Origin of religion

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks again for the info, however, I would like to return to discussion of Larry Richards which states that the world's religions have veered away from a personal God. There are those who seem to be caught up in the similarities of various religions and there are those who are more focused on the differences. I for one am more focused on the differences. n came down in human flesh to die for us and save us. Thats the kind of God I want to serve.

Good for you. So you choose to believe in an anthropomorphic, personal God because it makes you feel better about yourself.

And all you have to do is ignore how illogical and irrational a 3 O God who is also anthropomorphic and personal to humans is! Hey whatever floats your boat.

EDIT: Larry Richards, like you, starts from a premise which has no evidence to support it.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks again for the info, however, I would like to return to discussion of Larry Richards which states that the world's religions have veered away from a personal God. There are those who seem to be caught up in the similarities of various religions and there are those who are more focused on the differences. I for one am more focused on the differences. n came down in human flesh to die for us and save us. Thats the kind of God I want to serve.

...that the world's religions have veered away from a personal God.

I disagree, though it might go against the academic consensus. I think the religions have veered towards a personal God (depending on what is meant by “personal” ). For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, YHVH literally means the one that is.

The divide is between dualism and non-dualism. I think non-dualism is the more ancient view, even though people spoke in relational terms, because that is what our consciousness tends to do.

I think there are wonderful and interesting differences in the various religious expressions. The expressions are not the same, because our understanding is not the same. An interesting example is Kashmiri Shaivism, which is ultimately monistic, but sees the ultimate One a bit differently than the Vedantists, and calls it Shiva. But the only real divide—within and across the various expressions—is dualism versus non-dualism.

EDIT: The main difference between what has become conventional Christianity and the others is that Christianity treats incarnation as a one-time, one-person event.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Good for you. So you choose to believe in an anthropomorphic, personal God because it makes you feel better about yourself.

And all you have to do is ignore how illogical and irrational a 3 O God who is also anthropomorphic and personal to humans is! Hey whatever floats your boat.

EDIT: Larry Richards, like you, starts from a premise which has no evidence to support it.

Then again, perhaps the reason he makes no sense to you is because he has the illusion of not making sense.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]...that the world's religions have veered away from a personal God.

I disagree, though it might go against the academic consensus. I think the religions have veered towards a personal God (depending on what is meant by “personal” ). For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, YHVH literally means the one that is.

The divide is between duali ...[text shortened]... tianity and the others is that Christianity treats incarnation as a one-time, one-person event.[/b]

Thanks for the response vistesd. I have learned a lot from your posts. However, if you will forgive me I just feel as though I need to get a few things off my chest. These are things I have wanted to say for a long time but have had some difficulty in trying to convey.

I realize that my position in terms of my religious beliefs are somewhat distasteful in that I am making claims of exclusivity. This is because I am saying that Christ is the way the truth and the life and not just one of many of the same voices in the wilderness, so to speak. I feel that this is what drives many people like yourself away from the traditional constructs of the Christian faith. I think many find the Christian claims about Christ not to be inclusive enough. However, to reject the Christian faith for making such claims would also seem exclusionary, no? How then can we come to terms with the world's religions without being exclusionary? I think a way to make such a position more palliative is then to say that all religions point to the same God. Perhaps even those religions that worship Lucifer himself must point to the same God. However, you still have those who are not of any faith. To say that they will be left out of being on the right belief system would be exclusionary as well. So we then say that it matters little, not only on you relate to the Almighty, but also if we choose not to actively relate to him at all. But then what of the teachings of heaven and hell. To take such an inclusive view of the fate of all of makind one must destroy such theology. There is no heaven and there is no hell. So in reality, we have unwittingly excluded all of makind from a heaven-like paradise in an attempt not to exclude anyone. I suppose you could say that we all go to heaven. However, what of those who claim there is no heaven or those who want to go to hell. They would have to be excluded from believing in a "correct" theology of some kind and you are back to the drawing boards.

Here is another way of looking at what I am trying to say. It has been my personal experience that a truth of any kind tends to be offensive to some. After all, to say that there is a truth would imply that there is also a nontruth. However, to avoid offending anyone some take the position that there is no such thing as an absolute truth. Everything is relative and interconnected or an illusion. There is no right or wrong way to think. Those that think there is absolute truth a merely not "enlightened" enough to see the relative truth. However, what makes this dogmatic postition any better than those that claim there is absolute truth? You are then bound to offend those who disagree thus forming an exclusionary statement of some kind in the process. It then seems you are back to the drawing boards.

I hope that you can appreciate some of what I have attempted to convey in my ramblings. I will say that truths in my own life that have been revealed to me have sometimes been distastful as well. After all, who likes to admit they are ever wrong? Who likes to say they just don't measure up at times? What is worse is trying to tell someone that you feel as though they are wrong about something without trying to upsett them. However, owning up to the truth and dealing with those truths I think makes us stronger in the end. I will say that it does bother me that my theology is exclusionary, however, just as other truths in my life have been somewhat distastful, so has this truth been somewhat distastful that has been revealed to me. However, my theology states that it is God's wish that none should perish so it seems to me that certain truths are just as distastful for him, if not more so, than it is for me. I take comfort in the fact that he is merciful and a just judge but on the same token I feel as though that all that have died before Christ and after only have hope that resides in him and him alone.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks for the response vistesd. I have learned a lot from your posts. However, if you will forgive me I just feel as though I need to get a few things off my chest. These are things I have wanted to say for a long time but have had some difficulty in trying to convey.

I realize that my position in terms of my religious beliefs are somewhat distasteful that have died before Christ and after only have hope that resides in him and him alone.

This thread is very interesting and I really want to participate in it, but I really have hard times these days.

We talked a lot before and after a while I start feeling that you are really upset of me. May be because I was always in the position of attacking your fiath, and try prove that you are wrong and I'm right. So I apologize for if I caused any inconveniece for you. I always felt like I see something that others don't see. May be I was thinking about the absolute true.

I didn't have much time to read the every thing in here, but I read some of your early posts and those of visited. And I think I agree with you in some points. And disagree in others.

I believe that there is only one absolute true , simply because there is only one GOD. Relative truth is not a truth, it is just an approximation of the truth. So I will say the origin of all religions on human history is the same. Actually all messages from GOD gives the same religion.

Any religion has two main parts:

1- Faith, Creed, really I don't know what is the closest word in English to what I mean. In Arabic we use the word 'Akeda' and we with this we refere to anything related to believe in GOD, heaven , hell, and related. And if you take a look at this part you will find that many religion share the same concepts. At least all prophet before Jesus agree with this part. (May be you don't agree with me). All of them that there is only one GOD, he is the creator and he is the only one who deserve to be worshiped.

This is the most important part of any religion , because that is why we are here, to know GOD and worship him.

2- The second part is the LAW , or in arabic 'Sharea':
And this deals with human dially life. And the human culture develop and change, and their dialy requirement change with time. The LAW that control their life change as well. That is why there are different LAWs. But changing the law doesn't change the religon. Changing the LAW means that this law is no more suitable for human life.

I don't know if I'm clear enough, but given what I said , there shouldn't be several religion.

What happens is that some sect of people stick to their LAW and make it a new religion, create their own LAW, or reject LAW at all. In each case new religion is created.

For example the main difference between ISLAM and JUDAISM, is in the LAW I think. May be some difference in Part 1. But basicly part two makes different religions different.

May be you ask me what is this single religion:

If you look at part one , you will find the answer. Know GOD, belive in him and submit yourself to him. Then look for part 2.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by whodey
Thanks for the response vistesd. I have learned a lot from your posts. However, if you will forgive me I just feel as though I need to get a few things off my chest. These are things I have wanted to say for a long time but have had some difficulty in trying to convey.

I realize that my position in terms of my religious beliefs are somewhat distasteful ...[text shortened]... that have died before Christ and after only have hope that resides in him and him alone.

Well, I have not found a way to bridge the divide between a non-dualistic and a dualistic viewpoint. A non-dualist might attempt that by saying that religious dualism is some sort of “subset” of ultimate non-dualism—but that just (1) says that seeing things in terms of an ultimate God-universe dualism is still part of maya, and (2) will be offensive to dualists.

Actually, I think that the dualist view is ultimately illusory, though it may be a natural illusion, so to speak. However, the purpose of my “Incoherent God?” thread is to see what counter-arguments might be presented here.

So, yes: in the end there is either one or, minimally, two. My perspectivism leads me to think that different religious expressions—I should say, the monistic streams within those expressions—are simply differing attempts to talk about that ultimate One (some of them, perhaps, better than others). That is why I find it easier and easier to move among them. A dualist likely views the non-dualistic expressions in what is normally considered to be a monotheistic religion as heresy.

So, I think you may be right: ultimately dualism and non-dualism are mutually exclusive. Only at that secondary level can dualistic expressions be considered in any way valid within non-dualism.

BTW, you have never offended me on here.

Originally posted by ahosyney
This thread is very interesting and I really want to participate in it, but I really have hard times these days.

We talked a lot before and after a while I start feeling that you are really upset of me. May be because I was always in the position of attacking your fiath, and try prove that you are wrong and I'm right. So I apologize for if I caused any belive in him and submit yourself to him. Then look for part 2.

Have a nice day.

Sorry to have upset you in the past. You see this is what I am talking about. We both have religious beliefs that make exclusive claims. All in all I think we have more in common that you realize. We both agree that there is only one God. We both agree that the God of Abraham is this God. We both agree that there is a heaven and a hell and how we respond to God's call to serve him holds our eternal fates in the balance. These are all things we agree upon. However, what we disagree with are also exclusive claims. You believe that Mohammad was God's prophet and that the Quran is the incorruptible message of God. I believe that the Bible is and continues to be God's incorruptible message and further believe that Christ was the completion or perfection of God's law of love which superceedes all other laws, because Christ said that he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. From your perspective you must confess Allah to be God above all and confess Mohammad as his prophet and submit to him as where I believe one must confess Christ as their Lord and recieve him as their Lord and Savior and submit to him. You might say we are a couple of fundi nightmares for those who do not agree with either of our positions. However, I would say that three modern day major religions point to the same God of Abraham as being the one true God. I say that this is a good indication that at least one of us is on the right track. This God has withstood the test of time itself and his presence in today's world can be felt globally as never before. To this I think we can also agree.