'Comparative Religion'

[Janny]

This is the place for the 'derailed' spill-over from the 'Gays, Lesbians ad Bisexuals' Thread. May it be the ground for many a fine arguement.

Posted by King Val in G, L, B thread
Since we're derailing this into 'Comparative Religions' - I'll throw in my two cents. Since we're derailing this into 'Comparative Religions' - I'll throw in my two cents:

It is vast oversimplification to say that 'the same God' is 'God' in the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. While they have common roots, they are distinctly separate faiths. Recent secular journalism has tried to tie them all neatly together, but that's largely uninformed. There are three very different 'God concepts' (or at least two) - and those differences are reflected in their beliefs.

Islam MUST claim that the Christian Bible is innacurate - because their own writings are so contradictory to it. For one, did you know that they invert Isaac and Ishmael? It is Ishmael who is the child of promise, and whom Abraham brings to sacrifice on the mountain.

Another distinction: Christians view God as loving... and also as being capable of anger over sin, of being jealous when people chose to direct their worship to other places than Him. In the Islamic view, God has no emotions.

I disagree with the suggestion that it is a oversimplication. I would not claim that divisions between Islam, Chistianity and Judahism are not deep seated and complex, but ultimately it is not God Himself who is complex. God is simple. Man makes the complexities in what each side elects to believe, and each religion's interpretatin of God.
I did know that the importance of Isaac and Ishmael was inverted, but it has never bothered me. The fact that Abraham is said by both religions to be willing to sacrifice his son for God is only proof that Allah and God are the same.

Rian, sorry to start something you said you weren't ready to do yet, but I felt that the conversation was leading this way. join in when you can.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Janny
God is simple. Man makes the complexities in what each side elects to believe, and each religion's interpretatin of God.[/SIZE]

Could you elaborate on the "God is simple"? Simple in the way that he is the same for each religion? Was that what you were getting at?

[Janny]

That ultimately the concept of God is simple. I can't explain, especially given that God is beyond human comprehension (a belief also shared by all religions, I think), but the idea of God is simple. You have one big guy, white beard, probably split in three aspects, created everything...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Janny
That ultimately the concept of God is simple. I can't explain, especially given that God is beyond human comprehension (a belief also shared by all religions, I think), but the idea of God is simple. You have one big guy, white beard, probably split in three aspects, created everything...

The idea/concept is but he himself is not. Gotcha.

Are you Christian, nominally Christian, not Christian? Anything?

[Janny]

Open minded Catholic. Right leaning in politics, if that's relevant.

I'm not sure I meant that God Himself is not simple. I meant that the human interpretation complicated things.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Janny
Open minded Catholic. Right leaning in politics, if that's relevant.

I'm not sure I meant that God Himself is not simple. I meant that the human interpretation complicated things.

Phew. Ok. Now I think I understand you.

(Not intended at you or anything), but when St. Augustine was asked where was God before the world was created, he replied "Making hell for people who are inquisitive." It just goes to show how there are some things beyond human comprehension. That's what makes our faith a faith, and God a God. If we could understand eveything about him he wouldn't be God, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.

That was a random sidenote...

[Janny]

Good good. But you 'phew'?

[Rían]

(That's ok, Janny, I was kinda hoping someone else would start it, as it seems that I'm never able to ... )

by Val
Islam MUST claim that the Christian Bible is innacurate - because their own writings are so contradictory to it.

Absolutely - and that's the point I was trying to make - you made it better! It doesn't matter that you're writing about the "same God" - if there's contradictions, then there's some error involved, and someone's view of the "same God" is WRONG.

OK, say Val, Janny, IRex, my husband, and God all decide to write a book about - ME. Now they're all writing a book about the same person, but you're going to get contradictory things written about me in those books. And God would write the only completely accurate book about me. I imagine my husband would write the next most accurate book, and prob. Val the third, and so on .... Do you see? You can say it's about the same person, but there's contradictions, and there's various levels of authority on my life writing about me - some know me personally and have spent lots of time with me, while some only know me thru a computer screen and lots of posts, while some know me thru a lesser number of posts.

[Starr Polish]

If God created hell for inqisitive people, I better get ready to burn. (Then again, I'm not Catholic and don't have much faith in saints, nor do I believe hell to be an actual "fire").

So, Rian, are you implying that there is only one surefire, completely correct way to be right about God? If so, how can one explain things like the discrepancies in scripture, particularly Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? All of these accounts of Jesus's life have differences, and some of them fairly significant. Which one is the correct one, according to you?

And since God didn't write the bible, humans did (divinely inspired, yes, but written by man, who makes mistakes) then by what you say nothing in it can be completely correct?

This isn't meant to be flamey if it comes off that way. Just some stuff that ran through my head reading your post. I'm kind of in limbo about my spirituality at the moment.

[Radagast]

Looks like you need Virgil to guide you, Starr Polish.

[Rían]

Personally, I think God intentionally created people to be inquisitive, and encourages it.

However, there are such things as questions by people that don't want answers, just arguments - and that's prob. what St. A. was talking about (unless he was just in a bad mood).

Starr, no, I don't think that's flamey - those are good questions to discuss, and I hope we can all join in. I prob. can't get to them until next week, so I'll look forward to reading what people had to say!

[brownjenkins]

i'd have to think if there is a god he/she would be quite beyond some of the minor and even major differences among the world's faiths... including the many eastern and 'pagan' ones that still exist... if the proper faith was so important, why leave things so ambiguous to the people you supposedly care so much about?

accepting for the argument that there is a god, i would have to believe that all faiths as we know them are human interpretations of what we think god wants

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Janny
Good good. But you 'phew'?

phew as in "thatwasalongandconfusingatleasttomeexplanationatf irstandnowifinallyunderstandwhatyoumeant."



and now I'm looking for my dad's book with the st. Augustine quote...

Found it:

On Predestination, in "Lutheranism: The Theological Movement and Its Confessional Writings" by Eric Gritsch and Robert W. Jenson

Luther rejected the traditional medieval doctrine of predestination because it tempts one to focus on one's own ego rather than on God. Faith clings to the God who promises to save without human merit. Luther's doctrine of predestination, therefore, is Christocentric: whatever God might have planned, or is still planning for the world of men, is known in the gospel, the cheering news that the Jesus of Israel is our destiny. One can always worry about the hidden God--what he might do in his great majesty. But ot such quesions as, "Where was God before the creation of the world?" Augustine's answer is appropriate: "God was making hell for those who are inquisitive."

Does putting it in context help?

[Rían]

Nice to see you, brownie! I was wondering where you've been! I love the shining stars in my avatar - thanks again!

[Rían]

I told brownie, over on the gay/les thread, that I would move this question here -

All right, you atheists, I'm taking the ball into YOUR court - please explain to me why you think your particular set of morals are "right", and if so, why, and why you even have a claim to call ANYTHING "right" or "wrong" when we supposedly got here by survival of the fittest, and why doesn't that apply today, and why should I agree to abide by your set of morals since we're equal in authority?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I told brownie, over on the gay/les thread, that I would move this question here -

All right, you atheists, I'm taking the ball into YOUR court - please explain to me why you think your particular set of morals are "right", and if so, why, and why you even have a claim to call ANYTHING "right" or "wrong" when we supposedly got here by survival of the fittest, and why doesn't that apply today, and why should I agree to abide by your set of morals since we're equal in authority?

i don;t know whether you class me as an atheist or not, as a buddhist we don't have a "god" as such, but here goes anyhoo...

i think all people, whether subconsciously or not, judge people based upon their own set of moral thinking, so really there is no right or wrong when it comes to that. All we can really do is to treat those around us to the best possible degree, and live our own lives by being good and true to ourselves, if any of that made sense, please let me know!!

<...and...relax...>!!

[brownjenkins]

yep, morals are relative and most people act in a way that is to their best advantage... the wise ones realize that 'their best advantage' is to think a bit to the long term... don't do things that may gain you something in the short term if they will ultimately make you worse off (i.e. stealing)

the more 'gray-line' morality issues, like birth control or marriage practices are arrived at by weighing the pros and cons as you see them in the world around you

RÃ*an, you also say that you reach your morals by observation... which is fine... but you also use the bible for these judgements... which makes your ultimate decision... the text or your observations?

or, are there certain situations that simply are not covered in a biblical sense... how do you arrive at these decisions?

[Rían]

*bump*s up the thread so it won't disappear*

Will hopefully get back to this thread by Monday ...

[Rían]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
yep, morals are relative and most people act in a way that is to their best advantage... the wise ones realize that 'their best advantage' is to think a bit to the long term... don't do things that may gain you something in the short term if they will ultimately make you worse off (i.e. stealing)

So if society comes around to thinking that drawing lots to pick a person to be tortured in an arena for people to watch is a good thing, that's OK with you, since society determines morals?

RÃ*an, you also say that you reach your morals by observation... which is fine... but you also use the bible for these judgements... which makes your ultimate decision... the text or your observations?

What I observe around me confirms again and again that the Biblical worldview is correct - uncannily so sometimes! So it is logical for me to go by what it says, even in the areas that are not as black and white. I really can't think of any Biblical area that does not make logical sense to me - the Bible is amazingly cohesive. And as I said, if the Christian worldview is correct, then one can see how homosexuality is harmful.

or, are there certain situations that simply are not covered in a biblical sense... how do you arrive at these decisions?

Do you recall where I discussed how freeway driving habits were covered in the Bible?

[Rían]

Now since according to your beliefs, "survival of the fittest" got us here, why should we abandon it? What logical reason can you give? And how can anything be called "right" or "wrong", or "good" or "bad"? IOW, if there is a behavior that you call "wrong", then it's obvious that you're comparing it to a standard that you think of as "right"; where does that standard come from?