Originally posted by Rajk999Who said that GOD only talked to Jews?
God did in fact talk to one area/people only in the earlier days. He was displeased with the conduct the many people and instructed the Jews to wipe out all the surrounding natives. Men, women, children, livestock ... everything.
This is why I cannot understand why people keep saying God is love, or, God loves us all, without explaining what they mean. I ...[text shortened]... Christ. Im sure the Koran does something similar. Hence the confusion and division among people.
There are many prophets sent to non Jews areas. But because the OT is the book of Jews it is only talking about them. It was written to give the reader the feeling that GOD was only for Jews. But in fact for every nation and every area a prophet was sent.
Talking about GOD is love, I don't accept the concept Christian present for this love as well, but that doesn't mean that GOD loves.
Im sure the Koran does something similar. Hence the confusion and division among people.
I'm not sure of that....
----------------------------------------------
I have read part of the Arabic version of the letter and I think there are many assumptions that are not true.
One example I remember is that is say the current conflict between different religions started in the 20th century (or something like that) which is not true.
Originally posted by ahosyneyI was referring to the Bible. The OT part of the Bible was about God and the Jews. Certainly I will agree that God spoke to many others. I am aware that there was a 15 yr period (i think) of the life of Christ that was not recorded in the Bible. Who know where he went. He may have travelled far and wide and talked to many.
Who said that GOD only talked to Jews?
There are many prophets sent to non Jews areas. But because the OT is the book of Jews it is only talking about them. It was written to give the reader the feeling that GOD was only for Jews. But in fact for every nation and every area a prophet was sent.
Talking about GOD is love, I don't accept the concept Chr ...[text shortened]... different religions started in the 20th century (or something like that) which is not true.
RE the Koran. Are you a muslim? Maybe you can investigate further. The Christians believe that ALL humanity must get salvation via Christ. Thats kind of clear in the Bible. But there are passages of scripture that may allow exceptions.
Originally posted by vistesdAre you saying I responsible for my own baaaaaaaadness?
Well said.
Part of sheepy-ness is to claim no responsibility for allowing your self to be led. In being only a follower, the sheep thinks he can shift all responsibility on the leader. That is part of the attractiveness of being a sheep.
But when the sheep gives—to whomever—the right of authority over him, on whose authority does the sheep do that y. But let us remember again: a sheep may merely be someone who has learned her lessons well.
Originally posted by Rajk999Futher to this note.
I was referring to the Bible. The OT part of the Bible was about God and the Jews. Certainly I will agree that God spoke to many others. I am aware that there was a 15 yr period (i think) of the life of Christ that was not recorded in the Bible. Who know where he went. He may have travelled far and wide and talked to many.
RE the Koran. Are you a muslim? ...[text shortened]... Thats kind of clear in the Bible. But there are passages of scripture that may allow exceptions.
I am pretty sure the Koran says that the only way to salvation in via Islam. Hinduism is one religion in which devotees do not condemn orther religions. They infact believe that there are many roads to salvation of which hinduism is just one. They accept both Mohammed and Christ as a prophets.
Here is an excerpt I deemed relevant to at least one side of this discussion...
Source = khouse.org
---------------------------------
ECUMENICAL RELIGION
"Like global government, the idea of a global religion has in the past seemed to some like an impossibility, but the gradual movement toward ecumenical religion here in the U.S. and in other countries around the world has made global religion seem not only possible, but certain. Not only are current trends leaning towards a universal religion, but the Bible confirms that there will be a global religion united under a world leader.
"The focus of global religion has long been directed at the Catholic church. Many have observed its move towards ecumenicalism, often epitomized by pictures of the Pope kissing a copy of the Qu'ran at the World Council of Churches in Damascus. But in reality the New Age movement has been the primary driving force behind a one-world religion. The term New Age itself refers to the Aquarian Age, which many Astrologers believe we are now entering into, which will be characterized by a heightened degree of spiritual or cosmic consciousness and a transformation from the present nation-state divisions into a peaceful one-world community united under a universal pantheistic belief structure.
"The New Age movement has many subdivisions, but it is generally a collection of Eastern-influenced metaphysical thought systems, a conglomeration of theologies, hopes, and expectations held together with an eclectic teaching of salvation, of "correct thinking," and "correct knowledge." It is a theology of "feel-goodism," "universal tolerance," and "moral relativism." It is a loose organization of people who see themselves as advanced in consciousness, rejecting Judeo-Christian values and the Bible in favor of Oriental philosophies and religion.
"To them Man is central. He is viewed as divine, as co-creator, as the hope for future peace and harmony. Though the New Age movement is tolerant of almost any theological position, it is opposed to the "narrow-mindedness" of Christianity, which teaches that Jesus is the only way and that there are moral absolutes. They will often play semantic word games, using the same words Christians do yet their definitions bear no resemblance to the Christian definitions.
"The New Age movement is difficult to define because "there is no hierarchy, dogma, doctrine, collection plate, or membership." It is a collection, an assortment of different theologies with the common threads of toleration and divergence weaving through its tapestry of "universal truth." New Age followers are encouraged to find their own truth. In essence, to do what is right in their own eyes."
Originally posted by epiphinehasYour post made me laugh—not because I found it inaccurate, but because I thought it illustrated the problem with “New Age”, whether one looks at “it” critically from without, or from within (whatever that means): no one knows what “it” is because “it” can be anything/everything. It can be anything you want to criticize or anything you want to think you are. It is amorphous.
Here is an excerpt I deemed relevant to at least one side of this discussion...
Source = khouse.org
---------------------------------
ECUMENICAL RELIGION
"Like global government, the idea of a global religion has in the past seemed to some like an impossibility, but the gradual movement toward ecumenical religion here in the U.S. and in other find their own truth. In essence, to do what is right in their own eyes."
After perusing the wiki article on New Age, I’m still not convinced that “it” could properly be called a movement. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age ) Perhaps phenomenon is a better word.
Many, if not most of what the wiki article lists as “New Age” beliefs are also beliefs in one or more of the world religions. Lots of Christians believe in angels; does that make them “New Agers”? Perhaps “New Age” refers to some indiscriminate manner of blending? Like some combination of kabbalah and crystals? [Note: When I refer to kabbalah, I always mean strictly Jewish mystical theology—a very broad stream within rabbinical Judaism—and have discovered some “New Age” variants that are just garbage.]
If I had to use one word to describe “New Age,” I think I would use the word dilution. This is the difference between “it” and what is generally called the philosophia perennis—and wiki, properly, does not confuse them. Similarly, “New Age” may be “ecumenical”—that does not make ecumenism “New Age”.
Whenever I hear the phrase “New Age,” I get a feeling like I had just bitten into a lemon.
Again, “it” can be anything that you want to criticize, as well as anything you want to be.
I hate to be a pest and interrupt all this wonderful debate, but did anyone actually go to this site and read the letter that started all this?
http://www.uga.edu/~bahai/wrldldrs.html
I already know how the Christians feel about it, but I was hoping to get some feedback from some of you Zen masters and atheists.
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe power of prophesy seems to be that anyone who wants to see the signs can see them. I have heard hundreds of Christians claiming that the end of the world is near and they list some of the signs as prophesied in the Bible. And this has been the case since the time of Christ and before. Yet on further analysis every one of those signs turns out to be based on the desire to see what isn't there. If you are looking for war you will find one, if you are looking for disease you will find one, if you are looking for a potential world religion you will find one. But all you will find is the potential which does not constitute a sign. The truth is that war, and disease are less than ever before in the history of mankind and that there is no world religion. The potential is always there for any one of those, but to claim that what you see know is a fulfillment of prophesy is in effect a claim to be able to predict the future at which point the prophesy gets fulfilled.
...but the Bible confirms that there will be a global religion united under a world leader.
Originally posted by VarqaI did. The relationship between religious leaders and religious sheep can be a co-dependent one. Religions all too often encourage the comfortable idolatry of clinging to particular forms and concepts; they try to maintain members, not encourage free spirits in communion with the nameless ground of being.
I hate to be a pest and interrupt all this wonderful debate, but did anyone actually go to this site and read the letter that started all this?
http://www.uga.edu/~bahai/wrldldrs.html
I already know how the Christians feel about it, but I was hoping to get some feedback from some of you Zen masters and atheists.
Idolatry is the great threat in religion. Images can be graven not only in stone, but in the mind. People tend to worship, not “God” but their conceptions of “God.” And they think they are safe from idolatry if their conceptions are drawn from the “right” source, or take the “right” form.
“The Tao called ‘Tao’ is not the real Tao.” The name of the divine is _________.
Tradition has it that the Holy of Holies in the temple at Jerusalem was empty. The only way that I know of to avoid idolatry is (1) to allow the mind to become empty of all thoughts and concepts, and open to the reality that is prior to all conceptualizing, in which you are included; and (2) whatever you “experience” in that mode, to treat any thoughts about it [or any “visions” or the like] as provisional—i.e., as your mind attempting to translate the “experience” into concepts or images that it can grasp and understand.
The religions are full of such translations. They are only problematic when they become dogmatic and idolatrous.
Religion either leads you to that non-conceptual ground, or it leads you to idols. The first is the proper function of all religious teaching, expression and practice. That is the proper function, or use, of the translations of those who have gone before—to point the way, or to evoke the communion. As such, particular religious expressions can be helpful; they can help one to dig their spiritual well deeply in one place, and guard against spiritual dilettantism. The danger for those who practice within a given religion is narrow dogmatism and idolatry. The danger for spiritual nomads is shallow dilettantism.
To cling to the translations—the forms and expressions of a particular religion—is like grabbing onto the finger of one who is pointing out to you the way, rather than following where s/he is pointing.
Now that some have read the document, why don't we examine one paragraph closer. Take this one for example. Please note that one religious organization (the Baha'i Faith) is addressing all the rest. Some of you have called the document "naive." I personally find it strikingly accurate.
So fundamental a reorientation religious leadership appears, for the most part, unable to
undertake. Other segments of society embrace the implications of the oneness of humankind,
not only as the inevitable next step in the advancement of civilization, but as the fulfilment of
lesser identities of every kind that our race brings to this critical moment in our collective
history. Yet, the greater part of organized religion stands paralyzed at the threshold of the
future, gripped in those very dogmas and claims of privileged access to truth that have been
responsible for creating some of the most bitter conflicts dividing the earth’s inhabitants.
Isn't the claims of previledged access to truth the subject of this entire forum?
Originally posted by VarqaTruth requires privileged access. Without Christ dying on the cross there would be no access to God for lost sinners. What this letter assumes is that Jesus Christ's propitiative death on the cross was superfluous, since it assumes that sinners can gain access to God any other way. Christ is Truth. Access to Truth is privileged only in that Christ is the only Way, but accessible to all in that the Truth in Christ is available to 'whosoever believes' in him.
Now that some have read the document, why don't we examine one paragraph closer. Take this one for example. Please note that one religious organization (the Baha'i Faith) is addressing all the rest. Some of you have called the document "naive." I personally find it strikingly accurate.
So fundamental a [b]reorientation religious leadership appears, for ...[text shortened]...
Isn't the claims of previledged access to truth the subject of this entire forum?[/b]
EDIT: If this has been the cause of bitterness and strife, then so be it. Christ himself said that he has come not to bring peace, but division. On one side, those who oppose him, and on the other, those who believe in him. If he wasn't Truth, if he wasn't Holy, then such divisions would not arise.
Originally posted by VarqaYou almost cannot have religion without some form of privileged access to truth claim.
Isn't the [b]claims of previledged access to truth the subject of this entire forum?[/b]
However much the Baha'i may claim to be "all embracing" they are nevertheless effectively claiming that everyone else is wrong.