Religious Belief-systems 101

[Mars Man]

This thread will be for the purpose of discussing and mildly debating doctrine, practice, history and co-relations between and of the major and minor religious belief-systems in our world's history.

This thread will not be for the purpose of pressuring to convince, convert or de-convert towards or away from any personally held religious belief-system by any member.

This thread will not be for the purpose of arguing for or against any percieved truth value that a statement in a religious belief-system's holy text may or may not say. For example:

In the Mahabharata, Bhishma Parva XLIX.V, it is written that Krishna had said, "The embodied soul merely casts off old bodies and enters new ones, just as a person discards used garments and puts on new clothes." This thread is not to argue the historicity of the claimed event, nor the truth value of the reported words, but rather, for example, that that belief-system text carries those words, that those words or that idea may correspond to those carried by the text of a different belief-system, or may be contradicted by others, and so on.

In the first century Christian writings, John 17:3, it is written that Jesus had said, "This means everlasting life, that they take in knowledge of you, the only true god, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." While we may discuss arguments given by scholarship on textual matters, early Christian liturgical matters, and as mentioned above, corresponding or non-corresponding statements by other texts, this thread would not be to prove the a personally accepted truth value on the statement.

This thread is for the purpose of education, sharing knowledge, and having a good time doing so. It is not for preaching. I will suggest that this thread will be closely moderated to prevent anything other than what the thread is for. (a margin for error should be allowed herein, and please do mention any found. Thanks. MM)

Now, wasn't that a boring first post. SO. . . let's begin. I'll go first, if I may. . .The Man from Mars

[Mars Man]

In the thread What Religion Do You Belong to, on page two, some interesting discussion came up about why most--if not all--mainstream Christian bodies regard the Mormon and Jehovah Witnesses bodies to be non-Christian.

Mycernius had pointed out that for the former, their using the Book of Mormon instead of the 'traditional' Bible was the cause, while for the latter, their lack of belief in a 'virgin birth' was the cause.

Elizabeth added, among other points,that the Watchtower Society's (the legal entity for the Jehovah's Witnesses) non-acceptance of a 'physical resurrection' was another reason that the big players in Chrstendom consider that group to be non-Christian.

Goldiegirl mentioned once having 'friends' who were associated with or members of the WS (Watchtower Society) who later shunned her when she no longer joined them in attending their meetings. Why? What are the reasons for this.

While we wouldn't be solely discussing these groups here, I thought it would be a fairly relevant place to pick up from--since the matter had come up on that thread, and was actually bending towards an 'off topic' line.

Now, I'm not certain that I have heard of the WS's not teaching the virgin birth, but I do know why they do not teach the Trinity or why they do not generally go with the immediate salvation for believers, so I hope to present where the WS gets that stance from--not argue for or against, you know, that's that's not the purpose of this thread, but simply to show the whats and whys behind it. I'll get to that tonight...I've go some other things pending at the moment. MM

[Goldiegirl]

The Lord's Prayer says that .....thy kingdom come thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. The JW's teach that for most of us after we die and are resurrected when Jesus comes again we will not go to Heaven but rather will come back to the Earth we know and love, just as it is written in the Lord's Prayer. Although they do not pray the prayer they do use it as an example. I have to say that I kind of agreed on that teaching. It makes sense if you believe in the prayer.

Also the whole shunning thing was so sad. These people I thought were my friends. Then one day at the grocery store I walk up and say "hi"and they just turned their backs and walked away. My friend who told me that I was shunned said that they weren't judging me as only God can judge but they didn't need to be around people of bad influence or who were non-believers. I am a believer in God, just not how it's taught necessarily. Oh well.....

[sabro]

The Nicene Creed is a good benchmark that gives the basic outlines of Christian beliefs... beyond that set of basics a religion could be Christian related, Christian influenced or Christian-like... but not Christian.

[Goldiegirl]

I hate the strict black or whiteness of so many religions. Either your in or your out and if your out you're going straight to hell. Just my complaint...I have a hard time commiting to anything.

[Kinsao]

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

I hate the strict black or whiteness of so many religions. Either your in or your out and if your out you're going straight to hell.

Yes, I have a problem with that too, not so much because of it's 'black or whiteness', but I think problems arise when people start thinking they are somehow able to judge other people. Of course it's possible to judge people's actions, but essentially not to judge people as such, because there are so many factors we can't know about. Therefore what gives me or anyone else the right to say someone is going to hell or whatever?

I suppose you'd say I'm a proponent of the 'judge the sin, not the sinner' line of thought, as I do believe there are some actions/behaviours that are morally wrong, but never (I hope!) 'judge' or condemn people based on their actions.

[moffeltoff]

Have you heard of Meister Eckhard?

[Clawn]

Therefore what gives me or anyone else the right to say someone is going to hell or whatever?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether their opinion is worth anything or not is up to you to decide.

I hate the strict black or whiteness of so many religions. Either your in or your out and if your out you're going straight to hell.

The entire reason religion exists is to explain where we come from, our purpose, and where we'll be going after we're gone. (spiritually, I mean)
Therefore, many religions feel that if you don't believe in what they believe, well, you're a "non-believer." They think that their idea of our creation and our purpose and our life after life (or rebirth, or ascension, etc.) is the ONE way, the only way. This means that if you don't agree with a part of their way, then you're not one of them.

Anywho, what I'm trying to say about all this is that with religion, because of the serious nature of the issues they deal with, you're either in or you're out. No sitting on the fence or toeing the line here. Just a little exlanation on why most religions are so "black and white."

Have you heard of Meister Eckhard?

Sorry, I can't say that I have.

[Mycernius]

Good thread MM

Originally Posted by Mars Man

Now, I'm not certain that I have heard of the WS's not teaching the virgin birth, but I do know why they do not teach the Trinity or why they do not generally go with the immediate salvation for believers, so I hope to present where the WS gets that stance from--not argue for or against, you know, that's that's not the purpose of this thread, but simply to show the whats and whys behind it. I'll get to that tonight...I've go some other things pending at the moment. MM

I used to work with a JW and he mentioned the lack of the virgin birth. It is to do with the translation that Russel Taze went and used. They maintain that the original Greek word used means maid not virgin. A bit of a cheek when they use the word Jehovah in their name, which is a copyist mistake.

[Mars Man]

The Jehovah's Witnesses, first of all, take the principle of sola scripta (if I have that worded correctly) to the extreme. Things that are quite clearly metaphorical or symbolic in nature they take a such, but many things which likely are, they take literally.

The Watchtower Society contends that the Bible is a single work from a single author--who, of course they teach is YHWH. Therefore the OT is used to interpret the NT, and the NT is said to be built upon the OT. Some of the more likely theories presented by scholars in the field tend to support that way of seeing it--in that the NT writers often copied the symbolism and culturalisms of the older works.

There are some places that can be seriously questioned, however, in that procedure. The reason they give for that 'shunning' stance is built upon the interpretation, and more so, application (and sometimes out of historical context) of the likes of: (with summaries of texts as taught by them)

John 14:30; 17:16; Luke 3:6; 1 Jn 5:19--The advisary is the ruler of the world.
2 Cor. 6:14~18; James 4:4 (see Jn 15:18,19); 1 Cor. 15:33; Eph. 5:6~11; Jude 22; etc.--A Christian should not mix with non-Christians on a friendly basis. Of course these are always backed up with 'proof texts' from OT as well. (or at least such effort is made)

That may well be from the in-group/out-group mentality of the Jewish culture which had prevailed up until that time. Historically, Chrisitanity did open up more--since as we all know, it freed itself from the Mosaic Law.

Sabro san, regarding the councils of Nicene (which Constatine (sp?) pretty much instigated) the results which were more solidified by the second could be used as a snapshot of the major state of Christian doctrine at that splice in time, I'd agree. I think it would be hard to show that earlier states of Christianity would measure up to the creed of those councils.

For that reason, I would question whether the Nicene Creed would best be held as a yardstick at all--because it can hardly be used as such previous to the mid-second century.

Those are some good observations there Clawn, Kinsao, Goldigirl.

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Mars Man

The Jehovah's Witnesses, first of all, take the principle of sola scripta (if I have that worded correctly) to the extreme. Things that are quite clearly metaphorical or symbolic in nature they take a such, but many things which likely are, they take literally.

MM, can you give a few examples of their "sola scriptura" approach to biblical evidence as well as places that allow for a more liberal admission of possible inconsistencies or "metaphorical understanding" ?

I ask because I sometimes read their Watchtower tract and related publications **ONLY to practice my Japanese (with the English translation)** and an article that I came upon recently was much more open to speculation and symbolic thinking -- than I had ever given the JW's credit for. Much more than most evangelic Christians, for instance -- that it quite surprised me. Of course I can't find the darn thing now and my memory isn't one to be relied on. But if anyone has further comments they want to add, it could spark a nerve here that would lead to a very productive discussion...

[Elizabeth]

Originally Posted by Clawn

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether their opinion is worth anything or not is up to you to decide.
The entire reason religion exists is to explain where we come from, our purpose, and where we'll be going after we're gone. (spiritually, I mean)
Therefore, many religions feel that if you don't believe in what they believe, well, you're a "non-believer." They think that their idea of our creation and our purpose and our life after life (or rebirth, or ascension, etc.) is the ONE way, the only way. This means that if you don't agree with a part of their way, then you're not one of them.
Anywho, what I'm trying to say about all this is that with religion, because of the serious nature of the issues they deal with, you're either in or you're out. No sitting on the fence or toeing the line here. Just a little exlanation on why most religions are so "black and white."

I don't know where you're getting this "many" that you keep throwing around but many if not most, certainly all the major belief systems and traditions encompass a huge range of opinion from liberal to conservative and everything under the sun -- on all aspects of church life from theological and scriptural intepretations to social and ecumenical issues.

Certainly there are some practioners or segments of the population that can be quite rigid in their approach to believers of other faiths if that is what you have in mind. That doesn't by any means implicate the entire religion or church of which they are a single thread. And if a member doesn't adhere to its central tenants of a biblical teaching, by definition I would also say they are a 'non-believer' in that church...

[Goldiegirl]

I would have to say that when I do go to church (Catholic) I always laugh when I see all the one and two children families. Birth control is a major "no no" yet I would guess most all the couples in the child bearing years certainly use it. I feel that most of them are doing what they believe is right but by the church they are wrong. I hate to use the word hypocrite because I think it's a little harsh. I think it's kind of like the don't ask, don't tell policy. (are they all non-believers then?) I find it terrible that the Catholic church doesn't even allow the use of condoms, even if one partner of a married couple has a disease that they could pass to their spouse. Sorry for the rambling nature...I do that a lot. To me I think the bible was written to handle life at the time it was written. It's a guide now, not a "user's manual".

[Clawn]

Certainly there are some practioners or segments of the population that can be quite rigid in their approach to believers of other faiths if that is what you have in mind.

I did not mean to say that an entire religion would go around deeming that non-believers will rot in fire or whatnot. Unfortunately, in "many" cases, it is those very groups and segments of a religion's practitioners that are most rigid in their views of non-believers that are put forth in the public eye. From my own experience with what I'm able to see on the news and hear from the people I talk to, many religions end up getting put in a bad light because of this. Right now, the main religion that has this happening to them *in my area at least* is Islam. Most people in our town only watch the news and believe what they see, therefore thinking that many, if not most, Muslims want to "kill the infidels" and "destroy America" and so on and so forth. It is sad to say this, but most of what is displayed on American television puts Islam in a bad position, just because of a few radicals.

Condensed - The unfortunate reality is that those who are most extreme in a religion are usually the stereotype for all those who practice that religion.

Again, this is simply from the observations I have made of the town in which I live.

[Kinsao]

Originally Posted by Clawn

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, whether their opinion is worth anything or not is up to you to decide.

aye. But whether or not my opinion is if someone is going to hell, i hope i recognise it as my opinion and don't go around preaching at ppl or telling them they will certainly go to hell! or maybe, just putting it another way, to remember that, improbable it is, there is the miniscule possibility that i might be wrong.

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

I would have to say that when I do go to church (Catholic) I always laugh when I see all the one and two children families. Birth control is a major "no no" yet I would guess most all the couples in the child bearing years certainly use it.

i'm not saying that you are wrong here, but you are aware that natural methods of family planning are highly effective when used correctly, right? In fact, as effective as using the pill. (with 'used correctly' being the operative phrase... it isn't counting days... )
but of course, neither of us can know what ppl are doing, cos it's their personal life...

[Mars Man]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth

MM, can you give a few examples of their "sola scriptura" approach to biblical evidence as well as places that allow for a more liberal admission of possible inconsistencies or "metaphorical understanding" ?

Thanks for that correction on the term, Sola Scriptura. If I may answer in two (or maybe three) posts, I'd be thankful. (It's late now, I've been busy, and want to go to bed earlier than the last few days.)

First of all, for any who may not be familiar with the above term, it is used primarily to distinguish the Protestant Movement of taking the written text--or Bible--as the source of authority rather than the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church.

While there will be a tendency for most protestant groups to adhere to some degree of scriptural authority alone, and even for the Vatican to do so, the way that is reached is different. In short, the Vatican will say that a document is of divine source because the Vatican says it is, whereas the Protestant group will say that a document is of divine source because the document says it is. (this is a very general summary)

We could therefore say that the first step is seeing the Bible as having divine authorship. (this also has degrees) As an example of the strictness that the WS (Watchtower Society) has shown in the past, I'll point to the statement at 1 Cor. 7:25,26, where Paul says, "...I give my opinion..." I still have it over in my files, but one WS article claimed that even though it was Paul's opinion, its being in the Bible means that it's YHWH's opinion too.

Another, probably well known point would be the combination of Mk 6:21~29 (see Mt 14:6~11) with Gen 40:20 from which the teaching against birthday celebration largely originated. There was a time when that organization at first did celebrate birthdays, but then reasoning on these 'bad examples' (examples of what was of bad taste in YHWH's eyes...it is claimed) gave birth the present--it's against YHWH's will to celebrate birthdays.

These two points would serve to give a sample space of the strictness which is applied to 1--the concept of the Bible being a single book with one mind behind it, and 2--the need to observe all internal and interlocking or corresponding details as keys to seeing the 'big picture' and application.

With that in mind, examples can be given on some of the more symbolic or historical elements where the concept of Sola Scriptura is very overbearing.

[Mars Man]

Still in reply to Elizabeth san, I will provide some more details.

The group of people which started the line of 'organization' (so to speak) which eventually became the Watchtower Society got started off not too soon after the American Civil War--a time of religious proliferation (especially in the south--as historical records tend to show). The founding fellows could be said to have had a great 'Seventh Day Adventist' kick start-like inspiration.

Perhaps initially for that very reason, there was almost from the beginning, a strong 'This is the end !' lean in Russell and Rutherford's (the first two presidents in respective order) messages. Things didn't work out on that day when the early group had gone out on the Brooklyn Bridge--no end; no Jesus coming. 1

When the 'Millions now living will never die' campaigne never realized the expected outcome, a shift was made in the 'understanding' so as to cast off any major debt caused by error.

As the 'Stay alive 'till '75' slogan lost steam with the passing of October, 1975, another major shift was sought after by the then acting president--can't recall his name--to adjust for the loss. (and quite a few dropped out of the ranks...especially in Mexico, if my memory serves me well)

Why all these 'It's coming now, on this date....' type teachings? Well, it's because of the essence of the impact on what I've been talking about in these posts here. At 2 Peter 3:8, you'll find something to the tune of, 'however let not this one fact be escaping your notice, beloved ones, that one day is with the lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' This cliche is a Jewish one which echos the likes of Psalm 90:4.
In all likelihood, these expressions simply evidence the concept of open time that the early Hebrew religionists concieved of (maybe due to linguistical matters? Hebrew had no future nor past tenses, really)

The WS took these as being absoute and literal statements of fact, and applied them to time calculations that can be found in the canonical Daniel. They then made a time line based on the figures provided and reasoned on in OT and NT, and came up with a return of Jesus in spiritual form, to an office (not return to earth, per se) in 1914.

To kind of make a long story short, this is why 1914 is given, is why 1975 had been given as the end of six thousand years (the seventh thousand to be the period of rest, after the great tribulation), and is part of why the WS is still trying to say it will be very soon--which brings me to my second case in point on this 'Sola Scriptura' and the two points at the end of my previous post.

I will expound on that second example in the next post.

1. The reason for thinking that Jesus would be coming then, will be touched on in the next post.

[Mars Man]

As mentioned above, this second point ties in with that first one, and pivots almost entirely around Matthew 24:34--which I will provide here for convience:

Truly I say to YOU (plural) that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur.

The WS takes this all within the contextual setting of Matt 24:1~25:46, and conflates it with the similar scenes presented by the other gospel authors who report on said monolog, AND with other points made by other documents that relate to or build on that theme--for example Thes. 2:1~3.
1.

They then apply the Jewish religious tendency to provide for double or triple application of prophetic statements--for example as the first century evangelist gives double application of Joel in Acts 2:16~21--and reach the conclusion that the term 'this generation' had been referring to those who were old enough to understand what was happening on the world scene in 1914.

This later was adjusted to those living in what could be an 'age' which came about that time. If there have been any adjustments since I last studied their doctrine, I don't know. (but wouldn't be surprized at all!) The idea had be 'reasoned from the Scriptures' (as they always intend) that the great tribulation would happen while those alive in 1914 were still living.

So, these are two examples that show where the principle of Sola Scriptura, combined with the concept of a single mind behind all the documents in the Bible (as held canonical by Protestantism), and taking as much in a very literal sense as allowable, has caused error in understandings.

1. Contradictorily, while doing this other factors and points were overlooked. For example the fact of the writing of an instrument of correspondence between one human to another--which they do accept, of course--has to have time locked statements in them which make sense to the persons involved in the communication. That will automatically be a minimum of a time-locked matter.

Therefore, when the Paul said that 'the time left is reduced' (1 Co 7:29) he is doing so in relation to his understanding as seen also in other places. (Phil 1:6, 10; 3:20,21; 1Thess 1:10; 311~13; 4:15~18; 5:1~4; 1 Tim 4:1,2,11; 2 Tim 3:1~7,9,14--also compare similar statements at James 5:7,8; 2 Pet 3:3~14; 1 John 2:18; etc.

[Void]

Originally Posted by Clawn

I It is sad to say this, but most of what is displayed on American television puts Islam in a bad position, just because of a few radicals.

Condensed - The unfortunate reality is that those who are most extreme in a religion are usually the stereotype for all those who practice that religion.

They are stereotype just because television puts few radicals on top news. Brainwashing... The circle is looped

[Goldiegirl]

I worry about the few radicals more than the rest. I don't think it's brainwashing, I think it's trying to prevent it!

[Void]

Originally Posted by Goldiegirl

I worry about the few radicals more than the rest. I don't think it's brainwashing, I think it's trying to prevent it!

then how about this - you give those handful of radicals a prime time. Thus you blow up the bubble and MAKE people to believe that the certain religion is ONLY like this (people on both sides, don`t forget). This creates distorted image and promotes only ugly side of the matter (religion in our case). And they get the idea - the more ugly they are - the more attention they will be given

How about promoting modrate members of the religion for a change? To prevent smth you shoul show people how the thing should be ( consequently and in-depth). Just saying "booo" doesn`t change a bit (except fueling your fear)

And it is barinwashing. It deprives layman from exploring all other sides of the matter (you know, we tend to trust that information what "officials" have to say). Besides this withdraws the attention away from many other touchy issues. Just psychology of social influence, whether you like it or not

[Mars Man]

Before the line of discussion wanders too far from general topic for too long a time--and I am not complaining here, but trying to apply a gentle touch so as to adjust course just enough to prevent future problems on down the thread line--what might be some theories/ presentations on what has lead Islam to generally allow extremism to the degree, even, that it appears to have allowed today?

We know that in Christendom there have been the extremist from time to time, but what kind of underpinnings are there in the separate doctrines to seemingly make the present day situation so different. (I hope to have worded this well enough to allow room for a greater degree of Christian extremism than usually meets the eye, AND for there being less of such in the Islam world)

Any reasearch done on this, anyone? Please take the floor first. MM

[Goldiegirl]

I want to keep track of the radicals...I need to know about them not the others. So if that means the radical members of any religion oare on my tv, great...I know what they are up to. People have the ability to look up any religion they want to know about. To suggest if all they see is something bad is all they will believe is an insult. I think with the internet we are all able to discover all sides of any religion.

There are extremists is every religion, but as an American it is one religion in particular that I KNOW I have to watch out for.

[Void]

One of the many short comings which has arisen in the West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done - judge a religion by the conduct of its people - then we too could say that all Christianity is about is child molesting and homosexuality [1] whilst Hinduism was all about looting and breaking up mosques [2]. Generalising in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islam.

more if you wish

if someone interested
http://www.iiie.net/
http://www.islam-guide.com/

one can say it is just propaganda and whitewashing... but i advise to look for the log in the eye of Christianity first, before jumping to the conclusion about other religions

[Mars Man]

One thing I have always found interesting is a portion of the concept of human make-up that seemingly some earlier lines of Jewish thought contained. We may not be able to determine variances or additions to some texts that may have occured during the second temple period, but it is more than fair to posit that some lines of thought (if not most) did come through from the pre-exilic Israel belief-system.

The portion, or line of thought, that I'd like to share (and open for discussion) is that which can be said to basically start up from Genesis 2:7--

. . . and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

(New World Translation)

The Hebrew words ruach, nephesh, and nephesh-khiya come up in that short passage, and kind of set the stage for following through on that concept. The essence of what more easily appears to have been understood at Gen 2:7, is that that living-soul (Adam in this case) had been animated by the life-breath (or life-wind; life-force) To that degree, the newly formed clump of earth (a'dam) consisted of two principles, viz earth and life-breath.

It is only realistic, as far as what has been gleaned from discoveries in biological, neurological, and genetical sciences, that this is the same for all animate beings, as well as us homo sapiens--and that is just what can best understood from those ancient Jewish statements as well.

And, with that point, I'll pick up next time.