HelpMe
·´sociopathic meanderer`·
what is it called when two people serve one person?(or one governing body)?SoulTYPE01 said:What religion did Adam and Eve participate in?
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
what is it called when two people serve one person?(or one governing body)?SoulTYPE01 said:What religion did Adam and Eve participate in?
Jacob wrestled with God in human form, but God was not human. Jacob wrestled all night, but all God had to do was touch Jacob on his hip to shatter the ligament there and cause Jacob to walk with a limp for the rest of his life.Khale said:I don't know if the idea of God becoming human is alien to Judaism. I believe that the reason that they got the name Israelites is because Jacob wrestles with a human form of God.
Understood. Sometimes things have to change in order to stay the same. The trick is to know when change is necessary and when not. <shrug>Khale said:Sorry if it sounded that way. I simply meant evolution as change over time. It was something that I had been personally struggling with in my religion. I have been worried about it changing so much that it would lose it's original purpose/meaning. This is a bit of a problem to me since I am currently struggling to find the truth of my faith.
ahh the lovley feathersinhair, hi agian. Adam and eve did much more then just getting kicked out of the gardenFeathersinHair said:I didn't know getting cast out of the Garden of Eden was a religion.
The only services I know about is to walk around naked, eat fruit, and have sex.FeathersinHair said:But, hey, whatever floats your boat! (I'm imagining the church services of this religion: people are in a garden and eat fruit, then get kicked out.)
I like this statement but I hope your not supporting relativismFeathersinHair said:Seriously, though, it's hard to make your way on these forums without being respectful of other paths of worship. This doesn't mean you have to believe in them, but at least acknowledge that those who follow them are at least as convinced that their religion is 'right' as you are.
Really? well when I say christian I mean following christ and not 'liberal christianity' the concept of the trinity is no where in the bible. So I wouldn't say that is a difference.lilithu said:Not true.
It isn't just whether Jesus is the Messiah, it's also whether Jesus Christ is God. Christianity believes in the trinity.
thats why I said you have to define what type of judism your talking aboutlilithu said:Not all Jews believe in a ressurection. Many don't even believe in an afterlife.
lilithu said:Jews do not believe in original sin or the Christian concept of the Devil. Nor do they tend to believe that scripture is the inerrant word of God. While they share some common roots, there are some very important differences between Judaism and Christianity.
SoulTYPE01 said:How so.
And there are many "unorganized religions".
SoulTYPE01 said:What religion did Adam and Eve participate in?
Are you saying that the trinity is a liberal Christian concept? If so, you are going to have to define your idea of "liberal" for me, because we obviously don't mean the same things by these terms that we're using.chuck010342 said:Really? well when I say christian I mean following christ and not 'liberal christianity' the concept of the trinity is no where in the bible. So I wouldn't say that is a difference.
Yes, but the bible is interpreted differently. Hence, no original sin, no Devil. And the Jewish Messiah is king on earth, not in some afterlife. The order of the books in the Jewish Tanakh was rearranged in the Christian OT in order to emphasize the idea of the prophesized Messiah. It's actually not as central an idea in Judaism as it is in Christianity.chuck010342 said:when talking about judaism and christianity I'm talking about there roots aka the bible
Thank you for your kind comment! In that context, I was not supporting relativism. I simply meant that there are a lot of forum members who find that, although they believe their own religion is the only path to salvation/ enlightenment/ eternal peace, they tend to find that their arguments carry a lot more weight if they respect that people who participate in other religions also believe the same. I wasn't suggesting that you acknowledge these faiths as being valid unto themselves, I was simply mentioning a method that has helped a lot of people in the past.chuck010342 said:I like this statement but I hope your not supporting relativism
So, oooo, baby, yeah. That's me all over. However, any discussion or debate over the validity of this belief would be better in another thread, so we can at least try to remain on topic on this particular one.A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.
lilithu said:Are you saying that the trinity is a liberal Christian concept? If so, you are going to have to define your idea of "liberal" for me, because we obviously don't mean the same things by these terms that we're using.
lilithu said:Yes, but the bible is interpreted differently.
Like I said before I don't think its a good idea to talk about jewish things with a non jew.lilithu said:Hence, no original sin, no Devil. And the Jewish Messiah is king on earth, not in some afterlife.
FeathersinHair said:Thank you for your kind comment! In that context, I was not supporting relativism. I simply meant that there are a lot of forum members who find that, although they believe their own religion is the only path to salvation/ enlightenment/ eternal peace, they tend to find that their arguments carry a lot more weight if they respect that people who participate in other religions also believe the same. I wasn't suggesting that you acknowledge these faiths as being valid unto themselves, I was simply mentioning a method that has helped a lot of people in the past.
As for myself supporting relativism, over on dictionary.com, the definition is:
So, oooo, baby, yeah. That's me all over. However, any discussion or debate over the validity of this belief would be better in another thread, so we can at least try to remain on topic on this particular one.
well thats what I thought a belief system was; a religion.Deut. 32.8 said:You limit yourself to but one of two standard defnitions of atheism. You also equate "belief system" with "religion", thereby diluting the term to the point of worthlessness.
O there's a "correct" way of interpreting the Torah and Gospels? Do tell what is it?chuck010342 said:of course it is, but there is such a thing as the correct interpetation.
I don't agree that religion is evolving. I would agree to say that it has changed. Evolving constitutes a progression. Religion is not progressing because man is not spiritually progressing. Rather, religion has become divided into sects in order to approach various types of people. Religion has changed for the sake of the de-evolving human species. Despite this necessary change, religion is essentially one and unchanging.Khale said:As people evolve throughout the ages in body and mind so has their religion sometimes the changes are small, such as how an individual law is to be enforced. Sometimes the changes are large, such as a change in God(s). As the years go on religions will continue to evolve, if they don't, they will cease to exist.
While evolution of religion is necessary for the survival of religion it does bring up a problem. If there is a true religion will it eventually evolve to the point where it is no longer the true religion?
Maize said:Actually, Buddhists differ on the issue of if there is a god or not, because it's not deemed as important to ending suffering in this life. So, yes some Buddhists would be atheists but some are open to the idea of a "god".
The word "religion" is kind of mundane. I prefer "dharma".Maize said:I believe Atheism is a religion, but my definition of an Atheist is not one who lacks religion, but one who does not believe in a god. There's a difference. I believe all people have a religion, even if their beliefs are not defined into an organized religion as we know it.
How can a Jew not believe in an afterlife? If this were the case, their Jew-ness would lose value. I mean, what is the value of studying one's relationship with God if one essentially does not exist? A Jew that believes in no afterlife is one step away from atheism.lilithu said:Not all Jews believe in a ressurection. Many don't even believe in an afterlife.
Paraprakrti said:I don't agree that religion is evolving. I would agree to say that it has changed. Evolving constitutes a progression. Religion is not progressing because man is not spiritually progressing. Rather, religion has become divided into sects in order to approach various types of people. Religion has changed for the sake of the de-evolving human species. Despite this necessary change, religion is essentially one and unchanging.
It's not so much not believing in an afterlife, but it's just not something that most jews concern themselves with.Paraprakrti said:How can a Jew not believe in an afterlife? If this were the case, their Jew-ness would lose value. I mean, what is the value of studying one's relationship with God if one essentially does not exist? A Jew that believes in no afterlife is one step away from atheism.
jewscout said:O there's a "correct" way of interpreting the Torah and Gospels? Do tell what is it?