Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

Cockney_Blue · November 13, 2009, 4:16pm

[quote]pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
I’m still shocked by the amount of people who believe in any type of god, I mean how many things need to be proved wrong to stop people believing this tripe? Its crazy

Oh really?
What things have been proven wrong? And how specifically, do they prove there is no God. This I got to hear.

Loads of things from the bible have been proved wrong, like the universe being created in 7days and that we all came from Adam and Eve. How much more is needed?

Much more than proving Bible stories historically incorrect. The Bible is a philosophical book of religion, not a history book. If you want history, study archeology. While the Bible may contain smatterings of history, it’s purpose isn’t to be a book of full of historical facts.[/quote]

Actually, large parts of the old testament are actually a made up history for the Israelites in an attempt to give them legitimacy.

dmaddox · November 13, 2009, 4:17pm

[quote]pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact. [/quote]

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

Sloth · November 13, 2009, 4:25pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

I have heard this, but when I went to India it is hard to understand that they are all part of the same Shiva. They worship the one parts that fits them. If you do not want the entire god, then what is the point?

Well Catholics do the same, they just call them saints instead of Gods. I am travelling over the weekend, best put my St Christopher on etc.

Except saints are only models with no power of their own. They can only pray–to the same God we pray to–on our behalf.

I think CB just opened a huge bomb in this thread.

I am not a big fan of asking someone who is dead to pray for me. I understand the need to have someone interceed for you, just not talking to the dead. I would prefer to go to the High Priest in Jesus to go to God. No better place to start than with God’s son. I am ok with talking with a priest or pastor if you would like them to pray for you or to keep you accountable.

The Saints and Mary ideal of the Catholic Church is really hard for me to grasp on to. Are the Saints and Mary as dead as your Great, Great, Great Grandmother/Grandfather?

I really want to understand this and I in no way am looking to get into a fight. I just want knowledge.[/quote]

We believe the church is comprised of members past and present. It’s pretty much as simple as that. So as a fellow parishoner might pray for me, so might a saint. Interestingly enough, this never seems to be a problem for non-catholics when they visit the grave of a loved one. Often they will pray for the dead, and even speak (pray) to the loved one. They might even ask the deceased to pray for them. “Mom, pray for me and dad. We’re having a hard time here without you.”

Cockney_Blue · November 13, 2009, 4:22pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

I have heard this, but when I went to India it is hard to understand that they are all part of the same Shiva. They worship the one parts that fits them. If you do not want the entire god, then what is the point?

Well Catholics do the same, they just call them saints instead of Gods. I am travelling over the weekend, best put my St Christopher on etc.

Except saints are only models with no power of their own. They can only pray–to the same God we pray to–on our behalf. [/quote]

Oh I know the party line on this however I would venture that the majority of Catholics (world wide) don’t actually see it that way. In the same way that the Romans chose a house god that related to something important to them, the Roman Catholic picks a Saint that can help cure their illness or bring them wealth or protect their child and prays to them.

Sloth · November 13, 2009, 4:23pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Oh I know the party line on this…[/quote]

Haha!

Cockney_Blue · November 13, 2009, 4:27pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.[/quote]

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

Sloth · November 13, 2009, 4:29pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.[/quote]

Different name, or different names?

xydharth · November 13, 2009, 5:14pm

[quote]Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

Actually this is correct. They are monotheistic. Language issues make there manifestations of Vishna (not Shiva, she’d be one of the said manifestations) in to the word “god”. They do not see the manifestations as different gods, but different manifestations of the same God.
[/quote]

"Hinduism if at all has to be classified can be described as “pantheism with polytheistic elements.” Why not monotheism? Although “monotheism” literally means belief in the existence of one God, the term has come to denote belief in a God who created and is distinct from the universe. Pantheism is the view that God is essentially identical with the universe and totally immanent in the world: God is the universe and the universe is God. Thus pantheism seems to be the most accurate label for Hinduism. The “with polytheistic elements” qualifier is added because the Supreme Being of Hinduism is most often worshipped in the form of multiple deities.
"
There are certain sects (4 or so i guess) in Hinduism who prefer to worship a distinct deity and hence appear monotheistic apparently but with majority of such sects are also tolerant of other beliefs as part of their deities teachings like the Vaishnavite sect who worship an avatar of Vishnu called Krishna(not Vishna).Krishna says: “Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his or her faith steady. However, their wishes are only granted by Me alone.”

Hinduism at its root evolves from the belief that if there is God , the ultimate divinity which is formless , nameless which we know as Atman (ironically it had to be named) the original essence of Life and Self. In regular life and language we refer to it as the soul arbitrarily.

Medieval Islamic scholar Al-Biruni perfectly summed it up as :
“The Hindus believe with regard to God that he is one, eternal, without beginning and end, acting by free-will, almighty, all-wise, living, giving life, ruling, preserving; one who in his sovereignty is unique, beyond all likeness and unlikeness, and that he does not resemble anything nor does anything resemble him.”

According to as I have seen it practiced in our culture when a certain deity is worshiped its the function or the duty that the deity represents is embraced and worshiped for eg :

“The Trimurti (English: â??three formsâ??; Sanskrit: trimÅ«rti) is a concept in Hinduism “in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or transformer.”[8][9] These three deities have been called “the Hindu triad”[10] or the “Great Trinity”.[11] Of the three members of the Trimurti, the Bhagavata Purana explains that the greatest benefit can be had from Vishnu.[12]”

So when Shiva is worshiped it is nature/process of destruction and transformation that is sought to be understood and so on. Hence the worshiping of multiple deities.
There is an inherent affirmation to the belief that the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts and hence The Atman (the summation) is formless and universal. It translates to never losing sight of the bigger picture and our role in that Formless as an enquirer.
In its original form Hinduism is actually a philosophical science of life which in its course transformed into a ‘Religion’ as we know it today. We can call it a lifestyle too in that sense.
Its too over simplistic to classify it as just monotheistic or poly.
References to quotes and other info –
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs/theism.htm

dmaddox · November 13, 2009, 5:25pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.[/quote]

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.

dmaddox · November 13, 2009, 5:34pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

I have heard this, but when I went to India it is hard to understand that they are all part of the same Shiva. They worship the one parts that fits them. If you do not want the entire god, then what is the point?

Well Catholics do the same, they just call them saints instead of Gods. I am travelling over the weekend, best put my St Christopher on etc.

Except saints are only models with no power of their own. They can only pray–to the same God we pray to–on our behalf.

I think CB just opened a huge bomb in this thread.

I am not a big fan of asking someone who is dead to pray for me. I understand the need to have someone interceed for you, just not talking to the dead. I would prefer to go to the High Priest in Jesus to go to God. No better place to start than with God’s son. I am ok with talking with a priest or pastor if you would like them to pray for you or to keep you accountable.

The Saints and Mary ideal of the Catholic Church is really hard for me to grasp on to. Are the Saints and Mary as dead as your Great, Great, Great Grandmother/Grandfather?

I really want to understand this and I in no way am looking to get into a fight. I just want knowledge.

We believe the church is comprised of members past and present. It’s pretty much as simple as that. So as a fellow parishoner might pray for me, so might a saint. Interestingly enough, this never seems to be a problem for non-catholics when they visit the grave of a loved one. Often they will pray for the dead, and even speak (pray) to the loved one. They might even ask the deceased to pray for them. “Mom, pray for me and dad. We’re having a hard time here without you.”[/quote]

Understood. I personally have never asked someone to pray for me that was dead, but I can see how someone would. There is a belief that when a person dies they go straight to Heaven, the Bible is really not all that clear on this subject, but to that person they do go directly to Heaven. In Revelation it states the dead in Christ shale rise to meet him in the air. That is what I pull from when I say I do not pray to someone who is dead, but I might be wrong.

I think you are a person who actually goes to mass on a regualar basis. CB and I base some of our assumptions of Catholisism based on the Christmas and Easter Catholics. The people who you ask are you a Christian and they state no I am Catholic. I prefer to actually talk with Catholics that are devout and worship on a regualar basis. I go to church almost every Sunday excluding when I or a child of mine is sick.

dmaddox · November 13, 2009, 5:37pm

[quote]xydharth wrote:
Funnily enough there are Hindu’s that would argue that their religion is monotheistic and the different God’s are actually just different aspects of Shiva.

Actually this is correct. They are monotheistic. Language issues make there manifestations of Vishna (not Shiva, she’d be one of the said manifestations) in to the word “god”. They do not see the manifestations as different gods, but different manifestations of the same God.

"Hinduism if at all has to be classified can be described as “pantheism with polytheistic elements.” Why not monotheism? Although “monotheism” literally means belief in the existence of one God, the term has come to denote belief in a God who created and is distinct from the universe. Pantheism is the view that God is essentially identical with the universe and totally immanent in the world: God is the universe and the universe is God. Thus pantheism seems to be the most accurate label for Hinduism. The “with polytheistic elements” qualifier is added because the Supreme Being of Hinduism is most often worshipped in the form of multiple deities.
"
There are certain sects (4 or so i guess) in Hinduism who prefer to worship a distinct deity and hence appear monotheistic apparently but with majority of such sects are also tolerant of other beliefs as part of their deities teachings like the Vaishnavite sect who worship an avatar of Vishnu called Krishna(not Vishna).Krishna says: “Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his or her faith steady. However, their wishes are only granted by Me alone.”

Hinduism at its root evolves from the belief that if there is God , the ultimate divinity which is formless , nameless which we know as Atman (ironically it had to be named) the original essence of Life and Self. In regular life and language we refer to it as the soul arbitrarily.

Medieval Islamic scholar Al-Biruni perfectly summed it up as :
“The Hindus believe with regard to God that he is one, eternal, without beginning and end, acting by free-will, almighty, all-wise, living, giving life, ruling, preserving; one who in his sovereignty is unique, beyond all likeness and unlikeness, and that he does not resemble anything nor does anything resemble him.”

According to as I have seen it practiced in our culture when a certain deity is worshiped its the function or the duty that the deity represents is embraced and worshiped for eg :

“The Trimurti (English: Ã¢??three formsÃ¢??; Sanskrit: trimÃ?Â«rti) is a concept in Hinduism “in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or transformer.”[8][9] These three deities have been called “the Hindu triad”[10] or the “Great Trinity”.[11] Of the three members of the Trimurti, the Bhagavata Purana explains that the greatest benefit can be had from Vishnu.[12]”

So when Shiva is worshiped it is nature/process of destruction and transformation that is sought to be understood and so on. Hence the worshiping of multiple deities.
There is an inherent affirmation to the belief that the whole is always greater than the sum of the parts and hence The Atman (the summation) is formless and universal. It translates to never losing sight of the bigger picture and our role in that Formless as an enquirer.
In its original form Hinduism is actually a philosophical science of life which in its course transformed into a ‘Religion’ as we know it today. We can call it a lifestyle too in that sense.
Its too over simplistic to classify it as just monotheistic or poly.
References to quotes and other info –
http://www.religionfacts.com/hinduism/beliefs/theism.htm

[/quote]

Thank you for the information and well worded. I have never studied Hinduism before, so all I can go off is personal experience.

Cockney_Blue · November 13, 2009, 5:57pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

Different name, or different names?[/quote]

I think the quote is ‘he is known by many names’ but it is a while since I read it. Loved those books as a kid.

Cockney_Blue · November 13, 2009, 6:10pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
pat wrote:
Rza UK wrote:
But is’nt the Bible “gods word”? it should be full of facts?

Yes. No. Why would God have to present facts that are easily attainable? There are facts in the Bible, but it isn’t a history book. It’s a book to communicate the many facets of God. Study Archeology if you want to dig up dirt on ancient man and societies. The Bible may have some of that info, but it isn’t to provide that info. It uses the facts to tell truths about God. You also must consider the audiences these were written for, to get full understanding of what is being said. If your looking at it as a history book, your screwed. Your facts will be all kinds of fucked up.

Well if the bible was factually correct then I would be a beleiver, but I just cant trust a book that has so much wrong with it, no matter who it was written for.

It’s a book of truth, not a book of fact.

C.S. Lewis a person who tried to disprove the Bible as nothing more than a myth stated. “The Bible reads more like history than a Myth.” He later converted to Christianity and wrote the Chronicles of Narnia. A way to teach Children about the Bible. He wrote a lot of other books. He was a very smart man.

And in the Narnia books Aslan tells the Children that he exists in their world, they just know him by a different name. In this he was referring to the fact that many peoples on earth worship God in their own differing way.

I would like to know what name is he called here? Aslan was killed in the place of Edmond whose blood was called for because of his treachery, by the great magic. Aslan died and was risen from the dead. I dont know about you but there is no other person in religion that has done this.[/quote]

Well you might try reading 1 kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:32-37 and 2 Kings 13:21 from your own religion.

You could look into Osiris and Baal from Egyptian religions.

Head over to Greece and learn about Asclepius, Achilles, Aristeas of Proconnesus and many others.

Check out Buddhism for the resurrection of Bodhidharma.

Jump the Atlantic and read about Quetzalcoatl.

Resurrection is an extremely common theme in religion as it relates to natural cycles. Every day has a birth and a death of the Sun which is then resurrected the following day. Every year we see plants die back and then become resurrected in the spring (why do you think Easter is celebrated in the Spring time?)

Cockney_Blue · November 13, 2009, 6:18pm