What unites religion?

[BonosSaint]

If these missionaries are anything like some of the "discussions" going on here, I am not surprised that some people are still Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, pagans and whatever else.

Truly, if there was a way to put "religion" threads on ignore, I would. That would be my idea of heaven around here.

 

[Dr. Lemonseed]

Thats the biggest contention a lot of people have with Christianity. Jesus saying "No one comes to God but by me."

My problem is, I can't just go "Oh ok, since he said that I'll surrender to him." It's not an act of will. However, I think that is a widely misunderstood statement. We sinners cannot understand what he means, but I cannot accept he was making a self-centered, exclusive statement.

To my understanding, Jesus also said something like "No, I am not God." He is of the same ESSENCE as God. And we are all God's children, so I take that to mean we are all of the same essence as God.

So when he says "You cannot come to God but by me," the ME he is referring to is not our standard concept of me or I. (Do babies have the same self-concept as adults? No! So there are differences).

Rather, "Me" is not referring to a bag of skin and bones man, but rather that God essence we are all made of. If we could identify with this, we would be by Jesus. Indeed, it IS the only way to God.

Buddha said "We are all Buddha nature" You just have to realize it, via surrender. In fact, I think most religions have some component of surrender...

Like U2's song. If I ever want to live, I've got to die to myself (my Self) someday. The real question is what "me" is he referring to? What "me" do all of us refer to? Could it be that it is a flexible concept!?

 

[starsgoblue]

Very interesting post Dr. Lemonseed.

 

[anitram]

There is. Not reading threads titled "What unites religion" or the like.

I actually had high hopes for this one, based on the title. Should have known better, huh?

 

[Dr. Lemonseed]

To condense and paraphrase:

1. Jesus was one with the All. With God. This is the "me" he refers to. And when he speaks it, he KNOWS it. It is not mere belief.

2. Sinners do not identify with the All. Thus, quite literally, the only way to God the All is by, through Jesus (who identifies with the All). He's right. Buddha is also right. We are all God-nature. Islam is right too. God is not the bag of skin and bones Jesus (which is where much confusion lies on all sides.)

Because we are sinners, we cannot reconcile our own relationship to the world with what Jesus taught. Words he used, while spoken in Truth, are confusing to people who do not live in Truth.

 

[Dr. Lemonseed]

Or like in Yahweh. "His love is like a drop in the ocean."

We are all drops, and God is the ocean. When/if we could realize we are made of the same thing as God (God's children...), the drop goes back into the ocean. No longer do we identify with a small drop, but rather we KNOW we are part of the ocean.

The scary thing about this is that it means we lose our identity as we've known it. ("Wait, I'm not a lonely drop...?!) This is why we FEAR God, and should be humble.

The trick is figuring out how to do this. I think Jesus helps a lot of people see this (especially Westerners). Sorry, I'll quit posting for now.

 

[80sU2isBest]

To my understanding, Jesus also said something like "No, I am not God."

Not according to the Bible.

 

[80sU2isBest]

OK, I was just curious b/c I thought in another thread you said you believe in free will.

I do, but I fail to see how being an absolutist and believing in free will are exclusive of each other.

Being an absolutist doesn't mean that I believe in pre-ordained fate. They are two different subjects altogether.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I really hate that if you believe that there are commonalities between religions that you are a relativist.

I cannot quite explaine why it is offensive to me.

Maybe I should embrace the relativist in me and just be comfortable with it.

There are commonalities between religions, and I didn't say there weren't. In fact, Judaism is the "first half" of Christianity.

But having "commonalities" doesn't make two religions the same. Islam has Abraham, so do Judaism and Christianity. They are not the same.

 

[Do Miss America]

There are commonalities between religions, and I didn't say there weren't. In fact, Judaism is the "first half" of Christianity.

So let me ask you a question then, I think this fits in with the thread, do you believe Jewish people to be saved? I mean God did have a covenant with them if I remember right.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Jesus must have been a relativist......

He accepted the Jew and the Gentile.

Jesus, as we all know, was a Jew. His message was to the Jews, and under the leading of the Holy Spirit, his disciples and apostles extended that message to teh Gentiles. On a human level, when Christ walked the earth, Jesus accepted everyone, as he had love for all his fellow humans. On a spiritual level, Jesus loves everyone, and accepts into salvation anyone who places their belief in him.

Jesus wasn't a relativist in the way I am talking about relativism. He said "I am the way, the truth and the life" and "no one comes to the father but by me". Those are pretty absolute statements that leave no room for other religions to be correct. Other religions may have some truthful beliefs, but Jesus Christ said that a belief in him was necessary for eternal life. According to Jesus, he himself is the ultimate truth.

 

[Do Miss America]

Jesus wasn't a relativist in the way I am talking about relativism. He said "I am the way, the truth and the life" and "no one comes to the father but by me".

"by me" very powerful words. Could mean by his grace, his love, and his forgiveness.

 

[80sU2isBest]

So let me ask you a question then, I think this fits in with the thread, do you believe Jewish people to be saved? I mean God did have a covenant with them if I remember right.

Now we're really get into the meat of the whole thing; the way the Old Testament works its way into the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, the Law was the covenant. If people kept the law 100 % as prescribed by God, they would be saved. But no one can keep the law 100% so they sacrificied animals on a regular basis for what they called "atonement". But the blood of animals can't forgive sin any more than a naked mole rat can (yes, a Kim Possible reference there). The law was unable to be kept perfectly, but that's what God required.

But when Christ came, he fulfilled the law; he never sinned. He died on the cross to pay the price for our sin. When he died and was resurrected, he defeated the power of death and sin. He established a new covenant which simply was "have faith in Christ, and by his grace, you will be saved".

So, a little more about that first covenant, the law. Was it impossible to live 100% by? Yes, and Christ said that if a man has broken part of the law, he has broken the entire law. So, does the impossibility of the law mean it was a failure, a mistake? No. It was planned. As Paul tells us, the law (the first covenant) was a "school master" or "tutor" to show people their sinfulness, to convict them of it, so that when Christ came, they would realize that they can never earn their way into heaven by keeping the law or doing good works, and they would recognize their need for a savior.

I think that any Jew who puts his faith in Christ will be saved. I think that any person who lived before Christ, who had true faith in God had that faith reckoned to them as righteousness, and were accepted by God. That "faith reckoned to them as righteousness" idea is presented in Hebrews.

 

[Do Miss America]

Now we're really get into the meat of the whole thing; the way the Old Testament works its way into the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, the Law was the covenant. If people kept the law 100 % as prescribed by God, they would be saved. But no one can keep the law 100% so they sacrificied animals on a regular basis for what they called "atonement". But the blood of animals can't forgive sin any more than a naked mole rat can (yes, a Kim Possible reference there). The law was unable to be kept perfectly, but that's what God required.

But when Christ came, he fulfilled the law; he never sinned. He died on the cross to pay the price for our sin. When he died and was resurrected, he defeated the power of death and sin. He established a new covenant which simply was "have faith in Christ, and by his grace, you will be saved".

So, a little more about that first covenant, the law. Was it impossible to live 100% by? Yes, and Christ said that if a man has broken part of the law, he has broken the entire law. So, does the impossibility of the law mean it was a failure, a mistake? No. It was planned. As Paul tells us, the law (the first covenant) was a "school master" or "tutor" to show people their sinfulness, to convict them of it, so that when Christ came, they would realize that they can never earn their way into heaven by keeping the law or doing good works, and they would recognize their need for a savior.

I think that any Jew who puts his faith in Christ will be saved. I think that any person who lived before Christ, who had true faith in God had that faith reckoned to them as righteousness, and were accepted by God. That "faith reckoned to them as righteousness" idea is presented in Hebrews.

Thanks for the honest answer.

 

[80sU2isBest]

"by me" very powerful words. Could mean by his grace, his love, and his forgiveness.

I honestly do not mean offense to you, but I think that's reaching a little bit. He said "by me".

Even if it weren't. There are other things he said which tell us what he means by "by me", such as the verses in which he says that a belief in him is necessary.

However, you are right in saying that people will only come to the Father by Jesus' grace, love and forgiveness. If Christ didn't extend grace, love and forgiveness toward us, we wouldn't even ahve the opportunity to believe upon him.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Thanks for the honest answer.

You're very respectful toward me, even though we don't agree on everything. I like that.

 

[Do Miss America]

You're very respectful toward me, even though we don't agree on everything. I like that.

I honestly respect anyone who has such strong convictions. You have very strong convictions in Christ, and I admire that.

I wasn't raised Christian. I became Christian at an early age though, I rejected it for awhile due to people telling me I was going to hell no matter what if I was gay. But later reconciled my differences.

But thank you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Thanks, Do!

 

[Dreadsox]

Jesus, as we all know, was a Jew. His message was to the Jews, and under the leading of the Holy Spirit, his disciples and apostles extended that message to teh Gentiles. On a human level, when Christ walked the earth, Jesus accepted everyone, as he had love for all his fellow humans. On a spiritual level, Jesus loves everyone, and accepts into salvation anyone who places their belief in him.

Jesus wasn't a relativist in the way I am talking about relativism. He said "I am the way, the truth and the life" and "no one comes to the father but by me". Those are pretty absolute statements that leave no room for other religions to be correct. Other religions may have some truthful beliefs, but Jesus Christ said that a belief in him was necessary for eternal life. According to Jesus, he himself is the ultimate truth.

cool...if you believe they wrote everything down Jesus said at the time he said it......

Unfortunately, being a relativist like Christ, who felt free to look at the Law from a different angle.....I do not buy it. I understand your position.

But, clearly we disagree.

 

[Liesje]

I do, but I fail to see how being an absolutist and believing in free will are exclusive of each other.

See your own words on page 2......

"Relativism tells people to do what they want"

people doing what they want = free will

 

[A_Wanderer]

I really like free will, a direct concequence of the fundamental laws of the universe on matter and energy treated with excessive ammounts of time.

 

[Irvine511]

See your own words on page 2......

"Relativism tells people to do what they want"

people doing what they want = free will

i think the problem is that 80s has a poor understanding of what relativism is.

i'm a big old relativist, and yet i don't do what i want when i want because it feels good. neither does any person with any modicum of personal responsibility. but it also isn't convenient for the absolutists to see people living healthy, responsible, purpose-driven lives that are entirely secular in nature as it reduces, if not outright refutes, the usefullness of religion.

and to answer the question posed by the thread: religions across the world are united by 1) fear, and 2) sneaking suspicion that flesh cannot be all we are.

 

[80sU2isBest]

See your own words on page 2......

"Relativism tells people to do what they want"

people doing what they want = free will

Let me rephrase that, as I see now that it doesn't convey what I intended

"Relativism tells people that it's morally okay to do whatever they want as long as no one is hurt"

 

[80sU2isBest]

i think the problem is that 80s has a poor understanding of what relativism is.

No, Irvine, I don't. LivLuv misunderstood me, and so I rephrased what I was saying.

Here is the dictionary.com definition of relaivism, which is basically what I've been talking about this entire thread.

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'm an agnostic, so I'm not really coming from a particular religion, but it seems to me that any god worth his/her/it's salt would be able to be whatever each culture/peoples needs to be able to "find" that god. Some people find the Christian god most palatable, others find the Hindu or Muslim (or one of many other religions) version works best.

I know that idea garners a lot of resistance (trust me I quickly found that out when I put it forth once before ), but it makes a lot of sense to me. Why would a god make such a wide variety of people on this earth and then force them to all believe in one version of god? Do you honestly believe a GOD couldn't be powerful enough to manifest in various forms so that each of it's peoples could be comfortable with that god?

Yes. My thoughts exactly . I'm not an agnostic like you, as I personally do believe in a higher being of some kind, but regardless, I totally agree with this idea .

Angela

 

[80sU2isBest]

And I personally would agree with that idea. As long as nobody's being physically harmed (emotions are a different story, as not everyone reacts the same way emotionally to something, whereas everyone who gets beat up or something will feel pain) or killed, why exactly shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they wish?

I mean, if you don't agree with that idea, that's fine-your opinion and all that. I'm just curious as to why you don't agree with it, is all.

That's where my absolutism comes in. I believe that certain moral standards were passed down by God based on his Holy nature, and that these standards are not dependent on human circumstances at all.

Most of the things that God said are sins are sins that will necessarily hurt others: murder, theft, etc.

But some are sins that won't necessarily hurt others, such as fornication, envy, lust. These are sins because they are against God's holy nature. In the case of fornication, God created sex as a special committment that binds people together as one, and is intended for married couples only.

 

[Liesje]

No, Irvine, I don't. LivLuv misunderstood me, and so I rephrased what I was saying.

No, I didn't misunderstand you, we just have totally different definitions of free will. I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. Therefore, free will cannot exist because it means that God is not sovereign. But, like I said, we do have different definitions of what free will is, so my idea doesn't necessarily conflict with yours. "Free will" to me not the same thing as the freedom to make one's own choices.

 

[Irvine511]

A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
"Relativism tells people that it's morally okay to do whatever they want as long as no one is hurt"




you don't see the huge leap you're making between these two statements?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
"Relativism tells people that it's morally okay to do whatever they want as long as no one is hurt"




you don't see the huge leap you're making between these two statements?

"Relativism tells people that it's morally okay to do whatever they want as long as no one is hurt" is a statement of a result of relativism, not the definition, and i never defined it in such a way. Did you not read this:

"My absolutist beliefs tell me that there is only one correct religion or there is no correct religion. I'm not a relativist at all."

or this:

"I'm not sure that we're all on the same page, as far as relativism goes. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with veils, sideburns or even free will. When I talk about relativism, I'm talking about the belief that there are "many roads to God" and "all religions are the same" and all that. In my mind, all religions can't be right, because they contradict each other; Christianity says that Christ is the only way to the father, and Islam says that is not true. How can they both be right?"

or this:

"Two opposites can not both be true. One or both must be wrong."

Every single one of those quotes deals with the definition of relativism

"A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them"

 

[Irvine511]

you're working from a set of assumptions that do not apply to most understandings of what relativism is, especially in a philosophical context.

thus, you cannot extrapolate the idea that anyone can do whatever they want so long as it hurts no one from the dictionary meaning of realtivism, and it also follows that all of the above statements you make are predicated upon a misunderstanding of what relativism actually is. you've defined it in a very, very narrow context, and have used that to create a specific definition of what you want relativism to mean. it's a definition of convenience, not of actual understanding.

so, what is relativism? at it's core, it's defined against objectivity, the idea that something can be understood in the way that science can understand something. in a social science context, it simply cannot. what relativism does is take into account the effect that culture, history, place, and time have upon understandings of such words as, say, "free will" "absolutism" or whatever else. for example, we hold people responsible for their actions, both morally and legally. this practice seems justified as long as people are free to make the choices that they do. but which criteria must a decision meet in order to qualify as free? clearly, a free decision must not be the result of external coercion, but must the decision also be free from any outside influence at all? we are all deeply influenced by external factors ranging from the general laws of nature to specific features of our genetic endowment and social environment (including religion, political ideology, and advertising). these affect not only our particular choices but also, more fundamentally, what we value. since it is undeniable that we are pervasively influenced by such outside forces, the real question relativism poses, is whether, and how, objective understanding is possible amidst all of these influences. the answer, generally, is "it isn't possible."