Confused on Religion! Need Insight

M!THÂºÂ§ wrote:

I'll put it this way, if you're gonna read a book on religion, i think the Bible would be a good start since most religions are based on it.

Really! The Judeo-Christian religions are based on the Bible, with Christianity following the Old and New Testaments, with Judaism following the only the Old.

Although it is true that Christianity makes up the largest single religion, over all, there are more people on this earth for whom the Bible has no meaning at all.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

33% of the population follow Christianity. 37% follow Islam and Hinduism.

30% follow other or no religion. Therefore 67% of people on earth have no spiritual connection to the Bible.

0 Replies

I agree with Phoenix, M!THº§: there are a lot of other viewpoints out there, and they all have something of value. well, maybe not all. Laughing

In fact, many parts of the bible were based on other religions, such as Greek and Norse Myth. My personal theory is that they're all part of the same religion that has been interpreted by a thousand different cultures into their own image. I think this primal "religion" is just a way of explaining the things about ourself we don't understand. By reading all religions, we might be able to find answers.

0 Replies

First of all there are 4 religions that I can think of that use the bible. First Christians(obviously), second Jews, third Catholics, and fourth Islam. Islam isn't totally based on the bible, though, they (i think) just beleive the old testament happened(at least thats what i've read). And some might classify Catholics as Christians, when they're not. They add all their own little laws and cannons and crap that were never instructed by the bible. I would say that there were more religions that use the bible, but I'm not sure they're considered under Christians like Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and whatnot.

I disagree with Taliesin, I beleive that the Bible was made up by God and written through people with the "Holy Spirit."(of course that's my opinion, everyone has the right to theirs). And since everyone has the right to their opinion I can't say that you are wrong Taliesin, but I can still disagree.

0 Replies

Islam does not use the Bible at all but uses the Quran and other authoritative Islamic sources. And Catholics, being the largest Christian denomination (1.1 billion of them?), would be really surprised to know they are not Christian Smile

0 Replies

That reminds me of a Christian parenting forum I joined once. Raised a Congregationalist and even after becoming a UU, I'd always considered myself Christain. A number of us, Protestant and Catholic alike, were shocked to be told we didn't belong.

0 Replies

NumbFaint, Taking a comparative religions class at college is a good idea. Visiting various services of differing denominations is also a good idea if you think you might be looking for structure. Most people get something from their religious beliefs, whether it's comfort, or peace, or a sense of righteousness, or ???. You should spend the time to walk your own spiritual path and determine what makes the most sense to you.

0 Replies

See below

0 Replies

M!THº§, you gotta read better-founded stuff. Only the Judaeo-Christian religions have any connection whatsoever with the Bible. Strictly speaking, that breaks down to 2 religious philosophies; The Jewish faith and the Christian faith. Within the Jewish faith, there are 2 main branches, or sub-denominations; Reformed and Orthodox, but they're still Jews. Within the Christian faith, there are myriad offshoots, but all are by definition Christian, whether Catholic, Anglican, Protestant in all its flavors, or Eastern Orthodox (which itself has several sub-denominations). And, as mentioned by Phoenix, around 1/3 of the planet's population subscribes to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, 2/3 do not. Therefore, most religions are unrelated to and independent of the Bible.

You might find this table illuminatin':

Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Six Continental Areas, Mid-1995

0 Replies

Interesting table, Timber. I was surprised to see the Anglicans separate from the protestants. As nonpapists I'd always considered the Anglican/Episcopalians as Protestant.

0 Replies

Technically speakin' the Anglican Communion hasta be classed as Schism, not Protestant - it sprang from rejection by Henry VIII against Papal Authority. Though essentially contemporaneous with The Reformation, the English Schism was less a product of The Reformation than of Politics, and has nothin' whatsoever to do with the Diet of Speyr. Apart from establishin' the English Crown as prime authority in matters ecclesiastical, the liturgy, doctrine, dogma, and catechism of the Anglican Communion are virtually indistinguishable from those of its Roman parent. It is, however, interestin' to note that the first use of the word "Protestant" occurs with the 1783 adoption of the title, in America, of the first sect schismatic to The Church of England, The Protestant Episcopal Church. This too was a matter of political, not doctrinal consideration; the citizens of the newly founded United States hardly could pledge fealty of any sort to the British Crown.

0 Replies

I've read In in several places , that the bible is based on an ancient African religion.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

It is perfectly likely that the universe would look exactly as it does now without any gods ever having existed. In fact I see the existence of gods as being extremely unlikely. I know if I was a god, I'd be making myself well known to everybody, not relying on word of mouth thousands of years old. You'd KNOW if I was in the house!

The final arguement in my head was...."If god did not exist, would we invent him anyway....yes....and what form would we make him?......."

Quote:

Like most people, wether they admit it or not, I hope you come to think more like the way I do.

Eorl, I want to have your babies. :wink:

I doubt I can phrase my position much better than Eorl already has. All this talk about looking for religions though, I can't help but wonder why you feel you need one.

"Whoops, christianity's no good. Hmmm, how about buddhism?".

Why not just live your own life and not bother about religions. If any deity wants something out of you, trust me, you'll know!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Islam does not use the Bible at all but uses the Quran and other authoritative Islamic sources.

Yes and no. While that's true it's not the whole story.

Muslims believe that the bible and torah were divinely inspired by Allah but over the centuries became corrupted and distorted. They believe that only the Qu'ran is still pure having been protected by the angel Gabriel. For example below is a passage from the Qu'ran describing Allah giving the Torah to Moses.

Code:

(Al Baqara: 87, Pickthal translation)



And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?

The Hadith, the other muslim sources, are not so much divinely inspired but rather a collection of everything they could find about the life of mohammed whom they try to emulate. This is not related to the bible.

Quote:

And Catholics, being the largest Christian denomination (1.1 billion of them?), would be really surprised to know they are not Christian

I think they're used to hearing it by now. The baptist crowd tends to be vocal.

0 Replies

You are correct Watchmaker, but no Moslem at any age is taught from the Bible and it would be extremely unusual to find a Bible in an Islamic home. That Islam believes itself descended from Abraham is about as close to Judeochristian beliefs as Islam gets.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You are correct Watchmaker, but no Moslem at any age is taught from the Bible and it would be extremely unusual to find a Bible in an Islamic home. That Islam believes itself descended from Abraham is about as close to Judeochristian beliefs as Islam gets.

It isn't just that "Islam believes itself descended from Abraham," Foxy. If you read the book of Genesis in the Bible, you'll find that it clearly states that Abraham's son Ishamel, whose mother was Hagar, the slave girl, became the patriarch of the Arabs. Seems to be general agreement there between the Quran and the Torah (aka the Pentetauch in Christian tradition).

0 Replies

booman2 wrote:

I've read In in several places , that the bible is based on an ancient African religion.

Bein' as Egypt is on the African Continent, Boo (BTW - good to see ya postin' again - hope all is well with ya), I s'pose you could source some antecedents of the Judaeo-Christian tradition to Africa. Clearly there are Pre-Dynastic influences. However, the most direct antecedents may be found among the Caananite Ugaritic Texts, discovered in Lebanon late in the 1920s. The literary origins of these in turn trace back to the beginning's of ancient Sumer, which was at the heart of Mesopotamia, arguably the "Cradle of Civilization", in what is now Iraq.

0 Replies

interesting links Timber thanks

0 Replies

Thank you, Steve, and yer more than weccum. I get carried away sometimes; history is a passion of mine; sometimes to the point of borin' helloutta folks, I'm afraid.

0 Replies

Andrew writes

Quote:

It isn't just that "Islam believes itself descended from Abraham," Foxy. If you read the book of Genesis in the Bible, you'll find that it clearly states that Abraham's son Ishamel, whose mother was Hagar, the slave girl, became the patriarch of the Arabs. Seems to be general agreement there between the Quran and the Torah (aka the Pentetauch in Christian tradition).

But how does that change what I said? Indeed Islam believes itself descended from Abraham and, as the earliest accounts we have of Abraham are found in the Old Testament, it is a virtual certainty that that is where Mohammed came up with the notion in the first place. Mohammed himself presumably dictated the document we know as the Qu'ran. It does not follow that Islam now considers the Bible in any way authoritative, however.

The interesting part is that the Old Testament chronicles the Arabs and the Jews as mostly mortal enemies at the time Genesis was written, and, though rich in centuries of oral tradition, Genesis was one of the later documents produced. So how was it that on the dawn of the Eight century AD, Mohammed had revelations regarding Abraham as the father of Islam? We have to conclude that a) he indeed had a revelation from the angel or b) he had some exposure to Jewish writings, or c) Islam had its own culture of oral tradition. I'm going with the latter theory myself.

0 Replies

I never meant to imply that what you said is not so, foxfyre. Sure, you're right. I just meant to point out that the tradition is more than a Quaranic one.

As to Mohammed, it's well known that, as a merchant, he traded with the Jews of the Levantine diaspora and came into close contact with Henraic teaching. One theory posits that he started his own monotheistic religion because he was rebuffed by the Jews when he tried to join theirs. Personally, I think he liked the whole monotheistic idea but found the moral strictures of both Judaism and early Christianity too binding (no polygamy, etc.) and so decided to incorporate only what he liked into Islam. Be that as it may, the Quran echoes a great deal of the Old Testament and recognizes Jesus as a "prophet."

0 Replies

Confused on Religion! Need Insight

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know