all things and they have next to nothing to say about Brahma beyond that. That may not be exactly valid, but it seems closer than all of the stuff that gets generated about the Christian God.
Which brings me to a basic point for this post, Christian or Hindu: If you say I believe in God who x, y, and z, I can't see how that is BELIEF, because x, y, and z seem to imply somekind of KNOWING to me, the opposite of belief, because you're saying I experience/know x, y, z, so there must be a God.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)How do you know. Some inner part of you that "knows" What of others who "know" x, y and z that is different and irreconcilable with your "knowing"
What you call knowing seems identical to what others call faith and belief.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have repeatedly stated that other people's beliefs are false, untrue, based on unreality.
That's dogma, my friend. You know just as surely as a fundamentalist christian knows, which is to say, not much.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)if it makes you feel better.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)But you do. You employ more dogma than any believer posting in this thread.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)the disbelief in any god. I also do not see any evidence for the supernatural.
If you have evidence to the contrary, I am open to looking at it.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)When you make statements that other people's beliefs are false, you are saying that you know
I have no evidence and have said so repeatedly.
It is you who makes the definitive statements as to what is truth.
That's not atheism.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I'd be an agnostic.
If I don't accept the existence of any god, then by default their beliefs must be wrong.
If I accept that life evolved through natural selection over billions of years, then creationism is wrong. (This is an anology)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Nt
patrice
(47,992 posts)make those kinds of claims.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)That is probably why the OP doesn't think anyone is really answering his questions. He sees only one answer - everything else is just *dodging*. because there answers are different than what he has already determined is the right answer.
patrice
(47,992 posts)a much broader and deeper acquaintance with a human artifact known as literature, so they can see what words are and how they work and stop, or at least qualify, all of this effort to do something that words don't do.
patrice
(47,992 posts)rational knowing, but knowing nonetheless. They have feelings or apprehensions or experiences of some sort which cause them to "believe" in God. There is something there that they conclude must be "God". If they did not apprehend whatever, if they perceived 0 of whatever it is that people are referring to by means of the word "God", would they believe?
Having any kind of definition of "God" at all seems to have the cart before the horse in the matter of faith, which makes religion, then, somewhat similar to rationalism: x + y + z = God.
Not all persons of faith are like that, but maybe the majority are and that's why one such person, John 20:29, said "Blessed are those who have not seen and, yet, believe . . ." John was expressing an intuitive affirmation of the creative freedom of awareness that admits that it doesn't know everything. Science, by its nature, does not claim that. Religion, the institutionalize and organized form of what we call spiritual apprehension, has a strong tendency to do that and that's called blasphemy.
Yes, I am an agnostic. I strive for a DYNAMIC, i.e. active, balance between knowing and belief, because I hope that neither one biases my awareness.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)human stuff going on around this topic. It's like walking into a rip-tide.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)By people reply to what amounts to an anonymous post by me, I would be very thin skinned indeed.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)They won't admit that they believe in One True God, that adherents of other religions are going to hell, etc.
These forty things:
http://carm.org/basic-christian-doctrine
Why is that? Are they afraid of looking like bigots?
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Certainly, some academic has described Christian doctrine in a manner that suits your argument.
Moreover, the list is flawed: looking up some of the verses, I noticed that they don't support the claims that the author intends to make.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Which Christian doctrines are mandatory to be a Christian?
Original sin and substitutionary atonement and many others.
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)I was raised and baptized christian and never even heard the terms original sin or subsitutionary atonement.
Your exposure to christianity has apparently been extremely limited.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)It seems yours has been limited.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)would someone apply it to all christians.
demwing
(16,916 posts)36. “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37-40. Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment, and the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
I hardly see any Christians holding John 3:16 as the most important passage.
You hardly see it mentioned anywhere.
demwing
(16,916 posts)but I'd give weight to Christians who follow what Jesus said, rather than those who follow what John said about Jesus.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)You have essentially called the christians on this site lying cowards.
You may have issues with people where you live, but to extend your hatred to the people that post here is not just uncalled for, it is completely off base.
Afraid of looking like bigots? Maybe they just aren't bigots and don't make the kind of baseless assumptions that you do here.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that "these forty things" are what defines Christianity at Jerry Falwell's Liberty "Unicversity" and are therefore not definitive for non-fundamentalists?
thucythucy
(8,043 posts)who is an Indian Christian theologian who in his work reconciles the core beliefs of Christianity and Hinduism.
Duraisingh, a Christian minister in the Episcopal Church and a professor of theology at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is "a major advocate for rethinking Christian faith and witness in dialogue with peoples of other faiths and cultures and in commitment to the ‘excluded.’ Duraisingh’s teaching at EDS focuses on church and social movements, relationships among peoples of major world religions for the promotion of justice and peace, a transformative reconstruction of the symbols of Christian faith and the nature of a mission-shaped church." "Mission-shaped church" means a church focused on helping the poor, liberating the oppressed, and speaking truth to power.
Dr. Duraisingh divides his time between the US and India, and is probably the world's most knowledgeable authority on the similarities and differences between Christianity and Hinduism.
Check out his writings, if you're truly interested in how a modern Christian is able, not only to reconcile, but in fact to celebrate both his Christian and Hindu beliefs.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...that both belief systems were valid. Of course, that cannot be true. Either the Abrahamic god is the one true deity or else He is not. Either we all exist as a dream of Brahma or else we do no not. Either we reincarnate or else we do not. Either we are damned without Christ or we are not.
At least one of those belief systems must be wrong. The odds that either is right are about the same.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)the wheel has thousands of numbers.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)My eldest son was a self motivated student, and obsessed over his schoolwork. I often instructed him: "Get out of the house. Enjoy life. There are more important things than your studies."
My youngest son is a social animal. He's a C student with a 135 IQ. He has no focus on anything other than his friends and his art. I often instructed his "Hit the damn books and get your homework done. You have to sacrifice for only a short time, and then you're free from academics!"
Now tell me, which of these conflicting instructions was valid, and which one not?
Deep13
(39,154 posts)And being factually accurate, they are both valid.
Your logic is flawed for a number of reasons that out to be obvious.
First, you really are basing both sets of instructions on one assumption: education is important, but it is not ones whole life. So each instruction is designed to steer each kid in in the same direction.
Second, you are suggesting that the life lesson in your advice is somehow analogous to the independent existence of deities. A better analogy would be suggesting that one son apply for admittance to Star Fleet Academy while you steer the other to apply to Hogwarts. The advice is only valid if either of those places exist. And, as in the case of gods, neither does.
Going back to your example, given that race, religion, nationality, and even gender are social constructs and that there fundamentally is only one kind of human in the world, what difference exists among Europeans and New World residents on the one hand and Indians on the other to justify comply different theologies with different factual assertions and yet still call both valid?
demwing
(16,916 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)
and though I cleaned up my language, both messages were factually accurate.
That's more or less correct. Just as the seeming conflicts between the two religions are only superficial, and the instructions are both designed to steer each believer in in the same direction - toward a deeper spiritual understanding.
You think your analogy is better because it supports your conclusion. I think my analogy is better because I actually know what it is that I'm trying to say, and can understand that your analogy doesn't correctly express the message that I'm trying to communicate.
I'm not asking you to accept that God, Hogwarts, or Starfleet exists. I know you're accustomed to believers actively proselytizing, but I'm not doing that. Your path is yours. My path is mine. You wouldn't succeed at mine, nor would I succeed at yours.
This is so wrong. There may only be one race of humans in the world, but each person is a unique individual. Different theologies are like multiple road maps from many origins, all leading to a singular destination. One can get to Rome from Jerusalem, from Delhi, or from many different locations. Some travelers will head East, some will head West. Some walk a long path, and some not so long. At times,, travelers from different origins will find themselves on the same road, while other travelers who started from the same door find themselves on temporarily divergent paths, but on this journey, all walk toward the same destination. On this journey, all roads really do lead to Rome.
patrice
(47,992 posts)it's possible to say there's nothing about the phenomenological uni-/multi-verse that constitutes a necessary relationship between all of that universe and your words, an understanding that you then confirm in your post, #281, in which you express your apprehension that the words and what the words refer to are NOT the same thing, so you surrender the effort, to my mind correctly, not to play that game and let whatever it is, that all of this effort may or may not be (more or less) about, be whatever it is without trying to impose artifice upon it by means of your words.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)It raises some interesting points, but for practical purposes as long as one understands the context of how words are used, there really is no disconnect between signifier and signified.
Anyway, we live in one universe. So, if there is only one God (or one trinity attended by minor deities) then there cannot be a multitude of independent gods. If we live once and then exist forever in heaven or hell, we cannot be reincarnated according to what we deserve. If consciousness is actually a product of the physical functioning of our nervous and hormonal systems--and it is--then both of those claims are false. Further, any ethical system that assumes we will get another shot at life after this one--either as souls in heaven or hell or else as new humans--is also wrong.
Faith has nothing to do with what reality is. It is merely an explanation of what we are willing to believe reality is.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that liberal/moderate believers don't like to think about too much. It forces them to tip their hand - because with all the talk of ecumenicalism and everyone's beliefs being valid, they still secretly think they are the only ones truly interpreting god's will correctly, not all that much different than the rabid right wing fundies. "Tolerance" of other beliefs is no doubt genuine for most on the left, but it essentially amounts to a patronizing pat on the head.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I accept that others have different opinions. Their guess is as good as mine, ans is your guess. I do not "pat on the head" anyone and I find it insulting that you would make the generalization about liberal believers.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You believe there is one god. (Or three, I suppose, if you want to get technical.) The Hindu believes there are many, many more. You believe Jesus Christ died to forgive us of our sins. The Muslim most certainly does not.
And a very typical belief I see with liberal Christians is that they indeed believe Jesus died for our sins, and that he died for EVERYONE'S sins, whether you believe in him or not. That's the pat on the head.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My believing that everyone is saved by Jesus is not a pat on the head. I have my beliefs and others have theirs. I do not feel like it is a "pat on the head" when someone of another faith says they think I will get to heaven as well.
I disagree with you strongly and find it insulting.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So we can all be upset and insulted or we can analyze what it actually means to "respect" the beliefs of others.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)My opinion was asked.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Thanks for confirming.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Project much?
_
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So nope.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)to get others to confirm your biases? Instead of getting frustrated when the world and the people don't conform to your preconcieved notions about them, you should chalk it up as a learning experience instead calling them dishonest for not being what you thought they were.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I don't wish to deal with your personal attacks. Let me know when you want to discuss the issues rather than me.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Or maybe your folks were?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)this discussion is over.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)But if the subject has become uncomfortable for you then you are right to leave it.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)"You must be an atheist, because you have been grievously harmed by religion."
It must be about a personal plight, not a rational analysis of what religion and belief is based on.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)and passionate need to convince others that they are wrong.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I am stating my view and answering responses.
Sorry if I seem to passionate for you in this debate.
And I don't let non answers slide.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 4, 2013, 11:18 PM - Edit history (1)
while dismissing others who disagree as either misguided or insincere is how you have come across to me. Evangelical Atheism one might call it.
Peace
edhopper
(33,554 posts)question the beliefs of others?
Religious beliefs must have special protection and not be challenged.
I see.
If you did not notice, this forum is on a website that promotes the Democratic point of view and regularly questions the beliefs of Conservatives and Republicans.
Why is it okay for politics and not religion?
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)is a black and white thinker.
We are not all wired that way.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but yep, I agree. Very few people are completely, but a lot more tend to be that way on one or more issues or topics.
For instance, I'm pretty black-and-white when it comes to pedophilia. That's always wrong.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)I have two friends who are devout Hindus. I've been invited to Hindu wedding ceremonies, and I think they have beautiful ceremonies. I don't spend time dwelling on the veracity of their beliefs (or anyone's, really), though I love learning more about their faith. I'm not particularly interested in questioning them. Sure, you have the right to, if you'd prefer. It's just not in my nature to debate or disprove their beliefs while extolling mine.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)it's about looking at someone with faith equal to your own, but of completely different theology, and questioning your own faith. Why is yours true based on the same inner belief as theirs.
Or you can choose just not to think about it.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)I mean, I've taken philosophy and theology courses for years in college. That was the time I spend worrying about or debating the differences. My life has thus far been a 40+ year journey in which I've struggled with the veracity of my own faith quite often. I don't need to compare my faith to or, worse, denigrate someone else's faith in order to validate my own. There are times where I struggle greatly with my own faith. But I see beauty in it as well. Just as I see beauty in many other faiths, cultures, and paths.
There really is no answer. It's not about sticking my head in the sand. I don't do that. I went through a phase where I felt I had to disprove other paths in order to believe mine was correct. I don't really care about that now. And that's not saying everyone is equal or righteous. Who the hell would I be to say that? It's not my place to even consider that, really.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)has any bearing whatsoever on what I believe to be true.
I believe in God the Father and Jesus Christ. I believe because I have had spiritual manifestations that have confirmed what I believe to be true.
The fact that there are billions of people in the world who believe something else does not in the least diminish the strength of my belief.
(Just as, I'm sure, the fact that there are millions and millions of Christians in the world does not weaken the faith of any individual Hindu.)
I don't see what you're getting at here.
demwing
(16,916 posts)he wants to tie you to a statement, then beat you over the head with it
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)The only one he'll end up beating is himself.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)of your business.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)while seeing others subjective belief that is just as strong but incompatible with yours.
OregonBlue
(7,754 posts)edhopper
(33,554 posts)put they believe it is the right way. Based on faith and belief, has their faith lead them astray, if so, why do you think your faith has not?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Now, that is what I believe. I don't know any of that. It is unkowable and the reason it is called faith. As for Hindus or believers in other other things, who am I to judge them? Maybe I am wrong and they are right. It is not my place to decide.
mamsdad
(1 post)Exactly what I was thinking except for thr Holy Catholic Church part (Baptist), but wife and children are members of the Catholic faith
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) edhopper
(33,554 posts)it's thinking about how others can have equal faith and yet believe in completely different concepts of God. That there faith tells them that the God of the Bible is not the truth about the divine, Why is their faith wrong, why is your faith right?
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I am an Episcopalian, so small c catholic, not a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)being wrong. You faith is good enough without thinking about how others can have faith as strong as you, yet that faith tells them what you believe is not true.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)perhaps one is right for them and the other right for me. I totally understand your point, I am seriously not being purposely obtuse. but when I say the Apostles Creed on Sundays, the I believe part is just that, I believe. there is no explicit or implicit "and those damned Hindus are wrong" to it. only I believe.
your question is valid, and sorry if I have to answer with "I don't know." I truly don't understand why some here (not saying you) insist that I shit on Hindus. I just accept that what they believe is what they believe. It offends me in no way. I have no desire to change their beliefs or yours - and ask nothing of them or you than the same.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)2. Nobody has asked you to shit on anyone.
Go read the op again.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I won't do that. I respect any Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, etc. who shares my values, which yes, are informed and guided by the teachings of Jesus Christ.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
and of the Apostles, Like St. Paul:
4* Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,d 5it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,e 6it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. 7It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.f
8* Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing. 9For we know partially and we prophesy partially, 10but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things. 12At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.g 13* So faith, hope, love remain, these three;h but the greatest of these is love.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)could have, but it totally resonates with me.
It's about values and how they are expressed and not at all about what form their beliefs or lack thereof take in their own lives.
Thanks.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nt
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The issue is how you internally square an incompatible religious belief system with your own, not do you externally disrespect somebody holding those incompatible beliefs.
What is amazing is the lengths almost all of the theists in this thread will go to avoid or deny the obvious answer.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)because one is theirs and the other is mine.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but I don't believe it is. I know you think that is a cop out. but I don't know.I am willing to accept that it could be. There could be a chemical/biological explanation for everything, including love. But even then it is not mutually exclusive with my faith in God or Jesus's message. I believe that God created that chemistry and biology. And I am not trying to convince you of that it is just what I believe.
btw - I like your questions. They make me think. But at the end of the day the Kingdom of God that Christ spoke of is one that exists in a believer's heart and exists in mine. That said I don't think you are required to believe as I do because you haven't lived my life. Nor I yours.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)1. Entirely an internal construct, a framework for your life narrative. All such frameworks no matter how incompatible they are with each other are equally valid, which is to say that in terms of describing an external reality: not at all.
2. There is a universal "truth" that is inaccurately described by the thousands of incompatible and mostly self contradictory and frequently incomprehensible religions. This universal truth may have an actual external reality, but that need not actually be theistic. What religions are actually attempting to describe in terms of "gods" need not have any actual supernatural attributes at all.
3. There is one true religion, all others are wrong.
I'm fine with the first two, unfortunately (3) describes the belief system of the vast majority of religious people.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)i don't think #2 is completely off the mark. again, thank you for the Socratic way in which you approach your skepticism.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)it's just that most of us don't care to square our faith with another faith. It doesn't matter.
I know that might seem inconceivable to you, but we're wired in different ways.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)with a VERY "thinly" veiled insult.
And that you would attribute what I said to living an unexamined life shows how limited and literal your own world view is. I've had the wonderful fortune to live in other countries and meet people from a variety of cultures. I've learned from them, and my own faith, which I've admitted has been an ongoing struggle, is really the only faith I need concern myself with. That doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't study their beliefs or traditions. But I've said that throughout this topic.
There are many of us who are not prone to disproving the beliefs of others. It doesn't matter to us. It has nothing to do with living an unexamined life. It has more to do with the way we are wired. I will always be more of an artsy girl than a science girl. I don't believe in absolutes. (Hence one of my struggles with my faith.) And hence my ONGOING introspection and life examination.
But, feel free to dismiss this with a one line, assumptive, pithy post, as well.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I am talking about the realization that faith alone might be a poor arbitrator of the truth you seek.
The acceptance that others with faith as profound or more profound than you, whose believe in gods and ideas that are irreconcilable with yours, might lead you to think about why you have the beliefs you do.
Are your beliefs a product of where and to whom you were born?
Would you have faith in completely different things if you were born in India or Japan and think the Christians have it wrong.
What is it that br8ings you to have faith in the things you have things in.
"I just do" might appear to some as unexamined.
Dorian Gray
(13,488 posts)Because it's stated in a non-snarky way. And I love snark. But not when discussing something of this nature.
Of course I've considered this. I've spent the years from age 15 - 35 pretty much non-religious. And my current level of religiosity varies from day to day, week to week, and month to month. I didn't one day decide: Hey! I'm Catholic and that's it! There's no more to explore. Of course, examining the world around us strengthens our own belief that we arrive at from our experience and interactions. Or sometimes it does the opposite and weakens it.
What appeals to me about my faith is the people who surround me who live that faith in a very positive way. I strive to be like that. What doesn't appeal to me is dogmatism black and white thinking that one might find from those in leadership positions. I'd certainly be telling an untruth if I said that my upbringing and the family I was born to didn't have a major impact on my faith. Of course. And I think that if examining any faith practice out there, what appeals and doesn't appeal to me could be the same exact thing within those faiths.
But, no, knowing millions of people out there who have a(what is most likely MORE) profound belief and understanding of their faith does not make me want to change the path I am on. And I'm quite happy to attribute it to the culture that I'm surrounded by.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I wish I had time for a longer response, but work calls.
I do acknowledge the positive aspects of faith and a faith community, even if I think it's underpinnings are based on a myth.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Why do they hold back from stating that their faith is more true than somebody else's??
edhopper
(33,554 posts)isn't intellectual, it's feeling and emotion.
It's not that they don't think about their faith, but the "feeling of knowing" is not a rational thing.
I am presenting them with the premiss that if "feeling of knowing" can be shown to be wrong in others faiths, why not their own.
It is easier to just consider their own faith. And they correlate what I ask with intolerance of other faiths.
Granted some have acknowledged that they accept that "feeling of knowing" can be wrong, but they wish to follow it because they have no way of saying either way. And they are just trying to follow something that isn't rationally knowable anyway.
There is a very powerful emotional part of the psyche at work.
My take from my atheist perspective, granted stated a little simplistically.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)it is not my place to judge anyone's faith. and I do not consider my faith any more true than anyone else's. that is why it is called faith. a Hindu's faith, if she is sincere about it, is no less true for her than mine is for me. just because y'all don't like the answer doesn't mean it isn't an answer.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Christians believe they have the One True Faith. No man comes to the Father except by me. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.
Jesus is the only way to salvation. If you're not a Christian you are going to hell.
So does that make you not a Christian if you believe that other peoples' religions are valid?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not all Christians think you have to believe in Jesus to get to heaven.
My personal theology is that Jesus death and resurrection saves us all. That works for me. I understand this is just a matter of opinion.
Are other religions valid to me, yes. I believe their worship of the divine goes to the divine equally as any Christian. I believe my version is correct and I do not believe in any other God's but that does not mean that other people's faith are invalid. They experience the divine in other ways.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)So you call yourself a Christian but don't believe the major tenets of the faith? So you can just pick and choose what you believe?
So your definition is a tautology?
"I'm a Christian because I say I am a Christian"?
So how does that work? Do you stand up and recite the Apostles' Creed and don't believe all of it, for example? Why do you recite it if you don't believe all of the concepts in it?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)And I mean it when I say it. When I say I do not believe in hell I do not believe a place of torment. I do believe Satan is real. I think if a soul is deemed to evil by God I believe that souls no longer exists.
I am a Christian!
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)i believe every word of the apostles creed and the Nicene creed. but what i think those words mean exactly are not always necessarily literal. Take the virgin birth, I believe Jesus was a unique human representation of the divine, but i don't necessarily think He was conceived without a biological human father.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I am surprised that this comes as a surprise to some people.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)to me that means that even those in the past are part of His love and He and His love are the same yesterday and today and tomorrow.
and i know, this is fairly common interpretation by many Christians.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I interpret it as he hung out with the souls of the dead who were asleep and rose with him when he rose from the dead and destroyed death.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)we sit in the same pews, but these things may mean different things to us. but when you and i say the creeds, yes we believe every word of them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I hope this helps others to understand.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)“Be patient toward all that is unsolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books that are now written in a very foreign tongue. Do not now seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.”
Rainer Maria Rilke
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
patrice
(47,992 posts)Be Ahead of All Parting
". . . to all that is used up, to all of the muffled and dumb creatures of the world's full reserve, the unsayable sums, joyfully add yourself and cancel the count."
I love the defiance and freedom in the word "cancel".
...........................
Trying to find a link to that poem, but I keep getting some messed up server messages.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I am not convinced there is a continued consciousness of self after death (there could be.) but I do believe that whatever state exists after death is in the hands of a loving God, and so I have no fear of it and because of that loving God I shall never not have been.
Again, that is faith/belief. I don't know any of that.
patrice
(47,992 posts)Jesus or not? Is an absolute, universal, eternal truth transcendental or not? or is it limited only to the traits that individuals ascribe to it? What was Jesus before he incarnated as what we have come to refer to as "Jesus"? What is it that makes "him" Jesus right now? and where the fuck is "he"?
Isn't it a mistake to limit a universal truth to a single instance of something, a body named Jesus whom some happened to experience 2000+ years ago, when the reason we remember that person in the first place is in the HOW (as in the manner) of that be -ing, not just only the whats (after-all there were others who lived similar whats and we don't remember them) and it is that particular HOW, that manner of doing what was done, that instructs us and which we try to reify in our own manners of be -ing. I could look like Jesus, talk like Jesus, say the things Jesus said, do the things that we "know" Jesus did, but if I don't do that stuff in the manner of that particular be -ing, something that is accessbile to anyone who commits to it, be -ing that others can happen to come to themselves whether they label it "Jesus" or not, what does it mean?
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts) Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)converting and baptizing people???
cbayer
(146,218 posts) arely staircase
(12,482 posts)The Great Commission of Christianity is the instruction of the resurrected Jesus Christ to his disciples that they spread his teachings to all the nations of the world. It has become a tenet in Christian theology emphasizing ministry, missionary work, evangelism, and baptism. The Apostles are said to have dispersed from Jerusalem and founded the Apostolic Sees. Among Christian eschatological views, Preterists believe that the Great Commission and other Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the first century while Futurists believe Bible prophecy will be fulfilled at the Second Coming of Christ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commission
Matthew 28:16-20
New International Version (NIV)
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+28%3A16-20&version=NIV
I gave my interpretation as saying that I fulfill it through my action, helping the poor, comforting the sick and visiting the prisoners, etc.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)raised to believe.
I was never instructed to convert anyone or even talk about the religion I was raised in.
But I was clearly taught about deeds and how they expressed the faith. My family did all the things you describe, but I never, ever heard either of my parents try to *convert* anyone that we housed, comforted or visited.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Christian or not. We Episcopalians see it as a reason to set a good example, and if one wants to join us based on that we will let them know how to do so.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)The setting a good example is a concept that I was raised with, though for me it requires work and I often fail.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but if I may chime in. I, as a Christian, try to fulfill the commission in Acts through, well, my actions. fundamentalists take it as an order to go around telling everyone they are sinners and must repent for fear of hell fire. if anyone sees my actions and wants to be baptized, i will let them know how to do that.
patrice
(47,992 posts)don't have that much to do with the dogma itself.
One example is the sorts of things that I said above about the being whom we refer to as Jesus, obviously the subject of the creeds and also, obviously, the subject of quite a bit of ownership struggles over something that we say is a UNIVERSAL and eternal truth (no matter how wrong we get it).
Another example is heaven and hell, both mentioned in the creeds, but where, in Christian dogma, does it say that they are elsewhere elsewhen? - not to mention so many of the other things that are commonly assumed about them.
The dogma, as we encounter it in the life of the man named Jesus, is about how our lives' have consequences. That's what we see in The New Testament. It seems the opposite of superstition to me to say: How one lives is a more coherent, fully, personally, and freely chosen manifestation of/participation in truth (as in "I am the way ((the manner of doing)), the truth, and ((ergo)) the life . . . " - or - it is a less coherent, partial, alien, and enslaved manifestation of/participation in truth.
To live as fully REAL -ized (to borrow a term from psychology) as one is capable of be -ing, is to participate in the truest truths possible for you and the "blessings" thereof (AND truth also requires that we be mindful about assuming what blessings are too; a blessing should lead one to truth). It wouldn't be surprising if any given being affected other beings and that evolution toward a collectivity of the truest of all truths pretty much fits my understanding of what a heaven would be.
Substitute untruth and how one lives can lead one and others to more and more and more untruth and the sufferings thereof, pretty much meets my understanding of what hell would be.
Can anyone show me how what I've just said is heresy? Where in dogma does it require that we believe the conventional cloud-land, rapturish singing, sky-fairy induced narcotic trance vs. fire-pit, groaning, devil master of pain assumptions about heaven and hell?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)which embraces Jesus as well as Krishna and others a avatars of the divine source, Brahman.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)just kidding. I'm going to read more about that later, thanks for posting.
840high
(17,196 posts)their beliefs as I am to mine.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)Who believe down to the core of the soul, with absolute faith, that evolution is an evil theory spawned of Satan. That the earth is 6000 years old. That any woman who has an abortion is a murderer. That homosexuals are an abomination. And so on. They know these things because it is at the very essence of their faith. Are they right too,? Does your faith trump theirs,? Why, if you are basing your beliefs on faith, makes their faith any less true?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)when they try to teach it schools I have a major problem with it. I am gay and I know I am not an abomination. I do not care for bigotry disguised as religion. As for Abortion I am pro-choice but respect people who oppose it, but will fight them in the political arena if they try to stop abortion rights. It is all a matter of opinion in the end.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)since their beliefs are based on faith, isn't this evidence that faith can mislead people to mistaken beliefs.
And if faith can lead people to be mistaken, why are yours not.
(I know yours hrm, are much more mutable and you are open that they might be wrong)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I like to believe there is an afterlife and we see our loved ones but the possibliity that there is nothing is always there. It is possible there is ,ore and it is something completely different.
Religion must embrace science as many believers have. The bible is not science and should never be read as one, it does a disservice to the bible and science to do so.
But in the end if your faith does not teach you to hate but love all of God creatures than there are no problems. But if your faith teaches you to hate than you religion is very unhealthy. Many scriptural passages can be used here to say this kind of person should be discriminated against, but I believe as believers we must throw away those old beliefs and embrace all of God's children.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)as I said, though you believe you seem to understand the point I am making.
I think many believers don't want to consider the possibility the there is nothing, as you put it.
(Believers in general, I am not referring to anyone here)
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The nothing of death can be scary for many people, others not so much.
As been said before just remember before you were born and that is death if there is nothing.
But I believe in much more.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I am not but I just want to see if I am getting an image for myself of the question you pose and it's a good exercise in understanding theists. I will approach this as if I were a middle of the road fundamentalist with a touch of Calvinism, non-Catholic but also a touch of modern "more relaxed" theology.
------
Pretending:
Do you accept that their belief in multiple gods and reincarnation can be valid and true. If so, how does that align your beliefs in the one true God, Jesus and the Bible?
As a Christian, no, I cannot accept multiple gods and reincarnation as true. But I still believe in the one true God, that is MY faith and my choice. My beliefs in the one true God and the bible are the reasons I cannot accept multiple gods. It does not match the teachings of the scriptures that tell me there can be no other gods but Jehovah. That does not mean I do not respect their choice of belief because the bible teaches that we all have a choice and that is theirs.
If you think they believe in things that aren't true ...how do you remain so convinced that what you believe is true in the face of hundreds of millions who have beliefs in what amounts to a fiction?
I do not need to be convinced of anything, I just believe. To be convinced I have to sum up information and make a decision. My faith goes beyond just information. If I have data or I have seen the truth of God then it's no longer faith. According to the scripture in Hebrews, ...faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The substance of my faith consists of unseen things that I hope for and therefore believe. It is not bound by data.
As for the faith of others, I do not condemn, I do not try to destroy their faith because that is their choice. But I do believe they are wrong and I do believe that my faith is correct and that is why I have my faith that hopes for things I cannot see. If they believe in many gods, that is their choice or maybe their misfortune.
If you want proof or a reason, I cannot produce it. But if I could, I would no longer have faith because it would then be fact. Why do I believe? I just do, because Jesus is in my heart, not my data log.
-----
That's my stab at being a fundi believer. End of pretending. This may have only been fun for me but it was a good exercise.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)faith tells them that Jesus was absolutely was not the son of God, that he was a false messiah and the Christianity is based on false beliefs.
Has their faith lead them astray? And if you acknowledge that it may have, why has your faith not lead you astray. Do you think they do not feel as strong in their faith as you?
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)Faith and religion are not synonyms. Obviously, what Christians believe--their faith--is of paramount importance. In Judaism, rituals and actions are more important (orthopraxy above orthodoxy). Obviously, there are elements that could be described as faith. In this case, monotheism and idolatry are the most important. "The lord is eternal, the lord is one" suggests a notion of what the Jewish deity is like: unitary. However, that is far from exact. The prohibition against idolatry makes defining the Jewish deity with any detail almost impossible. Written descriptions, like the burning bush, are considered to be temporary and ephemeral, lacking any longterm usefulness.
Moreover, Jews are taught that each people has its own relationship with G-d. What relationship they have falls outside the context of Judaism. The consequences is that Jewish authorities tend look for whatever may resemble a unitary deity, even in what are clearly polytheistic systems. As a consequence, Roman Jews called G-d "J-piter" in the same way they currently use "All-h." Ultimately, Jews can't know what G-d is enough to judge and aren't in a position to understand the nature of G-d in other contexts.
Jews reject Jesus in the context of Judaism, not as part of a dialogue with Christianity.
ETA: this response does not even touch the specifics of my "denomination."
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I would say you are not talking about all Jews, or perhaps this is your take or understanding of Judaism. The overview of a religion is quite different than what a member of that religion might believe or feel.
I can tell you that in my Jewish upbringing we were certainly asked to accept God on faith and reject the teachings of Christianity and Christs as a false messiah. A lot of questioning in Judaism, but in the end it turns to faith.
In dialogue with Christianity, no one brings up the bad stuff like false messiahs or Christ killers unless they are fundamentalist or Ann Coulter. 
Bad Thoughts
(2,522 posts)We took a lot on faith, not just matters of religion, but law, history, science, and math. Perhaps you were one of the rare kids who, at that age, could understand gravity in terms of relativity. The rest relied on Newton or, worse, Aristotle. However, that's not the kind of faith you referring to in the OP: ideas drilled into young kids that they might not necessarily be able to judge on evidence. You were referring to the statements in the realm of metaphyiscs, particularly the conceptualization of one or more deities. You were interested in theology, not pedagogy. I have not denied that faith has a role in Judaism, but I have said that they are of a fundamentally different nature. Certainly, you were taught that non-Jews were not bound to the mitzvot.
I noticed that you took no issue with my facts about Jewish theology. Do you agree that the vagueness of the concept of a Jewish deity makes it difficult to compare to others in the manner described in the OP?
Your second paragraph seems to be in agreement with my statement that rejection of Jesus was for Jews. That's different than saying they reject Jesus for Christians, or pretend to know how G-d was revealed to them. Calling Jesus a false messiah, in the context of Judaism, isn't compelling--there have been so many, Bar Kochba and Sabbatai Svi are more prominent (the latter had adherents 100 years after his death). Everything I wrote about Jews reconciling their theology with their hosts' is true: they looked for the most supreme being, and said something to the effect of, that's really the most godly. Of course, savvy rabbis realized quite early that they should not give the king or prince too good of a refutation, lest the ghetto be sacked.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I think most Jews I know, who do not take the Torah literally (though they have a problem when i tell them Moses didn't exist) could see it that way.
The Orthodox and Hasidim is another story.
I don't take issue because I see it as your view, and it is a well thought out view, I don't know if I completely agree but my view isn't as nuanced as yours.
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)Both Hinduism and Christianity have very many followers and they don't all agree on everything so some Hindus may disagree with what I am about to say but here goes anyway.
First of all Hinduism, contrary to popular belief, does not preach multiple gods. In Hinduism there is but one God, an all encompassing presence known as Brahman. All the other various "gods" are really various manifestations of the One Brahman. In fact, every single thing around us including ourselves is part of Brahman. Think of Brahman as the sea and all other things as waves in this sea. All the gods, all the objects and we ourselves are actually part of the One Brahman. Because we are really part of Brahman, we are actually gods. And therefore there has never been a time when we did not exist and there will never be a time when we cease to exist.
We do not recognize this however because our minds are clouded by something called Maya. Living life is like watching a movie on screen where we become frightened as we forget that we see is not the ultimate reality. It is the goal of life to remove this cloud from our lives and realize our true nature and at that point we will be fully reunited with Brahman.
In order to achieve this realization we must go through cycles of birth and death. The purpose of each life is to learn more and more so that ultimately we may see our true reality.
The idea of reincarnation and of cycles of birth and rebirth and the idea of life being a learning experience rather than a test leading to some kind of punishment or reward, answers one of the biggest problems of most religions which is this: what happens to people who do evil in the name of good? If a man tortures and kills people believing he is doing God work, is he to be punished for such actions? (Think Inquisitors. Holy War .really hateful right-wingers...) If such a person sincerely thought he or she was doing good and doing God's work why should they punished at death? On the other hand why should that person be rewarded for such actions? Either answer brings about a situation which seems to be very unjust.
Hinduism avoids this problem by simply stating that such an individual would come back to life for another learning experience. It happens over and over until eventually all are reunited with Brahman.
Finally, Hinduism is really the Indian version of a philosophy known as Vedanta. And one of the key teachings of Vedanta is that God is too vast to be comprehended in any one way. No one religion has a monopoly on truth and sees the supreme being through the prism of its own existence. No need for Holy Wars!
Ramakrishna one of the great Vedantic teachers told his followers that their purpose was not to create converts from other religions but to help make Christians better Christians, Muslims that are Muslims, Jews better Jews and so on. And if you go inside a Hindu temple you will see quotations and depictions from all the world's major religions.
For this reason, True Hinduism, Vedantic thought in an Indian culture, very tolerant in principle, if not always so in practice, and Hindus do very little missionary work,.,.why bother when everyone will eventually be saved and all religions are equally valid?
Hope this helps the discussion!.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)There is something intuitively comfortable about it. Yet, Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh aren't quite comfortable right now, are they?
Vietnameravet
(1,085 posts)and Muslims in those countries are not very tolerant of differences...
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)If we must be tolerant of fanaticism, the majority of us will share the fate of Hindus there, Tibetans in China and Greek pagans of ancient days. It seems that god demands that heretics be annihilated, if not converted, but certainly excommunicated from the kingdom. The Hindu belief that all will be mended in subsequent incarnations does nothing to stem that tide. 'The world is as the world is supposed to be' is, to me, so fatalistic as to be damning.
edhopper
(33,554 posts)I hope you realize I am not singling out Hinduism for derision, to the contrary I chose it because it is a religion with hundreds of millions of followers.
Your point about no religion having a monopoly on truth is well taken, and many responders here do say they agree with that.
Admittedly my point goes further and asks why believe in God at all, but I appreciate this response.
