The other lads view

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 12:10AM #1

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

PDN · 02-04-2009 12:34AM

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

Most 'regular' Christians would be encouraged by their churches to read both the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament. That would be as true in the States as anywhere else.

I wouldn't see the point in Christians spending a lot of time with the Koran since I believe Islam to be a false corruption that started out as a Christian heresy.

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 12:45AM

PDN wrote: »

Most 'regular' Christians would be encouraged by their churches to read both the Old Testament (Tanakh) and the New Testament. That would be as true in the States as anywhere else.

I didn't know the Tanakh and the old testament where the same book. Question is pretty pointless if they are.

Fair enough on the Koran.

Zangetsu · 02-04-2009 01:04AM

I was thinking something similar myself recently, I'll do my best to explain it...

"Every religion (that I'm aware of anyways) believes in some sort of afterlife or a heaven and they all believe in a higher power."

Is it not possible that all religions are praying to the same higher power, but have a different way of explaining it. Considering there are different cultures and languages in the world would it not be likely that people have different words or storys relating to the same thing?

^ Sorry if I'm not expressing myself well enough but as you all well know topics like this are difficult to explain...

_________________________

PDN:
"I wouldn't see the point in Christians spending a lot of time with the Koran since I believe Islam to be a false corruption that started out as a Christian heresy."

As I said above, would it not be more of a adaptation to relay that story to another culture? Not wrong, just told in a different way so that the people of that region would understand?

Christianity is quite similar to Islam in its teaching and idealism's, could the same not be said about Christianity and another religion that came before ie. Judaism and Judaism to another religion before that?

I have lots of questions on the topic as I am HUGELY interested in it. Readers please don't take anything I have said in a bad way, I'm just curious of your opinions!

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 01:18AM

Zangetsu wrote: »

I was thinking something similar myself recently, I'll do my best to explain it...

"Every religion (that I'm aware of anyways) believes in some sort of afterlife or a heaven and they all believe in a higher power."

Is it not possible that all religions are praying to the same higher power, but have a different way of explaining it. Considering there are different cultures and languages in the world would it not be likely that people have different words or storys relating to the same thing?

I'm still somewhat open to religion, there is a certain harmony to the universe that interests me. If there is a God (whatever it may be, the bibles are just too out of date to be reliable) I'd like to know all there is to know. I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world. The only thing anyone can really be sure is his (seeing as he is the creator).

The main reason I don't discount religions out right is that the human brain is the greatest thinking device we know of, and I think there's something behind the objective of religion that shouldn't be discounted.

Zangetsu · 02-04-2009 01:28AM

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm still somewhat open to religion, there is a certain harmony to the universe that interests me. If there is a God (whatever it may be, the bibles are just too out of date to be reliable) I'd like to know all there is to know. I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world. The only thing anyone can really be sure is his (seeing as he is the creator).

The main reason I don't discount religions out right is that the human brain is the greatest thinking device we know of, and I think there's something behind the objective of religion that shouldn't be discounted.

I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world.

"..only be reliable..." Not the best choice of words imo... Only is such a strong word

Regarding the main body of your post, in that sense, and I'm sure its been said before, can science not be considered as a modern religion?

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 01:37AM

Zangetsu wrote: »

I'd really consider myself all religions, but I think the only way to truly know God is to study his work, which can only be reliably done through Science which is the study of the natural world.

"..only be reliable..." Not the best choice of words imo... Only is such a strong word

Regarding the main body of your post, in that sense, and I'm sure its been said before, can science not be considered as a modern religion?

Science is basically just the scientific method. It's just observation and experimentation. It couldn't really be called a religion.

Zangetsu · 02-04-2009 01:51AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Science is basically just the scientific method. It's just observation and experimentation. It couldn't really be called a religion.

Ya can't use a word to describe itself!

From what I understand (going out a bit on this one!)...

Religion = Belief in higher power
Science = Belief (and yes you can call it that) in something more beond what we see and feel.

I think religion is a guide on a personal level, ie. a collection of story's that a person can relate do, describing every day actions and emotions. I think science is just an expansion of this (or another chapter one might say) studying whats beyond our own thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The world outside our heads for want of a better phrase... The universe according to science, is expanding after all...

I'd love to go further in but I need my bed! I'll be back!

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 02:06AM

The Scientific method could certainly be used as a personal Philosophy to live your life by like those zeitgeists do. To me though it's just a way of asking questions so that you'll get more accurate answers. Or something along those lines.

I'm sure one of the atheists will be able to explain it much better.

You do get the intolerance you get with religion though.

Fanny Cradock · 02-04-2009 04:15AM

Zangetsu wrote: »

I have lots of questions on the topic as I am HUGELY interested in it. Readers please don't take anything I have said in a bad way, I'm just curious of your opinions!

Ask away! I think you will find that most people will be delighted to have a chat even if you ultimately don't accept what they say. To often we get bogged down in the same old debates here (from Christians and non-Christians alike) and don' really listen to the other side. Such is life, I guess!

philologos · 02-04-2009 10:38AM

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

Well the Tanakh or the Jewish Scriptures are already an integral part of the Christian Bible and of Christian worship. As for the Qur'an, I've read sections of it, and I have a copy of it (Yusif Ali translation). It's all thought provoking stuff, however, I believe only one of the versions of Jesus can be true. For me that's the Jesus depicted in the Gospels.

Zombrex · 02-04-2009 11:31AM

Zangetsu wrote: »

Ya can't use a word to describe itself!

From what I understand (going out a bit on this one!)...

Religion = Belief in higher power
Science = Belief (and yes you can call it that) in something more beond what we see and feel.

I think religion is a guide on a personal level, ie. a collection of story's that a person can relate do, describing every day actions and emotions. I think science is just an expansion of this (or another chapter one might say) studying whats beyond our own thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The world outside our heads for want of a better phrase... The universe according to science, is expanding after all...

I'd love to go further in but I need my bed! I'll be back!

What Lord means is that science is a methodology and the reasons behind the methodology. What you are talking about are more conclusions of science than science itself.

PDN · 02-04-2009 01:05PM

Zangetsu wrote: »

"Every religion (that I'm aware of anyways) believes in some sort of afterlife or a heaven and they all believe in a higher power."

Buddhist might disagree with that statement.

Is it not possible that all religions are praying to the same higher power, but have a different way of explaining it. Considering there are different cultures and languages in the world would it not be likely that people have different words or storys relating to the same thing?

That could be true if the different religions were saying things that complement each others stories. However, in many cases the different religions are making claims that are mutually exclusive or contradictory. In such cases then they can't all be true (unless we subscribe to a relativistic postmodernism mind-mush).

As I said above, would it (Islam) not be more of a adaptation to relay that story to another culture? Not wrong, just told in a different way so that the people of that region would understand?

Christianity is quite similar to Islam in its teaching and idealism's, could the same not be said about Christianity and another religion that came before ie. Judaism and Judaism to another religion before that?

That is a good question in that Christian theology teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation - that God did not reveal Himself to man all at once, but a bit at a time.

However, there are some crucial differences. Christianity builds upon Judaism without rubbishing Judaism. It says that Judaism was good - but
incomplete. Christianity also regards the Jewish Scriptures as the Word of God. Islam, however, takes a different view of Christianity. It says that Christianity is wrong and that the New Testament is distorted and therefore not the Word of God.

Islam also denies the central doctrine and event of Christianity - namely,the death of Christ upon the Cross - so I do not see how the two religions can be described as having similar teachings.

Furthermore, the claim of Christianity, as outlined at the beginning of the Book of Hebrews, is that the coming of Christ is not just another event in a sequence of revelations. Instead, the Incarnation of Christ is a full revelation of God in a unique, history-changing and never to be repeated way. It is the revelation by which all other revelations must be measured.

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 01:21PM

PDN wrote: »

That is a good question in that Christian theology teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation - that God did not reveal Himself to man all at once, but a bit at a time.

Kinky. :pac:

Furthermore, the claim of Christianity, as outlined at the beginning of the Book of Hebrews, is that the coming of Christ is not just another event in a sequence of revelations. Instead, the Incarnation of Christ is a full revelation of God in a unique, history-changing and never to be repeated way. It is the revelation by which all other revelations must be measured.

So Jesus is basically the end of the story and we're just waiting for closing time?

I find it hard to distinguish between what Jesus might have actually said, and what was added after the fact. Do you think the New testament took liberty's with the truth when it was written?

PDN · 02-04-2009 01:30PM

ScumLord wrote: »

So Jesus is basically the end of the story and we're just waiting for closing time?

No, I would see it as more the case that Jesus gave us a full revelation of God and then it was opening time.

I find it hard to distinguish between what Jesus might have actually said, and what was added after the fact. Do you think the New testament took liberty's with the truth when it was written?

No, I think the New Testament writers were truthful and recorded what was said and done. If they really believed that Jesus was who He claimed to be then it would make sense for them to try to present as accurate a picture of Him as possible.

Fanny Cradock · 02-04-2009 02:12PM

ScumLord wrote: »

So Jesus is basically the end of the story and we're just waiting for closing time?

I would say that it was the beginning of a new chapter in the story of creation - arguably the most important chapter. So it's not about 'closing time' where we turn off the lights, shut the doors behind us and head of to either heaven or hell. That notion completely misses one of the most commonly misunderstood messages of Christianity, IMO. I believe that the bible teaches that the final destination isn't playing harps in heaven (that's not to say that it isn't part of the plan), rather it is about new creation and a new type of existence on this world.

Fanny Cradock · 02-04-2009 02:16PM

N.T Wright has more to say on this.

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/

ScumLord · 02-04-2009 02:29PM

Ok so just clarify this bit..

PDN wrote: »

That is a good question in that Christian theology teaches the concept of Progressive Revelation - that God did not reveal Himself to man all at once, but a bit at a time.

Furthermore, the claim of Christianity, as outlined at the beginning of the Book of Hebrews, is that the coming of Christ is not just another event in a sequence of revelations. Instead, the Incarnation of Christ is a full revelation of God in a unique, history-changing and never to be repeated way. It is the revelation by which all other revelations must be measured.

Has Jesus completed Gods revelations or is there more to come? That is what I meant by closing up shop on the revelations.

Slav · 02-04-2009 03:23PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

Yes and no. If however we say "yes" then we'll have to extend the list to include pretty much every religion in the world (well, maybe some of them like shamanism or even Buddhism won't easily fit in but things like Hinduism, Daoism or all sorts of Paganism and Gnosticism most certainly will).

On the other hand we can say "no" and it also will be correct. If you ask a Muslim whether Allah ever became a man you know what their answer would be. But God of Christians did, so maybe the gods they are talking about are different after all?

Slav · 02-04-2009 03:32PM

Zangetsu wrote: »

PDN:
"I wouldn't see the point in Christians spending a lot of time with the Koran since I believe Islam to be a false corruption that started out as a Christian heresy."

As I said above, would it not be more of a adaptation to relay that story to another culture? Not wrong, just told in a different way so that the people of that region would understand?

It would not. Remember that there were practically no cultural differences between pagan Semitic tribes in Syria who converted to Christianity and those pagan Semitic tribes of Arabia who who converted to Islam few hundred years later.

There is also a logical problem with that sort of theories:
A. There is Absolute Something
B. This Absolute Something can be described differently in different cultural and linguistic context.
C. Those descriptions contradict each other.

It implies either:
* Absolute Something depends on the context it described on and therefore it's not absolute but relative (so A can not be true),
* or the descriptions are wrong (at very least all but one) and therefore B can not be true.

Christianity is quite similar to Islam in its teaching and idealism's,

Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different.

could the same not be said about Christianity and another religion that came before ie. Judaism and Judaism to another religion before that?

Judaism and what? Again, Judaism (at least its pre-Talmudic version) is fundamentally different to any and every religion of that time.

postcynical · 03-04-2009 01:19AM

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?

There is only one God;)

Should these 3 different groups spend more time reading each others books? If they are truly interested in knowing the faith better they should have the complete picture. Especially the Tanakh seeing as it's the faith that Christianity is based on.

Is this something that happens with regular Christians? I'd assume it isn't. Especially in the States.

Using an analogy with science, it would be like suggesting that all scientists should be trained in classical science, modern science and in intelligent design. Superficially they appear to be the same, or similar, but fundamentally they are irreconcilable. It is useful though that some individuals (Americans or not) would be versed in all three.

PDN · 03-04-2009 07:58AM

ScumLord wrote: »

Ok so just clarify this bit..

Has Jesus completed Gods revelations or is there more to come? That is what I meant by closing up shop on the revelations.

I personally find that being a Christian is an adventure where I learn and experience new things about God every day, so I certainly wouldn't claim that there are no new revelations. But, and this is a very big 'but', those revelations are relatively small scale and are subjective rather than objective. They do not become Scripture, but rather must be judged in the light of Scripture.

Christians believe that the Coming of Jesus (His birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension) was an epochal, history-defining event that changes the way we look at everything else. Therefore the Coming of Jesus, and the record of that event in Scripture, is the standard by which we assess and understand any other purported divine revelation.

Kipperhell · 03-04-2009 09:01AM

ScumLord wrote: »

The big 3 religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are basically different takes on the same God, right?
.

Aren't there other religions that are just as big? Like Hindu and Buddhism. As the new testament was decided by a committee I find it hard to see how people can truly believe it. It relies on a divine control of people who have free will and thus a contradictory view of the religion AFAIK. I'd like to see Lilith to make a return into the bible myself.

PDN · 03-04-2009 09:04AM

Kipperhell wrote: »

As the new testament was decided by a committee

No it wasn't.

Kipperhell · 03-04-2009 09:18AM

PDN wrote: »

No it wasn't.

I'm pretty sure it was consolidated by a Roman ruler via a committee how do you think one unified version of each book and the exclusion of other books happened? There is the matter of translation also a group of people again would have to agree and be divinely controlled. The bible itself as a book has to have a history so what is the history if I am wrong?

Slav · 03-04-2009 09:20AM

Kipperhell wrote: »

I'd like to see Lilith to make a return into the bible myself.

She'll be struggling with that as she's never been there in the first place...

Kipperhell · 03-04-2009 09:30AM

Slav wrote: »

She'll be struggling with that as she's never been there in the first place...

I just had a look it turns out she is still in the King James Bible so I stand corrected. I did mean her to return as Adams first wife though

PDN · 03-04-2009 09:43AM

Kipperhell wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was consolidated by a Roman ruler via a committee how do you think one unified version of each book and the exclusion of other books happened? There is the matter of translation also a group of people again would have to agree and be divinely controlled. The bible itself as a book has to have a history so what is the history if I am wrong?

And I'm more than pretty sure that you're mistaken.

It happened through an organic process where each local church, and a number of different groups of churches, discovered for themselves which books met fairly basic criteria for being accepted as Scripture.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the first mass produced VCRs? There were two competing formats: Betamax and VHS. In the end Betamax faded away, not because a committee decided it should go, but simply because more people opted for VHS. Church historians think something very similar happened with the formation of the canon of Scripture.

The idea of a Roman ruler getting a committee to determine the books of the Bible is a bit of an urban legend popularised by muck like The Davinci Code. There certainly were Church Councils, such as the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, which did not see themselves as determining the Canon but rather as affirming the beliefs of the majority of churches as opposed to a few whacko cults that were trying to create new Bibles which included more recent spurious books.

The idea that these Councils had authority over the entire Christian church is a bit of a fiction since, by that time, there were already versions of Christianity, primarily in the East, that totally rejected Roman authority.

Kipperhell · 03-04-2009 10:06AM

PDN wrote: »

And I'm more than pretty sure that you're mistaken.

etc...

Actually what you have described is pretty much a committee one way or the other. A group of people determined the course of the bibles content. This seems at odds with free will and divine authority. There still remains different versions.

Using your betamax and Vhs analogy neither were actually right or wrong. The controlling powers of movie rights effectively determined which lead the market. By all account beta was actually a better standard. Effectively what is being suggested that survival of the fittest determined the bible's contents. I have worked with many people on determining best practice and it is not determined by the best solution but more often than not the people who have the most power. I don't see why this would have been any different at the time as it seems to be evident throughout history.

Slav · 03-04-2009 10:14AM

Kipperhell wrote: »

I just had a look it turns out she is still in the King James Bible so I stand corrected. I did mean her to return as Adams first wife though

I did actually mean Lilith as Adam's first wife: you can't return to Bible something that has never been there. It's quite likely that myths about Lilith (as daemon of night or something like that) are rather old and quite likely were borrowed by Jews from Babylon but they never were a part of pre-Talmudic Judaism. If I'm not mistaken the idea of Lilith being the first Adam's wife first appears in Medieval Ages in Talmudic and Kabbalistic tradition. It's up to you to decide how reliable these sources are and whether Kabbalah has anything in common with pre-Talmudic Judaism at all.

Kipperhell · 03-04-2009 10:46AM

Slav wrote: »

I did actually mean Lilith as Adam's first wife: you can't return to Bible something that has never been there. It's quite likely that myths about Lilith (as daemon of night or something like that) are rather old and quite likely were borrowed by Jews from Babylon but they never were a part of pre-Talmudic Judaism. If I'm not mistaken the idea of Lilith being the first Adam's wife first appears in Medieval Ages in Talmudic and Kabbalistic tradition. It's up to you to decide how reliable these sources are and whether Kabbalah has anything in common with pre-Talmudic Judaism at all.

I believe them as stories that intermingled. If I was to write a story and mention Batman as the man who saved me but never explained who he was people at present would understand who it was,his nature and generally the story of his beginnings. I wouldn't need to explain Batman as it is part of the culture.

Now at some time in the future the stories of Batman are lost and my story survives people of the time may wonder about this Batman character. They find stories of Michael Keating and think he is this Batman character.

Lilith as an entity existed for a long time and is referenced in the bible in a similar manner to my Batman. Later on there were extra back stories added to her which I would guess is just like all story telling.

I just don't find it plausible that a pure book could come from the manner in which the bible rose to its current position.

The other lads view

Comments