1. Joined
    04 May '06
    Moves
    4713
    22 Sep '06 14:43
    I rediscovered an old article I've had and lost several time over, perhaps, 10 years or so. I thought I'd share it to see what people's thoughts were on the subject.

    "Progressive revelation is the teaching that different Messengers of God appeared in the world at different times to guide mankind on a spiritual path. All of these Messengers were sent by One God and so, fundimentally, the religion of God is one religion. Unfortunately, most people fail to see the universality of religions and there have been, and still are, constant religious wars and conflicts because each group of people believes that theirs is the only true Messenger from God."
  2. Standard memberHand of Hecate
    Merciless Vagabond
    Deep in it.
    Joined
    08 Feb '05
    Moves
    14614
    22 Sep '06 14:491 edit
    Originally posted by dmhaynes
    I rediscovered an old article I've had and lost several time over, perhaps, 10 years or so. I thought I'd share it to see what people's thoughts were on the subject.

    "Progressive revelation is the teaching that different Messengers of God appeared in the world at different times to guide mankind on a spiritual path. All of these Messengers were sent by ...[text shortened]... cts because each group of people believes that theirs is the only true Messenger from God."
    Did the Messenger we're supposed to have now get lost?
  3. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    22 Sep '06 14:53
    Originally posted by dmhaynes
    I rediscovered an old article I've had and lost several time over, perhaps, 10 years or so. I thought I'd share it to see what people's thoughts were on the subject.

    "Progressive revelation is the teaching that different Messengers of God appeared in the world at different times to guide mankind on a spiritual path. All of these Messengers were sent by ...[text shortened]... cts because each group of people believes that theirs is the only true Messenger from God."
    How could all religions be 'universal' when they contain mutually contradictory teachings? They can't ALL be right. Either salvation is gained through Christ's sacrifice, or it isn't. There is no way to reconcile that with Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religion. Either one religion is correct or none of them are. Plus your 'one god' theory is explicitly monotheist. How do you reconcile that with dualist, or pagan religions?
  4. Joined
    04 May '06
    Moves
    4713
    22 Sep '06 15:03
    Originally posted by rwingett
    How could all religions be 'universal' when they contain mutually contradictory teachings? They can't ALL be right. Either salvation is gained through Christ's sacrifice, or it isn't. There is no way to reconcile that with Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religion. Either one religion is correct or none of them are. Plus your 'one god' theory is explicitly monotheist. How do you reconcile that with dualist, or pagan religions?
    Well, Christ did declare that the Torah was the book of God and that the prophets of Israel were true. Muhammed said in the Quran that his followers must accept Christ in order to believe in him. Historians are still debating, but widely accept, that the Wise Men at Christ's birth were Zoroastrians.

    As for dualists, pagans, etc., I'm not sure how many people would classify them truly as religions. I would say the popular belief is that they are more philosophies than religions.
  5. Upstate NY
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    61
    22 Sep '06 15:05
    Originally posted by rwingett
    How could all religions be 'universal' when they contain mutually contradictory teachings? They can't ALL be right. Either salvation is gained through Christ's sacrifice, or it isn't. There is no way to reconcile that with Islam, or Buddhism, or any other religion. Either one religion is correct or none of them are. Plus your 'one god' theory is explicitly monotheist. How do you reconcile that with dualist, or pagan religions?
    A fascinating topic and an excellent use of the law of non-contradiction, by the way!

    I heard a curious statement a while back that still fascinates me: "In the West, they wonder if there is a god; in the East, they wonder which god to believe in."

    I believe the idea of all religions being one is firmly espoused by the Bahai faith, but even that faith is exclusivistic, i.e. it excludes the exclusivists. Within every major belief system, there are some non-negtiables that cannot be traded away. For example, Hinduism will never trade away reincarnation for any reason. If a faith comes along that denies this, the law of non-contradiction must step in to moderate.
  6. Joined
    04 May '06
    Moves
    4713
    22 Sep '06 15:08
    Originally posted by Ristar
    A fascinating topic and an excellent use of the law of non-contradiction, by the way!

    I heard a curious statement a while back that still fascinates me: "In the West, they wonder if there is a god; in the East, they wonder which god to believe in."

    I believe the idea of all religions being one is firmly espoused by the Bahai faith, but even that faith ...[text shortened]... f a faith comes along that denies this, the law of non-contradiction must step in to moderate.
    Interesting take, but could you explain what you mean by the Bahai Faith "excluding the exclusivists"?
  7. Upstate NY
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    61
    22 Sep '06 15:50
    Originally posted by dmhaynes
    Interesting take, but could you explain what you mean by the Bahai Faith "excluding the exclusivists"?
    Sure, my friend, be glad to. 🙂

    Essentially, this refers to the idea that the Bahai faith is synchrotistic, i.e. it take elements from other faiths and merges them into something new. Followers of this faith believe that all religions are basically one, and by excluding certain parts and including others they are saying that the perceived contradictions in these constituent faiths are to be disregarded.

    What I meant by my comment is that the practice of synchrotism, especially in the case of the Bahais, is that it leads to tacitly affirming that we all really, deep down, "believe the same thing." If anyone denies this, a synchrotistic faith will automatically gainsay the validity of their statement.

    All faiths have non-negotiables. For example, Hinduism has the Karmic cycle, Buddhism has the reality of suffering, Christianity has the Cross, Atheism has autonomy, Bahaism has synchrotism. These cannot be traded away or one ceases to be what one claims.

    Hope that helps and that it was of adequate brevity. Any further thoughts?

    Fond regards,
    R
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    22 Sep '06 15:55
    Originally posted by dmhaynes
    Well, Christ did declare that the Torah was the book of God and that the prophets of Israel were true. Muhammed said in the Quran that his followers must accept Christ in order to believe in him. Historians are still debating, but widely accept, that the Wise Men at Christ's birth were Zoroastrians.

    As for dualists, pagans, etc., I'm not sure how many ...[text shortened]... religions. I would say the popular belief is that they are more philosophies than religions.
    The christians have taken the Old Testament and twisted it all around to suit their own purposes. It doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to Judaism, as they do not accept Christ in return. Islam accepts Christ as a prophet, but does not believe salvation comes through his sacrifice. There is no end to mutually exclusive beliefs between all religions that prevents their synthesis. The only way to say they're all equally valid is to say that none of them is valid. If you want to say that all current religions are wrong and propose a new one, well that's another matter altogether...
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 13:19
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The christians have taken the Old Testament and twisted it all around to suit their own purposes. It doesn't mean the same thing to them as it does to Judaism, as they do not accept Christ in return. Islam accepts Christ as a prophet, but does not believe salvation comes through his sacrifice. There is no end to mutually exclusive beliefs between all religi ...[text shortened]... l current religions are wrong and propose a new one, well that's another matter altogether...
    This accusation you have of Christians twisting around the Old Testament to suit our own purpose.

    Would you extend that accusation to the central figure of our faith Jesus Christ? He refered to the Hebrew Bible quite a bit. Do you accuse Jesus of twisting the Old Testament to suit His purposes also?
  10. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 13:26
    Originally posted by jaywill
    This accusation you have of Christians twisting around the Old Testament to suit our own purpose.

    Would you extend that accusation to the central figure of our faith Jesus Christ? He refered to the Hebrew Bible quite a bit. Do you accuse Jesus of twisting the Old Testament to suit His purposes also?
    No, I accuse Jesus' followers of twisting the Old Testament to suit their purposes. Paul especially.
  11. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 13:42
    Originally posted by rwingett
    No, I accuse Jesus' followers of twisting the Old Testament to suit their purposes. Paul especially.
    So Jesus is A Ok with you right? YOu and Jesus are in agreement. But those bad Christians, they twisted the Old Testament to suit their purpose. That's how it goes?

    Well what about those teaching of Jesus, many many of them, which refer to the Old Testament?

    Were they all inserted latter by the Jews for Jesus? Were they all fabricated stuff placed into the mouth of Jesus by those twisting Christians?

    How come you don't recognize that we believers in Christ for the most part are simply following what He said?

    By what method to you indemnify our Lord and Master from this usage of the Hebrew Bible so that you have no complaint against Christ?

    Did you read the New Testament?
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 13:44
    Originally posted by rwingett
    No, I accuse Jesus' followers of twisting the Old Testament to suit their purposes. Paul especially.
    Could you give me an example of Paul's twisting of the Old Testament which you say has no basis in anything Jesus taught in the gospels?
  13. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 13:53
    Originally posted by jaywill
    So Jesus is A Ok with you right? YOu and Jesus are in agreement. But those bad Christians, they twisted the Old Testament to suit their purpose. That's how it goes?

    Well what about those teaching of Jesus, many many of them, which refer to the Old Testament?

    Were they all inserted latter by the Jews for Jesus? Were they all fabricated stuff placed in ...[text shortened]... Hebrew Bible so that you have no complaint against Christ?

    Did you read the New Testament?
    I don't know what Jesus said. You don't know what Jesus said. All we know is what his later followers claim he said. I don't think the christianity that we have now is what Jesus had in mind at all. The fact that there were many widely divergent groups in the early days who all claimed to be following the teachings of Jesus shows that there was much contentin, even then, as to what Jesus is purported to have said. Because the branch we have now eventually won the battle doesn't mean they were right.
  14. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    23 Sep '06 14:11
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I don't know what Jesus said. You don't know what Jesus said. All we know is what his later followers claim he said. I don't think the christianity that we have now is what Jesus had in mind at all. The fact that there were many widely divergent groups in the early days who all claimed to be following the teachings of Jesus shows that there was much ...[text shortened]... said. Because the branch we have now eventually won the battle doesn't mean they were right.
    Rwingett,

    Can you understand my skepticism?

    "Oh we don't know WHAT Jesus said. But we DO know real sure all those twisting things that Christians said He said. That we are sure about. We know someone called Matthew SAID He said this. And we know Mark SAID He said the other. And we know Luke and John SAID that Jesus said this or that. But we don't really know anything about what Jesus said."

    Now how can I be relieved of the suspicion that this is just an excuse? Perhaps you don't like the contents of the New Testament. Perhaps your reaction to this distaste is to rationalize "Oh Jesus didn't really say that."

    Am I to assume what Jesus REALLY said is something with which you would of course have no problem?

    How can I be relieved of the suspicion that this is your conspiracy theory? In essense I suspect you are really saying:

    "I don't like all those things that it says Jesus said. My reaction is therefore to claim that He didn't say them and blame all those sayings on someone else.

    Of course what Jesus really said is what I would say and believe also. Those apostles, gospel writers, and disciples all messed up and distorted the ideas that Jesus and I have had all along. "
  15. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    23 Sep '06 14:39
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Rwingett,

    Can you understand my skepticism?

    "Oh we don't know WHAT Jesus said. But we DO know real sure all those twisting things that Christians said He said. That we are sure about. We know someone called Matthew SAID He said this. And we know Mark SAID He said the other. And we know Luke and John SAID that Jesus said this or that. But we don't ...[text shortened]... sciples all messed up and distorted the ideas that Jesus and I have had all along. "
    Matthew wasn't written by Matthew. It was written by someone else and attributed to Matthew. Mark and Luke were also not written by Mark or Luke. They were written by someone else and attributed to Mark and Luke. John may have been written by someone named John, but not John the apostle. In other words, the gospels were all written anonymously and were later attributed to various figures to give them more weight. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is standard biblical history. Furthermore, none of the gospels was written down until decades after Jesus' death. Whatever Jesus may have said was passed along orally for decades before being written down, during which time it was almost certainly manipulated to fit into whatever theological framework the early christian sects were trying to construct. This is all supported by a wide variety of biblical scholars. I suggest you read some of Bart Ehrman's books, for example. I find it amazing, but the people who typically know the least about the formation of the bible are the very ones who claim to believe in it the most.
Back to Top