why religion makes no sense? please respond

@urangutan,

I am really struggling to understand your answers. They don't seem to address my questions, so I have to read them a dozen times and interpret what you're saying.

urangutan wrote:

Not to say it wouldn't be open for interpretation but Exodus, would be the point where the culmination of "histories" were gathered, giving rise to the lost tribes, that were not encountered and the peoples, who were they really. So why wouldn't they include the histories of them all in what is the Bible.

Are you saying Exodus is where the history of the Jewish people begins? So Abraham, who appears in Genesis, was not Jewish? Are you saying Abraham is a myth, Abraham is not Jewish, or something else? I don't understand the relevance of the above statement.

From a technical, historical perspective, I could agree Abraham was not Jewish. He was a Semite. After Jacob, his descendants were known as the Israelites (sometimes called the Hebrews due to their language). Then, after Israel split, those in the north were called Samaritans and those in the south were called Jews (from the tribe of Judah). It was the Jews who were carried off to Babylon, and who returned to constitute the majority of the descendants we know today - hence referring to Judiasm.

But, it's a real stretch for me to think that's what you meant.

urangutan wrote:

That all seemed a bit brisk and just so we do not get off on a tangent that leaves the point, worship, does not equate to religion. Religion begins with Creator/s, formation and seeding, again brisk but I think you get my meaning. It is the fundamentals found in the tribes of Australian Aborigines, a great Creator, formation and finally seeding. Following this there are histories of moral and ethical nature.

Maybe you could tell me of a religion that doesn't have a Creator/s and such.

Well, we could debate whether some people treat science as a religion. I'm not sure who the Creator would be in that case unless it's Newton or one of the other founding giants.

But that's a facetious answer. In the context of this discussion, I've made no claim to a religion without a Creator.

I'll offer a counter-thesis to what I suppose to be your position just to show how one might view things differently. Based on the above dissertation I gave on the various names of the Abrahamic religion we now call Judiasm, who is to say the Jews kept it pure? Maybe it was the Edomites (who descended from Jacob's brother, Esau). Or maybe it was the Ishmaelites (who descended from Isaac's brother Ishmael, and began the modern Arabs). Whether you believe the version given by Old Testament history or not, the fact that the tribes have fractured over and over again is indisputable. So who is the "religion" and who is the splinter "faction"?

You haven't given me a structure for distinguishing between them. I, as a Christian, happen to think Christian theology remains true to what was espoused from the beginning. I accept Genesis as the beginning of my "religion". I don't see the Old and New Testaments as produced by separate movements, but as a continuum.

It is obvious you disagree with me, but why? I still can't pin down your reason.

1 Reply

@Resha Caner,

That's lovely but I do not see why there was a need to sacrifice the Lord, especially when you concede that you are content that the Old Testament is an integral part of this history you speak of. That is like saying I have my cake and let me have icecream too.

I did not exclude Abraham, but rather than site the entirity, I justified the existence of your belief , or more to the point what claims you seem to think may be where the story originated. I don't recall writing the Bible, so I cannot tag the stories to their origanal "muse", but try this on for a thought and then read the Bible again. Moses was prevented from entering into , (sorry about this), Isreal, because he was Jesus.

Think what you like, I am done.

2 Replies

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

That's lovely but I do not see why there was a need to sacrifice the Lord, especially when you concede that you are content that the Old Testament is an integral part of this history you speak of. That is like saying I have my cake and let me have icecream too.

I did not exclude Abraham, but rather than site the entirity, I justified the existence of your belief , or more to the point what claims you seem to think may be where the story originated. I don't recall writing the Bible, so I cannot tag the stories to their origanal "muse", but try this on for a thought and then read the Bible again. Moses was prevented from entering into , (sorry about this), Isreal, because he was Jesus.

Think what you like, I am done.

Fascinating. I haven't made any claims yet. I was asking you to defend your statement, and you've done nothing of the sort - or at least a very poor job of it.

I've been replying back to you with my interpretation of what you've said, trying not to distort anything - giving you a chance to correct me if I did distort something. And still you give me nothing.

This last statement though ... there's nothing I can do to put that in a good light. It is a flat out fabrication.

Yes, God denied Moses entry into Canaan, but it had nothing to do with him being Jesus. He wasn't Jesus (or at least no Christian would ever claim he was). I have no idea where you got that from.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

Does Buddhism have a creator(s) aspect to it? I don't know, so I'm asking...

Speaking of Buddhism, isn't it sort of derived from, or at least share common themes with, certain older traditions, such as Daoism? If so, does this make Buddhism a cult by your view, Urangutan.

The clearest distinction that I can make between a religion and a cult is simply numbers. If enough people believe a certain way then their faith tradition gets the distinction of being recognized as a religion. If not enough people share your faith, then your movement is inconsequential and you're relegated to the shadowy realm of being considered a cultist. Essentially, it's mob rule if you think about it.

A curious conversation you two are having, and interesting. One question, Urangutan, (and I hope you're not seriously done,) Moses was Jesus?

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Quote:

He wasn't Jesus (or at least no Christian would ever claim he was).

Heh, I've heard Christians make far wilder claims than this, so ya never know.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Heh, I've heard Christians make far wilder claims than this, so ya never know.

The purpose of this was ...

Christians are sometimes misinformed on certain subjects, but that is not a trait restricted to Christianity. It's a trait of being human.

If you want, I'll go look up some very strange claims by atheists.

2 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Quote:

Speaking of Buddhism, isn't it sort of derived from, or at least share common themes with, certain older traditions, such as Daoism? If so, does this make Buddhism a cult by your view, Urangutan.

All faith traditions are derived from earlier traditions and they tend to share common themes. Buddhism was essentially a Hindu reform movement. When Buddhism arrived in China, Buddhist scripture was translated into Chinese using Taoist vocabulary.

Quote:

The clearest distinction that I can make between a religion and a cult is simply numbers. If enough people believe a certain way then their faith tradition gets the distinction of being recognized as a religion. If not enough people share your faith, then your movement is inconsequential and you're relegated to the shadowy realm of being considered a cultist. Essentially, it's mob rule if you think about it.

What's wrong with being a cult?
The Random House Unabridged Dictionary's eight definitions of "cult" are:

1. A particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies;
2. An instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers;
3. The object of such devotion;
4. A group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc;
5. Group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols;
6. A religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader;
7. The members of such a religion or sect;
8. Any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.

One through four do not seem negative.

2 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Quote:

The purpose of this was ...

The purpose of it was to point out that some Christians might very well, and rather likely do, believe things like Moses was Jesus, which you stated no Christian would. I've heard Christians say that Adam was Jesus, or David was Jesus, so why not Moses? Just because you don't think it, doesn't mean that no Christian would. You're acting like I'm the one attacking Christians, but when you say that no Christian would claim that Moses is Jesus you are, in fact, attacking the beliefs and validity of any Christian who actually does believe that.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

The purpose of it was to point out that some Christians might very well, and rather likely do, believe things like Moses was Jesus, which you stated no Christian would. I've heard Christians say that Adam was Jesus, or David was Jesus, so why not Moses? Just because you don't think it, doesn't mean that no Christian would. You're acting like I'm the one attacking Christians, but when you say that no Christian would claim that Moses is Jesus you are, in fact, attacking the beliefs and validity of any Christian who actually does believe that.

My apologies, Solace. Statements such as yours are most often intended to ridicule, and I took it as such. If you truly intended to point out that I oppose the views of others - even sometimes those who call themselves Christians, then you are correct. I do oppose certain views. There is no point in using any label if that label means "I can believe anything I want to". For a monotheist to believe in multiple gods is an oxymoron. I view equating Moses and Jesus the same way.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

What's wrong with being a cult?

Absolutely nothing, my friend. According to some, and I have been accused of it, I am a cultist. But a cult of one isn't even enough to be considered a cult... see, I said it's all just a matter of numbers. Very Happy

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

All faith traditions are derived from earlier traditions

All? So nobody was first?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

One through four do not seem negative.

?? You seem to contradict yourself by implying the others are negative.

But, the definition you give is somewhat euphemsitic. Words like "unorthodox" and "outside" render the common usage sterile. So you've never heard it used in a negative context to imply those who are abusive and manipulative?

0 Replies

@Resha Caner,

Quote:

My apologies, Solace.

It's all good, Resha. I know firsthand what it is to read more into what someone is saying on this forum than what they actually are saying. I've done it more times than I can count. (Well, since this is my 197th post, I guess I could count it...) Anyway, Christianity is a rather broad and ambigous label... covering just about every denomination that claims to ideal the bible. It's your right to defend your own particular views on any particular point of contension as the right view. It's also your right to consider those who do not share those views as not being Christian. But in their mind, and to the general eye, they still are Christian. So when I say that some Christians would have beliefs of the sort we're referring to, I'm speaking about Christians under the broad label.

1 Reply

@Solace,

Quote:

Absolutely nothing, my friend. According to some, and I have been accused of it, I am a cultist. But a cult of one isn't even enough to be considered a cult... see, I said it's all just a matter of numbers.

I do not buy the numbers argument. What is the minum number of members for a group to be large enough to be a cult? At how many members does the cult move to not-cult status?

A cult doesn't even have to be organized, doesn't have to have membership. I might say "the cult of the cross" and refer to everyone who venerates a crucifix.

The meaning of cult is dependent upon context. Depending on the use, cult may mean a variety of things.

Quote:

All? So nobody was first?

The "first" is speculative. Most scholars agree that the first forms of religion were cults surrounding the generic deities Great Mother and Sky God. From these ideas, religion and spirituality became increasingly complex, evolving into faith traditions, developing scripture and increasingly formal rites.

Quote:

You seem to contradict yourself by implying the others are negative.

In some contexts the use of cult is negative, and in other contexts it is not. "The Manson cult" is negative, "the cult classic Pulp Fiction" is not negative.

Quote:

But, the definition you give is somewhat euphemsitic. Words like "unorthodox" and "outside" render the common usage sterile. So you've never heard it used in a negative context to imply those who are abusive and manipulative?

Of course I have; in modern English, cult is usually used with negative connotations. However, we still use the word with positive connotations and even in neutral, non-judgmental ways.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Quote:

The meaning of cult is dependent upon context. Depending on the use, cult may mean a variety of things.

Absolutely true DT. So the word cult in the context of which it was being used by urangutan in this thread was to describe a faith-based body of believers. In such case, I make the argument that most such cults are classified as such because of a lack of sufficient numbers. Once a movement has enough numbers that it becomes dubious to negatively portray the members, perhaps for fear of mass reprisal, a faith based-movement usually moves in the public eye from simply being a cult to a legitimate religion. Essentially it's about respect; if enough people believe what you believe then society warrants you respect due to numbers. If not, then society continues to diss your beliefs and negatively portrays your faith as a cult. (And when it comes to a religious sense, being called a cult is almost always negative in western society.)

1 Reply

@Solace,

Yea... when I went through this thread the other day, I thought I'd try to be captain-helpful and went and clipped, probably, 5-8 definitions of the word from various sources.

What I found is that for each definition, there are 2-5 different "could be"-descriptions. All had a generic definition that could be applied to all religions, but there was so much ambiguity, I realized posting them wouldn't do any good.

<sigh>

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Baptism through a preacher.
It isn't about denying ones faith, I don't even expect one to question their faith but I simply lack the understanding of believing ones faith when imagination is blocked by devout principles. It doesn't matter whether I know that Jesus and Moses were one and the same, whether I simply imagine it that way and say it for the purpose of some idiotic discussion. It is a matter of wondering that iff God does exist, how does he rectify the injustices. How can the eternal kindom of heaven compare with real life, if say for example you are talking about a murder victim. How can one believe in a God that cannot rectify that or already hasn't. If you do believe in such an occurance at what value does it manifest in other religious beliefs. Would it be reincarnation to be born again in the fulfilment of ones human life, would the being simply continue to be as it is or was and though the confusion of this aplication is endless, the question is, what is the eternal kingdom of heaven. You cannot gather wind in your sails, while your head is over the Book, blocking the breeze from the flipping of Its Pages.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

I won't debate the possibility of eternal life just now, but I will say that Heaven and Hell are simply states of mind that we exist in here on Earth. Looking at the people around me, I'd have to say, sadly, that most people are living in Hell. I don't know many people who don't hate their lives, the people around them, and even themselves. They don't think this is true, but when I take a good look at the sorts of things they say and do, I know it's true. And if there is a life after this one, I seriously doubt that they'll be any more miserable then than they are now.

1 Reply

@Solace,

I dont know about your perspectives about Heaven and Hell and Eternal Life but my tradition it is very different. I can give a brief summary:

Heaven is not a place for humans, it is more like the "Laws of Divine Government". It is a Metaphysical system that responds to Human actions with a unified purpose of bringing the world to perfection.

The closest thing I know to Hell is a system called Gehinom. Gehinom is a cleansing system where All souls go after they leave the earth. There they are cleansed according to their needs so that they can cleanly join a system called The continum of souls.

Eternal Life is connected to something called Olam HaBa which literally means the "World to Come". This World exists in two places. It exists in Heaven as a potential. This means that the Heavenly system is bringing it into existance. And it exists in the future. It is some type of Utopia. It is the goal that we are all meant to connect ourselves to and strive for. Where it is written that there is "no death" it means that death is one of the goals that we are supposed to strive to eliminate in the world. Also no one will work in Olam HaBa because work only exists in a world that is incomplete in order to complete it. So work will also no longer exist. Governments will try and eliminate jobs rather than trying to "create" them.

There is another system called The other side which is parallel to the system of Heaven. Like the system of Heaven it corresponds to the actions of man. It is a place where all potential Evil and destruction exists in potential. It is what permits man to channel Evil into the world. Although unlike the Christian idea of Hell, it is a place created by the Limitless Perfection for a purpose in the world. Here is a very significan quote by the LeSHEM "Sometimes the powers of the other side can awaken the world and bring Perfection far quicker than the powers of Heaven."
If you look at the vast changes that have happened after WWII you can see how it would have taken us centuries to bridge that moral gap if it were not for the Nazis.

1 Reply

@Binyamin Tsadik,

Quote:

If you look at the vast changes that have happened after WWII you can see how it would have taken us centuries to bridge that moral gap if it were not for the Nazis.

You do have a point there, Bin, and I must admit I hadn't thought of those events in this fashion before.

About your definition of Heaven, it seems very similar to an ancient Chinese view of Heaven. They believed that Heaven was, essentially, something like fate. That Heaven guided their daily lives as well as the direction of their kingdoms. That if one chose to obey what they called "The Mandate of Heaven" then their lives and kingdoms would flourish and prosper. But if they opposed the Mandate, that is if they tried to defy fate (heaven's will), then it would only bring them misery.

Of course some tyrants tried to use such beliefs to claim a sort of "Divine Right" to governance that is more commonly associated to European kingdoms of the Middle Ages. As always, there are those who seek to use people's beliefs against them. But that's another matter...

1 Reply

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

About your definition of Heaven, it seems very similar to an ancient Chinese view of Heaven. They believed that Heaven was, essentially, something like fate. That Heaven guided their daily lives as well as the direction of their kingdoms.

Interesting.

In Jewish Tradition this is called 'Mazal' which means fate. However, according to the Sages, there are certain ways a person can change their fate.
Changing one's name, Giving Charity, Changing one's location, going through a traumatic experience...

But the definition I gave of heaven was not necissarily fate. It is a response to human action. It comes into effect based on specific rules. Which act in accordance to our actions. The purpose of Heaven is to bring Olam HaBa (The World to Come). Which is Utopia. This is the reason for all of its actions, but the way in which it comes is dependant on us. We can bring it quickly or slowly or in one of many different ways.

According to Tradition, this Government consists of several different powers. And Idolatry first began when people placed importance on a specific power and looked to the power and prayed to the power rather than the ruler of the powers. After this people began inventing their own powers to pray to. 'Mazal' is not one of the powers, but the flow of the powers.

I dont know if you see the difference between 'Mazal' and 'Heaven' maybe I didn't explain it well enough. But Chinese are very much concened with matters of Luck and Fate.

1 Reply

why religion makes no sense? please respond

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know