Welcome to the Travel Forums


Why join TravelBlog?

  • Membership is Free and Easy
  • Your travel questions answered in minutes!
  • Become part of the friendliest online travel community.
Join Now! Join TravelBlog* today and meet thousands of friendly travelers. Don't wait! Join today and make your adventures even more enjoyable.

* Blogging is not required to participate in the forums
Advertisement


What do you think about religion?

Advertisement
Are you religious? If so which religion are you? What do you get out of being religious? If you are not religious why not?
15 years ago, May 22nd 2008 No: 21 Msg: #36092  

Hi Koi,

I'm not religious, and it's a difficult task to try and summarise a religious tradition in a forum post but the main Christian traditions are:

Roman Catholicism

Eastern Orthodox

Oriental Orthodox

Protestantism

Restorationism


The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches split after the 'Great Schism in 1054.

The Oriental Orthodox churches include the Coptic, Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Armenian Church was the first Christian Church to be adopted as an official state religion, the Ethiopian was the second (see my blog). They pre-date the adoption of Christianity by ancient Rome.

Protestantism dates from the 16th century and started as an attempt to reform Roman Catholicism. Within this category there are many sects. To confuse things even more some Anglicans (members of the Church of England) founded by Henry VIII identify as both Protestant and Catholic!
I was brought up in the Church of England, singing in a church choir - its a very broad Church.

Although, I'm not religious I was married in a Quaker (Religious Society of Friends) meeting house. It was founded in the 17th Century - its main belief is that there is a little bit of God within everyone. As a result individual Quakers can develop their own beliefs as a result of their own inner 'Light'. So although most people would consider the Friends as a Protestant Church in fact some friends can even consider themselves as atheist or even Buddhist and still be considered as a member of a Friends' meeting. Quakers do not have Churches - instead they have Meeting Houses. Quakers have often been prominent in campaigns for social justice or in the peace movement. I was married in a Quaker Meeting because my ex-wife's father was active in the Pickering Friends' Meeting. My ex- wife's father marched with the Young Friends' on the Aldermaston demonstration in 1958 organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).

Restorationism is composed of various sects who believe that they are restoring the original version of Christianity, this includes the Jehovah's Witnesses and the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons).

As a Brit, I don't normally talk about religion; you can see why from my attempt to try to summarise the Christian tradition - getting drunk is definitely a better option!

Although if you really want to know - just follow the links on Wikipedia as mentioned by Going Global.









Reply to this

15 years ago, May 22nd 2008 No: 22 Msg: #36099  

Damn...I tried to just sit here and drink my virtual beer like Stephen. I'll go back to that now.



HaHa Marc :D
So you couldnt resist joining in....... 😊
Reply to this

15 years ago, May 22nd 2008 No: 23 Msg: #36106  
B Posts: 102

So you couldnt resist joining in....... 😊



I tried my best...but despite the potential pitfalls (especially in this medium), I can't resist weighing in on religious banter. It's just too fascinating.

I also realized that in my haste I missed mentioning a bunch of other branches of Christianity - it just keeps on going. Thankfully Stuart hit them up so they're not left out of the discussion. Reply to this

15 years ago, May 22nd 2008 No: 24 Msg: #36107  
I am a Christian but like to refer to myself that way moreso than "religious." The word "religion" has a negative connotation to me -- I'm not sure why, really, but it does.

I started off being a Christian because I was raised in a traditional Baptist family, so I quite naturally picked up their habits and belief systems. When I was in college, I started to go through the normal "is there really a God?" phase of maturation and really took a hard look at the beliefs I had inherited from my family. After that, and in the years since then, I discarded some of those inherited beliefs but retain the basics -- I believe God exists, He created the universe, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the other 2 members of the Trinity, Jesus died to pay the penalty for mankind's sins, and those who choose to believe in and accept that proxy death are saved and will be with God after death. I believe that saved individuals have an active relationship with God and that we can pray to Him for all manner of things -- which He may or may not do, as He is not the believer's "errand boy" or obligated to bend to our whims. Reply to this

15 years ago, May 25th 2008 No: 25 Msg: #36301  
Although I am by not means anything close to a good example of a Christian as it has been too many moons since I've been to a service, I am one - specifically Lutheran.

Koi, Marc maybe did the best job (in my humble opinion) of trying to put the largest elements of the faith into as short a presentation as possible. However, as others have mentioned, there are many differentiations on Christianity and the full knowledge could be years of studying. Here is what I might add to either the general conversation or some specific thoughts:

Perhaps one item to keep in mind, Koi, is that there is what is called the Trinity. Rather than try my feeble attempt to explain it, I will refer you to another website. This website is admittedly from one denomination, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. However, I think they would offer an explanation that other traditional Christian denominations would not argue with. Click here to go to the explanation of the Trinity.

The Bible would, of course, offer you the best way to learn much of what Christianity is all about but there are also three creeds which are considered "ecumenical" creeds and are accepted by all Christian denominations. These are the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed. These were all written early in the history of the Christian Church and also give "the basics" of the faith. Indeed, they were written because of debate on core issues of the faith in the early days (referring to around 150-300 AD). There are some denominations that profess some elements of these creeds but deviate, such as either the Mormons (aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and the Jehovah Witnesses. Because they deviate from these creeds, it is commonly accepted they are not considered full Christian denominations, despite any claim made by these organizations. While I will again admit I am offered a biased reference, you can go to this website for more information . Granting the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is offering somewhat their specific denominations thoughts, they also seem to endeavor to offer a lot of information on questions on the faith and may be helpful, including how their denomination differs in theology with other Christian denominations including Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.

I can feel comfortable adding that traditional Christianity does purport that while everyone on earth is welcomed to the faith and is therefore completely inclusive, it also claims exclusive truth that is revealed by God to His people. Traditional Christianity does claim that Jesus Christ, though His sacrifice, is the lone means of salvation from the sinful state every human is born into. When we die on earth, our soul is either sent to heaven to live with God for eternity if we accept Christianity and Christ's sacrifice as atonement for our sins or we are condemned to hell for eternity. Be sure to note what I remember once hearing from a Catholic priest: Christianity (or, in this particular case Roman Catholicism) does not purport to offer our truth, we purport to offer the truth; note the difference.

Adding to a few of the comments. There are Protestant denominations that do not ordain women as pastors, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod being one of them. In the US, there are three primary Lutheran bodies, The ELCA, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (which may ordain women pastors), the Missouri Synod (which does not), and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (which also does not ordain women pastors). The Southern Baptist Church does not ordain women as pastors to my understanding, and I suspect there are a few others but do not know for certain.

A book you may wish to check out through Amazon or similar is called Letters From a Skeptic. This book is a very easy read, while answering many questions of the faith. In particular, this book is a series of letters between the son pastor and his skeptic father. The father was asked to present every objection to the Christian faith to his son, and in my opinion the son did a great job. Regardless of your opinion of the quality of the answers, I suspect you can get a better idea of the Christian faith. While I was "in the faith" when I read this book, it did help cement my faith and questions that may have been asked of me.

By the way, what do I get out of being religious? There was a point I was challenged to believe in God. From there, it was my conclusion that based on reason and science (yes, science) God exists; "God" being defined as a living being that exists before and outside the world and created such. From there, it would be my argument there is absolute truth; truth is not relative to a person or situation. The concept of relativism, that there is no such thing as absolute truth is incorrect. Indeed, to say "It is absolutely true there is no absolute truth" is self-contradicting. From there, I then seek to find the absolute truth. When we conclude that a person named Jesus did physically exist on earth about 2000 years ago (this fact is agreed by basically every historian, even dedicated atheists. The question is only what Jesus Himself asked, "Who do you say that I am?"), we come down to deciding whether or not the claims made by the Bible and Jesus can be trusted. If the answer is yes (as I would propose), then it is reasonable to believe that the absolute truth is found in Him. The Book Letters From a Skeptic offers strong arguments for accepting the claim about Jesus in the Bible to be trustworthy. With finding the truth, we can then find perhaps the most personal thing for me, hope...hope that despite the troubles we find in this world there is hope of something better tomorrow.

So, here is what happens when I've run out of things to do on a trip in Nicaragua when I'm waiting for the sun to come up and go to the next city. I write and write and write.


Reply to this

15 years ago, May 25th 2008 No: 26 Msg: #36338  
Garry Bowman, I would suggest trying to summarize Christian doctrine is a hostage to fortune. Certainly, your description is true of the Lutheran tradition but I would contest some of your assertions. Much of what you say is true of the Western tradition but not others. I also don't accept your definition of the Christian mainstream - as a non theist I would consider anyone as a Christian if that is how they self define themselves.



Specifically, your Western mono-cultural outlook on Christianity is shown in your use of the Creeds as a definition of the religion. The Athanasian Creed goes beyond the Nicene Creed , reflecting the teachings of the Council of Ephesus (431) and the theological definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Oriental Orthodox Churches rejected the Council of Chalcedon - leading to the first great split in the Churches before the great Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (1054). Your definition that suggests that all three Creeds need to be accepted - Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed , would therefore exclude the Oriental Orthodox Churches not just the Restorationist like the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons. The Oriental Orthodox Churches include the Coptic Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox (or Tewahedo) Church. The Armenian Church was the first Christian Church to be recognized as an official state recognized religion, the Ethiopian Church was the second during the time of the Axumite kingdom. This pre-dated Roman Catholicism being adopted by the Roman Empire. Are you seriously suggesting that the Oriental Orthodox Churches cannot be considered as part of the Christian mainstream?


Christ and Santa Claus



I would also contest your assertion that the historical existence is accepted by all historians - it isn't. In fact there as many good reasons to doubt Jesus ever existed.

History. It's inconceivable that during the alleged time of Jesus no one bothered to write down anything about this most extraordinary person, yet we have nothing. Even the earliest Bible reference to Jesus dates to at least A.D. 64, and the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, dates to at least A.D. 70 (and probably to A.D. 170).
Comparative Religion shows that the story of Jesus already existed in numerous religions prior to the alleged time of Jesus. Chrishna, Horus, Orpheus, Bacchus, Osiris, Dionysus, Buddha, Apollo, Hercules, Adonis, Ormuzd, Mithras, Indra, Œdipus, Quetzalcoatle, etc. The motif of a Crucified Savior was already extant prior to the alleged time of Jesus.
Solar Mythology shows the story of Jesus is just an allegory for the sun passing through the Zodiac and the passage of the seasons of the year. Jesus travels throughout his one year ministry, and the description of his travels exactly match that of the sun traveling through the Zodiac during the year. Here we have the origin of the Jesus story. This common origin explains why all the stories of crucified saviors are essentially the same.


http://members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/appendixd.html

Not that I personally think it matters if the historical Jesus existed or not - which is why most non-theist and atheist historians haven't wasted their time trying to argue the point. Its really not important. Just as it doesn't matter that Loazi probably didn't exist. Loazi is traditionally supposed to have written the Daodejing, in the 6th century BC.

Laozi (Chinese: 老子; pinyin: Lǎozǐ; Wade-Giles: Lao tzu; also Lao Tse, Laotze, Lao Zi, and other variations) was a philosopher of ancient China and is a central figure in Taoism (also spelled "Daoism"). Laozi literally means "Old Master" and is generally considered an honorific. Laozi is revered as a god in religious forms of Taoism. Taishang Laojun is a title for Laozi in the Taoist religion, which refers to him as "One of the Three Pure Ones".



Wikipedia

That said, although I think there isn't much evidence for the existence of the historical Jesus, but maybe a little bit more than there is evidence for Santa Claus, Christians aren't the only religious faith that believe in a historical Jesus.


The historical Jesus and Islam


Here I am broadening out the discussion because Jesus is accepted as an historical character in Islam. In Islamic doctrine, Islam is the original religion of mankind professed by Adam.(That is Adam the first man created by God in the book of Genesis). Religious splits occurred, so God sent prophets to bring his revelations to the people. Therefore Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were all Prophets in Islam, but the message was corrupted. Muslims believe that Muhammad was God's final prophet who restored the monotheistic Abrahamic religion to its original version.
Reply to this

15 years ago, May 25th 2008 No: 27 Msg: #36352  

The Preacher and the Slave



I suppose though, when it comes to religion, I do have a bit of an axe to grind as I
agree with the sentiments of the old Wobblie song, ‘The Preacher and the Slave’.

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how ‘bout something to eat
They will answer with voices so sweet:

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.



(The Preacher and the Slave; Joe Hill from the Industrial Workers of the World Songbook). Reply to this

15 years ago, May 25th 2008 No: 28 Msg: #36364  
Sigh...here is a discussion that will go well beyond any blog...Marc probably said it best when he said, "Yikes - attempts to condense religious believe systems/explanations into forum posts. This could get interesting/confusing/incomplete..."

Without trying to be overly inflammatory, because that's not my intent, here would be my response. Additionally, being this discussion could likely continue far longer than I imagine either of us has time for (and is unlikely to change minds anyway, at least from this discussion alone), I would make two interesting points and welcome a response but tell you regardless of response this will be my last post on this particular forum.

Stuart, you state you are a non-theist (or, and correct me if I'm wrong, atheist). With that pre-drawn conclusion, I have to believe your arguments are already going to be biased. If you don't accept the existence of God, then of course you are going to walk into the discussion with a very different view of Jesus (and, of course, any religious belief). Furthermore, you admit an "ax to grind", therefore I have to take exception to most of your arguments. Now, to try to counter the obvious counter-argument, I remind you that there was a time I was basically ready to deny existence of God. It required me to read books on the general debate between two convinced sides. It is from that point I came to the conclusion after weighing the evidence the argument in favor of God was more plausible than those not. As far as Preacher and the Slave, while of course Christianity speaks of a better tomorrow, or "...pie in the sky...", Jesus did not teach exclusively and the Church has not tought suffering without any consideration of what is happening on earth. Indeed, we only need to look to Christian hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other various charities acting in the belief we have an obligation to care for the poor and destitute. I don't imagine any of that is a surprise to anyone...

As far as the argument of whether Jesus historically existed, I simply can't agree with you or your reference to David W. Weley's page making the claims. I did note from a Google search that David's college education is in Computer Engineering. While that is definitely a noble accomplishment and I don't doubt he did some studying to make his assertions on the page about Jesus, can a person whose expertise is in something completely off theology or history necessarily be trusted without question? Perhaps, but if you want a surgery you go to someone who has studied medicine and surgical techniques for years, not someone who did it as a hobby. I would at least look to people who are historians and/or theologians as a more credible source.

On the claim that anyone who claims themselves Christian is Christian, Stuart, I would say that sounds nice but goes back to a relativist argument. Sure, anyone can claim to be a Christian or anything else and we can say it's fine for that person. However, what do you do when person A claims to be a Christian and believes something 180 degrees different from what person B claims? How can they both be right...just because we want to "make nice"? I'm sure you can see that is an untenable argument, even if well-intentioned. There needs to be a regulatory definition that qualifies someone as a Christian (or any other designation, for that matter).

Back to David, he makes various statements and I will admit I have not had the time to read every link, and subsequent link, but I can say that simply because David states something such as the Gospels were not written until around 170 AD doesn't necessarily make it true. Furthermore, I question that the written tradition was as common as asserted by David; oral traditions were still quite prevalent in a society where books among the people were uncommon. Furthermore, a Roman Empire bent on destroying the threat Christianity posed to the rule of the Empire would not have done much to inspire people to write - subjecting themselves to possible scrutiny and worse by the Empire. I would say that based on my reading of scholars who have spent their professional careers studying there is evidence the Gospels were written within approximately 30 years of Jesus' time. Considering the unfriendly backdrop and use of oral tradition, 30 years is actually a fairly small amount of time. Furthermore, on David's other claims, I'm willing to entertain I haven't spent enough time on his website for backup evidence, but what I did see was assertions made but with little evidence for backup. Anyone can make claims, but I'd like to see some corroborating evidence when making highly controversial claims.

Now, if you wish to investigate the scholars making the counterclaims to David and others of like mind, I would invite anyone to read the book "Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus" If you look up the title on Amazon, you'll be able to find it. This book was written in refutation of the Jesus Seminar, an organization that has been shown to accept a person named Jesus but in the more or less explicit attempt to unfound traditional Christian thought. It is here where I especially note there are historians that accept a person named Jesus existing but deny who the Bible claims him to be. Indeed, there are those who argue the Jesus Seminar was founded by Robert Funk and with an explicit agenda shrouded behind the statement of looking for the "real Jesus", but still stacking the deck.

I will acknowledge that when I wrote basically every historian believes I was not as clear as I should have been. I would stand that a great many historians, including atheists attest to believing the historical reality of a person named Jesus, though it is not universally accepted. Please accept my apologies for not stating as clearly as I should have.

While on looking for indulgences (pun perhaps intended even if I'm not Catholic), I'll acknowledge my knowledge of the Oriental Orthodox Church is less than perhaps it should be. That said, I would reject that there can be differing thoughts on what is "Christian" and they can all be true. Please refer back to my argument on everyone who claims to be Christian can be, even when having opposing beliefs. I would also suggest many differing variances on Christian belief probably comes down to either human pride or semantics. That does not mean there isn't an absolute truth, however...

Stuart, I am running desperately short on time before a shuttle picks me up and again, I doubt this discussion will be resolved anytime soon. I will say that I challenge you to challenge what appears to be your walking into the argument with a preconceived end (again evidenced by your own statements of being a non-theist/atheist and with an "ax to grind". I say that having been near your spot at one time. I cannot obligate you to do so, of course, but would certainly hope that someone as thoughtful as you seem would be thoughtful enough to always look with an open mind.

Thanks for your thoughts, Stuart. We may and probably will have to agree to disagree, but if there is one thing I've learned on this journey (or reminded myself) of the last 3+ months, it is to at least consider what is being said by others - and yet be ready to stand on my beliefs if I can find reason to do so. On this argument, I can.


Reply to this

15 years ago, May 25th 2008 No: 29 Msg: #36378  
Garry, I admit that by quoting 'The Preacher and the Slave' I was trying to get a response. You will notice that I stated that “ I agree with the sentiments” of the song. My agreement is not an intellectual one - its based on my emotional response to Christianity and organized religion.



Christ as myth



I was also trying to get this discussion widened which is why I introduced the topic of Islam. With regard to the historicism of Jesus, I put up the link I did as it seemed to give a fairly good summary of the argument against the existence of Christ. It's not the best source. The idea that Jesus is in fact a myth was first proposed by historian and theologian Bruno Bauer in the 19th century and was influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century. Authors such as Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and George Albert Wells have recently re-popularized the theory. It is naturally a very controversial theory.


Non theist



You will notice that in my previous comment I also made it clear that I don't think it matters if Jesus lived or not. I personally don't care if Jesus is a myth or not. I think it's irrelevant because I'm a non-theist not an atheist. There is an important difference. The obsession with God and theism is a conceit of the Abrahamic religions. As a non-theist I don't care if God exists. That is a very different position from Atheists who don't believe in God, or Agnostics who are uncertain. Basically I consider all God-talk to be meaningless .


As such I am in good company. Buddha considered talk of a creator God as irrelevant. He didn't believe or disbelieve in God or Gods. He considered such talk was a distraction from achieving personal enlightenment through the practice of the four noble truths. (See the brief summary by Koi earlier in this thread).


In conclusion I have to agree with Mikes comment:

Yikes - attempts to condense religious believe systems/explanations into forum posts. This could get interesting/confusing/incomplete...

. Even I, as a non theist have a sort of religious belief system! Reply to this

15 years ago, May 26th 2008 No: 30 Msg: #36387  
B Posts: 102
I'm reminded of a comment that someone once made in reference to religious (specifically Christian) discussions. It's in reference to a passage in the Bible where Paul says:

"But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love." - 1 Corinthians 13:13

But we often focus more on our own version...

"But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is TRUTH."

Meaning...that we can lose sight of the faith, hope, and love that the writer was encouraging...and focus on making sure that everyone knows that I AM RIGHT!

Crap. I couldn't stay quiet again. I will add a final comment though...

As is common with my travel experience in general...in all my wanderings I have appreciated the broadening of my view of how other cultures engage with their desire for spirituality and connection to the divine.

Now, let's all go to Steven Paul's house and have that beer.

(hopefully my reference to a Bible passage has wiped my soul clean of my previous transgression of linking to "Buddy Christ" in another post)
Reply to this

15 years ago, May 26th 2008 No: 31 Msg: #36397  
Well said, Marc.

Religion is a funny thing--out of a great love for it comes some of the most breath-taking architecture in the world, but at the same time, some of the most heinous acts in history have been in its name. Faith is a beautiful thing that can be tarnished by religion.

Growing up, the church (I was raised in a very liberal protestant denomination) was a huge part of my life, but as an adult, I've chosen to walk away from it. Not because my faith has wavered, but because it is a very personal thing between God and myself. At the end of the day, what I personally believe doesn't matter to anyone else. I try to be a good person in everything I do--not out of fear of what will happen to me, but because it is the right thing to do. I can no more convince someone that what I believe is right than I can convince someone that the sky is green.

Religion and faith are indeed fascinating and dangerous topics...
Reply to this

15 years ago, May 26th 2008 No: 32 Msg: #36407  
I tend to agree with what Marc and Tannis say.
Indept discussions about the details of each religions distract from from the real puropose of religion.
The various stories may have some degee of truth in them but I think the real purpose of them is to guide us to how we can live our lives in the best way possible. Those religious symbols were in my opinion intended to be used as prompts which would help us look inside ourselves to find out what is right and wrong. By right I mean finding out what is the most loving way we personally can be.
My main reason for not being religious is that I choose another way to get in touch with my spirtual side. I dont think there is a right way to do this. For every individual there is a way that works for that person and that makes it right for that person. Reply to this

15 years ago, May 26th 2008 No: 33 Msg: #36466  
İSLAM AND QUR'AN Reply to this

15 years ago, May 26th 2008 No: 34 Msg: #36484  
Hello Muvahhidullah 😊

In which ways do you benefit from your religion ?

Mel Reply to this

15 years ago, May 26th 2008 No: 35 Msg: #36491  
Hi
I dont know what I say because I can't speak English well
but I say that My Religion İslam is live giving me and the other Muslims
because we serve ALLAH everytime so ALLAH is love us. and we happy. money not give happiness.
İslam say ALLAH is One, not three and ALLAH havent got soon or daughter
and İslam say Muhammed is Prophet otherwise İsa is Prophet too and the other Prophet (Musa, İbrahim, Adem ...) and we love all of them.
I advice you look for İslam may be you will be very happiness.

nice evening 😊 Reply to this

15 years ago, May 27th 2008 No: 36 Msg: #36499  
Sigh...okay, I know I said I would let it go, and really am going to just let it rest after this one. I just want to acknowledge I did read everyone's comments. Stuart, thank you for separating atheist from non-theist. I can understand what you are saying in the differences. Over that beer at Steven Paul's house, I may still disagree over whether it is relevant or not, but understand the difference you are aiming. I would guess our disagreement on the level of relevance comes down to how we each approach religion, as only a guide in which to live the "good" life, or whether it is a "historical" text and "rule-book" (words in parenthesis because they may not be words chosen right now because of a lack of something better). If just a guide, I could see how it could be less relevant - though we run the risk of "who's truth do we follow?"

I think what I'm getting at is this: one theologian, Ravi Zacharias, discussed an item in The Cry For a Reason in Suffering, and talked about one of the big reasons people raise when they object to belief in God. The discussion is a little lengthy so I don't want to make this little post any longer than it already is (especially when, I know, I wanted to let it go), but he does retell when he's talking with a student and Ravi mentions in the debate, "...if he believed in good, he had to grant a moral law by which to distinguish between the two. He agreed.

'If, then, there is no moral law,' I said, 'you must posit a moral lawgiver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.'" What I'm getting at here is the argument that if we agree there is "good" and "bad" there has to be a law-giver, as the larger text shows what Ravi was trying to point out. Who is the law-giver? It is here that the question of whether it is God or another person becomes relevant, as we then start down the path of whether the "good" we are claiming to live is correct and/or is based on something else - such as our own thinking that is subject to the various whims.

I would agree that all people (including Christians) do sometimes get too much caught up on truth (and more likely that they are the truth) than love. That is not to say there is no importance in the truth...indeed we are informed "...the truth will set you free." (John 8:31, though I really am not looking to get into a Bible-quoting war. I just wanted to throw it in for the purpose of showing the Bible does have some value placed on truth too.) It is part of the human condition to want to be right, or some might argue part of our sinful nature to be prideful. I will absolutely agree with Tannis I can't make you believe anything. Perhaps the best I can do is suggest a thought and then leave it to you to decide to respond or not - and hopefully we would all act in a loving way in those discussions?

Okay, really, I need to stop. Many moons ago I was on a political blog forum and was just as bad - in fact worse. I told myself I would let it go because it would consume too much of my time. I suppose, however, I found time again because I'm sitting in a Managua that holds little for the tourist as I spend the day before I head to San Juan del Sur. I suppose I could go over to the MetroCentro Mall, though then the discussion becomes going to "touristy" locations. In Managua, the American style mall is about the closest to "touristy". It also doesn't help that as the days of this trip wind down I'm really just ready to head home - believe it or not!

Where is Steven Paul's house and that beer? Maybe that would be an option...I could even bring the Tona or Victoria from Nicaragua. Or maybe even a bottle of Flor de Cana Rum...







Reply to this

15 years ago, May 27th 2008 No: 37 Msg: #36529  

"historical" text and "rule-book"



Shouldnt rule books be progressive to reflect progression in society?
I think it is unhealthy to have a stagnant truth that was true 1000 years ago and will still be true in a 1000 years from now.
Nothing wrong with the existance of a historic text and rule book but shouldnt we assign it to the archives at some stage?

Reply to this

15 years ago, May 27th 2008 No: 38 Msg: #36575  
B Posts: 102
Mel - Perhaps some truths are timeless and still apply regardless of societal changes?

Gary - I wasn't claiming that truth shouldn't be important, but often religious discussions turn into a battle of which version/opinion of truth is more true...despite the fact that neither side has much intention of growing/learning/changing. It's obvious and clear to each side that if they just say the right thing, the other will see the light - so to speak. Faith is hardly a "provable" thing...It's times like these that I think my comment above can apply. At that point (and at all points), I think there's value in recognizing the common ground and standing upon the faith, hope, and love that religion/spirituality often aims for.
Reply to this

15 years ago, May 27th 2008 No: 39 Msg: #36576  

Mel - Perhaps some truths are timeless and still apply regardless of societal changes?



Yes, that is true.

The most important word in the above quote is ''some''.
Reply to this

15 years ago, May 28th 2008 No: 40 Msg: #36631  
Hi Friends : ) ....

wow wow ... become along long story am i right?

....Right View, Understanding
....Right Attitude, Thought or Emotion
....Right Speech;
....Right Action;
....Right livelihood;
....Right Effort, Energy, and Vitality;
....Right Mindfulness or Awareness;
....Right concentration, one-pointedness. Integration of, or establishment in, various
levels of consciousness

"have a good mind, friend.... "

Abstain from killing living beings
Abstain from taking that which not given;
Abstain from sexual misconduct;
Abstain from false speech;
Abstain from distilled substances that confuse the mind

"respect eachother ; ) "
please
....Act with Loving-kindness;
....Be open hearted and generous;
....Practice stillness, simplicity and contentment;
....Speak with truth, clarity and peace;
....Live with mindfulness.

and...

....Metta - Friendliness, Loving-kindness
....Karuna — Compassion;
....Mudita — Joy, Gladness. Appreciation of good qualities in people;
...Upekkha — Equanimity, the peaceful unshaken mind.

The most important is "pls be a good person" that is ; )

Take care all

Reply to this

Tot: 0.171s; Tpl: 0.012s; cc: 5; qc: 54; dbt: 0.0855s; 1; m:domysql w:travelblog (10.17.0.13); sld: 1; ; mem: 1.1mb