posted
I sometime think about religion, about me and my relation to religion, and about others and religion.
Now, I know some very intelligent and wise people. All of them are catholics, obviously, like 95% of Poles. They seem to understand doctrines of faith, accept it, go to church, take communion and so on.
And yet it is also obvious that there are plenty of wise people in other countries, let's say- USA. There are many more protestants (it is a majority, right?). So probably there are so many wise people that understand doctrines of their faith, go to church and so on.
John Paul the Second was a great and wise man, and was, naturally, catholic. Llama is a great and a wise man, and is a Buddist. Mr Card is a great and wise man, and is a Mormon.
Hey, isnt it about where you were born? How can anyone judge who is right? And if Jesus Resurected once again what would he say? Hey catholics, I'm glad, you did it the right way? No, it is you, Mormons, you are right, you did well to do your way. Luther was right! I didnt tell my apprentices not to get married! Why not have children? Or, I am Allah, not Jahwe. You dont even know my name... Or: You are all so very wrong, that wasnt what I wanted. It wasnt supposed to be like that. Or maybe: You are all right, you all did well!
And how am I, I little stupid guy, decide if what they tell me to belive in is right. The only way to find out is to study it thoroughly. But I dont want to spend my life in seminary.
posted
You certainly don't have to live in a seminary to study religion. It is very much a thing that concerns everybody. So it's probably best studied 'out in the wild'. My personal faith is rather undefined when it comes to the shape of any deity that might be out there.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Study what you can find, and pray. The Lord cares about you and your questions, and prayer and study can connect you to him and him to way in a way that brings answers.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Eduardo and Katharina. I had the same questions as you, and I came to the same conclusion, that your religion is most likely to be determined by when and where you were born (if you are raised in a faith, that is). With so many wise people all over the world, believing in so many different religions, how can only one be correct? It was interesting, learning about many other beliefs and meeting and discussing with people who held different beliefs from my own. Sometimes it was hard to keep an open mind. In the end of my learning process - or at least, what I presently consider the end; who knows if I'll decide to take it up again? - I settled on atheist beliefs, and the world makes more sense to me now than it did previously. So I urge you to keep an open mind if you are interested in learning more about other religions. I'm not saying that you'll end up an atheist - that is a personal decision, of course, and there's no way to know if you'll come to the same conclusions as I did!
Personally, I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right." The splintering of the core Golden Rule principle into denominations of religion was an incidental creation of man, not a creation of God.
Posts: 1006 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Personally, I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right." The splintering of the core Golden Rule principle into denominations of religion was an incidental creation of man, not a creation of God.
I'll go along with that! (I believe He did.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Szymon, you should read about Joseph Smith as a youngster. Your questions are very similar to his situation.
note - I'm not suggesting you should join any specific religion, so don't anyone go flaming me. I'm just pointing out an interesting parellel. ;-)
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Personally, I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right." The splintering of the core Golden Rule principle into denominations of religion was an incidental creation of man, not a creation of God.
I know that it does not apply to you, but how would a Christian holding such a view, reconcile that with the first three (or two) Commandments? They seem pretty unambiguous.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The commandments talk about not praying to another god. That tells me that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists (or any faith that does not have a deity) are all ok.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think we can all change our religion, so it really is our decision. I stayed with a religion familiar in my country (Christianity) but moved to a denomination rare in my area (Catholic). I don't think Jesus does care which branch of Christianity you adopt, but he did say he was the way, so if he's right, it matters whether you've got him or somethin else.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The commandments talk about not praying to another god. That tells me that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists (or any faith that does not have a deity) are all ok.
Actually, it doesn't even say that. It says 'No other god before me.' You are presumably allowed to have other gods as long as Jehovah is number one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The commandments talk about not praying to another god. That tells me that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists (or any faith that does not have a deity) are all ok.
But what about the "kind and good and helpful" Hindu and Buddist believers?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Personally, I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right." The splintering of the core Golden Rule principle into denominations of religion was an incidental creation of man, not a creation of God.
I know that it does not apply to you, but how would a Christian holding such a view, reconcile that with the first three (or two) Commandments? They seem pretty unambiguous.
God is still God, whatever God is called.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The commandments talk about not praying to another god. That tells me that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists (or any faith that does not have a deity) are all ok.
Actually, it doesn't even say that. It says 'No other god before me.' You are presumably allowed to have other gods as long as Jehovah is number one.
I doubt you can just have another God, that's not what Church would say. God is the only one God we are allowed to belive in, isn't He? And by the way, we, catholics, dont call our God "JHW". I really dont know why. Recently some christians (I dont know the English, in Polish the call themselevs The Witnesses of Jehovah) tried to tell me that it is so stupid not to call God Jehovah, and that it is stupid that Pope calls himself Holy Father. I really didnt know how to reply... Thats one of the reasons why I started this thread. I wouldnt be able to defend doctrines of my faith. On the whole, at least.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Libbie: Personally, I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right." The splintering of the core Golden Rule principle into denominations of religion was an incidental creation of man, not a creation of God.
Personally, I think the Golden Rule you speak of is immoral, and is the source of some of the worst atrocities in human history.
Knowledge of God preceded it, and preceded religions as well.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The commandments talk about not praying to another god. That tells me that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists (or any faith that does not have a deity) are all ok.
Actually, it doesn't even say that. It says 'No other god before me.' You are presumably allowed to have other gods as long as Jehovah is number one.
That's the problem with translations. The word "before" is ambiguous in English, and, as it happens, is not being used in this case to translate "in front of me" or "taking precedence over me", but rather "in my presence".
Always look at the original.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: The commandments talk about not praying to another god. That tells me that Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Atheists (or any faith that does not have a deity) are all ok.
Actually, it doesn't even say that. It says 'No other god before me.' You are presumably allowed to have other gods as long as Jehovah is number one.
I doubt you can just have another God, that's not what Church would say. God is the only one God we are allowed to belive in, isn't He? And by the way, we, catholics, dont call our God "JHW". I really dont know why. Recently some christians (I dont know the English, in Polish the call themselevs The Witnesses of Jehovah) tried to tell me that it is so stupid not to call God Jehovah, and that it is stupid that Pope calls himself Holy Father. I really didnt know how to reply... Thats one of the reasons why I started this thread. I wouldnt be able to defend doctrines of my faith. On the whole, at least.
You can tell the Witnesses that the word they're using is just a silly mistake.
See, we (Jews) don't pronounce the 4 letter name of God. Instead, we say "Adonai". And Hebrew is a consonantal language. All the letters are consonants. To indicate vowels, you add points (dots and lines) under the letters. So it became common for us to write the 4 letter name of God, but to point it with the vowels from the word Adonai.
Some non-Jews, not understanding any of this, mistakenly read that name as though those vowels went with those consonants, and came up with the pronunciation that the Witnesses use. You know what they say: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: God is still God, whatever God is called.
I agree with this and its corrolary: Those things called "God" still remain what they are regardless of how many people mis-label them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the "God" of the Bible is still the same as "Huitzilopochtli" of the Aztecs and is the same as "Ra" of the Egyptians?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So the "God" of the Bible is still the same as "Huitzilopochtli" of the Aztecs and is the same as "Ra" of the Egyptians?
Only God really knows. Working under the assumption that God exists, and that He is he only one. Maybe that explains things like the flood story being told in so many different cultures around the world. God started with the basics, and all the world culrtures ran with it on their own.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So the "God" of the Bible is still the same as "Huitzilopochtli" of the Aztecs and is the same as "Ra" of the Egyptians?
No. What Kate said is that regardless of what you call God, the nature of God is not changed. Your attempt at paraphrase says that all things labeled God are the same, which is not at all what Kate said and I agreed with. My corollary states that labeling something "God" does not make that something anything more than what it would be without the label, which is also not the same as your paraphrase.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Divine is what it is. We humans have a necessarily imperfect idea of it. Still we try to be in relationship with the Divine. Sometimes we get it right; a lot of the time we don't. Those aspects of Ra or Huitzilopochtli that we got "right" are as much "God" as Allah or Jehovah. Calling the Divine Ra rather than Jehovah doesn't particularly matter, it is the nature of God that matters.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Divine is what it is. We humans have a necessarily imperfect idea of it. Still we try to be in relationship with the Divine. Sometimes we get it right; a lot of the time we don't. Those aspects of Ra or Huitzilopochtli that we got "right" are as much "God" as Allah or Jehovah. Calling the Divine Ra rather than Jehovah doesn't particularly matter, it is the nature of God that matters.
Do you consider that "the nature of God" is such that we (as Humans) were created in His image?
On a side note, isn't saying that we humans have a necessarily imperfect idea of the Divine an agnostic position?
Further more: if the "nature of God" is what matters, and we aren't able to really grasp it, than what's the point? It means that not only we can't understand it by ourselves, but nobody can teach us the "truth" either, because they didn't understand it in the first place. Even more, claiming that I have a better understanding of it than you is impossible.
The thing I'm getting at: why is there so much fuss about religion if we can't get it right anyway, and can't know how "close" we are of the "truth"? Are we going to judge the "closeness" by the overall results of human societies? Why is that a reliable way to do it, if we are still the imperfect humans that we are?
A.
PS: I address these questions to anyone who would like to answer them Posts: 1154 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Do you consider that "the nature of God" is such that we (as Humans) were created in His image?
On a side note, isn't saying that we humans have a necessarily imperfect idea of the Divine an agnostic position?
Further more: if the "nature of God" is what matters, and we aren't able to really grasp it, than what's the point? It means that not only we can't understand it by ourselves, but nobody can teach us the "truth" either, because they didn't understand it in the first place. Even more, claiming that I have a better understanding of it than you is impossible.
The thing I'm getting at: why is there so much fuss about religion if we can't get it right anyway, and can't know how "close" we are of the "truth"? Are we going to judge the "closeness" by the overall results of human societies? Why is that a reliable way to do it, if we are still the imperfect humans that we are?
A.
PS: I address these questions to anyone who would like to answer them
I think we are created in God's image so far as we are capable of love, creativity, self-awarness, etc. Not in a physical way.
I think that most organized religions agree that God (being infinite) is beyond our capability to entirely understand. That doesn't mean that we stop trying.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think we are created in God's image so far as we are capable of love, creativity, self-awareness, etc. Not in a physical way.
I think that most organized religions agree that God (being infinite) is beyond our capability to entirely understand. That doesn't mean that we stop trying.
Agreed. (Although I might differ on the specific attributes that constitute "in His image.")
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup. Specific attributes that I would, uh, attribute ( ) to being created in His image would include creativity. Not so much love or self-awareness. Dominion over lower creatures, yes. (According to one commentator, that is the essence of "in His image.") Indestructible (on a spiritual level), yes. Having free-will, definitely. Possessing advanced intellect (which IMO is several levels beyond mere self-awareness, in that it includes the ability to reason and synthesize), sure.
In Hebrew, the phrase is tzelem Elokim. Googling that should give you lots of articles if you're interested.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's the problem with translations. The word "before" is ambiguous in English, and, as it happens, is not being used in this case to translate "in front of me" or "taking precedence over me", but rather "in my presence".
Always look at the original.
Ok, so have we at least established the fact that the Ten Commandments mean that any Christian who believes in the story of their creation believes that no one who worships him can worship more than one God and still have the "correct" view as far as he is concerned?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So the "God" of the Bible is still the same as "Huitzilopochtli" of the Aztecs and is the same as "Ra" of the Egyptians?
No. What Kate said is that regardless of what you call God, the nature of God is not changed. Your attempt at paraphrase says that all things labeled God are the same, which is not at all what Kate said and I agreed with. My corollary states that labeling something "God" does not make that something anything more than what it would be without the label, which is also not the same as your paraphrase.
Fair enough, then what IS the relationship between the three Gods then? Assuming the original premise of "...I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right."
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: That's the problem with translations. The word "before" is ambiguous in English, and, as it happens, is not being used in this case to translate "in front of me" or "taking precedence over me", but rather "in my presence".
Always look at the original.
Ok, so have we at least established the fact that the Ten Commandments mean that any Christian who believes in the story of their creation believes that no one who worships him can worship more than one God and still have the "correct" view as far as he is concerned?
Dunno about Christians. But Jews absolutely do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So the "God" of the Bible is still the same as "Huitzilopochtli" of the Aztecs and is the same as "Ra" of the Egyptians?
I know that in Egyptian language Ra means no more no less but Sun. This is the difference, Egyptians didnt develop something so sophisticated as God Himself. They saw Sun, they couldnt understand what it was and made it divine. Jewish and Christian God is very defferent
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So the "God" of the Bible is still the same as "Huitzilopochtli" of the Aztecs and is the same as "Ra" of the Egyptians?
I know that in Egyptian language Ra means no more no less but Sun. This is the difference, Egyptians didnt develop something so sophisticated as God Himself. They saw Sun, they couldnt understand what it was and made it divine. Jewish and Christian God is very defferent
I don't know, an atheist would probaby disagree with you there. Stepping out of my own faith for a moment, the one God can appear a lot simpler then multiple gods.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fair enough, then what IS the relationship between the three Gods then? Assuming the original premise of "...I think if there were a God, he'd say that everybody who was kind and good and helpful was "right."
Well, my personal answer is that they are all fictional manifestations of an innate human desire for stability in a universe of chaos. However, more to the point of your question, I don't think the premise of someone who believes God will accept the goodness, kindness, and helpfulness of all regardless of the metaphysical source of their motivations necessitates there be any relationship between the differing "gods" themselves. Such a person presumably believes that the fullness of truth is beyond any of those minor attempts at capturing the whole, but God who embodies this fullness will accept the imperfect offerings of all, taking that which is right and presumably forgiving honest mistakes. That's my interpretation of the sentiment, at least.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:On a side note, isn't saying that we humans have a necessarily imperfect idea of the Divine an agnostic position?
I don't think so. That position is essentially that God is unknowable in his entirety. An agnostic position is that God is entirely unknowable.
The former implies that we can know some things about God although we haven't the capacity to grasp the whole. The latter implies that all assertions about God are guesses and we have no way of knowing if any of it is right.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know that in Egyptian language Ra means no more no less but Sun. This is the difference, Egyptians didnt develop something so sophisticated as God Himself. They saw Sun, they couldnt understand what it was and made it divine. Jewish and Christian God is very defferent
How is taking everything you don't understand and attributing it to one god more sophisticated than assigning one god to each unknown, or group of unknowns?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I think the Golden Rule you speak of is immoral, and is the source of some of the worst atrocities in human history.
I'm just curious; why do you think it's immoral not to do to others what you wouldn't want done to you?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not what it says, though, Omega. In fact, what you just said is what the original Jewish version said, more or less. "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." The Golden Rule, by contrast, says nothing about not doing odious things to others. It says to do things to others. It's that "doing" which has been the source of atrocities such as the burnings and torture of the Inquisition.
All you have to do is convince yourself that, sure, you'd rather endure some earthly suffering if it'd keep you from eternal hellfire, and you have carte blanche to burn people alive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
is a great and wise man, and is a Mormon. ![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
