The Bible gets an edit....

Religious institutions often preach religion, dogma, and blind devotion. These have nothing to do with spirituality.

Jesus Christ, if there were such an individual, and I believe there was... was a radical thinker for his time whose message has been abused and misinterpreted by everyone including Christians. All he wanted was for people to be free from the pain and suffering they had endured.. both inside and out... and he may or may not have risked his life, wisely or foolishly, to prove a point... that he stood by what he believed in. Yet today, instead of the message being preached, it is the practice of preaching that has BECOME the message... and I think Christ would be rolling in his grave if he saw this interpretation of what it means to be faithful, devoted, to a cause.

"Do as I say, not as I do"... Forget what you've read and just think about this for a second... does it make ANY sense that God would send ONE messenger, and ONE messenger alone, and then have that messenger do the greatest disservice by using a methodology of "preach what I practice, but don't practice what I preach" which has never been known throughout the history of man to be an effective form of reinforcement?!

What, is god such a DUNCE that he doesn't know how his own creations think? How we're motivated? How we learn? And furthermore, what kind of a moron would god be for sending just one messenger?

Points to Bithy for mentioning that Hinduism (not to mention Buddhism, as well) has managed to remain the third largest religion in the world without using marketing. Speaking of which... didn't Jesus himself chastise merchants for blaspheming god by selling their wares near his places of worship? Why would such an individual do such a thing, and then endorse proselytization... the mass-merchandising mentality that we see on billboards and in mass-mailers every day? Yes he recommended that the word should be spread... but that doesn't mean multimillion-dollar churches, preachers with $200 cufflinks, door-to-door "salesmen" selling religion... how could such a grass-roots movement such as the teachings of Christ become the Amway of religion as it resembles today? What, was Christ a used-car salesman or something?

Now the Church will be busy trying to backpedal over all its mistranslations by interpreting the minutiae differently... STILL keeping the focus on details with debatable/unclear meanings, and away from Christ's actual message... in the hopes that people won't see the lack of credibility inherent in dogmatic traditions. They'll now tell us that all the battles and even infighting within their own denominations that have resulted over minutiae (e.g. who said what on which mountain on what day facing which direction...) isn't as important as they've been furiously trying to convince us for the past 2000 years...

Hey, maybe people will finally realize that faith doesn't come from four walls, a book and a relatively morbid icon (i.e. crucifix... I've always thought it was a little creepy that people celebrate Christ by worshiping the thing the romans murdered him with)... but it comes by putting into practice some very common-sense ideas that, if explored deeply enough, can be found underneath the endless tons of minutiae that almost every faith/religion has been buried underneath.

Or maybe my idea of worldwide unity, respect for diversity and brother/sisterhood is just a crack-induced hallucination...

 

Innocent, I think it's fine to inform people about religions they may not have been exposed to. Information is, to my mind, always harmless. Then again, I thought Joycelyn Elders had a great point when she suggested we start teaching kids about masturbation, since it's a natural part of development and it tends to discourage promiscuity (which I define as feeling compelled to have sex for bad psychological reasons, which is not a healthy thing).

That said, BithySith has the perfect point, and she's right. Hindu is huge. It's tolerant, it's quiet, it shrugs and says "Okay" if you disagree with it, and yet it's permeated massive parts of the globe.

Geist, "atheist" doesn't always mean having NO beliefs in any sort of divine. Any Hindu or Buddhist religion is essentially atheistic, in that they don't believe in a specific "God". They DO believe in the divine, and they find that it's everywhere, so you could sort of label them as pantheistic, too (right, BithySith? please correct me if I'm wrong). So Japan, India, China... yep, all the Asiatic countries are essentially atheistic, by that standard.

Snowdog, very good points. Nothing to add except that Protestants don't use the crucifix, and most of the ones I know think it's pretty creepy too. This is just an interesting sidenote.

 

Buddhism(depending on the sect) doesn't necessarily believe in a god. It does tend to be spiritual though.

Of course there are some sects that worship him like he's a god. This of course goes against his teachings of where he says explicitly that he isn't to be worshiped as a god.

If you ask the Dalai Lama if he believes in god he'll usually answer you with another question like: "What is god?"

Obviously he is Yoda.

 

Thanks Treecave... and, yeah, Hinduism is pantheistic in that sense. I wouldn't necessarily say it's atheistic. The literal definition of atheism is "without theism"... Hinduism is a theology... and it describes the concept of "god"... but its distinction is that, unlike, say, Islam or Christianity... it describes God as being multifaceted... manifesting in endless ways, in all places at once... rather than necessarily being polytheistic or monotheistic.

 

They DO believe in the divine, and they find that it's everywhere, so you could sort of label them as pantheistic, too (right, BithySith? please correct me if I'm wrong)

Belief that everything is divine is the oldest faith system on the planet... animism (basically panthiesm). Most Taoists are pantheists, along with many Chinese, Japanese and Western Buddhists, deep ecologists, pagans, followers of many native religions, and many Unitarian Universalists. The central philosophical scriptures of Hinduism are pantheistic. Many atheists and humanists may be pantheists without realizing it. Very good point, TreeCave.

And on the note of the crucifix, I remember having a discussion with a good friend of mine, who is also a pagan. She expressed her disgust at the idea of Communion in the Catholic faith, describing it as "ritual cannibalism". Everyone interprets the symbology of a religious act differently, I suppose.

EDIT: Hi, SnowDog, guess you posted while I was composing my response. Good points.

 

"And on the note of the crucifix, I remember having a discussion with a good friend of mine, who is also a pagan. She expressed her disgust at the idea of Communion in the Catholic faith, describing it as "ritual cannibalism". Everyone interprets the symbology of a religious act differently, I suppose. "

I've run into this interpretation of the Eucharist as "ritual cannibalism" before. To say that is to have a gross, and I cannot underscore that enough, misinterpretation of the purpose of Communion.
Furthermore, the crucifix is not creey, and we do not worship it. It is a very real image of what happened to Jesus. He was crucified.
Treecave, you were correct in your interpretation of my use of "atheist," though I wouldn't call Hindus atheist, just pagan.
And Snow-Dog, I would like to know where you got the "Do as I say, not as I do," in reference to Jesus. Never once did He say that, and never once did He contradict Himself in words or actions. That quote of His was in reference to the Pharisees of the time who practiced that.
Also, Jesus can't roll over in His grave. He doesn't have one.

 

Many atheists and humanists may be pantheists without realizing it.

Yes, that's exactly where I was until you told me what pantheism was. I also refer to myself as agnostic, because I believe trying to have "knowledge" of the divine is not a very worthwhile pursuit (and here I define knowledge as nuts and bolts logic and information, which is not as good as wisdom or true understanding). I think true understanding only comes from total honesty with yourself (that is a 24/7 work in progress for your whole life, we are so inundated with lies every minute of our lives).

Not that I think everyone should live as I do. It depends on your nature, and your inborn connection to the divine. Have you ever heard of a singer with a great natural voice who actually got worse from taking lessons? That's how I was - religion was like static interference between the divine and me, disturbing a strong connection I'd felt from my earliest memories. On the other hand, people with no special talent could develop fabulous voices through training - and I've no doubt properly practiced, sincere religion brings something great out in many people. But we're all different, and we should all seek out what brings out the best in us. I'm personally convinced that's what "God", whatever God may be, would want.

 

"we should all seek out what brings out the best in us"


That is a very well said point.

 

To say that is to have a gross, and I cannot underscore that enough, misinterpretation of the purpose of Communion.

Well, unless you are a part of a particular religion, or have rigorously studied its intricacies, misinterpretation can occur. Let's not forget the fact that many Christians often grossly misconstrue pagan rites and symbols (such as the pentagram, which represents a human in balance... and only takes on a malevolent meaning when turned upside down), giving the faith a negative twist. I suppose it seems foreign to worship nature as opposed to subjugating it.

I wouldn't call Hindus atheist, just pagan.

I've never been able to reconcile the use of the word "pagan" to describe a faith that is neither Christian, a Muslim or a Jew. About 45% of the people of the world are Pagans, by this definition. The term sounds like a general-purpose "snarl" word to refer to cultures and religions very different from the speaker's.
How much do you really know about Hinduism? Many would be surprised to learn that Hinduism is both a monotheistic and a henotheistic religion. Hindus believe in one supreme God who created the universe and who is worshipped as Light, Love and Consciousness. Hindus were never polytheistic, but were always henotheistic (defined by Webster's as "the belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of others").

 

Nice word definitions, Bithy, and nice explanation of Hindu, which I know much less well than I know Buddhism.

And the issue of what exactly "pagan" means, or whether Hindu is precisely "atheist" or not, gets us back on topic - one word in the Bible stands to, in the opinion of at least one poster here, topple the entire Christian faith.

As a writer, I think most people have no clue how manipulative words can be in skilled hands. There are such tiny shades of meaning that you can't even predict, because the person hearing your words has his own association with them.

 

Treecave, quite honestly one little word will never topple the entire Christian faith. The fact remains that Christianity is the single largest faith ever, and a little game of semantics that can be endlessly debated isn't going to change that.
As to Hindus not being polytheistic, I've heard that argument before, and I must disagree. While some Hindu scholars may argue that the thousands of Hindu gods and godesses are actually manifestations of one God, in practice it's quite polytheistic.
And yes, "pagan" is essentially a "slam" word for non-Christians, I suppose, though I only use it in reference to non-monotheists (e.g., everyone but Christians, Jews and Muslims).

 

Innocent: By that token, then Christians are polytheists... angels, including your fallen angel Lucifer, are all various manifestations as well.

I am a Hindu, and I can tell you I take great offense when someone who has very little if no knowledge of modern Hinduism interprets it as both polytheistic and pagan.

By that token, Christianity is the most pagan religion... Utilizing your lexicon, I'd have to respond to your blanket assertions of Hinduism by saying that Christianity is nothing more than a bastardization of various pagan rites, rituals and folklore ranging from Mithras to Appolonius of Tyana. Christ himself, no original story there... every aspect of his life was stolen from stories of other prophets.

One word? Let me respond by saying that there are far more volumes of Hindu scripture that outweigh the miniscule parable otherwise known as the Bible. If your assertion is that there aren't enough words to contradict your ideas about that which you do not understand, refuse to investigate, or are too ignorant to care... then I would have to say that the Bible is the most unoriginal, most miniscule chapter in the history of religion... barring perhaps Heaven's Gate and other such cults.

And lastly, I would have to call you a Satanist... because after all, Christians believe in Satan. By creating lexiconographic and iconographic representations of this "fallen angel", who could be considered a polytheistic manifestation of your God, just as you presume to know that Hindu deities other than Brahman are actually many gods (which they are not...)... then I'd call you a Satan idolator and worshiper by the logic of your own arguments.

Fair enough?

... by the way, Hinduism is henotheistic. Not only that, but it is also one of the only major religions outside Christianity to recognize Christ as an avatar (fr. Sanskrit avatara: an incarnation/manifestation of God). It must be pretty unusual to see a religion thrive while accepting, rather than denouncing, other faiths.

DISCLAIMER: These statements do not necessarily reflect my personal beliefs, they are a presentation of an argument in the same logic and form used by the previous poster. It is not my intention to bash Christianity or any other religion as a whole.

 

I'd rather be called Pagan than Christian.

Nice post, Darth_SnowDog. You damn Marxist Liberal.

 

I've always wondered what it says about people's beliefs when their only way to propagate their faith is to cut down others....

Thanks Ender.

 

"their only way to propagate their faith is to cut down others"

I think you'll find people who do that, more often then not do it for reasons other than the faith they belong to. I think it is more of a problem with them dealing with self doubt and self esteem issues.

If people want to show others, they should do it by example. Live your life according to your religion. If others like what they see then they will come to you. Attacking others is in not going to make your way look better. Forcing your view, no matter what it is, will not work.

 

We can always count on your posts being fair and kind, Doright.

 

"Innocent: By that token, then Christians are polytheists... angels, including your fallen angel Lucifer, are all various manifestations as well."
I don't think so. Christianity in no way argues that angels are manifestations of our God.
"I am a Hindu, and I can tell you I take great offense when someone who has very little if no knowledge of modern Hinduism interprets it as both polytheistic and pagan."
I am a Christian, and I can tell you I take great offense when someone who has very little if no knowledge of modern Christianity interprests it as both polytheistic and pagan.
"And lastly, I would have to call you a Satanist... because after all, Christians believe in Satan. By creating lexiconographic and iconographic representations of this "fallen angel", who could be considered a polytheistic manifestation of your God, just as you presume to know that Hindu deities other than Brahman are actually many gods (which they are not...)... then I'd call you a Satan idolator and worshiper by the logic of your own arguments."
Uhhh.... no. Satan is not, repeat: IS NOT, a manifestation IN ANY WAY of God. Furthermore, the only places Satan appears in icons is being slain by St. Michael.
"Not only that, but it is also one of the only major religions outside Christianity to recognize Christ as an avatar (fr. Sanskrit avatara: an incarnation/manifestation of God). It must be pretty unusual to see a religion thrive while accepting, rather than denouncing, other faiths."
That argument is crap. Arguing that Jesus is not the Son of God, yet is a manifestation of God, makes absolutely no theological sense. Can someone be a manifestation of God, yet not be God, even though they said they were? I think no.

 

Innocent, I think the point he was trying to make is that angels are no more seperate divine entities than the myriad religious figures in Hinduism are. It is not a polytheistic faith in the most concrete definition of the term.
Snow wasn't saying Christianity is polythiestic or pagan... just illustrating that by the same token, neither is Hinduism.
And lastly, visually representing Satan makes him no more of a god than the visual representation of Shiva makes him a god.

 

Well said, Bithy...

Innocent, thanks for proving my point.

By the way... I never claimed that Christ wasn't the son of God. But if you're attempting to take the fundamentalist high road and defend the whole of Christianity by exclaiming Christ's exclusivity as the son of God... I might point out that no other religion claims that their messiah is also the son of God. Being the son of God is, in one sense, one form of an avatar... an earthly incarnation of God. However, that doesn't preclude God's omnipotent ability to manifest himself in ways other than a mortal "son", so to speak.

Or are you suggesting you know God's abilities and limitations better than he does?

Of course none of this is as relevant as all the backpedaling and apologizing the Church has been doing over the years while, despite their inability to compile ANY concrete, infallible evidence to support their claims of being the one, true religion, all sorts of evidence has piled up in the other corner... We now know the earth is round and not the center of the universe, relics really aren't relics and Mary wasn't a virgin... among many other things (not to mention Jesus hasn't showed up for that much-hyped second coming).

Even if any one of these can be disproven, there simply is no credible evidence to concretely demonstrate why Christianity is so uniquely divine while simultaneously providing objective evidence that all other religions are false. In other words, "the Bible told me so" doesn't count... because "the Q'uran told me so" and "the Bhagavad Gita told me so" and so on and so forth... However, those who aren't afraid to ask questions through science, medicine and other rational disciplines, have found answers for what was previously unexplainable in ancient times (and magically attributed as either God's, or the Devil's work).

Ahhh... now I understand the relevance of Lucifer's character... he was the angel who asked too many questions! So the moral is... finding out the truth is bad? (Isn't that what the Adam and Eve parable is all about?)

 

Satan didn't look for truth, he tried to ascend to a position he had to right or ability to fill. Then he got kicked out and tried to bring others down. He was in no way after truth, and he didn't ask too many questions.


"I might point out that no other religion claims that their messiah is also the son of God."
"Christ himself, no original story there... every aspect of his life was stolen from stories of other prophets."

Which is it, Snowdog? Do you want to make a cohesive point?

"We now know the earth is round"
The Bible never claims the earth is flat. In fact, there is a reference to the 'circle of the earth'. Maybe you should study up on the Bible before you try that again.

"not the center of the universe"
Again, the Bible never makes that claim. That idea came from people after the Bible was written and was never based on it anyway.

"relics really aren't relics"
What?

"Mary wasn't a virgin"
Even with the Dead Sea Scrolls, you cannot say she wasn't. You might claim that Isaiah was writing of a young unmarried woman, but you can't claim that and neither can anyone else. If the Catholic church backpedals on that, then I would be very disturbed.

"However, those who aren't afraid to ask questions through science, medicine and other rational disciplines, have found answers for what was previously unexplainable in ancient times"
Plenty of people (myself included) do look through science and are not changed in our beliefs. In fact, science can never disprove God by its very nature. But if science had disproved it already, why do so many still believe?

 

So the moral is... finding out the truth is bad? (Isn't that what the Adam and Eve parable is all about?)

One of the more interesting interpretations of "Adam and Eve" that I have ever read suggests that the parable was possibly written by hunter-gatherers who were commenting on the agrarian culture/revolution. Originally, we lived in a "garden" with abundant food with no work required. What happens? Adam (which means humanity) is encouraged by Eve (which means life) to eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which had been reserved for the god(s). He aspires to be a god, to be in control. As a result, he and his descendants are condemned to a life of toil. Their son, Cain is antagonized. He is symbolic of an "agriculturalist" who kills his brother who is a "hunter-gatherer" because Able is the one preferred by the gods.

This story was then adopted by an agricultural civilization to be their creation story (interesting how Creationsim states that the world began 6,000 years ago, virtually at the same time the agricultural revolution was in full swing), not knowing that it was written as a condemnation of their lifestyle.

EDIT: The "son of God" and a prophet are two very different things. I doubt Snow is attempting to disprove anyone's beliefs with science. The truth is, there is no one right way to live... or to believe. Why try to "disprove" ideas like evolution with "science"? Isn't faith enough? Can't we just let others follow whatever path they find truth in?

 

Palpazzar, thank you for responding to Snow Dog's.... interesting... comments. Relics aren't relics? What? ::shrugs:: Oh well, whatever. As to your first point, about claiming the exclusivity of Jesus being the only Son of God, if I didn't claim that I wouldn't be a Christian. Furhthermore, Christ was NOT an "avatar," and He was not a "manifestation" of God: HE IS GOD.
And I never claimed to know God's limitations better than Him. Come on, please. Spare me the rhetoric.
The Church backpedaling and apologizing? Huh? I don't think so. Thank you for your opinion, that's nice, but this was a discussion and I would appreciate it if you would back up your argument if you're going to blast Mother Church.
NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE?!! Are you feeling okay? What do you want, empirical fact? Well, you won't find it in religion. Oh, wait, that's right, not even in yours. No religion can claim to have scientific evidence of God's existence (unless, of course, you happen to have Ganesh's arm laying about).
And it is interesting that you have "understood" Lucifer's character. Improperly, by the way.
And Bithy, not all creationists date the world to 6000 years ago. It is a perfectly legitimate belief to have to be an evolutionary creationist.

 

"angels are no more separate divine entities than the myriad religious figures in Hinduism are."



Could it be that we are talking about the exact same Beings here????? Just a thought. If angels are running around the world doing good things. I believe they are...Couldn't they be interpreted by different cultures in different ways? We Christians call these entities Angels or saints... The Hindus call them gods. To me it's just more proof there is something out there looking over us.
An angel does something in Europe and he is call St. Michael. The same Angel goes to India and helps out and they call him Vishnu or something.... I apologize I do not really know the names of Hindu gods but I am just trying to make a point. It could be the same folks helping out different people.

 

I love the way we can always count on you to be calm, observant, and respectful of others beliefs, doright. Your posts always bring a smile to my face.

 

Innocent, Palpazzar, relax. I've talked to Snowdog quite a bit, and while he is pretty forceful when making points, he is also fair and sincere. If you want to correct something you feel he's misstated, do so. But try not to take his points as a personal attack on Christianity when he's just trying to demonstrate an alternative view - it weakens YOUR arguments. I hope that makes sense and I haven't inadvertently offended anyone.

Treecave, quite honestly one little word will never topple the entire Christian faith.

I agree with you. I believe it was Master_Ben who seemed to be suggesting one word really WOULD make the whole Bible a lie, and therefore the whole religion a lie.

I'm not sure what you mean about Hindu being polytheistic "in practice" since I don't practice it. I do know a bit about Buddhism, its descendant. From what I know of Buddhism (and there are many sects, so this may not be true in all) you have Buddhas and bodhisattvas, and so on, and these are not gods. They are consciousnesses or souls who have evolved over many lifetimes to a degree of enlightenment. This is hardly like a pantheon - this is like simply acknowledging that some souls have gotten father and are wiser and more immediately connected to the divine than others (which, given the view of reincarnation for the purpose of learning tons of lessons and balancing all karma, is perfectly logical in context). Furthermore, I was taught that not only can you never be sure who's enlightened and who's not (think about the first impression Yoda makes for an example there), but being UNenlightened is not a bad thing either - it's part of the evolutionary process.

Innocent, you asked: "Can someone be a manifestation of God, yet not be God, even though they said they were?"

I say yes. I think everything is ultimately a manifestation of God. That's not from any religion - it just feels right to me. I see all things as cells in a big body, and the body is the universe, and the divine is its consciousness or soul.

I personally don't care whether Jesus is the son of god or a fictional character, and here's why. I have always felt this particular energy in my life, that's sort of human but definitely mostly divine, and when I learned about Jesus, I "recognized" him as that energy. Whatever that energy is, and I'm sure it's beyond my capacity to know for sure, I have a relationship with it. I don't feel the need to search for details on his exact nature. Mind you I'm not arguing that anyone ELSE should feel this way - merely presenting a different view.

Snowdog, funny you should mention the second coming. I had a revelation a few years ago, and I'm presenting it just as my own unique view (and keep in mind I have a weird way of both believing and disbelieving all religions at the same time - consider it my success in breaking away from duality!). I was thinking about the second coming, and I suddenly thought, "We're idiots - there is no 'second coming', in the sense that he never left the first time! His energy has stayed around, always, and we just crucify him every day when we ignore his presence to look for his arrival. The second coming happens when you as an individual acknowledge that he never really left." I don't know if that makes sense to any of you, but it did to me.

DORIGHT, I just realized the other day that the Greek pantheon and the angels sound so much alike, there must be a connection! Their interactions with humans are very similar. I think you're right about the Hindu manifestations, too. I'm not sure what these entities or energies are, but I think it's very interesting that they turn up in all religions.