• 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!

Religious mix and match, am I being disrespectful?

Ah, you're welcome.

I'm drawn to prisca theologia also, because I am a universalist at heart. You know, ekam sat viprah bahudha vadanti, "One Truth the wise know by many names" (Rig Veda 10.164.46). However, I also am not a fan of God-revealed religions or scriptures. I can justify prisca theologia and the Vedas by saying they were not revealed, as in the story of Moses or Mohammed, but rather, they are truths that have always existed and will always exist, but there were people (i.e. the rishis) who were enlightened enough to understand this Truth and pass it on. I think there's room enough for prisca theologia to go either way. Remember Jaki rahi bhavana jaisi prabhu murat dekhi tin taisi, "everyone sees God in their own way". Kind of a corollary to "ekam sat...".

For starters, the passages you quoted from the Rig Veda make me very interest in exploring Hinduism. I think I may run into the same issues you are describing in your other thread, but I see there are aspects there that are worthy of learning about and appreciating.


As for prisca theologia, you had my mind going all last night about this, and I think I was a little short sighted when I said this is something that I couldn't 100% believe was true. Who am I to say HOW God gave this knowledge to man in antiquity?

It also had me thinking of Carl Sagan's Contact. The book, not the movie (although I love the movie). In the book, God's "signature" was embedded deep in pi, with the possibility of even more knowledge existing deeper within it. This signature had been discovered by extra-terrestrials in the past, who then clued Ellie Arroway into it's existence when her group visited in the machine.

Maybe God gave us knowledge of his existence in mathematics, or maybe somewhere deep in our DNA, some all life has some of the same DNA. Maybe "man" doesn't necessarily have to mean humans, maybe it represents all life in the universe?

I may be getting a little abstract in my thinking, but I have to admit, it's pretty cool to think about. :)
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
For starters, the passages you quoted from the Rig Veda make me very interest in exploring Hinduism. I think I may run into the same issues you are describing in your other thread, but I see there are aspects there that are worthy of learning about and appreciating.

As with any scripture of any religion, there is truth, there is contradiction, there is superstition, there is downright error. This is why I hold with a paraphrase of the Buddha, the Hua Hu Ching, and Gandhi:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and
is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
- The Buddha

And the Hua Hu Ching (substitute 'God' for 'Tao' if you like ;)):

Dualistic thinking is a sickness.
Religion is a distortion.
Materialism is cruel.
Blind spirituality is unreal.
Chanting is no more holy than listening to the
murmur of a stream; counting prayer beads no more
sacred than simply breathing; religious robes no
more spiritual than work clothes.
If you wish to attain oneness with the Tao, don’t get
caught up in spiritual superficialities.
Instead, live a quiet and simple life, free of ideas and
concepts.
Find contentment in the practice of undiscriminating
virtue, the only true power.
Giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating
light throughout the world and illuminating your
own darkness, your virtue becomes a sanctuary for
yourself and all beings.
This is what is meant by embodying the Tao.
- Lao Tze Hua Hu Ching Chapter 47

After a long study and experience I have come to these conclusions:
that all religions are true, all religions have some error in them,
all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism.
My veneration for other faiths is the same as for my own faith.
- Gandhi

As for prisca theologia, you had my mind going all last night about this

Oh I am sorry... :sorry1: I'm sure I would have other ways of keeping you from sleeping last night. :biglaugh:

I think I was a little short sighted when I said this is something that I couldn't 100% believe was true. Who am I to say HOW God gave this knowledge to man in antiquity?

That's what meditation, reflection and contemplation are for. :)

It also had me thinking of Carl Sagan's Contact. The book, not the movie (although I love the movie). In the book, God's "signature" was embedded deep in pi, with the possibility of even more knowledge existing deeper within it. This signature had been discovered by extra-terrestrials in the past, who then clued Ellie Arroway into it's existence when her group visited in the machine.

Maybe God gave us knowledge of his existence in mathematics, or maybe somewhere deep in our DNA, some all life has some of the same DNA. Maybe "man" doesn't necessarily have to mean humans, maybe it represents all life in the universe?

I may be getting a little abstract in my thinking, but I have to admit, it's pretty cool to think about. :)

That's part of the root of Deism. Classical Deism in its unflavored version says that God created the laws of the universe, and it runs according to those laws. So if the laws are based on mathematics, which they seem to be, then Sagan was right.
 
As with any scripture of any religion, there is truth, there is contradiction, there is superstition, there is downright error. This is why I hold with a paraphrase of the Buddha, the Hua Hu Ching, and Gandhi:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and
is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
- The Buddha

And the Hua Hu Ching (substitute 'God' for 'Tao' if you like ;)):

Dualistic thinking is a sickness.
Religion is a distortion.
Materialism is cruel.
Blind spirituality is unreal.
Chanting is no more holy than listening to the
murmur of a stream; counting prayer beads no more
sacred than simply breathing; religious robes no
more spiritual than work clothes.
If you wish to attain oneness with the Tao, don’t get
caught up in spiritual superficialities.
Instead, live a quiet and simple life, free of ideas and
concepts.
Find contentment in the practice of undiscriminating
virtue, the only true power.
Giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating
light throughout the world and illuminating your
own darkness, your virtue becomes a sanctuary for
yourself and all beings.
This is what is meant by embodying the Tao.
- Lao Tze Hua Hu Ching Chapter 47

After a long study and experience I have come to these conclusions:
that all religions are true, all religions have some error in them,
all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism.
My veneration for other faiths is the same as for my own faith.
- Gandhi

Very wise words. :)

Oh I am sorry... :sorry1: I'm sure I would have other ways of keeping you from sleeping last night. :biglaugh:

*in my best George Takei impression* Ohhh myyyy ;)

That's what meditation, reflection and contemplation are for. :)

Indeed.

That's part of the root of Deism. Classical Deism in its unflavored version says that God created the laws of the universe, and it runs according to those laws. So if the laws are based on mathematics, which they seem to be, then Sagan was right.

It is the one true universal language, after all. It could very well be the language of God.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
SteveGrayFTW said:
If you don't mind me asking, JayJayDee, how did you come into Christianity?

Did you convert (and if so, why?), or were you born into this path?

Were you born into a particular denomination, or did you convert (and if so, why?)?

I was raised by semi-religious parents (Christians in name only) in the Anglican Church. They sent us kids to Sunday School but never went to church themselves. A fairly typical situation, growing up in Australia in the 50's. The minister never visited my parents to encourage them to come to church and as long as they sent their weekly donation with us kids on a Sunday, he wasn't really interested in them. :rolleyes:

All through my life for reasons I cannot explain, I felt God was near me, looking out for me and I would spend hours pawing through a little KJV that my Nana gave me when I was 10. I didn't read much, but I loved the illustrations which seemed to say more to me than the words did anyhow. The Bible's message was somewhat of a mystery to me but I figured that the minister knew it all for me so I wasn't much worried.

It wasn't till I hit my late teens that I really started to wonder about all the hard questions. I asked them, but never got any satisfying answers....I began to think there weren't any. I stopped going to church and got stuck into evolution, but my thoughts about God would not go away. I knew he was there in the design I saw in living things and I knew that evolution was a way to steer me away from appreciating him as a thoughtful Creator. I was in limbo for some years, completely disillusioned with the church system and feeling as if God was hiding behind a wall so high that I would never be able to get to him.

Then I lost my father very suddenly to a massive heart attack. (He was only 52) Everything in me was screaming "not fair"! This sent me on a mission to find answers....there had to be some explanations that the church was missing. No one I approached had anything satisfying to tell me. They were as perplexed about it all as I was. It was all a mystery.

I looked into other belief systems...the LDS,(they had some very strange beliefs that were not at all Biblical)

I looked into Buddhism and Hinduism, (there were some appealing teachings but these used many idols and I knew that God abhorred such things.)

Islam seemed to be Draconian, lost in ritual and performance like Catholicism. I knew that God did not not accept prayers that were meaningless recitations or that required external things like prayer beads. There is no prayer said by Jesus, that is recorded in the NT where he said "repeat this prayer". The Lord's prayer is a classic example of this. He did not say "pray this prayer"...he said "pray this way". Intimate conversation with God has to come from the heart, not just by rote from the mind.

What made you decide the Bible was the word of God, as opposed to the Torah, the Koran, the Rig Veda, etc...?
Jesus himself denounced the attitude of the Pharisees, accusing them of invalidating God's word by their strict adherence to their own man-made tradition. The ones who put Christ to death were continually castigated by him during his ministry. I had no desire to know about them.
Pre-Christian servants of God however were another story. (Heb 11)

Islam had a history of violence and accepted Jesus only as a prophet, not as the son of God.

Eastern religious writings though giving evidence of wisdom, also involved idolatry, and a multiplicity of gods, breaking many of the Ten Commandments, (which I believed were non-negotiable.)

Let me just say that I have no issue with the people who follow these religions because I am sure that the majority of them are just like you and me...who see themselves as decent human beings who just want to do the right thing.
It is the religious institutions themselves that I see as satanic substitutes for authentic worship....a way to mislead even sincere ones. Each has an appeal to different aspects of people's personalities. The devil knows human nature better than we do. :(

You have heard the story of "how you hide a 40 foot tree out in the middle of a cleared field?" If you haven't.....see link.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...395-how-could-you-hide-40-ft.html#post3534893

Do you ever have doubts, or at least questions?
All my doubts came from the teachings of Christendom. I never understood the trinity because it was the most illogical thing I had ever heard. The Jews don't believe it and neither does Islam accept it, so why does Christendom, as the other "Abrahamic" religion, teach it? (Deut 6:4) No explanation ever made sense of it to me.

I questioned the teaching of "hellfire" because it was clearly a breach of the standard of justice taught in God's word. Never was fire used for torture in Israel. There were not even any prisons in ancient Israel.

I even dabbled in spiritism for a while, not realizing that it is forbidden in the Bible. When a seance predicted my father's death, and it came true, I was sickened and refused to touch it again. (Deut 18:10-12)

A religion should be judged on the activities of the people who practice it. I never saw a church that practiced what it preached. When it came to war, I knew that God's law said "thou shalt not kill" and to "love your enemies" but I saw clergymen encouraging soldiers to kill their enemies and they blessed the weapons that were going to be used to murder innocents. People on both sides in the two World Wars claimed to be Christians, yet they violated a direct command of Jesus to love their "brothers". (1 John 4:20, 21)

I saw an emphasis on money that went beyond helping the poor....in many cases, it was more about enriching the minister's lifestyle.

The churches don't preach like Jesus told all Christians to do. They preach only to the converted, which is not what Jesus did. He preached to his own people (who claimed to worship the same God,) but he went out to find them wherever they lived. (Matt 10:11-15) In all my years on this planet, no church member has ever come to my door to offer me the good news of God's kingdom. Yet this is the work that Jesus said would be done "in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations" before the foretold "end" of the present age would come. (Matt 24:14; 28:19, 20)

I guess, at the end of the day, only one group of Christians had all the answers and lived up to all that the Bible says a Christian should be, (None of them are perfect of course, but they at least try to the best of their imperfect ability to obey all of God's commands, not just the ones that suit)....these were the last people on earth I expected to come up with the goods :cover:.....but it did not require a stretch of my imagination to accept their very reasonable explanations. They showed me from my own Bible where to find them and how Christendom had corrupted the Bible's teachings centuries ago.

I have been working with them for the past 40 years, preaching the Bible's message and teaching people the same truths I learned from them so many years ago.

I believe that God led me to his people and allowed me to tear down the wall between us. If you really search for God, he will allow you to find him. (John 6:44; 2 Chron 15:2; Acts 17:26, 27) :)
 
Last edited:

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
So Jayjay, the sacred seed can go into a condom in the vagina but not into a condom in the anus? If you are going to use the argument that a man and woman can produce a child together then why do you approve of contraception?
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
So Jayjay, the sacred seed can go into a condom in the vagina but not into a condom in the anus? If you are going to use the argument that a man and woman can produce a child together then why do you approve of contraception?

There is no 'command' in scripture to produce children, nor is there a command to prevent conception in a marital relationship. In fact, if one produces more children than they can provide for, they are violating a scriptural principle. (1 Tim 5:8) But there is no escaping the fact that sex was designed to produce children in a God ordained family arrangement. It was also a way to express intimacy in marriage....to "become one flesh" with your mate.

Abraham was childless until Ishmael was born through surrogacy in his old age. Sarah was in her 90's when she gave birth to Isaac. Do we assume that normal marital sex didn't take place?

Sexual expression is a natural, intimate expression of love between scripturally "married" people. The body's sewer outlet is hardly designed for sexual intercourse. How offensive to the body's creator to use it for something it was never designed for. The act is disgusting to God and to anyone with a natural sense of decency. (Sadly disappearing in today's world)

Marriage is God's arrangement, between a husband and wife, male and female (Gen 1:27; Mark 10:6-9) The Bible is very clear about homosexual sex. It is not homosexuals that God hates...it is their acts, against the natural design of the body that he created, that offends him. (Rom 1:24-27)

People are free to do as they wish, but at the end of the day, we will all 'reap what we have sown'. No human is the judge of anyone, but God uses humans to sound 'his' warning about 'his' coming judgment, by acquainting people with 'his' standards for their conduct. (Rom 10:14, 15)
If there is no warning, there is no basis for judgment. The "witness" being given is the only warning that people will receive. (Matt 24:14) Like the days of Noah, they can ignore the warning, even ridicule the messengers, but they will pay the penalty. :( (Matt 24:37-39)
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
There is no 'command' in scripture to produce children, nor is there a command to prevent conception in a marital relationship. In fact, if one produces more children than they can provide for, they are violating a scriptural principle. (1 Tim 5:8) But there is no escaping the fact that sex was designed to produce children in a God ordained family arrangement. It was also a way to express intimacy in marriage....to "become one flesh" with your mate.

Abraham was childless until Ishmael was born through surrogacy in his old age. Sarah was in her 90's when she gave birth to Isaac. Do we assume that normal marital sex didn't take place?

Sexual expression is a natural, intimate expression of love between scripturally "married" people. The body's sewer outlet is hardly designed for sexual intercourse. How offensive to the body's creator to use it for something it was never designed for. The act is disgusting to God and to anyone with a natural sense of decency. (Sadly disappearing in today's world)

Marriage is God's arrangement, between a husband and wife, male and female (Gen 1:27; Mark 10:6-9) The Bible is very clear about homosexual sex. It is not homosexuals that God hates...it is their acts, against the natural design of the body that he created, that offends him. (Rom 1:24-27)

People are free to do as they wish, but at the end of the day, we will all 'reap what we have sown'. No human is the judge of anyone, but God uses humans to sound 'his' warning about 'his' coming judgment, by acquainting people with 'his' standards for their conduct. (Rom 10:14, 15)
If there is no warning, there is no basis for judgment. The "witness" being given is the only warning that people will receive. (Matt 24:14) Like the days of Noah, they can ignore the warning, even ridicule the messengers, but they will pay the penalty. :( (Matt 24:37-39)

Then you can't use reproduction as an argument against homosexuality when heterosexuals don't have to have children and can go against nature by using contraception.

So what if the anus was not "designed" for anal sex, if a couple can have anal sex in a safe way, why is that a problem? And where do lesbians fit into all of this since they are not mentioned in the bible? Are you against oral sex also?

male with male sex is mentioned in the Torah, but in the new testament we are not even sure if those passages should be correctly translated as homosexual.
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
People are free to do as they wish, but at the end of the day, we will all 'reap what we have sown'. No human is the judge of anyone, but God uses humans to sound 'his' warning about 'his' coming judgment, by acquainting people with 'his' standards for their conduct. (Rom 10:14, 15)
If there is no warning, there is no basis for judgment. The "witness" being given is the only warning that people will receive. (Matt 24:14) Like the days of Noah, they can ignore the warning, even ridicule the messengers, but they will pay the penalty. :( (Matt 24:37-39)

Yes we are free to decide to be comfortable with our sexual orientation and gay men do have the right to not choose to live romantically deprived lonely lives because of some verse in the Torah, esp when they are not even Jewish.

You are not free to try and convert people on the forum, or warn us that gay men will die at Armageddon.
Some of us don't want to feel constantly guilty and shamed of who we are. And I doubt the OP does either.
 
The body's sewer outlet is hardly designed for sexual intercourse. How offensive to the body's creator to use it for something it was never designed for. The act is disgusting to God and to anyone with a natural sense of decency. (Sadly disappearing in today's world)

It is possible to achieve orgasm by only stimulating the prostate though, which would be done via anal sex. Also, homosexuals do not hold a monopoly on anal sex, as 44% of straight men and 36% of straight women have admitted to trying it (Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples: Center for Disease Control and Prevention Report).

It may not be useful for anything procreation wise, but I don't know if I'd be able to go as far as it say it's being used for something it wasn't designed for, as nature does allow us to have a sexual response to the act.
 
You are not free to try and convert people on the forum, or warn us that gay men will die at Armageddon.
Some of us don't want to feel constantly guilty and shamed of who we are. And I doubt the OP does either.

Thank you for coming to my defense, Horrorble. :)

Trust me though, the OP doesn't feel guilty about his homosexuality, nor does he believe he will burn at Armageddon for it (he may burn for other reasons, but not that one :p )

I have to admit that JayJayDee's responses throughout this thread have overall been very informative and very respectful. I will also admit that her views on homosexuality are unfortunate, but I do want to give her credit for being honest and largely respectful in sharing them (as opposed to other posters I've seen in the forums when it comes to homosexuality).

At the end of the day though, her religious views are very different than mine, as are her views for what the means when it comes to my salvation (or whatever). My views on "God" and religion in general are far less dogmatic.

It's unfortunate that homosexuality became such a huge issue in this thread. This was not my intention. :/
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Thank you for coming to my defense, Horrorble. :)

I have a feeling that H was coming to her own defense actually but that's OK. I have no ill feeling toward homosexual males or females. That is the way they are 'wired'. I have studied the Bible with a few and found them to be very nice people.

I am obligated to sound a warning about where such a lifestyle may lead though. (Ezek 3:18, 19)
People are free to ignore my words and choose their own course in life, but my obligation to them is fulfilled. It is my obligation to inform, not to judge.

I have to admit that JayJayDee's responses throughout this thread have overall been very informative and very respectful. I will also admit that her views on homosexuality are unfortunate, but I do want to give her credit for being honest and largely respectful in sharing them (as opposed to other posters I've seen in the forums when it comes to homosexuality).
I too have been on forums where the subject is treated very harshly by some who call themselves Christians. These people are less than compassionate about something that most have no choice about. It is not shameful to admit that one has same sex attraction....even JW's battle this problem; it is quite common. It is a noble sacrifice on their part to remain single and celibate....they know its not forever. I truly admire them.

At the end of the day though, her religious views are very different than mine, as are her views for what the means when it comes to my salvation (or whatever). My views on "God" and religion in general are far less dogmatic.
I hope you know that it was never my intention to offend you SG. The views I gave you were entirely Biblical, not just my own ramblings.

It's unfortunate that homosexuality became such a huge issue in this thread. This was not my intention. :/
I know. The mixing and matching was religious, not sexual. :sad:
 

Horrorble

Well-Known Member
I'm straight (well maybe there is a woman out there for me, but so far I am straight) so I don't know what you mean about me coming to my own defence?
I was trying to address your points, the OP already said they don't believe in the bible like you do and one of the reasons was because of how homosexuality is condemned and then you proceed to quote from the bible trying to convert him, basically suggesting that he could die at armagedon, when he already told you he doesn't believe that. Your not allowed to try and convert people on the these forums, even in a nice way. But anyway.

That still hasn't answered my question, lesbians are not mentioned in the bible so where does that leave them?
Does the bible have a problem with oral sex?
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I looked into Buddhism and Hinduism, ... but these used many idols ...

Then you didn't look into Buddhism and Hinduism.

Btw, you're making assumptions that the bible is only true word of God. It is only to those who believe it, which many people don't. There's a saying that God shows himself in a way meaningful to the believer. Moreover, you can't use the bible to justify or prove itself. This is why most evangelicals and "born-again" Christians do not endear themselves to others.

According to Our Unitarian Universalist Faith: Frequently Asked Questions, published by the UUA:

"We do not, however, hold the Bible—or any other account of human experience—to be either an infallible guide or the exclusive source of truth. Much biblical material is mythical or legendary. Not that it should be discarded for that reason! Rather, it should be treasured for what it is. We believe that we should read the Bible as we read other books—with imagination and a critical eye. We also respect the sacred literature of other religions. Contemporary works of science, art, and social commentary are valued as well. We hold, in the words of an old liberal formulation, that "revelation is not sealed." Unitarian Universalists aspire to truth as wide as the world—we look to find truth anywhere, universally."

I think that about sums it up.
 
Top