Re: Dispensation/Apostasy
Moishe3rd wrote:As the Christian church and monasteries were the "keepers of the books" in Europe until the Muslim renaissance (due to the Crusades), European history and therefore Western history accepted this religious Gospel notion about what was translated as the pharisees, as history.
It is not.
You may be unaware that the common understanding of the pharisees and who they were by most Christians today is an historically false paradigm.
Therefore, your "apostasy" theorem founders on an error of interpretation and understanding.
You are saying that the Pharisees really weren't as corrupt as the later Christian church makes them out to be. Is that correct?
This just serves to prove my point. As the Great Apostasy (after the death of the twelve Apostles) took hold, this early Christian church began looking back and rewriting history. They did alter the Bible (although my personal belief holds that it has been remarkably well-preserved, considering the circumstances). They later attempted to trace back their line of authority, often with imaginative results.
As far as I'm concerned the Pharisees and the Early Christian Fathers were in the same boat. Most of them probably had good intentions; the majority thought they were doing the right thing (i.e. Saul or St. Francis of Assisi), but the fact remains that they had no divine authority, true teachings were replaced with false ideas, and corruption did abound.
MrMcPlad
Re: Dispensation/Apostasy
mrmcplad wrote:Moishe3rd wrote:As the Christian church and monasteries were the "keepers of the books" in Europe until the Muslim renaissance (due to the Crusades), European history and therefore Western history accepted this religious Gospel notion about what was translated as the pharisees, as history.
It is not.
You may be unaware that the common understanding of the pharisees and who they were by most Christians today is an historically false paradigm.
Therefore, your "apostasy" theorem founders on an error of interpretation and understanding.
You are saying that the Pharisees really weren't as corrupt as the later Christian church makes them out to be. Is that correct?
This just serves to prove my point. As the Great Apostasy (after the death of the twelve Apostles) took hold, this early Christian church began looking back and rewriting history. They did alter the Bible (although my personal belief holds that it has been remarkably well-preserved, considering the circumstances). They later attempted to trace back their line of authority, often with imaginative results.
As far as I'm concerned the Pharisees and the Early Christian Fathers were in the same boat. Most of them probably had good intentions; the majority thought they were doing the right thing (i.e. Saul or St. Francis of Assisi), but the fact remains that they had no divine authority, true teachings were replaced with false ideas, and corruption did abound.
MrMcPlad
Uh, no, that is not what I was writing. Not at all.
I was attempting some sort of neutrality and trying to refer you to more historical sources, but I am apparently not being blunt enough.
So, to be more precise - it is not that the people whom the Gospels call the pharisees " really weren't as corrupt as the later Christian church makes them out to be," it is that they were not corrupt at all. It is quite the total opposite.
The real "pharisees" of the time were indeed teaching the true teachings of Judaism and they did have "divine authority."
These were the Great Men of their times and they have impacted the world forever.
However, to give you an out for your "apostasy" theorem, these Great Men were indeed the renaissance for Jews; for religion; and the world.
Humanity has been forever brought closer to G-d because of the real Pharisees.
Re: Dispensation/Apostasy
Moishe3rd wrote:
So, to be more precise - it is not that the people whom the Gospels call the pharisees " really weren't as corrupt as the later Christian church makes them out to be," it is that they were not corrupt at all. It is quite the total opposite.
So, is it your words against the Gospel's then?
Moishe3rd wrote:
The real "pharisees" of the time were indeed teaching the true teachings of Judaism and they did have "divine authority."
real "pharisees"? were there fake ones?
"divine authority" by whom?
Moishe3rd wrote:
Humanity has been forever brought closer to G-d because of the real Pharisees.
Assess humanity, are we really closer to God?
I have read through this quite lenghtly and interesting topic, which has some excellent points of view. But, I never really found much on the subjects I am most interested in although touched on a couple of times.
The relationship between spirituality and religion is one. I consider myself to be spiritual and yet do not follow a religion. Reading about religions is certainly insightful, but yet all of my instinct tells me that much of what is written in relegions has been done so by people who had political or social control as thier objective and is not to be viewed as the will of god , I would be interested if anyone could present an arguement to counter this view.
The second was a point that I had always wondered about, which was brought up and not answered. If the only way to heaven is to accept Jesus as your saviour , it begs the question if someone has never heard of Jesus and yet lives an honest life will he not be accepted to heaven and a person who sins will? This really doesn't sound right.
One other, the term God is widely used. But I am interested in what shape does your various god's take? I have to admit, that if I were to try to describe any such god, it would have to include compassion, mercy and love all right there at the top of the list. Understanding as well for we are all weak. All this vengeful , burn in hell, only way to heaven is a,b,c , non believers will be this that or the other, doesn't sound much like any god I would like to know.
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Apocalypse (Almost) Now
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: November 24, 2004
If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.
The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."
Gosh, what an uplifting scene!
If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard.
Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, the co-authors of the series, have both e-mailed me (after I wrote about the "Left Behind" series in July) to protest that their books do not "celebrate" the slaughter of non-Christians but simply present the painful reality of Scripture.
"We can't read it some other way just because it sounds exclusivistic and not currently politically correct," Mr. Jenkins said in an e-mail. "That's our crucible, an offensive and divisive message in an age of plurality and tolerance."
Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.
I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.
Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind" books.
For starters, it's worth pointing out that those predicting an apocalypse have a long and lousy record. In America, tens of thousands of followers of William Miller waited eagerly for Jesus to reappear on Oct. 22, 1844. Some of these Millerites had given away all their belongings, and the no-show was called the Great Disappointment.
In more recent times, the best-selling nonfiction book of the 1970's was Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth," selling 18 million copies worldwide with its predictions of a Second Coming. Then, one of the hottest best sellers in 1988 was a booklet called "88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will Be in 1988." Oops.
Being wrong has rarely been so lucrative.
Now we have the hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web site flatly says that the authors "think this generation will witness the end of history." The site sells every "Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers, regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos, calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This isn't religion, this is brand management.
If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into heaven?
Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.
I am a spiritual person but refuse to be brainwashed and "lead" by an organization. God is not just in a church. He is in nature. I don't feel that I have to attend mass on Sunday to be close to God. I don't feel that telling my sins to a priest will get me closer to God. What I do is between God and myself and we do just fine, the two of us. I do not believe that all pre-marital sex is wrong. I do believe that murder, lying, cheating, stealing and apathy is wrong. I also believe in a heaven and a hell. I believe that if we are good people and love and serve each other we will see God after we die. I don' t believe in going to hell because you make a few mistakes. The God I serve is not human and therefore does not have human traits like anger, vengance and wrath. The God I serve will take anyone back into His arms no matter what they have done, provided they are truly regretful. And no one here can know the heart of a man so we don't really know who goes to heaven and hell.
Just a few thoughts.
After all is said, something must be done. We have discussed at length (and could continue indefinitely) each of our own personal views on religion. This is wonderful. I applaude you all for being so open and honest with your feelings.
Now, how are we to discover if we are right in our beliefs?
If a scientist hypothesizes, tests, and then reports his results in a science journal you happen to be reading, you may accept it as proof. Yet, how often have scientists been wrong? As you read his findings you may make a decision to believe him. This is called "faith." Also known as "trust."
The only way you may know for yourself if his findings were accurate is to try his experiment out yourself and see if you get the same results; even then, it may require several attempts.
But once you do it, you *know* and it is no longer faith.
I have experimented upon religion. I asked God in prayer which church is His. I did it many times over the course of several months in the spring of 2002. I studied the words of His prophets and prayed to know if they were true. And I did receive an answer. It came to me as a whisper to my soul; a calm assurance. Peace from an outside source. I *know* which church is true.
If you say my results are mere emotional illusions, I say try it first. This is an experiment everyone can and should try for themselves.
Will you ask God which church is true?
mrmcplad wrote
Quote:
I have experimented upon religion. I asked God in prayer which church is His. I did it many times over the course of several months in the spring of 2002. I studied the words of His prophets and prayed to know if they were true. And I did receive an answer. It came to me as a whisper to my soul; a calm assurance. Peace from an outside source. I *know* which church is true.
I am willing to bet the conclusion or the whisper from heaven told you that yours is the true religion. :wink:
All spirituality is the same, even as it chooses to embrace different paths. All our understandings of God or an equivalent or absence of God are an understatement and false but will have to do in the face of God. If we face God together, instead of telling everyone else they're wrong, we'll begin to recognize that nobody has a monopoly on the Divine, and all paths are as sacred as we make them.
Dauer
Re: Dispensation/Apostasy
CountDigit wrote:Moishe3rd wrote:
So, to be more precise - it is not that the people whom the Gospels call the pharisees " really weren't as corrupt as the later Christian church makes them out to be," it is that they were not corrupt at all. It is quite the total opposite.
So, is it your words against the Gospel's then?
No, this is from the Torah. Not my word at all
Moishe3rd wrote:
The real "pharisees" of the time were indeed teaching the true teachings of Judaism and they did have "divine authority."
real "pharisees"? were there fake ones?
"divine authority" by whom?
I was using real in the sense that the actual Pharisees were not whom the Gospels described.
The divine authority, as you put it (we would tend to say that something is from the Torah), is from Moses (Moshe Rabbeinu) who spoke with G-d on Mt. Sinai and received this Torah from G-d.
Moishe3rd wrote:
Humanity has been forever brought closer to G-d because of the real Pharisees.
Assess humanity, are we really closer to God?
Good question.
The answer is yes and no.
The Torah (the Law) has changed mankind for the better.
If one rejects G-d and Torah, which admittedly, most of mankind seems to do, then no, one is not closer to G-d.
But the potential is there because the Pharisees worked diligently to pass on the Torah and all that that entails.
mrmcplad wrote:After all is said, something must be done. We have discussed at length (and could continue indefinitely) each of our own personal views on religion. This is wonderful. I applaude you all for being so open and honest with your feelings.
Now, how are we to discover if we are right in our beliefs?
If a scientist hypothesizes, tests, and then reports his results in a science journal you happen to be reading, you may accept it as proof. Yet, how often have scientists been wrong? As you read his findings you may make a decision to believe him. This is called "faith." Also known as "trust."
The only way you may know for yourself if his findings were accurate is to try his experiment out yourself and see if you get the same results; even then, it may require several attempts.
But once you do it, you *know* and it is no longer faith.
I have experimented upon religion. I asked God in prayer which church is His. I did it many times over the course of several months in the spring of 2002. I studied the words of His prophets and prayed to know if they were true. And I did receive an answer. It came to me as a whisper to my soul; a calm assurance. Peace from an outside source. I *know* which church is true.
If you say my results are mere emotional illusions, I say try it first. This is an experiment everyone can and should try for themselves.
Will you ask God which church is true?
I actually agree with you on this point.
In understanding G-d and religion, it is both an article of faith with me and a plain and simple psychological fact - it all depends on What You Want.
It is really that simple.
Having been a churched and devout Christian in earlier incarnations in my short life; and having spent many years deeply delving into other religions and philosophies, I can safely and truely say that G-d has made it plain and clear to me that Torah observant Judaism is my religion and, from of course my point of view, the most important religion and practice on this planet.
It is plainly and simply obvious to me.
But I spent many years working on this understanding.
It all depends on what you want.
Or, in the immortal words of Yogi Bera "If people don't want to come to the ballpark, you can't stop 'em."
Moishe3rd wrote:
In understanding G-d and religion, it is both an article of faith with me and a plain and simple psychological fact - it all depends on What You Want.
So religion now depends on What You Want not what God wants, interesting.
That would mean there is no One True Religion after all, as far as you two both are concerned All Religions Are True.
One religion would say that Jesus is God and the other one would say Jesus is not, two beliefs contradictory to one another and both the truth.
Anyway, that's easier than admitting the other one's the truth, right? :wink:
I'm hoping to bring this back to extra medium's first post in which he asks which religion is right for him.
In one sense, I rely on my instinct to guide me where my rational mind could well conclude a different conclusion about people, situations and life in general. By following my instinct I have found it to be a much more reliable indicator and while don't always assume it is always correct have learned to head its warning.
Life after death, belief in spirituality and much more, my instinct is clear there is, even my rational mind may not accept. I choose to believe 100% that my instinct is correct. I could never persuade others who do not share my belief of my belief and wouldn't try, and respect Mrmcplad for his belief that his religion is the right religion as it seems to also be based on his following of his instinct.
However, my own instinct and rational mind although reading much about religions tell me the opposite. And since we are here to debate and not to criticize each others beliefs I will leave it at that.
But how does this relate to the original post? I would submit that if while through reading different religions extra medium's own instinct is not crystal clear that a religion is the right religion. He should follow his instinct to allow him to read around the subject , gain insight from different religions, without feeling the need to follow any.
Would you agree with this?
Michael_S, your post is insightful. Instead of "instinct" I would use the word "inspiration." The difference being that the answer doesn't exist inside of us, but must be given to us.
To rely wholly on rational thought (like you said) can't lead us to all truth; such aggrandisement puts our own abilities above Him who created us. I can assure you that He is smarter than me and has a much better view of the situation than I do. I, therefore, must listen and trust Him.
What about you?
I can agree with most what you're saying , and it would be a shame to loose the thread of where we are going due to semantics, so perhaps I can clarify a little.
I agree, inspiration(a spiritual flash or an epiphany however it may be named) is quite different to instinct. This has happened to me a number of times most clearly an experience I had more than 15 years ago while walking down the road and for no particular reason was struck (I literally stood still) and my perception of everything was turned upside down. The cup was half full not half empty, I credited people as being good and honest first instead of approaching from a sceptical viewpoint. I am definitely a happier person now than before.
I really don't think there is much of a choice of whether or not I want to listen, it just becomes the perceived reality, it just is.
When you refer to God as "him" I would certainly say, we differ in our perception of God. I would not attribute male or female characteristics to a supreme being. I do not think I can hold conversations with God in my head either such as "So God, have a good day?", "Yes thanks Michael it was splendid" I make the last comment not to mock, but because I believe questions can be posed, which inexplicable answers pop into you head days or weeks later.
I do accept prayer or meditation can facilitate "inspiration" as you describe it, although "inspiration" may occur even without prayer or meditation as I mentioned above. And to answer your question, yes, I do meditate.
Now, back to extra medium. If his rational mind and instinct and perception of any religion is clearly not the right one, would his best advise be to read about religion, pray or meditate if it helps him and not to worry about which is the right religion. If there is indeed a right religion for him, there would be no doubt in his mind, and this should be the determining factor?
You asked:
"Why should I follow your religion (or way of life)? Why is it the one true religion?
Why should I bet my eternal soul that your religion is the one true religion?
Will everyone go to hell, or stay in a lesser place, if they don't follow your religion?
Can you convince anyone of the truth of your religion? Can you convince yourself?"
Must a "way of life" be a religion?
Do you possess an "eternal soul" ?
Does "hell" really exist?
What is "truth" ?
These are counter-questions, with many different answers.
Michael_S wrote:When you refer to God as "him" I would certainly say, we differ in our perception of God. I would not attribute male or female characteristics to a supreme being. I do not think I can hold conversations with God in my head either such as "So God, have a good day?", "Yes thanks Michael it was splendid" I make the last comment not to mock, but because I believe questions can be posed, which inexplicable answers pop into you head days or weeks later.
I do accept prayer or meditation can facilitate "inspiration" as you describe it, although "inspiration" may occur even without prayer or meditation as I mentioned above. And to answer your question, yes, I do meditate.
You are right; we must not be too casual with Our Father. He deserves all of the respect and admiration we can muster. We approach Him humbly and submissively. I find it helpful to kneel and bow; this helps me recognize my position before Him. I also use the formal case, the traditional "thee" and "thou;" but more important than wording is the inner meaning of the soul.
Remember that God is greater than us, but He is family. He loves us. Just as any Father will help a troubled teenager, so will He. Even moreso if the child turns from his wretched behavior and promises to do right from then on. Repent. It opens the windows of heaven for blessings to come.
Michael_S wrote:Now, back to extra medium. If his rational mind and instinct and perception of any religion is clearly not the right one, would his best advise be to read about religion, pray or meditate if it helps him and not to worry about which is the right religion. If there is indeed a right religion for him, there would be no doubt in his mind, and this should be the determining factor?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that extra medium would do better to end his search? Or just to turn to study, prayer, and meditation for his answer?
In study I would emphasize the role of application. I once read a book on how to develop speed-reading skills. It outlined a rigorous practice schedule, but I opted to be lazy. I didn't practice and (surprise!) my reading speed stayed about the same. Here's my point: when you come across a principle in the Bible or other scripture, try it out. I'm talking about such principles as fasting, or paying tithing, or loving thy neighbor, etc. Don't just read.
-MrMcPlad
I certainly appreciate your honesty and respect your sharing of what is so close to the heart.
I have always been inquisitive, so by nature I need to ask,
The Jews , do not share the belief of the Christians about Christ,
The Muslims, must accept allah as the messenger of god,
The buddhists' have an altogether different belief,
Your last post is using the Christian definition of what god may be. Do you also accept the other religions definition of what god may be?
If the answer is "yes" how can such obvious contradictions exist together. If the answer is "no" what would make your belief any more stronger than followers of all the above.
I would add Just one last comment to all. IMO religion has throughout the ages been the poison that pollutes the air. It more than any other factor that divides us, causes wars, massacres, mayhem and etc. The world would be a much better place without it. Fini.
Michael_S wrote:I certainly appreciate your honesty and respect your sharing of what is so close to the heart.
I have always been inquisitive, so by nature I need to ask,
The Jews , do not share the belief of the Christians about Christ,
The Muslims, must accept allah as the messenger of god,
The buddhists' have an altogether different belief,
Your last post is using the Christian definition of what god may be. Do you also accept the other religions definition of what god may be?
If the answer is "yes" how can such obvious contradictions exist together. If the answer is "no" what would make your belief any more stronger than followers of all the above.
I cannot answer yes; the nature of God is not contradictory. Although it is disputed by us mortals with limited perceptions, our views do not alter the reality of His nature. Whoever He is He is, and all the imagining in the world will not change that.
Once we understand the nature of God we may begin to understand the nature of ourselves.
Why are there so many different beliefs, then? One of the main reasons (that I've already touched on) is the notion of apostasy. Having no messengers from God to tell us, we look to philosophers, scientists, even false prophets and they rarely have the right idea when it comes to God. It's because men's wisdom is limited and changing. (Remember when the earth used to be flat?)
This is not to say that followers of these teachers are wicked or damned forever. I often wonder what I would have done if I were born during the Great Apostasy. It would have been difficult to follow the prophet when none were alive. Rest assured that God understands each person's circumstance and will judge him fairly.
So what gives my position more credibility than any other religion? The invitation that I have frequently given to ask for yourself. The calm assurance that comes from the Holy Spirit will be more convincing than any logical proof I could devise.
Have you asked yet?
