Society Religious Discussion and Q&A Thread

[xi0]

Personally I think you are beating up the US a tad too harshly. You do have some extreme groups, and for a secular nation, a huge hang-up on religion in your politics. There are some intolerant places in the US but the same can be said for Europe, the grass is not always greener on the other side.

Exactly. Milly you live in New Jersey, not Oklahoma or Utah. Evidence of religion can be seen on a daily basis, but the perceived religious fight against science is one blown up by left-wing media. You'll notice right-wing media rarely brings it up, because while some might make the choice to ignore science they aren't necessarily stupid enough to make that fact obvious. And the reason for that is simple, it's almost as alienating to voters to say so in this country as it is to say you're an atheist.

 

[Akainu]

recently I stumbled upon some people making a diffrence between theism and deism, do you think deists are atheists?
or in other words, what does atheism contain? only not believing in god? in that case deists are not atheists. or does it also stretch to how people believe in god, by wonders, prophetism and all that?

 

[xi0]

recently I stumbled upon some people making a diffrence between theism and deism, do you think deists are atheists?
or in other words, what does atheism contain? only not believing in god? in that case deists are not atheists. or does it also stretch to how people believe in god, by wonders, prophetism and all that?

Not speaking for a religious perspective here, but in actuality they're still somewhat opposite of each other. A Deist believes in a creator, while an Atheist believes in none.

To a religious person though, they might be put in the same category.

 

[benelori]

@Milly's question...I think the most important thing to consider is that there are many different cultures throughout Europe...so let me tell you how things go down in this region(central-eastern europe)...

From history we know that the intellectuals of different periods were endorsed by the church, which means that universities, schools, or otherwise cultural life was handled and sponsored directly by the Church...when communism started to take roots in this part of the world, the Church and its followers were persecuted, jailed, executed, not just because of their beliefs, but because they were on the side of free thinking and freedom, which was opposed by the communists...

Not to mention that the church was helping the jews to escape the claws of the nazis as well during WW2...

Throughout this period many religious figures became martyrs, so naturally in many circles they are revered as heroes of that age...

In conclusion religion has deep roots here and is very much respected...of course now that gaining information is very easy, we come to know the darker sides of the Church, so there are many who just lost their trust...anyways people here were raised with the knowledge that the Church helps society and improves it, and there is evidence backing this up, so there's not much conflict...

PS: I'm talking about the Catholic Church to be more precise...I don't really know the others, except that the Orthodox leaders have lots of corruption scandals and shady pasts with the communists...

 

[Josef]

Well organized religion is more about ethics, also known as, morality, rather than a metaphysical way of looking at things. In the past the metaphysics of the church/religious institution was not questioned a lot, since it was of a supernatural kind. Though morality was the bigger problem, as I have mentioned before because of the focus on morality, and morality is a good way to attack the historical Jesus Christ so it brings up debates. Though the debate about metaphysical arguments is weak, religious people should really consider the views of Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Giordano Bruno(ironically enough they burned him but he was a believer) and Thomas Aquinas, since they put forward some really good metaphysical arguments about God.

As for the Orthodox church it is corrupt indeed, the priests here ride fancy cars and stuff and they are criticized about that all the time. I do love the tradition that the East Roman Empire left behind in my country, that is why I love the Orthodox way of thinking, because it takes a lot from the East Roman Empire that had a very interesting view on religion and how it connected it with the everyday human life. That is the key link for any religion make it close, and yet far. A wonderful thing!

 

[Akainu]

Short question to the (catholic) christians or anyone knowing this kind of stuff: Jesus is seen as descendant of David and Abraham (gospel of matthew, chapter 1). The lineage described there is Josefs though. Now this guy had a little weird place in the story since he is hardly involved in the immaculate conception of Mary. So how is Jesus actually related to David and Abraham?

I do understand that it is probably there for reasons of legitimization and also that it probably is a difficult topic since none of the other gospels puts the list of ancestors in such a prominent place. Is Mary maybe the key and she's tying in with that lineage as well?

 

[xi0]

Short question to the (catholic) christians or anyone knowing this kind of stuff: Jesus is seen as descendant of David and Abraham (gospel of matthew, chapter 1). The lineage described there is Josefs though. Now this guy had a little weird place in the story since he is hardly involved in the immaculate conception of Mary. So how is Jesus actually related to David and Abraham?

I do understand that it is probably there for reasons of legitimization and also that it probably is a difficult topic since none of the other gospels puts the list of ancestors in such a prominent place. Is Mary maybe the key and she's tying in with that lineage as well?

All Jews are descendants of Abraham. Considering that the bible said the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, and both Joseph and Mary were from said tribe, it also accounts for his relation to King David.

It's not so much in a literal sense that we look at descendants and family trees today.

 

[Kaiten]

Jesus' followers would have wanted to portray him as a great patriarch, part of the same lineage as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. While all Israelites claimed descent from Abraham, that alone would hardly be worth mentioning in the bible. It would have been taken for granted that Jesus were descended from Abraham in that sense. Biblical claims were meant to show direct descent as a patriarch, and community leader. Jesus followers would have also wanted to depict him as law giver, successor to the tradition of David, Solomon, and Josiah. The collapse of the northern kingdom was ancient history by the time Jesus lived, the ten tribes of Israel had already been lost. The messiah could only have come from the tribe of Judah, because they were all that remained. The tribe of Benjamen were very small, little more than Judean vassals. By Jesus times claiming the messiah could only come from the tribe of Judah would have been redundant.

During the early Imperial period, Jesus would merely have been one of many itinerant preachers to claiming to be messiah. To cement those claims, he and his followers would assert direct descent from the great patriarchs. While people of that time might not have taken this literally (some certainly would), a literal claim would best established the message that he was direct successor to the social, religious, and temporal authority of Abraham and David. The only valid way to claim inheritance would be from father to son, therefore claims to be descended from Abraham and David would have been literal, not merely figurative gestures, even if not entirely plausible to all the people of his time.

Jesus ancestry was traced through Joseph for the same reason we of European descent take our fathers family name. Roman society was strictly patriarchal, title and social status passed from father to son. Women could not even inherit property, let alone pass it to children. Greek society would have been the same. The thought of tracing Jesus matriarchal heritage would have been preposterous to citizens of the Roman Empire. If Jesus was descended from Abraham and David through Mary, it would have mattered little to the people of his time. As a descendant of the matriarchal line, Jesus could not have claimed to be their inheritor.

 

[Akainu]

So the genetically true version of connecting Jesus to Abraham and David is not possible in this context. How then is it possible? The bible emphasises the immaculate conception and Josefs not-role in that so much after all, that the whole construction seems obsolete.

 

[xi0]

So the genetically true version of connecting Jesus to Abraham and David is not possible in this context. How then is it possible? The bible emphasises the immaculate conception and Josefs not-role in that so much after all, that the whole construction seems obsolete.

The issue is separating what we know historically and how things would have been handled during this time period, Kaiten got into that. Then we have what is said in the Bible and constant fluctuations of what can even be remotely considered historical and what can't. Most Biblical scholars will tell you my explanation, simply because that is what is written in the Bible. Common sense tells me that it's simply the patriarchal standard that people lived by and that genetics didn't exist back then in the first place. Would someone who considered himself the son of God willingly say that he had no claim to Joseph's heritage? Why would he do that? Not even mentioning the mess that the Brothers of Jesus creates and the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It's confusing really.

 

[Josef]

How would Jesus be genetically traced when he has no genes of both his Mother(Mary) or his guardian(Joseph)? I mean he was created by God, the whole Annunciation thing is purely understood in a religious and divine way. Now, the true figure that links the New and Old testaments together is John the Baptist I think, his father appears in both I think?

But there are a lot of prophecies in the old that link it to the new, like the visions of the prophets of Mary.

 

[xi0]

How would Jesus be genetically traced when he has no genes of both his Mother(Mary) or his guardian(Joseph)? I mean he was created by God, the whole Annunciation thing is purely understood in a religious and divine way. Now, the true figure that links the New and Old testaments together is John the Baptist I think, his father appears in both I think?

But there are a lot of prophecies in the old that link it to the new, like the visions of the prophets of Mary.

I believe the Eastern Orthodox as well as Islam holds that Zechariah, John the Baptist's Father is the same person as St. Zechariah, who is believed to have written the Book of Zechariah. However most Christian scholars believe they were different people.

The issue is we're talking about genetics. There was no such thing as genetics back when the Bible was written, so taking it into account when talking in terms of what is in the scripture is pretty pointless.

 

[Akainu]

Well, by mentioning "genetically" I don't mean he went to a doctor and got proven with a probability of 99.9% not to be the father. It's just another way to say "related by blood" for me.
As for the problem, other than the legitimation for little Jesus to be the savior I had mentioned in my initial post, I don't see how it goes together. Guess it's true what I recently heard and people never took the book that literal until recent times and saw through those moves and accepted them?

As for the connection between old and new, it is indeed striking how often at least in the first chapters of the gospel of mathew these prophecies are mentioned, that Jesus fulfills. Then again, that's the same reason as drawing a genealogical lineage to Adam, Abraham, Noah and David, as he wasn't the first and hence neither the only salvation figure around how John the Baptist shows. The latter was aware of the other (i.e. Jesus) that was to come though, according to the Bible.

 

[xi0]

Well, by mentioning "genetically" I don't mean he went to a doctor and got proven with a probability of 99.9% not to be the father. It's just another way to say "related by blood" for me.
As for the problem, other than the legitimation for little Jesus to be the savior I had mentioned in my initial post, I don't see how it goes together. Guess it's true what I recently heard and people never took the book that literal until recent times and saw through those moves and accepted them?

As for the connection between old and new, it is indeed striking how often at least in the first chapters of the gospel of mathew these prophecies are mentioned, that Jesus fulfills. Then again, that's the same reason as drawing a genealogical lineage to Adam, Abraham, Noah and David, as he wasn't the first and hence neither the only salvation figure around how John the Baptist shows. The latter was aware of the other (i.e. Jesus) that was to come though, according to the Bible.

The only actual way to prove a child's parent was the mother. This is also why Jews, Catholics, etc traditionally determine what religion a child will be through the mother. It doesn't always happen this way anymore, and those that are strictly religious tend to not marry and have children with non-Jews, non-Catholics in the first place. You couldn't prove fatherhood back then, but obviously if someone saw the child coming out of you during birth there's little to refute such a claim

 

[Josef]

I believe the Eastern Orthodox as well as Islam holds that Zechariah, John the Baptist's Father is the same person as St. Zechariah, who is believed to have written the Book of Zechariah. However most Christian scholars believe they were different people.

The issue is we're talking about genetics. There was no such thing as genetics back when the Bible was written, so taking it into account when talking in terms of what is in the scripture is pretty pointless.

Well written sources by far through out documented history have been the most reliable. Though even in archeology new methods to determine stuff re-emerge as science marches forward. Our best source for this is the written word, of when you think of spoken and material sources of where we get our history, I'd say the written word has been kept as a good source. Though the more we know, the more we want to understand.

Generally:

Jesus is a prophet, but also a Savior, that is the thing with Christianity, a lot is left into a metaphorical, abstract meaning, primarily due to the religion begin so different from the general ancient othological thought of the early philosophers that believed that matter always existed but re-arranged it-self into the world later. In Christianity a prime mover sets everything in motion, a mover that senses can not grasp. I do still think science is re-affirming the complexity of what God created. And that is how I believe our world is set up, as Kafka famously said : God gives the nuts, but he does not crack them.

 

[Akainu]

Jesus is a prophet, but also a Savior, that is the thing with Christianity, a lot is left into a metaphorical, abstract meaning, primarily due to the religion begin so different from the general ancient othological thought of the early philosophers that believed that matter always existed but re-arranged it-self into the world later. In Christianity a prime mover sets everything in motion, a mover that senses can not grasp. I do still think science is re-affirming the complexity of what God created. And that is how I believe our world is set up, as Kafka famously said : God gives the nuts, but he does not crack them.

[underlining by me~]

That's actually quite an interesting point, since it is not an exclusive/original concept invented by Christianity, but the mixture of Aristotele's unmoved mover, in short a helenistic concept, and the cutural/spiritual context in the levante back then with a whole bunch of self acclaimed messiahs roaming the land - probably due to the roman occupation back then? In any case, from this angle it's no wonder that the greek speaking half of the roman empire still sticks to the original more or less, even though the split actually had other, more profane reasons, iirc.

Well written sources by far through out documented history have been the most reliable. Though even in archeology new methods to determine stuff re-emerge as science marches forward. Our best source for this is the written word, of when you think of spoken and material sources of where we get our history, I'd say the written word has been kept as a good source. Though the more we know, the more we want to understand.

Yes, but with a clear limitation. Written sources are usually more fruitful to work with, but especially written sources can be misleading as well. Thus in science, not so much in religion, one always has to ask who has written it, what's his/her intention, who did he/she write it for, what was his/her context, living circumstances, profession and so on. Doing it like that, you can even use cookbooks as source for a multitude of studies, without it though even the best chronicles have no scientific value.

 

[xi0]

Yes, but with a clear limitation. Written sources are usually more fruitful to work with, but especially written sources can be misleading as well. Thus in science, not so much in religion, one always has to ask who has written it, what's his/her intention, who did he/she write it for, what was his/her context, living circumstances, profession and so on. Doing it like that, you can even use cookbooks as source for a multitude of studies, without it though even the best chronicles have no scientific value.

This is the point of context. When you look at religion from a historical perspective you're still looking for as many sources for a person/event as possible. The fact that the church held ecumenical councils to settle matters concerning church doctrine and practice is clue enough that the Bible just isn't any more of a historical account than the sources that were selected for repudiation in these councils. "History is written by the victors" comes to mind here.

 

[shaheer]

I believe the Eastern Orthodox as well as Islam holds that Zechariah, John the Baptist's Father is the same person as St. Zechariah, who is believed to have written the Book of Zechariah. However most Christian scholars believe they were different people.

well to be flat we dont really believe that Bible is what is claims. We hold it in a secular view that it may contain the words of the one labled in as the speaker or author but that might not always be the case.
What we do believe in is that Allah(GOD) sent prophets and they had their message to call people to righteousness but none of their messages were preserved for 2 main condition:
1) it was meant for a particular period
2) it was meant for a particular score of people ie not universal

So it wasnt really impending on God to preserve it text by text ofcourse Gods word would be preserved by successive revelation from newer prophets. Since he will get his message/inspiration from God he will know which part is human addition and which part is Gods inspiration.
Only the Quran is different as it is for all the time from its revelation and its not meant for a particular set of people so there is no concept of gentiles in Islam which you might find in judiasm since its meant for all. Or there is no concept of a comforter to come later after the prophet departs who will guide to all truth since we believe the message will be protected by God hence intact so no fresh revelation required.

Didnt mean to demean any religion in my post i was just trying to put forward some rudimentary belief of Islam I sincerely apologize if any Jews or christian felt offended by my post.

 

[Dried Ambrosia]

This is the point of context. When you look at religion from a historical perspective you're still looking for as many sources for a person/event as possible. The fact that the church held ecumenical councils to settle matters concerning church doctrine and practice is clue enough that the Bible just isn't any more of a historical account than the sources that were selected for repudiation in these councils. "History is written by the victors" comes to mind here.

Absolutely agree. Beary's point is not only plausible but also logical when considering how Christianity was "implemented" throughout the Roman empire by Constantine. Please don't forget he was a conqueror and conquerors enforce their political and religious views. Basically, he outlawed pagan sacrifices and started to confiscate treasures from pagan temples in order to build new Christian churches...In other words, he changed the balance of power ~just think about Christians before (persecuted) and after Constantine (victors, example- the church suppressing and exterminating existing threats to Christianity) -

Btw...have you heard about Apollonius of Tyana??

 

[Charlie]

well to be flat we dont really believe that Bible is what is claims. We hold it in a secular view that it may contain the words of the one labled in as the speaker or author but that might not always be the case.
What we do believe in is that Allah(GOD) sent prophets and they had their message to call people to righteousness but none of their messages were preserved for 2 main condition:
1) it was meant for a particular period
2) it was meant for a particular score of people ie not universal

So it wasnt really impending on God to preserve it text by text ofcourse Gods word would be preserved by successive revelation from newer prophets. Since he will get his message/inspiration from God he will know which part is human addition and which part is Gods inspiration.
Only the Quran is different as it is for all the time from its revelation and its not meant for a particular set of people so there is no concept of gentiles in Islam which you might find in judiasm since its meant for all. Or there is no concept of a comforter to come later after the prophet departs who will guide to all truth since we believe the message will be protected by God hence intact so no fresh revelation required.

Didnt mean to demean any religion in my post i was just trying to put forward some rudimentary belief of Islam I sincerely apologize if any Jews or christian felt offended by my post.

I don't think anyone here would be offended as their is no need to. My main problem or issue with the highlighted part is that... it just seems like circular reasoning. What it comes down-to for the truly religious people of Islam, or of Judaism or of Christianity something akin to 'my god is better than your god'. Your text is false, my mine is correct / better.

So you find yourself chasing a circle and getting no where.

This is the point of context. When you look at religion from a historical perspective you're still looking for as many sources for a person/event as possible. The fact that the church held ecumenical councils to settle matters concerning church doctrine and practice is clue enough that the Bible just isn't any more of a historical account than the sources that were selected for repudiation in these councils. "History is written by the victors" comes to mind here.

Personally, I agree with this notion that history will be written by the victors / winners.
Be it "winners," "conquerors," and "victors"... I think this can also be called 'true-ism'. Slightly off topic but this phrase also was used by George Bush when asked of what the historian will think of him. I cant cite the source but from memory he also said something similar.
While you can argue that the looser or a third party will or can do write one but generally in wartime, this is not the case. Sorry to be getting of topic there -

Now back to religion -

Also something that Ancy linked to is also similar to the Egyptian myth. similar names, events / miracles and or events.

Spoiler

See the table for Apollonius - Jesus - Paul

http://www.truthbeknown.com/apollonius.html