BIG problem

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by John Connellan, Mar 19, 2004.

  1. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    Something that has always bothered me about religion is this:

    Some people believe in the Christain God and Christ, others believe in Allah and yet others believe in Buddha. Each person believes he is right and has absolute conviction. Who IS right?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Such a simple observation but one which stops me from ever having religious convictions.
    How do u religious people explain and get around this problem?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    The right one is the one God approves of. It comes down to the fact that the right person is the the person God approves of - in whatever religion He is. The question must then be "what does God approve of". Islam and Judaism have very detailed laws that are supposed to show this - but laws become relative and even obsolete as time goes by, as culture and society adapts. Unless they point to a way of life that God intends to do something with. I say "do something with", because logically there is no way that whatever we do can be "sufficient" unless it satisfies God's purpose for it.

    In the first place, for God to be your God, He has to reveal himself to you. Otherwise you wouldn't matter to Him, and it wouldn't matter if He was God or not. The next question is how He did that. "Did", because He would have made himself known "to you" from the beginning of creation - whenever "you" were born, it would have been possible to know Him. It would be a "religion" that has existed since the a relationship with God was humanly possible, in whatever form. And it would still an be equally valid way of knowing God today - despite scientific advancement or spiritual depravity, despite anything life can throw at you.

    In the second place, how did you lose touch with Him? What went wrong? That's what seeking God means. Everybody's seeking Him - and there are as many "religions" as there are personalities because everybody looks for God in their own way - and quite often also on their own terms. Some stop looking altogether. We would expect God to restore that relationship somehow, because if He didn't it would mean He has rejected us. And if He only let himself be found by our efforts, it means our abilities are more important to Him than a possible relationship with Him.

    But if a personal relationship is what He desires, it somehow means something to Him - the only reason for that can be love. And if He loves you, it would be despite of your lack of understanding, or abilities, or holiness, despite everything, except of course rejecting His love. He can't force you to love Him. But if loving Him is even possible, it must be humanly possible.

    Let me get to the point. The only reason to belong to a religion is if it enables life with God, while loving those just as lost and human as you.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    You're looking at it the wrong way. They Believe so right away that indicates that this stems from personal notions and biases. Also you're looking at the wrong followers. Religion, from what I am told to practice and from what I hear, is not about believeing one's faith is the correct one, that one's faith is precedent above others. It is about worship of the god and spreading of his name through love....it doesn't say quarrel over my absolute divine rule and enforce upon others my love.

    What religion is meant to be and what it is today or has been is two very different things.

    Thats the problem in a nutshell...They can't. This is why religious arguments take place...from the war or words here at Sciforums to the bloody battles of clashing religious groups around the world. There is no answer for that question, only fear of inferiority and brusing of egos, so they pick up the swords and guns and kill for their god.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Buddhists don't believe, so they must be right. That is a simplistic response, but basically, Buddha is seen as a role model, not a god.
     
  8. sargentlard Save the whales motherfucker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,698
    Buddhism, technically, isn't considered a religion either.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Q25 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    593
    neither,
    gods are just a figments of peoples imagination,thats why there is so many of them.
    and when you ask theists to define their god,you'll get idiotic answers such as god is beyond your comprehension,or outside of time,or simmilar misleading statement.
    once you define god,you'll realize such being cannot exist.
    some helpful reads
    www.atheists.org
    www.infidels.org/index.shtml
    www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/
     
  10. Hevene Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    369
    Neither. There is no right or wrong, but what works and what doesn't. God is all there is, therefore, whether it's Jesus or Budda, it is the same God. It is not whether you believe in god or not that's the problem, but what you believe ABOUT god. Many world religions is no longer working given what we, as a society want to be, do and have, therefore a change in the beliefs towards what will work is necessary and will alter everything. If we keep on arguing who's right, the problem will not be solved, becuase most people will do anything to protect what they think is right, even though it nolonger works in this society. Why not drop this notion altogether, to simply what works and what doesn't?
     
  11. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    No I have to disagree with everyone. As a catholic (and having remembered mass from the last time I went a couple of years ago

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .....) I know that we take our story of the bible way too seriously. Does what u say mean that such rituals in mass as the breaking of the bread etc are all in vain? Why not go to mass to just show faith in A god? Even recent movies such as The Passion of the Christ have moved many people to believe again because they felt that THEIR God went through so much suffereing. If only they realised that most of the rest of the world didn't even believe that story! I agree that they are all good for our people but why take them so seriously like we do?
     
  12. Dreamwalker Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,205
    Quote: Each person believes he is right and has absolute conviction. Who IS right?!
    That question is around for a long time isn´t it? The justification of a religion always come from the god(s) of this religion. As a valid answer I would say everybody is right and absolutely wrong at the same time. Everyone creates his own god, or alters a preexisting one more or less to his liking, because of that people always argue about god and religion. There seems to be no truth for humans, else there would only be one religion. My advice: your ego creates/assimilates a god, resulting from that you can as well make your mind your god. Thus giving yourself the power to live life like you want without the constrains of a certain religious codex, making it easier to archieve happiness.

    Satanism rules

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    It is among anthropologists

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    If you look in the Bible, you will discover that Jesus was a Jew and He would never have done anything to "disgrace" His "religion". In fact, I don't recall Jesus asking for a new religion named Christianity as, as far as I am concerned, He followed Jewish customs. How then is it that we all of a sudden have Christianity? Why did "Christians" then expel Jews?

    Apart from Jesus, which other religion you mentioned has an icon that CLAIMED to be the Son of the Father. That's right, none of them. This is what makes people uncomfortable with the whole shebang.

    To sum it up, I don't believe in religion, I KNOW JESUS. Religion, with all its strict tenets, is not even rigorously defined, with all its branches and quarrels.

    Obviously Q25 has been asking the wrong people.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,193
    On the contrary, Jesus had issues with some of the common practices and beliefs of Judaism. In particular, he did not believe that the average person needed to go through a priest to connect with God. See also his rage at the commerce carried on in the temple at Jerusalem.
     
  16. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    So the answer is that some of the rituals of religion are absolutely useless right? And if we as a society tend towards not going to mass anymore then that is a good thing right?
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    The common factor in these religions is not the exact nature of their gods, but the experience of feeling connected with the whole. This experience is mysterious and personal, yet most established religions claim that their churches are the repositories of truth. Jesus' message was a profound one, which christianity got wrong, that the devine (for lack of a better term), is within everyone, we are manifestations of it, we are all sons of god, not just me. Jesus spoke like a jew, because those were the acceptable metaphores of the time, but the message was radical, more like Buddhism, actually. You can be religious, as long as you don't join a religion. Religion is created by the scribes, the ones without authority, trust yourself.
     
  18. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    The 'rage' narrative makes little sense. As Price notes, the temple was a center of ritual activity and roughly the size of three and a half football fields. It made perfect sense to enable the observant to purchase sacrificial animals at the Temple, rather than force them to schlepp the damn things for miles. The story simply lacks credibility.

    The "issues" are most likely issues retrojected into scripture by an increasingly anti-Judaic, and increasingly Gentile, sect - a sect which, by the way, had seen its Jerusalem counterpart driven from the synagogues (see, e.g., the comments of both Paul and John). Anti-Pharisiac propaganda was both understandable and politically correct. Furthermore, it's hard to reconcile the concept of an anti-Jewish Jesus with the existance of the Torah-observant Ebionites/Nazarenes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2004
  19. e-bow Registered Member

    Messages:
    8
    A monk came upon a man in search of spiritual truth and the meaning of life; and, being curious, asked him, "Have you found what you've been looking for?"

    To which the man replied, "No, sir, I haven't."

    "Good," replied the monk, smiling. "At least you have something to look forward to."
     
  20. Jenyar Solar flair Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,833
    From "The cleansings of Jesus" The Temple in the Time of Jesus (A study by Professor of Religion Bruce Chilton, of Bard College):

    "His point would appear to have been, in the occupation of the Temple, that a financial transaction was not sufficient to establish ownership of what was offered. The commendation of the widow apparently was also designed to criticize a cultic understanding of money, but from a different angle. In attempting to emulate the alleged piety of others, the woman was giving her life away; a system of sacrificial animals can make allowances for poverty (as in Leviticus 5:7f.; 14:21f.), while the practice of financial donations is inevitably impoverishing. It is, of course, not necessary to assent to Jesus' criticism in order to understand it: he apparently belonged to a class which valued objects over money, and which understood money to be essentially alienated from the category of what was pure, and acceptable to God. You might reasonably make friends from unrighteous mammon (Luke 16:9), but God cannot be satisfied with it."

    I found the rest of the site interesting reading; it includes an anthropological perpective on the act of sacrifice and the history of the temple. The Temple in Jerusalem and the Sacrifice of Jesus
     

Share This Page