Two Kinds of Religion

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Since the Scriptures were important to Jesus, and Jesus explained or expounded them for us then we have good reason to think what was important to Jesus could be important for us.

Why? Why not assume the same thing for Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh?

 

[Valjean]

To me there are two (2) choices: one kind of religion is false, and one kind of religion is religious truth.

The question is, which is which? Maybe they're both false.

Until religion accepts empirical testing, and accepts the conclusions, the question is moot.
And considering religion's traditional animosity to testing, or even skepticism; and its propensity to ignore test results from more inquisitive disciplines, choosing a "true" religion would be a Sisyphean task.

 

[Valjean]

Since the Scriptures were important to Jesus, and Jesus explained or expounded them for us then we have good reason to think what was important to Jesus could be important for us.

I'm seeing unsupported premises here, based on faith, not facts.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why? Why not assume the same thing for Muhammad, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh?

As far as I know, the teachings of others do Not stand up to the teachings of Christ Jesus.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'm seeing unsupported premises here, based on faith, not facts.

To me the Scriptures are supported, supported by the teachings of Christ.
Jesus had faith (confidence) in the old Hebrew Scriptures to the point of being willing to die for us.
To me, the world scene today is supported by Scripture - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13; Matthew chapter 24; Luke 21:11.

 

[Orbit]

To me the Scriptures are supported, supported by the teachings of Christ.
Jesus had faith (confidence) in the old Hebrew Scriptures to the point of being willing to die for us.
To me, the world scene today is supported by Scripture - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13; Matthew chapter 24; Luke 21:11.

You're missing something basic here. All of that is meaningless to someone who doesn't follow Christ.

 

[Valjean]

As far as I know, the teachings of others do Not stand up to the teachings of Christ Jesus.

ROFL! I hear the same thing from the other religions.

What do you mean by "stand up to?" Do you mean evidenced? I had the impression that most religions didn't like evidence, didn't trust it, had little ability to evaluate it, and denied it whenever it went against doctrine.

So... if not by evidence, how is Christian doctrine more reliable than any other religious doctrine? In what way does it stand up?

 

[Valjean]

To me the Scriptures are supported, supported by the teachings of Christ.

Google "circular argument," maybe "begging thew question," as well.

Jesus had faith (confidence) in the old Hebrew Scriptures to the point of being willing to die for us.
To me, the world scene today is supported by Scripture - 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13; Matthew chapter 24; Luke 21:11.

You're doing it again. You're assuming what you're attempting to prove.

 

[Kooky]

@Rival I know you don't care for my opinions very much, but I do agree that, at least as far as traditional, ancient paganism is concerned - I know next to nothing about modern or neo paganist approaches, so forgive me if I don't adress that area - there is indeed a rather different approach towards religion and relationship towards the divine.

With that said, please allow me to waffle a bit on a topic that I find personally fascinating, and regurgitate some of the stuff I've been reading up on recently:

One of the key divides between pagan tradition and the Abrahamic religions - though perhaps slightly less so with Judaism - is, I would argue, that Abrahamic religions place a very strong emphasis on Orthodoxy, that is, having the correct beliefs. The relationship between the Abrahamic god and His believers is, to a significant degree, a personal and internal one - what matters to one's relationship with God is whether one believes, and in the correct way.

Pagan tradition, by comparison, often stressed the importance of Orthopraxy, that is, the correct religious practice. Traditional religions were often community affairs, and their relationship with the gods was a far more pragmatic and results-based one. Rituals were a crucial method to establish and maintain relationships with the divine, and so it was important to conduct them in the proper fashion - but ultimately, the nature of the divine and its extent was fairly mutable and up to interpretation; there was no fixed theology or list of beings worthy of worship, which is why there are so many different entities and so many different ways to worship them - every god has their own rites, and every god deserves to be honored in the proper fashion, but, much like in many relationships, what you actually thought of them in private was likely not all that important.


If anybody wants to read a short introduction on the nature of historic paganism, I recommend historian Bret Deveraux's series Practical Polytheism on his blog.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As far as I know, the teachings of others do Not stand up to the teachings of Christ Jesus.

But as far as others know, the teaching of Christ Jesus don't stand up to their own? How do you decide? How do they? Is it just guess-work?

 

[Kooky]

i wonder if the pagan religion of greece or rome influenced their morals?

perhaps morals must come from something ?

The ancient Greeks and Romans very literally believed that their social order and their morals were ordained by the gods.

Now whether their religious practices influenced their social mores, or vice versa, is arguably one of those chicken-and-egg discussions that we could probably endlessly debate but are unlikely to end on a satisfying conclusion.

 

[Vinayaka]

You're missing something basic here. All of that is meaningless to someone who doesn't follow Christ.

But he is demonstrating a basic fundamental difference between the two religions alluded to: tolerance versus intolerance.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Rival, I’m not ignoring your tag. I just want to collect my thoughts on this before I respond.

 

[Valjean]

The ancient Greeks and Romans very literally believed that their social order and their morals were ordained by the gods.

Now whether their religious practices influenced their social mores, or vice versa, is arguably one of those chicken-and-egg discussions that we could probably endlessly debate but are unlikely to end on a satisfying conclusion.

Good point.
Like the Christians, their religion seemed sensible to them, because it was familiar. The familiar always seems sensible, flaws and inconsistencies are auto-deleted, and go unnoticed.

These strange, monotheistic religions seemed bonkers to the ancients. Their flaws were glaringly obvious, in a way the similarly glaring inconsistencies of their native religions were not -- to them.

The way to resolve these controversies, of course, is observation, evidence and testing. If you can't base a claim on these, you're just blowin' smoke.

 

[Rival]

@Rival, I’m not ignoring your tag. I just want to collect my thoughts on this before I respond.

No worries. Feel free also to disagree to your heart's content

 

[osgart]

But he is demonstrating a basic fundamental difference between the two religions alluded to: tolerance versus intolerance.

I believe a Christian is supposed to practice non judgmental oppositional tolerance. They are supposed to be separate from unbelievers as far as company goes. And they are called to preach, teach salvation to the world. So I think they are supposed to go into the whole world where they spread the Gospel, and be ever ready to stand and give a defense. They are actually supposed to love their enemies and pray for those who persecute them.

So a true Christian wouldn't practice anything that is judgmental toward anyone as far as judging to condemn. They passionately oppose certain things.

They hold up the Bible as evidence of itself as being true. There's nowhere that I know of in the Bible that their God wants to be proven or tested. Supposedly the Bible is a powerful conviction authority and proof of itself.

So they have ages of dispensations. So context is what they practice. They call it rightly dividing the word of truth. What applies to one dispensation doesn't apply to all dispensations. This dispensation is the age of grace. And they say the Bible is of no private interpretation. I heard one preacher say to put on the Bible goggles; alluding to the idea that humanity is blind without the book.

So freedom of investigative inquiry, and critical thinking is something they would not apply to their faith. They are not to lean on their own understanding.

Every Christian I've conversed with is to avoid endless questioning, railings, disputes, and debates as per the Bible. The Bible itself talks about avoiding vain philosophy, and to beware of science so falsely called.

So not all Christianity is literal NT Christianity.
But literal Christians are to do all these things.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is another thought I've had from my foray into Paganism.

I've reached the conclusion that Abrahamic (and monotheistic religions generally) and many Pagan religions (excluding certain Dharmic paths) are not the same thing. And by 'thing' I mean 'religion'. I think describing these two both as 'religion' is to miss the mark terribly. They are not the same in concept at all. @The Hammer essentially said on my other thread that Abrahamic religions are top down, while Pagan religions are bottom up. One has directions from God; do this, don't do that; wear this, not that; pray this many times; etc. As well as having an all-powerful force that cannot be tampered with, whether by magic, ritual or otherwise. Pagan beliefs tend to be nothing like this, and are built from the ground up, rather, in my view, from folks seeing things around themselves and making certain inferences. There aren't any dos and don'ts such as there are in Abrahamic systems.

Another main point I would like to make is that philosophies tend to exist separately from Pagan religions themselves such as in Greece and Rome, where philosophy (especially moral) was distinct from religion but one could, and rather should, have both - this seems foreign to an Abrahamic mindset, where one's religion essentially dictates one's philosophy and is basically the same thing.

I think it could reasonably be argued that these two God-beliefs are so distinct as to be different things and not really apt to be put under the same banner of 'religion'.

@Augustus @Vouthon @SalixIncendium @JustGeorge

Really interesting post @Rival

Rightly or wrongly, my starting point is the God of Abraham. Through the God of Abraham we have the allegedly Revealed Religions through which we have texts that can be authenticated and be considered authoritative. Obvious examples are the Torah in Judaism, the Gospel in Christianity and the Quran in Islam. I also include the Baha'i Faith of course. The closer we are to when a Prophet appeared the more easily we can establish historicity. In regards Moses there isn't a shred of evidence He existed. The Torah can not be historically attributed to Him through historical analysis. However the later Abrahamic Faiths provide authenticity. With Muhammad, the Quran and the Baha'i Faith, the historical basis is much more solid. Christianity has some historical foundation but its relatively weak compared to her more recent sister religions with Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Having a strong historical foundation enables an easier assessment of the so called books attributed to each religion.

This Abrahamic model could be applied to some degree to religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and paganism though is highly controversial in some circles. Buddha was historical and we have works that have been attributed to what He taught. However, we can't reasonably authenticate any of these works. Within Hinduism there may have been historic characters such as Shiva and Krishna. Certainly sacred writings in Hinduism refer to Krishna but His character is clearly mythologized if He existed at all. Krishna and Shiva existed too long ago for us to reasonably authenticate their existence using standard methods of archaeology and historical analysis. So Buddhism and Hinduism may have some basis on Divine Revelation, but the original Teachings and record of their Teachers have been lost in the mists of time.

Indigenous religious may also have been based on legitimate Divine Teachers but with the absence of any written records, instead oral traditions, we have no historical basis.

So I would consider all of these religions, religion. However religion is like a tree. It grows from a sapling, bears fruit, and eventually grows old and dies. With some Abrahamic Faiths we have some certainty about the original Teachings. With other so called non-Abrahamic Faiths we simply have no way of knowing who taught what and when. Many adherents of such faiths will argue such knowledge is unnecessary and even desirable. They can rely on personal and direct experience of God and gods. Admittedly that is quite different from having an authoritative text. However we all rely on personal experience and have some framework for viewing the world and approaching life, whether based on an authoritative text or not.

So in that sense, we have a shared humanity and all have some experience with religion and spirituality whether we consciously acknowledge it or not. That is how I personally make sense of humanities diverse religious experience.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I've reached the conclusion that Abrahamic (and monotheistic religions generally) and many Pagan religions (excluding certain Dharmic paths) are not the same thing. And by 'thing' I mean 'religion'. I think describing these two both as 'religion' is to miss the mark terribly. They are not the same in concept at all...

Now that evangelicals finally accept being called a religion you want to take it away. As a young evangelical I objected to having Christianity called a religion, because it somehow treated it as equal to groups that were less fortunate. I kept running into people claiming that all religions led to the same place and did not at all agree. I did not like them saying I had a religion. I had saving faith from God. So many people wanted to equivocate and believe that all religions were going the same direction.

...@The Hammer essentially said on my other thread that Abrahamic religions are top down, while Pagan religions are bottom up.

All three do seem somewhat top down, but maybe the pagans are only different because of their small numbers and few temples. If we go back in time to see pagan temples when they are popular then there seems a lot more top down structure, and people have to consult professional diviners about decisions for everything from this to that.

The Hammer is somewhat right, except that Christianity absorbs pagan practices and finds truth everywhere including nature, thus learning from the bottom up, sometimes. I think even Judaism with its Mosaic laws and traditions is itself a study of nature though it changes only slowly. Islam is perhaps top down since its Quran is so absolute and says it is absolute in its own pages.

...One has directions from God; do this, don't do that; wear this, not that; pray this many times; etc. As well as having an all-powerful force that cannot be tampered with, whether by magic, ritual or otherwise. Pagan beliefs tend to be nothing like this, and are built from the ground up, rather, in my view, from folks seeing things around themselves and making certain inferences. There aren't any dos and don'ts such as there are in Abrahamic systems.

Yes to the first sentence, but life in pagan religions also is like this when they are dominant -- possibly more so. Its difficult to be certain, because the pagan religions are rarer now. They were strong in times when life was short, when class was absolute, when you did what you were told and life was a long continuous repetition century upon century. Were they really less top down though? Before colonizers showed up in India how free were women? They were pagan, yet they were told what to wear, when and how to pray, who they could marry. The men were told what jobs they could have. There were ironclad rules, top down absolutely and pagan. If we go to somewhere else like Europe we know less about them and more about festivals, so its harder to know how exactly religion affected daily life. If we look back to the Roman empire we know the gods through priestly divination determined elections, political decisions and personal ones. There were personal prophecies. I'm not so sure that there wasn't a top down structure there. Maybe the picture being painted is incomplete.

In what age were pagan religions not top down about telling people how to live? I think its a fair question to ask.

Another main point I would like to make is that philosophies tend to exist separately from Pagan religions themselves such as in Greece and Rome, where philosophy (especially moral) was distinct from religion but one could, and rather should, have both - this seems foreign to an Abrahamic mindset, where one's religion essentially dictates one's philosophy and is basically the same thing.

In Greece...philosophy began with various schools competing. Some were quite religious and exclusive, so we don't have much information about them. The Pythagorean cult was one. They did exist, but because they were religious about their philosophy it faded. The secular philosophies survived, but that doesn't mean that Greek philosophy was separate from religion. Also look at the Greek pantheon. It was philosophical.

But in Greece people were directly controlled by their parents, elders, owners and statesmen. Therefore whatever religion those people had was what everyone else had. You could say that certain privileged Greeks did have some choice but not everyone else, so there was no room for religion to make demands. There was no room because the decisions were already being made by the big shots, but there was not greater freedom. It was simply that control came from another vector. Someone else decided for you. If you were a lucky rich kid maybe you had tutors that would teach you all kinds of things, but that would be rare.

 

[Bear Wild]

This is another thought I've had from my foray into Paganism.

I've reached the conclusion that Abrahamic (and monotheistic religions generally) and many Pagan religions (excluding certain Dharmic paths) are not the same thing. And by 'thing' I mean 'religion'. I think describing these two both as 'religion' is to miss the mark terribly. They are not the same in concept at all. @The Hammer essentially said on my other thread that Abrahamic religions are top down, while Pagan religions are bottom up. One has directions from God; do this, don't do that; wear this, not that; pray this many times; etc. As well as having an all-powerful force that cannot be tampered with, whether by magic, ritual or otherwise. Pagan beliefs tend to be nothing like this, and are built from the ground up, rather, in my view, from folks seeing things around themselves and making certain inferences. There aren't any dos and don'ts such as there are in Abrahamic systems.

Another main point I would like to make is that philosophies tend to exist separately from Pagan religions themselves such as in Greece and Rome, where philosophy (especially moral) was distinct from religion but one could, and rather should, have both - this seems foreign to an Abrahamic mindset, where one's religion essentially dictates one's philosophy and is basically the same thing.

I think it could reasonably be argued that these two God-beliefs are so distinct as to be different things and not really apt to be put under the same banner of 'religion'.

@Augustus @Vouthon @SalixIncendium @JustGeorge

Of course they are both religions. There are many very different religions with vastly different approaches but they all give the practicing individual and understanding of their relationship to the world. They have some form of rituals, practices, teachings and or philosophies that are shared and create a feeling of connection to the others. They all also give some form of expected behaviors that are shared.

To me the main difference in Abrahamic vs pagan religions is that the source of wisdom and knowledge comes from two different sources. For pagan religions the ultimate source of knowledge is from nature itself. The are beliefs like the Otherworld, ex the sidhe, but although different it is still within the universe and one can enter it at certain times. The source for Abrahamic religions is from outside of the universe and supernatural. It comes from a god that is not in the Natural world. The other major difference is in tolerance of other beliefs. In the Abrahamic religions there is only one true god and all others are false. Pagan religions are polytheistic although one may be monotheistic in ones practice but you can accept there are other gods or goddesses. Well at least those are two main differences. Both religions are valid for the person practicing them and both are religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

The other major difference is in tolerance of other beliefs. In the Abrahamic religions there is only one true god and all others are false. Pagan religions are polytheistic although one may be monotheistic in ones practice but you can accept there are other gods or goddesses.

It seems to me that unless the pagan religions accept the one true God of the Abrahamic religions they are no more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions. The polytheists and the monotheists are at odds with each other by virtue of what they believe -- many gods vs. one God.