What is your Religion: Part II

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I felt I understood it then and I feel I understand it now. I understand that the holy trinity is, as Haruchai wrote, "three aspects of the same one God". I got it then, and I get it now.

But I still think that the Holy Trinity as a concept is in disagreement with the concept of monotheism. In fact, the lord is in everything, but that does not mean I should worship God "In the name of the holy oak tree" or "the puffy cotton cloud", as do people who pray "In the name of Jesus the Christ".

ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.

The difference is not only in worship, but in self-awareness and being. It has been explained many times that Jesus and God will sit side by side in heaven. Thus, in the "spiritual realm" Jesus and God are two distinct self-aware entities.

No. I did not. Please read my comments for clarification, BM. I will be happy to discuss this with you.

sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.

I agree with all of this, in essence. I too believe that God grants us free will, and we have the choice to align our purpose with his, or to refuse his will and follow a selfish purpose that serves only ourselves.

I also agree with this. Jesus is an outstanding example of what can happen when one chooses to align their purpose with God. But then ,society could not function if we all just "walked the earth" as Jesus did.

Not at all rude. I can understand your confusion. First and foremost, I am no longer a Christian. Nor do I misunderstand the holy trinity as Arianism. As Christianity teaches, the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit co-exist but share the same being. This is my understanding of Christianity and it is one that I regard as polytheistic, despite the unity of these entities in one divinity. This is similar to Hinduism, which has a variety of divine beings, all of which co-exist but share divinity as a manifestation of Brahman, the Hindu concept of our Lord.

no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.

[Divinus Arma]

ok well il try and give an explanation of why i consider it not polytheistic then, basicly i see god as a force outside all reasons and boundarys that is present in everything in the form of the holy spirit. God also created the universe, that aspect of god is as a father of the universe seperate from gods actions as the holy spirit. Then the third aspect, Jesus is god made present amoung man to act as a sacrifice, god must be the sacrifice as no one else could fulfil this role he was there at the begining he his here now and he sacrificed himself for us. Perhaps like the different states of water the same thing in different forms and with different purpose but the same overall thing. A theologin could explain better.

I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.

But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.

sorry if i was wrong i thought you said it in this thread but i can't find it to quote, you said how you were a christian and had stopped beign a christian because you couldn't believe in a god that allowed one child to die maybee someone else said it.

I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.

no, what i meant was that if you disagree with the trinity but agree with the rest of jesus's teaching you would be of a similar belief to that of an Arian Christian (but if you do not consider yourself a christian that is clearly not so) i hold the opposite stance to you and hold Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion this is probably why i dissagree with you on the trinity.

Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".

I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I know you do not consider it polytheistic. When I was a Christian I did not consider it polytheistic either. In fact, it made perfect sense.

But now I see it all as a distraction from our relationship with the Lord. We can each have an individual relationship with God and anybody who tells you otherwise is trying to control you. Furthermore, the concept of a "middle man" acting as a conduit is completely asinine. The fact that Jesus was dead 2000 years ago makes it all the more asinine. Christians worship a dead guy in the belief that the dead guy was God manifested as a human, and thus worshipping the dead guy gives you a ticket to heaven. It's nuts! The fact that Jesus is supposed to be a "group messiah" makes it all the more absurd because each one of us should be seeking out an individual duty to God. Thus, each of us have a responsibility to be our own saviours.

of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?

I told you before, I never said that. I would not never say that. You have me confused with somebody else. Of course I believe in a God that would allow one child to die- how about billions? If God were to jump in and rescue everybody on a daily basis, it would destroy our free choice.

sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying! )

Well, in a way Hinduism and Christianity are very similar in that respect. The difference is that Hinudism does not threaten people with eternal damnation for "not believing the way we want you to".

well i don't remember threatening anyone with damnation, don't hold me or the christian faith as a whole, responsible for the unchristian (im sure you know that we are forbidden to judge) attutudes of others.

I see the good in Christianity, but I do not agree with the portion that warps it. I can take the best from each religion and work with it.

every group has an eliment that ruins it for the rest

[Divinus Arma]

of course we each can have a direct relationship with god this is entirely what i believe but jesus came and died so that our sins could be forgiven by god and by ourselves otherwise how could anyone possibly atone for all the millions os sins that they perform during their lives?

Well this is really the only portion of your comments in the discussion that actually matters at this point. The rest is pretty much moot.

How do we atone for our sins? Simple. By recognizing them and asking for forgiveness. We know when we do wrong. Some are bigger sins (like checking out naked hotties on the web. ), and some are almost forgetable, like cutting someone off on the freeway then flipping 'em the bird. And some are just downright evil- murder, rape, molesting alter boys, etc.

How God forgives us and what we feel in that forgiveness is a little different depending on the sin. Do evil and you will know how long it stays with you, no matter how much you ask for forgiveness. Do a minor sin and you will be forgiven with relatively little difficulty.


More importantly tha even forgiveness, is life allignment. Namely, setting a course in your life that is alligned to the will of the Lord. Plan your day knowing that you will be challenged throughout. Seek strength, comfort, wisdom, and tenacity from the Lord. When you begin to falter, ask for assistance. When you still fail, ask for forgiveness. It is not a matter of "doing good deeds", it is a matter of living a life alligned with God's will. When this done, one no longer needs to think about doind good deeds for their own sake. It becomes automatic and ingrained within your spiritual self. And in this way, we pre-emptively act to prepare ourselves against sin and to do the will of God. The best "atonement" for sins is to not commit them in the first place. Through right allignment, we can actively pursue perfection, while planning for oursleves to evetual fail in some measures.

Then the Lord will know we are his servants. And when we ask forgiveness of him individually, he will not hesitate to forgive and continue his love for us.

[Banquo's Ghost]

sorry i thought you did, i remember you talking about how you were a christian and couldn't accept the concept of hell and then saying that you couldn't believe in a god that let children suffer or something i can't find the comments (why can't you search the backroom like the other forums? its very annoying! )

BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."

This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?

If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).

Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?

It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

BM, it was me who quoted Dostoevsky's 'The Brothers Karamazov'. The book is about organized religion, in 19th century Russia (the Orthodox Church) and about the challenges it provides to faith. At one point Alyosha (IIRC, long time since I read it last) objects to the teachings of the Church by saying - "I cannot believe in a God that would permit the suffering of a single child."

This goes to the root of belief in a loving God who actively intervenes in our lives. If He could send His son to die for us, and, as most Christians seem to believe, He listens to prayers and acts upon them, why does He permit any suffering at all, let alone the unfathomable awfulness of a suffering child?

If He does not so act, out of respect for the free will we took in the Garden of Eden, then he is a remote God lacking in the one essential component of love - compassion. This unengaged God is closer to the pagan pantheon, than the Christian diety. The Bible is all about God intervening, so why then and not now? The fundamentalists love to quote the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah where He stomped on lots of bad people - this is after the Fall, so why not now? Jesus was said to heal the sick and raise the dead - why not now, and why them? (Yes, I know the hardcore will pop up and quote so-called miracles of today, but I've never read of any of them being properly substantiated, and I have known some really kind people of immense faith die miserably when they should have been first on the saved list. Consistency is a good thing).

Alyosha was asking the question that challenges all faith - Why, God, why?

It is a question that affected my own faith, and to which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer. I don't accept unquestioning blind stupidity of thought from humanity, I certainly won't accept it from someone who wishes to be my God.

It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.

Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.

Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)

This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!

[Divinus Arma]

It is a good question that is often asked of religious people in the end it all comes down to freedom imagine you had a body guard escorting you everywhere and stopping anything that they dissaproved of even when you didn't understand why, there is so much in the world that god does not like more then we could ever know they are all taken seriously if god were to interfere with one then god would have to interfere with the rest too.

Freedom would be almost nonexistant and many would find existance intorerable. So, say a child dies, you blame god for not stopping this in so doing you don't have to worry about the real cause of this childs death but the fact is that the child died for a reason i.e. there was a factor that caused it to happen there are two groups of such factors the man made and the natural, a natural cause is part of the very reason we are here and so the suffering caused by it is a bi product of the way the universe works and so should be balanced out if not outweighed by the good that comes of the natural world (there is probably more of this then we will ever know too) or the event was caused directly or indirectly by man, in which case god did intervene but instead of giving mankind a fish he taught him to fish (i.e. he taught us how to live best without harming others) so he has in fact intervened.

Do you wan't to be controlled? any intervention is control and im sure you yourself know that by helping one person another can be indirectly harmed, (e.g. letting a man in line in front of you at a sandwhich shop, i kind act, untill, because you intervened he leaves the shop earlyer just as Franz Ferdinand goes by!)

This is the best explanation i can give at two in the morning!

EXCELLENT!!! This was the best argument for non-intervention I have read yet. You have completely articulated my understanding of suffering in this world.

NOW, try this on for size: Buddhism teaches that all suffering is the result of desire and ignorance. Essentially, our ongoing want is the cause of suffering. We want many things: happiness, life without pain, comfort, food, etc.

Only by recognizing the impermanence of all things can we alleviate suffering. We must, as Christians say, Let go and Let God.

This does not mean that we should not work towards peace and prosperity, instead it means that we should recognize that everything is temporary. When we realize this, everything comes into perspective.

This works well with an ecletic religious perspective, because it recognizes the freedoms that God has given us (as explain by BM) while providing a way to cope with the pain that we experience in our short lives.

Our attempts to be eternal instead of worship, gratitude, and humility is the source of human pain. We should continually strive for perfection in right action while simultaneously recognizing the futility of all.

[mystic brew]

interesting, and, BM, the most convincing arguement for non-intervention. It's certainly the best argument i can see.

Do you also subscribe to the view that this non-intervention applies to prayer as well?

otherwise, IMO the non-intervention theory falls flat on it's arse. as you say, the moment a decision is made to intervene it instantly results in all inaction being made a decision, and an intervention also.