# Religious Discussion



## DogOfWar (20 Jun 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> Jezzus where do you live....it's already been happening for years now. "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" on cards. Many big stores don't even mention Christmas, Schools hold Christmas events without mentioning the religious side of it.
> 
> As for the religious provission, it will only last to the first court challenge. If you don't believe me look at the history, religious schools taken to court, Halls and camp grounds taken to court on a regular basis, How many of those court challenges were in favor of the Groups....JP's in I believe Manitoba and Sask have already been fired or forced to resign because of their religious beliefs.
> 
> ...



Quite frankly as a Christian I dont believe that I worship the same God as Muslims, and other religions. But Im not trying to get a monopoly on the word "God" What rights of yours are being intruded upon by them calling it marriage? Does a part of you feel better when you call it a union? Its the same darn things. Lets get passed semantics. Right,wrong or other wise- God is going to see it the same way(right or wrong-for him to decide) and the government is going to see it the same way.....

Is this an issue close to your heart? You use the Lords name in vane in the first line of your post. Me thinks you should do some cleaning in your own yard.......


----------



## Trinity (22 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> Quite frankly as a Christian I dont believe that I worship the same God as Muslims, and other religions.



I'm going to hijack my own thread for a second...

um... lets see...  Jews, Christians and Muslims all share parts or all of the 'Torah'
and other Jewish scriptures.  We all have the same past and heritage.  We all
worship the God of Moses.....

hrm...  Biblical scholars would disagree and so do I.

I'm not forcing you to believe, but I would suggest you rethink
your position and evaluate why.  If your facts are weak, inconsistant
or non existant.. then don't stick to it.  Change is not a bad thing.
It means your growing up.


----------



## neuromancer (22 Jun 2005)

Sorry for contributing to a jacked-thread, but Trinity started it.

I'm confused Trin, are you saying that Christians do worship the same 
god as Muslims and Jews, or that we don't worship the same god.

Its my personal view that any particular god in 
question has a specific way in which it approves of being worshiped.
And so people claiming to worship a particular god might in fact be 
worshiping something else, or perhaps just nothing at all through 
improper religious practise.

Just my opinion though. But if we look at "Christianity" for example, 
there has to be at least one thousands various forms of worship for that 
one religion alone. Now if we think there is only one Christ as all of them
claim then I find it irrational that all of them could be right, especially
when many of the beliefs and customs are mutually exclusive.

However I should admit, I'm not a religious person, but
I do enjoy the occasional religious discussion.

I'm NOT trying to say that there is only ONE TRUE RELIGEON, only 
that that it doesn't seem rational to me that so many religions all
be true.

However if we stop thinking like Newtonian and more like Quantum Physicists
then true and false go flying out the window. So who knows? Bleh.
What was my point again?? On Nevermind.  

Edit: spelling.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

I'm not trying to get this too far off topic, and trinity is the expert, but I thought I'd throw my $0.02 in....



			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> I'm confused Trin, are you saying that Christians do worship the same
> god as Muslims and Jews, or that we don't worship the same god.



Yes. The Muslim Allah, Jewish God/Yahweh, and the Christian God are the same 'being'. In fact, the Jewish Torah (Judaisms sacred book) are the 5 books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) found in the Christian Bible. Islam's Allah is also this same 'being'. Of course, you can't have 'Christianity' without 'Christ', and that is where Judaism and Islam diverts from Christianity. IIRC, Muslims believe Christ was a prophet, and Jews believe he was a false messiah.



			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> Just my opinion though. But if we look at "Christianity" for example,
> there has to be at least one thousands various forms of worship for that
> one religion alone. Now if we think there is only one Christ as all of them
> claim then I find it irrational that all of them could be right, especially
> when many of the beliefs and customs are mutually exclusive.



But all (OK most) Christian denominations all believe in the divinity of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, & Holy Ghost). They differ in interpretation of the Bible, and how the 'Church' should be run. Anglicans for instance broke from Rome mainly over politics (meddling of the Pope in England's affairs) and over Henry VIII's wish (and Rome's refusal) to get a divorce. Poof, new denomination. They still worship the same God, but have an Archbishop (of Canterbury) rather than a Pope. 



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Truly awful stuff- marriage was predominately a contractual financial relationship that was as politicized then as it is now.



well, it's nice to see we've come a long way, huh? We will probably have conflict over some aspect of marriage as long as it forms such a critical role in Canadian society. It's just too important not to argue about, I guess.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm going to hijack my own thread for a second...
> 
> um... lets see...   Jews, Christians and Muslims all share parts or all of the 'Torah'
> and other Jewish scriptures.   We all have the same past and heritage.   We all
> ...



I think you need to educate yourself on the roots of Islam and the Hubal the "moon god". Just because we share some of the same terminology does not mean we worship the same deity. You would be the first "biblical scholar"(I use that loosely) to defend from this position. 

"they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them" (Qur'an 4:156) with respect to Jesus. Pretty hard to be worshiping the same God if- my "God" says that His Son died and their "God" says that it never happened.
"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah. Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." (Koran, Surah 4:171) Nope again- that contradicts my religion directly. Without Jesus as a savior there is no Christianity.

"Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve." Koran, Sura 5:73, food)
Geez Trinity- again contradicting my beliefs.....and you using that name are asking for trouble. Since you believe its the same "God".

Im not saying my beliefs are right and Islam is wrong. I believe in my heart of hearts this is the case BUT I would not force or attack a Moslem for his beliefs. He is entitled to them. But I will not accept we our "God" is one and the same.

So where is your case Trinity?

This has moved a little off topic now. But I believe I needed to defend myself. We can PM if you'd like Trin.

Christians essentially believe the same things. They differ on some issues but the fundamentals are the same. Like Caeser pointed out. But just because they mention Jesus in the Quran and all three have ties to Moses does not mean they are the same. 2 have to be wrong. Why would God send his Son to die for Christians, allow Moslems to disrespect Him and call him "just a prophet", and let Jews call Him a false messiah and a lunatic? Let them war and kill each other and have 3 different sets of rules for each? You havent thought this through.


----------



## Acorn (23 Jun 2005)

Well, I can't help but perpetuate this little deviation from the topic:

Beadwindow, you're missing the mark. However, I can see why, if one argues the Divinity of Christ and the immutability of the Holy Trinity. Do you accept that the God of the Jews is the same God? If so, you are accepting the Allah of Islam. The Qu'ran is quite clear in this, and clear in that Islam believes the Christian Faith deviated from the intent of the Prophet Isa (Jesus-pbuh) and assigned him a Divinity that he neither deserved, nor sought. There is no question about God though.

The difference may be a bit more pronounced than, say, Christian sect disagreement about Transmutation (the physical transmutation of the water and wine of the Eucharist to the Flesh and Blood of Christ), but it is still only a minor difference compared to that between Judeo-Christian belief and that of, say, the Hundu faith.

I suspect you may have been mislead in some way about Islam (the "moon god?") 



> "they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them" (Qur'an 4:156) with respect to Jesus. Pretty hard to be worshiping the same God if- my "God" says that His Son died and their "God" says that it never happened.



The Qur'an is not denying the crucifiction of Jesus. It is denying the crucifiction of *God*. The Islamic mantra of "There is only one God, Allah..." is partly intended to deny the Holy Trinity - *God* is only one, and is not made man. Yes, it denies some fundamental basis of the Christian faith, but Judaism also denies those fundamentals , yet we do not deny that the Jewish God is the same. Or do you?


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The Qur'an is not denying the crucifiction of Jesus. It is denying the crucifiction of *God*. The Islamic mantra of "There is only one God, Allah..." is partly intended to deny the Holy Trinity - *God* is only one, and is not made man. Yes, it denies some fundamental basis of the Christian faith, but Judaism also denies those fundamentals , yet we do not deny that the Jewish God is the same. Or do you?



"Regarding Crucifixion of Jesus: And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'...yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they did not slay him of certainty... no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is Almighty, All-Wise. There is not one of the people of the Book [Bible] but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day [at the end of time] he will be a witness against them." (Qur'an 4:156-159)

Am I the one missing the mark? Seems to me I got that verse right and you are the one who is "missing the mark". The bible says that it is Gods word and is written by divine inspiration. Moslems say it has been "tainted". THe bible says to test the "prophets" and prophecy against the bible. The bible says it is true and the Quran says the bible is wrong. Doesnt agree with scripture so it is- false according to the bible. God is "truth" and He does not lie. The Quran does NOT fall in line with the bible so one or the other is lying. If God can only do right(shall not the judge of this earth do right?) He would not contradict himself. And therefore SOMEONE- us or them is following a false god. Its basic. And as for the moon god Im gathering you didnt even bother "google" Hubal.


----------



## Acorn (23 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> "Regarding Crucifixion of Jesus: And for their unbelief, and their uttering against Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God'...yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they did not slay him of certainty... no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is Almighty, All-Wise. There is not one of the people of the Book [Bible] but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day [at the end of time] he will be a witness against them." (Qur'an 4:156-159)



Ahh, the wonderful tactic of the selective scripture quote (with marginal notes included, and translation not identified). The Book, by the way, is the Qur'an, not the Bible. Here's an alternate translation:


> [4:156] (They are condemned) for disbelieving and uttering about Mary a gross lie.
> 
> [4:157] And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.
> 
> ...



What do you suggest it means? Be clear, as I'm not fully certain of what point you're trying to make by quoting the Qur'an.



> Am I the one missing the mark? Seems to me I got that verse right and you are the one who is "missing the mark". The bible says that it is Gods word and is written by divine inspiration. Moslems say it has been "tainted". THe bible says to test the "prophets" and prophecy against the bible. The bible says it is true and the Quran says the bible is wrong. Doesnt agree with scripture so it is- false according to the bible. God is "truth" and He does not lie. The Quran does NOT fall in line with the bible so one or the other is lying. If God can only do right(shall not the judge of this earth do right?) He would not contradict himself. And therefore SOMEONE- us or them is following a false god. Its basic. And as for the moon god Im gathering you didnt even bother "google" Hubal.



Here you are making the leap that because the Qur'an doesn't fall in line with the Bible (in many respects it does, though) that somehow Muslims are following a false God. The Bible and the Qur'an both make claim to being the Word of God, yet the former claims to be so through many prophets (the Old Testament is essentially the Torah - the word of God revealed through various prophets. The New Testament is the Gospels "according to" as well as the word of the Apostles - in fact more akin to the Hadith and Sunnah). The latter makes its claim through a single Messenger - Mohammed (pbuh) - and is a "correction" of the corruption of previous books which had lost their purity due to the corruption of Man (so it is claimed). You haven't answered whether you believe the God of the Jews is the same as that of the Christians. 

Do you?

As for Hubal, I fail to see what a pagan god has to do with this discussion, unless you're claiming Allah is Hubal. Is Jesus Mithras? Do you want to go there?

Mods: I think we have a Golden Calf to this topic - a split might be in order.

Acorn
(discussing religion in the Mess - taboo or what?)


----------



## neuromancer (23 Jun 2005)

OK OK OK, I think everyone needs to chill a little bit.
Take a deep breath... hold it.. exhale.. relax.

We are all on the same side. Lets try to remember that.

But I just want to quickly mention that the way this thread is
developing proves the point I was making, how can all religions 
be true when they quite clearly are at odds with one another.

And I know that most people will say that a catholic and a protestant 
worship the same god, but by my way of thinking that can NOT possibly 
be true either. Jesus said his followers would be united in love and would 
even lay down their lives for one another, but catholics kill protestants 
and vice versa.

Likewise jews kill muslims, muslims kill christians, christians 
kill everyone. How can they possibly be worshiping the same god?


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

Ok, hot-button issue #2 split off from hot-button issue #1.  This one is facinating because we have some members with a real scholarly grounding in the topic, so I'm going to let it run for a bit - just be warned that the second it goes personal, it is going to get locked; so don't be the guy who posts without considering what they are saying.


----------



## winchable (23 Jun 2005)

> The Qu'ran is quite clear in this, and clear in that Islam believes the Christian Faith deviated from the intent of the Prophet Isa (Jesus-pbuh) and assigned him a Divinity that he neither deserved, nor sought



I think Acorn's above quote was overlooked as it is quite important, it's difficult to argue over such subjective things but you either believe it or you don't and odds are you're not going to change your mind. I'll let Acorn argue that front, as he's already got it going.

As for Hubal, a sore point for me..yes.
For those of us not familiar with pre-islamic arabia (shame on you really) Hubal was an idol, a very important idol, in the ka'ba (that big black box in the middle of mecca) which the Pagan Arabs worshipped. They alternately called this particular idol "Allah" as we should well know, the Arabic word for "God" or "The God." There were hundreds of Idols in the ka'ba which each Arab house worshipped, when Mohamed (pbuh) came to Mecca he smashed the idols, most notably the Hubal and used the term "Allah" for "his God"

Now at some point a very interesting gentleman wrote a book called "The Islamic Invasion". That Gentleman's name was Robert Morey, in the book he claimed that Islam rose from Pagan tradition and is really just a reinvention of the ancient Pagan Cults which occupied Arabia prior to Monotheism. Now a number of Christian missionaries loved this idea because in the high stakes world of peoples souls, Islam and Christianity were really the only two in the salvation competition. The strongest basis for this claim (and the one beadwindow is using) is that the Pagan Arabs used the term "Allah" interchangedly with "Hubal" (their pagan "moon God")

First, let's have a look at the very first line of the old testament..in Hebrew and English, to the best of my ability to translate back and forth:

B'reshit bara ELOHIM et ha-shama'im, V'et ha-arets.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The word Elohim(which is a word that is hotly contested anyway), like many words in semetic script, is found in a number of different forms with any number of diacritical marks to denote proper pronunciation. The root of Elohim, is Eloh meaning "God." Show me any Aramayic, paleo-hebrewic or nabatean script and you'll find a number of different pronunciations, marks and guides as to how to pronounce it, all differing but for the most part you don't need marks to tell you that the root (hopefully we're familiar with the idea of "roots" or in Arabic"jedda" because I'm not explaining them)  is: 





> alef-lamed-heh


The Hebrew predecessor of the word, works out roughly to be simply "el"
Looking at the Arabic root for the word "Allah" you find it is "Alif-leem-Hah"  Any semetic linguist, even the amatuer ones, will tell you that Arabic and Hebrew are more like half-brothers than cousins, a cousin of the two languages is Aramaic.
Now, not surprisingly the Aramaic word for god, or the god, is also "Alah" or "alap-lamad-heh" and Aramaic is firmly rooted in the ancient root for the word God which in English is roughly "eel" or "el"

Now, on to Arabic. The word "Allah" (God, or The God) as I've already said is at root "Alif-Leem-Hah" a root which is shared by "ilah" the much more generic term for "deity"

I'm not going to say anyone is wrong but taking a look at these very closely related semetic languages words for God, Deity what-have-you will look something like this:


> Allâh, Alah, Eloh, Ilah, Eel, and El


Or for that matter, any other word meaning "God" in a semetic dialect is probably going to look nearly exactly like these ones.

If someone wishes to argue that the Muslim word "Allah" is a revival of Pagan cults they'd only be half right.
If a monolnigual Christian wants to tell me that Islam is rubbish because it's a bastardisation of Pagan cults, and base this on the "hubal" theory, they can throw their bible in the dustbin too because Jesus wasn't speaking English when he said 





> "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"


 he was probably saying something like: 





> "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"



To summarize. Yes, Pagan's called Hubal "Allah" or some form of "Allah" possibly "Ilah" meaning God or The God and Deity respectively but the words weren't rooted in Paganism they were rooted in the ancient word for God, which all semetic languages are rooted in.


----------



## Trinity (23 Jun 2005)

Bead.. I am a theologian.. but i am having a hell of a time following your points....

From speaking to other Muslim theologians and Imams, it has come to my
understanding that we all worship the same god.

Jesus to them is not gods son.  OK.  That doesn't bother me although
it directly contradicts my religion.  There are many truths in religion, as
there are many denominations, as there are differences in people.  

I've sat in conferences with multi faith theologians and scholars of
the big three (Christianity, Judaism and Muslim) and all of us agree.

Is that a cheap way of defending my position... yes.. cause i can't
recite the facts off the top of my head.  But we all come and believe
in the same basic scriptures.  The Jews don't believe in Jesus either
so does that mean we worship a different God than them? I don't
think so cause god sent Jesus to the Israelites (i.e. the Jews).

It is entirely conceivable that God sent down another disciple for
a different group of people.  God is God.  *God does not work
within our primitive understanding of him/her.* Just because
we cannot conceive of his/her actions doesn't mean it can't be done
or that it can't be real or true.

Originally Jesus was sent only for the Israelites, I believe comes out in 
the story of the Canaanite woman (spelling is wrong).  I can break out
the bible and quote that later if anyone is interested.  If that is true,
and Jesus was only here for the Israelites, what is left of the rest of us?


The major problem of you quoting the Qu'ran is... the fact you are doing
it in English.  The only true Qu'ran in the Muslim faith to MY UNDERSTANDING
needs to be read in its original language which I believe is Arabic.  Now, do
any of us understand Arabic... well, not me.  And posting the original Arabic
would definitely not help.  But (in my understanding) the true meaning of the
Qu'ran according to Muslim standards cannot be achieved unless it is read in
Arabic.  Yes.. I know, another cheap way making my case... and i do apologize,
but I said it only to have it noted of the significant difference, not to attack you.


I am impressed of your knowledge of the Qu'ran.  

It is way to early to argue this.... I need to stop checking this thing
too early in the morning.

Cesar.... thanks for the help in answering other points...  

As for this Hubal google.  Asking people to research your argument doesn't work.
If you want to make a point, make it.  Asking anyone to look up points will result
in people not doing it, so don't get mad that we didn't.  Even if we did google it,
how do you know that we are going to get the same point as you are trying to make?

So please.. I'm curious.. explain this point.  No need to PMs... there is no growth
in a PM...  we can all learn and grow from exploring our own beliefs.


----------



## winchable (23 Jun 2005)

> The major problem of you quoting the Qu'ran is... the fact you are doing
> it in English.  The only true Qu'ran in the Muslim faith to MY UNDERSTANDING
> needs to be read in its original language which I believe is Arabic.  Now, do
> any of us understand Arabic... well, not me.  And posting the original Arabic
> ...




Quite right Trinity.
It's often described as a smokescreen but anyone who's studied Arabic (or as is seen above) any Semetic language will realise that any Arabic text (let alone the definitive volume) must be read in Arabic, accounting for all possible meanings of the words. It is a language of roots, so if the word was misinterpreted in translation the Arabic text will reveal a root of the word in Arabic which must be explored (was it 72 virgins..or 72 raisins...no seriously check it out) to understand the intent of the word which derived from the root. There is a difference between the word in English after it's translation and it's intent in its Arabic root before translation which is often overlooked by many when simply reading through the English translation. Now it's one thing to make a mistake on your own, but where this becomes a problem is when people start teaching anti-Islamic theories based on flawed translations, or misinterpretation of the intent.
This is partly why I believe that Islam can not be taught properly and must be learned through discipline and self-study. I'm not here to preach, or teach for that matter, just trying to keep the discussion balanced.


----------



## Trinity (23 Jun 2005)

Same goes for English translations of the bible


Translating from the Hewbrew, Greek or Latin texts often vary AND their root
words could have more than one meaning, changing the purpose of the text.

I've seen many of these in my studies.  So we share a common problem in 
the translation... and not many people want to learn the greek to fully understand.

For example...  when we say Judas betrayed Jesus... it can also be translated into
Judas handed over Jesus...  If he handed over, then its not betrayal... which fits more
into the belief that Judas was told to do it by Jesus which some scriptures and movies
and scholars believe.  (sorry.. doing a Jesus film class right now... hence the film comment)

No translation is perfect.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

Hmm. Lets start this off witha disclaimer- Im not condemning Muslims or anyone else. Their religious beliefs are there own. Now.

With regards to Hubal and Islam-

Before Islam the Arab pagans use to have several traditions-

Each tribe would circle around their Kaba where a   black stone was kept seven times. 

Nowadays Muslims during their pilgrimage circle the Kaba claiming Abraham did such.

The tribes kissed the black stone- present day Muslims do the same thing.

An idol of Hubal was placed on the Kaba 400 years before Muhammad according to several MUSLIMS

"About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. ("Muhammad The Holy Prophet", Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)"

His symbol was a star and crescent moon...the crescent moon is the symbol used to identify Islam. I believe that Islam is a "re-envisioning" of arab pagan beliefs. Of course I could be wrong. But Im pretty sure.


"The presiding deity was Hubal, a large carnelian statue kept inside the temple; 36o other idols were ranged outside. The three goddesses described in the Quran as the 'daughters of Allah' - Allat, 'Uzza and Manat - were also worshipped in the vicinity. (Islam in the World, Malise Ruthven, 1984, p 28-48) " 

Could you explain this Che? Why are the daughters of Allah named the same as 3 female deities worshipped in the same area as Hubal? And why are they Allahs daughters? Do you see the connection between Allah and his daughters and the fact that under Hubal in the god food chain of the pagans were 3 other gods named Allat, Uzza and Manat?? 


Man Im having a hard time following my own thougts here so ask again and Ill try and clarify. I dont "write" for a living. ;D

 I dont buy the argument that "it has to be read in Arabic". I believe thats smoke screen. Yes some meaning change from Hebrew to english for the bible but the message stays the same. Its pretty easy to dismiss the horrible verses by saying "thats not the arabic so it doesnt count".

As for Jews and God. Sigh here goes- I believe in the trinity. Jesus is God as well. So if Jews reject Jesus- then they reject God. Its a simplistic view I know but if "no one gets to the Father" except through Jesus then NO ONE gets to the Father except through Jesus. 

John 3:17-21   For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved but he that believeth not is condemned already . . ."   You are condemned according to my beliefs if you do not accept and believe in Jesus as the son of God. For me to accept the God of Islam I must accept that Jesus is NOT God's son and I will not do that. This is a very touchy subject for everyone involved and I understand that my beliefs arent going to be popular BUT im trying to be respectful to everyone involved. So believe me when I say my tone is conversational and not accusatory.

Its nice to think we're all fighting the good fight but I just dont see it. If Im wrong God will take it up with me and Ill accept whatever he says. But here on Earth I take religious teachers and theologins worth a grain of salt. The pharacies were "religious experts" as well. If I dont see it in the bible I dont buy it.

If all Muslim's must reject the crucifixion of Christ based on the Quran and all Christians must reject Muhammad as a prophet based on the Bible, my question is: on exactly what basis do you believe Christianity and Islam are compatible religions? 

Galatians 1:6-9 Apostle Paul says "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Christ for a different religion. But even if an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different religion, let him be accursed." The story goes that Islam was given by the angel Gabriel....hmmm....


----------



## neuromancer (23 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Bead.. I am a theologian.. but i am having a heck of a time following your points....
> 
> From speaking to other Muslim theologians and Imams, it has come to my
> understanding that we all worship the same god.
> ...



No, I think the term you are looking for here is "claim".

I can readily agree that all of the aforementioned religions "claim" to worship
the same god, and perhaps they can agree that other religions are 
also "claiming" to worship the same god.

But listen, the WHOLE IDEA of having another religion is that you 
feel that the current religion is not worshiping god correctly in some way
and so you go off in the wilderness to "to it right"(TM). Of course I know 
that sometimes there are splinter groups that form for political and other
non-faith related reasons.

At that point the two religions can be said to be worshiping different gods.

For a quick example:

The god of the Catholics believes in mass, the eating of the flesh of the 
Christ and the sanctity of the pope, a direct descendant of Jesus himself.
You must believe in those things, and practise those habits or else the god 
of the Catholics will be very unhappy with you, and you may wind up in a 
very uncomfortable place in the afterlife because of it.

The god of the Protestants believes etc etc etc... You must believe in those 
things, and practise those habits or else the god of the Protestants will be 
very unhappy with you, and you may wind up in a very uncomfortable place 
in the afterlife because of it.

The god of the Jews believes, etc etc etc... You must believe in those 
things, and practise those habits or else the god of the Jews will be 
very unhappy with you, and you may wind up in a very uncomfortable place 
in the afterlife because of it.

The god of the Muslims believes etc etc etc... You must believe in those 
things, and practise those habits or else the god of the Muslims will be 
very unhappy with you, and you may wind up in a very uncomfortable place 
in the afterlife because of it.

So if they are all worshiping the same "god" then why would "god" punish 
one group for doing or not doing some things, and punish a different group 
for doing completely different things or not doing completely different 
things. This is so absurd.

Sorry if I'm being a little too pragmatic about this, or if I have any 
particular facts about any particular religion wrong, I'm not a 
Catholic so take whatever I said about their faith as just my best 
guess since the details are not important to my arguments.

If there is one thing I will admit to believing about "god" it is this; consistency 
is key. There would be no conflicting prophets, there would be no conflicting 
messages. If "god" does indeed exist then he/she should at least be able to not 
contradict himself/herself and definitely wouldn't lie either. A god that contradicts 
or lies is not much of a god, and certainly not worth anyones time.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

Can't God be the same, and only the way to his heart is the contentious issue?


----------



## c4th (23 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> And I know that most people will say that a catholic and a protestant
> worship the same god, but by my way of thinking that can NOT possibly
> be true either. Jesus said his followers would be united in love and would
> even lay down their lives for one another, but catholics kill protestants
> and vice versa.



One should recognize that there is a difference between a belief in one god and interpretations of scriptures.   On one hand you have the means, and the other you have the end.   Whether you believe or choose to not believe that other religious denominations worship the same god does not change the fact that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all originated from the same region (the middle east) and document the same events and key players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_monotheism).   God's word has been written, transcribed and translated by prophets and scholars for millennia.   The scriptures are not autobiographies of God.   In simple terms, choosing not to believe that protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews do not worship the same God through different means is precisely the same as believing that vehicles in the UK do not have internal combustion engines because the steering wheel is on the other side.


----------



## Buzz (23 Jun 2005)

The way I look at it is that because one guy had a believe that his way was the proper way of believing in God, he had to spread his word to others and convince them that his way is the one that has much more meaning to the word of GOD.   Hence starting a religion.

He was right in a sense in having a believe in God, but an individual belief.   When you think about it We have so many religions in the world that say there's is the right one.   And some religions are even branches of a mother religion.   But what it all comes down to is   to look at the other side of the coin and say that neither one of them may be right. But still believe in one thing.   So In essense there has to be a GOD.   But there doesn't have to be a religion, but an individual belief. 

Cheers
-Buzz

PS. was almost ready to break out the "Soldiers Prayer" there


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> One should recognize that there is a difference between a belief in one god and interpretations of scriptures.   On one hand you have the means, and the other you have the end.   Whether you believe or choose to not believe that other religious denominations worship the same god does not change the fact that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all originated from the same region (the middle east) and document the same events and key players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_monotheism).   God's word has been written, transcribed and translated by prophets and scholars for millennia.   The scriptures are not autobiographies of God.   In simple terms, choosing not to believe that protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews do not worship the same God through different means is precisely the same as believing that vehicles in the UK do not have internal combustion engines because the steering wheel is on the other side.



That is what I am trying to say, but I just couldn't say it as well  .  Look at it as "Governments" (we'll just call it "governments of the soul") - Britain, Canada and the United States may not be the same governments, but they all have the same roots and principles.  Canada, Britain and the United States are related by the fact that they share many traits that are not shared with the tradition of governance in, say, Russia.  Don't mix up the Evolution of Doctrine (which is most assuredly different) with the Roots of Faith (which is, as others have pointed out, the same).


----------



## S McKee (23 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Bead.. I am a theologian.. but i am having a heck of a time following your points....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trinity I am not a theologian, however the New Testament is quite clear that Jesus Christ is the only path to God John 10: 1-14. Jesus speaks about himself as the only gate and shepherd of his flock. He also talks about the "other sheep" (gentiles) which he will bring into his pen also. Yes Jesus did come first for the salvation of he Jews but also for the salvation of the Gentiles as well. As you know this was the focus of St Paul's ministry See Gal 3: 8


----------



## brin11 (23 Jun 2005)

> The god of the Catholics believes in mass, the eating of the flesh of the
> Christ and the sanctity of the pope, a direct descendant of Jesus himself.



Could someone clarify this please, the pope being the direct descendant of Jesus part?


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

Just saw your reply Brin. Here it is.


			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> The god of the Catholics believes in...the sanctity of the pope, a direct descendant of Jesus himself.



Actually, the Pope is a direct descendant of the Apostle Paul, the first Pope. This is agreed upon by all Christians, IIRC.
You must be confusing the Da Vinci Code and the Bible.   

Protestant vs. Catholic:

All Christians believe in the Divinity of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit). The only 100% core requirement to be a Christian (and go to Heaven) is to accept Jesus as the Son of God, as your Saviour, and that he died to pay your debt of Sin so you may enter Heaven. Notice how there is no mention of God the Father, Mary, or the Holy Spirit? That is how you can have one God, but many religions (Islam, Judaism), and one Religion but many denominations (Catholic vs. Protestant).

Now, Catholics, being Christians, accept Jesus as mentioned above. As do Protestants. They also accept the Bible as the word of God. They differ in how they view the Church, but not in how they view God. Their customs differ in how they worship, but not to whom they worship. 





			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> The god of the Catholics believes in mass, the eating of the flesh of the
> Christ



BTW, as do all other Christian denominations. Eucharist is what is called. 




			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> So if they are all worshiping the same "god" then why would "god" punish
> one group for doing or not doing some things, and punish a different group
> for doing completely different things or not doing completely different
> things. This is so absurd.



Using Christianity as as example, here is the reason:

Even though you (a Muslim say) worship God the Father (your Allah), you do not accept Jesus as the Son of God, as your Saviour, and so on. God (the Father/Allah) sent him to save you. By rejecting Jesus (God the Son) you reject God (including God the Father/Allah/YYahweh. Basically, according to Christians, Muslims were on the right track (Belief in God the Father, acceptance of the 'stories' in Genesis et all), but have lost their way by not accepting Jesus for what (they say) He is. They may worship God the Father (Allah), but, and here's the key, but _the Worship of God the Father (alone) is not the requirement to enter Heaven, the worship of God the Son is._


----------



## TCBF (23 Jun 2005)

"the high stakes world of peoples souls" - Che

- Very interesting phrase.   Well done.

Tom


----------



## brin11 (23 Jun 2005)

So christians believe that the FIRST pope was a direct descendant of Paul?  

Never read the Da Vinci Code so I don't understand your reference.


----------



## winchable (23 Jun 2005)

Alright, I'll start at the top.



> Im not condemning Muslims or anyone else


Yes, unfortunately, you are. This disclaimer is a cop out in order to avoid sticking by what you are saying, I'm actually somewhat shocked you would use it you seem very intelligent and principled.



> I believe that Islam is a "re-envisioning" of arab pagan beliefs. Of course I could be wrong. But Im pretty sure.



A half-truth. Mohamed (pbuh) was a crafty politician, no historian should dispute this, his choice of the word "Allah" as opposed to a less generic term was no mistake, as I said it made it easier to convert illiterate and uneducated pagans initially to Islam, the same could be said of the pre-islamic practices of circling the Kaba etc. etc.. Make no mistake, this might have been the action but the intent far outstretched this. I make it absolutely clear, regardless of any of this Mohamed's (pbuh) smashing of the idols and wars with the pagans make it quite clear that he wanted nothing to do with pre-Islamic polytheistic beliefs.



> An idol of Hubal was placed on the Kaba 400 years before Muhammad according to several MUSLIMS
> 
> "About four hundred years before the birth of Muhammad one Amr bin Lahyo ... a descendant of Qahtan and king of Hijaz, had put an idol called Hubal on the roof of the Kaba. This was one of the chief deities of the Quraish before Islam. ("Muhammad The Holy Prophet", Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar (Pakistan), p 18-19, Muslim)"



Your capitilisation and use of a Muslim source do nothing to add to your argument as they are historical facts that no one denies, their use is a smokescreen used by many anti-Muslim scholars to add weight to their argument.



> His symbol was a star and crescent moon...the crescent moon is the symbol used to identify Islam



The crescent moon was adopted by the Islamic Empire, not by Mohamed and hence is no more Islamic than the Eagle on the US flag being Christian. (pbuh)
In fact for the first 3 centures of Islam, and in the hadith and Qu'ran, there is no mention of the Crescent moon. Besides that fact, the symbol of a religion is not the object of it's worship, Daoism has the ying yang yet daosists do not worship it, Buddhists do not expressley worship buddha and Christians do not worship the cross which Jesus was crucified on.
I assure you the furthest thing from a Muslims mind is worshipping the sun or the moon, rather worshipping Allah as the creator of these things. Once again, the intent is misinterpreted by actions viewed from the outside.
Arabs of the times used the moon and lunar calendar to regulate fasting and days, this doesn't mean they worshipped it. Does someone who uses the sun to regulate their days worship the sun? Why the moon and not the sun is anyones guess, it's hot in the desert during the day and much of it would have been spent inside tents, travel would have been done when it was less sunny, so perhaps the moon was just an easier way of keeping track of days. Quite frankly it make sense..why would one stare at the sun and figure out the days when they could look at the moon (less blinding I presume) and figure it out.

I would like you to address the inherent and unescapable flaw which forms the basis of your argument, that of "Hubal" which I have repeatedly refuted, without Hubal you have no argument, so unless you can actually address that without bringing up other things it may be best to drop this now.



> Could you explain this Che? Why are the daughters of Allah named the same as 3 female deities worshipped in the same area as Hubal? And why are they Allahs daughters? Do you see the connection between Allah and his daughters and the fact that under Hubal in the god food chain of the pagans were 3 other gods named Allat, Uzza and Manat??



Ah, the satanic verses, abrogated from the Qu'ran shortly after.
This is where the word Faith comes in handy and subjective things are played into it.
It is said that Mohamed (pbuh) succumbed to Satan briefly in order to attract the pagans to Islam and heard a verse which was not meant to be in the Qur'an. It more or less hailed the three daughters of Hubal as being part of the religions worship.
While receiving the qur'an later in his life he was corrected by God and Gabriel scolded him for his mistake, the verses were removed and the Qur'an appears today as it did after they were removed, without giving the Daughters of Alilah such a status.

Moderns mock the pagans for their belief that God could bear offspring, and that is their mention in the Qur'an. In fact, one of the things normally following utterance of "Allah" (can't remember exact wording) is something to effect that Allah is exalted and does not bear children.

Many Muslims outright reject that this happened at all, there are books and books filled with speculation on the topic and I'm in no way qualified to comment on it beyond what I've done so already.



> I dont buy the argument that "it has to be read in Arabic". I believe thats smoke screen. Yes some meaning change from Hebrew to english for the bible but the message stays the same. Its pretty easy to dismiss the horrible verses by saying "thats not the arabic so it doesnt count".



And I would be inclined to agree with you that translation does not change intent, look in any religious text based on divine inspiration and you're going to find alot of things that are horrible by todays standards, however when your argument is based on translation of the word "Allah" it becomes the single most important fact and if I can disprove your argument about Hubla (and I feel I have as you have yet to counter my refuting of it) by writing a full post on semetic languages (which I've done) and how translations can help and hinder certain arguments, I'm going to do so.



> "the high stakes world of peoples souls" - Che
> 
> - Very interesting phrase.  Well done.
> 
> Tom



meant partly in jest


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

brin11 said:
			
		

> So christians believe that the FIRST pope was a direct descendant of Paul?
> 
> Never read the Da Vinci Code so I don't understand your reference.


Sorry, it was Peter, not Paul. Peter was asked by to Jesus to be the head of the Church. I will look up some references and post them.

Oh, and the Da Vinci Code reference was more for nueromancer. But basically, the Da Vinci Code states that many Great Men of History decend directly from Jesus, and that Jesus and Mary Magdelane (sp?) were actually married and had children.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> One should recognize that there is a difference between a belief in one god and interpretations of scriptures.   On one hand you have the means, and the other you have the end.   Whether you believe or choose to not believe that other religious denominations worship the same god does not change the fact that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all originated from the same region (the middle east) and document the same events and key players (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_monotheism).   God's word has been written, transcribed and translated by prophets and scholars for millennia.   The scriptures are not autobiographies of God.   In simple terms, choosing not to believe that protestants, Catholics, Muslims, and Jews do not worship the same God through different means is precisely the same as believing that vehicles in the UK do not have internal combustion engines because the steering wheel is on the other side.



You are ignoring the fact that we are warned against FALSE religions. Just because Islam borrowed stories from Christianity and Judaism does not mean it is the same. First there was Judaism and the prophecies- then Christians believe that Christ came, fufilled prophecy and freed us from the the "law" of the old testament. Christians believe that Gods word was given to them in its entirety and we are not to add to it or take away. Jesus is our salvation. Islam has nothing to do with any of this. It is a seperate religion ALTOGETHER. 

The Quran was "given" to Mohhamed by an Angel.(supposedly) Do todays Jewish leaders feel that they serve the same God? No. Did they 200 years ago? No. The only people trying to push this idea is, in my own opinion, Muslims looking to gain acceptance, non believers who think they know better about religion than anyone else, and Christians without the intestinal fortitude to say what the bible says or havent read their bible. 

I cant wrap my mind around the fact that just because 3 religions came out of the same area over 3000 years and all three only have one God- that you believe that they MUST be the same god. Even though all three have different rules.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> Just because Islam borrowed stories from Christianity and Judaism does not mean it is the same.



You aren't reading this thread, are you.  No one is saying that the religions are the same, they are saying that the heritage and the Concept of God are.  If I am not mistaken, the Semitic Monotheistic faiths all view God as an omnipotent being who lives in Heaven and is served by a hierarchy of angelic beings (Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael factor into all three Faiths, do they not?).  As well, there is a common root shared by all - Issac and Ismael, the sons of Abraham (The _Father of Many_, is he not?).  As I alluded to above, if you can't see this common cultural tie between these faiths, than you aren't reading the thread.

Anyways, perhaps people can clear something else up for me.  I remember hearing something that the Christian religion sees God as loving and forgiving and that the Jews approach him in a different manner - He is still the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament/Torah.  Is this true?  Perhaps Che can fill in the blanks about how Islam approaches Allah, if it indeed varies from the other two Semitic Faiths.

Good thread guys, much to learn.  If someone derails it, I'm simply going to delete their potty talk to allow the thread to continue on, as I'm rather enjoying it.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

Beadwindow:

Muslims worship Allah. Allah is also Christianity's God the Father. IT IS THE SAME BEING. Christians also worship God the Father, but they also believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that he dies for our sins. It is the belief in Jesus, not the Worship of God the Father/Allah, that makes a person Christian. 

It is not called Christianity for nothing.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Anyways, perhaps people can clear something else up for me.   I remember hearing something that the Christian religion sees God as loving and forgiving and that the Jews approach him in a different manner - He is still the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament/Torah.   Is this true?   Perhaps Che can fill in the blanks about how Islam approaches Allah, if it indeed varies from the other two Semitic Faiths.


This is my take. God has had various Covenants with Man. One was with Abraham (which you mentioned), and another regarding Jesus. Both religions 'believe' in the first one mentioned here, with Abraham, but only Christians (duh) believe that Jesus is the Christ. The first covenant was in the Old Testament, where the wrathful God is chronicled, and the second one is obviously in the New Testament. Jesus was pure & sinless. Jesus (not God the Father/Yahweh) preached us to love one another, to turn the other cheek, and so on. So it is only natural that a religion that focuses more on Jesus (and his more gentle, loving teachings) would seem more gentle. 

Now, Christians still view God the Father as the wrathful God of the Old Testament who flooded the Earth, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. It's just that Christians don't focus on the Father as much as they do the Son.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> This is my take. God has had various Covenants with Man. One was with Abraham (which you mentioned), and another regarding Jesus. Both religions 'believe' in the first one mentioned here, with Abraham, but only Christians (duh) believe that Jesus is the Christ. The first covenant was in the Old Testament, where the wrathful God is chronicled, and the second one is obviously in the New Testament. Jesus was pure & sinless. Jesus (not God the Father/Yahweh) preached us to love one another, to turn the other cheak, and so on. So it is only natural that a religion that focuses more on Jesus (and his more gentle, loving teachings) would seem more gentle.
> 
> Now, Christians still view God the Father as the wrathful God of the Old Testament who flooded the Earth, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. It's just that Christians don't focus on the Father as much as they do the Son.



God took out all His anger on Jesus while He was on the cross. This is why God is of a different temperment.   As Christians we dont "focus" more on Jesus- they are the same Being. Ask the Father who is greater and he will say the Son, ask the Son and he will say the Father. They are equal. And dont forget the Revelations where Jesus return as a warrior. To say the Father is hard and the Son is loving only is wrong.   




			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> You aren't reading this thread, are you.  No one is saying that the religions are the same, they are saying that the heritage and the Concept of God are.  If I am not mistaken, the Semitic Monotheistic faiths all view God as an omnipotent being who lives in Heaven and is served by a hierarchy of angelic beings (Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael factor into all three Faiths, do they not?).  As well, there is a common root shared by all - Issac and Ismael, the sons of Abraham (The _Father of Many_, is he not?).  As I alluded to above, if you can't see this common cultural tie between these faiths, than you aren't reading the thread.
> 
> Anyways, perhaps people can clear something else up for me.  I remember hearing something that the Christian religion sees God as loving and forgiving and that the Jews approach him in a different manner - He is still the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament/Torah.  Is this true?  Perhaps Che can fill in the blanks about how Islam approaches Allah, if it indeed varies from the other two Semitic Faiths.
> 
> Good thread guys, much to learn.  If someone derails it, I'm simply going to delete their potty talk to allow the thread to continue on, as I'm rather enjoying it.



Im reading the thread. And Im enjoying it as well. If all we are arguing  is whether each religion only has one God then I concede. If you are saying that "All 3 have the same God". Then YOU are missing the point. Just because they have similar details does not make them the same Being. A horse has a mouth, 2 ears, 2 eyes, a tail and four legs. A cow has all those parts as well. Are they the same animal? No. Just because Islam has characters in its book with the same names does not make it the same story.

For the record this doesnt just apply to Muslims. It applies to Mormons who put their faith in doing good works, Catholics who believe Mary will save them, Protestants who think saying "Im a Christian" will save them. They have shared history yes. But they do not lead to the same place. I cannot ACCEPT that and say I believe the Bible.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> God took out all His anger on Jesus while He was on the cross.



Not really true. Jesus was the sacrifice (often called the Lamb of God). It wasn't God's wrath that Jesus was suffereing, it was mortal death and sin. He took the sin of the entire world onto Him so that those that could not possibly pay for the sin (us) might enter Heaven. It was the sin and death that was causing mortal pain, not God's wrath. Jesus' cry of "My God, why have you forsaken me?" was a cry of a MAN suffering death and the pain of sin when he did not deserve it. 



			
				BeadWindow said:
			
		

> As Christians we dont "focus" more on Jesus- they are the same Being. Ask the Father who is greater and he will say the Son, ask the Son and he will say the Father. They are equal. And dont forget the Revelations where Jesus return as a warrior. To say the Father is hard and the Son is loving only is wrong.



Agreed. But as Christians, we do focus more on that which provides us our salvation, Jesus, and less on the 'whole package' of God (Father and the Holy Spirit). I was not making a judgement on what is more valuable to Christians because, as you accurately point out, one cannot truly seperate the Trinity. I simplified it for clarity, at the detriment of pure interpretation.

As promised to brin. Regarding Peter as the first pope:

Mathew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

Peter is the rock upon which the Church will be built.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Peter is the rock upon which the Church will be built.



"For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:11)

written by Peter.

Catholic writers often speak of "the primacy of Peter" and "the primacy of the Pope." However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy..." Jesus is the head of the church. Not the pop, not Peter. This is from Peter's own mouth.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

_The phrase, "no god but Allah"? proves "Allah" is not just another word for "God" to the Muslims. The transliterated phrase from Arabic reads, "La ilaha illAllah." A word for word translation into English would read: La [no] ilaha [god] ill [except or but] Allah [Allah]. The important thing to note is that the word "Allah" is a name and is not the word for god. If "Allah" were the word for god, then the phrase would read, "there is no allah but allah. Clearly it does not. The Qur'an itself claims that Allah is the personal name of the Islamic god: (017.110) "Say, Call Him Allah or call Him Ar-Rahman; whatever the name you call Him, all His names are beautiful." If "Allah" were the word for god, then Islam's god is nameless. There is also no evidence that the word "Allah" is a contraction of the words "al ilah," which means, "the god." If it were, then again, the phrase would read, "there is no allah but allah." As part of the first "Pillar of Islam," this issue is critical as Islam claims that the God of the Bible (whose name is Yahweh) and Allah are one in the same and that we all, therefore, worship the same god. _ 

Che- can you give me your interpretationof this? Its from some reading Im doing currently. If you have a second.


----------



## S McKee (23 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> This is my take. God has had various Covenants with Man. One was with Abraham (which you mentioned), and another regarding Jesus. Both religions 'believe' in the first one mentioned here, with Abraham, but only Christians (duh) believe that Jesus is the Christ. The first covenant was in the Old Testament, where the wrathful God is chronicled, and the second one is obviously in the New Testament. Jesus was pure & sinless. Jesus (not God the Father/Yahweh) preached us to love one another, to turn the other cheak, and so on. So it is only natural that a religion that focuses more on Jesus (and his more gentle, loving teachings) would seem more gentle.
> 
> Now, Christians still view God the Father as the wrathful God of the Old Testament who flooded the Earth, destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. It's just that Christians don't focus on the Father as much as they do the Son.



Interesting point however this is a somewhat distorted view of the Christian God i.e. to separate the "Old Testament God" From the "New Testament God" in a belief that the God in old testament is cruel and vengeful and the God in the new testament, kind and loving (read Revelations). There is only one God (of one essence with three separate and distinct personalities, Father Son and Holy Spirit) and he is the same today, yesterday and forever, he cannot change, there is no difference between God as he is portrayed in the old testament and God as he is in the new. The loving nature of God that we see in His Son Jesus Christ is the same nature as God the Father. "I and the Father are one."   Far from being cruel and vengeful   the Old Testament is full of God's compasion for his people who despite their constant rebellion were always welcomed back into His embrace. Your statement that a Christian's focus is on the Son at the expense of the Father is theologically incorrect and not in line with the majority Christian denominations.   It is because of and through the sacrifice of his Son that we may now approach the Father without fear, in fact St Paul uses the endearing term of Abba, when calling out to God . In the book of Herbrews Christ is liken to Melchizedck the High Priest of the old testament, who intercedes for us to God the Father. It is because of Christ Jesus that we can focus on the Father now more than ever.


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> "For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:11)
> 
> written by Peter.
> 
> Catholic writers often speak of "the primacy of Peter" and "the primacy of the Pope." However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy..." Jesus is the head of the church. Not the pop, not Peter. This is from Peter's own mouth.



Ok, we have two passages from the Bible. One from Jesus, vaguely referring to Peter as the head of the Church, and one from Peter in a letter to the Corinthians referring to Jesus as the only true head of the Church. Although I am Anglican (gee, could you tell?), I tend to believe that Peter was meant to head the Church on Earth. It goes without saying that the Christian Church is headed by Christ, but unfortunately, Christ is not here in flesh and blood, so there must be a man to build the Church on Earth. Peter was right, Christ IS the only true 'rock', but I think he was addressing a turning away from Christ (and towards the worldly Church) in the years after his resurrection. That's how I see it anyway.

Jumper: totally agree with you. Let me clarify what i posted earlier:

God has 3 personalities (as you put it): Father, Son, And Holy Spirit. Christians, right or wrong, tend to focus on the personality of God which saves us and makes us distinct from others - Jesus Christ (we are Christians afterall). By 'focusing' on Jesus in the literal sense, we are by proxy focussing on God (including the Father and the Holy Spirit) in the spiritual sense. Afterall, we cannot come to God but through Jesus....right? 

Yes, the 'vengeful' God of the Old Testament and the 'merciful' God (Jesus) of the New Testament is the same, now and always, but the tone of the Old is distinctly darker than the message of mercy, kindness, and love of the New. I'm referring more to the tone of the books, I am not suggesting that there are 3 Gods, or that God the Father is meaner than God the Son.


----------



## DogOfWar (23 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> or that God the Father is meaner than God the Son.



 I laughed out loud when I read that. I thought that was funny for some reason. You are right that the "Old Testament" is a darker read. But lets not discount Revealations- the darkest book(and brightest) in the bible is a new testament.


----------



## S McKee (23 Jun 2005)

gotcha....I guess the main point is we all believe in the same thing. Sometimes it gets lost in the translation....


----------



## dutchie (23 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> But lets not discount Revealations- the darkest book(and brightest) in the bible is a new testament.



No kidding! Revelations is very distinct from the rest of the Bible. Very very Dark, yet more promising than almost any other part of the Bible.


			
				Jumper said:
			
		

> gotcha....I guess the main point is we all believe in the same thing. Sometimes it gets lost in the translation....



Yup, which is why we have more than one Christian denomination, me thinks.


----------



## neuromancer (23 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Just saw your reply Brin. Here it is.
> Actually, the Pope is a direct descendant of the Apostle Paul, the first Pope. This is agreed upon by all Christians, IIRC.



Wrong. Not all Christians agree on that.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> All Christians believe in the Divinity of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit).



Wrong, Not all Christians agree on that.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> The only 100% core requirement to be a Christian (and go to Heaven) is to accept Jesus as the Son of God, as your Saviour, and that he died to pay your debt of Sin so you may enter Heaven. Notice how there is no mention of God the Father, Mary, or the Holy Spirit? That is how you can have one God, but many religions (Islam, Judaism), and one Religion but many denominations (Catholic vs. Protestant).



Wrong. Not all Christians agree on that.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> BTW, as do all other Christian denominations. Eucharist is what is called.



Wrong, Not all Christians agree on that. 

Catholics in particular believe (I've been told) that the wafer and wine literally transmute
into human flesh and human blood while being eaten, and even some Catholics disagree 
on that.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Even though you (a Muslim say) worship God the Father (your Allah), you do not accept Jesus as the Son of God, as your Saviour, and so on. God (the Father/Allah) sent him to save you. By rejecting Jesus (God the Son) you reject God (including God the Father/Allah/YYahweh. Basically, according to Christians, Muslims were on the right track (Belief in God the Father, acceptance of the 'stories' in Genesis et all), but have lost their way by not accepting Jesus for what (they say) He is. They may worship God the Father (Allah), but, and here's the key, but _the Worship of God the Father (alone) is not the requirement to enter Heaven, the worship of God the Son is._



Actually, Jesus was quite clear and precise on always directing all glory 
and worship to the father and infact said "the father is greater than I am". 
John 14:28


Edit: I saw someone post: "if asked god-the-father would say the son is 
greater, and if the son was asked he would say the father is greater, so 
they are equals."

In that case wouldnt both of them be lying? Why not just say "we are equals". 

Also, in my research I have nowhere ever seen the father even vagely suggest 
that anyone is greater than himself. If you have seen that then please show me.


----------



## Buzz (23 Jun 2005)

BeadWindow said:
			
		

> I laughed out loud when I read that. I thought that was funny for some reason. You are right that the "Old Testament" is a darker read. But lets not discount Revealations- the darkest book(and brightest) in the bible is a new testament.



ONe could agrue that God is meaner in the old test than in the new test.  But notice in the new test that god is aslo speaking through Jesus in the new test. As a spirit inside the body of the Son.   My understanding is split a piece of wood and you will find me, lift a stone and you will find me.  The trinity if understood properly is depicting the SON, the Father and the HOly Ghost all being one as God.  Though the Son is not the Father nor the Holy Ghost.  The Holy ghost is not the Father nor the Son. The father is not the Holy ghost nor the Son.  But all are God "et suez".  

Cheers!
-Buzz


----------



## S McKee (23 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> Wrong. Not all Christians agree on that.
> 
> Wrong, Not all Christians agree on that.
> 
> ...



If you read the first chapter of Hebrews God does refer to his Son as God. "But about the Son he says, "Your throne O God will last for ever and ever. However you are right Jesus took upon himself the role of servant even though " being in very nature God, did not consider equlaity with God something to be grasped." Phil 2:6


----------



## Trinity (23 Jun 2005)

um....

bit off track... its about all worshipping the same God...  
not how messed up christianity is among denominations....


----------



## Trinity (23 Jun 2005)

Bead

I am a theologian...

I'm sorry to hear you dismiss the translation from Arabic as a smokescreen.

I've studied the Christian testaments in Greek and Hebrew, and I can assure you that it
makes a big difference reading texts in their original language.  Why? Especially
with Hebrew there are no vowels, thus, it creates opportunity for
things to be taken in different ways; as a statement, question, etc..

I explained one example with Judas and the word *betrayed *and *handed over*...

So, as I have personally witnessed that original language does make a difference, rest assured
I'm not talking out of my ass.  Tomorrow I finish my LAST class (amen) for my Masters of Divinity.
Am I 100% in what I say.. no..  but I'm usually firing from some accepted religious opinions

I think you asked do Jewish leaders think we are worshipping the same god - to which you responded no.

Um.. I would disagree. They do. Talk to some of their scholars and Rabbi.  Imagine if your opinion on Islam was
the exact same view of Jews on Christians..  that we are wrong and just a false off shoot.  But they don't (anymore),
but respect our right as we respect theirs. (with minor exceptions) But imagine a Jew claiming our God is false
and how upset would you be?

Finally.. if having a pagan history and additions to one's religion makes it false.... then Christianity is doomed.
Guess who has pagan history, celebrations, scripture.. Thats right...  The creation story, there is evidence that
it comes from ancient Babylonian Scriptures of a pagan religion.  Some of our holidays were pagan ones that we
adopted because our people were celebrating them (I believe Christmas was one of them).  Our own depictions 
and art of God came from previous pagan beliefs.  We are ripe with Pagan history. 






edit.. (i'm a tool.. mixed up my languages)


----------



## winchable (23 Jun 2005)

> The phrase, "no god but Allah"? proves "Allah" is not just another word for "God" to the Muslims. The transliterated phrase from Arabic reads, "La ilaha illAllah." A word for word translation into English would read: La [no] ilaha [god] ill [except or but] Allah [Allah]. The important thing to note is that the word "Allah" is a name and is not the word for god. If "Allah" were the word for god, then the phrase would read, "there is no allah but allah. Clearly it does not. The Qur'an itself claims that Allah is the personal name of the Islamic god: (017.110) "Say, Call Him Allah or call Him Ar-Rahman; whatever the name you call Him, all His names are beautiful." If "Allah" were the word for god, then Islam's god is nameless. There is also no evidence that the word "Allah" is a contraction of the words "al ilah," which means, "the god." If it were, then again, the phrase would read, "there is no allah but allah." As part of the first "Pillar of Islam," this issue is critical as Islam claims that the God of the Bible (whose name is Yahweh) and Allah are one in the same and that we all, therefore, worship the same god.
> 
> Che- can you give me your interpretationof this? Its from some reading Im doing currently. If you have a second.



Firstly, might I suggest reading something other than blatantly anti-islamic sources, Arthur Jeffrey is hardly what I would describe as an unbiased academic. The folks at www.bible.ca (who borrow from his texts liberally) are taking part in what I see too many supposedly religious people doing, that is negating other religions in an attempt to make theirs look good. Muslims do it, Christians do it and as soon as I recognise it in a text or on a website I hit the back button and keep looking because that's not intelligent academic material.

I wrote an entire post on the semantics of semetic languages with regards to this, and you have yet to refute or discuss any of the points I've made in my posts so I will do this and then I will stop until I see some dialogue or compromise on the issue because I feel you're wasting my time where I'm taking the time to address your points and you move on to another one and another one with no comment on my refutations.
The sentence I would focus on and blow this up would be the following:



> There is also no evidence that the word "Allah" is a contraction of the words "al ilah," which means, "the god."



There is no evidence to truly support either claim, this is where one's faith matters. I have faith that the prophet was not trying to trick me into worshipping a moon God, I have faith that he was given the actual words of God to steer the people of the world back on track. If you think I'm foolish for believing such a thing (and you implied that it was of a certain foolishness that an angel could talk to Mohamed) you may wish to look at Christianity and realise that there is no exact science to doing this, it's intangible and faith gets you over the threshold of disbelief, as a Christian I thought you would know that. Though you've got a padre, and there are a number of priests (even the vatican recognises it) that accept and believe that the religions are so closely related they are looking at the same deity, the intagible, ineffible God.

The intent of this declaration is to affirm that there are no other Gods, an affirmation of monotheism, which at the time was a fading thing. I take refuge in what the intent clearly was not what I want it to be, as so many anti-semetics and anti-islamists choose to do.

Islam has stood for centuries and you nor anyone else here is going to be the one to bring it down, I am tempted to simply stop responding to your points because I think I cannot do the proper defence because I am very young and limited in my resources and you will come away from this convinced that Muslims are unbelieving savages who worship a pagan idol. I suggest if you still feel uncertain, talk to an Imam, go to any mosque, or for that matter talk to a priest and tell them how you feel and you will see how. I am quite honest when I say that I am new to religious studies, there are 60-70 year olds who are quite pious who have studied religious texts their entire life and they will not claim to know all of the answers, so I can only do my best.

Islam defends itself quite well if people take the quality time to actually do their own unbiased research rather than looking at material on the internet, sadly many people don't bother and misconceptions will continue to exist.   I suggest you do the same or address some of the points in my previous posts before flinging more Biased material at me or moving on to other arguments before acknowledging a compromise or counter-point.


------------------------------

Someone also asked about the different personas that God seems to take on in the different religions. Judaism and Islam tend to be religions of laws, do this, don't do that. So God appears to be quite strict, more like a parent. And truthfully if you look at Islam and Judaism you will see more similiarities than either shows with Christianity.
So God isn't more vengeful or strict with Muslims and Jews they just choose to adhere (or should) to a strict set of laws and works. Even Roman Catholicism is quite strict with rules, laws and works because it is arguably a more pure version of the primary religion which (i and others) contend is the root of all 3 Monotheistic faiths.

and finally, 



> Finally.. if having a pagan history and additions to one's religion makes it false.... then Christianity is doomed



Thankyou Padre you saved me a paragraph


----------



## neuromancer (23 Jun 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> If you read the first chapter of Hebrews God does refer to his Son as God. "But about the Son he says, "Your throne O God will last for ever and ever. However you are right Jesus took upon himself the role of servant even though " being in very nature God, did not consider equlaity with God something to be grasped." Phil 2:6



"But of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;" 
Heb 2:8 American Standard Version

Some interpret the "O God" part of the sentence merely as an exclamation mark, 
similar to saying "amen" or "hallelujah". These types of exclamations are quite
common throughout the Bible, as I'm sure you are well aware.

Other translations from ancient Greek phrase it quite differently (rare translations)
"God is thy throne for ever and ever;"
Heb 2:8 Moffet Translation

..but thanks for that scripture very interesting discussion!


----------



## Trinity (23 Jun 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Thank you Padre you saved me a paragraph



hey... its my house/religion .... better I say and admit it...

We need to admit our own faults instead of attacking others!

So.. between 
1) the translation difficulties
2) christians having pagen ....  things... as part of our relgion (sorry brain fart)

those are two very distinct and hard facts that you cannot ignore..


----------



## neuromancer (23 Jun 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> I wrote an entire post on the semantics of semetic languages with regards to this, and you have yet to refute or discuss any of the points I've made in my posts so I will do this and then I will stop until I see some dialogue or compromise on the issue because I feel you're wasting my time where I'm taking the time to address your points and you move on to another one and another one with no comment on my refutations.



I just want to say that I agreed with everything you wrote about the breakdown of 
the Hebrew and Islamic word for god.

Anyway, only stop posting if you have nothing of interest left to say.
I for one, enjoy your posts.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jun 2005)

All approaches to God will necessarily be asymptotic.


----------



## Shec (23 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...Anyways, perhaps people can clear something else up for me.   I remember hearing something that the Christian religion sees God as loving and forgiving and that the Jews approach him in a different manner - He is still the wrathful and vengeful God of the Old Testament/Torah.   Is this true?


 
While the way God is perceived has been an ongoing philosophical debate for thousands of years the overriding principles of the faith that all Jewish religious scholars (disclaimer: I will  never be considered one of them ) agree with is that God knows the actions of humans and is not neglectful of them.   He rewards those who obey the commands of the Torah and punishes those who violate its prohibitions.    The Torah itself will never be abrogated, nothing will be added to it or subtracted from it; God will never give another Law.   

Because God is the creator and cause of all that exists and because God is eternal,   obeying the Torah he gave requires that God should be the only object of worship and praise. One should not appeal to intermediaries, but should pray directly to God.    Hence the most fundamental of Jewish prayers, to be said when one awakes and before one falls asleep and to be the last words on one's lips when one dies:   Shema Yisroel Adonai Elohanyu, Adoni Echot--Hear O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is One.

Not exactly a simple yes or no answer to your question but I trust it helps.


----------



## neuromancer (23 Jun 2005)

Shec said:
			
		

> Not exactly a simple yes or no answer to your question but I trust it helps.



Isn't it also true (Im not jewish either) that breaking of the sabath by doing
certain forms of work on Saterday is still considered a deadly sin, in the 
Torah it was punishable by death such as in the story of the woodsman 
that Moses had put to death for gathering wood on the sabath.


----------



## Shec (23 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> Isn't it also true (Im not jewish either) that breaking of the sabath by doing
> certain forms of work on Saterday is still considered a deadly sin, in the
> Torah it was punishable by death such as in the story of the woodsman
> that Moses had put to death for gathering wood on the sabath.


   

 Like any law it is a matter of interpretation given individual circumstance.  Hence the ongoing philosophical debate and dialogue.  If you're doing it to support those relying upon you, if it is a matter of duty, working on Sabbath is OK.   But to work on Sabbath solely for personal convenience, eg. doing your laundry when you can just as easily do it some other time, is frowned upon.   If one is having a crisis of conscience one is encouraged to consult a Rabbi who can issue a special dispensation.  eg.   The day the Yom Kippur war broke out.   Even though it was the holiest day on the Jewish calendar Rabbi's held that responding to the call to arms was permissable.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jun 2005)

Great discussion guys, this is really insightful. 

I've got something for you that has always bothered me from a theology perspective:

According to the Christian faith, you must accept Jesus to be saved. Yet, Jews are the Chosen Ones because they listened to God's voice (Genesis 12:3 & 22:18). Yet Paul said that they are not the Chosen Ones because they did not listen to God's voice when they rejected Jesus (Romans 9:6-8). So what is it? Are Jews (present day of course) the Chosen Ones (from a Christian perspective)? I say no, but it is commonly held belief by many Christians (and all Jews of course   ) that they still are.

BTW, it was Paul who wrote Corinthians, not Peter, as was mentioned earlier. The point being made earlier is none the less valid.


----------



## Dare (24 Jun 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Well, I can't help but perpetuate this little deviation from the topic:
> 
> Beadwindow, you're missing the mark. However, I can see why, if one argues the Divinity of Christ and the immutability of the Holy Trinity. Do you accept that the God of the Jews is the same God? If so, you are accepting the Allah of Islam. The Qu'ran is quite clear in this, and clear in that Islam believes the Christian Faith deviated from the intent of the Prophet Isa (Jesus-pbuh) and assigned him a Divinity that he neither deserved, nor sought. There is no question about God though.
> 
> ...


Just because the Qur'an says Allah is the same god, does not make it so (stipulation: unless you believe it to be the same god. To say that if you accept Yehwah or Jesus as your God/Savior you accept Islam, is not true) And the God of Judaism is Yehwah, just as with Christianity.

EDIT: Added stipulation.


----------



## Shec (24 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Great discussion guys, this is really insightful.
> 
> I've got something for you that has always bothered me from a theology perspective:
> 
> ...



 Most Jews approach it differently--who did the choosing?     The Torah predates Christianity so when the new religion came to be Jews chose God   himself rather than God choosing Jews.   Why did we do that?   For the reason I referenced in my first post--Judiasm's doctrine holds that obeying the Torah He gave requires that God should be the only object of worship and praise. Therefore it follows that one should not appeal to intermediaries, but should pray directly to God.


----------



## winchable (24 Jun 2005)

> Just because the Qur'an says Allah is the same god, does not make it so (stipulation: unless you believe it to be the same god. To say that if you accept Yehwah or Jesus as your God/Savior you accept Islam, is not true) And the God of Judaism is Yehwah, just as with Christianity.



Agreed and if someone wants to tell me that they don't believe the God is the same and that's that, then that's fine really! But when I hear that Islam is just a pagan religion in a monothestic hat and I have evidence to the contrary then there will be disagreements because quite frankly there is nothing more insulting to any Muslim.



> Therefore it follows that one should not appeal to intermediaries, but should pray directly to God



There are not as many big differences between Islam and Judaism as people would like us to think.


----------



## Trinity (24 Jun 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Agreed and if someone wants to tell me that they don't believe the God is the same and that's that, then that's fine really! But when I hear that Islam is just a pagan religion in a monothestic hat and I have evidence to the contrary then there will be disagreements because quite frankly there is nothing more insulting to any Muslim.



WRONG

(didn't think I'd disagree with ya.. did you Che)

Actually, I'm not.   I'm expanding your point.. just thought I'd scare you.

Its not insulting to Muslims.  Its insulting to everyone.

An attack on one religion is an attack on all religions.

For Bead to claim Muslims are pagans.... opens up a whole word of hurt 
on many religions, including Christianity, which shares a pagan past.  That 
is why I feel the need to speak up if I see people attacking another religion.
Don't get me wrong... I don't accept some smaller fringe religions OR
even some 'right wing' Christian denominations. *But to openly deny them
the rights of their beliefs (unless it truly is a cult.. like David Koresh) is to allow
someone else to openly deny myself my beliefs.*


----------



## Donut (24 Jun 2005)

Trinity, not to further derail this discussion, but what differentiates a religion from a cult?

DF


----------



## Drummy (24 Jun 2005)

OK, just to lighten things up a little(depends on your sense of humor. I suppose):

There are three religious truths:

a. Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
b. Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian 
faith.
c. Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters

 ;D

Have a nice day         Drummy


----------



## combat_medic (24 Jun 2005)

Bead: For you to claim yourself as a Christian, do you obeserve Passover, Purim? Jesus did - he even used Hanukah as an example to his followers about him being the light of the world. While in the Bible he struck down the "old law", he still observed all the holy days, celebrated the 'Jewish' Saturday Sabbath, and observed passover among other observances. He was circumcized and probably observed kosher laws as well. There are a number of Christian denominations who still observe these holidays and practices in deference to Jesus, and claim that those who do not are not truly Christian. 

People have argued that Christianity is pagan in that it has the 3-in-1 concept of God and the Trinity. One could argue that Catholocism practices paganism and idolotry in its worship of Mary the mother, and praying to Catholic Saints. 

Christmas trees, the Easter bunny, and the vast majority of supposedly "Christian" holidays fall (often intentionally) on traditionally pagan celebrations. It's widely believed that the celebration of Christ's birth was moved to December 25th in order to co-incide with the pagan holiday of the Winter Solstice. 

Religion is not now, nor has ever been, a matter of black and white. Depite your claims to be a Christian, there are others who will make the same claim and try to tell you that you are not, because you do _____ or don't do _______. Religion is about faith. If you choose to believe in something, and it brings you fulfillment, and it's what you believe in your heart is right FOR YOU, then you should follow it. What is right for you, is not right for everybody. There are as many different religious practices in the world as stars in the sky, and just because you choose not to believe in them, doesn't make them wrong.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> Bead: For you to claim yourself as a Christian, do you observe Passover, Purim? Jesus did - he even used Hanukah as an example to his followers about him being the light of the world. While in the Bible he struck down the "old law", he still observed all the holy days, celebrated the 'Jewish' Saturday Sabbath, and observed passover among other observances. He was circumcized and probably observed kosher laws as well. There are a number of Christian denominations who still observe these holidays and practices in deference to Jesus, and claim that those who do not are not truly Christian.



There was no such thing as Christianity at that time, as Christ had not fulfilled the prophecies yet (completely). How could Christ celebrate Christ? Also, Christ was meant to fulfill Jewish prophesies, and was a Jew, so of course he participated in Jewish rites. How could he even claim to be the Messiah Jews were waiting for if he was not a practicing Jew? What else could he do? 

To say that Christians should or even could participate in Jewish celebrations as a means of practicing their faith is not really accurate. Yes, one could recognize Hanukkah as a Christian, but they would not be fulfilling God's wishes. There is a New Covenant, and the adherence to that is God's wish.....if you are Christian.


----------



## combat_medic (24 Jun 2005)

I'm not saying that is the "One True Wayââ€žÂ¢" of celebrating Christianity, but there are denominations that believe it is. When, in the Old Testament, God gave his people the seven annual feasts, he instructed that they were to be celebrated forever. And, when Christ struck down the old law, refused to participate in animal sacrifice, follow the "cleanliness" laws from Leviticus and disobeyed other quintissential "Jewish" traditions, he still followed these old observances. Did he do this out of habit, or out of deference to God and upholding what he thought was God's wishes? Subject to interpretation, as is everything.

What I'm trying to point out is that what is right for one is not right for everybody, and that doesn't make anybody wrong. Christians themselves have thousands of different traditions, observances, feasts, and beliefs. Just because they're different, doesn't mean they're wrong, anymore than being Muslim or Jewish is wrong. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> To say that Christians should or even could participate in Jewish celebrations as a means of practicing their faith is not really accurate. Yes, one could recognize Hanukkah as a Christian, but they would not be fulfilling God's wishes.



No, it's one group's interpretation of what they think God's wishes are. To claim that any particular group is certain of what God's wishes are is rather presumptuous. Billions of people practice entirely contradictory observances and practices because they think they are upholding God's wishes. It's about having an open mind, and being inclusive with your beliefs, rather than exclusive, which is, in my opinion, what Bead doesn't realize.


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Jun 2005)

I think combat_medic has nailed it. A Priest once told me that "there can be a lot of roads going up the sides of a mountain, that all end up in the same place". A belief in any religion requires faith. If it was all black & white, cut and dried, and scientifically infallible, then there would be no requirement for faith. If that was the case, you and I wouldn't have to "earn" anything, nor exercise our freedom of choice.

I believe that God has allowed for different religions (different "spins" on essentially the same themes) so in fact, the opportunity would be presented (and appealing) to the largest possible amount of humans. Imagine if TV programming was limited to one program, or one channel - how many would choose to buy a TV set? Most of the religions that I am familiar with focus on/towards an all-powerful deity/creator - and instill in their followers rules to live by. These rules seem to be remarkably similar. Ironically, it seems that "the devil is in the details"...  pun intended


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Jun 2005)

> Sorry, it was Peter, not Paul. Peter was asked by to Jesus to be the head of the Church. I will look up some references and post them.



here you go Ceasar

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

cheers

dileas

tess


----------



## dutchie (24 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> When, in the Old Testament, God gave his people the seven annual feasts, he instructed that they were to be celebrated forever. And, when Christ struck down the old law, refused to participate in animal sacrifice, follow the "cleanliness" laws from Leviticus and disobeyed other quintissential "Jewish" traditions, he still followed these old observances. Did he do this out of habit, or out of deference to God and upholding what he thought was God's wishes? Subject to interpretation, as is everything.



Ok, I see what you're saying, but consider this. First, some assumptions:

Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore...
Jesus is God, therefore....

When Jesus says to stop observing these things (Jewish Rites), it IS from God, and must be obeyed. Again, the caveat being if you are Christian. 



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> What I'm trying to point out is that what is right for one is not right for everybody, and that doesn't make anybody wrong. Christians themselves have thousands of different traditions, observances, feasts, and beliefs. Just because they're different, doesn't mean they're wrong, anymore than being Muslim or Jewish is wrong.


Of course it's not wrong to be a Muslim, but it is certainly not adhering to Christianity to do so. Adhering to God's command/covenants as stated in the Bible is a requirement however. Note that God includes Jesus.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> No, it's one group's interpretation of what they think God's wishes are. To claim that any particular group is certain of what God's wishes are is rather presumptuous.



Well, to be a Christian, you have to believe that you are right, and that Jews and Muslims (as an example) are wrong when it comes to God's wishes. Otherwise, what the heck are you doing being a Christian if you know that Muslims are obeying God's wishes? Now, if you were to make this argument regarding Anglican/Catholic/Baptist/Pentecostal/Etc, that I can agree with. 



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> It's about having an open mind, and being inclusive with your beliefs, rather than exclusive, which is, in my opinion, what Bead doesn't realize.



To a certain extent, yes. But the popular trend of Pluralism is not consistant with Christianity (IMHO). Remember it is not you, I, or anyone else that decides what is acceptable in God's eyes, but it is God that does this. Wanting to include others of another faith as one who will be Saved is just not accurate. Again, the premise being if you are Christian. 



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I think combat_medic has nailed it. A Priest once told me that "there can be a lot of roads going up the sides of a mountain, that all end up in the same place". A belief in any religion requires faith. If it was all black & white, cut and dried, and scientifically infallible, then there would be no requirement for faith. If that was the case, you and I wouldn't have to "earn" anything, nor exercise our freedom of choice.



I believe that Priest was likely referring to different Christian denominations, not different religions. I challenge anyone to quote a Christian Minister who unequivocaly states that you can enter heaven without being a Christian to the exclusion of all other religions.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> If that was the case, you and I wouldn't have to "earn" anything, nor exercise our freedom of choice.



Just a point of note:you could never possible 'earn' your way into heaven. It is only by God's Grace that you could achieve this. The reason why Jesus had to die is because we have a debt of Sin to pay, and we could never fully pay for it. He took on all our sin onto himself, allowing us the possibility to enter Heaven 'clean'. We by rights should pay for our sin by going to h*ll (dang sensor!), but He took it for us so we can go to heaven. Here endeth the sermon.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I believe that God has allowed for different religions (different "spins" on essentially the same themes) so in fact, the opportunity would be presented (and appealing) to the largest possible amount of humans.



Allowed for different religions? Absolutely. Allow those of those religions to enter Heaven? No. Christianity excludes those of other faiths from entering heaven. You can believe what you like, obviously, we do have free will. However, it is not credible to argue that this is correct from a Christian perspective.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> These rules seem to be remarkably similar. Ironically, it seems that "the devil is in the details"...   pun intended



You're bang on there, my friend. I think we have discussed in this thread how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have a common root, therefore, you will find very striking similarities in doctrine. Which thread you follow dictates not only what you believe is true, but also what you believe is untrue.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> here you go Ceasar
> 
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
> 
> ...



Thanks dude. Peter, Paul, I get confused. Ah heck, their all Saints to me!


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> No, it's one group's interpretation of what they think God's wishes are. To claim that any particular group is certain of what God's wishes are is rather presumptuous. Billions of people practice entirely contradictory observances and practices because they think they are upholding God's wishes. It's about having an open mind, and being inclusive with your beliefs, rather than exclusive, which is, in my opinion, what Bead doesn't realize.



I dunno, this kind of raises the question "Does god actually REQUIRE anything?" 

Or can we just do whatever-the-heck we feel like doing, have a 
sincere heart about it and claim that it is "our form of worship" and 
win in the end.

(asuming god exists)  :


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Ok, I see what you're saying, but consider this. First, some assumptions:
> 
> Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore...
> Jesus is God, therefore....
> ...



First of all, where in the scripture does it say "Messiah == God"?
Talk to any jew about that one, or try picking up a bible sometime.

Second, where in the scripture does it say "Jesus == God"?

Third, where in the scripture does Jesus say "stop observing these things"?

Its my understanding that many first century christians still observed 
all of the jewish traditions right up until the year 70A.D. at which time 
the temple in jerusalem was destroyed by roman legions and christians 
came to believe the jewish system no longer was of any merit with god. 
Infact if you look at the letters that paul wrote quite often it was concerning 
CHRISTIANS who were still practising the jewish traditions and claiming
that you had to be circumcised in the flesh to be saved.

Dont forget that is says in Acts of Apostles that a large number of pharasees became 
believers at one point, and also that the early christian congragation was 
made up of three groups, Jews, Samaritans, and gentiles.

The Jews stuck to many of their practises, and likewise, as well as many of the gentiles
stuck to their practises even long after becoming "christian". This is why we have
so many pagan practises that have become part of mainstream christianity 
today.

Boy oh boy, when you're argument begins with so many asumptions I cant
even be bothered to read the rest of it. 

Please learn this; You're interpretation of Christianity is not the ONLY interpretation.


----------



## combat_medic (24 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore...
> Jesus is God, therefore....
> 
> When Jesus says to stop observing these things (Jewish Rites), it IS from God, and must be obeyed. Again, the caveat being if you are Christian.



No, if you believe the New Testament, Jesus is the Son of God, but a part of the trinity. Seperate, but also one (often the most difficult concept of Christianity to grasp). Jesus also does not say to stop observing the seven feasts, and, in fact, observes them himself, despite striking down a great deal of the old practices. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Well, to be a Christian, you have to believe that you are right, and that Jews and Muslims (as an example) are wrong when it comes to God's wishes. Otherwise, what the heck are you doing being a Christian if you know that Muslims are obeying God's wishes? Now, if you were to make this argument regarding Anglican/Catholic/Baptist/Pentecostal/Etc, that I can agree with.



THIS is the problem. The majority of people cannot possibly believe something without admonishing every other possible belief. You can say "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, because that is what I think is right FOR ME." Just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you therefore believe that everyone else is wrong. Again, this is part of the exclusionist tendancies of a lot of organized religion. 



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Allowed for different religions? Absolutely. Allow those of those religions to enter Heaven? No. Christianity excludes those of other faiths from entering heaven. You can believe what you like, obviously, we do have free will. However, it is not credible to argue that this is correct from a Christian perspective.



Define "Christian Perspective". You have stated that you are Anglican, but you might be surprised at the number of Christian denominations who don't immediately condemn all non-Christians directly to the fiery wrath of hell. Do you also say that you believe that a good person, who helped his fellow man, was kind to his children, faithful to his wife, and lived a good life by all accounts will be consigned to flames of woe for all eternity because he didn't believe in Jesus, or if he never even knew of his existance? Talk about exclusionism! No God that can claim to be loving, benevolant and all-forgiving would do this.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> First of all, where in the scripture does it say "Messiah == God"?
> Talk to any jew about that one, or try picking up a bible sometime.



Mathew 16:15-17 - "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Mathew 26:63-64 - 
But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a] the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

note: 'Christ' is defined as 'Messiah'.



			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> Second, where in the scripture does it say "Jesus == God"?



See above. Either you accept the above, and the Trinity (God the Son as one part), or you do not. There really is no point in debating it.



			
				neuromancer said:
			
		

> Talk to any jew about that one, or try picking up a bible sometime.


Let's keep this civil, shall we? As Infanteer said, once it gets personal, this thread can descend into shite very quickly. Obviously I am speaking from a Christian perspective, and I have been careful about pointing that out when I post.



			
				Caesar said:
			
		

> Ok, I see what you're saying, but consider this. First, some assumptions:
> Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, therefore...
> Jesus is God, therefore....
> When Jesus says to stop observing these things (Jewish Rites), it IS from God, and must be obeyed. Again, the caveat being if you are Christian.


your response:



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> No, if you believe the New Testament, Jesus is the Son of God, but a part of the trinity. Separate, but also one (often the most difficult concept of Christianity to grasp).



Exactly. I think we are arguing the same thing here. And yes, the Trinity is very confusing, and it has been described many ways here already.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> THIS is the problem. The majority of people cannot possibly believe something without admonishing every other possible belief. You can say "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, because that is what I think is right FOR ME." Just because you think you're right doesn't mean that you therefore believe that everyone else is wrong. Again, this is part of the exclusionist tendancies of a lot of organized religion.



who admonished? I simply stated that if you are Christian, you must believe that the path to Heaven is through Christ, to the exclusion of all other 'paths'. Is this earth shattering news? Or did I not make myself clear before? I am not passing judgement of Muslims, Jews, et all as people, but I am saying that one of us is right, and 2 of us are wrong. Again, you either believe, or you do not.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> Do you also say that you believe that a good person, who helped his fellow man, was kind to his children, faithful to his wife, and lived a good life by all accounts will be consigned to flames of woe for all eternity because he didn't believe in Jesus



Yes. The road to heck is paved with good intentions. You can never earn your way into heaven with deeds, to believe that you can is consistent with the Jehovah Witness sect, but not Christianity.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> or if he never even knew of his existence?



This is the exception. Babies, for instance, are believed by many denominations of Christianity to go to Heaven without knowing God. If you want biblical references, look it up, but I suspect you believe this as well.



			
				combat_medic said:
			
		

> Define "Christian Perspective".



A perspective based in Holy Scripture.

As an aside, I am really enjoying this thread. I hope that we can all keep our cool here, and avoid personal or heated attacks. If you disagree with what I say, fine, but I really am not interested in a flame war on religion. This is not directred at anyone in particular.


----------



## c4th (24 Jun 2005)

You two at 1650 Burrard, get back to work


----------



## larry Strong (24 Jun 2005)

Religion: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Cult:   Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs or practices.

I guess it depends on how you care to interpret the two definitions.

Cult seems to refer more towards the followers......hmmm that could go both ways....


----------



## combat_medic (24 Jun 2005)

Don't you know that nobody works on Fridays in Vancouver - they're all too stoned or drunk and are hanging out at Wreck Jericho Beach.


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Mathew 16:15-17 - "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
> 
> Mathew 26:63-64 -
> But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[a] the Son of God." "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
> ...



In neither of those scriptures does Jesus claim to be YHWH or
god himself. He said he was "the son of god". It is you that imply
that when he said "I am gods' son" that he is secretly saying "I am
part of a Trinity, I am 1/3 of god. My part of the Trinity is refered to
as The Son."

I disagree with that interpretation. Many christians do.

Jesus only claimed to be the son of god. I am not my father, even if 
my father taught me everything I know, and if I was a perfect 
reflection of my fathers personality I would still not "be" my father.

This is not the hardest part of Christianity to grasp, its the hardest part
of "your interpretation of" Christianity to grasp. Big difference.


----------



## neuromancer (24 Jun 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> Religion: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
> 
> Cult:  Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs or practices.
> 
> ...



Actually, I think Cults tend to worship living human beings. Claiming that a living human
is a divine being and worthy of worship and devotion. Followers of men.

By this definition the early Christians might have been considered a cult. In fact the romans 
did consider them a cult for a while. Later rome adopted Christianity, its funny how things work.


----------



## winchable (24 Jun 2005)

I think a cult tends to lean towards more earthly and tangible things while religion focuses on the incorporeal aspects of life, although to be honest I think cult comes under the umbrella term of "religion"
Also I think one thing you'll find with a cult is that they have distinct authorotative (can't spell tonight) leaders who generally claim to actually be God and it becomes all about that person where they worship a man, as I said very corporeal.


----------



## dutchie (24 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> In neither of those scriptures does Jesus claim to be YHWH or
> god himself. He said he was "the son of god". It is you that imply
> that when he said "I am gods' son" that he is secretly saying "I am
> part of a Trinity, I am 1/3 of god. My part of the Trinity is refered to
> ...



Ok, that is your right. What is 'many Christians'? I find it hard to believe that 'many' Chirstians don't believe in the Trinity. I will try and find biblical references to back my assertionn that He is God, but I don't have a bible right now. To be honest, I have never heard a Christian state that Christ is not God, so you caught me off guard. Re:references - I am stuck with the Net, which is not that helpful. I recal a passage that reads something like 'I and the father are one. The Son is not above the Father, and the Father is not above the Son.' and 'one cannot come to the Father but through me.' Again, I will try and look it up, but it will have to wait. If there is anyone who knows where it is, please post it.

So, if He is not part of the Trinity, then what role did he play on the cross? Spiritualy speaking, of course.


----------



## Trinity (24 Jun 2005)

Ok...

I've been enjoying the little inter dialogue you have been having
about the differences of the denominations and so on...

I haven't chirped in cause i'm not really interested in getting too 
involved in massive internet debates...  But...

this one points needs clarification

The Trinity (yes, incidently my name.. go figure why!!?)

I would have said all of christanity believes in the Trinity.  Hence the Christ part.
But saying 'MANY' christian denominations do not believe.. I have to put an end to that.
There might be one or two... that i'm not aware of.. but MANY?  Sorry.  I would have to
ask for theological proof on that one.  And remember I deal with all chaplains of all denominations
in the CF and I haven't heard of one denomination that doesn't believe in the Trinity...


----------



## Dare (24 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> WRONG
> 
> (didn't think I'd disagree with ya.. did you Che)
> 
> ...


Oh come now. Built in each of the three main Abrahamic religions are things that each of the others find problematic or offensive. Preaching ones own religion can prove to be an attack on another religion. Any religion worthy of it's salt should be able to provide a reasonable defense, rather than passing silly laws that make critisizing it illegal or making a sweeping suggestion such as that.


----------



## Dare (24 Jun 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> Religion: A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
> 
> Cult:  Adherents of an exclusive system of religious beliefs or practices.
> 
> ...


The most promenant feature of a cult is that of not being allowed to leave. Apostastic punishments are quite prolific under certain jurisdictions..


----------



## Dare (24 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> In neither of those scriptures does Jesus claim to be YHWH or
> god himself. He said he was "the son of god". It is you that imply
> that when he said "I am gods' son" that he is secretly saying "I am
> part of a Trinity, I am 1/3 of god. My part of the Trinity is refered to
> ...


Yes, the gospel of Matthew is fairly clear to me. Jesus plainly says many times that he is not God. The trinity is quite illogical. But then, so is weeping in front of a pizza that looks vaguely like Mary.


----------



## Dare (24 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Ok, that is your right. What is 'many Christians'? I find it hard to believe that 'many' Chirstians don't believe in the Trinity. I will try and find biblical references to back my assertionn that He is God, but I don't have a bible right now. To be honest, I have never heard a Christian state that Christ is not God, so you caught me off guard. Re:references - I am stuck with the Net, which is not that helpful. I recal a passage that reads something like 'I and the father are one. The Son is not above the Father, and the Father is not above the Son.' and 'one cannot come to the Father but through me.' Again, I will try and look it up, but it will have to wait. If there is anyone who knows where it is, please post it.
> 
> So, if He is not part of the Trinity, then what role did he play on the cross? Spiritualy speaking, of course.


I would say that it is correct that most Christians do, by implication of being Catholic, believe in a trinity. That being said, most Catholics I know are very astute on the dogma/rituals over the content of the bible (which, of course, is just a personal sampling. Reasults May Vary.)


----------



## larry Strong (24 Jun 2005)

I was just going off of the "Ask Jeeves" answers to the defiinitions.


----------



## Dare (24 Jun 2005)

larry Strong said:
			
		

> I was just going off of the "Ask Jeeves" answers to the defiinitions.


Both the definition of Cult and Religion are somewhat vague (as they both are generally started by charasmatic authoritarian leaders). Some cults call other religions cults, just as some religions call other religions cults. It is my belief that when a religion slides into cult territory, it is through a few things. 1) The takeover of domestic life by the leader. 2) The inability to question authority. 3) The micromanagement of day to day tasks. 4) Well known methods of mind control being used. 5) The threat/application of punishment to a disbeliever. 6) The threat/application of punishment to one who wishes to leave. 7) The use of intimidation (physical or psychological) to keep their followers in line. 8 ) The inability of the followers to make an independent choice without consulting authorities.

And, until God beams down and sends us the holy email/righteous fury, it's interpretive..

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer


----------



## larry Strong (24 Jun 2005)

OK here's Webster's then:

2 entries found for cult.
To select an entry, click on it. 
  cultcargo cult   

Main Entry: cult 
Pronunciation: 'k&lt
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion


One entry found for religion.


Main Entry: re ·li ·gion 
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re ·li ·gion ·less adjective


----------



## neuromancer (25 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I would have said all of christanity believes in the Trinity.  Hence the Christ part.
> But saying 'MANY' christian denominations do not believe.. I have to put an end to that.
> There might be one or two... that i'm not aware of.. but MANY?  Sorry.



The *majority* of christians do believe the trinity, but there are many who do not.

For example, Unitarians, Mormons, JW's, Doukhobors, and some Pentecostals.
Those are quite a few people! Even though there are probably more Catholics in
the world then all of those groups put together!

Other notable groups that do not believe in the trinity are Jews and Muslims.

(Please note, I am not affiliated with any of those religions)

Here is a bigger list of Non-trinitarian groups

    * American Unitarian Conference
    * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church; see also Mormon)
    * Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship
    * Magi Network
    * Church of Christ, Scientist
    * Oneness Pentecostals
    * Jehovah's Witnesses
    * Unification Church
    * Christadelphians
    * Polish Brethren
    * Doukhobors
    * Molokan
    * The Way International
    * Iglesia ni Cristo


A few notable Christians who rejected the Trinity Doctrine: 

    * Arius
    * Miguel Servet, persecuted by both the Spanish Inquisition and Jean Calvin.
    * Isaac Newton
    * John Locke
    * Thomas Jefferson
    * Joseph Priestley
    * James Madison
    * John Biddle
    * Francis David
    * James Martineau
    * Ludwig Haetzer
    * Fausto Paolo Sozzini
    * Neville Chamberlain
    * Robert Hibbert
    * Jonathan Mayhew
    * Ralph Waldo Emerson

This info was taken from wikipedia Here


----------



## Trinity (25 Jun 2005)

DAMN.... i stand corrected...

Then again a most of those groups aren't mainline denominations
or large... with exception of mormons and Jehovahs.


----------



## Trinity (25 Jun 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> Oh come now. Built in each of the three main Abrahamic religions are things that each of the others find problematic or offensive. Preaching ones own religion can prove to be an attack on another religion.



Preaching on one's religion can be an attack on anothers IF YOU make it that way.  I don't believe in the
'MARY mother of GOD' hype that the Catholics do, but I don't attack them over it.  You may not agree
with what I preach, but it doesn't mean its attacking YOUR way of life.  I'm not asking you to SHUN other
people or damn them and it is IRRESPONSIBLE for any preacher to do so.  




> Any religion worthy of it's salt should be able to provide a reasonable defense, rather than passing silly laws that make critisizing it illegal or making a sweeping suggestion such as that.


I didn't realize I passed a silly law critizing and making it illegal to make any suggestion..... 

What I am saying is....* If you start OPENLY attacking another religion, don't be suprised or upset if others
start doing it to you*.  As you say, any religion worth salt doesn't NEED to attack anothers religion because
it should be obvious and self sustaining on its own merits.

BeadWidow was attacking Islam saying it had pagen roots.  By doing so (and proclaiming to be christian)
it allowed others to root through the christian heritage and low and behold.. gee we have pagen roots too....
So by his own argument, his own religion (christianity) is now in doubt.

It has nothing to do if one's religion can hold 'salt'or not.  And from a scientific point.. they can't because
the one element that can't be measured is FAITH, which fills in the gaps for which we cannot explain, gaps
which 'hold salt'....


----------



## Dare (25 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Preaching on one's religion can be an attack on anothers IF YOU make it that way.  I don't believe in the
> 'MARY mother of GOD' hype that the Catholics do, but I don't attack them over it.  You may not agree
> with what I preach, but it doesn't mean its attacking YOUR way of life.  I'm not asking you to SHUN other
> people or darn them and it is IRRESPONSIBLE for any preacher to do so.


What if the religion dictates shunning people? What if the religion dictates attacks on another religion? 


> I didn't realize I passed a silly law critizing and making it illegal to make any suggestion.....


Obviously, this was not referring to you personally.


> What I am saying is....* If you start OPENLY attacking another religion, don't be suprised or upset if others
> start doing it to you*.  As you say, any religion worth salt doesn't NEED to attack anothers religion because
> it should be obvious and self sustaining on its own merits.


That's a point I will return to when I get home later, but good riposte.


> BeadWidow was attacking Islam saying it had pagen roots.  By doing so (and proclaiming to be christian)
> it allowed others to root through the christian heritage and low and behold.. gee we have pagen roots too....
> So by his own argument, his own religion (christianity) is now in doubt.


Indeed. I agree with that assessment.


> It has nothing to do if one's religion can hold 'salt'or not.  And from a scientific point.. they can't because
> the one element that can't be measured is FAITH, which fills in the gaps for which we cannot explain, gaps
> which 'hold salt'....


I wish I had time for that, but the 9AM bell dings. I'll be back.


----------



## Trinity (25 Jun 2005)

Dare said:
			
		

> What if the religion dictates shunning people? What if the religion dictates attacks on another religion?



VERY good question.  If its a smaller religion its usually ignored.  But take this case for example.






http://www.thedigitalcourier.com/articles/2005/05/24/news/news01.txt

This stirs hate.  You can bet this has been seen world wide thanks to the media.  

How do we stop the hateful ministers from doing this?  I have no idea.  I know two things
for certain.... Love thy God and Love they neighbour as thyself.   I think this signs violates both
serving god and thy neighbour.

As I said in a PM to you (DARE), I'm not sure if any religion can hold 'salt' without faith. 
On its own merits, I could probably make a case against any religion or denomintion.  Religion
isn't perfect but its all we have for spiritual needs.  The church gets bogged down in money 
and politics.  

Gods love and way for us is perfect.
Its when humans try to interpret that and do whats right is when it gets screwed up.  Somehow
I think god can account for the differences in this crazy system.


----------



## neuromancer (26 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> http://www.thedigitalcourier.com/articles/2005/05/24/news/news01.txt
> 
> This stirs hate.  You can bet this has been seen world wide thanks to the media.
> 
> ...



I dunno man.. 

Ok, this is according to my interpretation of the 
scriptures, but there are several times in the Bible 
when God became so angry with the Jews that he stoped 
listening to their prayers, there are other times when 
he was so angry that he was ready to wipe them from 
the earth.

Some differences just cant be accounted for, and I think 
saying "flush the koran" is  probably one of them.

..but thats just "how I feel"(tm)


----------



## LF(CMO) (26 Jun 2005)

APOSTLES CREED

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
    the Creator of heaven and earth,
    and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
    born of the Virgin Mary,
    suffered under Pontius Pilate,
    was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [See Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
    and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
    whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
    the communion of saints,
    the forgiveness of sins,
    the resurrection of the body,
    and life everlasting.

Amen.
  

*The word "catholic" refers not necessarily to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 What church you attend, or if you even attend a church, is not what determines if you are a Christian     If you believe the above you are a CHRISTIAN.  If you cannot accept it, You are not a CHRISTIAN.  The 'Apostles Creed' has been the universally accepted summation of Christian belief since the time of the Apostles, hence the 'Apostles Creed'.


----------



## neuromancer (26 Jun 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> If you believe the above you are a CHRISTIAN.  If you cannot accept it, You are not a CHRISTIAN.



I think its up to God to decide who is who, and what is what.

Remember that science has proven that we all come from the same genetic stock if you
trace it back far enough, so in a way we are all just one big family.

Bottom line, play nice with your brothers and sisters. Nobody likes to be labeled.
  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> If you believe the above you are a CHRISTIAN.   If you cannot accept it, You are not a CHRISTIAN.   The 'Apostles Creed' has been the universally accepted summation of Christian belief since the time of the Apostles, hence the 'Apostles Creed'.



Of course, religion evolves and faith can be a highly personal and interpretive matter.  I am not sure you have some ability to declare who is Christian and who is not (considering there are over a billion out there); people tried doing that when Martin Luther nailed the Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenburg Church.


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

There are some denominations that do not believe in the Apostles creed
yet consider themselves christian.

I've been meaning to post this for a while..  This is the MOST useful link
in the world (but i might be biased)


http://www.dnd.ca/hr/religions/engraph/religions_toc_e.asp?flag=No

The accepted religions of the Canadian Forces, their beliefs and the required needs of
the soldiers.  Chaplains often use this as a reference when sticky situations come up. This
should provide enough information to allow a level playing field of discussion when it comes
to the various denominations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Of course, religion evolves and faith can be a highly personal and interpretive matter.



There are all powerful, creative _forces_ (four* of them, actually, as far as I know) which have made all that is, seen and unseen.   These _creators_ have given us a universe, time, life and curiosity, and the greatest of these is curiosity.

The _creators_ have also given us a language through which we might discern their ways: mathematics.   Thus far we have seem to have decoded two words: _uncertainty_ and BANG!

Closer to home: don't forget to honour the ancestors; one _belief_ is just as _true_ as another.

----------

* Electromagentic, gravity, strong nuclear and weak nuclear â â€œ and there _may_ be more or fewer, which will become evident as we learn the language of the _creators_. (See: e.g Gross, _et al_ and quantum chromodynamics and Weinberg _et al_ and the electroweak force, and it goes on and on and on, _ad infinitum_.) 

----------

Edit: In addition, I agree with Acorn on the first page; we shouldn't discuss religion in the mess - it (eschewing talk about sex (straight or gay) religion and politics) is an old custom with good roots.


----------



## LF(CMO) (26 Jun 2005)

"I think its up to God to decide who is who, and what is what"

Absolutely, no question on the above!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (26 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> There are some denominations that do not believe in the Apostles creed
> yet consider themselves Christian.
> 
> I've been meaning to post this for a while..   This is the MOST useful link
> ...


     I am an Asatru, a norse pagan.  While we may not have made the CF accepted list, those of us who share the faith and have followed the service of arms into the CF seem to have done OK.  I have always found that the greatest hatreds in religion are spawned between the closest related faiths.  As an outsider, I have watched with amusement (in Canada) or profound disgust (the many wonderful places the CF sends us overseas), the way faiths so close in doctrine happily savage each other, while largely ignoring those that hold fundamental differences.  Irish Catholic/Protestant, the Sunni/Shiite,  the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the Christian/Muslim (in so many places) and the Hindhu/Sikh.  The differences that seem worth killing for, are usually not grasped well enough by the street level advocate of the conflict for them to explain (beyond the fact that "we are right and they are wrong, and deserve what we do to them").  In my faith, each is judged by their own actions (or innactions), and while I hold my gods to be true, I do not expect or demand that others beleive as I do.   I don't care what faith you follow, I judge you by what you do.  If your "invisible man in the sky" tells you to behave honourably, good enough; I could care less what you call him/her/them.  If your "invisible man in the sky" tells you to kill children, you will be in my gunsights shortly; again I don't care what you call whatever you worship, only what actions you use him to justify.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Edit: In addition, I agree with Acorn on the first page; we shouldn't discuss religion in the mess - it (eschewing talk about sex (straight or gay) religion and politics) is an old custom with good roots.



Yes, but as I said when I split this thread, I'm willing to let the topic run as long as it remains educational for all involved - there are some people well read in their faiths here and I've learned a bit from everyone while reading.  As I said earlier, the minute it goes personal, I'll lock it.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

That list that Trinity provides is fascinating - it is a really nice good for "Comparative Religiosity" (is that a word?).

Anywise, I found this odd - the CF actively recognizes Rastafarianism (I am assuming that there is a code for it on the ID disks).   Under the description of the religion, it states:



> They believe that the white race, or â Å“Babylon,â ? is inferior and that its members will eventually become the slaves of Rastafarians.



So, doesn't this conflict with the CF policy Zero-Tolerance policy regarding Racism that every applicant signs during the recruiting process?


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That list that Trinity provides is fascinating - it is a really nice good for "Comparative Religiosity" (is that a word?).



It is now.



> So, doesn't this conflict with the CF policy Zero-Tolerance policy regarding Racism that every applicant signs during the recruiting process?





My first guess would be yes.. but I refuse put any offical comment on it.
We had a Sgt. become one (who was white no less), simply to prove you could be one when the system
told him he couldn't.  

But just because the religion is listed, doesn't mean we have many or any in that denomination.  I'd be 
surprised if we have any Jehova's since they don't want to swear alliegence to any country (according to the link
which is government AND all the facts on that site are confirmed with the corresponding religious authorities.)

**moderator note:  fixed quote box
*** author note: had to refix your refix... lol


----------



## sigpig (26 Jun 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> I have always found that the greatest hatreds in religion are spawned between the closest related faiths.  As an outsider, I have watched with amusement (in Canada) or profound disgust (the many wonderful places the CF sends us overseas), the way faiths so close in doctrine happily savage each other, while largely ignoring those that hold fundamental differences.



Very well said. As an atheist I regularly post on christianforums and the way the 'good christians' there beat the living hell out of each other is just astounding, and sad but funny. Every flavour, every version is the 'right one.' Much as we see here, different man-made interpretations of  'what god wants' drive people to some very different ideas and beliefs. And of course, each one is right because god is on their side.


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

sigpig said:
			
		

> Every flavour, every version is the 'right one.' Much as we see here, different man-made interpretations of  'what god wants' drive people to some very different ideas and beliefs. And of course, each one is right because god is on their side.



Yeah... thats pretty sad.  

No religion is the right religion.  No denomination is the correct denomination.  Anyone who claims that
they are usually loses my respect very quickly.  

As for positing on Christian boards... christians like any other group, have their fanatics who will judge and shun
others until the day they die.


----------



## Warvstar (26 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Yeah... thats pretty sad.
> 
> No religion is the right religion.  No denomination is the correct denomination.  Anyone who claims that
> they are usually loses my respect very quickly.
> ...



From what I read you say no one religion is the right religion? Well from what the Christian Bible says you have to believe in Christ and his message. Christ says in the Bible that he is the only way.


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

Yes..

I believe that is in the Gospel of John. But only in the Gospel of John.
There are three other gospels which don't say that.  Thus, there are
other interpretations which don't necessarily agree.

The bible also has two creation stories... but both can't be correct!
The bible says turn your plowshares into swords... but also says
in other books turn your swords into plowshares.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> The bible says turn your plowshares into swords... but also says
> *in other books turn your plowshares into swords. *



shouldnt that be the other way around ?


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

LOL    ;D ;D


Was doing 2 MSN conversation while typing this post...  

Its corrected in the original post

Thanks...


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (26 Jun 2005)

Warvstar said:
			
		

> From what I read you say no one religion is the right religion? Well from what the Christian Bible says you have to believe in Christ and his message. Christ says in the Bible that he is the only way.


       As a pagan I found that the Bible, Torah, and Koran that are supposed to be the founding doctrine of the faith you people all share is less of a foundation, and more like a quote book for many of you.   You go to it with your prejudices, look up supporting citations, and charge out to attack each other.   I have actually studied the self-conflicting texts in a variety of translations, and it does require a certain degree of scholarship to interpret as it does use parable and paradox to instruct and enlighten.   On the whole, religious scholars of all three books share much more agreement than their street level adherents, and a greater acceptance of each others creed.   The arrogance that I find most amazing, is that all three faiths seem perfectly willing to declare (in any of their conflicting denominations) that they and only they can offer the Word of God.   Now I am an Odinist, and our teachings were never as codified as the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths, but the idea of one of our priests declaring that they could speak for Odin, and that their words alone could show the way to Valhalla would be laughable to us.   The gods are not men, they are quite beyond mortal understanding.   To claim to speak the whole truth of divine wisdom in earthly language is ridiculous.   Why do you think most religious instruction is in the form of parable and paradox?   Because the essential truths of divinity can only be imperfectly understood by us.   Why are their so many faiths?   A Sikh friend of mine uses the parable of the diamond, each faith is a facet of the diamond, all shine with the light of the central truth, but none can encompass its entirety.   Each facet is different, each light unique, but shine from the same source, and carry the same truth.   To each is given a portion of the truth, and each is a path to salvation, the whole truth is beyond mortal ken.   Listening to the last few pages of posts arguing minor doctrinal differences, as if they in some fashion could coerce god into belonging to them alone, is a bit like listening to an argument over wether CN or CP lines   lead to Vancouver; different passes to the same port friends, thats all it is.


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

It's a good thing i'm not a religious person or i would be going to hell for picking on the padre    ;D


----------



## Trinity (26 Jun 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> Why are their so many faiths?   A Sikh friend of mine uses the parable of the diamond, each faith is a facet of the diamond, all shine with the light of the central truth, but none can encompass its entirety.   Each facet is different, each light unique, but shine from the same source, and carry the same truth.



Well put.  I like that.  



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> It's a good thing i'm not a religious person or i would be going to hell for picking on the padre   ;D



Aesop... just cause you don't believe doesn't mean its not going to happen.   ;D


----------



## aesop081 (26 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Aesop... just cause you don't believe doesn't mean its not going to happen.     ;D



yeah yeah..." and the seventh angel pored out his bowl into the air and a voice cried out from the heavens saying "it is done" and all that......


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jun 2005)

Mainerjohnthomas - you are a wise man, my friend.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That list that Trinity provides is fascinating - it is a really nice good for "Comparative Religiosity" (is that a word?).
> 
> Anywise, I found this odd - the CF actively recognizes Rastafarianism (I am assuming that there is a code for it on the ID disks).   Under the description of the religion, it states:
> 
> So, doesn't this conflict with the CF policy Zero-Tolerance policy regarding Racism that every applicant signs during the recruiting process?



I guess it would be no different than the Christian position on Homosexuality.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jun 2005)

Well, since it seems that many Christians (including members here) are tolerant of it, that isn't quite the truth.  I think the anti-gay Christian movement is, like Mainerjohnthomas stated, merely a matter of people using the "Book of Quotes" as opposed to a fundamental tenet of the faith.

I just locked one thread on that topic - don't do that to this one as well.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, since it seems that many Christians (including members here) are tolerant of it, that isn't quite the truth.   I think the anti-gay Christian movement is, like Mainerjohnthomas stated, merely a matter of people using the "Book of Quotes" as opposed to a fundamental tenet of the faith.
> 
> I just locked one thread on that topic - don't do that to this one as well.



Well I have to disagree with you Infanteer. I will decline from  expressing my personal view on homosexuality. However, those who practice Orthodox Christianity (true Christianity that is ye,s I know I'll hear about it) (which are those who adhere to the thelogical foundations of church as agreed upon by the seven ecumenical counsels, universally excepted by the first millennium church.) certainly viewed homosexuality as a sin, but then again they viewed drunkenness, anger, strife , envy, and sexual immorality of any kind, as sin as well . Infact, Jesus said if a man were to look at a woman with lust in his eyes he committed adultery with her in his heart! The scriptures are quite explicate when it come to what behaviour God considers as sinful; uniting oneself with a prostitute, lovers of money (TV Evangelists anyone), those without love, the unholy, those without self-controll, slander etc. The problem with the gay "issue" in my opinion is that their are two groups trying to exploit the bible. The first group: modernests, who believe scripture is subjective to their own views. Scripture has to be interpreted through Orthodox theology. The Orthodox wrote the New Testament and decided on the books that were to be included. Scripture has to be viewed through the eyes of the early Church fathers the theologians who with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined the early canons of the Church. One cannot arbitrarily change what the scriptures prohibits because it doesn't fit with the latest cause celeb. Secondly, there are those, homophobes who would latch on to anything which would justify their hated towards gays these are not Christians. I detest those who would propagate hate in the name of religion.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.


----------



## combat_medic (27 Jun 2005)

The majority of the passage in the Bible declaring homosexuality as a sin are part of the old law that Christ struck down. The same chapter in Leviticus that says homosexuality is an abomination says the same thing about sleeping with a woman on her period, wearing clothing made of different fibres, marrying a non-virgin, and planting different crops in the same field... and yet these passages are blatantly ignored. 

Furthermore, the Bible is rife with contradictions, so no denomination can claim to be following it to the letter, or they'd be running around in circles. (here's a good start on biblical inconsistencies: http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/dminconsistencies.htm ). Assuming you believe that the Bible is dibinely inspired, the billions of hands the texts have gone through, and the hundreds of different translations from a handful of languages into virtually every language in existance, obviously there has been errors along the way. Even if you believe that God himself was speaking to the writers of the biblical texts, you have to account for human error. No one denomination could possibly have it right, as it's all subject to interpretation. 

Futhermore, each person is different. Kind of like a Rorschach Inkblot Tests - different people will see different things in the exact same image, just as people's experiences, personality, education, and upringing will influence their reading of the exact same book. The same book tells you "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". You have to decide for yourself which one to follow.


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Just to add what Jumper said:

1-All sins are equal. Some believe in 'Mortal Sin' (essentially a '2-tiered' sin structure), but most denominations believe that all sin is equal. That is, the social acceptability of the act (say, homosexual sex, adultery, thievery, envy, murder, etc) is irrelevant, as God is not concerned with social acceptability. One sin for which forgiveness from God has not been granted will deny you from entering heaven, no matter what it is. Also inherent in Christianity is the notion that we are all sinners. So, in effect, we are all equally doomed unless we are saved. So anyone who claims to be 'cleaner' than anyone else is a hypocrite. While on one hand one cannot absolve a gay person from sin (unless they are abstinant), they also cannot assign greater sin to them than themselves. 

2-Some might ask: Well, you cannot tell someone they are going to hell because they are gay, when everyone sins everyday. So what difference does it make if they are gay if they will go to hell because of these other sins which most everyone commits? The key is sincere repentance. Nobody can live sinless - it is not possible. But if you repent and ask for forgiveness, and you are sincere, you will be forgiven (according to most Christians). Most people who struggle with a particular sin (say adultery, envy, thievery, drunkenness) will usually ask for guidance and strength to help them overcome their weaknesses. So it is not necessary (and not possible) to live sinless lives.

Note: sex outside of marriage is a sin, regardless of whether it is hetero or homosexual. As well, the Bible is very clear on what constitutes marriage, and it does NOT include homosexual marriage. So, by proxy, homosexual sex is a sin, but homosexuality is not (as long as you are abstinant).


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Note: sex outside of marriage is a sin, regardless of whether it is hetero or homosexual. As well, the Bible is very clear on what constitutes marriage, and it does NOT include homosexual marriage. So, by proxy, homosexual sex is a sin, but homosexuality is not (as long as you are abstinant).



I'm not challenging your argument... i'm just curious where in the bible it says that.  Would like to
see it for my own personal development.  It is a very bold statement to make and I haven't seen 
that passage for myself.


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm not challenging your argument... i'm just curious where in the bible it says that.   Would like to
> see it for my own personal development.   It is a very bold statement to make and I haven't seen
> that passage for myself.


I'll try and find it, but I am not near a Bible, so I am stuck with the net. I suspect it may be in one of Paul's letters, or maybe in John/Luke/Mathew/Mark. Doing a search in one of those on-line bible sites for 'homosexual' does nothing, as it is a modern word, and obviously not in the Bible. 

I'll look, but if someone out there has it, please post.

As an aside, you say you are not disputing my argument, so do you prefer not to say what your professional opinion is? If not, please tell me.....from an 'expert', is my interpretation sound? Or am I missing something?


----------



## neuromancer (27 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> The majority of the passage in the Bible declaring homosexuality as a sin are part of the old law that Christ struck down. The same chapter in Leviticus that says homosexuality is an abomination says the same thing about sleeping with a woman on her period, wearing clothing made of different fibres, marrying a non-virgin, and planting different crops in the same field... and yet these passages are blatantly ignored.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible is rife with contradictions, so no denomination can claim to be following it to the letter, or they'd be running around in circles. (here's a good start on biblical inconsistencies: http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/dminconsistencies.htm ). Assuming you believe that the Bible is dibinely inspired, the billions of hands the texts have gone through, and the hundreds of different translations from a handful of languages into virtually every language in existance, obviously there has been errors along the way. Even if you believe that God himself was speaking to the writers of the biblical texts, you have to account for human error. No one denomination could possibly have it right, as it's all subject to interpretation.
> 
> Futhermore, each person is different. Kind of like a Rorschach Inkblot Tests - different people will see different things in the exact same image, just as people's experiences, personality, education, and upringing will influence their reading of the exact same book. The same book tells you "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". You have to decide for yourself which one to follow.



Sorry, Im going to call BS on that one. First of all I would like to say that most 
inconsistancys are infact missunderstanding of context or other various side-line 
information. I have found VERY VERY FEW inconsistancys or contradictions that 
last under a little bit of thought or research.

*get out his book of quotes*

"Do not fool yourselves; people who are *immoral* or who *worship 
idols* or are *adulterers* or *homosexual* perverts or who
*steal* or are *greedy* or are *drunkards* or who *slander* 
others or are *thieves* - none of these will possess God's Kingdom."
1 Corinthians 6:9 --Good News Bible.

Now, before anyone jumps on my back, lets just try to temper that scripture 
with another one, ok?

"'Teacher' he asked, 'which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus 
answered '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and 
with all your mind.' This is the greatest and the most important commandment. 
The second most important commandment is like it: '*Love your neightbour as 
you love yourself*.' The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets 
depends on these two commandments."
Matthew 22:36-40 --Good News Bible.

So, if you dont love your gay neighbours as you love yourself, then you might 
as well be gay yourself, cause you aint getting in the kingdom anyway.. its the 
second greatest commandment in the entire "book of quotes".

As a so-called "orthodox" christian you may feel that gay people are going to h3ll
or whatever, but if you dont love them then you are condeming yourself to that 
very same h3ll. 

Also, if you dont view people who cheet on their taxes and steal from "Ceasar"
or who might cheat on their wives, or even have pre-marital sex as you would
also view someone who is gay, then you are a hypocrite. You're also going to h3ll
in those cases, cause thats where the hypocrites and liars go.

You might try to say "but Jesus got mad at people and condemed them when
he was on earth". True, but acording to the bible he had authority to do those
things given to him by god, you dont. 

So better button those lips and play nice. Work on being a better christian youself
and lay off on the condemnations and wrath, thats not your job anyway.

(this post is addressed to the so-called "orthodox" christians.. the rest of 
you can ignore me)  ;D


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> The majority of the passage in the Bible declaring homosexuality as a sin are part of the old law that Christ struck down. The same chapter in Leviticus that says homosexuality is an abomination says the same thing about sleeping with a woman on her period, wearing clothing made of different fibres, marrying a non-virgin, and planting different crops in the same field... and yet these passages are blatantly ignored.
> 
> Furthermore, the Bible is rife with contradictions, so no denomination can claim to be following it to the letter, or they'd be running around in circles. (here's a good start on biblical inconsistencies: http://www.geocities.com/closetatheist/dminconsistencies.htm ). Assuming you believe that the Bible is dibinely inspired, the billions of hands the texts have gone through, and the hundreds of different translations from a handful of languages into virtually every language in existance, obviously there has been errors along the way. Even if you believe that God himself was speaking to the writers of the biblical texts, you have to account for human error. No one denomination could possibly have it right, as it's all subject to interpretation.
> 
> Futhermore, each person is different. Kind of like a Rorschach Inkblot Tests - different people will see different things in the exact same image, just as people's experiences, personality, education, and upringing will influence their reading of the exact same book. The same book tells you "an eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek". You have to decide for yourself which one to follow.



Jesus did not come to strike down the old law but to fulfill it, the salvation of mankind. And being a Jew he observed the Jewish customs and laws of his day, he did teach in the temple after all. So to say that he ignores the law would be incorrect. Jesus was angered at the distortion of the law by the Pharisees and Sadducee's who burdened people with the legalities of the law to such an extent that it deviated from the worship of God. Having said, that there are passages in the New Testament that refer to homosexual behaviour pulse read the 1st Chapter of Romans. Secondly if you have any inconsistencies about the bible plse list them. I would be glad to put them in context for you.


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> As an aside, you say you are not disputing my argument, so do you prefer not to say what your professional opinion is? If not, please tell me.....from an 'expert', is my interpretation sound? Or am I missing something?



Do I agree... no.

Is your interpretation wrong.. no

I'm not that egotistical to say my professional opinion is correct and everyone should follow.  There
are many truths.  After three years of study, I am not convinced that gay marriage or being gay  is
a sin, HOWEVER, I also don't have enough knowledge and scripture to support it 100%  IMO from a 
religious perspective.  Too few random quotes condemning it with other scripture that contradicts 
the random anti gay quotes through Christian theology. (hope you can follow that last sentence)

I would love to see gay marriage.  I'm happy to see it done by civilian authorities.  I woud love to see it
done by those denominations who feel its ok.  Personally, I need to get my understanding of it before
I would perform one.  I'm all for gay rights, marriage, etc.  

We are all too selective in the bible these days.  We all sin.  The true sin is not loving one another and loving god.
Everything after that is gravy.

But i'm not saying your wrong.  I was just using my words carefully in your post.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

neuromancer said:
			
		

> Sorry, Im going to call BS on that one. First of all I would like to say that most
> inconsistancys are infact missunderstanding of context or other various side-line
> information. I have found VERY VERY FEW inconsistancys or contradictions that
> last under a little bit of thought or research.
> ...



I not sure if your post has anything to do with my early post could you plse explain what you mean in regards to "orthodox" Christains.   I'm not getting your piont.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Do I agree... no.
> 
> Is your interpretation wrong.. no
> 
> ...



Could you plse tell me what scriptures contridict the "random" anti-gay scriptures in the Bible.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm not challenging your argument... i'm just curious where in the bible it says that.   Would like to
> see it for my own personal development.   It is a very bold statement to make and I haven't seen
> that passage for myself.



St Mark 10:1-10


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> St Mark 10:1-10



For clarity, here is the scripture above:

But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 7 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."

BTW, those are Jesus' words.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

Pretty clear.....


----------



## LF(CMO) (27 Jun 2005)

"So, if you dont love your gay neighbours as you love yourself, then you might 
as well be gay yourself, ... its the 
second greatest commandment in the entire "book of quotes".

 The above is correct.  It is not the person that the Bible condemns, it is the sin.  We all have some kind of sin in our lives that we have to deal with.  Being 'gay' does not mean one is going to hell.

BTW:  Jumper, you are very 'discerning' in your statements on scripture.  There has been a lot of  confusion on here and you have helped to clarify things.  It seems that most who have anything to do with Para think more clearly..?


----------



## atticus (27 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> The majority of the passage in the Bible declaring homosexuality as a sin are part of the old law that Christ struck down. The same chapter in Leviticus that says homosexuality is an abomination says the same thing about sleeping with a woman on her period, wearing clothing made of different fibres, marrying a non-virgin, and planting different crops in the same field... and yet these passages are blatantly ignored.



Alot of these "sleeping witha awoman on her period, etc." were laws to be followed while the Isrealites were wondering through the desert. It is in more than just Leviticus that speaks out about homosexuality. 

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."



			
				LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "So, if you dont love your gay neighbours as you love yourself, then you might
> as well be gay yourself, ... its the
> second greatest commandment in the entire "book of quotes".
> 
> The above is correct.  It is not the person that the Bible condemns, it is the sin.  We all have some kind of sin in our lives that we have to deal with.  Being 'gay' does not mean one is going to heck.


If they don't repent my beliefs state that they are as stated in the bible. But I do agree with you that the person isn't condems its the sin, but if that person does not repent their sin, they will be condemed in hell because of their sin. Its also important that we should remember we still need to love the person as Christ does.

These are the ten commandments to stop any mis-quotes:
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.

IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
	VI. Thou shalt not kill.

VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

VIII. Thou shalt not steal.

IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Another think that I feel gets missed a lot of time:

Every person is a child of God. It does not matter what they do or do not believe, it does not matter what they do or do not do, and it does not matter what they look like. Like us, God values all human life equally.

As well, when we love what is God's, we love God. When we honour what is God's, we honour God. 

Therefore, we should treat all people with respect, love, and compassion. We should treat those with whom we disagree with as if they were our brother/sister. To do this is to honour and love God. That is what "love your neighbor as you would yourself' means to me.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "So, if you dont love your gay neighbours as you love yourself, then you might
> as well be gay yourself, ... its the
> second greatest commandment in the entire "book of quotes".
> 
> ...


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

Ok.. I'll bite.  Mark 10-1 is Jesus stating his ideal situation for the family unit.
Essentially go out and procreate, i.e. flesh becoming one as well as being
literal in the translation as in the couple becomes one.

I won't say its the 100% definition of marriage.  See I find myself wanting
to argue against this... but even my research on this is using the term 
marriage, when in any translation of this gospel (yes, i've checked them all, www.blueletterbible.org)
doesn't say marriage.

It doesn't say DONT marry people of the same sex either... but I think that is implied.

As for bible quotes / theology that goes against the same sex quotes... give me a while.
Its going to take a bit to dig them up.  It would be simliar to love one another where as
leviticus wants people to be stoned. BTW.. Leviticus should never be used as any example.
Sending women away for 7 days until their menstruation is over...  nice.  I use that line
to combat anyone who takes or misquotes the bible.

Just a heads up... rules in quoting the bible

1) read before and after the quote (a good bit)
2) ensure that it follows the theme of the book
3) a good theme will be repeated more than once in a chapter (i.e. 4-10 times)

Thats what bothers me about the anti gay quotes is they are few and spread out throughout
the bible.  I won't deny that they exist, but they way the are presented ..... I can find just
as many quotes saying women should be seen and not heard.  That women are property.

Thats why I'm taking caution on this issue. And rightfully so, I would hate to be wrong or
tell someone wrong info.


----------



## S McKee (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Ok.. I'll bite.   Mark 10-1 is Jesus stating his ideal situation for the family unit.
> Essentially go out and procreate, i.e. flesh becoming one as well as being
> literal in the translation as in the couple becomes one.
> 
> ...



I agree with some of your points however plse don't expend any effort on finding any quotes supportive of gay unions the in the bible, because there isn't any. Insofar as reading the bible in and out of context you are right, one must keep in mind: a. when the book was written; b. who the book was written for (the audience); c. the author and the writing style of the author; and d. the message of the book. 

I believe the issue of women in the bible is greatly misunderstood as well. If you recall the subservient male /female relationship is not originally what God intended. It is one of  consequences of "the fall" for "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Men and woman were intended to be equals. However because sin entered the universe the natural balance was upset. (Another statement that will get me trouble) However, in Ephesians men are instructed to love their wives as Christ loved the church (how often does that happen). How did Christ love the church? He suffered and died for her, he gave up everthing  even his exalted position in heaven for her, this is how men are to treat their wives. God states not only in the New but in the Old Testaments that He "Hates" divorce. Perhaps the strongest language He uses to describe any sin. I have never read anywhere in the scriptures were God condones that women be treated as the "property" of their husbands. Slavery is a construct of man not of God.


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

I never said slave...
I said property

It all about taking the scripture in context - as you already know.
If you study the time period, the men owned their family and servants.

Thats one of the reason a dowery is paid for a bride because it was a
loss/compensation to the father.  Also, the whole giving away the bride
thing during weddings.  

Adultery was wrong, not because it was sleeping with another person,
as it was a property crime against the man.  Only women could commit
adultery, not men (because it was a property crime)


edit... oh.. btw.. I agree. I don't think god intended it to be an un-equal 
relationship either.  However, this is what happened during the time of Jesus.
He knew of this... and thus probably your quotes.  Nevertheless, it took a long
time for that to change....  say what.. 1600's, 1700's??

Thus.. in a very brief post, women were property back then.  I have no
immediate proof with the exception I just finished a M.Div (3 years) studdying
this.  Although I won't claim truth on many things... of this I can promise it true.


Edit... again.. 

Oh.. and men were incharge of OUTSIDE family issues.
Women were incharge of inside family issues.  So they did
have some power, just in public they remained silent.  

Isn't learning fun?


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity:

So how do you discern what is 'true scripture' and what has been perverted by the social norms of the day? How do you seperate the wheat from the chaff? Obviously God's true wishes have nothing to do with the acceptance of the secular society (then or now). 

I find this particularly difficult. The only 'system' I can come up with is this: true scripture is almost always supported by more than one Book, and is consistant with the 10 Commandments and Jesus' teachings. Anything that is outside of this, I am unsure of.

edit: when I say 'scripture' I mean 'God's wishes/commands'. I am not insinuating that any part of the Bible is 'wrong' - that is impossible (as it was written by God through the prophets).


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> Trinity:
> 
> So how do you discern what is 'true scripture' and what has been perverted by the social norms of the day? How do you seperate the wheat from the chaff? Obviously God's true wishes have nothing to do with the acceptance of the secular society (then or now).
> 
> I find this particularly difficult. The only 'system' I can come up with is this: true scripture is almost always supported by more than one Book, and is consistant with the 10 Commandments and Jesus' teachings. Anything that is outside of this, I am unsure of.



You fellows need a theological Heisenberg to give you a _principle_ with which to address this issue.


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

Welcome to the problem my friend.


Discernment... as I practice it......

Look at the text, try to get a feeling for it.

Look for repeated themes, the purpose of the book, references made within the book

Look for clues that allude to things within the time period (which you only learn by studying the history)
Know who wrote it and who it was written to..  
such as Matthew was written for the Jews. Other gospels were written to address other groups such
as Gentiles.  Knowing who wrote it helps understand the circumstances and the aim of the stories.  We can
have the same story multiple times in the bible, all a bit different, specifically to be used for maximum effect. 

Read commentaries by scholars - found in the library, various sites (such as www.blueletterbible.org)
They usually know the little keys, stories, changes, translation difficulties, and any other tid bit that
we aren't privy to.

Research different translations - i.e. different versions, i.e. NIV, NRSV, American Bible, KJV, etc....
see what each one says for the passage, how it differs and why

Finally, pray on it.  Ask if you have it right or to guide you to the truth. 


Not to hard at all..... :


----------



## dutchie (27 Jun 2005)

Thanks Padre, that helps. It looks like I was doing all of that, but I could do a little more studying of the historical context in which It was written. 

Oh, and of course, praying. You could always do more of that.


----------



## atticus (27 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> You fellows need a theological Heisenberg to give you a _principle_ with which to address this issue.



You mean the uncertainty principle? So do you mean uncertainty that God acually exists? I guess thats where faith comes in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> You mean the uncertainty principle? So do you mean uncertainty that God acually exists? I guess thats where faith comes in.



Well, actually I meant the more certain you are of one thing the less certain you must be of other things related to it.



> _â ? The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.â ?_
> 
> Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

I know the Heiekin principle or
the Carlsberg principle!!  ;D

Never learned the Heisenberg though!!  


The other two involve heavy drinking then arguing about god! ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I know the Heiekin principle or
> the Carlsberg principle!!   ;D
> 
> Never learned the Heisenberg though!!
> ...



Heisenberg involves even heavier drinking and arguing about quantum mechanics.  It is rumoured to be waaaaaay more fun; unfortunately, the next morning, no one remembers anything - except the uncertainty.


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Heisenberg involves even heavier drinking and arguing about quantum mechanics.  It is rumoured to be waaaaaay more fun; unfortunately, the next morning, no one remembers anything - except the uncertainty.



Touche


----------



## the 48th regulator (27 Jun 2005)

> I know the Heiekin principle or
> the Carlsberg principle!!



Ok Padre,

This thread may be catered to you, but you have touched on subject near and dear to me.  I am insulted that you did not heed my words you hopples heathen....

Heineken   

dileas

tess

oi vey....

spectacle, testicle, wallet watch....


----------



## Trinity (27 Jun 2005)

I knew when tess was going to come in.. I was in trouble

I LOOKED it up on the beer store website...

and then typed it wrong!!!  

My heart as in the right place...

I know.. i'm buying you a pint for that!


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2005)

http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/06/christians-should-welcome-court.html



> Christians Should Welcome Court Rulings on Commandments
> 
> As a Christian and an American, I welcome the two rulings issued by the US Supreme Court today regarding displays of the Ten Commandments on public property. As a New York Times account points out:
> 
> ...



If you want to display a symbol of your particular religion, I say "Bring it on". What I don't agree with is the active supression of one particular religion. If the Christians want the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse, then the opportunity to display a Menorah, Tibetan Prayer Wheels or the "Ten Principles of Leadership" must also be given, rather than the heavy handed "tear it down" solution.


----------



## DSB (27 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> There are some denominations that do not believe in the Apostles creed
> yet consider themselves christian.
> 
> I've been meaning to post this for a while..   This is the MOST useful link
> ...




I'm a little late on this thread.

That link is great, thanks for posting it.

As far as apapproacheso God go; all I hope is that people's approaches don't effect my approach.   I've had some friends plead with me to change my ways because I'm going to heck.   Which gets annoying, especially if you don't believe in heck.   Strange. I like the you build your house, I'll build mine atattitude.
DSB


----------



## S McKee (28 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2005/06/christians-should-welcome-court.html
> 
> If you want to display a symbol of your particular religion, I say "Bring it on". What I don't agree with is the active supression of one particular religion. If the Christians want the Ten Commandments displayed in a courthouse, then the opportunity to display a Menorah, Tibetan Prayer Wheels or the "Ten Principles of Leadership" must also be given, rather than the heavy handed "tear it down" solution.



An excellent story/post and I agree whole heartedly. One should live his/her faith not have it imposed by legislation. As one person once told me "You will be the only Bible some people will ever read." (scary thought) this is how the true faithful will proselytize. This can be said for any person of faith regardless of religion.


----------



## Acorn (28 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> These are the ten commandments to stop any mis-quotes:
> I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
> 
> II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
> ...



Looks like the KJV translation. Lovely prose, fecal translation - and the cause of much grief to the Christian community.

Acorn


----------



## atticus (28 Jun 2005)

how is it a "fecal" translation? Please back your statement up with something more than that it is a great cause of greif to the Christian community. I'm pretty sure its the KJV, I copied it off a web site I found.


----------



## Acorn (28 Jun 2005)

Though it was my suggestion that kicked this off, principally due to my offence at the idea that Islam was somehow a pagan faith, I haven't really taken the opportunity to stick my oar in due to the time factor.

I'll offer this, which may offend some. It's based on my take about God and religion (which I think are more exclusive than many of you likely do). Some may find it humorous, but I hope none consider it ammo for destroying the faith of others.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses went to the mountain in disgust at what his people had become - pagans, ignoring the God of their fathers. He didn't realize it at the time, but he was actively seeking guidance from God. God responded. The conversation is as follows:

_A bush begins to burn and Moses hears a voice_

God: Moses.

Moses: Holy s***t (in a later time he would likely have said "J**** C*****!")

G: back off on the blasphemy Moses. We need to talk.

M: Sorry Lord. It's not every day a burning bush talks to someone.

G: Good point. As long as you promise not to include it in anything you write in the future, I'll adopt a form much like you - old man with a beard. Is that better?

M: Yes, and it's off the record. The burning bush has the better literary impact anyway.

G: I knew I chose you well Moses.

M: By the way, what's that smoldering thing in your mouth?

G: Ahh. A cigar. Cuban. Keep that out of the scripture as well. There's going to be enough trouble about it a few thousand years from now. Kind of like the drink I'm having - a people called "Scots" will create it in the future, and call it the "Water of Life" in their language. Their word is "whisky" note the lack of an "e." That's important.

M: I don't understand my Lord.

G: Yeah, I know. You never will. Anyway, you're troubled, and seeking guidance. What can I do for you?

M: The people are turning from you and worshipping idols of their own making. How can I turn them back?

G: You can't. I created you with free will, which means you can do what you want.

M: But that would create Chaos!

G: Yeah, I know. Look, if you want to keep them in line you can impose laws. I'll give you a few to start. The key thing to remember is that the laws must be only as restrictive as necessary to prevent people from harming themselves or others. Lighten it up as time goes by. The level of education of people these days requires telling them that "God says such-and-such is bad." At some point they'll cease to believe it. Or, at least, a significant number will.

M: How could people not believe in you O Lord?!

G: You just did it. You obviously didn't believe what I just said. 

M: Forgive me O Lord.

G: No problem. If there's one consistency in you, my people, it's that you have, and will, change whatever I tell you into something of your own interpretation. It'll happen about six significant times before you get even close to right, and there's enough flex in the future that you may even destroy yourselves first. You'll endlessly argue about my words, and that may be the end of you.

G: I'm going to give you five rules. See if they get to the bottom of the mountain intact:

1. I'm the only God - don't try to figure me out, as I'm beyond human understanding.
2. Don't try to make a picture of me. I'm beyond human understanding.
3. Don't invoke my name unless you need me. If you say it too much it's like crying "wolf."
4. If you do nothing else, say a prayer or two one day.
5. Don't do anything against your fellow humans. They'll get you back if you do.

M: That doesn't seem enough Lord.

G: <sigh> Whatever. That's the basics. You add what you need. I need a refill.

Then God looked down and saw Moses deliver Ten Commandments to the people. Of course, God knows what the next version of The Law would look like (God's note to self - try a bit more emphasis on number five next time). God also knows how many versions it will take before man Gets It. If ever. God knows everything. One wonders why God even bothers.
----------------------------------------

Acorn


----------



## Acorn (28 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> how is it a "fecal" translation? Please back your statement up with something more than that it is a great cause of greif to the Christian community. I'm pretty sure its the KJV, I copied it off a web site I found.



Maybe a bad choice of words on my part. However, the KJV is acknowledged among Biblical scholars as a very bad translation. One example is in the Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill" (KJV) is better translated as "Do not commit murder." An important distinction, I should think.

Acorn
<edited for spelling>


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2005)

I remember watching a fascinating show on the evolution of the English language and how it was tied to the Church in England.  The King James Bible was deliberately written in an archaic and confusing form of English and was far from the contemporary vernacular of the time.  It was done so due to the fact that the Common people would have access to the Bible (the show talked about Bible production after Gutenburg's press began to promogulate) and that it needed to sound ancient, flowery, and authoritative - the demand for accuracy wasn't really as high as those first three.


----------



## neuromancer (28 Jun 2005)

Yes indeed. 

The KJV is, simply put, a bad translation.

There have been numerous ancient texts found since the KJV was written 
and so a more modern translation (the last 50 years) would naturally be 
more accurate provided they utilized those ancient texts during the 
translation process.

Also, historical records from the time cite that King James (a frenchman 
and a Catholic) told the translators that they needed to revise certain 
phrases to make them sound more poetic. King James was definitely 
more interested in creating a beautiful "sounding" translation than
an accurate one.

I do like the sound of the King James though, psalm 23 for example is 
a great example of truly wonderful poetry that ranks right up there with 
the greatest literature in history.


----------



## atticus (28 Jun 2005)

Ah, thats interesting I never knew that. But I do understand that the KJV is alot harder to understand than NIV or one of the many other translations. Maybe one should just learn greek.... much like understanding the true meaning of the Koran in its origanal language, eh?

It was my understanding that the KJV was created for the common people to read, and was printed under King James (obviously) and after his death, it was outlawed.


----------



## Zartan (28 Jun 2005)

Speaking of translations, did you know that the ancient Greek word for "for" was the same as "because" - "Christ died because of your sins", interesting guilt-trip.

Personally, I hold the belief that when we die, we are not judged by what faith we held, but rather by our actions and deeds. Also, I believe that each religion gives recognition to the same being, the same god(s), because I consider each religion wrong. Why do I think this? I consider the bible the word of god, I do; when I read it, i feel a charge, a change in my state, however, it is the word of god, as written by humans. Even though they were given the greatest task any of us could receive, the ancient prophets were human, and just as likely to be crooked as any of us here and now. 

There are other things I could say, but I don't have the time.


----------



## Trinity (28 Jun 2005)

atticus said:
			
		

> Ah, thats interesting I never knew that. But I do understand that the KJV is alot harder to understand than NIV or one of the many other translations. Maybe one should just learn greek.... much like understanding the true meaning of the Koran in its origanal language, eh?




pssst...  some of us do....  (and you were trying to be sarcastic!!!) 

Greek, Hebrew and Latin are offered at the Masters level in order to be able to translate
the different scriptures.  Some schools (such as Queens) make it manditory for those in
the ordination stream.  Other schools offer it but don't make it manditory.  Its actually
an eye opener to the scriptures when you can see the real translation and realize that you
in fact may not agree or find different ways to translate it which have significant impact.


----------



## Guardian (28 Jun 2005)

The KJV's not that bad a translation - it's just well behind the current state of the English language.

It was certainly translated with atheological considerations in mind - King James didn't like the other contemporary English Bible available, the Geneva Bible, because its study notes (prepared by John Calvin and others) advocated the treasonous idea that kings and rulers should be opposed if found wrong in light of the Bible and Christian teaching. So he ordered his own created that (surprise!) didn't have any such study notes. This didn't affect the actual translation of the text itself that much, but the impetus behind the translation effort certainly was political.

If you compare some of the more modern translations (NIV, NASB, ESV, NKJV) to the KJV, the meaning is basically unchanged, except in a few minor areas. No essential Christian doctrine is affected.

Now, I wouldn't recommend the KJV to someone who didn't grow up with it - the English "therein"  ;D is rapidly going the way of Beowulf. My personal favourite's the new English Standard Version (circa 2001), but there's many other reliable translations out there. Most of the modern translations rely on the same critical edition of the Greek text (that is, scholars' best and most recent determination of what the originals said) as well as the same Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament... so you're going to get basically the same message each way. The KJV's manuscript base was not nearly as comprehensive as today's, so today's translations are significantly more accurate to the original.

As for Zartan's comments, I don't think it's logical for one to consider all holy books to be God's word, as you're implying. Most of them make exclusive claims, the Bible and the Koran among them. I can't logically accept that if God exists, and if He cares enough about our behaviour to go to the trouble to commission scriptures to be written, He would do so in such a contradictory manner. If He decided that kind of trouble is worth it, why wouldn't He get it right in just one book?

Christianity, for instance, is exclusive by its nature. "No one can come to the Father except through me," Jesus said. And it depends on the exclusivity and reliability of its Scriptures - Paul wrote, "If Jesus is not raised from the dead, our faith is in vain." You can call the Christian point of view right or wrong, but it's incompatible with other faiths, either way.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2005)

To tell the truth, I preffer the King James Bible because it is written in the language of Shakespear, and is a great read, rather than any theological issues (which I would find baffling or incomprehensible, to say the least)

Don't knock Beowulf either! It took me months to read, but turned out to be a thrilling story of duty, honour, courage and redemption once I had it figured out. (Some day we should sit down and compare translations of Homer as well... )


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> (Some day we should sit down and compare translations of Homer as well... )



The Lattimore translation is usually considered one of the best as he sticks closest to the poetic style of the dactylic hexameter (including all the rosy uses of descriptions like "Breaker of Horses" or "Gerenian Horsemen") by almost being a line for line rendition.  It was the version used in my "Greek Epic" course.

I also have the Fagles translation which is pretty good because it uses modern English quite well (it makes reading the story fun) but still ties itself to the poetic style of the original.  It was the first one a I read and I got through it quite easily.

The new Lombardo translation abandons any effort to achieve poetic effect in English (because it doesn't work) and focuses on the story - almost reads like a modern war novel, which can be a good way to introduce people to the theme.

I've had a professor read part of the Iliad in the original Greek - it sounds really neat to hear it flow like the way it should; perhaps Trinity can do a reading for us one day.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2005)

I like the Fagels translation as well, but my favorite is the translations by WHD Rouse, who also uses a prose rather than a poetic translation. The opening of the Odyssey by Rouse sums the theam up in one line: "This is the story of a man who was never at a loss..."


----------



## combat_medic (28 Jun 2005)

How the heck did we go from the Bible to Beowulf?

Anyway, I'm definitely in agreement with Zartan - belief and prayer is just lip service unless you're willing to back it up with your actions. There are plenty of supposed Christians out there who cheat on their wives, beat their children, lie on their taxes, drink/gamble/drug to excess, and are generally bad people. I was watching a show the other day where it was found out that this little southern town's pastor - the most sanctimonious b@stard that ever walked the earth, apparently - was recently found out to have molested his three children every day for nearly 15 years. This man would tell people that they would go to hell for masturbating, or having lustful thoughts about someone, and then we would go home and rape his 5 year old daughter. AND, he still thought that he was a good person, and would go to heaven, because he was "God's servant" and was beyond reproach. (I hope there's a special corner of hell with a "reserved" sign waiting for him).


----------



## winchable (28 Jun 2005)

Highlighting a good point I feel, too often people are not sincere in their beliefs. How often do you find people in any religion, going through the motions because perhaps they've forgotten what it's all really about. Sincerity is extremely important in religion because so much of it is based on that word "faith", faith in other peoples faith, faith in the almighty, faith in fate, since it's easy enough to fake it for temporal purposes but you're bound to get caught by the big guy.(SWT)

As for that special corner of hell, Dante reserved the lowest level of hell for hypocrites and traitors, I think perhaps that pastor may well find himself hanging out with Brutus, Cassius, Judas and a 3 headed fallen angel.....of course he also put my peoples prophet in one of the other levels but apart from that he was making a good point about peoples lip service and their actions with regards to their professed faith.


----------



## Guardian (28 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> ... belief and prayer is just lip service unless you're willing to back it up with your actions. There are plenty of supposed Christians out there who cheat on their wives, beat their children, lie on their taxes, drink/gamble/drug to excess, and are generally bad people. I was watching a show the other day where it was found out that this little southern town's pastor - the most sanctimonious b@stard that ever walked the earth, apparently - was recently found out to have molested his three children every day for nearly 15 years. This man would tell people that they would go to heck for masturbating, or having lustful thoughts about someone, and then we would go home and rape his 5 year old daughter. AND, he still thought that he was a good person, and would go to heaven, because he was "God's servant" and was beyond reproach. ...



Couldn't agree more. A man who opened his Bible every week and yet didn't take messages like this to heart:

"For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead." James 2:26

A Christian once said, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today, is Christians."


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2005)

combat_medic said:
			
		

> How the heck did we go from the Bible to Beowulf?



Religion and literature are two means where people attempt to discover their place in the world, or at least an explanation for what is happening around them. In Homer's day, there was a god or spirit for everything (each individual tree or stream was held to have a spirit). This veiw of the universe certainly woirked for them (and I sometimes think it might work again. Consider sacrificing poor candidates to the Goddess Athena at the end of a course, rather than holding CRBs  ) Beowulf also dates from a pre Christian world view where the universe was actively hostile, and only a man of courage and honour could ensure collective saftey for the tribe.

I feel it is important to know Homer and Beowulf as well as the Bible, since they represent the roots of our Western culture. There are a lot of comprehensive reading lists out there, exploring and knowing where we came from is a good way of discovering where we could be heading towards.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I feel it is important to know Homer and Beowulf as well as the Bible, since they represent the roots of our Western culture. There are a lot of comprehensive reading lists out there, exploring and knowing where we came from is a good way of discovering where we could be heading towards.



That is why I have all three (along with numerous others) on my bookshelf - reading a wide ranging selection of books from the Canon is a good way to start understanding humanity and its constants.


----------



## neuromancer (28 Jun 2005)

Its funny to admit this, but there are certain books out there that have
had a stronger impact on my psyche than the Bible. There is something 
very powerful about the written word that can be captivating and 
motivational. Here are a few more to add to your list  

Tao Te Ching, 
Stranger In A Strange Land, 
The Dancing Wu Li Masters,


----------



## Trinity (28 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I also have the Fagles translation which is pretty good because it uses modern English quite well (it makes reading the story fun) but still ties itself to the poetic style of the original.  It was the first one a I read and I got through it quite easily.



Really..  Fagles?  So I assume no homosexuals in that one?

Fag*els*.... 

Sorry.. I know .. no one had to do the joke.. I couldn't refrain.


----------



## Dogboy (28 Jun 2005)

Guardian said:
			
		

> A Christian once said, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today, is Christians."



you cant be more right 
I know lots of people who have turned off religion because they don't like whats out their being shown.

[quote author=Acorn]
G: No problem. If there's one consistency in you, my people, it's that you have, and will, change whatever I tell you into something of your own interpretation. It'll happen about six significant times before you get even close to right, and there's enough flex in the future that you may even destroy yourselves first. You'll endlessly argue about my words, and that may be the end of you.

G: I'm going to give you five rules. See if they get to the bottom of the mountain intact:

1. I'm the only God - don't try to figure me out, as I'm beyond human understanding.
2. Don't try to make a picture of me. I'm beyond human understanding.
3. Don't invoke my name unless you need me. If you say it too much it's like crying "wolf."
4. If you do nothing else, say a prayer or two one day.
5. Don't do anything against your fellow humans. They'll get you back if you do.

M: That doesn't seem enough Lord.

G: <sigh> Whatever. That's the basics. You add what you need. I need a refill.


Then God looked down and saw Moses deliver Ten Commandments to the people. Of course, God knows what the next version of The Law would look like (God's note to self - try a bit more emphasis on number five next time). God also knows how many versions it will take before man Gets It. If ever. God knows everything. One wonders why God even bothers.
[/quote]


now if we all tried to follow the 5 we'd getalong well

also where did you fined that Acorn? I loved it


----------



## winchable (28 Jun 2005)

Should also mention it's worth reading the epic of gilgamesh and doing a bit of a study of mesopotamian civilizations before monotheism if you'd like to _really_ start from the beginning of things and you'll see some startling similarities and commonality among all things religious. 
While we're on the topic of the "Full spectrum" approach to things that is.


----------



## Acorn (28 Jun 2005)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> also where did you fined that Acorn? I loved it



Made it up on the spot. My sorry attempt at satire. Glad you liked it.

Further to Bible translations, I agree with those who regard the KJV as a work of linguistic art. However, I still believe it's a poor translation, even though it doesn't deviate greatly from Christian doctrine. The problem is the language allows the common man to draw bad conclusions far too easily, compared to a more contemporary translation like the NIV.

The Qur'an avoids the problem by the Islamic doctrine that the only true version is the original Arabic. Even there, the Arabic of the Qur'an is so different from Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) that the average native Arab speaker has difficulty with it, let alone someone who's native tongue is not Arabic.

Which brings me to the point of my satire attempt: once the word of God enters the hands of Man it will inevitably be corrupted in some way. Even though Islam agrees that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah as told to the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and cannot be "interpreted" it still needs the Hadith and Sunnah, along with scholarly interpretation, to make it accessable to the average believer. Even at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) Muslims were asking for guidance as to the meaning of the scripture.

Which brings me to my final point: regardless of the creed, those who claim their interpretation of a piece of scripture is the true word of God are suffering from an unforgivable conceit: that they know the mind of God.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jun 2005)

Che said:
			
		

> Should also mention it's worth reading the epic of gilgamesh and doing a bit of a study of mesopotamian civilizations before monotheism if you'd like to _really_ start from the beginning of things and you'll see some startling similarities and commonality among all things religious.
> While we're on the topic of the "Full spectrum" approach to things that is.



Ah...Gilgamesh and Enkidu; life's lesson on why not to be a dink to your best buddy, even if you are godlike in powers....


----------



## c4th (28 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Really..   Fagles?   So I assume no homosexuals in that one?



That thread was just locked yesterday.  Haven't you had enough?


----------



## neuromancer (29 Jun 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Which brings me to my final point: regardless of the creed, those who claim their interpretation of a piece of scripture is the true word of God are suffering from an unforgivable conceit: that they know the mind of God.



In a way Paul agrees with you. 

"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his
counsellor? Or who has first given to him, and it shall be recompensed
unto him again?" Romans 11:33-35 KJV

Edit!!

Hypothetically speaking, shouldn't God have great powers of 
communcation!?! visions, dreams, divine-intervention, etc etc etc.

Anyway.. I dont really want to go there.. cheers!


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2005)

Literature has a lot to teach the careful or thoughtful reader, but beware: Books like Gilgamesh, the "Book of Changes" (or the Book of Five Rings, for that matter) are written from a vastly different cultural background, and probably don't mean what you think they do. (As a far out example, the The Bhagvat-Gita can actually be interpreted through western eyes as being a high tech battle between armies using tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons. Hindu readers might disagree with that interpretation)

Homer, Beowulf and the Bible do come from our own cultural background (and form the basis of it), so most of the assumptions you live and work with from day to day come from these and similar sources. You can understand and assimilate these works far more easily than works from different backgrounds and traditions.


----------



## winchable (29 Jun 2005)

> the The Bhagvat-Gita can actually be interpreted through western eyes as being a high tech battle between armies using tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons.



Does this mean it isn't? 
I've always been in awe of that line Oppenheimer used, wondered if he planned that a few weeks in advance to look cool.

The only things about Gilgamesh that I find striking are the obvious connection of the flood (The Prophet Noah's encounter, as well as an Egyptian use of a flood story, possibly also the story of Atlantic) because it was the first time I started to put two and two together and realise that everyone seems to talk about that damn flood, or at least it's a great coincidence that many major civilisations and religions seem to have a story of a flood wiping out all but a few.


----------



## Trinity (29 Jun 2005)

c4th said:
			
		

> That thread was just locked yesterday.  Haven't you had enough?



It was sarcasm... not inteded to be a real statement, based on his typo.
Maybe you missed that.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jun 2005)

Trinity said:
			
		

> It was sarcasm... not inteded to be a real statement, based on his typo.



It wasn't a typo though - I have the book sitting right next to me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fagles


----------



## Trinity (30 Jun 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It wasn't a typo though - I have the book sitting right next to me.



Really..

Damn.. I googled it and everything....

ugh


----------



## Trinity (30 Jun 2005)

So as the old one got way off track... 

I was reading 'Savior on the Silver Screen' by Richard C. Stern, Jefford and Debona....

Came across an interesting quote

'To appeal to New Testament witnesses and writings from early church history
in support of the historical events of Jesus' life is not necessarily convincing, since 
by the time of the composition of the biblical texts the memory of what Jesus did 
was already being influenced by who they believed Jesus to be.'


We know that the gospel writers have the same events but in different words and
contexts.  How were the scriptures changed by those who wrote them and does 
this cause any loss of authority as a result?

I know what I think... but curious of others insights.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2005)

If you adhere to the belief that the development of the entire body of scripture has been divinely guided, there is the simple answer to authority.  Even the discrepancies should be assumed to have purpose.

If you seek the historical rather than the divine Jesus, other writings dating from and shortly after his death would be useful.  I doubt there can ever be an authoritative accounting, or even necessarily an accurate concensus.  There can only be a balance of evidence.


----------



## PeterLT (30 Jun 2005)

Correct me if I misunderstood the question, but IMHO the Bible we know today is probably more of a reflection of what happened than the actual facts. The writings have been interpreted, re-interpreted and translated by many, many people of faith who sprinkled a bit of their own views in the text. This is not to say the Bible is not true or the lessons invalid, but only that it is a guide to events rather than an actual chronicle. Again, just my opinion.....


----------



## Bert (1 Jul 2005)

<"The writings have been interpreted, re-interpreted and translated by many, many people of faith 
who sprinkled a bit of their own views in the text">

From my limited understanding, there are pre-70 AD duplicates of Apostle documents and writings (in Greek and Aramaic)
from biblical eras that are available today and can be compared. The controversial story of the dead sea scrolls is an example.  Multi-denominational scrutiny, research, and physical artifacts over the last two millenia suggest a high level of translational accuracy word for word.  However, the challenge has been over the understanding of the context of the writing and not necessarily the "writing" itself.
Post-70 AD pseudo-Christian documents to multi-denominational Christian religions suggest changing interpretations though
the "translation" and wording is the same.  Even written in clear English, using the same words, people derive different 
understandings from the same document.


----------



## brin11 (1 Jul 2005)

Just a note to everyone that the two religious threads were merged together.  Hope this is not too confusing.


----------

