How am I being closed minded? I am trying to understand how separate religions with different beliefs can believe in the same God?CIA said:
Ask a Christian Theologian
- Thread starter maximilian
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'll state I'm open to a 'God' existing, and I have no problem at all if He helps you to live your life better, I personally choose otherwise but mean no disrespect.
Here's my question, do you believe a non believer who strived his whole life to be a good person and help others would end up in Hell? (I really don't want that to come across as antagonistic, I'm more wondering how much importance is laid on belief, and how much on following the guidelines of the Commandments etc)
Scott Adams had a good analogy about religions (Yeah the Dilbert guy, I've read a bunch of his stuff, and think he's fairly smart).
Imagine a few bees on a church stained glass window, one says it's yellow inside, one says it's blue, and one says it is red, all having seen in, and firmly believing what they've seen, and knowing the other two must be wrong.
They're all looking at the same destination, just with a different viewpoint.
I think he also had one about a map.
ABCDE
FGHIJ
KLMNO
PQRST
VWXYZ
Now, you want to go from A to Z, so does a friend, you both ask different people, one says, oh you want to head to E and hang a right, its easy! Your friend talks to someone and they say, go on down to V and take a left, quickest way!
Now you've both been from A to Z, and next time you meet up, you're arguing, because you BOTH know the quickest route, you both know you're right, but the other guy...just...doesn't get it!
I think a lot of religion could be cleared up this way, just behave yourself and hope for a reward at the end, if that's your thing. I know that's a bit of a simplistic way to sum up every faith on the planet, tho.
MY personal theory is all the good done in the world goes into a 'pool' and makes the world better overall, and all the evil done goes into another and makes the world worse, so while what you do might not immediately benefit your life, by doing good and getting others to do good you're improving the lot of everyone.
PS Must go back to gamefaqs for a while and learn to post one liners.
EDIT: woo! 500 posts! *Ahem* sorry
Here's my question, do you believe a non believer who strived his whole life to be a good person and help others would end up in Hell? (I really don't want that to come across as antagonistic, I'm more wondering how much importance is laid on belief, and how much on following the guidelines of the Commandments etc)
Scott Adams had a good analogy about religions (Yeah the Dilbert guy, I've read a bunch of his stuff, and think he's fairly smart).
Imagine a few bees on a church stained glass window, one says it's yellow inside, one says it's blue, and one says it is red, all having seen in, and firmly believing what they've seen, and knowing the other two must be wrong.
They're all looking at the same destination, just with a different viewpoint.
I think he also had one about a map.
ABCDE
FGHIJ
KLMNO
PQRST
VWXYZ
Now, you want to go from A to Z, so does a friend, you both ask different people, one says, oh you want to head to E and hang a right, its easy! Your friend talks to someone and they say, go on down to V and take a left, quickest way!
Now you've both been from A to Z, and next time you meet up, you're arguing, because you BOTH know the quickest route, you both know you're right, but the other guy...just...doesn't get it!
I think a lot of religion could be cleared up this way, just behave yourself and hope for a reward at the end, if that's your thing. I know that's a bit of a simplistic way to sum up every faith on the planet, tho.
MY personal theory is all the good done in the world goes into a 'pool' and makes the world better overall, and all the evil done goes into another and makes the world worse, so while what you do might not immediately benefit your life, by doing good and getting others to do good you're improving the lot of everyone.
PS Must go back to gamefaqs for a while and learn to post one liners.
EDIT: woo! 500 posts! *Ahem* sorry
The New Testament entirely consists of books written by the Disciples of Christ, including Paul. Therefore The Old Testament entirely consists of works written before Jesus's reign.Shiuz91 said:
maximilian said:
hola, have you heard the analogy of the blind monks and the elephant? It's along the same line as the bees on a stained glass window as there are three blind monks each trying to find out what an elephant looks like. One feels the trunk and concludes that an elephant is like a snake. Another feels the leg and concludes that an elephant is like a tree trunk. And the last one feels the side of the elephant and says that the elephant is like a wall. That's just one variation on the story and the idea is the same, each monk is feeling a small part of something greater which is then used to describe all of the major religions.SenseOfTumour said:I'll state I'm open to a 'God' existing, and I have no problem at all if He helps you to live your life better, I personally choose otherwise but mean no disrespect.
Here's my question, do you believe a non believer who strived his whole life to be a good person and help others would end up in Hell? (I really don't want that to come across as antagonistic, I'm more wondering how much importance is laid on belief, and how much on following the guidelines of the Commandments etc)
Scott Adams had a good analogy about religions (Yeah the Dilbert guy, I've read a bunch of his stuff, and think he's fairly smart).
Imagine a few bees on a church stained glass window, one says it's yellow inside, one says it's blue, and one says it is red, all having seen in, and firmly believing what they've seen, and knowing the other two must be wrong.
They're all looking at the same destination, just with a different viewpoint.
I think he also had one about a map.
ABCDE
FGHIJ
KLMNO
PQRST
VWXYZ
Now, you want to go from A to Z, so does a friend, you both ask different people, one says, oh you want to head to E and hang a right, its easy! Your friend talks to someone and they say, go on down to V and take a left, quickest way!
Now you've both been from A to Z, and next time you meet up, you're arguing, because you BOTH know the quickest route, you both know you're right, but the other guy...just...doesn't get it!
I think a lot of religion could be cleared up this way, just behave yourself and hope for a reward at the end, if that's your thing. I know that's a bit of a simplistic way to sum up every faith on the planet, tho.
MY personal theory is all the good done in the world goes into a 'pool' and makes the world better overall, and all the evil done goes into another and makes the world worse, so while what you do might not immediately benefit your life, by doing good and getting others to do good you're improving the lot of everyone.
PS Must go back to gamefaqs for a while and learn to post one liners.
EDIT: woo! 500 posts! *Ahem* sorry
My issue with this way of describing religion and supporting religious plurality is that the person who subcribes to this view for the sake of being tolerant to other religions is in fact showing arrogance towards the individual 'blind monks' of the major religions as they're essentially claiming to be able to see the elephant for themselves. Looking at the tone of your post, that's obviously not what you're implying but as a Christian, and I feel I can speak for other religions as well in that there are fundamental differences in each of the religions to make them compatable with each other.
For example, let's look at what each of the 5 main world religions believe about Jesus. Islam believes Jesus (or Isa) to be a prophet of Allah but not God incarnate. Hinduism can't come to a conclusion on who they think Jesus is. Buddhists regard Jesus to be enlightened hence why he devoted his life to helping others. Judaism views Jesus as a false prophet and a false Messiah because they expected an earthly kingdom rather than a spiritual one. Christianity believes Jesus is the God incarnate who entered human history to take the sins of mankind upon himself so people could be reconciled with God. These religions aren't compatable on this issue not to mention many others.
Also another way to think of it is that Jesus is claiming to be the elephant so that alone should warrant serious consideration in light of the historicity behind him. Also, the 4 major world religions say that salvation (or enlightenment for buddhists) is achieved by being a good person and adhering to a moral code of purity. Christianity (protestant and catholicism to a degree) says that salvation is a matter of having true faith in Jesus to take away sins. And true faith produces works out of a willingness to serve rather than serving to earn something.
I'm sorry but that's such a vague question. Please refer to something specific rather than 'the bible is unreliable'.cleverlymadeup said:
Interesting I do agree hell is the complete absence of God, but in Luke it is stated :And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.timm123 said:
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame
There it literally seems to be talking of fire.
Rabbit trail, interesting passage here to as it talks about people not believing even if they saw someone from the dead. Luke 16:30
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Thanks for such a solid answer, I guess I'm being kinda dumb against the combined forces of religion to assign my own beliefs as 'wouldnt it be nice if everyone was nice' pretty much, but to me that pretty much covers it without getting into details about who did what when ,why and how.
I still believe, essentially, that religion as a whole is a good thing, and it provides a moral code to those who want to make use of it. (sorry if that sounds more offensive than it is meant to).
I've never believed religion is the problem, its always some religious people, who choose to reinterpret things to suit their own agendas. After all, doesn't the Bible say 'smite the unbelievers' and 'love thy neighbour'?
Surely there's a choice, and if you pick smiting over love for your fellow man, you're an ass, not a good person. IF God does exist, I wouldn't be surprised if he's slipped stuff like that in to catch out the sort of people who'd use it to have a go at others using his name.
I still believe, essentially, that religion as a whole is a good thing, and it provides a moral code to those who want to make use of it. (sorry if that sounds more offensive than it is meant to).
I've never believed religion is the problem, its always some religious people, who choose to reinterpret things to suit their own agendas. After all, doesn't the Bible say 'smite the unbelievers' and 'love thy neighbour'?
Surely there's a choice, and if you pick smiting over love for your fellow man, you're an ass, not a good person. IF God does exist, I wouldn't be surprised if he's slipped stuff like that in to catch out the sort of people who'd use it to have a go at others using his name.
Thank you that is why I have been trying to tell people in this thread they do not all believe in the same God. You broke it down quite well though.clint eastwood said:hola, have you heard the analogy of the blind monks and the elephant? It's along the same line as the bees on a stained glass window as there are three blind monks each trying to find out what an elephant looks like. One feels the trunk and concludes that an elephant is like a snake. Another feels the leg and concludes that an elephant is like a tree trunk. And the last one feels the side of the elephant and says that the elephant is like a wall. That's just one variation on the story and the idea is the same, each monk is feeling a small part of something greater which is then used to describe all of the major religions.SenseOfTumour said:I'll state I'm open to a 'God' existing, and I have no problem at all if He helps you to live your life better, I personally choose otherwise but mean no disrespect.
Here's my question, do you believe a non believer who strived his whole life to be a good person and help others would end up in Hell? (I really don't want that to come across as antagonistic, I'm more wondering how much importance is laid on belief, and how much on following the guidelines of the Commandments etc)
Scott Adams had a good analogy about religions (Yeah the Dilbert guy, I've read a bunch of his stuff, and think he's fairly smart).
Imagine a few bees on a church stained glass window, one says it's yellow inside, one says it's blue, and one says it is red, all having seen in, and firmly believing what they've seen, and knowing the other two must be wrong.
They're all looking at the same destination, just with a different viewpoint.
I think he also had one about a map.
ABCDE
FGHIJ
KLMNO
PQRST
VWXYZ
Now, you want to go from A to Z, so does a friend, you both ask different people, one says, oh you want to head to E and hang a right, its easy! Your friend talks to someone and they say, go on down to V and take a left, quickest way!
Now you've both been from A to Z, and next time you meet up, you're arguing, because you BOTH know the quickest route, you both know you're right, but the other guy...just...doesn't get it!
I think a lot of religion could be cleared up this way, just behave yourself and hope for a reward at the end, if that's your thing. I know that's a bit of a simplistic way to sum up every faith on the planet, tho.
MY personal theory is all the good done in the world goes into a 'pool' and makes the world better overall, and all the evil done goes into another and makes the world worse, so while what you do might not immediately benefit your life, by doing good and getting others to do good you're improving the lot of everyone.
PS Must go back to gamefaqs for a while and learn to post one liners.
EDIT: woo! 500 posts! *Ahem* sorry
My issue with this way of describing religion and supporting religious plurality is that the person who subcribes to this view for the sake of being tolerant to other religions is in fact showing arrogance towards the individual 'blind monks' of the major religions as they're essentially claiming to be able to see the elephant for themselves. Looking at the tone of your post, that's obviously not what you're implying but as a Christian, and I feel I can speak for other religions as well in that there are fundamental differences in each of the religions to make them compatable with each other.
For example, let's look at what each of the 5 main world religions believe about Jesus. Islam believes Jesus (or Isa) to be a prophet of Allah but not God incarnate. Hinduism can't come to a conclusion on who they think Jesus is. Buddhists regard Jesus to be enlightened hence why he devoted his life to helping others. Judaism views Jesus as a false prophet and a false Messiah because they expected an earthly kingdom rather than a spiritual one. Christianity believes Jesus is the God incarnate who entered human history to take the sins of mankind upon himself so people could be reconciled with God. These religions aren't compatable on this issue not to mention many others.
Also another way to think of it is that Jesus is claiming to be the elephant so that alone should warrant serious consideration in light of the historicity behind him. Also, the 4 major world religions say that salvation (or enlightenment for buddhists) is achieved by being a good person and adhering to a moral code of purity. Christianity (protestant and catholicism to a degree) says that salvation is a matter of having true faith in Jesus to take away sins. And true faith produces works out of a willingness to serve rather than serving to earn something.
I think what they meant to say was: How can you know what the true word of God is with so many translations out there?clint eastwood said:
Isn't the whole point not to know but to believe?
I know my desk is here, I don't have to believe in it for it to stay.
He believes in the version of the Bible that he has read and re-read.
I would have thought the only valid answer is 'There is no how I believe in this version, they are my beliefs'. Of course, he'll probably have a much clearer answer, as I am looking at everything here from a 'maybe' angle.
This is my problem with 'some' religious people tho, the ones constantly looking for proof, or wanting to have things taught in school as fact. Surely solid facts kill any need to believe? Isn't the lack of proof part of why belief is necessary, and the rewards offered in the next world to those who do?
I guess my ideal Christian is someone who takes the Bible as a guide book on 'these are bad things, these are good things' rather than taking every word as, well, gospel.
As a few comedians have stated , some religions may have forbade certain foods because they didnt have refridgerators back then, and didn't want their followers dying of food poisoning. I'm happiest around someone who believes, but tempers some of the less relevant stuff with some new world common sense. Note I'm not saying anyone's nuts, just that some of the rules might not be so relevant 2000 years down the line.
I know my desk is here, I don't have to believe in it for it to stay.
He believes in the version of the Bible that he has read and re-read.
I would have thought the only valid answer is 'There is no how I believe in this version, they are my beliefs'. Of course, he'll probably have a much clearer answer, as I am looking at everything here from a 'maybe' angle.
This is my problem with 'some' religious people tho, the ones constantly looking for proof, or wanting to have things taught in school as fact. Surely solid facts kill any need to believe? Isn't the lack of proof part of why belief is necessary, and the rewards offered in the next world to those who do?
I guess my ideal Christian is someone who takes the Bible as a guide book on 'these are bad things, these are good things' rather than taking every word as, well, gospel.
As a few comedians have stated , some religions may have forbade certain foods because they didnt have refridgerators back then, and didn't want their followers dying of food poisoning. I'm happiest around someone who believes, but tempers some of the less relevant stuff with some new world common sense. Note I'm not saying anyone's nuts, just that some of the rules might not be so relevant 2000 years down the line.
Jordan,
Based on what you've said about "chance" and "chaos" and "laws," you don't seem to be particular familiar with evolutionary biology or statistical mechanics. Or scientific terminology in general, to be honest.
Observable phenomena arise from a small set of fundamental interactions. Scientific "laws" are simply well-verified empirical observations. Most laws have some kind of a model behind them but they are, by definition, simpler and less robust than theories. Most of the scientific laws you learn in school are basically convenient simplifications. There's just a few fundamental interactions behind it all. We started out by observing higher-order phenomena and making up fancy-ass equations about them because, well, we operate on that kind of macroscopic level ourselves. The idea of a "universal enforcer" for "universal laws" is absurd.
-- Alex
Based on what you've said about "chance" and "chaos" and "laws," you don't seem to be particular familiar with evolutionary biology or statistical mechanics. Or scientific terminology in general, to be honest.
Observable phenomena arise from a small set of fundamental interactions. Scientific "laws" are simply well-verified empirical observations. Most laws have some kind of a model behind them but they are, by definition, simpler and less robust than theories. Most of the scientific laws you learn in school are basically convenient simplifications. There's just a few fundamental interactions behind it all. We started out by observing higher-order phenomena and making up fancy-ass equations about them because, well, we operate on that kind of macroscopic level ourselves. The idea of a "universal enforcer" for "universal laws" is absurd.
-- Alex
My questions are as follows
1. How do you feel about the "wrath of God"? Do you believe that he acts in mystical ways beyond the perception of mortal man? Or that he directly afflicts people with leprosy and other nasties for being naughty?
2. Do you believe in predestiny? As in, you're born to go to hell or Heaven.
3. I'm going to give you a few situations, and I'd request that you tell me how you feel a Christian would act in these situations.
A)You and two others have been captured by some bad people. They (for some reason) decide to let you and one other person go. They allow you to choose which one you wish to save. One is a small child, barely out of coddling clothes. The other is a revered religious leader stooped with age.
B) A man stands on an orange crate in the center of a city publicly denouncing your faith and insulting all that you hold dear. When you approach him and request that he stops, he spits in your face and goes on a tirade about how you're a blind fool for following the laws of God.
I realize this may require a bit of a long post, so if you just want to message me, that'd be great. I'm really curious to see how you would answer these
1. How do you feel about the "wrath of God"? Do you believe that he acts in mystical ways beyond the perception of mortal man? Or that he directly afflicts people with leprosy and other nasties for being naughty?
2. Do you believe in predestiny? As in, you're born to go to hell or Heaven.
3. I'm going to give you a few situations, and I'd request that you tell me how you feel a Christian would act in these situations.
A)You and two others have been captured by some bad people. They (for some reason) decide to let you and one other person go. They allow you to choose which one you wish to save. One is a small child, barely out of coddling clothes. The other is a revered religious leader stooped with age.
B) A man stands on an orange crate in the center of a city publicly denouncing your faith and insulting all that you hold dear. When you approach him and request that he stops, he spits in your face and goes on a tirade about how you're a blind fool for following the laws of God.
I realize this may require a bit of a long post, so if you just want to message me, that'd be great. I'm really curious to see how you would answer these
1. I believe God punishes people for sin. However, many of the problems are consequences of sin that God allows but does not directly cause.Flying-Emu said:My questions are as follows
1. How do you feel about the "wrath of God"? Do you believe that he acts in mystical ways beyond the perception of mortal man? Or that he directly afflicts people with leprosy and other nasties for being naughty?
2. Do you believe in predestiny? As in, you're born to go to hell or Heaven.
3. I'm going to give you a few situations, and I'd request that you tell me how you feel a Christian would act in these situations.
A)You and two others have been captured by some bad people. They (for some reason) decide to let you and one other person go. They allow you to choose which one you wish to save. One is a small child, barely out of coddling clothes. The other is a revered religious leader stooped with age.
B) A man stands on an orange crate in the center of a city publicly denouncing your faith and insulting all that you hold dear. When you approach him and request that he stops, he spits in your face and goes on a tirade about how you're a blind fool for following the laws of God.
I realize this may require a bit of a long post, so if you just want to message me, that'd be great. I'm really curious to see how you would answer these
2.I do not believe in predestination at least not in that sense I am not a Calvinist. I believe God desires everyone to go to heaven but those who reject him reject his offer.
3.A. I would probably choose the religious leader and he would probably agree to go if he was truly a man of God. The child has his whole life ahead of him.
B. I would probably get a bit angry but try to explain everything to him rationally but sometimes some people just won't listen no matter what.
Sorry friend, but this is the theological equivalent of Pi = 3SenseOfTumour said:
It may seem all simple and neat, but in the end it simply fails to explain the world around it. If behaving oneself is all it really takes, then Jesus' sacrifice would be meaningless, ergo Christianity would be meaningless.
I'm not using these terms with any specific scientific intention - by laws, I simply mean the universe works in a particular framework; with realities and boundaries. The thing is I am a philosophy student not a science student as I guessed you've picked up.Alex_P said:
Why? You gave no premise to that conclusion. Making it a non-argument.Alex_P said:
Come on - someone please, take a serious shot at theism.
Well, here's one for the theologian... Why do christians and the vatican deem it acceptible to pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe?
For a specific example, homosexuality is an abomination under christian doctrine, yet the bible also states in the passage directly above that one(as I pointed out in another thread) that a person with defective sight is just as unclean (i see a lot of priests, cardinals, bishops etc wearing glasses) and that it is perfectly acceptable for me to sell my daughters into slavery.
I guess I have to add a second question: How exactly can such hypocrisy be accepted? Surely you either have to believe what your holy book says, or you're more part of that faith than a garbage collector job is the same as a fortune 500 CEO?
[Edit: I ask because a good friend of mine came out to us last week, and he's having a crisis of faith. I was kicked out of catholicism some years ago, so my knowledge has grown a little dusty. My personal opinions are that if there is a god, he/she doesn't care who you love as long as its someone, but that's not entirely related.]
For a specific example, homosexuality is an abomination under christian doctrine, yet the bible also states in the passage directly above that one(as I pointed out in another thread) that a person with defective sight is just as unclean (i see a lot of priests, cardinals, bishops etc wearing glasses) and that it is perfectly acceptable for me to sell my daughters into slavery.
I guess I have to add a second question: How exactly can such hypocrisy be accepted? Surely you either have to believe what your holy book says, or you're more part of that faith than a garbage collector job is the same as a fortune 500 CEO?
[Edit: I ask because a good friend of mine came out to us last week, and he's having a crisis of faith. I was kicked out of catholicism some years ago, so my knowledge has grown a little dusty. My personal opinions are that if there is a god, he/she doesn't care who you love as long as its someone, but that's not entirely related.]
God can make what he wants to happen , happenjordan. said:
& he can use & shape the person he chooses to accomplish his will
humans are not predestined
you are not born to fail - or succeed
God has the right to lay tests on individuals - conversly we human beings dont have the right to put God to the test
humans dont know their position in their creators eyes , intelligence & rationality dont lead people to the correct understanding of what kind of position humanity is in
God had the bible written so we could know
maximilian , answering this will help you to realise something about our creatorG_Wright said:
remember , Adam earned the judgement of death by disobeying
so maximilian , think to yourself : what would have happened to Adam if he didnt break Gods command