28 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBecause the question says "believers in God X".
No, I'm asserting that your claim is false. You even admit is has obvious counterexamples, so I wonder why you would make such a claim in the first place.
EDIT: Think "devious leaders" constitutes a counterexample?
28 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course there are any number forces at work in the claim for exclusivity. I just threw out one of many, but I think it should be acknowledged. A lot of organized religion (probably most) has become big business with an extraordinarily large power and financial base. It's in their best interest to claim exclusivity. The fact that they've become big business leads me to believe that they are not solely driven by the love of God.
That's putting the cart before the horse. A believer in God X would not give the answer you suppose unless he did believe that God X is the only true God. If he doesn't, there is nothing to gain from a person switching from God Y to God X.
Where this gets interesting to me is where God X and God Y are the same god but explained by different belief systems. Lets say there is a god of Truth and Love and separate cultures came to know this god from the perspective of their particular culture. I imagine that the belief systems could be quite dissimilar in a number of respects. Each culture would believe that theirs was the true god and the others false. Nah, couldn't happen 🙂
28 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe problem with your hypothesis is that most organised religions were advocating monotheism long before they became big and widespread. The Christians under Diocletian and Nero, for instance, had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by sticking to their monotheism. The early Muslims (at least when Islam lacked political power) had nothing to gain likewise.
Of course there are any number forces at work in the claim for exclusivity. I just threw out one of many, but I think it should be acknowledged. A lot of organized religion (probably most) has become big business with an extraordinarily large power and financial base. It's in their best interest to claim exclusivity. The fact that they've become big busin ...[text shortened]... ture would believe that theirs was the true god and the others false. Nah, couldn't happen 🙂
28 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerLike I said, there are many forces at work and I imagine that the forces have changed in strength over the course of history. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. The force of "marketshare" appears to be quite strong at the present.
The problem with your hypothesis is that most organised religions were advocating monotheism long before they became big and widespread. The Christians under Diocletian and Nero, for instance, had absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by sticking to their monotheism. The early Muslims (at least when Islam lacked political power) had nothing to gain likewise.
I see nothing the would preclude monotheism across different belief systems, assuming that they are in fact the same god as in my example.
I'm not sure I believe the "nothing to gain" premise: admiration of one's peers, pride of being "right", etc.
28 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne1. Whatever it is, it's not marketshare or wealth or power etc.
Like I said, there are many forces at work and I imagine that the forces have changed in strength over the course of history. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. The force of "marketshare" appears to be quite strong at the present.
I see nothing the would preclude monotheism across different belief systems, assuming that they are in fact the same g e the "nothing to gain" premise: admiration of one's peers, pride of being "right", etc.
2. One can only be proud of being "right" if one, indeed, believes that one is right.
Which brings me back to the point I made initially: believers who preach monotheism do not invent the concept to gain "marketshare" but actually believe in it. They may preach it to gain marketshare, but they wouldn't invent it for that purpose if they already believe it.
28 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt wasn't my intention to explain the "invention" of monotheistic beliefs, but to look at the claims of exclusivity. Your kidding yourself is you don't think the wealth and power that are gained via marketshare aren't currently a force in organized religion today - marketshare that is enhanced by claims of exclusivity.
1. Whatever it is, it's not marketshare or wealth or power etc.
2. One can only be proud of being "right" if one, indeed, believes that one is right.
Which brings me back to the point I made initially: believers who preach monotheism do not invent the concept to gain "marketshare" but actually believe in it. They may preach it to gain marketshare, but they wouldn't invent it for that purpose if they already believe it.
29 Nov 06
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf one follows this voice and this voice is the Holy Spirit as brought to us through Christ then logically you would not be a "non- christian" you would be a christian unaware of who you were actually following.
Doesn't it therefore stand to reason that if one were to follow this voice, he would be following the will of God? Wouldn't this apply to non-Christians as well as Christians?
29 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI understand your position.
If one follows this voice and this voice is the Holy Spirit as brought to us through Christ then logically you would not be a "non- christian" you would be a christian unaware of who you were actually following.
As I posted earlier:
God is Truth.
God is Love.
To follow the ways of God, the individual must first conquer the self.
All the major religions appear to have this at their core.
So it appears that you agree that one does not necessarily have to be a practicing Christian to follow God. It also appears that you agree that following God is the point. I guess what I find tragic is that there is so much animosity between many of the believers of these religions when they ultimately can get one to the same place. I find it tragic that many of the believers of these religions find it necessary to have an exclusive claim to God, when God is for all and can be found regardless of creed.
29 Nov 06
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI agree that it is tragic , this animosity between religions but I think men have always found things to kill each other over. I would not want to take anything away from your argument on this.
I understand your position.
As I posted earlier:
[b]God is Truth.
God is Love.
To follow the ways of God, the individual must first conquer the self.
All the major religions appear to have this at their core.
So it appears that you agree that one does not necessarily have to be a practicing Christian to follow God. It also appears t ...[text shortened]... ary to have an exclusive claim to God, when God is for all and can be found regardless of creed.[/b]
I think I would contest the idea that love plays exactly the same role in all religions. For example , I would posit that Islam places a much greater emphasis on conduct and behaviour and is (dare I say) a less "forgiving" religion. There is a harshness about it which I think places it further away from representing the compassionate love and grace of God as expressed in Jesus for example.
So the two religions cannot be said to be identical. Of course a lot depends on what your concept of "love " actually is (which is why I keep asking you to define it for me) , because as soon as you decide what you think God's love is like then logic dictates that some religions will reflect that love more accurately than others (unless you actually believe all religions to be identical?)
I have debated with Muslims in the past and I know that they see the idea of Jesus dying on a cross , or washing disciples feet being too "beneath" Allah because Allah is supposed to be remote and "other". He would not allow himself to die or walk around in sandals that would diminish his holiness. For me I have a completely different notion of God's love in which he does not see himself as "beyond" but humbles himself before his creatures . God's love is such that he is prepared to get his hands dirty and walk alongside man , empathise with his suffering and enter into human passion and emotion. His glory is that he is prepared to be made into something shameful , despised on the cross to carry all our shame on his shoulders. His forgiveness and love is prepared to go to death and shame and beyond. It's in an area like this that Islam loses me because the life of Jesus gives a COMPLETELY different flavour to what God is like and the extent of his compassion for man.
So there you go. I think God's heart bleeds over religious killings but I also think his heart bleeds enough for him to reach out to us in Jesus and show us , NOT tell us , what his love is like. So I cannot agree that Islam and Christianity are the same on love I'm afraid. If God's love is a puzzle then I think Islam has got some of the jigsaw pieces but Christianity has got more of them. I don't know whether that means Christians should get exclusive about their faith but I do think that we can't pretend we haven't got more pieces of the puzzle.
30 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, I definitely don't think all religions are identical. I do believe however that religions that have Truth and Love at their core can get one to God. The rest seems relatively unimportant in my mind. In my mind it is outside of Truth. Yet the rest is what man continues to fight about.
I agree that it is tragic , this animosity between religions but I think men have always found things to kill each other over. I would not want to take anything away from your argument on this.
I think I would contest the idea that love plays exactly the same role in all religions. For example , I would posit that Islam places a much greater emphas t I do think that we can't pretend we haven't got more pieces of the puzzle.
I'm really at a loss as how to best explain my position on Love. My position is really quite simple, yet I feel that it would be difficult to impart any real understanding of it. I imagine it could take hours of conversation.
I really don't know enough about Islam to have an opinion.
However I would like to say something about Buddhism. You stated the following earlier:
This kind of love is too involved for Buddhism or Hinduism (with their emphasis on non-attachment and meditation).
Some religions place love at their foundation whereas others place holiness and doing good deeds at their foundation. Others stress enlightenment.
I assume you include Buddhism as stressing enlightenment. Not that I really know that much about Buddhism, but I gather that you may have some misconceptions about it, so I'll try to explain how I view non-attachment, enlightenment and meditation. Keep in mind that this is in pretty simplistic terms. I don't think non-attachment denotes the absence of Love. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. Non-attachment applies to the self. I believe the point is to remove attachments to one's self, so that Truth and Love are the sole focus. Enlightenment is achieved when one is able to accomplish this. Deny thyself, take up thy cross and follow Me I see the act of meditation as aligning one's self with the voice of Truth that dwells in all. It's a quiet voice, so making one's self still helps one to better hear it. Be still and know I am God Hope this makes some sense.
30 Nov 06
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne"I assume you include Buddhism as stressing enlightenment. Not that I really know that much about Buddhism, but I gather that you may have some misconceptions about it, so I'll try to explain how I view non-attachment, enlightenment and meditation. Keep in mind that this is in pretty simplistic terms. I don't think non-attachment denotes the absence of Love. In fact, I think it's just the opposite. Non-attachment applies to the self. I believe the point is to remove attachments to one's self, so that Truth and Love are the sole focus." THINKOFONE
No, I definitely don't think all religions are identical. I do believe however that religions that have Truth and Love at their core can get one to God. The rest seems relatively unimportant in my mind. In my mind it is outside of Truth. Yet the rest is what man continues to fight about.
I'm really at a loss as how to best explain my position on Love. ...[text shortened]... s one to better hear it. [b]Be still and know I am God Hope this makes some sense.[/b]
As in my point about Islam , I don't think that Buddhism has not got any of the jigsaw pieces to the puzzle , I just think that Christianity has more of them in crucial areas. I remember reading about the Buddhist/Hindu perception of Jesus years ago and one of the things I picked up was that there is a tendency to see Jesus as too attached to suffering. The assumption is that if Jesus had only been fully "enlightened" he would not have bothered about suffering or would not have suffered himself. The suffering or empathy of Christ to others suffering is seen as misguided as if he should have spent his life meditating in a remote temple rather than weeping over Lazarus. This is what makes Christianity different . It does not seek to meditate away suffering or transcend pain and hurt , it meets it square on with God's rugged , gritty compassion. When I am hurting , when I feel ashamed , when I feel ill or sick or feel depressed , or rejected and betrayed do I turn to Buddha who tells me suffering is an illusion of my ego? , or do I turn to Christ who says " I've been there , I feel your pain I'm weeping alongside you , suffering with you in compassion and love" There's something very real about a God who becomes a man and knows what hurts us. No other religion has this element, it's the missing piece! I think it's too human for Buddhism and Islam. I can understand why many baulk at Christ because his love is too near the bone for us. It hits us where we shake and tremble inside. He meets us at our deepest need and does not ask us to transcend our humanity. There's a realness and passion in Christianity that just isn't there anywhere else. As a Christian I can say that God really knows what it's like to suffer as a human and feel rejection , loss, as a human. I can't say that as a Buddhist or a Muslim
In any case Buddhists don't even believe in a God or an eternal afterlife as far as I can see. So where is the hope of love's final victory and redemption? Christianity does have it's own meditative tradition as well with it's focus on stillness. So who needs Buddhism? This is not to say that Buddhism is devoid of love and truth , but 2+2 = 4 not 5 even though 5 is close. My perception is that you seek to submerge the differences between faiths beneath generalisations and rationalisations. Maybe I should ask you less about what you believe and more about what hurts you and how your God meets you in your pain?
01 Dec 06
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf I were you I wouldn't put much stock in some article about the Buddhist/Hindu perception of Jesus. For one, I'm sure it wouldn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of Buddhism or Hinduism as a whole, if at all. For another, who knows what biases the author brought in writing it. Besides compassion is integral to Buddhism (I don't know about Hinduism).
"I assume you include Buddhism as stressing enlightenment. Not that I really know that much about Buddhism, but I gather that you may have some misconceptions about it, so I'll try to explain how I view non-attachment, enlightenment and meditation. Keep in mind that this is in pretty simplistic terms. I don't think non-attachment denotes the absence of and more about what hurts you and how your God meets you in your pain?
I imagine one make a case for Buddhism having more "pieces to the puzzle". Buddhism is arguably more detailed in the "how" and the "why of the how" of denying the self and following Truth, while Christianity is directed more at the "what". So, one could say that in Buddism 2+3=5, while Christianity only gets one to 4 🙂 But I really don't see much value in comparing and contrasting the various religions against each other. The value is in comparing and contrasting them against Truth. From what I can tell, all of the religions with Truth and Love at the core can get one there.
It's really quite simple, deny the self and follow Truth. I only wish that more people would actually do this. Sad to say, I don't see Christians having a better track record than the general population, which I find quite disturbing. The Bible has many references to denying the self, repentance, and following the Father, which seems to be largely ignored. It seems that most Christians are much more focused on God loving them, than on loving God. I'm not sure why this is so. Can you offer any insights?
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If I were you I wouldn't put much stock in some article about the Buddhist/Hindu perception of Jesus. For one, I'm sure it wouldn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of Buddhism or Hinduism as a whole, if at all. For another, who knows what biases the author brought in writing it. Besides compassion is integral to Buddhism (I don't know about Hinduism). ...[text shortened]... em, than on loving God. I'm not sure why this is so. Can you offer any insights?