YO-ELEVEN-11
Watcher
If The Evil Ones All Belive In God, Why Can't We Humans (non-nephilim Or Jinn) Believe The Same Way About God?
Do we (Muslims, Christians and Jews) believe in the same God or not?
- Thread starter Muhammad-Khalifa
- Start date
YO-ELEVEN-11
Watcher
If the evil and Knowledgeable ones (Nephilim, Jinn, Angels etc...) belive in GOD on the same level. Why Can't we humans do the same. I seriously can not understand why religious "dogma" has taken over our ability to come to the reaization that there is a "GOD". How can we even begin to understand GOD when so many disagree about such small matters in religion. When will we realize that "water" is still water, and always will be "water" all over the earth, regardless if it came out the Atlantic, Pacific or Indian oceans or any other source. It is still water. Get it?
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
YO-ELEVEN-11 said:
I think the reason is because God and human beings cannot be likened to water, air, fire, stone and metal because all these things are lifeless entities and don't have a mind of their own.
To say that "God is God" in the same way that "water is water" is to compare God to water. Water is simple matter but God is not. God has a mind of His own but water does not. Water simply follows the laws of nature. Water is easy to discern, but God is not. We cannot simply treat God the same way as water. People have probably argued about water before for the purpose of science. One may ask if mud, poison, medicine and oil are water. We now know that they're all mixtures of water with other things, with the exception of oil.
Doing this to human beings can be just as bad. You can't even compare a human being to water because human beings also have a mind of their own. They think. We think, therefore we are. You can say, "I think, therefore I am." We are self-aware beings. God is much greater than us. He says, "I had no beginning, I am the First and Last and so I AM." God's I AM is much greater than the little "I am's" of us human beings. He is self-aware to a much greater extent than us, even to the point that He knows us better than we know ourselves.
My point? Don't compare God to water!!!
God and human beings live on meaning. Water does not live at all.
Water is a simple substance if you know the physical laws behind it. The behaviours and personalities generated by the human mind are many times more complex. We are sophisticated beings that cannot simply be compared to water. If you can't do that to something God created, then likewise you can't do it to God Himself.
The reason why there are so many arguments about God is because this comparison of God to water is obviously unreasonable. God expects a lot more from us than to simply compare Him to simple fluids. Our hearts can break at the sight of so much bickering over the concept of God. Perhaps we can say that the differing beliefs are legitimate, but the arrogant, bitter, hateful and spiteful dissensions and factions are not.
A person with a sophisticated concept of God can be just as sincere and acceptable to God as one who has a simple concept of Him. Neither is considered better just because one is more meticulous and discerning or simplistic and straightforward in conceptualising God than the other. Each has its own merits.
The meticulous and discerning would say "why take shortcuts to God? Doesn't that mean you don't really love God?" The simple and straightforward would say "why make it so complicated? You're fighting over nothing."
That's not to say God necessarily accepts everyone. The reasoning would have to be right. Even that's different for everyone. Some focus on something transcendent, others on something ideological, sentimental, practical, dogmatic, philosophical, etc.
What a mix!!!! It's probably not the same even for those following the same religion.
Admiral_HangTuah
Member
mansio said:
Believe means to think someting is true or correct or real. So, in order to believe we have to think. Then later see the facts, and choose to deeply believe it, and later declare that "yeah, man... this is true, correct and real.
To believe in one religion, we have to study all about that religion. But, to compare? Well, it is hard because the upbringing is different from one to another. The only way is to be open, and learn the truth inside it and ask anything from the righteous scholars.
Thats all.
OzAndy
Member
I must preface this posting by apologising for raving on as usual!!!!
Hi all and didymus,
Apologies for my tardiness in this response, but I could not let the quote from Mark go without at least a few words comment. I think it is relevant because it does go to the heart of the different conceptions of God I think and as Quahom 1 points out it is always dangerous quoting from the Scripture of another faith.
So below is the post from didymus.
The trouble is that the story has not reached it's conclusion. the next few verses read thus:
For Christians one of the primary characteristics of God is that God is a God of grace. On the other hand God also demands perfect obedience. Thus God loves us and all people even though we do not deserve it, even though we can not fully obey the commandments, even though we can not bring ourselves to sell all we have and give it to the poor. The disciples are astounded because, if a rich man can not enter the Kingdom, who can? (EG It is easy to not work on the Sabbath if you are rich.)
Jesus' answer is that for human beings (not just rich people) it is impossible!! BUT for God all things are possible. The rich man came and asked the wrong question "What must I do...". So Jesus gives the answer to his question. Obey the commandments... sell everything - That is - do the impossible like a camel going through the eye of a needle. In a graphic and confronting way Jesus is making the point that none of us can be perfectly obedient.
The right question would have been "How do I receive...". The disciples hint at this question when they ask "Who then can be saved?" Jesus does not answer this question except by saying that “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”
In other words it is God who gives salvation and we do not earn it, because in the Christian understanding God demands perfection and no human being is capable of this. Human obedience, and self sacrifice are never enough because they are never perfect. Only God saves. Christians do not believe we save ourselves and Jesus says as much in this story!
Christians believe that Jesus alone, truly God and truly human, could make the perfect response of obedince which God demands. didymus is right though to point out that this is not spelled out in this story in Mark's Gospel. Instead it comes from among other places the earliest Christian writings - earlier than the Gospels - the writings of Paul.
I believe at least at this point there is a difference of understanding in the Abrahamic faiths. As I understand it Judaism and Islam both believe God is merciful. I know too that there is at least some understanding of God being a God of grace in Judaism. I do not know if there is a place for grace in Islam. Yet at the same time there is an understanding that certain things must be done, there must be a particular measure of obedience, in order to receive salvation. Though God is a God of Mercy and perhaps Grace then as I understand it, in Islam and Judaism, God's mercy and grace do not overwhelm God's requirement of obedience.
For Christianity God's mercy and grace overwhelm God's requirement of perfect obedience.
Do I have it right? Is this differing understanding of salvation and God's character one of the main difference between the Abrahamic faiths' understanding of God? Or is it irrelevant? Is the Christian preocupation with salvation something peculiar to Christianity? (I know some forms of Judaism do not believe in life after death for instance.)
Hi all and didymus,
Apologies for my tardiness in this response, but I could not let the quote from Mark go without at least a few words comment. I think it is relevant because it does go to the heart of the different conceptions of God I think and as Quahom 1 points out it is always dangerous quoting from the Scripture of another faith.
So below is the post from didymus.
didymus said:
The trouble is that the story has not reached it's conclusion. the next few verses read thus:
"23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” 24 And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” 26 They were greatly astounded and said to one another, “Then who can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”"
Mk 10:23-27 NRSVFor Christians one of the primary characteristics of God is that God is a God of grace. On the other hand God also demands perfect obedience. Thus God loves us and all people even though we do not deserve it, even though we can not fully obey the commandments, even though we can not bring ourselves to sell all we have and give it to the poor. The disciples are astounded because, if a rich man can not enter the Kingdom, who can? (EG It is easy to not work on the Sabbath if you are rich.)
Jesus' answer is that for human beings (not just rich people) it is impossible!! BUT for God all things are possible. The rich man came and asked the wrong question "What must I do...". So Jesus gives the answer to his question. Obey the commandments... sell everything - That is - do the impossible like a camel going through the eye of a needle. In a graphic and confronting way Jesus is making the point that none of us can be perfectly obedient.
The right question would have been "How do I receive...". The disciples hint at this question when they ask "Who then can be saved?" Jesus does not answer this question except by saying that “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”
In other words it is God who gives salvation and we do not earn it, because in the Christian understanding God demands perfection and no human being is capable of this. Human obedience, and self sacrifice are never enough because they are never perfect. Only God saves. Christians do not believe we save ourselves and Jesus says as much in this story!
Christians believe that Jesus alone, truly God and truly human, could make the perfect response of obedince which God demands. didymus is right though to point out that this is not spelled out in this story in Mark's Gospel. Instead it comes from among other places the earliest Christian writings - earlier than the Gospels - the writings of Paul.
I believe at least at this point there is a difference of understanding in the Abrahamic faiths. As I understand it Judaism and Islam both believe God is merciful. I know too that there is at least some understanding of God being a God of grace in Judaism. I do not know if there is a place for grace in Islam. Yet at the same time there is an understanding that certain things must be done, there must be a particular measure of obedience, in order to receive salvation. Though God is a God of Mercy and perhaps Grace then as I understand it, in Islam and Judaism, God's mercy and grace do not overwhelm God's requirement of obedience.
For Christianity God's mercy and grace overwhelm God's requirement of perfect obedience.
Do I have it right? Is this differing understanding of salvation and God's character one of the main difference between the Abrahamic faiths' understanding of God? Or is it irrelevant? Is the Christian preocupation with salvation something peculiar to Christianity? (I know some forms of Judaism do not believe in life after death for instance.)
OzAndy said:
Well, there is the God of Law, and the God of Faith, then there is the God of Logic...
I think that about sums up the three Abrahamic faiths...
How ironic that they follow the same precepts of a oldest child, a middle child and the younest child, respectively, concerning thought and pattern.
v/r
Q
YO-ELEVEN-11
Watcher
Saltmeister said:I think the reason is because God and human beings cannot be likened to water, air, fire, stone and metal because all these things are lifeless entities and don't have a mind of their own.
To say that "God is God" in the same way that "water is water" is to compare God to water. Water is simple matter but God is not. God has a mind of His own but water does not. Water simply follows the laws of nature. Water is easy to discern, but God is not. We cannot simply treat God the same way as water. People have probably argued about water before for the purpose of science. One may ask if mud, poison, medicine and oil are water. We now know that they're all mixtures of water with other things, with the exception of oil.
Doing this to human beings can be just as bad. You can't even compare a human being to water because human beings also have a mind of their own. They think. We think, therefore we are. You can say, "I think, therefore I am." We are self-aware beings. God is much greater than us. He says, "I had no beginning, I am the First and Last and so I AM." God's I AM is much greater than the little "I am's" of us human beings. He is self-aware to a much greater extent than us, even to the point that He knows us better than we know ourselves.
My point? Don't compare God to water!!!
God and human beings live on meaning. Water does not live at all.
Water is a simple substance if you know the physical laws behind it. The behaviours and personalities generated by the human mind are many times more complex. We are sophisticated beings that cannot simply be compared to water. If you can't do that to something God created, then likewise you can't do it to God Himself.
The reason why there are so many arguments about God is because this comparison of God to water is obviously unreasonable. God expects a lot more from us than to simply compare Him to simple fluids. Our hearts can break at the sight of so much bickering over the concept of God. Perhaps we can say that the differing beliefs are legitimate, but the arrogant, bitter, hateful and spiteful dissensions and factions are not.
A person with a sophisticated concept of God can be just as sincere and acceptable to God as one who has a simple concept of Him. Neither is considered better just because one is more meticulous and discerning or simplistic and straightforward in conceptualising God than the other. Each has its own merits.
The meticulous and discerning would say "why take shortcuts to God? Doesn't that mean you don't really love God?" The simple and straightforward would say "why make it so complicated? You're fighting over nothing."
That's not to say God necessarily accepts everyone. The reasoning would have to be right. Even that's different for everyone. Some focus on something transcendent, others on something ideological, sentimental, practical, dogmatic, philosophical, etc.
What a mix!!!! It's probably not the same even for those following the same religion.
Their is no attempt to compare "GOD" to water in my statement. I use water to make a point that "GOD" is real and to not come together as "humans" and acknowledge that "reality" would be a disservice to humanity as a whole.
All nations (most of them) acknowledge that oil, water, and other resources in nature can have either a good or bad effect on human exsistence. (Some more than others) Not all nations use oil, water and other resources in the same fashion, just like all religions see "GOD" in a different fashion.
Their is no need for the average person to say "This is my GOD" , just as the average person would not say "This is my beam of sunlight" (except for a few over zealous 4 year olds.
) because we are beyond that level of thinking. Religious "dogma" is the last and hopefully the final dividing line to our acceptance that "GOD" is ultimately in charge of all people. The clash with a conscious acceptence that "GOD's" exsistence is for the benefit of all of humanity, and not just a small group of "people", needs to come to an end. Just as sunlight warms all people, and we all "acknowledge" warmth from that complex source, we become better off as humans if we agree that the sun is a source of heat.
My point? Share our beliefs in "GOD" dont argue over it!!!!
YO-ELEVEN-11
Watcher
Quahom1 said:
GOD BLESS
Jeannot
Jeannot
The following should be relevant to this topic:
SUFI: The Immediacy of God
Karen Armstrong points out that the Kingdom of God "is not an experience for the elite or for monks only; the kingdom announced by Christ in the Gospels is a union with God that everybody can experience here and now, without having to wait until the next life." Mysticism is available to all – though some do seem to have a greater talent for it than others.
The Sufis, Islamic mystics, honor and exalt Jesus. Some go so far as to say "There is no God but al-Lah, and Jesus is his messenger." But basically, they have an appreciation for sincere approaches to God, no matter what the religious denomination.
Armstrong says "[The Sufis] also evolved the techniques and disciplines that have helped mystics all over the world to achieve an alternative state of consciousness. Sufis added the practices of fasting, night vigils and chanting the Divine Names as a mantra to the basic requirements of Muslim law." In this respect, they are not very different from Catholic, Orthodox, or Buddhist monks.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus say "The Father and I are one," reflecting the common experience of mystics with God. Similarly, the Sufi mystic Abu Yazid Bistami (d 874) felt that in becoming one with himself, he was simultaneously becoming one with God:
"I gazed upon al-Lah with the eye of truth and said to Him: 'Who is this?' He said 'This is neither I nor other than I. There is no God but I." Then he changed me out of my identity into his Selfhood.... Then I communed with Him with the tongue of His Face, saying, 'How fares it with me and with Thee?' He said, 'I am through Thee: there is no god but Thou."
There are perhaps as many experiences of oneness with God as there are mystics. Just as there are as many approaches to God as there are people. God is utter simplicity, and at the same time, infinite variety.
SUFI: The Immediacy of God
Karen Armstrong points out that the Kingdom of God "is not an experience for the elite or for monks only; the kingdom announced by Christ in the Gospels is a union with God that everybody can experience here and now, without having to wait until the next life." Mysticism is available to all – though some do seem to have a greater talent for it than others.
The Sufis, Islamic mystics, honor and exalt Jesus. Some go so far as to say "There is no God but al-Lah, and Jesus is his messenger." But basically, they have an appreciation for sincere approaches to God, no matter what the religious denomination.
Armstrong says "[The Sufis] also evolved the techniques and disciplines that have helped mystics all over the world to achieve an alternative state of consciousness. Sufis added the practices of fasting, night vigils and chanting the Divine Names as a mantra to the basic requirements of Muslim law." In this respect, they are not very different from Catholic, Orthodox, or Buddhist monks.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus say "The Father and I are one," reflecting the common experience of mystics with God. Similarly, the Sufi mystic Abu Yazid Bistami (d 874) felt that in becoming one with himself, he was simultaneously becoming one with God:
"I gazed upon al-Lah with the eye of truth and said to Him: 'Who is this?' He said 'This is neither I nor other than I. There is no God but I." Then he changed me out of my identity into his Selfhood.... Then I communed with Him with the tongue of His Face, saying, 'How fares it with me and with Thee?' He said, 'I am through Thee: there is no god but Thou."
There are perhaps as many experiences of oneness with God as there are mystics. Just as there are as many approaches to God as there are people. God is utter simplicity, and at the same time, infinite variety.
~Jonathan~
Tree Hugger
I personally believe there to be One God with the revealed prophets all being a path to that God. I guess that doesn't sit well with a lot of Christians but it's what I feel.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Is there more than one to choose from? (Rhetorical question).Muhammad-Khalifa said:
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
~Jonathan~ said:
I guess the mistake many people make is to believe that Christianity is a science.
But no, Christianity isn't a science. It's not something technical. It must be experienced. It requires divergent thinking. It's based on intuition, not logic. It's sentimental, not ideological or systematic. It's not predicate, lambda or analytical calculus. It's not a machine or structure framework. It can't be manipulated by logic or science. It's driven by your own heart and soul. True Christianity isn't found in a textbook; it's found in the heart and soul of a person who knows what it really means. That's where the Truth about Christianity resonates. Yes, there are right and wrong ways to conceptualise Christianity, but there's no science on working out what's right or wrong. You have to discern what's right and wrong. You have to taste it, feel it and sniff it out. Sense the darkness. Use your instincts.
But what is Christ? Isn't Christ the Messiah? Who and what is the Messiah? Doesn't Islam and Judaism have a Messiah figure? Doesn't New Age also have a Messiah figure? Christianity must somehow have a unique concept of the Messiah. Otherwise "Christianity" would be a meaningless name. Is it the doctrine of the Trinity? That Jesus is God? This is where I think a lot of people have a good chance of getting it wrong, and perhaps I'm wrong myself. To say that Christianity is based on the idea that "Jesus is God" is a very blunt statement that puts a lot of emphasis on "doctrine" and "tradition." But . . . as Christianity isn't a science, it doesn't hang on tradition. Moreover, with so many different Christian sects, have we somehow got the wrong idea of Christianity? Did we turn Christianity into a science, rather than a faith to be lived out?
Have we forgotten the purpose of the Christian faith?
Technicalities and logic is probably what leads people astray. In a sense, people never answer the fundamental question "what is Christianity?" Some try to fit the doctrine of the Trinity into what they think is Christianity's concept of God. Some try and prove that the Old Testament proves Jesus was the Messiah. Others try and prove/disprove Paul's teachings, or that other Christians are heretics. All this stuff is technical stuff. Their minds are focused on one "technical aspect" of "Christianity." They don't really answer the question of whether Christianity is right or wrong because they never really knew Christianity's true purpose. If Christianity's true purpose is a mystery, then it's our job to uncover the mystery.
So what is it that really distinguishes true Christianity (to the core) from Islam and Judaism?
I think Christianity might be summed up in a really simple statement:
"Nobody can understand God or be led to God without understanding the purpose and role of the Messiah He sent and why God accepts us through him."
Ok, at first, this sounds really way off mark, as it doesn't include the concept of the Trinity or Paul's idea of forgiveness of sins. I guess this statement is pretty general -- it would work with Islam and Judaism as well. So how does Christianity's unique story fit in?
Ok, let me step through my idea. Before Christ came, God spoke to people through dreams and visions. This is what you would call "revelations from God." When Christ came, Christ himself became that "dream" and "vision." But Christ was different -- he was a living reality -- a person you could touch, smell, see and talk to. You could meet him in the marketplace, invite him home for dinner and ask him for spiritual guidance.
More importantly, he was a symbol, a paradigm, a concept. Christianity's view is that he wasn't a messenger. He was the Message Itself. This is where it would perhaps, differ from Judaism and Islam. He is a concept that, if we don't understand correctly, then it means we don't understand God either. God's acceptance of us is a two-way relationship. We cannot be accepted unless we understand why God accepts us. This is perhaps why he called himself "The Way, the Truth and the Life," and why he was called "the Son of God" and "Son of Man." That was the title for Jesus, the Messiah. He was a leader, leading us to God, and he still does that now. He had a legacy that lived on, enduring forever.
Colossians 1:15 says he was "an image of the invisible God." Jesus was a bridge/window to God. In other words, if Jesus was the bridge/window and "was God" it doesn't mean God is the bridge/window itself. No, God is who you meet/see beyond the bridge/window. Jesus is the one who opens up a door leading to God. It becomes really simple: understand the Messiah, and you automatically understand God himself. The Christian concept that has perhaps been lost to us is that Jesus is a symbol or paradigm of God himself, even though he was not himself God. That's probably what explains Colossians 1:15.
I don't think Christianity is at all incompatible with Judaism and Islam, it's just a misunderstanding. It's not about trying to turn Jesus into God. That's probably why you won't find the Trinity in the New Testament. The Trinity is not a foundation for Christianity. It's about Jesus being a bridge/window and symbol/paradigm for God. Understand the Messiah and you understand God Himself.
Christianity to the core, I have come to see, is about a symbol, a paradigm. It is one that, if not understood correctly, keeps you from meeting God directly. All the technical details, the sects, the denominations, all distort this really simple and abstract concept. The technical details don't matter, the fundamental issue is what Christ symbolises and represents. Everybody may see this differently, but it's how this symbol/paradigm helps them to understand God that matters.
flowperson
Oannes
I would have to agree mostly with jeannot here.
Mystics are the individuals who are most adept at piercing the veil where the reality of spirit and of our mundane existence are at a "thin" intersection. Mystics are born with this, they do not learn it. And yet they have been jealously disrespected and even persecuted for their abilities. To call them shamans in the ancient pagan tradition would be not too far from the truth. They commune with the universe of spirits on behalf of the community to bring new meaning to the profane world of humans.
These abilities in certain people are systemic in their presence in all belief systems, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I have learned more about G-d by reading the writings and musings of such individuals than I have ever learned in a church pew. I believe that our major shortcoming as believers, whatever faith we profess, is to not pay more attention to what these individuals say/have said to us in their sincerity.
flow....
Mystics are the individuals who are most adept at piercing the veil where the reality of spirit and of our mundane existence are at a "thin" intersection. Mystics are born with this, they do not learn it. And yet they have been jealously disrespected and even persecuted for their abilities. To call them shamans in the ancient pagan tradition would be not too far from the truth. They commune with the universe of spirits on behalf of the community to bring new meaning to the profane world of humans.
These abilities in certain people are systemic in their presence in all belief systems, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. I have learned more about G-d by reading the writings and musings of such individuals than I have ever learned in a church pew. I believe that our major shortcoming as believers, whatever faith we profess, is to not pay more attention to what these individuals say/have said to us in their sincerity.
flow....
C
cyberpi
Guest
Ouch! How about: Faith, Love, and Truth... in that chronological order. Bring that to a church and they will say hope... Paul's word that combines faith and truth, but not something Jesus (pbuh) taught. You say Law? Jesus (pbuh) taught the law is a matter of Faith, and Mercy, and Judgement. (Matthew 23:23) See a pattern? (BTW, its Faith... not faithfulness) Justice maybe, but people are the unjust judges. What is the greatest commandment... Love your God (swt) with all your soul, heart, and mind... the 2nd is like it, Love your neighbor as you love yourself. So what happened to LOVE? God DOES LOVE YOU!Quahom1 said:
Without covering the many stories of Faith in Judaism lets talk 'logic'. How many times is that word in the bible? The Qur'an? Where do you get logic from? Worshipping logic or intelligence to me is like worshipping the strength of the arms or the stride of the legs. Khalifa used it 4 times in translation in place of 'sound judgement' or similar. That is a mistake in this computer age. If the eyes and ears are biased then so are those comparators. I'm not saying worship the eyes and ears either, its just to say that you choose where to look and listen and that people are guided by God (swt) and can guide each other. Marvel at the decaying flesh, but please don't make it into a religion. In my humble opinion, Logic is just another tainted word for the corpse. I see no 'mind' in 'logic'... I see 'logic' as a garment of the mind... or the soul... but especially the heart.
C
cyberpi
Guest
Who judges whether a scholar is righteous? Who does the scholar judge is righteous? Who places Faith in whom?Admiral_HangTuah said:
I do not think... that I have to think... in order to believe and have Faith. If you tell me what is important I can choose to spend time thinking and comparing it to what I have seen and believed in my life... or I can put absolutely no thought into whatsoever and just believe and have Faith in your soul. See a difference? In my honest opinion, believe is closer to Faith than it is to 'think' or 'know' or 'wisdom'. That is not to say you have to close your eyes and ears and turn off your brain to have Faith. It is to say that there are many things the physical eyes and ears will never ever see, but should still believe in.
cyberpi said:
Of course this is only my opinion (subject to debate by anyone). However, the fact is that the Jews are the people of the "Law". The priest hood consisted of two camps, the Sadusees and the Pharasees, yet the commonality was the law (613 Mizphat). Hence the first was Law.
Christ came along and the message was "Faith". Do you believe...was the question. If so, then you are saved. No works required. Just believe. Hence the second is Faith.
Mohamad presented the Five Pillars of Islam. Carry out these functions with willing heart, and one is basic Muslim. A+B+C+D+E=Islam. Hence the third is logical.
If Star Trek were real, then the three main characters represent the three Abrahamic faiths. Captain Kirk, a Jew who used the law, Dr. McCoy who depended upon faith, and Mr. Spock, who used Logic. They worked as a well oiled machine together. They balanced each other.
I submit that we are supposed to do the same.
my thoughts
v/r
Q
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
cyberpi said:
Quahom1 said:
To work out what kind of religion you have, examine the nature the teachings and the way they're expressed. Read the texts. Pay particularly attention to the context used, the expression and the approaches put forth. I guess we also need to have some kind of summary on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Otherwise, any search for spirituality in these three religions will be unguided, chaotic and blind. First and foremost, try and capture the nature of the teachings.
The view I have now goes something like this:
The Christian faith tends to be "sentimental" (hence faith) in the sense that life revolves around emotions, personality, character, intimacy, relationships and interpersonal connections. The uniqueness of individuals is acknowledged (personal differences) and highlighted. It puts an emphasis on the heart and soul of people, the meaning without the structure.
Islam tends to be "institutional" (hence logic) in the sense that life revolves around social arrangements, protocols, institutions and the organisation of people in a community. The uniqueness of individuals (personal differences) is unimportant and people are supposed to align themselves to a common structural framework. It emphasises meaning based on structure.
While both Islam and Christianity both aim for personal compatibility between human beings, Christianity seems to suggest that we have the internal, instrinsic and instinctive ability to achieve personal compatibility, provided we use our instincts correctly. In other words, we are to use our personal abilities, given to us by God, and realise our unique potential that way. The organisation doesn't matter. Islam seems to suggest that there is a one-size-fits-all model that is independent of our personal abilities/differences. It's the model we must all conform to, that your aim is to conform to this model rather than using your personal abilities and your unique potential. People are to put their efforts on following the same rules, same protocols, practice the same disciplines, etc.
That's the way I've come to see it so far. If you have a summary like this, it may be easier to appreciate what the religions mean to the people who follow them.
Judaism, I'm not sure. In the past I assumed Judaism was highly dogmatic (hence Law). Reading posts in the Judaism forum and the introduction in the Jews for Judaism web site, it seems that Judaism may be more abstract than at first glance (depending on which group you belong to). When I say "abstract" I mean "not concrete." I must admit I haven't quite explored Judaism much. Perhaps I should do that soon . . .
C
cyberpi
Guest
It seems that separation of church and state has become separation of law and faith. In my view that is a mistake. Law is a matter of Faith.
Christianity has unstated pillars too: Baptism, eucharist, tithing, confession, Lord's prayer... do those pillars alone make you a true Christian? No, of course not. Neither are the pillars of Islam guaranteed salvation.
I wonder if Star Trek should be used as an example against the Qur'an and Bible? Are fictional characters who pretend to defy the physical laws of this universe our best example? Star Trek is verifiably not real and never will be.
Saltmeister, I'm not sure whether I'm more disturbed with the way you classify Christianity or the way you classify Islam. I'm left concluding you don't know too much about either. I would start with learning what the word Faith really means... it is actually the exact opposite of sentiment or emotions.
For example in the Qur'an the story of Abraham (pbuh) is expanded and it describes the son. Could you imagine the reaction of someone who is told by their father that he has heard the voice of God (swt) and is commanded to sacrifice his son? What would be your reaction, "Sure dad... Alzheimers must be kicking in... why don't you hand me that axe before you hurt someone!" ... or "But who will do the chores?" ... or "But I haven't had sex yet?!" ... or do you say, "Do what God (swt) tells you". The logical choice? One of the pillars? Or extreme Faith and obeyance.
In my view, I don't see how any Christian can claim to not know Judaism. Over 2/3 of the bible by weight is Judaism. I can't think of very many stories in the Old Testament that do not directly involve Faith in God (swt), Faith in a prophet, or simply Faith in each other.
Christianity has unstated pillars too: Baptism, eucharist, tithing, confession, Lord's prayer... do those pillars alone make you a true Christian? No, of course not. Neither are the pillars of Islam guaranteed salvation.
I wonder if Star Trek should be used as an example against the Qur'an and Bible? Are fictional characters who pretend to defy the physical laws of this universe our best example? Star Trek is verifiably not real and never will be.
Saltmeister, I'm not sure whether I'm more disturbed with the way you classify Christianity or the way you classify Islam. I'm left concluding you don't know too much about either. I would start with learning what the word Faith really means... it is actually the exact opposite of sentiment or emotions.
For example in the Qur'an the story of Abraham (pbuh) is expanded and it describes the son. Could you imagine the reaction of someone who is told by their father that he has heard the voice of God (swt) and is commanded to sacrifice his son? What would be your reaction, "Sure dad... Alzheimers must be kicking in... why don't you hand me that axe before you hurt someone!" ... or "But who will do the chores?" ... or "But I haven't had sex yet?!" ... or do you say, "Do what God (swt) tells you". The logical choice? One of the pillars? Or extreme Faith and obeyance.
In my view, I don't see how any Christian can claim to not know Judaism. Over 2/3 of the bible by weight is Judaism. I can't think of very many stories in the Old Testament that do not directly involve Faith in God (swt), Faith in a prophet, or simply Faith in each other.