The only reason Christianity exists is Jewish heresy and reinterpreting the Torah to fit their narrative.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mangling others' religions
- Thread starter tayla
- Start date
That is a question between you and God. Why does God send different Messengers in each age?
For a Baha'i those answers are given.
Regards Tony
No
No
Christ comes when God sends the Messengers. Has naught to do with me.
Regards Tony
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Likewise, religious people should not try to define atheism in a manner in which it is not intended by the person claiming to be one. ASK THEM.
Oh, I'm talking about reinterpreting them.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
There seems to be some confusion as to what has been told us about the Gods or the one God or whatever is out there. Just the two we mainly deal with, the Fundy Christians and Baha'is, both have to show how all the other religions are off. Because what they believe does not agree with those other religions.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
That's the new age people, the Mormons and the Baha'is.
So you're saying "no" to the New Agers and the Mormons? Jesus didn't go to India or the Americas? And how do you know that? Because your religion says so? And, since your religion is right, those other claims must be false.
Hmmm? If you believe those "views" are wrong, why is it "fine" with you? If it's fine, then Baha'is and Christians and others wouldn't be telling people in other religions how some of their views are wrong. Christians say... "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."
Baha'is are essentially saying the same thing. "Baha'u'llah said it, therefore it is true. And if any other religions disagrees with what Baha'u'llah says, then they are the ones wrong." But then Baha'is take one step further... "But, since all major religions came from God, and their prophets founders all spoke the truth, the contradictions came from additions made by people in that religion that wasn't in the original teachings from the messenger." Either way the teachings of the other religions becomes changed, or "mangled" to fit your new religion. And, is that "fine"?
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
Even God doesn't own love, God is LOVE.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
I think both happen. Some things are said to be wrong, while others are re-interpreted. Maybe all religions do it, but it is the most obvious with the Abrahamic religions. Christians "mangle" or change the traditional teachings of Judaism. Then Islam does it to Christians and Jews. And now Baha'is do it to all religions.
The typical thing when the teachings are said to be wrong is that those teachings were added in and were man-made "traditions". A typical way of re-interpreting verses in one of the other religion is to make it "symbolically" true and not literal. With those two tools, a new religion can make any other religion into whatever they want. Naturally, they don't see it as "mangling" but "fixing" the beliefs of the other religions.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
The stories that make up the worlds religion show plenty of evidence of having all been influenced by each other or common sources. I see clear influence between the Mahabharata and Genesis, the Mahabharata story of Draupdis swayamvara and the homecoming of Odysseus in The Odyssey, the Buddhas temptations and the later ones of Jesus.
All these stories developed from earlier stories received from or shared with earlier cultures. Genesis altered the story of a Canaanite God and removed his wife.
At this point I think it is quite clear that literalism is intellectually bankrupt and that literalists need to find again their personal experience of God and stop going in for belief via authority and tradition. The whole story of the Bible shows God choosing the anti-establishment types every time.
Having said that...new agers often annoy me with their free and easy use of intuition.
You are assuming that the people who believe a certain religion are always able to practise all that is found in their scriptures.
But what if those scriptures are a heterogenous mix of all sorts of wisdom thinking and religious speculation?
There is nothing in the Christian bible collection about Jesus travelling to India, so I don't understand what such a theory would have to do with it.
And it is the followers of that religion themselves who interpret the Christian scriptures in all sorts of ways and probably keep changing the meaning of the original authors of the texts. Saying that those followers know best then becomes quite meaningless.
They often have no idea how e.g. certain texts in the new testament part of the Christian scriptures were originally meant.
Just because they stand on the shoulders of earlier Christians doesn't guarantee their correct interpretations of all of those diverse scriptures. In the case of the New Testament this is in fact impossible anyway as many parts have been obscure from the beginning or have become so to todays readers over time.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
You should check out this book...it will either prove your point or convince you that there is no point...
God's Chinese Son
One guy lead millions and could have been the Emperor of China through a movement based on his belief that he was the brother of Jesus.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
I think ppl can interpret the person themselves however they like but getting the basic facts right is important. Muslims believe that Jesus didn't die on the cross. This is not cool. On the other hand, a Hindu or Buddhist deciding Jesus was an avatar or bodhisatva is okay by me.
It is up to you to determine as to what is fine.
If Baha'u'llah is as claimed, then what He has offered is more than fine, it is the way, the truth and the light of this age.
Regards Tony
I see God is above all Attributes, I see the Holy Spirit, the Messengers of God are Love.
Regards Tony
How is that possible for an atheist? The adherent believes that the words are sacred and of divine origin. The atheist doesn't and is never going to see any of it the same. The atheist will likely interpret all scripture as being of human origin and having no particular authority
That's what analytical minds do. They collect observations, make tentative assessments, and modify those assessments as further evidence surfaces.
Also, if a believer promotes what sounds like a wrong idea to somebody outside of their belief system in a discussion forum like this one, it should be rebutted.
I used to be a Christian. Their scriptures exhort the faithful to spread the gospel. The Jehovah's Witnesses were here recently telling me I've got it wrong. And when I tell them, "No thank you, I don't believe that," I'm telling them that in my opinion, they got it wrong.
It's what they do. Catholics and Protestants consider one another heretics. Likewise with Jews and Christians, and Muslims and Christians. To believe that they themselves are right, others who disagree must be wrong.
I think that you've answered your own question. It's not only fair game to assess the truth claims of anybody making such a claim, it's what we all do all day every day, even when reading an advertisement. That process yields a set of opinions about the world which comprise one's world view. The way one evaluates truth claims determines how accurately one's mental map maps reality, and how effective that map will be in navigating life.
Or both. I consider the Genesis flood story to be wrong. In my opinion, it never happened.
I also don't consider it an allegory or metaphor (see SPOILER below for more on this). Allegory or metaphor for what? What really happened? I call that error if the author was not intentionally having something representing something else, but simply got it wrong.
I've also got a private interpretation of why that story - one which depicts its god as imperfect, unfair, and not too smart (that god used the same breeding stock to repair its engineering mistake with humanity). Why would such a story be preserved? What purpose does it fulfill?
I think it begins with finding sea shells and marine fossils on mountaintops. Explain that if you're an ancient.
Today, we understand that these are former sea floor uplifted by plate tectonics to form mountains. But in ancient times, that was unthinkable. To them, the seas rose to cover all the land. For whatever his reason, God drowned the earth. Being a good god, it must have been deserved. These must have been wicked people indeed. And there's your flood story, and why this flood is global when all floods witnessed by man were much less.
So, I'm calling the flood story wrong, AND I've reinterpreted it.
I've also got what I feel is probably the reason for adding a day of rest to the week of creation. Why would a god need a whole week to create the cosmos, and why would it need to rest on its last day? Why is man commanded to follow that pattern by observing the Sabbath? Here's a reasonable explanation:
Once, before the advent of organized, centralized religion, I presume that it was considered sinful for any able-bodied person that could work to not work simply because he wanted a day off. The flocks needed attention every day. If it was planting or harvesting season, there were no days when planting or harvesting didn't occur until the job was done.
Now comes a priesthood and gathering place for religious purposes. The priesthood needs the people to come to it and the temple, which requires that people put down their plowshares, travel to the synagogue for services, and to bring tithes. This would likely take most of a day for many of the people served by any given synagogue, and require that the farmer, smith, or shepherd take a day off work to travel to the priests - once considered sinful sloth. A new ethic was born. It was commanded, which commandment made the top ten list. The sin then became working on this day. And God's day of rest serves as the role model, and why it is sinful to not also take a day off each week.
Notice also the choice of the week, an artificial construct with no astronomical correlate like the day, month, or year, which are inspired by celestial motions and cycles. How often shall these people be instructed to take a day off and bring tithes to the priests? A month was too long. So, the week was invented - the work week to be precise.
Incidentally, to those that say that the days of creation were not literal days, well, the seventh day is certainly a literal day. If you are to emulate the god of the Old Testament, you need to take off a literal day - from sunset to the next sunset.
So these are two examples of an unbeliever reinterpreting scripture. If anybody considers doing that inappropriate or disrespectful, I simply disagree.
Just a few more words on calling biblical myths like the flood story allegory. It is not. An allegory is a story in which characters or events stand in for historical characters or events. The author has something specific in mind for which elements are substituted one-for-one. Gulliver's Travels is an allegory, meaning that its author, Swift, realized that he was writing fiction intended to make a political statement about contemporary England in which each element of the allegory represents something from history known to the author.
"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.
"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels
That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are neither allegories nor metaphors, which require that their authors understand what the elements in the story actually stand for. The biblical myths are not that. What part of the creation myth represents symmetry breaking or the inflationary epoch? None.
They are simply primitive attempts to account for the world and how it got to be the way it is. The faithful simply won't call them wrong, but the rest of us are free to do so. Is that disrespectful? Not to me. It's participating in the marketplace of ideas - the purpose of a forum like this. Believers that find that offensive have to deal with that themselves. They can choose to not participate, to recognize that others may reject their beliefs and not be offended by that, or be participate and be offended.
"One clear example of Swift's use of political allegory is the Rope Dancers, who are Lilliputians seeking employment in the government, All candidates are asked to dance on the rope and whoever jumps the highest without falling is offered a high office . Very often the current ministers are asked to dance to show their skills . For instance, Flimnap, the treasurer, is required to dance on a tight rope to show his superiority to other in this respect.
"This jumping game may sound innocent to the children, however, politically its significance is far from innocent. Obviously, Swift makes a satire on the way in which political offices were distributed among the candidates by George I. Flimnap stands for Sir Robert Walpole the prime minister of England. Dancing on a tight rope symbolizes Walpole's skill in parliamentary tactics and political intrigues. In general, Swift wants to infer that England's system is arbitrary and corrupted." Political Allegory In Gulliver's Travels
That's allegory. The Genesis creation story and the flood story, for example, are neither allegories nor metaphors, which require that their authors understand what the elements in the story actually stand for. The biblical myths are not that. What part of the creation myth represents symmetry breaking or the inflationary epoch? None.
They are simply primitive attempts to account for the world and how it got to be the way it is. The faithful simply won't call them wrong, but the rest of us are free to do so. Is that disrespectful? Not to me. It's participating in the marketplace of ideas - the purpose of a forum like this. Believers that find that offensive have to deal with that themselves. They can choose to not participate, to recognize that others may reject their beliefs and not be offended by that, or be participate and be offended.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
I wholeheartedly believe that it is okay. I mean, if you're going to write fiction, then who has the right to tell you what you can and cannot write? I think the real problem is when people want to use fiction for more than just entertainment's sake.
I see a huge problem with this. And that is that even the people WITHIN THE RELIGION can't agree on what they believe and practice. And we're not just talking people quibbling over whether potatoes taste better fried or baked, right? We're talking about things that are supposed to determine your place in eternity. That are supposed to govern how you live your life now and possibly into the hereafter. Important stuff... and yet no one seems to know what the hell they are talking about, or how to accurately represent themselves without ambiguity. Stinks if you ask me. It's just a bunch of stinky, unhappy mess.
Because humans are storytellers at core. We all tell stories, and we all retell stories in ways that suit us. Everybody does this, and it is frequently done irrespective of who is said to "own" the stories. Probably because nobody really owns stories. The inspiration that flows from stories will go where it wants. Nothing can contain it. We tell and retell stories to be relevant to our own circumstances... to help make sense of our world. This, we humans have been doing since humans have been a thing. And we will keep doing it for the foreseeable future.
As for the specifics of how the tellings are rewoven, that's going to vary a lot. Sometimes, stories are woven in from another culture because something in the foreign tale reinforces the narratives of the culture. Other times it is part of a process of integration - a way of making peace with two cultures that are coming into contact with one another frequently. Sharing stories is a huge way humans make peace with each other. Common narratives help us relate and get along. Regardless of scenario, it is atypical that retelling of narratives is done for malevolent aims. People retell stories because they find something beautiful in them, not because they want to misrepresent it or destroy it.
halbhh
The wonder and awe of "all things".
That true.
Now, I've talked at length with many dozens of different believers.
In different denominations.
Different years, different cities, different ways (from coffee and donuts downstairs, to cookouts in back yards, to late evening discussing for hours).
Conversations that lasted 10m, 30m, hours...
And what you can find, as I have, is there are not 2 people on Earth that see things the same.
Inside any 1 church, there are not 2 that see things the same way.
They can agree to agree though! They can agree to agree that Christ is Lord, or very usefully, they might totally agree on every word of a simple statement of Faith, such as the Apostles' Creed (I'll copy it below at the end of this post) and the Nicene Creed, for instance.
Those kinds of things we will agree to agree on. But....
But, if you talk with someone more than a few minutes, and in a truly listening way, and they sense you won't be judgemental, then they will open up, and tell you what they really think about something. And you'll discover yet another unique viewpoint, when you get into details.
Now, I think it's fair to say someone that disagrees with the Apostles' Creed (once they have learned that 'catholic' simply means the universal brotherhood of all who believe in Christ as Savior, risen, regardless of denomination) -- someone that disagrees with even this simple Creed is probably best thought of as being in a different religion.
Then, it's not so much that they are attempting to mangle ours, but rather, they are actually in a different religion, fundamentally.
But, if the person does agree with all of the Apostles' Creed, then I accept that they are Christian, in my own religion. At least nominally. (I can't know their heart and whether they actually believe of course, which would require omniscience)
Apostles' Creed:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.
-----
"catholic" means the universal body of Christ -- all who believe in Christ as Savior, risen from the grave, regardless of their denomination
"communion of saints" simply recognizes that those passed on in Christ are together with us still living, the Body of Christ -- together we are in communion