Jump to content

Which Religion is Right?


Recommended Posts

That's because most of the time they have different trends.

 

I think we should separate them' date=' is my point. [/quote']

 

I would agree there are different things happening in different areas of Christianity, but it is useful and interesting to define Christianity loosely in terms of a group that shares certain characteristics. History is full of imperfect trends and loosely defined groups. The Great Awakening was a religious trend in American. By no means does that mean that all of religion was affected or even that all of Christianity in America. It's merely a noticeable trend in large enough group of similar organizations that is both useful and interesting.

 

History isn't an exact science. When we speak of American history in the Revolutionary period, things other than revolution were going on. Not everyone was either a loyalist or a patriot, but these definitions and groups are nonetheless useful interpretations, if only approximations of the real thing.

 

I don't quite know what you mean by that. First off, Jews never had holy men (prophets are not holy, they're righteous, there's a huge huge difference in faith about that).

 

I wasn't very clear. We don't often refer to Israel in the OT as "Jews," but assuming that the Jews (as they claim, which is quite supported in secular history) are descendants culturally and religiously from the people of Israel in the OT (the Old Testament that is, with Moses and Isaiah and those guys) then they in face did have "Holy Men." Whether or not you want to call them that, I don't mind, but the leaders in the OT talked to God, especially the patriarchs. Vision was not uncommon, my favorite being Isaiah's vision of God. After the OT ended there were no more men who talked to God (with exceptions, but the ruling class did not). If fact the Jews have a terrible history of teaching the words of old prophets while ignoring or killing the current prophets (I'd like to cite the entire Bible here). They preferred the Hellenistic (or Greek) scholar approach, which is what they turned into by the time of the NT. (assume "with exceptions" -- oxygen does always have a 2- oxidation state, Ribosomes don't always translate proteins right, some white people can dance! etc etc)

 

Much can be said about the influence (ahem, forceful influence) of Christianity in most of those places, including south America. If that's the reason, then no wonder they are subdued -- christian missionaries, with soldiers and guns, subdued them.

 

However terrible and unrighteous that was, it's not so much the case anymore. In the anglo world secularism is a big part of the culture, I'm not attacking it I'm merely calling it how I see it. By subdued I meant they commonly view their religion with less mysticism and it affects their every day lives less. This is a generalization of course.

 

But that's true for the USA, while not so much to many parts of Europe. Is that still a trend?

 

If it is true in the US, as you say, then it's still a trend. Trends can be limited to geographical locations.

 

Also, how does that answer the "Which relgion is right" question?

 

I'm merely pointed out that many attempt to answer the question my mixing their culture with the religious heritage.

 

I'm a bit lost with regards to your point.

 

Of course this is a generalization. It's impossible to talk about a group of people with out generalizing, it's an approximation. When you open your history text book and it talks about Nazi Germany, it's a generalization. Not everyone in Germany was a Nazi, it's ridiculous to think of it that way. To say that Africa has been negatively affected by colonial powers is generalization, it's an approximation that is useful and so on.

Edited by -Demosthenes-
fixed quote
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I personally don't believe in God but I do understand that religion is important to some because it's the only source of hope they have. So, which religion is right? Any one that doesn't kill people.

You know, I think one of the problems I have with the past few posts is that "Modern Christianity" is an extreme generalization. It seems to me that there's an attempt to explain how "Modern Christian

That's because most of the time they have different trends.   I think we should separate them, is my point.   I don't quite know what you mean by that. First off, Jews never had holy men (prophe

This thread asks the question "Which Religion is Right". How can you expect to relate to this question while mishmashing groups with mutually-exclusive beliefs? Mormons believe utterly DIFFERENT things than Catholics and Evangelicals, who believe different things than Orthodox. In fact, many of those groups treat the others as if they aren't at all Christians, because they don't follow their notions of what christians should be.

 

You can't talk about the trends that affect the *BELIEFS* of those groups as if they're one when they're completely separate.

 

~moo


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

(btw, I am not ignoring your points, I am at work and want to take the time to answer them properly.. I just posted the general contention I have about the OP and the points raised, and will answer your more specific points a bit later)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry you think it's stupid. I find it very interesting that your approach to Hinduism is superseded by science. Many people reverse that order.

 

If it's not too stupid, I'd like to ask you why you think all religions are right. Since they all have varying elements, what is it that could possibly make them *all* right? Is it a specific element they all share or are they all right from an individual's perspective, or is it because of something different?

 

as much knowledge i have christianity teaches people to love everyone as your brother & sister, charity. islam teaches hospitality even in extreme cases. hinduism teaches sacrifice. all basically have same meaning. if u are not eager to sacrifice neither u can share your love nor u can show hospitality properly. all requires selflessness. hence all are right. as far as buddhism is concerned it suggests u to leave family for salvation. i dont say its impossible to attain salvation at home but as long as u are at home u are bound to be attached to your family, habits & work. unless you lose your sacrifice all your attachments (whether at home or at forest) u cannot attain true knowledge. if u are strong enough to give up your attachments even at home then nobody can stop u from attaining the Truth. God bless u brother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here, please. All the religions you pointed out have lovely things in their teachings along with absolutely horrid things in their teachings. They are all subject to their time (1000+ and 2000+ years ago) where slavery was accepted, violence within tribes was a matter of life, and "tough love" in the form of physical violence was just dandy when it came to children.

 

If anyone chooses to take these teachings and reinterpret them so that they fit our current time, that is their choice, and it is absolutely their right. If after such reinterpretation the conclusion is leaning towards the more beautiful parts, then all my respect to ya'. But let's not be hypocritical here.

 

The fact a modern religious person might choose to follow the good-teachings of a religion and shove aside the bad-teaching of the religion does not mean the religion itself is preaching goodness and love and harmony.

 

Islam, Judaism and Christianity preach some love and harmony, and a lot of war and vengeance. If you choose to follow this in modern time or if you choose to reinterpret it in light of modern morality, that's your right. These teachings are still there, and in all these religions there are streams who choose to interpret their teaching literally and *keep* those warlike violent immoral teachings.

 

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is very natural that Christianity should be influenced by the culture in which it is being worshipped. This is even true in the bible - the letters to the gentile churches are very different in character to the letters to the Jewish churches. It is unreasonable to think that the culture we live in does not effect the way we worship God, and that doesn't make any one way of worshipping better than any other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it is very natural that Christianity should be influenced by the culture in which it is being worshipped. This is even true in the bible - the letters to the gentile churches are very different in character to the letters to the Jewish churches. It is unreasonable to think that the culture we live in does not effect the way we worship God, and that doesn't make any one way of worshipping better than any other.

I think it's very natural that cultures in general are affected by the cultures they mingled with, and religion isn't any different. My only point was that in order to analyze what trends and influences a religion was under, you have to really look at its history, and in the case of Christianity, the different denominations have different histories, and often different cultural aspects that affected them.

 

Grouping it all under one name won't really help seeing what affected the religion, it will just make the judgment skewed by having the person(s) analyzing fall into confirmation bias.

 

By the way,

This is even true in the bible - the letters to the gentile churches are very different in character to the letters to the Jewish churches.

<nitpick>You mean Synagogues? :P</nitpick>

 

But other than that, what do you mean the 'letters to the gentile churches' in the bible? What letters?

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way,

 

<nitpick>You mean Synagogues? :P</nitpick>

 

But other than that, what do you mean the 'letters to the gentile churches' in the bible? What letters?

 

~moo

 

Much of the New Testament takes the form of letters between early Christian churches, mostly from St. Paul. By "Jewish churches" I assume he means Christian churches made up of Hebrews/Israelities.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But other than that, what do you mean the 'letters to the gentile churches' in the bible? What letters?

The epistles in the New Testament. 1 and 2 Corinthians are the ones that spring to my mind first, but there are many others.

 

You really ought to read the New Testament sometime, ideally in a decent study Bible so you get the context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread asks the question "Which Religion is Right". How can you expect to relate to this question while mishmashing groups with mutually-exclusive beliefs? Mormons believe utterly DIFFERENT things than Catholics and Evangelicals' date=' who believe different things than Orthodox. In fact, many of those groups treat the others as if they aren't at all Christians, because they don't follow their notions of what christians should be.

 

You can't talk about the trends that affect the *BELIEFS* of those groups as if they're one when they're completely separate.

 

~moo[/quote']

 

I got to agree with you, and I appreciate the way you look at it, but it's just no fun. You can't really say it's warm outside, because not all the molecules in the air actually have the same amount of energy. You can't say Americans are getting fatter because not all of them are, just a significant number. I can appreciate that, but at the same time -- that's not how I look at the world. I see generalizations. The house I live in is messy, not every surface in the house is messed up, but I generalize. My shoes are brown, not really there's gray and green too, I generalize.

 

If you don't you are really restricted on what you can say. Grass is no longer green (some is brown), the sky is no longer blue (sometimes it's gray, black, etc), etc etc.

 

Islam, Judaism and Christianity preach some love and harmony, and a lot of war and vengeance. If you choose to follow this in modern time or if you choose to reinterpret it in light of modern morality, that's your right. These teachings are still there, and in all these religions there are streams who choose to interpret their teaching literally and *keep* those warlike violent immoral teachings.

 

I think that at least as often as not these were and are rationalizations and lines of reasoning built on top of religion. A lot of religious violence in Europe in the Middle ages was to control religious lands, in the name of a religion based off of the Bible. Now Jesus never says to take control of Jerusalem in the Bible, but if you put together some OT stuff you can come up with a rationalization. Even in Islam the Qur'an says something like "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith." (Surah 2:256)

 

Religions today are very usually based very loosely on scripture, their mostly ideas from men. The Bible says nothing about how to baptize, nothing about Popes, bishops, what we should do on Sunday, how to do the sacrament (or communion), or any of those things. So why not go a step further and rationalize some other thing you want to do to :D

 

But other than that' date=' what do you mean the 'letters to the gentile churches' in the bible? What letters?

[/quote']

 

Most of the Bible isn't actually the story about Jesus, contained in the Gospels. Most are "epistles" or letters to different peoples, mostly from Paul. Especially Corinthians (who are mostly Greek converts) Paul rips into them for leaning unto "wisdom" instead of faith. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" (1:22)

 

He continues in the next chapter "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (2:11-12) The New Testament Church was all about revelation straight from Deity, which is usually no longer the case.

 

In fact sometimes I think Corinthians was written to the United States :P In chapter one where Paul chastises them for calling themselves after different religious teachers ("I am of Cephas" or follower of Cephas) when they should be calling themselves after Christ -- makes me think of all the denominations here in the States named after some religious figure :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is unreasonable to think that the culture we live in does not effect the way we worship God, and that doesn't make any one way of worshipping better than any other.

 

I don't understand this. Anything goes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I got to agree with you, and I appreciate the way you look at it, but it's just no fun.

But it's more accurate ;)

 

You can't really say it's warm outside, because not all the molecules in the air actually have the same amount of energy.

Bad analogy. What I'm saying is that you can't say that all over the world it's wet when it's only raining in 2 places.

 

You can't say Americans are getting fatter because not all of them are, just a significant number.

No, you can say that in general, Americans are getting fatter, but then you can't say that as a result we should devise a rule stating all Americans are to be put on a diet. Generalizations are useful, up to a point, and only when we know we're generalizing.

 

So this started when a generalization was made about the trend that led Christianity be affected by atheism. However, clearly, Christianity isn't affected much by atheism if you look at homosexuality, abortion, marriage and evolution studies.

 

I can appreciate that, but at the same time -- that's not how I look at the world. I see generalizations. The house I live in is messy, not every surface in the house is messed up, but I generalize. My shoes are brown, not really there's gray and green too, I generalize.

Yes, generalizations can be very useful, specially when you analyze history. You talk about nations (which is a generalization) and populations (another generaliations) and cultures (same) and religions, etc etc etc. You generalize, but you do it to make a point, and you do it *while aware* that you're generalizing.

 

In light of this, we can make some bit-more-useful generalizations:

 

Evangelicals seem to be moving AWAY from the 'effects' of atheism, publicly and privately.

 

Catholics seem to move along with atheism as the pope announced support to evolution and there are some lighter (not so "anti" spirited) talks about some aspects of homosexuality.

 

However, the above two statements are, in themselves, generalizations. Not all evangelicals fit the first statement and not all Catholics fit the second one, but the trend is a bit more visible in each, so the generalization is somewhat helpful.

 

But when you generalize Christianity in general, as a whole, when it has faiths that *disagree* with one another, you lose the point you're trying to make.

 

If you don't you are really restricted on what you can say. Grass is no longer green (some is brown), the sky is no longer blue (sometimes it's gray, black, etc), etc etc.

You're taking it a bit too far, towards the ridicule even (it's called 'Reductio ad absurdum'), but that's not what I was saying.

 

I'm not saying that you shouldn't use generalizations at all. I'm saying the one you're using generalizes too many distinct groups with distinct historical paths and distinct beliefs. You can't raelly look at the general trends in a belief system of several groups that have DIFFERENT belief systems.

 

You can generalize things that are similar to check for similar aspects. For instance, if I want to check weights of humans in some area, I can group humans in that area. Because I test for an attribute that they all have. I can say, then, that Americans get fatter.

 

If I want to be a bit more useful, though, and see why that happens, I will group these by smaller distinctions. Say, by gender. I will then say that American men are fatter than American women (I just invented this for the sake of the example, don't treat it as a fact). It's still generalizations, but now it's for a different purpose.

 

Then, I can be even more specific and measure by ages, genders and more specific locations. So while it's true that newspapers would usually choose to present these analyses with the generalized, bombastic caption of "AMERICANS ARE---", the serious studies usually group them by more useful groups that can actually provide means for drawing conclusions and trends. You will be hard pressed to find a study about obesity that did *not* separate its participants at the very least by gender.

 

 

I think that at least as often as not these were and are rationalizations and lines of reasoning built on top of religion. A lot of religious violence in Europe in the Middle ages was to control religious lands, in the name of a religion based off of the Bible. Now Jesus never says to take control of Jerusalem in the Bible, but if you put together some OT stuff you can come up with a rationalization. Even in Islam the Qur'an says something like "There shall be no coercion in matters of faith." (Surah 2:256)

Again. All religious texts from the three monotheistic judeo-christian-islamic religions have both awesome-nice-nifty-moral-cutsey things in them as well as horrific-immoral-genocidal-xenocidal-violent things in them. If you want to talk about what the bible/quran/OT/NT says, you shouldn't nitpick the good stuff and leave otu the bad stuff.

 

 

Jesus said to love thy neighbor, but he also said "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Theologians can choose to excuse these statements,but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and should be ignored. It's also not the only statement of that sort in the NT.

 

Religions today are very usually based very loosely on scripture, their mostly ideas from men. The Bible says nothing about how to baptize, nothing about Popes, bishops, what we should do on Sunday, how to do the sacrament (or communion), or any of those things. So why not go a step further and rationalize some other thing you want to do to :D

Sure, whatever works for you.

 

The problem only starts when these rationalizations and explanations come on the expense of others. Like gay marriage. Liek abortions. Like death penalty. You may agree or disagree with each and every one of them, but if the reasons are religious, then you should expect that others rationalize same religion differently and find different meanings to agree on, or disagree on. That's how religious streams are formed.

 

 

Most of the Bible isn't actually the story about Jesus, contained in the Gospels. Most are "epistles" or letters to different peoples, mostly from Paul. Especially Corinthians (who are mostly Greek converts) Paul rips into them for leaning unto "wisdom" instead of faith. "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom" (1:22)

 

He continues in the next chapter "But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." (2:11-12) The New Testament Church was all about revelation straight from Deity, which is usually no longer the case.

 

In fact sometimes I think Corinthians was written to the United States :P In chapter one where Paul chastises them for calling themselves after different religious teachers ("I am of Cephas" or follower of Cephas) when they should be calling themselves after Christ -- makes me think of all the denominations here in the States named after some religious figure :P

Hm. That's interesting. I spent 12 years studying the OT in hebrew/aramaic, but only got into the NT recently, and not too deeply. I'm going to have to find more time to read it and about it.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites
The title is a bit misleading, perhaps to draw some more folks in. What I'm looking for is more along the lines of how you judge which religion has the right answer for your spiritual questions. Do you just believe the religion you were raised in is the right one? Is the religion with the most followers the right one? Do you study as many as you can and choose the one that represents your beliefs best? Do you think there is something basic to all of them that is generally correct and the rest is just scenery? Or do you have another reason why your faith is in the right place?

 

I was raised as a fundamentalist YEC Christian(Baptist) and I was pretty hardcore into it until I came here. Unfortunately, once the YEC card tumbles, that type of Christianity kinda just collapses in many cases. After years of reading material from many perspectives, I am currently an Ignostic Agnostic Weak Atheist.

 

I suppose I'm "culturally Christian" too, in that I string up lights, drag a pine tree inside, exchange gifts, and have a big family party on December 25th every year.

 

I thought that made you culturally pagan. :P

 

Science provides me with enough answers that I don't feel I need to turn to religion for additional explanatory power. The things science regards as unknowable are the kinds of things for which I don't believe religion offers satisfactory explanations either.

 

And, more importantly imo, science is a way to find out what is not yet known as well as a way to check the accuracy of the information.

 

Interestingly enough, that's what believers are saying about Islam too. And Judaism too. And Hinduism. And other types of Christianity. Etc. Etc. Etc.

 

~moo

That's actually a good point.

 

Christianity begin in Israel, spread and eventually became the official religion of Rome. Rome, at first was a persecutor of Christianity, killing them by the thousands, for sport. Rather than nip Christianity in the bud, this tactic caused the religion to spread, due to courage in the face of constant adversity. Centuries later, a Roman emperor was impressed by how hard the Christian soldiers fought.

 

The emperor, as a reward for their valor finally legalized their religion, which eventually became the state religion. This merger created a new blend of secular and religion, which the world had never seen. The Holy Roman Empire, helped to transform backwoods barbarians into some of the most influential cultures of the future centuries, such as England, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Germany, etc. Between these descendants of the Holy Roman Empire, they ruled the world for centuries in Roman tradition.

 

Toward the end of the middle ages, the merger that had been the Holy Roman Empire began to split back into Rome (secular) and Christianity (religion) separating the state more from the church. Rome or the secular, once again began to persecute the Christians, led by the new godless religion that worship electronic idols. History is sort of repeating itself. Eventually there will be another merger.

Christianity? As in one? You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the proto-orthodox church was just ONE of many versions of Christianity competing for the title of Truth.

 

I think this is super interesting. Modern Christianity is based of the Bible, albeit loosely.
I'm actually more interested in ancient Christianities. I like the Ebionites, personally.

 

Judaism's very God, Jehovah/Jesus (according to the NT of course).
SOME of the NT, that is.

 

Then Christianity supplanted Judaism (or rather fulfilled according to Jesus)
You might want to re-read Matthew, because He explicitly states when He would fulfill the Law; and it hasn't happened yet.

 

You really ought to read the New Testament sometime, ideally in a decent study Bible so you get the context.

 

Bible studies are notorious for ignoring context. If you want context, you should study the texts from a historical-critical perspective rather than treating the texts as a single text with one viewpoint.

 

In chapter one where Paul chastises them for calling themselves after different religious teachers ("I am of Cephas" or follower of Cephas) when they should be calling themselves after Christ

 

Why would they call themselves after Christ when they disagree with what He taught. Paul is clearly at odds with Peter(he even talks about a confrontation with him) about whether the Law must be obeyed. Peter(the one whom Jesus said would be the rock upon which the Church is built) and Jesus said that the Law was to be explicitly followed, but Paul disagreed. In cases such as this, it is logical to name your group after the teacher with which you agree.

Edited by ydoaPs
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bad analogy. What I'm saying is that you can't say that all over the world it's wet when it's only raining in 2 places.

 

So all we disagree is how much it's raining, and all I know is that I've seen it rain a lot. If you disagree I'm totally cool with that, maybe I'm wrong.

 

If you want to talk about what the bible/quran/OT/NT says, you shouldn't nitpick the good stuff and leave otu the bad stuff.

 

It's actually a little more complicated than that. I actually know virtually nothing about the Quran, having only read parts here and there, but I've read the Bible (King James Bible) at least once (mostly more than that, but books like Leviticus only once :P). In the Bible there are a lot of seemingly contradicting ideas, and a lot of outright contradicting ones :D But mostly when contrasting different parts of the Bible. Most striking is the difference in the OT and NT, which are so drastically different. Even further the five books of Moses are pretty different from the writings, which sound almost Christian (like Psalms), which are very different form the prophets. And even in the NT the Epistles are different from the Gospels, and Acts has a different tone from either of them with different emphases.

 

So, although it's true there are is a lot of contradiction in the Bible, individual books and even small groupings of books are surprisingly uniform.

 

The problem only starts when these rationalizations and explanations come on the expense of others. Like gay marriage. Liek abortions. Like death penalty. You may agree or disagree with each and every one of them, but if the reasons are religious, then you should expect that others rationalize same religion differently and find different meanings to agree on, or disagree on. That's how religious streams are formed.

 

So we both see the same problem that happens with religion is rationalized.

 

You might want to re-read Matthew, because He explicitly states when He would fulfill the Law; and it hasn't happened yet.

 

The common belief being that it was with His death and resurrection, which is what I ascribe to.

 

Bible studies are notorious for ignoring context. If you want context, you should study the texts from a historical-critical perspective rather than treating the texts as a single text with one viewpoint.

 

Truer words have never been spoken. I think Biblical studies are the studies that most often ignore context.

 

Why would they call themselves after Christ when they disagree with what He taught. Paul is clearly at odds with Peter(he even talks about a confrontation with him) about whether the Law must be obeyed. Peter(the one whom Jesus said would be the rock upon which the Church is built) and Jesus said that the Law was to be explicitly followed, but Paul disagreed. In cases such as this, it is logical to name your group after the teacher with which you agree.

 

Actually Paul doesn't specifically mention Peter (Cephas) it acutally appears in verse 12 in a list of names. Paul says "...every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" in verse 12 of the KJV. He actually includes himself in the list. And says two verses before that "there be no divisions among you." He says they shouldn't be divided following different teachers. That actually what he's preaching against, even people saying they follow Paul who wrote the letter are screing it up and misunderstanding the gospel. He actually says, sorrowing that they are doing this: "I thank God I baptized none of you." Which are strong words, even for Paul.

 

This is a very familiar idea in epistle written to the Gentiles, and even general epistles. Renouncing division is huge, emphasizing that the religion that people make up is wrong, and the only real answers come straight from deity, not reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So all we disagree is how much it's raining, and all I know is that I've seen it rain a lot. If you disagree I'm totally cool with that, maybe I'm wrong.

I guess so. My disagreement wasn't on the fact there was a generalization, it was on how broad the generalization was compared to the conclusion that was drawn.

 

It's actually a little more complicated than that. I actually know virtually nothing about the Quran, having only read parts here and there, but I've read the Bible (King James Bible) at least once (mostly more than that, but books like Leviticus only once :P). In the Bible there are a lot of seemingly contradicting ideas, and a lot of outright contradicting ones :D But mostly when contrasting different parts of the Bible. Most striking is the difference in the OT and NT, which are so drastically different. Even further the five books of Moses are pretty different from the writings, which sound almost Christian (like Psalms), which are very different form the prophets. And even in the NT the Epistles are different from the Gospels, and Acts has a different tone from either of them with different emphases.

 

So, although it's true there are is a lot of contradiction in the Bible, individual books and even small groupings of books are surprisingly uniform.

Not all of them (Genesis is a good example; Chapter 1, 2 and 3 each tell a completely different story of creation, quite obviously not written by the same author). But some of them, yes, that's probably because some were evenetually put down on paper by the same author. So the contradictions are due to different authors, and hence different perspectives.

 

And, by the way, remember that translations (specially the KJV) are, in themselves, interpretations. So they tend to be SLIGHTLY BIT *LESS* contradictory than the original, because the people who translated nitpicked what could be 'vague' meaning and made it a more suitable strict word.

 

It's worse in the original ;)

 

 

So we both see the same problem that happens with religion is rationalized.

I don't understand what you say here. You mean the problem is that religions is rationalized, or you mean problems arise WHEN religion is rationalized?

 

The common belief being that it was with His death and resurrection, which is what I ascribe to.

Yep that's a rationalization, isn't it? ;)

 

Truer words have never been spoken. I think Biblical studies are the studies that most often ignore context.

Depends WHICH! :) I studied the bible for 12 years in a secular context. While we did absolutely talk about the religious implications, we also analyzed it in terms of the text, the references to the time, the literary value, etc. Those are actually EXTREMELY interesting, and they don't ignore context.

 

I recommend anyone and everyone to do that. The biblical stories are very interesting once you give up trying to manipulate your brain into fitting them to reality literally.

 

~moo

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand what you say here. You mean the problem is that religions is rationalized, or you mean problems arise WHEN religion is rationalized?

 

That problems arise when religion is rationalized. You can come with a rationalization for any belief, be it good or bad, and believe in it. So coming from the point of view that there is a true religion I think that you could only get it straight from God (instead of making it up out of what "makes sense"). Coming from the point of view that there isn't a true religion, I think their all wrong.

 

Yep that's a rationalization, isn't it?

 

If I believed it because I thought it made sense.

 

Depends WHICH! :)

 

You're right of course. I think there's a lot of amateur study of the Bible, which I think is good, my study of the Bible is amateur, which lends a little to the fact that a lot of Bible "research" is shotty. I think a bigger thing is that a lot is motivated by things other than scholarship. Like the pastor who has his ministerial license, has started a church, and is making money will interpret scripture to mean whatever will make him right. Of course this isn't always the case, and I don't think usually the case, but you see my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

In the question that the thread poses, if we were to define that as a theist-based religious belief-system, I'd then argue that none of them are right (in the usual manner of using this word 'right' to represent empirically tested and accurately known to be true, or known to be untrue events and claims).

 

I find what I reason to be some good points, on this thread, and some weaker points. We of course know, that our Bible of today, be that the one used by Protestantism at large, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or Judaism (among a few others) is not an actual single volumed book, but rather a collection of documentations of a few formats. As mentioned, reading in context is important, but that context is not to be limited to the linguistic format alone, but to historical, cultural aspects which bore on the immediate exemplar, or scribal hands afterwards.

 

These works form a data base, if you will, and are largely testable in that regards. Therefore, each data base from which and upon which (to the larger material degree) any theist-based religious belief-system exists, will only prove as right (see above) as the claims and statements of the data base. I argue that they are all wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

if u forget the essence and practise the customs then no religion is right all are wrong. all can be questioned. shall i put examples? (if no one's feelings are hurt.).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The common belief being that it was with His death and resurrection, which is what I ascribe to.

Unfortunately for those who hold that position, Jesus explicitly said WHEN He'd fulfill all-the second coming. Even just thinking about it for a minute shows that it couldn't have been the death and resurrection; If all were fulfilled, there'd be no second coming.

 

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, YE SHALL IN NO CASE enter into the kingdom of heaven."-Matthew 5:17-20

 

 

Actually Paul doesn't specifically mention Peter (Cephas) it acutally appears in verse 12 in a list of names. Paul says "...every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" in verse 12 of the KJV. He actually includes himself in the list. And says two verses before that "there be no divisions among you." He says they shouldn't be divided following different teachers. That actually what he's preaching against, even people saying they follow Paul who wrote the letter are screing it up and misunderstanding the gospel. He actually says, sorrowing that they are doing this: "I thank God I baptized none of you." Which are strong words, even for Paul.
I was actually talking about the confrontation in Antioch described in Galations 2(oddly enough, he doesn't describe the outcome, so many scholars think Peter won the debate). Clement also describes conflicts between Peter and Paul. Peter the Rock upon which the Church was meant to be built(who was actually there to hear Jesus's teachings) vs Paul the Pharasee(whose only contact with Jesus was through a vision and who doesn't quote Jesus to support his opinions). When Paul disagrees with Jesus(and, in this case, Peter) who do we believe? That's why it was helpful.

 

Many different groups all claimed apostolic succession.

Edited by ydoaPs
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.