|
|
Post by Rit on Aug 5, 2004 20:12:22 GMT -5
a rather mirthful idea to suppose that God was an incurable neurotic. It's not heretical at all, in a way.
People of strong faith always amaze me in how precisely weak and immobile their faith is. They're always the ones that seem least able to dance with their ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 6, 2004 5:46:59 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, does someone who says "This is the God I believe on based on the reading I've done from the Torah" or "this is the God I believe in based on the reading I've done from the Koran" or "this is the God I believe in based on the reading I've done from Bhagavad-Gita" hold as much weight with you? Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 6, 2004 5:52:34 GMT -5
I support your right to believe as you wish, but I certainly do not think that the "gods" worshipped by other religions are one and the same as God, just going by different names. Cuz it's not just the names that are different, it's the attributes and nature of these "gods" which are at odds with the God who is revealed by and in Jesus Christ. As for "defining God"...well, of course He is not to be defined, but the Scriptures have much to say about His nature and attributes, and so I am in no way discrediting my own beliefs when I compare and contrast the respective natures/attributes of, say, Allah and YHWH. On the contrary, I only strengthen my beliefs when I see the stark differences between the two. To be honest Jac, when you consider that the creation/basis of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judism and Christianity) all comes from the same place ... and is recalled in our bible in the story of Issac and Ishamael, I"m not sure how I could say anything but that it's the same God. How else would I reconcile that God promised two sons to each be the ruler of nations? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 6, 2004 5:53:31 GMT -5
I believe that God is loving and merciful, and it isn't so much that God sends people to hell, people send themselves to Hell, if you know what I mean. Very well said. |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 6, 2004 11:59:36 GMT -5
To be honest Jac, when you consider that the creation/basis of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judism and Christianity) all comes from the same place ... and is recalled in our bible in the story of Issac and Ishamael, I"m not sure how I could say anything but that it's the same God. How else would I reconcile that God promised two sons to each be the ruler of nations? I always thought Hinduism and Buddhism were in the same league (as MAJOR world religions) as Judaism, Islam and Christianity... ...And of course, with my luck I happen to know a little bit more about Hinduism and Buddhism than I do Islam (having studied all three in a high school college prep class, I found Islam to be the least interesting of the three). I don't see how God's promise to Ishmael and Isaac that they each rule nations needs to be reconciled by the necessity of a "Two names for one God" theory. The Ishmaelites had splintered off into many different belief systems by the time of Christ, and one of the great things about God's plan of salvation was the integration of the Gentiles into the "chosen" status of the Jews. If the God of Isaac and the god(s) of Ishmael were one and the same, what point would there have been in such a reconcilliation? As for this Harold Bloom guy Ritalin seems to enjoy...I doubt very seriously that I would enjoy his work...If that means my faith is "weak and immobile" then it will have to do. I don't tolerate blasphemy well. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 6, 2004 12:13:09 GMT -5
Jac, I guess I just don't see where exactly it is that you believe the "split" of various "God's" happened. The way I see it is this -- there is/was one God over all people. That one God promised both Issac and Ishmael a nation of followers. Issac's followers became the Jews, all under one God. Ishmael's followers became the Muslims, all under the same God ... since the one God made the promise to both. Over time, out of the Jews grew the Christians, but again, we're dealing with one God. Now the Christians obviously have accepted Christ as the son of God and their savior, which is what differentiates us from the Jews and Muslims ... but the one God that we all came from has remained the same. Where on this path am I going wrong in your eyes?
|
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Aug 7, 2004 19:43:24 GMT -5
Jac, I guess I just don't see where exactly it is that you believe the "split" of various "God's" happened. The way I see it is this -- there is/was one God over all people. That one God promised both Issac and Ishmael a nation of followers. Issac's followers became the Jews, all under one God. Ishmael's followers became the Muslims, all under the same God ... since the one God made the promise to both. Over time, out of the Jews grew the Christians, but again, we're dealing with one God. Now the Christians obviously have accepted Christ as the son of God and their savior, which is what differentiates us from the Jews and Muslims ... but the one God that we all came from has remained the same. Where on this path am I going wrong in your eyes? First of all, I'm not saying you're "going wrong" about this...indeed, I think it is a very interesting and compelling theory. I asked a co-worker (who is a Christian) for his opinion on this and though, like me, he doesn't think Allah and YHWH are one and the same, he said he had heard that the Arab peoples were considered the descendants of Ishmael. And I most certainly do affirm that the God of Christianity and the God of Judaism is indeed one and the same God. The main difference between the two faiths is that Christians believe that Jesus was the promised Messiah and that the Mosaic Law was fulfilled by Him, while Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah, are still waiting for the Promised One and are still bound by the Law (to what extent I couldn't tell you, as I'm sure much has changed within the religion over the last 2000+ years). As for the Ishmaelites and the Israelites...To be sure they both worshipped the same God at first. But the Israelites were forbidden by the Law to inter-marry with people of other races (and religions) and one of the reasons for this was to protect the purity of the religion, to help prevent the infiltration of pagan religions into the Jewish race (though they wound up doing that anyway...). The Ishmaelites were under no similar constraints and it can be assumed that many of them turned away from Jehovah to serve the idols of the people they came in contact with, the gods of the families they married into, etc. Now I'm definately no authority of the subject and I would benefit greatly from a detailed study not only of early Jewish history but of the origins of Islam. But short of that I can only put forth my opinion that due to the often conflicting natures of Allah and YHWH there's no way I would ever think of them as one and the same. In the Koran Allah comes right out and tells all of his adherants to kill all infidels (those who do not believe in Islam). That's not something YHWH would do. That's the main example that I have right now, but I hope it's sufficient. More later when I have some time... |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 8, 2004 4:33:36 GMT -5
Now I'm definately no authority of the subject and I would benefit greatly from a detailed study not only of early Jewish history but of the origins of Islam. But short of that I can only put forth my opinion that due to the often conflicting natures of Allah and YHWH there's no way I would ever think of them as one and the same. In the Koran Allah comes right out and tells all of his adherants to kill all infidels (those who do not believe in Islam). That's not something YHWH would do. That's the main example that I have right now, but I hope it's sufficient. More later when I have some time... Interesting that you mention this, because I got into a discussion about just this subject yesterday with my family. The same comment was made about Islam, and I said that while I hadn't done any studying on it myself, I'd been told that the "kill the infadels" tenent of Islam was taken out of context when used in this sort of way. So some books were pulled out, and the research began. What we found is basically that among the six tenents of Islam is in fact the idea of jihad, but that there are two definitions of jihad. One is basically what you've used it to define ... that you kill those who threaten your religion. And this is often the one accepted by Muslims who are in a minority where they'd feel threatened. But the other, from the little reading I was able to do, I have to say sounded quite like the Christian definition of entrance to heaven ... you accept your savior, and receive eternal life. Those who don't do that do not enjoy eternal life. So again, I have to question just HOW fundamentally different the two religions are. And, as it goes with this discussion, I have to ask just how God split off into two separate Gods if we all came from the same place? I mean, to be honest with you (and I know that my saying this could be considered very offensive to some, and it's not meant that way) God did some pretty rough things with his people in the New Testament -- destroying the world killing all but Noah, his family, and a pair of each animal species comes to mind. So how am I to say that God did not evolve in his relationship with the Muslims, much in the same way that he evolved in his relationship with us? |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 8, 2004 19:04:48 GMT -5
The God you describe, one who damns people to eternal hellfire, does not actually sound loving and beneficent to me. Ahhh, but justice demands punishment for transgression, else there is no detterent to those who would stop at nothing to have their own way. I don't disagree with this conception of justice, I just don't see how it sufficiently explains eternal hellfire. For one thing, every system of human justice (and yes, I realize this ultimately comes back to God being unfathomable and therefore not subject to human norms - but then why try to explain or justify anything - when the concepts you use are necessarily inapplicable to God??) also demands just as strongly that the punishment vary with the transgression - minor transgressions receive relatively minor punishments. If we applied the death penalty to jaywalkers, no one would defend that punishment as just. So part of my objection to the concept of Hell is that it is eternal - there is no logical reason why punishment needs to be unending. Hell could, logically speaking, be like a jail sentence before Heaven - of varying length depending on the crime. Instead, eternal damnation puts me into the same moral category as Hitler. I don't see how any theory of justice - save an unfathomable one - could possibly yield that result. Ah, but then one might reply that everyone in Hell has committed the ultimate crime - the crime of disbelief, the crime of lacking faith. But to me, this is a simple category error - belief in God does not in and of itself have anything to do with morality. If you don't believe in God, and you are wrong, then you've made an intellectual or epistemological error, not a moral one. For me, disbelief in God is similar to disbelief in string theory - both function as Grand Unifying Theories which explain our universe. But if I think string theory is wrong, and it turns out to be right, no one would ever say that I was morally blameworthy. So far as I can tell, belief in God fits into the exact same category, so it makes no sense to "punish" people for disbelieving, because it's not a moral crime. Now I understand, from your point of view, that it appears that disbelievers are "willfully" blind. That God has indeed given us all the necessary evidence of his existence, but we refuse to see it because of selfishness and worldly attachments. Even here, though, I don't see how you can explain people who desperately want to believe in God - who search for God - but don't find him. I know quite a few people who fit in this category, one of whom is even attending theology school in an effort to acquire faith. But she still doesn't have it. If she gets hit by a car tomorrow, the idea that she might be eternally damned to Hell even though she was actively seeking God strikes me as utterly morally repugnant. M |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 8, 2004 19:24:38 GMT -5
The more I participate in this conversation, the more I can see why Kierkegaard characterized the leap of faith in the way he did - as a completely radical, arbitrary, and unfounded break with ordinary worldly assumptions, belief, and conduct - a leap into an epistemological abyss. And I don't mean "arbitrary" and "unfoudned" in their ordinary pejorative senses, but in technical logical terms - it's arbitrary and unfoudned in the sense that there can be no compelling reason from the perspective of disbelief why one should make the leap to begin with. All the reasons why the leap of faith is desirable come from the standpoint of faith - heaven and hell, sin and redemption, light and darkness, salvation and damnation - none of these things mean anything unless you already have faith. So the move from a position of disbelief to a position of faith is radically inscrutable and unfathomable - the leap of faith is necessarily a blind leap, as it were, only justifiable from the perspective of the very thing you're trying to acquire, and thus don't yet have.
The more I think about this, the more I find faith to be a fascinating paradox (not to mention the more I start to get a headache!) There's really nothing a person of faith can say to a disbeliever to convince them to seek faith - all of the justifications require faith to be compelling to begin with. This works conversely, too - there's nothing a disbeliever can say to a person of faith to "talk them out of it", because all of their assumptions and logical derivations assume a position of non-faith to begin with. So all of these conversations, while certainly interesting and worthwhile and revealing, are deeply futile as well. Faith - or lack thereof - is the central structuring variable in our existential outlooks. It runs all the way down, and colors everything we believe or don't believe. In a way, JAC and I are really speaking completely different languages, untranslatable across the faith divide. From the perspective of non-faith, of course the idea of eternal damnation is morally repugnant. From the perspective of faith, of course it makes sense. We are inhabiting different universes.
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Aug 8, 2004 21:11:09 GMT -5
Mary, your two last brief posts are the most articulate treatise on the subject I have ever seen. I have thought the very same things.
I hate to make comment without doing a more thorough read of the back posts, but I just sort of popped in, and do want to say something.
I differ with Jac in that I do believe that the god of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are basically one in the same, based upon history, theology, human nature, and common sense. Not that I am any great expert.
Also, though I have serious qualms with Islam in several areas (Melon's post about its beginings and Mohamed's history of conquest and bloodshed is a good example), I do feel the need to cut it a small break inasmuch as "jihad" can be directly translated as "struggle," and to say you should "fight" the infidels is not the same as saying you should kill them. Having said that, I think there are ample examples in the Koran where the faithful are instructed to cut throats, etc., etc.
And Mary, while your GUT metaphor is valid and effective, I think the GUT itself is actually still unfinished, due to problems with integrating the weak force and the role of gravity (string theory notwithstanding). It has yet to be be "grandly unified." But the metaphor works in context.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Aug 8, 2004 22:44:05 GMT -5
What a sticky subject religion can be. While i have been entertained by reading various philosophies/religions/mystical writings, i realised it was just that, entertainment. I choose not to identify myself as being atheist, agnostic or theist. Learning about who i am, and the world around me, and the relationship between the "two" has always been a mainstay in my mind. I've been inquisitive into the nature of life and the universe and so forth since i was a young bible verse memorising child, and i've focused a lot of my time reading about ideas and beliefs that i'd try to put parallel to my own feelings. This is hard to do when who we are and what we feel constantly changes. I've been sitting here thinking about what i'm going to write, but i can't help feeling it'd just come out looking pretensious, twisted, and vague. I wish i could write something more substantial about my own personal "spirituality," something better then a half assed post, but i'd feel like a charlatan. I will continue to marvel, despise, love, hate, wonder, and forget about this enigma.  |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Aug 9, 2004 7:51:47 GMT -5
There's really nothing a person of faith can say to a disbeliever to convince them to seek faith - all of the justifications require faith to be compelling to begin with. This works conversely, too - there's nothing a disbeliever can say to a person of faith to "talk them out of it", because all of their assumptions and logical derivations assume a position of non-faith to begin with. So all of these conversations, while certainly interesting and worthwhile and revealing, are deeply futile as well. I disagree. While obviously there has to be something about faith appealing enough to bring a non-believer to belive, I just don't belive that the "something" is wired in to activate at a given time. Churches have members who join as a "profession of faith" all the time ... there must be SOMETHING a believer is saying to a non-believer, at least in some of those cases, that is making them come around. If not, then you'd have "Believers" and "Non-believers" and the numbers of each would never change. |
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Aug 9, 2004 8:00:36 GMT -5
i like the churches with the witty signs outside, like "free trip to heaven. details inside." i think something religious people should try to do more often, while keeping the sincerity and seriousness of their religion intact, is have more of a lighthearted demeanor towards certain issues. in other words, i think religion is stereotyped as being uptight and a bit too strict, when i'm sure a lot of religious people enjoy life as much as anyone else.
i hope i didn't somehow offend someone with those comments, because that wasn't my intent.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rit on Aug 9, 2004 8:30:50 GMT -5
I got the same thing out of Kierkegaard when i had a kierkegaard phase. I started to proselytize fervently to anyone who'd listen that the leap of faith was the crux of the matter.. it divides the elements of belief from the elements of non-belief.
the two sides are busy glaring at each other from opposite ends of the spectrum, and an immense void exists between the two, only traversible by adopting principles that either side would perceive to be completely antithetical to their own.
surprising actually. that there's such a deep breakdown, intellectually, between the two positions. what does that say about people's cognitive attempts to "seek out The Truth" about anything?
|
|
