Mangling others' religions

sealchan said:

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.

Click to expand...

I like the idea that different cultures "borrowed" myths from others and then made them their own. But, for you as a Christian, how does that work? If Creation was borrowed. And probably the Flood. And then what about dying and rising God/men? I have absolutely no problem believing that ancient people had more to do with inventing their Gods and their religions, than a real God sending messengers and telling people what the truth is.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes, if he is as claimed... then, all other religions, in how they believe and in how they practice their beliefs are wrong?

CG Didymus said:

I like the idea that different cultures "borrowed" myths from others and then made them their own. But, for you as a Christian, how does that work? If Creation was borrowed. And probably the Flood. And then what about dying and rising God/men? I have absolutely no problem believing that ancient people had more to do with inventing their Gods and their religions, than a real God sending messengers and telling people what the truth is.

Click to expand...

An interesting observation about myths (perhaps I got it indirectly from Joseph Campbell, though that was very long ago), is that if the myths touch on real truths about life (best ways to live life, practically), then those very truths (best ways to live) ought to show up over and over, theoretically. Right? Make sense? If something is true, it ought to show up in various forms over and over -- different centuries, different cultures/nations. Same idea, repeated. That's what we'd expect. If an idea on how to live is good, it ought to persist. Perennial. If something is false on the other hand, it should fade away. Using this insight, you'd want to seek what the traditions have in common, logically. In time you'd want to be sure to take in the words of the most well known teachers, like the Christ, if trying to find the wisdom of the ages.

CG Didymus said:

Some things are said to be wrong, while others are re-interpreted.

Click to expand...

It Aint Necessarily So said:

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.

Click to expand...

I like it. Taking the Bible too literal puts a lot a people in tough positions. How literal are they going to take it? Then once they start making concessions, where do they stop? Not too many Christians take the verses in Mark about drinking poison and picking up serpents literal. Lots of them that do are dead.

But, when the gospels say Jesus came back to life and ascended into the sky, I think that the gospel writers intended that story to be taken literally. But who, other than most Christians, are going to believe that? Now we have a new religion, the Baha'i Faith, saying that their prophet is the return of Christ. But, not only that, he is the promised one of every major religion.

So how do they make a man in Persia the return of Christ? The first thing is that the return can't be Jesus. All things have to be interpreted to support that. And they have their verses. But another thing they do is get rid of the resurrection. And, like I said, who believes that literally happened? Other than most Christians and maybe a few others. So Baha'is have made all the verses dealing with the resurrected Jesus, symbolic. The "body" of Christ becomes his followers. They are the body of Christ. And they, after three days came alive.

Fantastic story. But, like what you're saying with the Flood story, if Jesus didn't come back to life, then that is a fictional event. There is zero indication that the writers were making up a symbolic story. So, to me, if it didn't happen, they were lying. Lying to make Jesus into a God/man. And it worked. Or, the story is completely true and the Baha'is are lying. Or, I guess, the Baha'is could be right and God told four different gospel writers to say Jesus rose from the dead, but only in a symbolic way... but had them write it as if it really happened. But, I doubt it.

CG Didymus said:

Yes, if he is as claimed... then, all other religions, in how they believe and in how they practice their beliefs are wrong?

Click to expand...

I see one has to separate people's individual choices and ideas from the religion and see for one's own self.

CG, I do not see any of God's Faiths as wrong.

It is obvious in the world we live in that the ages past have not passed on the potential of those Faiths. The Baha'i now faced with the same choices.

So tell me, do you think the choices made by people in Faith has brought out the full potential of those Faiths, have they always got it right.

If you cannot answer yes, then one has to reflect what was misunderstood.

For a Baha'i, those misunderstandings have been clarified.

Regards Tony

CG Didymus said:

So, to me, if it didn't happen, they were lying. Lying to make Jesus into a God/man. And it worked.

Click to expand...

I do not see it that way at all. I see the disciples knew that to portray what happens in the spiritual realms requires material comparisons.

I will keep this short, but Abdul'baha gave a good talk on this, it is worth considering;

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

An extract;

"... that human knowledge is of two kinds. One is the knowledge acquired through the senses.....The other kind of human knowledge is that of intelligible things.....But when you undertake to express these intelligible realities, you have no recourse but to cast them in the mould of the sensible, for outwardly there is nothing beyond the sensible. Thus, when you wish to express the reality of the spirit and its conditions and degrees, you are obliged to describe them in terms of sensible things, since outwardly there exists nothing but the sensible.... "

The Bible is a spiritual Guide, that is God's purpose for us, it is not a literal history book and should never be used as such.

Why else does God give us intelligence, on one hand we can study and record history, on the other God gives Messengers that teach us spiritual realities.

One must choose how they look upon all Holy Books, a literal history with a few spiritual concepts, or spiritual insights expressed in material forms based on some aspects of life and people's capacity of understanding of that time.

Regards Tony

It Aint Necessarily So said:

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? ...

Click to expand...

Well, that (whatever meaning is in the Flood story) could only be from the text, we'd guess.

What does the story itself say?

It actually says a surprising, uncomfortable thing --


5The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
...
11Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence."

At this point, one could either...believe (do Christians even?) that such an evil situation could arise -- a culture of no love at all.

Or instead refuse to see it, or refuse to believe it.

We moderns might just prefer to believe that is impossible

(and perhaps also deny the reality of the holocaust in the 1940s as in keeping with such a preferred world view.)

So, there we have it, the stated meaning of the story -- a slide into total barbarism is possible for humans.

Not so comfortable to think is possible.

But history shows it is possible, over and over.

CG Didymus said:

I like it. Taking the Bible too literal puts a lot a people in tough positions.

Click to expand...

Yeah! Yes, it does.

spirtual-philosophy said:

If they are wrong, you should believe they are wrong.

Click to expand...

No.

I should believe the TRUTH, because the truth will set me free.
And not be kept in bondage like they are.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

No one owns God's Word.

We all are responsible for our own approach to them, how to see what is contained within and how to live them.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Says the religion that misappropriates the Jewish Torah. Look, if you want to read it and be inspired by it, more power to ya. It the fact that you want to twist it into entirely new meanings that don't actually match the text that are so egregious. It is not yours to do that to.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Says the religion that misappropriates the Jewish Torah. Look, if you want to read it and be inspired by it, more power to ya. It the fact that you want to twist it into entirely new meanings that don't actually match the text that are so egregious. It is not yours to do that to.

Click to expand...

Why are you so surprised? Most of the Abrahamic religions that came after Moses desperately want to be the 'chosen' ones, so they reinterpret to suit themselves.
Anyway, forgive them, for they know what they do.

Jedster said:

Why are you so surprised? Most of the Abrahamic religions that came after Moses desperately want to be the 'chosen' ones, so they reinterpret to suit themselves.
Anyway, forgive them, for they know what they do.

Click to expand...

Oh, virtually all of the time, I don't get my panties in a wad. I'm just a little harsher in this forum, since we are here to debate each other. Yes, I realize this is what they have been taught, and once they are taught, it is supremely difficult for them to see it any other way.

IndigoChild5559 said:

Says the religion that misappropriates the Jewish Torah. Look, if you want to read it and be inspired by it, more power to ya. It the fact that you want to twist it into entirely new meanings that don't actually match the text that are so egregious. It is not yours to do that to.

Click to expand...

There are of course other ways at looking at this. I have done my research and see no reason why Baha'u'llah is not as claimed.

Of course, you are free to make your comments, but to prove your point you would have to show why the explanations, given by Baha'u'llah and authorized Baha'i Writings, are not a valid interpretation. One would also have to prove how their interpretation is exclusively valid.

Regards Tony

Jedster said:

Why are you so surprised? Most of the Abrahamic religions that came after Moses desperately want to be the 'chosen' ones, so they reinterpret to suit themselves.
Anyway, forgive them, for they know what they do.

Click to expand...

Statements such as quoted above, are in themselves are a form of mangling religions, not based on proofs or reasoned arguments.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Statements such as quoted above, are in themselves are a form of mangling religions, not based on proofs or reasoned arguments.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Well, I see your point; however maybe you can see my point as the message was from one Jew to another.
Even though I am secular, I am still a nevertheless Jew & I cannot count the number of times I have been told by people of other backgrounds how they are true ones. This is since I was a child of 7.

CG Didymus said:

I like the idea that different cultures "borrowed" myths from others and then made them their own. But, for you as a Christian, how does that work? If Creation was borrowed. And probably the Flood. And then what about dying and rising God/men? I have absolutely no problem believing that ancient people had more to do with inventing their Gods and their religions, than a real God sending messengers and telling people what the truth is.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Bible is a great work of literature with some truly deep insight into human psychology. People often have a literal experience of God in a variety of ways even if God is not physically real. I have had such an experience so I count myself a Christian with deep sincerity even if I dont share the majority of my fellow Christian's literalism.

I have studied Jung and Campbell enough to have a deep appreciation of many religions and myths.

halbhh said:

An interesting observation about myths (perhaps I got it indirectly from Joseph Campbell, though that was very long ago), is that if the myths touch on real truths about life (best ways to live life, practically), then those very truths (best ways to live) ought to show up over and over, theoretically. Right? Make sense? If something is true, it ought to show up in various forms over and over -- different centuries, different cultures/nations. Same idea, repeated. That's what we'd expect. If an idea on how to live is good, it ought to persist. Perennial. If something is false on the other hand, it should fade away. Using this insight, you'd want to seek what the traditions have in common, logically. In time you'd want to be sure to take in the words of the most well known teachers, like the Christ, if trying to find the wisdom of the ages.

Click to expand...

If one studies myths across cultures and then pays close attention to dreams and even studies a little neurobiology let's say, one can have a rather strong sense that the brain not only entertains myths as a matter of course but that we all operate on some mythic platform whether we know it, dismiss it or not.

A religion does not exist in exclusion of all the environmental factors that went into its formation and evolution. It was discovered, inspired, borrowed, enfranchised, persecuted, enshrined, interpreted, officialized, compelled, taught, dogmatized, ritualized, petrified, altered throughout its entire history from start to finish.

I learned just yesterday that the first president of the United States belonged to a church that was formed by Queen Elizabeth I to separate her contact with God from the authority of the Pope. That church required loyalty to the English crown so in his lifetime that church formed a distinct separation of own.

But what were these churches doing having associated themselves with political power for so long? What would Jesus have said about that after facing the devils temptation of political power?

sealchan said:

If one studies myths across cultures and then pays close attention to dreams and even studies a little neurobiology let's say, one can have a rather strong sense that the brain not only entertains myths as a matter of course but that we all operate on some mythic platform whether we know it, dismiss it or not.

A religion does not exist in exclusion of all the environmental factors that went into its formation and evolution. It was discovered, inspired, borrowed, enfranchised, persecuted, enshrined, interpreted, officialized, compelled, taught, dogmatized, ritualized, petrified, altered throughout its entire history from start to finish.

I learned just yesterday that the first president of the United States belonged to a church that was formed by Queen Elizabeth I to separate her contact with God from the authority of the Pope. That church required loyalty to the English crown so in his lifetime that church formed a distinct separation of own.

But what were these churches doing having associated themselves with political power for so long? What would Jesus have said about that after facing the devils temptation of political power?

Click to expand...

Yes -- won't that happen in some fashion in any/every church (or grouping of churches) -- a politically preoccupied group, people that are interested in power. Not all or most of the congregation, but some.

In some manner, we'd expect what Christ described: " He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matt ch 13)

halbhh said:

Yes -- won't that happen in some fashion in any/every church (or grouping of churches) -- a politically preoccupied group, people that are interested in power. Not all or most of the congregation, but some.

In some manner, we'd expect what Christ described: " He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. 26So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, “Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” (Matt ch 13)

Click to expand...

Interesting parable that highlights a very interesting chapter of Matthew.

Perhaps the whole chapter is about what it is like to participate in a religion where you may be with others of like mind but there will always be a harvest of mixed quality. One has always to work on one's self in order to have a proper discernment even within one's own group of believers.

SalixIncendium said:

I've never heard this one. Where did you find it?

Click to expand...

It's an old belief started by a book written by Nikolai Notovitch about Jesus traveling to India and living with Hindus and Buddhists, and learning from them. I'm not so on-board with Jesus going to India, but rather with India going to Jesus. I think he was influenced by travelers who went back and forth over the Silk Road (actually an intricate and extensive network, not just one road). I've been saying for a while that some of his teachings and even his birth story echo the Bhagavad Gita and Krishna, both of which came centuries before Jesus. I do not believe Jesus was an original.

To answer the o.p., I have two problems with what becomes mangling a religion, mine in particular. @Vinayaka already pointed one issue, namely when a non-Hindu tells a Hindu about Hinduism. Worse yet, getting it completely wrong. On one hand it can be humorous, on the other hand, it can be misleading when third party people believe it.

The other issue is something like one finds here [url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm ]Specific similarities between the lives of Jesus and Krishna. There are some similarities as I have maintained, but this is not only trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it's using a 20 lb. sledge hammer to pound it in.[/url]