Whew… these take too long. I may cut back to one a week. Sorry it’s not color. I’m out of time. Chill, baby!
ComicStripClub.com
The home of ranting and panting…
-
August 2010 S M T W T F S « Mar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 -
Latest Comics
-
Monthly Archives
June 25th, 2009
Be HOLD It Now HIT IT
-
Menu
Categories
CSC Links
I clicked on the penis reduction ad, it’s pretty funny.
The other one seemed really out of place. I’ve been seeing ads for a couple of those services on TV, specificly for booty calls or extramarital crap. Disturbing.
My wife got a kick out fo the Obama for Antichrist shirt site. We saw it last summer wnd we had been joking for a while that he was the antichrist when we saw it.
That shirt was on CNN, believe it or not! Got a kick out of seeing it.
I won’t say that the “discrepancy” in the the Prophecized name of the Savior is a “make or break” issue on the validity of Christianity. That would be absurd. However, it highlights the certainty upon which the claims of the Bible should be viewed. Hapajab is correct that the storied history of the Jews is record within the Old Testament (both good and bad). My point is that it is written from the Jewish perspective alone. The History of the City of Jeruselum would show that many peoples believe that they are God’s chosen people and that Jeruselum was promised to them. – And thus all the bloodshed.
For a true perspective on history, one needs to undertstand the perspectives of all invovled (if possible). In this light, conflicting accounts are as valuable as collaberating ones. It is in this regard that I have issues with the Bible’s supposed “historical evidence”.
Wow, Da Big Nig, You’re really in a hole. You’re mother’s that much of a MILF? I guess “Bro’s before Ho’s” can’t apply here. LOL
The whole ad thing ties into the thread about the American Founding Fathers anf their vision for America. It’s all about commercialization nowadays. The almighty dollar seems to be the Highest Ideal to which some American subscribe.
Hey, did you guys catch the “about face” Mitt Romney and John McCain made on “Climate Change” after congress passed the new environment bill?
Didn’t catch it, what did they do?
After the environment bill was passed (cant recall the long name of the bill at the moment), those two basicly stated that Climate change was real and that the bill is meant to address that fact. Other Republicans went on to (predictably) decry the bill as a tax bill rather than an environmental one. I caught it on the Cobert Report last week, but I’m sure you can find it on more “reliable” sources.
McCain is a tool. I lost respect for Romney the second he backed out of the race. He should have been the VP nominee, just for his economic acumen, but he was never a favorite of mine.
You should see the whole story on how that bill was passed. It’s about 1200 pages, but at 3am the morning before the 11pm, vote a 300-page amendment was passed. This is not one of those attatch onto the back ammendment, it’s one that line by line makes changes. The fully revised copy wasn’t ready by the time of the vote, so they were voting on whatever they could parse…if they read it at all…
Just as a note, only the Jews were promised Jerusalem. The Christians were only interested in it because it was the biggest city in the area and wanted it as a capitol…and the Templars who had a keen interest in the temple mount. Otherwise the Christians interest in the city is only due to it’s history and importance as a regional center. In fact, the Christians are promised a NEW Jerusalem, much better than the current one.
The Muslims weren’t promised it eitehr. It is important to them as a major holy site. Unfortunately that holy site is specificly a rock that is supposedly both the cornerstone of the second temple and the place where Muhammad ascended to heaven (just for a visit, he came back).
The Jews were promised Jerusalem, but many believe that the restoration of the temple will only occur when their Messiah arrives. Their predictions for the Messianic Age are very different than the Christian one.
Maybe that confession from a senator in “Fehrenheit 911″ whereby he states to the effect that “If you think we read everything we vote on , your crazy”.
If the American public demands accountability from their elected officials, why is the practice of making a 300 page last minute amendment to bills in place. If accountability is really a priority, it should be required that all senators and house members read and understand the bills on which they are voting – otherwise they must abstain from voting. There should be a minimun quorum of elegible votes before it counts.
With these two requirements in place, tactics like the making such huge last minute changes -which in my opinion, basicly negates everyone’s understanding of a proposed bill anyways- obsolete.
My point oabout the history of Jeruselum, is that the Jewish history of that city is not the only one, and to consider it only from the Jewish perspective does not allow for a full and complete understanding of the history of Jeruselum. Likewise, considering only the Bible and/or discounting anything that would challenge the Bible’s assertions as historical evidence of that time period provides a flawed understanding of that time period.
Wasn’t it Obama’s campaign promise that all bills would be made public for 5 days before they were voted on, for transparency and openness? Lol. Yeah, good one, ‘O’.
I guess he forgot that bill… on the other hand, it may have been part of the 300 pages of amendments, but no one’s read about it yet. Now that would be ironic. LOL
Actually, his promise is that it would be public for 5 days before he decided on vetoing the bill. Obama can’t control the house and senate any more than they can control him.
As for this bill, it’s over to the senate for debate before Obama can even get a crack at it.
The amendment is a crappy move and I agree with kuni that those would be a good start to get some accountability. I’d write to my congresswoman, but she has shown herself to be gutless.
I think this might pique your interest Hapajap: “The world’s oldest Bible goes online” http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2009/07/07/10052161-ap.html
Here’s another: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/07/02/10004286-ap.html
This one’s about how the climate change (getting warmer) is affecting sheep size.
Food for thought:
I just finish reading the graphic novel “Powers: Secret identity” by Brian Michael Bendis and Mike Avon Oeming. There is a scene in which “Satan” visits a protagonist. In one particular frame, we as “Satan”, his reflection on a TV screen (altered form) and his silhouette casted on a wall. The silhouette was of a bearded man with a crown of thorns. (obviously hinting at Jesus Christ.)
This got me thinking. What if the founders of all major religions (or to make it more palatable – all religions except for the one true religion (whichever that may be)) were in fact the devil or his agent in disguise?!?
For all of the blessings that religion has brought to the world, it is indisputable how much misery and violence has been wrought in the name of religion / God throughout human history. What if creating differing religions was the devil’s strategem to incite rebellion against GOD? (I say the devil here, but I mean the concept of the antithesis of a benevolent God – which is found in most religions.) I think Al Picino’s character said it best in the “Devil’s Advocate” when he said, “The devil’s greatest trick ismaking men believe that he doesn’t exist.” Militarily speaking, this would be a strategy that even Sun-Tze would find brilliant ,in my opinion.
Of course, the devil would have probably tried creating religions more suited to this tastes first. But those would have died out as they don’t appeal to basic human nature as much as the current major religions do.
So in creating “peaceful, benevolent, compassionate” religions, the devil could string people along, give them something to fight for. Then he could add seemingly benign concepts that would provoke strife. (”The Chosen People” – Judaism, the Caste system -Hinduism, The Jihad as a way to “save” the souls of the Infidels – Islam and “The Crusades” – Christianity). This would be the Christian Devil’s classic technique of taking something holy and twisting it into something profane.
Of course, I realized that the point is moot as far as I was concern, seeing as how I believe in neither GOD or Devil. But for those who are religious… any thoughts on the idea?
Yup. Basically, that would be the idea, wouldn’t it? Any religion that isn’t the true religion leads those who follow it away from the truth. Whether they were by devilish appointment, or simply the creation of man, it’s the same basic logic.
Bottom line, either ONE religion is right, or NONE of them are. Since they all contradict each other (excepting Judaism and Christianity, as one fulfills the other, they are basically the same), they cannot ALL come from one perfect and all-knowing God.
Good catch.
Hapajap wrote: “excepting Judaism and Christianity, as one fulfills the other, they are basically the same”.
Whoa…What happened to Christianity is unique?
“Bottom line, either ONE religion is right, or NONE of them are. Since they all contradict each other (excepting Judaism and Christianity, as one fulfills the other, they are basically the same), they cannot ALL come from one perfect and all-knowing God. ”
Obviously, I’m going to say that all religion are man-made and thus none of them are “right”. I took John Lennon’s advise to “Imagine there’s no Heaven/ It’s easy if you try./ No Hell below us/ Above us only sky./” and realised that the core philosophy of the major religions are all the same and that this commonality reflected the basic human desire to live in peace. As such, the world would continue revolving without the concept of Heaven or Hell. Further, it convinced me that Religion (though it does serve a metaphysical human need) is merely another level of tribalism and another means by which we as human can discriminate amongst ourselves. In that sense, I’d say that all religion – including the one true religion is part of “the Devil’s Brew.”
Islam recognises Jesus as a true prophet of Allah. In that light, Judaism, Christianity and islam are essentially the same religion. It’s all or the cultural layering (bias and interpretations) that gets attached to the core philosophy which differentiate them.
Christianity IS unique. It is, however, the fulfillment of Judaism. Remember that most of the first and early Christians were Jews, and didn’t separate themselves from their Jewish roots. In fact, early Christians were seen as merely a sect of Judaism. Which in truth, it is. It is the sect of Judaism that accepts Christ as the Jewish Messiah.
Islam rejects who Christ really is, to lower him to the level of a prophet that is sub-par to Mohammed. And then goes so far as to say you should kill Jews and Christians if they will not be subservient to Muslims. Thus, no, Islam is not ‘essentially’ the same religion by a long shot.
With Jusus being a prophet of the “ONE TRUE GOD”, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same “ONE TRUE GOD” – despite the different man made label (name) attached to the enitity.
The question for me is: What’s more important? “ONE TRUE GOD”, or who was or wasn’t his envoy/ avatar (god given form)?
If it’s the former, then all of the fighting between these religions is pretty much an affront to the “ONE TRUE GOD”, as it was his commandment that those truly faithful to HIM be treated by others faithful to HIM in a certain manner – that does not include malignant violence.
If it is the latter, then I’d say there’s a propblem about priorities.
Back to my original food for thought: I’m thinking that I watered down the thought to much in order to make it “palatable”. My question really is “What if ALL religions are merely a means to separate humanity into different “tribes” so as to allow for descrimination by one “tribe” of the others?
Are you going to keep doing more pages?
I know, I know. I haven’t even had time to blog. Heading out of town tomorrow morning, then it’s comic con, then it’s catching up on work… just crazy busy, man. Sorry.
kuni, you are in some ways describing Gnosticisim, which roughly beleives that a lesser god or the devil created the world and was the old testament god, but that Jesus came to help save us from the flawed world and an endless cycle of reincarnation.
Islam believes that the belief in Jesus as the Son of God was a corruption of his teachings. They beleive that the cycle in the old testament where the chosen people keep drifting from the truth is continued after Jesus, which included a slow corruption of the holy texts. As a result, God had Gabriel reveal the corrected divine texts to Mohammed. In a sense Islam is a continuation of the trend that has happened in the religion.
From the Christian perspective, Islam is a rejection of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus. From a Jewish perspective, the same could be said about Christianity. I have a number of Jewish friends, and they do NOT see Chrisitianity as a branch of Judaisim.
From the Muslum perspective, it is taught that Islam is a correction and update of Judaisim and Christianity. While they forbid the attempted conversion of Muslums and require a tax, they are forbidden by the Koran to force conversions or to harm Christians and Jews living and worshiping peacefully in Islamic countries. Considering what the Christians in the 7th century were doing to the Jews and Pagans, this was fairly progressive.
In the new testament the conversions were certainly peaceful and the Christian Bible teaches peaceful living. In the accounts of the early converions of Muslums were similarly peaceful. In particular, a man known as Omar wanted to kill Mohammed until he heard the Koran being recited, and was immediately converted.
Now, John Lennon had later in his life stated taht he didn’t like his song imagine as it was to saccharane. Interestingly, the webcoomic Order of the Stick just ran a strip where it was argued that the existance of an afterlife helped promote wars, as a person is more willing to risk their life for a cause if he can be assured that he will get a just reward. This doesn’t explain those who go to war for profit, as their reward is on Earth. In that case, one could say taht the nonbelief in an afterlife could be equally motivating, as that get worldly ill-gotten gain without eventual repercussions. Lacking an afterlife would further push this as they are inclined to use illicit means to get rich because thay have to get it before they die.
Christianity, Islam and Judaism-
Founding-
Judaism – Abraham was tested by God by ’sacrificing’ his son to God. Later to seal the deal, Abraham had to cut off his foreskin.
Christianity – Jesus fulfilled prophecy by dying and resurrecting. This permitted ANYONE, even ‘the worst of the worst’ to find forgiveness and redemption with God.
Islam – Mohammad got a bunch of messages/instructions from Gabriel.
The ‘founders’-
Abraham – A humble man who wanted a good and strong family. God gave him that and so much more.
Jesus – Son of God, Perfect Man, showed that even the worst of us can enter Heaven if they seek forgiveness and repent.
Mohammad – An illiterate man who started quite a few wars for no reason other than to spread Islam. Religion founded at the point of the sword is a horrible thing.
The message-
Judaism – Have faith and trust in God and even the worst of days will turn out fine in the end.(Happens a lot in the OT) Abraham’s line will prosper forever.
Christianity – Be forgiven and repent of your sin. Believers will have eternal life in Heaven.
Islam – Just believe and make sure your good outweighs your bad and you’ll get into Heaven. It’s alright to lie if it spreads Islam to others.(Which is strictly forbidden the Bible)
Graeystone: Tokker points out, “a cycle…a slow corruption of the holy texts” as well as a “correction and update” as the perspective of newer religions that build themselves off the foundation of previous religions. In this case the chain of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Buddha also expressed this idea when he promised to return once the path to enlightenment is “overgrown” and thus once again concealed.
With this in mind, your post does illustrate the differences between Islam, Judaism and Christianity. But it also points to the commonality in all three:
Abraham was tested by God. (Judaism), Jesus as “God on Earth” (Christianity). Mohammad got… instructions from Gabriel – Gabriel is an agent of Abraham’s God.
As such, all three religions worship the same God – regardless of the name associated with that god and the interpretation of that God’s message.
Another commonality in all three religion deals with how the faithful are supposed to treat other faithfuls- with compassion, charity and generosity.
In light of this, my question is: how can people who worship the same God, allow differences in their interpretation of God’s messages to trump the common recognized directive to treat each other (true faithfuls) with compassion, charity and generosity?
I recognize the rationalization that “those of different religion/ sect don’t agree with all of one’s belief and thus are not “true faithfuls”.” But to use such a rationalization, prioritizes one’s judgement over the wisdom of an omniscient God. I would consider this Hubris at the very least.
The Catholic/ Protestant warring is a prime example of this quandry. Both sides are Christians, but how they treat each other is very unChristian. What is more important: honouring God and this instructions for livings (common to both), or whether or not the Pope (and by extension, the Catholic church) really is that |God’s current representative on Earth? (Obviously I am simplifying the schism between Catholics and Protestants, but I find that in this case, it adds clarity to the question.)
Tokker: There is an extension to the Gnosticism analogy. In Gnosticism, these lesser entities that “created the world” and decended onto that world so as to play “God”. One lesser entity though, was sent down unto this world in an attempt to redeem it. That lesser entity was “Sophia” (Wisdom.)
Aside: philosophy = philos (to love) + sophia (wisdom)
With this analogy applied to various faith, “Sophia” the redeemer = Abraham, Moses, Horus, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha (according to Osamu Tezuka’s “Buddha” series, the “old man” that Siddhartha encounters is actually Brahman. And this “Old Man” starts Siddhartha on the road to enlightenment.) and arguably Kali/Ganesh combo.
With regards to the existance/ non-existance on an Afterlife being a motivating factor: I personally think that (being an Athiest) since there’s no afterlife, I gotta make of the one life I do have. I can’t afford to weigh myself down with regret, grudges and mindlessness. I can’t allow myself to wallow in self pity and lethargy. I can’t afford to not “stop to smell the roses.”
I suppose that most people will rationalize an afterlife (or lack thereof) as a justification of whatever their scruples (or lack thereof) prioritizes and not the other way around.
I think Hapajap best understood my initial inquiry. (What if all Religions were created by “evil” entities” -purely as a means to divide by uniting them into separate, disparate and warring tribes?) Obviously, everyone will claim that their religion the “true” one. But what if this too is a fallacy?
I believe that mankind’s ancestors created Religion, to answer the questions that his rapidly evolving perspective on the world posed.
There is a real and current need for philosophy as a moral and ethical compass for humanity- one of the major functions of religion. But the rituals and dogma associated with religion often obsure the philosophy at the root of the religion. Unfortunately, it is the rituals and dogmas that are often Identified as central to a religion and not the philosophy. As such, the part of religion that is most helpful to humanity as a whole is set aside for the most devisive. (It is easier to control people with rituals and dogma than with philosophical debate.)
With the world’s history of religious conflict, is religion really such a “divine”thing?
Mohammed never wiped out an entire people, as Joshua did.
He was driven from Mecca for preaching Islam and then, after uniting the tribes of Medina returned to reconquer his home. At that point he died. Later Muslims fought wars to expand their empire, but I repeat that the Koran explicitly forbids forced conversion.
A later Islamic philosophy allowed Muslims to lie and pretend to have converted when forced. This seems to me consistant with a rejection of forced conversion.
Abraham bought a yard in Cannan, his decendants fled Cannan for generations, then they returned and wiped out the Cannanites and claimed the whole land. They were not out to save the Cannanite’s souls, but to take the land. Then this process is repeated again in modern times.
Can you hold Mohammed responsible for forced conversions that he forbid? By that measure the forced conversions an dholy wars of the Christians can be blamed on Jesus. The first Holy Roman Emporer order mass slaughters of pagans who would not convert.
I have talked with many Muslums and I find their religion has many attractive qualities, such as a heavy emphasis on responsibility for one’s actions, care for the poor. In Islam a woman can divorce her husband if she choses. Mohammed’s wife was a trusted advisor. In the Letter to the Hebrews, a widow younger than 60 years old cannot be admitted to the church for fear thet she would be sexually immoral and a gossip.
The bottom line for me is that I have found many people who have turned religions that teach admirable morality, such as Islam, Christianity, and Judaisim, and turned them into conduits for them to grab for power, and satiate their lust for blood and plunder.
I once posted that the concept of the “Chosen People” was found in many Religions and that it was a devisive one. In response, someone posted that the Jews are the only “Chosen People” and that others (including Christians) would not make that claim.
Apparantly, the Calvinist sect believed themselves to be “the Chosen people” in a fashion. They believed that they were the few predestined for heaven, while all others are bound for hell.
Tokker: I couldn’t agree with you more.
One of the aspects of Judaisim that Jesus preached against was the mindless devotion to dogma and ritual. He preached that they focus on following the law, but not on the intent of the law. He simplified this into loving God with all your heart and to love thy neighbor. Later books of the Bible expanded on this idea to include the precept that it is not what a person puts into their mouth that makes them unclean but rather what comes out of their mouth. Another is that good deeds (rituals) will not save a person, but faith and God’s grace. Also to not argue over tidbits of dogma while forgetting the community of Christ or faith in God. Finally that to a man who is pur of faith can’t be dirtied by impure food, while to a man of impure faith, all food is impure.
One of my Muslim friends related to me a story told by an Imam: To a Muslim, pork is forbidden. A Muslum is starving in the desert. He happens to have a piece of pork. He see’s that there is a piece of beef nearby, but it is guarded by a fierce lion, and he is unarmed. What should he do?
The Imam told him that the man should eat the pork. Allah would understand and forgive him.
I am troubled by the fact that I beleive that there is one faith and one truth. My response is to try to examine what I have in front of me, make the best decision I can, and pray that God will have mercy.
If there is one God, there can be only one truth. God cannot contradict himself, or he is not God. This isn’t a statement of faith, it’s a statement of pure logic.
If many claim to have the words of God, then they should all be tested. All have been tested and found wanting, except the Bible.
How so?
The Bible contains an enormous amount of accurate prophecy. Some say fully 1/3 of the Bible is prophetic. Only God knows the end from the beginning.
The Bible has never been found to be historically inaccurate. There is a saying to this account that every time an archeologists spade digs into the ground, another doubt about the authenticity of the Bible is erased.
The Bible has medical and scientific foreknowledge that is unequalled in any other ancient text. The earth being a sphere, that the universe had a definite beginning, the requisite ‘ages’ of the creation (light/energy, earth/matter, water, plants, animals, man), and dozens if not more others. Medical knowledge like avoiding certain specific animals that, when eaten if prepared improperly, can cause disease and death. Cleansing of metal or wooden containers used to hold meat, but destroying clay or porous containers that would breed bacteria. Dozens of other ‘ritual’ laws that actually kept the Hebrews healthy.
One particular prophecy in Ezekiel was fulfilled exactly to the day some 3500 years after it was written. May 14, 1948. The day that Israel, a nation that hadn’t existed for near 2,000 years, came back into existence. A feat never accomplished on this planets history. And at the time it was uttered, Israel was still a nation. It wouldn’t be destroyed and it’s people scattered around the globe for 1500 years.
Those among many other reasons prove that the Bible isn’t just some book written by a bunch of sheep herders who thought they could lead the world of men. And the fact that the authors were threatened by the laws of their first ’savior’, Moses: That if anyone should claim to speak for God, to call themselves a prophet of God, if what they say does not come to pass as evidence that they do in fact speak for God, they shall be stoned to death… Well, you can bet only the ones who weren’t stoned to death were the ones whose words made it into this unique and Holy book.
Try to run that test on any other Holy book on the planet, and you’ll come up far short on every count.
hapajap-Actually Israel made a come back not once but twice. The first time was when they were exiled to Babylon then in 1948. The chances a country is ‘ruined’ then ‘restored’ not once but twice has to be astronomical.
What about Egypt? It’s government was effectivley destroyed twice during ancinet times (the ends of the Old Kingdom and New Kingdom) and then was destroyed by Rome after the Ptolemies, restored as a seperate kingdom under the Abbasaids, taken down, and is restored as a modern state. Granted the modern state of Egypt is populated by people who are now a mix of Arabs as well as the varoius peoples that have moved there in all these centuries, but the same could be said in Israel.
I difference is that Egypt lost a lot in the process while Israel was able to retain the majority of what was important. The majority of Israelis and Jews still worship the same God as Abraham and Moses. Very few Egyptians however still worship the pantheon of gods their ancestors did.
Also keep in mind that during the time of being a conquered land, Egyptians were not spread to the four winds like the Jews were.
For most of those destructions they did retain their old gods. Their conversion from polytheisim to monotheisim occured reletavely peacefully during the Roman era.
Also, the majority of the Jewish tribes never returned. While the lands of Israel were restored, the ten tribes of Israel were not. The tribes that did return were transplanted as a group to Babylon and then transported back as a group. A similarity could be drawn to the voluntary relacation in Exodus. Some of the Jews were never removed in either of the scatterings.
Now, with the diaspora, they were scattered widely over time. They did, however, keep to small and relatively isolated exclaves in their new homes. They definitely did not go through this unchanged. There were signifigant changes in the religious practices caused by this shift which are still practiced today. Most of these changes revolve around the priesthood. The priests, he center of religious practice, have not been restored as they have no temple. The rabbis, who were a small part of the old teachings, not even discussed in the Old Testament, are now the central figures in Judaisim.
The Bible is undoubtedly a book full of wisdom. There would be few who would argue against that. However, if the prohecies fulfilled are done in the same vein of the “Jesus = Emanuel” prophecy of Matthew 21-23 then it is a tenuous fulfillment.
With regards to the creation of the Nation of Isreal, being prophecized to the day, I have two doubts. First, is the exact date the prophecy was written known? If not, then your claim Hapajap, may be an overstatement.
If it was known, consider this scenario: It is the end of WWII. The allied nations gather to discuss the plight of the Jewish people. The idea of creating the Nation of Isreal is proposed and adopted. Is it possible that the date set for the creation of Isreal may have been suggested by a biblical scholar? Humanity is known for the love of “poetics”. Nothing would have been more poetic than to fulfill an ancient prophecy.
Consider that Nostradamus prophecized that at the turn of the 2nd millenium, there would be 8 years of strife followed a new “golden era” for humanity. Now some would claim that Nostradamus’ prophacy refers to the Bush Administration, while others, like Hapajap would say that the two have nothing to do with one another.
That is the nature of prophecies. They are often obtuse and their fulfillment depends on the interpretation of the prophecy itself.
The Bible is historically accurate in that it chronicles the history of the Jewish people. However, it does not cover the history of the entire world. Asia and the Americas are not dealt with. Africa and Europe are covered only as Egypt and the Mediterranean cultures. The Han peoples had a dynasty within the history of the unified China. They were overthrown and now they are once again the dominant culture of modern China. One could argue that their nation was restored. The Viet people were subjicated by the Chinese, then the French. The Americans made an unsuccessful claim. Now the Viet people have their nation restored to them.
The Bible is many things. It may be the Book of Truth – but only for one culture. not the universal truth.
Now, going back to the differences Graeystone mentioned with the religions, I have a few otehr things to day. First, I don’t think there was any evidence that Abraham wasn’t also illetirate. Given the historical circumstances it’s likely he was illetirate. Mohammed was known to be a good man. He was very good to his wife, protected his family, was failthful to God, and loved cats.
You talked about each religion in terms of forgiveness of sins, emphasis on good works, and faith in God.
In Judaisim, faith in God is pretty much assumed. The emphasis is on actions. The method for forgiveness of sins used to an elaborite set of rituals at the temple. With the temple gone, modern Jews focus on leading a good life and hope for a forgiving God.
In Christianity, faith in God is critical. Christianity focuses on both proper thought and proper acts. Sin should be avoided both in act and thought. A Christian is taught to actively believe. The question of salvation varies widely by sect. Calvinists and their decendants belief that ONLY be grace are we saved. Good deeds are an outward sign of God’s grace. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that God’s grace is obtained through good acts. In that light we are saved by our actions. The other sects are in this range.
In Islam, faith in God is essential. The first thing a convert must do is to say “There is no other god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.” At thsi point, belief in God is established, and a Muslim demonstrates faith through good acts. I believe that the approach to forgiveness of sins is, like the Jews, to try to lead a good life, try to make amends for sins, and have faith in a forgiving God. The community is involved in supporting a believer, but more as a general support. Islam emphasises both proper thought and actions. They charicterise a mental war against sin.
Now in terms of there being people in position to restore Israel looking at the prophecy and saying, “Well, look at that.”: it doesn’t make the prohecy invalid. God at many times in the Bible has used people as the instruments of his work. There is still the wonder that those people were at that place at that time with minds open to that possiblility.
How can Jews ‘assume’ they have faith? Everyone from Noah to Malachi knew that when they believe(have faith) in God, things happen. There was never any assumption with the Jews. They never said, “We assume to believe in God.” It was always, “We believe in God.” The same is true with Christians.
The thing about ‘doing good to get saved’ is empty. It is the same problem as saying one must obey God’s Law to be saved. In either case, no man would be able to do enough good or follow the Law according to God’s Standards which is 100% doing good and following the Law 100% of the time. Even for the most faithful of men this cannot be done.
And God always knew this even before creation. So in His Infinite Wisdom, He came up with plan so not all not all of mankind would perish because of sin.The Son would come to the planet and fulfill the Laws by never breaking the Laws and giving those Laws.(God will not sin nor tempt others to sin.) Jesus also brought with Him the true intent and meaning of God’s Law. Also by dying and resurrecting, Jesus defeated the great enemies – Satan, sin, and death. When Jesus resurrected, He paved the way for those who sought God’s Forgiveness and the ability to truly repent which is done through Jesus.
My meaning in faith is assumed is because Jews do not have to make a verbal oath of faith to God. By observing his law they demonstrate their faith. It is assumed that an observant Jew believes in God without a seperate profession of faith.
While your beliefs about Jesus are valid for those who believe in Christianity, Jews would not agree. For Christians, there is the belief that Jesus has replaced the high priest and the saccrifices, but in Jewish belief thsi is not the case. God understood taht the Jews, in the time before Jesus, also couldn’t follow the law 100% of the time. In that case, he gave them saccrifices of attonement to redeem themselves from all but the most horrible sins.
In Catholic belief, good actions are essential to salvation. Even with the sacrament of reconciliation, where Cathilics believe that sin is forgiven, the sacrament is not complete until the pennance is done. Death without some form of reconciliation damns you. This to me sounds very much like justification by acts. That was, in fact, one of the great theological disagreements between the Catholics and Martin Luther. Catholic chatechisim specificly states that those outside of the church that live good lives still ahve a chance to reach heaven.
In Jesus’s teachings, he specificly states that at the last judgement he will ask about the good deeds of each person, “When I was naked you clothed me / didn’t clothe me.” Jesus, in the Gospels, focuses on good acts and a moral life. The beliefs in justification by grace alone are in the epistles, but those epistles specificly instruct followers that this did not mean that they could live amoral lives.
Exactly how does a merciful God give no chance for redemption to massive amounts of the population? If being Christian is the only way to be saved, then all of the Americas before 1492 had no practical chance for salvation and no possilbe chance prior to 1 A.D. I know this a classic question, but I fail to see an answer in your theology.
By your argument, Abraham was also damned, as the way was not paved for him.
Justification by acts combined with a God who forgives human failings to me seems the only way to resolve this.
Sounds a lot like a discussion Hapajap and I had on another thread. If I recall correctly, Hapajap’s stance was that only faith in Jesus as Savior was required for Salvation. That “good works” were unneccessary, but still the moral thing to do.
Sounded to me like Martin Luther and the Protestant’s position at first. But then Hapajapmentioned that he believed in Purgatory – definitely not Lutheran.
In Martin Luther’s time, “Good works” as defined by the Catholic church was basicly “good works” towards the Catholic church itself. Part of the corruption of the church that Martin Luther was “Protesting”.
From an outsider’s perspective, It seems to me that if your actions do not reflect your professed faith, then your faith really isn’t true. If you say that you believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings, but yet you can’t be characterized as charitable, compassionate or tolerant, then you can’t really “believe” as you profess. Hypocrisy and faith are at opposite ends in this regard. The same can be said about Islamic Extremist “suicide bombers”. I doubt anyone other than those within their group and the uninformed would consider then “faithful Muslims”.
In this regard, as I agrued with Hapajap, I believe that the Christian doctrine requires “good works” (moral living, in alignment with the intent / spirit of Jesus’s Christ’s teaching) for salvation. These “works” need not be monumental accomplishments in honour of Christianity. But rather, they should be mindful, and deliberate attempts of following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
From what I have read in the New Testament, good works are one essential ingredient to salvation.
Hebrews 10:26-27: “For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.”
Hebrews 11 on the other hand clearly states that faith is also an essential ingredient. Also James 2:14-17: “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”
Hapajap: You said that you based your faith on scripture. Well how’s those scriptures Tokker quoted sit with your view on the necessity of “works” for salvation?
[...] that’s pretty much everything in a nutshell. Lately, Hapajap seems to be branching out into religious matters, which kinda makes him the conservative Robert Crumb. Good for [...]