What's your religion?

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by technomo12

I AM PART

CATHOLIC

AND

my secodn religion is

HARUHISM

ahahaha

well i just hate those who make protestant religions who make thme selves god but im not complaining to the point of shooting them i just hate them

Er, I'm not Protestant or anything (I'm non-denominational Christian), but I know enough to know that Protestants don't make themselves out to be God. if anyone does, it's the Catholic Church. I mean, the Pope being the voice of God? Sounds like the the teapot calling the kettle black to me.

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by technomo12

well i just hate those who make protestant religions who make thme selves god but im not complaining to the point of shooting them i just hate them

Than I suppose you don't like Light Yagami?

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Once again, in English, please?

Once again, read, please? What I said is that you're comment is avoiding the true point and misinterpreting. Also, need I remind you that show failed miserably.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The Bible is part of a religion. Which is only 2000 years old, though related to an older religion (which has got a few more millenia).

Eh, close enough; was kind of going for a stretch there =/.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Yeah... So? Getting paid for doing your work isn't being manipulative.

What a completely generalized statement. I'm not even going to bother.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

that doesn't mean that it's all religions are.

Please stop trying to define undefined terms. There oxymoron.


We're not going anywhere so I'm done.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Thentus

Once again, read, please? What I said is that you're comment is avoiding the true point and misinterpreting. Also, need I remind you that show failed miserably.

I've been reading over your discussion with Anh_Minh and I think you're misinterpreting a number of his statements. What he's saying makes a lot of sense and ultimately I think it's pretty much the same as what you originally said, just a bit more focused.

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I've been reading over your discussion with Anh_Minh and I think you're misinterpreting a number of his statements

Yes but I don't elaborate on things I am not at least nearly completely certain on.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

ultimately I think it's pretty much the same as what you originally said, just a bit more focused.

Say what . So we've been arguing about agreement .

[Kyuusai]

Man, this thread really went places while I was gone. I feel kind of guilty for not being able to get to it.

I'm going to try to strike a balance between point-by-point responses (Anh Minh, your points and questions certainly deserve responses) and addressing multiple points in summary. Who knows how successful I'll be in finding that balance.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

What kind of proxy? Does it change anything if he sends an angel, or gives some local human superpowers?

Well, not in practical terms to the observer. In evaluating the theology, however, it does make a large difference. Most people, religious or not, rarely get to the point of making the distinction. I mention it for sake of accuracy.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'd argue that even one deluge in a few thousand years is pretty big.

Well, all things are relative, of course. But my point was that even though the Bible is full of records of miracles, not even (most of) the people recorded as living through these events considered divine intervention to be a regular occurrence. Even if they believed or relied on diving providence, they didn't believe that everything was an act of God.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

If I understood you correctly, you mean that God made the universe, and more or less let it run on what we have come to recognize as "natural laws". I don't see how it's even remotely compatible with the OT, or, for that matter the NT. People aren't supposed to multiply bread just like that.

Well, people aren't supposed to multiply bread like that to the best of our natural understanding. Whether or not there is a creator, there might certainly be more to the laws of the nature than we know.

If there is a spiritual world, reality might look very different from that side. If there is a creator, he might very well have a debug mode for the universe.

Regardless of the theological point of whether or not God "interferes" directly, though, why would creating a universe capable of propelling and sustaining itself mean he couldn't poke at it?

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Unless it's all metaphor, I suppose. There was no global flood, Jesus never performed any miracle, and so on. But in that case, I have to ask, what the point? What's the point of having a revealed theology if you have to hammer it into the preconceived shape of your understanding of the world?

I agree with you here. While Vexx rightly pegged me as having much in common with many Deists, that sort of "rationalize the conclusion" activity is what bugs me about a large portion of the Deist history and community.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Anh, you might want to actually read up on modern Christian theology (sometimes called progressive Christianity and has significant connection to Deism) rather than have poor Kyuusai try to explain the entirety in a forum format. O.o
...
Modern Christian study takes the OT as a collection of apocryphal tales scattered across the years (the Dead Sea Scrolls have really given what was previously thought a major twist ... but the new information has been pretty much buried or ignored by much of the evangelical factions).
The NT (and to some extent, the gospels left out of the NT when the Council at Nicea decided which books were useful for their purposes) are all considered and studied in determining one's 'best path' but many of the anecdotes fundamentally contradict each other as one might expect in such a collected set of stories. 'bible inerrancy' and 'literalism' doesn't fare well under the spotlight of christian modern biblical research.

Somewhat like stories of the Buddha or the collected writings of Hindu ... you'll have figurative and metaphorical factions that study the "truths" of the stories as well as literalists who assert actuality.

Got any book pointers, Kyuusai?

Well, I'd really say I have less in common with the more in common with the "old school": Christian existentialists, Christians that inspired many Deists, such as Locke and Newton, and more rational rabbis. I've met many like-minded people, but I have yet to hear of a name. I guess we just spend too much time alternating between agreeing with mainstream religious people and ticking them off/distrusting religious authority to organize.

This school of thought does have some important things in common with much modern Christian, but the differences are important: While not espousing Biblical literalism (which actually requires IGNORING parts of the Bible, sadly enough), it doesn't necessarily consider any of the typical canon to be apocryphal (the "Apocrypha" aside). It DOES, however, recognize the context, intent, and audience of scripture. It does not necessarily doubt fantastic claims. While it regards revelation to be the root of faith and spiritual knowledge, it recognizes that all revelation must be tempered by reason (considered a God-given facility of humanity). Just as importantly, it eschews assumed truths that get in the way of actual truth.

It also often delights in the fact that at no point did God entrust religious revelation, teaching, and leadership to an organization of men. Even Israel, originally established as a religious nation, was in its establishment a near-anarchist society with little more than a priesthood and a court system with theologically-derived lawbooks, yet religious revelation, teaching, and leadership was entrusted not to the priests or judges but to the whole people.

Perhaps it's best that this isn't a movement and has no name, lest it go the way of every other religious movement and denomination. If I had to call it anything, I'd borrow the title of Brad Stine's excellent book, Being a Christian Without Being an Idiot. (I recommend the book, btw, for Christians who need a reality check and perhaps non-Christians who want to have a good chuckle at common religionists and discover that not all of us are "that way".)

As for books directly covering this more sensible theological philosophy... I wish I knew of some. Every time I think I find one that would be a shining example, it ends up either having a different focus or being disastrously disappointing. Perhaps I should write something, but I have a feeling it would just end up ticking every one off.

I think there's a relevant quote on my Philosopher See-N-Say, tough. *pulls arm*

Spoiler for John Locke says...:

Though everything said in the text be infallibly true, yet the reader may be, nay, cannot choose but be, very fallible in the understanding of it. Nor is it to be
wondered, that the will of God, when clothed in words, should be liable to that doubt and uncertainty which unavoidably attends that sort of conveyance, when even his Son, whilst clothed in flesh, was subject to all the frailties and inconveniences of human nature, sin excepted. And
we ought to magnify his goodness, that he hath spread before all the world such legible characters of his works and providence, and given all mankind so sufficient a light of reason, that they to whom this written word never came, could not (whenever they set themselves to search) either doubt of the being of a God, or of the obedience due to him. Since then the precepts of Natural Religion are plain, and very intelligible to all mankind, and seldom come to be controverted; and other revealed truths, which are conveyed to us by books and languages, are liable to the common and natural obscurities and difficulties incident to words; methinks it would become us to be more careful and diligent in observing the former, and less magisterial, positive, and imperious, in imposing our own sense and interpretations of the latter.
- An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding

But maybe I can answer some of the more basic questions here.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

You see, I just don't see the logic of saying "this is the truth, as revealed to us by God" and then going "except for those parts which we don't like, and which have to be "interpreted" out of all recognition". I don't see the point of a Holy Book which is no better than a book of Fables de La Fontaine.

I'd love for an explanation to make sense. Rather than "this is what we've arrived to thanks to modern thinking, and this is how we can twist the Bible to conform to it".

You're quite right in this. I think that's a wise attitude.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

OK, and sarcasm aside, what do you think the Bible is?

...

Note: all I've said about what I think of the Bible is that I don't believe in God. Which says it all, really, but isn't derogatory.

What interests me is the status of the Bible for a Christian. While I don't approve of the literalism as moral or intellectual guide, at least it makes a certain amount of sense to me. But if you see the Bible as - to use Vexx's phrasing rather than mine - "a collection of apocryphal tales scattered across the years", and if it's neither free of errors nor literal - does it still make sense to call it a Holy Book? If all you're doing is interpreting it till it agrees with what you want it say, can't you skip the middle... book... and just take responsibility for your beliefs?

As varied as Christians are on this, a little perspective on it...

First, what you probably already know...
The "Old Testament" is made up of books containing history, law, poetry, philosophy, and prophesy. While parts of some books take up a couple of those roles (if only by multi-layered interpretation), they are for the most part dedicated to those purposes. They were written by Jews for a Jewish audience over the course of a couple of thousand years. Law was understood to have particular purpose, scope, application, and intent. Poetry was understood to include human emotion and parable. History was understood to document deeds both good and evil without necessarily specifying which was which.
The "New Testament" is made up of letters written to early churches of various location and culture which provide first and second hand accounts of the ministry of Christ and the actions of the early church, clarify theology, or send instructional messages.
In short, both expected honest use of human reasoning facilities to interpret.

These particular books were chosen over the ages by judging generations of continued respect by widely approved theological experts and tests of language and history.

But why would some one believe the Bible is a source of religious truth? There is no good answer for this than revelation. For all the arguments that could be made that it's historically accurate, there is no way to know FOR SURE unless we find some ways of viewing across space and time. While there may be corroborating evidence, genuine faith in this can only honestly be attributed to revelation.

And revelation is hard to argue for or against with another party because it's so subjective and so personal. How many assumptions should one question, how far should one investigate, how much faith should one have in the face of seemingly contradictory evidence? None can be a true judge of that but the individual who is struggling with the revelation.

As for how one can rationally believe in the miraculous events recorded in the Bible when they have never seen a miracle... I honestly don't have an answer for that. In my short life, I have seen some fantastic things first-hand. Having experienced these, I have no intellectual issue with believing such fantastic claims. But my experiences do no good in convincing some one else. No matter how convincingly described, no matter how corroborated by others... no matter what, in the perfectly valid reasoning of some one who has not had such experiences, it is far more likely that I am a fool, a liar, or a lunatic.
After all, if some one told me that their prize pig grew wings and flew away, even if they were telling the truth I would not be inclined to believe them.

So I have no answer to why another person without such experiences would or should believe these claims of the Bible but revelation. I don't like that answer, but I don't have another one.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

But I would like a clear statement on whether you (whoever claims to be Christian) believe that stuff like the Flood and the Red Sea parting actually happened, or are just stories.

Based on personal revelation and corroborating personal experiences... Yes, I do. You're welcome to think I'm crazy. I have no way of proving I'm not.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Anh, there is virtually *no* evidence that Jesus Christ existed historically except for the NT. A merest scrap of a name. When the Romans took Christianity as their mantle (and bootstrapped it to State Religion), if he existed he'd been dead for 400 years. The 4 Gospels were selected out of many to represent Jesus -- they contradict each other in multiple places. Their purpose is to convey the meaning of his message and to assert his position as "the Messiah". The rest of the New Testament are the interpretations and philosophical writings of various apostles for the faith. Christianity is a leap of blind faith in its pure form.

As a Christian, I certainly agree: It is a pure leap of blind faith. Many Christians find personal experiences that give them more rational, intellectual grounding for such faith, but it is, indeed, blind faith.

For historical evidence of the existence of the person of Jesus, there is little (there are mentions from Tacitus, but no old sources for the text, and while there were likely mentions by Josephus, it's almost certain there was tampering), but... Regardless of his true nature or the actuality of any miracles, it would be really hard to get a religious movement off the ground when nearly the entirety of the earliest converts would be able to say "Really? I don't recall there being any commotion back then and there."

As for contradictions... considering that the gospels were subjective, personal observations written to different audiences (which reasonably explains slight differences in order or omitting/highlighting various details) and considering the details of Jewish calendaring and genealogical documentation, they don't really contradict in meaningful ways. (If they did, the early-developing-into-the-Roman-Catholic-church would have had t be morons to canonize all of them. OK, well, I won't deny the high possibility of moronitude and organized clergy being related...)

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

OK, so God inspired the writers. That begs two questions:
- Couldn't He do a better job?
- Why did He stop?

The most relevant answer is simply "because it's up to mankind now". Not that mankind is doing a good job; It's a travesty.

Nevertheless, no matter what we think of what God ought to be, that doesn't have any bearing on whether He exists or what He is. If He does exist, He simply is what He is. That would be true whether God is like the western concepts or more like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Our opinions don't determine the truth of the matter or count one whit in discovering it. If a creator/supreme being does exist, though, and if it has any relevance to our lives, we owe it to ourselves to determine the truth as best we can.

Originally Posted by Vexx

What ChainLegacy is referencing is a current line of study in neuroscience and psychology that religion (or visions or spiritual belief, etc) may be the end result of natural side effects of brain processing. Its an interesting idea I've seen espoused in several books on the brain but it is speculative - though brain research has shown that stimulating specific zones in the brain can produce results the subjects characterize as religious euphoria and/or visions that include being spoken to. It is often accompanied with whatever religious imagery they're most familiar with.

I think this is an interesting point. Some people consider this evidence that spirituality is a trick of the brain, but there is another possibility to consider... If there is a creator and/or spiritual realm, is it really out of the ordinary to think that our brains would be able to perceive that just as any other sense? If our intellectual ability to perceive that is in the brain, well, that leaves room for all kinds of manipulation/mistaken perceptions in addition to any ability to perceive things as they are.

Originally Posted by Girl_who_cried_gnome

to be honest and not try to offend other people here, i hate organized religion and believe that your spiritual path should be a path that you walk alone one on one with whatever god you believe in.... also i find most organized religions to be very hypocritcal

i also have a more natural type of religion which believes that god is more of a spiritual aura that exists all around us in nature..... instead of some old guy with a beard that sits on a throne in a castle in the clouds

Much as I agree with your first portion... Is there really any one who ACTUALLY believes that God is a bearded man sitting in the clouds? I've been accused of believing that, but short of unknowingly meeting a Zeus worshipper I can pretty safely say I've never met any one who believes in such.

[Vexx]

Much as I agree with your first portion... Is there really any one who ACTUALLY believes that God is a bearded man sitting in the clouds? I've been accused of believing that, but short of unknowingly meeting a Zeus worshipper I can pretty safely say I've never met any one who believes in such.

Unfortunately, there *are* many like that. I'm originally from East Texas, directly in the so-called Bible Belt. Half my family's "indepth understanding" of their own religion is pretty much "grey bearded sky god with sidekick named Jesus" and arch-foe Lucifer.
They're literalists of the parts of the Bible they got taught in children's Sunday School (which means the blanks looks they have when I quote from the Bible are priceless).

They're simultaneously racist, xenophobic, and homophobic while being "christian" (no, I can't wrap my brain around that either). They send money to the Pat Robertsons, James Dobsons, and other authorities I might label Pharisee-ish in a kind moment. And I could point at many families of various colors in the area and use the same descriptions -- it isn't exclusive to whites.

I hope its obvious that a person can be of any faith (J-C-I or whatever) and be this idiotic but it never fails to amaze me watching it in daily execution.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

Well, all things are relative, of course. But my point was that even though the Bible is full of records of miracles, not even (most of) the people recorded as living through these events considered divine intervention to be a regular occurrence. Even if they believed or relied on diving providence, they didn't believe that everything was an act of God.

Well, yes, but it seems to me that at the time, if someone said "God has talked to me", his neighbours would say "Really? What did he say?" rather than "That's nice. Why don't you step into this very long-sleeved shirt and then we'll take you to a nice, comfy room with padding on the walls...".

BTW, was the rain of food a one-time occurrence, or did it happen all the time the Israelites were in the desert?

But why would some one believe the Bible is a source of religious truth? There is no good answer for this than revelation. For all the arguments that could be made that it's historically accurate, there is no way to know FOR SURE unless we find some ways of viewing across space and time. While there may be corroborating evidence, genuine faith in this can only honestly be attributed to revelation.

And revelation is hard to argue for or against with another party because it's so subjective and so personal. How many assumptions should one question, how far should one investigate, how much faith should one have in the face of seemingly contradictory evidence? None can be a true judge of that but the individual who is struggling with the revelation.

As for how one can rationally believe in the miraculous events recorded in the Bible when they have never seen a miracle... I honestly don't have an answer for that. In my short life, I have seen some fantastic things first-hand. Having experienced these, I have no intellectual issue with believing such fantastic claims. But my experiences do no good in convincing some one else. No matter how convincingly described, no matter how corroborated by others... no matter what, in the perfectly valid reasoning of some one who has not had such experiences, it is far more likely that I am a fool, a liar, or a lunatic.
After all, if some one told me that their prize pig grew wings and flew away, even if they were telling the truth I would not be inclined to believe them.

So I have no answer to why another person without such experiences would or should believe these claims of the Bible but revelation. I don't like that answer, but I don't have another one.



Based on personal revelation and corroborating personal experiences... Yes, I do. You're welcome to think I'm crazy. I have no way of proving I'm not.

At least it's honest. I actually like the "revelation" answer a lot more than the pseudo-rationalism I sometimes see.

As a Christian, I certainly agree: It is a pure leap of blind faith. Many Christians find personal experiences that give them more rational, intellectual grounding for such faith, but it is, indeed, blind faith.

For historical evidence of the existence of the person of Jesus, there is little (there are mentions from Tacitus, but no old sources for the text, and while there were likely mentions by Josephus, it's almost certain there was tampering), but... Regardless of his true nature or the actuality of any miracles, it would be really hard to get a religious movement off the ground when nearly the entirety of the earliest converts would be able to say "Really? I don't recall there being any commotion back then and there."

It's probable that something happened. It doesn't have to bear much resemblance to what was depicted in the NT, though.

The most relevant answer is simply "because it's up to mankind now". Not that mankind is doing a good job; It's a travesty.

Nevertheless, no matter what we think of what God ought to be, that doesn't have any bearing on whether He exists or what He is. If He does exist, He simply is what He is. That would be true whether God is like the western concepts or more like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Our opinions don't determine the truth of the matter or count one whit in discovering it. If a creator/supreme being does exist, though, and if it has any relevance to our lives, we owe it to ourselves to determine the truth as best we can.

I brought it up because of the consistency issues. Of course, God doesn't have to be the way we imagine him. That's not the question. The question is, is your (rhetorical you, not you personally, Kyuusai.) belief consistent with itself, and with the observed world? In this case, would an omniscient, omnipotent God let the Bible... as it is?

I think this is an interesting point. Some people consider this evidence that spirituality is a trick of the brain, but there is another possibility to consider... If there is a creator and/or spiritual realm, is it really out of the ordinary to think that our brains would be able to perceive that just as any other sense? If our intellectual ability to perceive that is in the brain, well, that leaves room for all kinds of manipulation/mistaken perceptions in addition to any ability to perceive things as they are.

If there's a creator whose ways are notoriously mysterious, anything's possible. Our brain having a spirituality zone. Our brain not having a spirituality zone.

That's one of the things that bug me the most about that sort of religion. What's the point of trying to figure stuff out if it remains true only at the whim of someone we can't hope to understand?

Much as I agree with your first portion... Is there really any one who ACTUALLY believes that God is a bearded man sitting in the clouds? I've been accused of believing that, but short of unknowingly meeting a Zeus worshipper I can pretty safely say I've never met any one who believes in such.

I may be an atheist, but I actually have more sympathy for the worship of Zeus than for Christianty. The old Greek gods were limited, fallible, and ultimately didn't really care about us humans. That fits with my view of the world a lot more than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being.

[Quzor]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

The old Greek gods were limited, fallible, and ultimately didn't really care about us humans. That fits with my view of the world a lot more than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being.

That is, essentially, the same stance the God of the OT has. He was all about smiting people. Casting Lucifer into Hell for rebelling; casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden for falling to temptation; Shunning Cain for a tramp for killing his brother; burning Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground; hellfire and brimstone!

Hell, he actively tried to persuade people to screw up so he could punish them (making the deceiver the guardian of the Tree of Knowledge, accepting Abel's offering and not Cain's, etc.). Sounds like not really caring about us humans to me.

Edit: I should clarify. I'm not trying to start an argument here, I just saw a similarity and thought I'd point it out.

[Gemstar]

One religion is to do this and another to do so. All religions are very similar but what I want to know is if they are so similar why should there be such a variety of them ? If we are all of the same human why can't we have the same faith. Isn't goodness in respect to one another ?

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by Gemstar

One religion is to do this and another to do so.

Do you mean this and that, not this and so? Nothing to debate here.

Originally Posted by Gemstar

All religions are very similar

Well of course they are going to similar, they have a similar point of origin just as all humans did.

Originally Posted by Gemstar

I want to know is if they are so similar why should there be such a variety of them ?If we are all of the same human why can't we have the same faith.

Do you mean of the same race? Also one can only be similar to another only so much(genetically, personality, EVERYTHING).If we were the same human, yes I am pretty sure we would, but we're not and people are clearly different and thereby have DIFFERENT views and such. Besides at this point, how is anyone just going to rejoin after having split apart from the original beginning?

Originally Posted by Gemstar

Isn't goodness in respect to one another ?

As defined by what?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Quzor

That is, essentially, the same stance the God of the OT has. He was all about smiting people. Casting Lucifer into Hell for rebelling; casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden for falling to temptation; Shunning Cain for a tramp for killing his brother; burning Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground; hellfire and brimstone!

Actually, from my understanding the Jewish religion doesn't have a hell. Lucifer is a figure, but not in the Christian sense. The way I had it explained was that when you die, you go up to a sort of heavenly courtroom. You are judged based on what you've done in your life. Lucifer is like the prosecutor, trying to point out all of the evils that you've done in an effort to show why you shouldn't be admitted to heaven.

In a sense, Christianity perverted this concept and put Lucifer out as a the source of evil and temptation. Under the Jewish belief, you were responsible for your own actions, and Lucifer was just bringing them to light. Pretty different stuff. Further, Christianity formalized the idea of hell. Supposedly the hell concept was borrowed from Norse mythology (Niflheim and Helheim, perhaps). Looking at it that way, one could argue that Christianity really was just a story constructed on top of Judaism, although that isn't my view.

I'm not a scholar of Judaism, but I just felt I'd share that. It isn't a widely known or thought of aspect of the Jewish religion, either. Many services that I've attended focus more on the history of the Jewish people and the commandments of God. By contrast, the Christian services seem to focus on the words of Jesus. Many Jews who actively attend service are probably geared more toward the basic ethics, morals, and history rather than the philosophy behind the religion. Christianity seems to be more focused on the morals and the philosophy, somewhat.

And one final point I almost forgot, not all Christians accept the idea of the War in Heaven (where Lucifer rose up against God, was beaten back by the Archangel Michael, and was cast down to hell to become Satan).

[Thentus]

Originally Posted by Quzor

That is, essentially, the same stance the God of the OT has. He was all about smiting people. Casting Lucifer into Hell for rebelling; casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden for falling to temptation; Shunning Cain for a tramp for killing his brother; burning Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground; hellfire and brimstone!

God "himself" has no stance, he is simply a justification for many things.

In those examples, he basically is telling you to stay in line and don't screw up. I am not going to ramble on about simplicity.


What does OT stand for?

[Quzor]

Spoiler for savin' space:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Actually, from my understanding the Jewish religion doesn't have a hell. Lucifer is a figure, but not in the Christian sense. The way I had it explained was that when you die, you go up to a sort of heavenly courtroom. You are judged based on what you've done in your life. Lucifer is like the prosecutor, trying to point out all of the evils that you've done in an effort to show why you shouldn't be admitted to heaven.

In a sense, Christianity perverted this concept and put Lucifer out as a the source of evil and temptation. Under the Jewish belief, you were responsible for your own actions, and Lucifer was just bringing them to light. Pretty different stuff. Further, Christianity formalized the idea of hell. Supposedly the hell concept was borrowed from Norse mythology (Niflheim and Helheim, perhaps). Looking at it that way, one could argue that Christianity really was just a story constructed on top of Judaism, although that isn't my view.

I'm not a scholar of Judaism, but I just felt I'd share that. It isn't a widely known or thought of aspect of the Jewish religion, either. Many services that I've attended focus more on the history of the Jewish people and the commandments of God. By contrast, the Christian services seem to focus on the words of Jesus. Many Jews who actively attend service are probably geared more toward the basic ethics, morals, and history rather than the philosophy behind the religion. Christianity seems to be more focused on the morals and the philosophy, somewhat.

And one final point I almost forgot, not all Christians accept the idea of the War in Heaven (where Lucifer rose up against God, was beaten back by the Archangel Michael, and was cast down to hell to become Satan).

Much thanks for the history lesson. I swear I've learned more about religion in this thread than I ever did in either of my religion classes at college. Just out of curiosity, would you contend that the other examples I provided are fair in pointing out that, in a sense, the God of the OT was relatively vengeful, if not downright against us?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Quzor

Much thanks for the history lesson. I swear I've learned more about religion in this thread than I ever did in either of my religion classes at college. Just out of curiosity, would you contend that the other examples I provided are fair in pointing out that, in a sense, the God of the OT was relatively vengeful, if not downright against us?

It's hard to tell. See, I grew up in a family that prided itself on being Jewish, but never really got into the religious aspect of it. There is a divide between being a Jew culturally and being one religiously that I won't get into here, but there is a connection between the two. The God that I learned about was someone who had the backs of my ancestors. God wasn't something we all had to bow down to; God was a force that we essentially signed an agreement with. We'd follow His directives, and in return He would ensure that our people would prosper and be free from oppression (oppression is another big thing in the history of the Jewish people).

So when you say that God was against us, I don't really feel that way. I could see how people from the Christian groups might, though. I did attend a number of church services and I also attended a Christian group at my university (long story short, I had a ton of friends in it and got roped into it, and figured it'd be a good opportunity to learn how Christians think anyway). From my understanding of Christianity, God is a benevolent entity who wants us all to live as good people. We know that God loves us dearly because He sent His own son, Jesus Christ, to be sacrificed as atonement for our sins. So God loves us dearly in the Christian Bible, yet when you go to the "Old Testament" you have a God who was sending plagues to the Egyptians, forcing Jewish leaders to sacrifice their children and only stopping them at the last second to test their loyalty, and standing behind Jewish armies. That doesn't sound like a God who loves all of humanity, does it?

It works for the Jews but not for the Christians. The Jews were persecuted and developed their own identity that was not tied to nationality. Land origins were recognized, because you have the following terms: Sephardic Jews (Spanish Jews), the Ashkenazim (Eastern European Jews), and the Mizrahim (Middle Eastern Jews). But most Jews don't divide themselves up according to that; rather, they see themselves as one people - God's chosen people. So God wasn't against us, but it was more or less that we made an agreement with Him. People still revere God, but it isn't in the same sense that the Christians do. But for Christianity to work, it couldn't have a chosen people. Those were not the teachings of Jesus, either. And if history is to believed, Jesus Himself was Jewish.

I'm straying a bit from your question (which was answered somewhere betwen the above two paragraphs), but I wanted to mention one final thing that I found interesting on the topic of Jewish vs. Christian thought. As I mentioned, I was involved with a Christian student organization at my university. In my second and last year with them I participated in Bible study, where the group would basically splinter into four to five-person groups (sexually homogeneous). The smaller groups would meet once every certain period of time, but not more than once a week, and would go over passages from the Bible. (They would also do group prayer, which I found to be really unnerving.) One of our exercises involved reading over two or three paragraphs that had been printed for us, and we were supposed to highlight what parts of it stood out to us. Afterward, we shared what we'd highlighted.

I was chosen to share my highlights first. What had stood out to me were statements about growth, light, and empowerment. Being raised to feel that you are one of God's chosen and that it is your duty to make the most of the unoppressed life that was given with the helping hand of God, this made perfect sense to me. So I was amazed (and felt a bit out of place) when every other person in my group spoke of sin, suffering, and sacrifice. I don't want to say that there is the defining difference between Jewish thought and Christian thought (as I've met plenty of pessimistic/negative Jewish people) but it certainly gave me a lot to ponder over that night, and even now.

[Quzor]

Very interesting. I suppose I never thought of interpreting it that way, despite having heard the "Jewish people are the chosen people of God" comment a number of times. I suppose it never occurred to me to skew my viewpoint, or throw all previous knowledge out the window before examining the statements and occurrences in the Old Testament. Chalk it up to confined religious upbringing, I suppose, though I am probably just as much at fault for examining the stories with "tunnel vision."

It just seems to me (like I said before, and you commented on), that a lot of what goes on in the OT doesn't seem to equate itself to God loving all of mankind and wanting them to exist with him in the kingdom of heaven, in the afterlife. Perhaps that is where my understanding is lost in the divide; between being saved by God, and being protected by him.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Quzor

It just seems to me (like I said before, and you commented on), that a lot of what goes on in the OT doesn't seem to equate itself to God loving all of mankind and wanting them to exist with him in the kingdom of heaven, in the afterlife. Perhaps that is where my understanding is lost in the divide; between being saved by God, and being protected by him.

That'd be correct, at least from my experiences and understanding. Christianity always struck me as forcing people to feel that they were sinners or bad people and that they had to follow the example of Jesus in order to make themselves better. The end goal was that they wanted to be deemed worthy of admittance to heaven. Some Christians like to focus on the aspect of "sinners go to hell" but for the most part many are more focused on getting into heaven, and they feel that it is their duty to spread the word so that as many people may be saved as possible.

For Judaism, as I mentioned before, you are God's chosen people. Your ancestors made an agreement with God, and now it's your duty to uphold your end of the bargain. You are not a born sinner, but rather someone who should be working with God to shape and care for the world. "Should be" isn't right actually, it's your duty, as per the covenant between your ancestors and God. Compared to Christianity, there's less of a focus on what happens after you die. There's no need to be saved - saved from what? The Jewish people are still oppressed, but God freed them from the enslavement that is detailed in the Bible. Save us from ourselves? The idea seems laughable, only because we know both from real world examples and from Biblical examples that the Jewish people have seemingly always faced persecution and oppression. With such active hatred, wallowing in self-contempt doesn't make sense.

There are two points of interest in what I just said. First, I recently read a newer interpretation from some high-level Christian official. He said that the idea of heaven is a bit flawed. When you die, it's like you're going into a long sleep. When Jesus returns to Earth (rapture? The apocolypse? Not sure what this is supposed to be) the good people will rise once more, and will work with God/Jesus to make the Earth good once more. I found this interpretation to be pretty interesting. Not only is it drastically different than the vision of heaven that most people have in their minds, but it sounds a lot like the Jewish concept of man's relation to God, don't you think?

The second point deals with the translation of the Bible. The idea of a chosen people stirs a lot of resentment in people. If it's genetics, then it doesn't seem fair to humanity, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either way - what happens with interracial marriage? Somewhere in the beginning verses of the Bible, the more commonly printed versions seem to make it such that Jews are the chosen people, and that's final. A few years ago my father, whose first language was Hebrew, remarked that the original passage in Hebrew could actually be translated a few ways. I don't remember the exact details of this, but what it boiled down to was that it could actually be translated that God's chosen people are those who follow His directives. In other words, a Jew is not a Jew simply by birth, but because of the values and "life mission" (for lack of better words) that she or he has. That is, it's not necessarily as exclusive as most of the world seems to believe.

Interesting stuff, to be sure.

[Kyuusai]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

Well, yes, but it seems to me that at the time, if someone said "God has talked to me", his neighbours would say "Really? What did he say?" rather than "That's nice. Why don't you step into this very long-sleeved shirt and then we'll take you to a nice, comfy room with padding on the walls...".

Well, there are people who'll respond either way even in these times, as well, observed miracles or not.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

BTW, was the rain of food a one-time occurrence, or did it happen all the time the Israelites were in the desert?

It's recorded as a single period of forty years as they followed a pillar of fire and smoke. Nonetheless, skepticism remained high.

There were thousands of years of history following that, though, with not as much happening in the way of "miracles observable by the entire nation".

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

At least it's honest. I actually like the "revelation" answer a lot more than the pseudo-rationalism I sometimes see.

Yeah, even if it were possibly to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt... it would still come down to revelation. It is, ultimately, about a relationship.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

It's probable that something happened. It doesn't have to bear much resemblance to what was depicted in the NT, though.

I'm not sure what you mean?
Curious to know, though.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I brought it up because of the consistency issues. Of course, God doesn't have to be the way we imagine him. That's not the question. The question is, is your (rhetorical you, not you personally, Kyuusai.) belief consistent with itself, and with the observed world? In this case, would an omniscient, omnipotent God let the Bible... as it is?

I kind of figured you might have meant that. I wish more religious people would ask themselves that.

As for whether such a God would let the Bible as it is... It all depends on what He intended it to be in the first place. What He intended of it and what most Christians expect of it are likely quite different.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

If there's a creator whose ways are notoriously mysterious, anything's possible. Our brain having a spirituality zone. Our brain not having a spirituality zone.

That's one of the things that bug me the most about that sort of religion. What's the point of trying to figure stuff out if it remains true only at the whim of someone we can't hope to understand?

This is one of the reasons that the distinctions about how God interacts with the world is relevant. Truth ought to remain static.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I may be an atheist, but I actually have more sympathy for the worship of Zeus than for Christianty. The old Greek gods were limited, fallible, and ultimately didn't really care about us humans. That fits with my view of the world a lot more than an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being.

Many Christians actually hold those seemingly contradictory views (to their detriment), but these contradictions aren't necessarily as they seem when God is viewed as a father to the people who the care of the earth is entrusted to (free will plays in heavily here). If it were as most Christians make it out to be, then their concept of God in combination with a world containing evil is intellectually dishonest. Hasn't stopped most of them, of course (although I doubt most have actually thought about it).

Originally Posted by Quzor

That is, essentially, the same stance the God of the OT has. He was all about smiting people. Casting Lucifer into Hell for rebelling; casting Adam and Eve out of the Garden for falling to temptation; Shunning Cain for a tramp for killing his brother; burning Sodom and Gomorrah to the ground; hellfire and brimstone!

Hell, he actively tried to persuade people to screw up so he could punish them (making the deceiver the guardian of the Tree of Knowledge, accepting Abel's offering and not Cain's, etc.). Sounds like not really caring about us humans to me.

Not to sound really argumentative, but let me take these point by point (I hope doing so in bullet points doesn't seem too curt).
- God didn't smite merely for anger, no matter how angry He was when He did it. There were specific reasons, having almost everything to do with preserving particular people (Sodom and Gomorrah being across the street from Abraham and his progeny likely had much to do with their fate). Smiting occurred in the NT too, actually. Viewed in the perspective of earthly life not being the entirety of the human experience, smiting just doesn't have the same finality to it.
- Lucifer wasn't cast into hell, although he was kicked out of his heavenly position.
- Adam and Eve weren't kicked out of the garden as punishment, but it was the consequence for their action.
- While there are some Christians and Jews that say God tempts people, even they don't say they toy with people that way. There is no indication that the serpent (who/whatever it was) was put there by God to tempt people, nor was the shunning of Cain's offering suggested to be arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Gemstar

One religion is to do this and another to do so. All religions are very similar but what I want to know is if they are so similar why should there be such a variety of them ? If we are all of the same human why can't we have the same faith. Isn't goodness in respect to one another ?

Actually, we really OUGHT to have the same faith. I'm no proponent of religious pluralism, but if there is spiritual truth to be found, we should all be viewing the same thing. The same thing can be viewed from many perspectives, of course, but it would still be recognizably the same.

It's as simple as this, though: If spiritual truth is discoverable, most or all of us are getting it wrong.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Actually, from my understanding the Jewish religion doesn't have a hell. Lucifer is a figure, but not in the Christian sense. The way I had it explained was that when you die, you go up to a sort of heavenly courtroom. You are judged based on what you've done in your life. Lucifer is like the prosecutor, trying to point out all of the evils that you've done in an effort to show why you shouldn't be admitted to heaven.

In a sense, Christianity perverted this concept and put Lucifer out as a the source of evil and temptation. Under the Jewish belief, you were responsible for your own actions, and Lucifer was just bringing them to light. Pretty different stuff. Further, Christianity formalized the idea of hell. Supposedly the hell concept was borrowed from Norse mythology (Niflheim and Helheim, perhaps). Looking at it that way, one could argue that Christianity really was just a story constructed on top of Judaism, although that isn't my view.

I'm not a scholar of Judaism, but I just felt I'd share that. It isn't a widely known or thought of aspect of the Jewish religion, either. Many services that I've attended focus more on the history of the Jewish people and the commandments of God. By contrast, the Christian services seem to focus on the words of Jesus. Many Jews who actively attend service are probably geared more toward the basic ethics, morals, and history rather than the philosophy behind the religion. Christianity seems to be more focused on the morals and the philosophy, somewhat.

Yes! These are important points!

It's not so much that Judaism doesn't believe in hell so much as the Jewish concept looks nothing like what the common concept is after Christian culture has perverted the idea.

In Judaism, there is "sheol" and "Gehenna". Sheol is the resting place of the dead. Some believe there is no experience in there, while some believe it is divided where the good live in peace and the wicked in torment, but both await some future judgement. Gehenna, described as burning (which is how it got its name, since the earthly place called Gehenna was historically a place where people had been burned, and eventually became a place for burning rubbish), was the punishment that some would face after that judgement.

This idea of hell as most of the western world thinks of it is just some mish-mash of Jewish and European afterworld beliefs perpetrated by Christians ignorant of their own religion.

And although it's a cultural issue, I'd say you described the different focus of the majority of Christians and Jews pretty well. Kabbalists do tend to be more philosophical, though.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

And one final point I almost forgot, not all Christians accept the idea of the War in Heaven (where Lucifer rose up against God, was beaten back by the Archangel Michael, and was cast down to hell to become Satan).

Well, Christian belief does vary, but I'm not sure that can be solely said of Christians on this issue. Excepting a quote in the NT concerning the archangle Michael (which was of Jewish cultural origin), the source of these ideas about Lucifer's history comes from the "Old Testament".

As Judaism collectively shifted to differentiate itself from the Christian movements, though, these points and views received much different attention.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

But most Jews don't divide themselves up according to that; rather, they see themselves as one people - God's chosen people. So God wasn't against us, but it was more or less that we made an agreement with Him. People still revere God, but it isn't in the same sense that the Christians do. But for Christianity to work, it couldn't have a chosen people. Those were not the teachings of Jesus, either. And if history is to believed, Jesus Himself was Jewish.

The leadup to this point was excellent, but snipped for space. On this particular point, I say this (and from what you wrote later, I'm pretty sure you think the same, but I write it for the benefit of others):

These differences between Christians and Jews you point out here are cultural rather than theological. Theologically (not practically, since Mosaic law would not apply to Gentiles), Christianity and Judaism ought to be the same. Not only was Jesus was Jewish, as was the entirety of the early Christian church. When they began, they were going to other Jews spreading the news that they'd found the awaited Messiah, and converts were (at first) required to convert to full-blown Judaism!

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I was chosen to share my highlights first. What had stood out to me were statements about growth, light, and empowerment. Being raised to feel that you are one of God's chosen and that it is your duty to make the most of the unoppressed life that was given with the helping hand of God, this made perfect sense to me. So I was amazed (and felt a bit out of place) when every other person in my group spoke of sin, suffering, and sacrifice. I don't want to say that there is the defining difference between Jewish thought and Christian thought (as I've met plenty of pessimistic/negative Jewish people) but it certainly gave me a lot to ponder over that night, and even now.

This is why there is a stereotype of Jewish people succeeding and Christians often follow the stereotype of almost praising poverty! It may be cultural rather than theological, but the Jews (to generalize) get this one right. To be sure, sin, suffering, and sacrifice are concepts integral to both the Jewish and Christian experience, but one must keep their eyes on the good.

Originally Posted by Quzor

Very interesting. I suppose I never thought of interpreting it that way, despite having heard the "Jewish people are the chosen people of God" comment a number of times. I suppose it never occurred to me to skew my viewpoint, or throw all previous knowledge out the window before examining the statements and occurrences in the Old Testament. Chalk it up to confined religious upbringing, I suppose, though I am probably just as much at fault for examining the stories with "tunnel vision."

It just seems to me (like I said before, and you commented on), that a lot of what goes on in the OT doesn't seem to equate itself to God loving all of mankind and wanting them to exist with him in the kingdom of heaven, in the afterlife. Perhaps that is where my understanding is lost in the divide; between being saved by God, and being protected by him.

That's really the way to look at things. It's not that God is a being of vengeful fury, but one who is very protective of his people, and the purpose for which He preserves them.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

For Judaism, as I mentioned before, you are God's chosen people. Your ancestors made an agreement with God, and now it's your duty to uphold your end of the bargain. You are not a born sinner, but rather someone who should be working with God to shape and care for the world. "Should be" isn't right actually, it's your duty, as per the covenant between your ancestors and God. Compared to Christianity, there's less of a focus on what happens after you die. There's no need to be saved - saved from what? The Jewish people are still oppressed, but God freed them from the enslavement that is detailed in the Bible. Save us from ourselves? The idea seems laughable, only because we know both from real world examples and from Biblical examples that the Jewish people have seemingly always faced persecution and oppression. With such active hatred, wallowing in self-contempt doesn't make sense.

QFE (Quoted For Enightenment). Very nicely put!

I'd argue that caring for the world is a responsibility that belongs to all mankind (it could be said to be derived from Adam or Noah). The Jewish people do, indeed, carry a special duty, though. (I'll touch on that in a moment.)

Originally Posted by Ledgem

There are two points of interest in what I just said. First, I recently read a newer interpretation from some high-level Christian official. He said that the idea of heaven is a bit flawed. When you die, it's like you're going into a long sleep. When Jesus returns to Earth (rapture? The apocolypse? Not sure what this is supposed to be) the good people will rise once more, and will work with God/Jesus to make the Earth good once more. I found this interpretation to be pretty interesting. Not only is it drastically different than the vision of heaven that most people have in their minds, but it sounds a lot like the Jewish concept of man's relation to God, don't you think?

It does indeed sound pretty Jewish! Seems like that man's been reading his Bible instead of just spouting what he's heard from western culture.

(As for Jesus's return, Christians tend to be so split and screwed up on this it's an issue I won't touch here. Let's just say "second coming". )

Originally Posted by Ledgem

The second point deals with the translation of the Bible. The idea of a chosen people stirs a lot of resentment in people. If it's genetics, then it doesn't seem fair to humanity, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense either way - what happens with interracial marriage? Somewhere in the beginning verses of the Bible, the more commonly printed versions seem to make it such that Jews are the chosen people, and that's final. A few years ago my father, whose first language was Hebrew, remarked that the original passage in Hebrew could actually be translated a few ways. I don't remember the exact details of this, but what it boiled down to was that it could actually be translated that God's chosen people are those who follow His directives. In other words, a Jew is not a Jew simply by birth, but because of the values and "life mission" (for lack of better words) that she or he has. That is, it's not necessarily as exclusive as most of the world seems to believe.

I see no problem, exclusivity, or egotism in the concept.

I rather like what Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits (Chief Rabbi to Great Britain and the Commonwealth) has to say on the subject:

Originally Posted by Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits;

Yes, I do believe that the chosen people concept as affirmed by Judaism in its holy writ, its prayers, and its millennial tradition. In fact, I believe that every people - and indeed, in a more limited way, every individual - is "chosen" or destined for some distinct purpose in advancing the designs of Providence. Only, some fulfill their mission and others do not. Maybe the Greeks were chosen for their unique contributions to art and philosophy, the Romans for their pioneering services in law and government, the British for bringing parliamentary rule into the world, and the Americans for piloting democracy in a pluralistic society. The Jews were chosen by God to be 'peculiar unto Me' as the pioneers of religion and morality; that was and is their national purpose.

And I would throw myself in with them except that me believing that Jesus was/is/is-to-be the Messiah causes most Jews to draw a big line in the sand between me and them, and I am still studying to understand the state of Mosaic law in the Messianic age.

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Interesting stuff, to be sure.

It is, indeed!

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kyuusai

I'm not sure what you mean?
Curious to know, though.

I mean there was some kind of unrest at the time. Maybe there was some kind of religious leader. Or several of them. Maybe one of them was called Jesus, but maybe not. Certainly, a lot of people ended up crucified. They were pretty big on crucifixion, at the time.

Maybe there were reported miracles - I don't believe in them, but I do believe that stuff happens, and more importantly, I believe tales take a life all on their own. Especially before the invention of the camera or of news reporting that isn't "travellers gossiping".

This is one of the reasons that the distinctions about how God interacts with the world is relevant. Truth ought to remain static.

Yes, but I disagree with your distinction between "direct intervention" and "proxy". To me, the fact there was a miracle (defined here as a break in the natural order) is what matters, not the exact form of the miracle. Whether god with his own hands parts the red sea, or with his own hands gives Moses the powers of the Last Son of Krypton, that the wake of his super fast flight may part the sea, it's all the same.

Which makes me think of a related problem. In our understanding of the world, chance plays a big part. Probabilities and statistic. But that has no meaning to an omniscient being.

For example, some people, in an attempt to reconcile faith and science, say God created life using Evolution as His tool. But one of the main forces of Evolution is random mutation. If God had done it, OTOH, there is no randomness. He made the Big Bang in such a way that eventually, there'd be platypuses, and knew it.

Many Christians actually hold those seemingly contradictory views (to their detriment), but these contradictions aren't necessarily as they seem when God is viewed as a father to the people who the care of the earth is entrusted to (free will plays in heavily here). If it were as most Christians make it out to be, then their concept of God in combination with a world containing evil is intellectually dishonest. Hasn't stopped most of them, of course (although I doubt most have actually thought about it).

Yeah, free will... Christians like to blame evil on it, but wouldn't an Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent god have made it so there was no evil despite the free will thing?

And it's not like free will is that sacred, even to God. He did harden pharaoh's heart.

Not to sound really argumentative, but let me take these point by point (I hope doing so in bullet points doesn't seem too curt).
- God didn't smite merely for anger, no matter how angry He was when He did it. There were specific reasons, having almost everything to do with preserving particular people (Sodom and Gomorrah being across the street from Abraham and his progeny likely had much to do with their fate). Smiting occurred in the NT too, actually. Viewed in the perspective of earthly life not being the entirety of the human experience, smiting just doesn't have the same finality to it.
- Lucifer wasn't cast into hell, although he was kicked out of his heavenly position.
- Adam and Eve weren't kicked out of the garden as punishment, but it was the consequence for their action.

Wouldn't an O3 god have foreseen and prevented that action?

- While there are some Christians and Jews that say God tempts people, even they don't say they toy with people that way. There is no indication that the serpent (who/whatever it was) was put there by God to tempt people, nor was the shunning of Cain's offering suggested to be arbitrary.

God created everything. That includes temptation. And the serpent.


Edit: oh, wait.... I reread your post. You don't believe God is Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent ? Isn't that sort of thing in the Bible, though? If not, why is it so widespread a belief?

[WanderingKnight]

God created everything. That includes temptation. And the serpent.

I'm sure most religious people would argue that God created free will, and temptation came after that. I've tried that line of reasoning before, but it didn't work. I can't remember the reply to that, though.

[technomo12]

ok um is it just me or that the religious vid that i saw in youtube shows that we should turn our backs to science

also why behemoth i mean come on there are literally dead evidence that dinosaurs exists in the past!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well also the evolution theory is not fact that is why it is called a theory

man that woman is pretty much dangerous to a human mind she somewhat hypnotize people in believing in wha she believes