Cant we except religion in its fazes?.. and hey – its a new faze now!

[Amorphos]

Cant we except religion in its fazes?.. and hey – its a new faze now!

I think Jesus was great and Mohamed and Krishna, merlin [even if purely mythological] and Osiris etcetera. They can all teach us great things, but i feel very strongly that we have moved into a new faze! But this time i don't think nor want it to be about any one person or definitive text, this time it is about all of us and perhaps a universal worldview!

[Shaun]

I agree, I believe that for the Church to move forward, it has to move all the way back to its original meaning and values. Too much time is spent simply bashing the said religion, not enough time trying to improve it, too much non followers bash it and find a few examples of extremists then characterise the whole religion on it, too much non followers simply bash it with out giving constructive critism. Debating wether the said religion is true is futile, and only angers the followers. Instead it should be concentrated on improving the said religion. And yes, religion has many good things to teach. But if people need religion to bring out such good deeds as not murdering, stealing, raping etc then its a sad day. Most of these values that religion was thought to give birth to are just really common sense. I doubt we will ever achieve a united world view. There will always be right and left. Always one religion, another and then the non religous people. Would a world where everyone had the same view point be any good?

[Zenith Darksea]

Religion is about eternal truth. That eternal truth can't change - truth can only be clarified. Your interesting model however would have truth mutate repeatedly and bizarrely.

[Amorphos]

Hi Shaun,

Too much time is spent simply bashing the said religion

absolutely; 'defend and attack' is all science, philosophy and religion seams to be about these days, but we should be moving forwards with all the wealth of knowledge we have at our disposal in this age.

Demonization! Each side seams to be content to demonize the other to make themselves look better, to make excuses for 'crusades' and the like. I think the same applies on an individual level and always has done – hence the witch burnings of the past. People seam to like making others look bad by over emphasizing the negative or lesser attributes that we all have, and again; they do it just to make themselves look better!

ZD,

it has mutated throughout history no matter how fundamentalist it has been. Who wants it to stay the same anyway? I hope people will still be debating the truth in a million years from now, otherwise we would simply arrive at an eternal status quo.

[Zenith Darksea]

I'm sorry, but the truth doesn't change, whether you label it 'status quo' or not. If I'm a Christian or a Muslim who believes in his religion, then I'm not going to suddenly say, "Well that was alright for the past, but let's change everything now!" Like I say, religions don't change (or at least, not the world's major religions). Doctrinal points can be clarified, but not changed.

[Invoker]

There is universal truth in this universe. I'm certain of that. But what I'm also certain of is that we mortals lack the capacity to see the entire scope of things, since we see the world through our own personal filter of bias and subjectivity. I liken it to a gemstone: there is one overall gemstone (truth), but each person's view is a single facet in the gem; it is only one viewpoint.

To say that God appeared only once or a few times to a select people I think is ridiculous and illogical. He would very well know that spreading a religion from one area would leave it limited, and many would never see it's point of view. What I believe is that God has appeared in many forms, at each time dispensing another facet of the objective truth. The Buddha, Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Mohammed and plenty of others I think were either inspired all by the same divine entity, or were manifestations themselves of that deity. My reasoning for this is the innate similarity between most of the world's major religions. The standards of wisdom and morality tend to be very similar, if not the same, in religions that developed without knowledge of each other. Of course details vary widely, but there is a single line which passes through each religion at some point.

The thought that God dumped as much of the universal truth as we could understand in one sitting doesn't make sense to me at least. I find it much more probable that He has dispensed pieces of truth throughout time, and will continue to do so. Our perception of truth and reality has not remained constant: the views of religion must update themselves and expand upon truths once unrevealed. Religion is far from a stagnant thing in the world; it is ever growing and ever evolving, and though setbacks occur, I believe the faith of humanity as a whole is moving itself toward the greater objective truth.

Truth doesn't change. But our view of it does.

[Zenith Darksea]

I know what you're getting at. I'm happy to agree that as men we don't know everything and we couldn't know everything in this life. However, I disagree that God has appeared in the form of both Buddha and Christ, or even to Mohammed (not being a Muslim). You can't take all these religions together and say, "Well, essentially they're saying the same thing," because they aren't. Buddha confidently announces that men are reborn when they die, and Christ tells us that there is no reincarnation. Christ tells us that he is the only way to God, and at the same time Mohammed taught that Christ wasn't the son of God after all. If all of these were to lead to the same truth, then it's a pretty damn contradictory truth.

Religion is far from a stagnant thing in the world; it is ever growing and ever evolving, and though setbacks occur, I believe the faith of humanity as a whole is moving itself toward the greater objective truth.

Truth doesn't change. But our view of it does.

Despite what I've said already, you're quite right. However, that gradual clarification of the truth can only occur within one religion, not across several wildly varying religions. This is the basis of the Eastern Orthodox Church's beliefs, that the truth is gradually revealed over time by the action of the Holy Spirit (hence the Oecumenical Councils, writings of the Church Fathers etc.) in what we refer to as Holy Tradition. However, this truth only ever becomes clearer in the Christian context.

[Invoker]

I know what you're getting at. I'm happy to agree that as men we don't know everything and we couldn't know everything in this life. However, I disagree that God has appeared in the form of both Buddha and Christ, or even to Mohammed (not being a Muslim). You can't take all these religions together and say, "Well, essentially they're saying the same thing," because they aren't. Buddha confidently announces that men are reborn when they die, and Christ tells us that there is no reincarnation. Christ tells us that he is the only way to God, and at the same time Mohammed taught that Christ wasn't the son of God after all. If all of these were to lead to the same truth, then it's a pretty damn contradictory truth.

I see your point, and agree with you on that. I'm not saying these religions are the same, quite the opposite: they're very different in their details. But what I am saying is that there's a common thread throughout all of them. I also think that God doesn't necessarily tell us the truth constantly, but rather what needs to be heard. And to be honest, I'm slightly playing devil's advocate here: I'm in a sort of crisis of faith at this point in my life, and while I know a lot of what I believe, there's a lot of questions that remain unanswered.

[Amorphos]

Zenith,

I'm sorry, but the truth doesn't change,

well it changed when Christianity arrived! then again when Mohamed came etc! And Christianity is not 'the' truth even if it holds many truths [as do all religions]. The truth is naked and 'cannot be committed to writing' according to druidry via Pythagoras.

The church itself has changed into many denominations etc, over the years.

Invoker47,

But what I'm also certain of is that we mortals lack the capacity to see the entire scope of things

yet we can deduce the effects of our personal filter and omit them – it is entirely possible to find the truth of many a given thing, although some things are beyond normal linguistic interpretations – hence philosophy.

What I believe is that God has appeared in many forms

the views of religion must update themselves and expand upon truths once unrevealed

absolutely; thats the basis of this thread! Although i agree with zenith, that the buddha etc are not god appearing in his forms – i think he and jesus and all others are simply very wise 'people', and what is wrong with that! if we can except it then nothing is fundamental.

'the truth does change, because everything else changes then it must', otherwise what is the said truth the truth of? An unchanging truth in a transient universe just doesn't add up!

Vikrant,

Buddhism and Hinduism can be strict, e.g. In meditations we are told exactly how to think and exactly what to say [in the mantra's], because apparently it is dangerous not to. Although they are comparatively more open.

before that wars ,killing ,haterd in the name of relegion was hardly seen

true, yet look at the bigger picture; throughout history there has been many vehicles for war, religion simply replaces ethnicity or what have you. Wars have continued, and in similar amounts per age, no matter what the reason, we simply have to stop finding reasons!
I agree with your general sentiment though.
.

[vikrant]

what is relegion
its a way of life. it states how a beleiver must live his life ,where he must have faith,what rituals he must follow and all that stuff
it means relegion completely controls the life of beleiver
their are few strict {re behaviour with beleivers of other relegions}relegions like islam,christinity
where there are also few mild relegions like buddhism,hinduism

now relegions were their from the time when humans became socialised
they flourished with time and all relegions lived peacefully with each other untill the rise of recent relegions like islam and christanity {the young relegions }
before that wars ,killing ,haterd in the name of relegion was hardly seen

but after that word " infidels " was borned
and killing,wars in the name of relegions began

now new phase can only be achived if we forget the infidels and behaviour stated towards infidels in respective religions

other than that every relegion is perfect

[Zenith Darksea]

well it changed when Christianity arrived! then again when Mohamed came etc! And Christianity is not 'the' truth even if it holds many truths [as do all religions]. The truth is naked and 'cannot be committed to writing' according to druidry via Pythagoras.

No, the truth was revealed when Christianity arrived. Why did it change when Mohammed came? Who says it did? I doubt that Christians or Muslims would agree with that statement. No, the Christian truth stayed just the same when Mohammed arrived. To you Christianity may not be the truth, but it is to a Christian. And an outsider can't come in and cherry pick the bits he likes and then say, "Well, the rest changed." And quite frankly, who's to say that Pythagoras was right?

i think he and jesus and all others are simply very wise 'people', and what is wrong with that! if we can except it then nothing is fundamental.

What's wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong. You can't accept a part of the Christian message and then say that actually He probably wasn't the Son of God, despite that being central to the Christian message. You either take all of it or none at all.

[RZZZA]

"What's wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong. You can't accept a part of the Christian message and then say that actually He probably wasn't the Son of God, despite that being central to the Christian message. You either take all of it or none at all."

Wait...why do you say that people cant do that? Muslims do that, and probably some jews do too. They regard Jesus as a prophet, but not as the son of God.

[Pnutmaster]

What's wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong. You can't accept a part of the Christian message and then say that actually He probably wasn't the Son of God, despite that being central to the Christian message. You either take all of it or none at all.

I ask, why not?

Unless one officially identifies himself as a Christian, what's to stop him from cherry picking bits and pieces from established religions? I can't reason that a sizeable portion of the Bible was written by St. Paul, therefore St. Paul may have distorted much of Jesus's teachings and glorified Jesus's own mortal status? I suppose in that case I should be sorted into the generic Muslim category or Christian Heretics Association ?

[Amorphos]

No, the truth was revealed when Christianity arrived

no, 'a' truth [part truth] was revealed! and it done much good. But i believe that these things will occur in one form or another and by a given catalyst, its the way history evolves. If christianity hadn't come then something else would have.
Mohamed changed it by giving it specific direction i.e. Every part of ones life has its relative directive – if you will. And many other things like the notion of 'mirror-like wisdom' etc.

if truth is transient in its reflection of the world, then it cannot be fixed and hence there is no absolute truth, just an ever changing truth.

You can't accept a part of the Christian message and then say that actually He probably wasn't the Son of God, despite that being central to the Christian message

what if jesus believed he was 'son of man' as in the jewish notion; to be as like god as man on earth.

Hmm i dot want this thread to be a debate about Christianity or any other religion! I am quite prepared to say that they are all out of date and that we should indeed move on in the light of new truths of the age - thats the basis of this thread.

How can ancient texts be completely relevant in the modern world, they knew very little of what we know now!

[MaximiIian]

No, the truth was revealed when Christianity arrived.

No. A theological opinion was formulated when Christianity arrived.

[Amorphos]

Honestly i don't know why some christians come here to debate, if the biblical truth is the only truth then there simply is no debate!!! we don't need preachers as we can read now.

so un-philosophical.

[Zenith Darksea]

Of course Biblical truth is the only truth. The question is how to reveal Biblical truth. Not everything is obvious on the first reading. That's why we have the Holy Orthodox Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.

But let me put it another way - if you were the follower of a religion that you deemed to hold all the most important answers, would you come here just to surrender your principles and see how much you can mould your beliefs (and just for the sake of it)? I don't think so.

[Blaven]

Of course Biblical truth is the only truth. The question is how to reveal Biblical truth. Not everything is obvious on the first reading. That's why we have the Holy Orthodox Church, guided by the Holy Spirit.

Do you get subsidized for all your promotion of the "Holy Orthodox Church"?

[Amorphos]

:tooth:

The question is how to reveal Biblical truth

i would prefer it if people just didn't bother with all that tosh, who cares how it is revealed if it cannot be debated intelligently!


Ok give me an example of biblical truth?

[Tom Paine]

Biblical truth is the only truth, yes? So what is scientific truth, when it has no relation to Biblical truth? Or historical truth?