So... I was told to state my theory on Abrahamic religions here.

[The Stranger]

I recognise, and agree, with most of this, and I believe that the Stranger probably wouldn't object either. The problem is that by definition these standards are subjective, thus invalidating Kadagar's point.

you are right, i wont object to what GC said. i more or less agree.

My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

For the sake of argument I'll contend that the only difference between religion and a state in this instance is that states are more fluid and flexible in their methods and their institutions.

this is well said. specifically the last i agree with.

[The Stranger]

I dissagree, Christian "moral" teaching works only in the context of an all powerful God who created the world we inhabit and everything in it, including us.

The message of the Bible is, "Love God and obey him" - it is not actually about being nice to people just for it's own sake, but because we are all called to be God's servants and we are all his children. Given your status as an avowed Athiest, I would think that sits badly with you.

i dont know, western morals in modern society are still pretty much the secular version of secular society. like i think already said before in this thread an atheist from sweden, an calvinist from holland and a catholic from france have probably more in common moral wise than perhaps a japanese/chinese or aboriginal or native brazilian.

i mean to stress the point that i can see many of the christian values work even if there is no god.

[Vladimir]

The answer to your question, the only fair one, is "why don't you believe?"

That fact is, you do believe you have chosen rationally not to take the faith of any religion, yet I believe that the same rational process has led me to the conviction that there is a God, one best represented by Christian philosophy. Further, this is a situation that many people, on both sides, are in - so the only rational conclusion is that something other than our rational mind is making a decision somewhere. Increasingly, I have come to the conclusion that faith comes first, and then you develop beliefs that spring from that faith.

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

[Strike For The South]

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

Pascals wager isn't real faith

Anyway this turned into a sanctimonious circle jerk way earlier than expected

[The Stranger]

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

i think you havent understood it correctly then, there are no people without faith, that is what i belief he is trying to say. and what i have tried to say as well.

and as SFTS said believing in something because you are afraid of punishment isnt true belief... its more like fear.

[Vladimir]

i think you havent understood it correctly then, there are no people without faith, that is what i belief he is trying to say. and what i have tried to say as well.

and as SFTS said believing in something because you are afraid of punishment isnt true belief... its more like fear.

Semantics; I think both of you are missing the point: There's only an upside for me while there there may be a downside for the other.

Don't discount fear as a means of encouraging a functioning society. Everyone lives in fear every day of doing something wrong and getting punished. It doesn't matter if it's getting a speeding ticket, upsetting a friend, or going to hell.

[rvg]

Don't discount fear as a means of encouraging a functioning society. Everyone lives in fear every day of doing something wrong and getting punished. It doesn't matter if it's getting a speeding ticket, upsetting a friend, or going to hell.

This is very true. The language of pain and fear is pretty much universal and immediately understood by just about everybody regardless of culture, convictions or level of intelligence.

[The Stranger]

yes but still we do not want fear to be the foundation of our moral ethics or of our moral actions.

vladimir, if there was a god, but i did not believe in him, yet i lived my life truly virtous but for the fact that i did not believe in him, what do think should happen to me? should i still be regarded a sinner for that and be punished as all other sinners? Because if it is about being a good person, than you can be a good person without believing in god, or would you disagree with that?

[Vladimir]

yes but still we do not want fear to be the foundation of our moral ethics or of our moral actions.

vladimir, if there was a god, but i did not believe in him, yet i lived my life truly virtous but for the fact that i did not believe in him, what do think should happen to me? should i still be regarded a sinner for that and be punished as all other sinners? Because if it is about being a good person, than you can be a good person without believing in god, or would you disagree with that?

Who says it is? Let it be a positive motivator.

Again, this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're interjecting false assertions. I suppose it would depend on what virtues you embody: Are you Marcus Aurelius or Commodus? It may be impolite to judge others but what matters most is our actions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will not give my reasons for hating the idea of a divine being.

Of course they will garner a negative reaction. Since I am on this forum, I'll give a Total War Diplomacy menu analogy (In this case Shogun 2).

I'm Takeda (because I love Takeda). You are Matsuda (since I'm Shinto-Buddhist which isn't technically a religion, and you are Christian.)

Becasue of Religious Differences, you are Unfriendly to me. Fair enough. With enough Religious Divide, you will become Hostile (maybe). And if a war starts, then I'll defend myself with my superior cavalry.





I declared all religions fabrications. Yeah, but I'm not preaching this actively to everyone I see. If someone asks me on my thoughts on religion, there they are.

I'd spit in god's face, when I meet him. If he wants an appointment, he'll book an appropriate time with me. I'm not going to demand that god breaks his schedule, by barging in on him, spitting in his face, then leaving. Although, it does sound fun. It just isn't worth the effort. So, yeah, I don't actively hate religion. I just hate it. Using normal hate. Level 1 Hate.

This is just irrational loathing, it's not pretty.

You hate somnething you believe doesn't exist, that no one (even religious people) do not believe exists. That is just not healthy.

Are there lots of things you hate?

Semantics; I think both of you are missing the point: There's only an upside for me while there there may be a downside for the other.

Don't discount fear as a means of encouraging a functioning society. Everyone lives in fear every day of doing something wrong and getting punished. It doesn't matter if it's getting a speeding ticket, upsetting a friend, or going to hell.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong - because your belief in God for your own sake is not garrenteed to get you into heaven, in fact if your main reason for believing in God is because you want to go to heaven, that's selfish and God doesn't like selfishness.

[Viking]

What? Are you just trolling? In our oh-so crippled state we could crush any one nation on the globe like a bug. Afghanistan gives us trouble because we're trying to fix their country, not destroy it.

This one statement makes you look just incredibly ignorant.

User X has always been a provocateur with few useful contributions to debates. But that is for the Backroom WT, I suppose.

My take on the OP then is relatively simple. Religions were based on a combination of explaining the world as people saw it, and a basic moral code, acceptable to its converts. As societies became more complex, so did the belief systems. It is at this more complex stage that political or religious leaders may have seen an opportunity to exert more control over the populace, but to add some perspective, the very nature of a modern state is to exert control over a territorial area (and populace) for benefit, whether for an individual (dictator), or all its inhabitants (an ideal democracy).

My understaning of the history of religion is not very complex, but with it, I usually find it useful to divide the religions into two groups: the ideological ones and the ritual ones; where the former will dictate most aspects of a human's life, and the latter is mainly about rituals every now and then, seemingly placing little responsibilty on the individual.

Over time, it seems that it is always the ideological religions that win. In the world today, we have world religions, and I think this speaks volumes about this fact (because most non-ideological religions are created for the local area). Among the 4 biggest religions, 3 of them, Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are all higly ideological religions (but Hinduism also has its texts; while at the same time being geographically (culturally) somwhat limited in extent).

But something the three biggest ideological religions also have in common, is their sudden origin; they originated over a short timespan, and there was seemingly one single person at the heart of the launching of all three.

So again, it would appear to me that what one today often think of when the word religion is used, religions such as Christianity and Islam, these religions are very different beasts from older beliefs such as e.g. Norse mythology.

Now, if someone disagrees with this interpretation, I am interested in hearing about it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

you are right, i wont object to what GC said. i more or less agree.

I'm not GC. :(

[rvg]

No, I'm afraid you're wrong - because your belief in God for your own sake is not garrenteed to get you into heaven, in fact if your main reason for believing in God is because you want to go to heaven, that's selfish and God doesn't like selfishness.

IMHO God is all-forgiving, i.e. Heaven is wide open to anyone who wants to get in with no preconditions. Here's why: think of God. He's supposed to be just and omni-benevolent. Now think of a punishment, any punishment that is supposed to be stretched out over eternity. Kinda harsh, isn't it? Now think of any non-eternal punishment in the face of eternity: it's completely meaningless and pointless. Who cares if you have to spend a millenium in hell if afterwards the way to Heaven is clear? So in order for a punishment to mean something it has to be eternal.
Now let's take a look at humanity, and I'm talking the worst of the worst of humanity: the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Tamerlanes and Temujins of the world, men who have the blood of countless millions on their conscience. Do *they* deserve an eternal punishment especially for an omni-benevolent God who loves Hitler no less than he loves anybody else? IMHO, no.
In fact, the only purpose as to why Hell might even exist is because nobody is *required* to go to Heaven and those who choose not to be with God can be granted their wish Ultimately, that's Hell's only purpose: a place where there's no God. IMHO of course.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What? Are you just trolling? In our oh-so crippled state we could crush any one nation on the globe like a bug. Afghanistan gives us trouble because we're trying to fix their country, not destroy it.

This one statement makes you look just incredibly ignorant.

Don't overdo it. Bombing things into ruins, yes. Toying with British affections, sure. But crushing a nation?

You can't even manage the Afghans even with such an unlovable opponent as the Taliban. So what makes you think you could muster enough boots on the grounds to cover a properly large nation, with a much more united populace?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Because we have more and better things that go boom than anyone else? Seriously, this is stupid. There's a huge difference between conventional war and what goes on in Afghanistan.

Exactly. There's a huge difference in toppling a regime and crushing a nation, too.

[The Stranger]

I'm not GC. :(

i am sorry ACIN my mistake. also sorry that there was no intellectual rebuttal :) perhaps when im rested i have more to say about it. i find it a very interesting topic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i am sorry ACIN my mistake. also sorry that there was no intellectual rebuttal :) perhaps when im rested i have more to say about it. i find it a very interesting topic.

<3 :)

[Papewaio]

I'm inclined to agree to this. I would add that if challenged by someone without faith, I usually respond that if I'm wrong, I'm a better person for it; but if they're wrong, there's hell to pay.

Really?

You have to be good, follow the religions rules from your heart and hope if there is a god/s you are in the correct religion an sect. Because I'm pretty sure most hardcore religious variants out there believe heretics go to hell.

Pascals wager assumes that there is a god, that you've selected the right one and that you are in the right sect.

How does one determine from Zeus, Ra, Odin, God (Jewish, Islamic , Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Sunni, Mormon, Witness etc) assuming from the thousands of faiths an variants you even chose the right one you uphold it in a virteous manner?

=][=

Abrahamic religions didn't just appear from one leader afterall the root of Christian and Islam is in the Jewish traditions. The Jewish traditions can be traced back to a conglomerate of tribal traditions including multiple entity worship followed by a male and female entity on those proto-Jewish societies.

However just like a good story we attach out faiths to singular leaders. And just like most good fiction their dad didn't raise them ie Richard Rahl, Luke Skywalker, James T. Kirk post reboot, Frodo are the main hero in their morality plays and they like Jesus are not raised by their Gene donor.

I see the hope in humans not by our love of fictional characters but by our choices in liking heroes.

Did Jesus and co exist? Probably
Have their stories been edited and manipulated for maximum audience appeal? Yes
Do the stories attributed to them appear before and are formulaic for their time? Yes

Orphan sun god, with 12 disciples and one a traitor: Unique or a rehash of earlier myth?

Jesus story is about as original as Lord of the Rings. So based on prior myth but with better story telling and a couple if twists. One only has to look at the differences between LoTR books and film to see how stories change... Imagine tribes using stories based on oral only traditions.

[Sigurd]

Orphan sun god, with 12 disciples and one a traitor: Unique or a rehash of earlier myth?

Jesus story is about as original as Lord of the Rings. So based on prior myth but with better story telling and a couple if twists. One only has to look at the differences between LoTR books and film to see how stories change... Imagine tribes using stories based on oral only traditions.

Unless it is the real deal...
Then these myths would be variations from an original "Adamic" religion, where the Lord of this universe revealed these things to man and this was either written and/or retold. All the older religions would be variations of this original. Common source gives common elements.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unless it is the real deal...
Then these myths would be variations from an original "Adamic" religion, where the Lord of this universe revealed these things to man and this was either written and/or retold. All the older religions would be variations of this original. Common source gives common elements.

not a bad point, but forgive me for trying to outdo you.

Jesus is an unashamed showman, his most famous miracles, feading the five thousand, waking on water, healing the cripple in the Synnagogue, these are pieces of performance theatre. In the same way, the followers Jesus surrounds himself with are a theatrical entourage as much as a practical support team, and the whole point of this is to create a story, one which people will believe and will lead them to God.

In that context, Jesus does things either "so that the prophecy was fulfilled" or to otherwise satisfy expectations, the "fact" that he had twelve disciples is not even exactly true (It's actually even less true of Mithras), what we have are the names of twelve men who were his disciples, then in Acts these men form a Council of the early Christians that chooses a replacement for Judas. However, while the identiy of the "beloved" Disciple is identified as "John" I have found no evidence that the "beloved" was actually one of the twelve, hence "Rufas" in Dogma I suppose.

Further, twelve disciples goes well not only with the twelve Tribes, but also with the Zodiac, but there is no real importance in the NT attached to the number of disciples, which I find interesting.

[The Stranger]

Jesus is an unashamed showman, his most famous miracles, feading the five thousand, waking on water, healing the cripple in the Synnagogue, these are pieces of performance theatre. In the same way, the followers Jesus surrounds himself with are a theatrical entourage as much as a practical support team, and the whole point of this is to create a story, one which people will believe and will lead them to God.

do they truly believe in the god and wish to lead them to it for their own good, and thus they are still saintly, or do they wish to get something else from it while still believing in doing something good, or they just purely doing it for their own sake?

[Sigurd]

not a bad point, but forgive me for trying to outdo you.

Just merely pointing out that the argument against Christianity by referencing older religions with similar content should be a fallacy.

Christianity shouldn't start with Christ, it should start with the creation story. I would rather say that today's Christianity lost its original form. Somewhere along the line it lost the elements of before creation, council of, and the war in heaven. Older religion puts much emphasis on this and the savior that would redeem.
As Rhyf has pointed out in previous discussions; Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later David were Christians.
Even Abel, the slain brother, was a Christian and understood the significance of the Savior that would come. That is why his offering (a first born lamb) was accepted, but his brother Cain's were not.

[rvg]

Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and later David were Christians. Even Abel, the slain brother, was a Christian and understood the significance of the Savior that would come. That is why his offering (a first born lamb) was accepted, but his brother Cain's were not.

Nah. They were Jews. One cannot be a Christian prior to Christ's arrival by definition. Before Christ all Jews were waiting for a messiah to arrive. With Christ's arrival some saw him as the messiah and others didn't. But the distinction between the two groups could not be made prior to that.

[Sigurd]

Nah. They were Jews. One cannot be a Christian prior to Christ's arrival by definition. Before Christ all Jews were waiting for a messiah to arrive. With Christ's arrival some saw him as the messiah and others didn't. But the distinction between the two groups could not be made prior to that.

Would you say Enoch, Noah and even Abraham were Jews?
Both the Jews and the Christians believe they existed and that they have the same chance as any to inherit a place in heaven. They are not saved by their own merits, but by the saving work that Christ performed. Or for them, the work that Christ would perform.
You can't dismiss this fact of doctrine in Christianity. All men's salvation is dependent on Christ also those that lived prior to his birth. To say otherwise is not understanding what Christianity is all about. Looking to Christ for salvation is the definition of being a Christian. Not which denomination you belong to.

[rvg]

Would you say Enoch, Noah and even Abraham were Jews?
Both the Jews and the Christians believe they existed and that they have the same chance as any to inherit a place in heaven. They are not saved by their own merits, but by the saving work that Christ performed. Or for them, the work that Christ would perform.
You can't dismiss this fact of doctrine in Christianity. All men's salvation is dependent on Christ also those that lived prior to his birth. To say otherwise is not understanding what Christianity is all about. Looking to Christ for salvation is the definition of being a Christian. Not which denomination you belong to.

They believed that some day God will send a messiah (let's called him Bob for the sake of this argument). They had no clue as to what Bob would say, preach or do, nor did they have any insight into whether or not Bob would be accepted or persecuted.
Christians do not believe in some hypothetical Bob. Christians believe in Jesus who is identified by where and to whom he was born, what he did, what he preached, how he died and how he rose from the dead.

There is a pretty significant difference between Bob and Jesus. While I agree that salvation is through Christ, that does not make all those guys Christian. It doesn't mean they aren't saved either.

[Sigurd]

They believed that some day God will send a messiah (let's called him Bob for the sake of this argument). They had no clue as to what Bob would say, preach or do, nor did they have any insight into whether or not Bob would be accepted or persecuted.
Christians do not believe in some hypothetical Bob. Christians believe in Jesus who is identified by where and to whom he was born, what he did, what he preached, how he died and how he rose from the dead.

There is a pretty significant difference between Bob and Jesus. While I agree that salvation is through Christ, that does not make all those guys Christian. It doesn't mean they aren't saved either.

Do you say that Bob and Jesus are not the same entity?

[rvg]

Bob could be anybody. Only Jesus could be Bob.

Bob is God's hypothetical messiah. Jesus is a very specific person. Bob turned out to be Jesus, yes, and Jesus fits under Bob's definition, but believing in Bob does not make one Christian. The essential part of Christianity is Jesus' death and resurrection. The Davids and the Isaacs had no clue about Bob's impending fate, they didn't know that Bob would be Jesus.

In other words, Bob is Jesus' vague description, but Jesus is the person behind what Bob is supposed to be. Christians believe in that *specific* person.

[Sigurd]

Bob could be anybody. Only Jesus could be Bob.

Bob is God's hypothetical messiah. Jesus is a very specific person. Bob turned out to be Jesus, yes, and Jesus fits under Bob's definition, but believing in Bob does not make one Christian. The essential part of Christianity is Jesus' death and resurrection. The Davids and the Isaacs had no clue about Bob's impending fate, they didn't know that Bob would be Jesus.

In other words, Bob is Jesus' vague description, but Jesus is the person behind what Bob is supposed to be. Christians believe in that *specific* person.

Don't know what version of Christianity you subscribe to, but Bob, Jesus and Yaweh are supposed to be the same entity.
This is what Isaiah was prophesying about. They knew who he was and why he was coming. That the majority of the Jews - from the tribe of Judah forgot or missed the whole thing does not change the fact that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew about this prior to his coming. This was all quite clear to the early Christians, many of them of the tribe of Judah. That is why they offered up first-born lambs as a remembrance of what to come. The slaughter of God's first born for the remission of sins. The passover were also physical acts in remembrance of what to come. All these physical acts were done to remember the coming of a messiah. First as a lamb to slaughter and then as a lion who will destroy their enemies. They just missed the first part, expecting the second.
Take also into consideration the pre-Mosaic law vs. Mosaic law vs. The new order under Christ.

[rvg]

They just missed the first part, expecting the second...

Which is why they're not Christians. Unless one can conclusively prove that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would recognize Jesus as Bob if they lived in the AD years, they cannot be called Christians. They might have been, but one cannot be sure.

[Hax]

Trying to fix Afghanistan is an oxymoron. You can't fix a civil society that has never existed.