OT: The Theology Thread

[Ogre]

A fear of God isn't what I'm describing. So I guess you are arguing there is no God.

 

However, if there is no God than what I've never been able to understand is where do morals originate from? What creates absolute truth if there is no lawgiver? If there isn't absolute truth and relativism carries the day as many people believe, then who determines morality? If truth is relative than how can anyone declare their viewpoint as valid over another? If no viewpoint carries more weight than another by definition than doesn't chaos become the eventual outcome with no absolute standard to tie things together? It seems that we want enough of God to prevent chaos but not enough of God to lose our independence. In other words, if there is no God why is anyone interested in playing fair? How can anyone define a "good" person?

I don't mean to be a pill but...I don't see bun claiming there is no God. He seems to me to say that he doesn't need God to tell him to be a good man. Morality can come from many influences like parental intervention, societal need, or even rehabilitation. I'm willing to bet that morality(or the perception of it) gave/gives humans an evolutionary edge. If every human in the history of mankind was only out for himself, would we have the society we have today? I don't mean to undermine your idea that society could devolve into chaos. That would be a symptom of over population,to me, more than a sign of human nature.

[Drunkard]

A fear of God isn't what I'm describing. So I guess you are arguing there is no God.

 

However, if there is no God than what I've never been able to understand is where do morals originate from? What creates absolute truth if there is no lawgiver? If there isn't absolute truth and relativism carries the day as many people believe, then who determines morality? If truth is relative than how can anyone declare their viewpoint as valid over another? If no viewpoint carries more weight than another by definition than doesn't chaos become the eventual outcome with no absolute standard to tie things together? It seems that we want enough of God to prevent chaos but not enough of God to lose our independence. In other words, if there is no God why is anyone interested in playing fair? How can anyone define a "good" person?

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.

 

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like?

If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content?

 

Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.

 

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like?

If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content?

 

Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another.

 

This is an outstanding post.

[MattPie]

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.

 

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?

Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like?

If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content?

 

Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another.

 

Thanks for summing my thoughts up. :)

 

I'll add one more: morality is a society construct more than religion. Many societies take cues from their predominant religion in their code of morals, but the wide variation of "morals" in Christian societies over the course of history (and even just looking at the present) says to me that the religious morals aren't really what's governing the population.

[woods-racer]

Thanks for summing my thoughts up. :)

 

I'll add one more: morality is a society construct more than religion. Many societies take cues from their predominant religion in their code of morals, but the wide variation of "morals" in Christian societies over the course of history (and even just looking at the present) says to me that the religious morals aren't really what's governing the population.

 

 

Using the Romans as a comparison. In the time of Jesus, was there political corruption, the killing of animals for sport, large coliseums built to watch violent sports, orgies, drug abuse, stealing, infidelity, laziness, greed? 

 

Has much changed?

 

If there has been change, would you not agree that a large part of the laws and society construct where basic principles of the Ten Commandments?

 

That some of todays most moral societies have been largely influenced by a religion can not go unnoticed. The Church of England and the Vatican had tremendous roles in developing laws based on church rules through out the world as most of the European countries throughout the centuries "settled" the 4 corners of the earth.

 

I will use one example as I am not the greatest writer to pass along my simple thoughts.

 

The Catholic Church and divorce.

 

When started women where property, if the head of the house chose to discard the current wife he had the right along with any kids he didn't like. Just toss them out penniless and women had no ability to seek a job, they basically suffered then died or relied upon the goodness of others to remain alive.

 

The Church saw this and with the threat of excommunication for the husband (I believe that to be the way of sending you to hell upon your death) tried to put a stop to it.  When the Church realized that not all marriages could be saved the Church started the alimony payment system. You want a different wife, you can have one and even get married in the Church and still go to heaven, but you have to keep paying for the old one.  The money collected by the alimony was used to create convents and orphanages for the displaced women and children. This continued for centuries till laws finally started to appear for the good of all women and children in those countries, not just the Catholics.

 

I just believe that left to our own devises as human beings our law and society construct of morality would still be much like those of the Romans if not for the presence of religion.

 

I'm well aware that religion doesn't have the greatest track record of morality also, the inquisitions, stoning, the current hypocrisy of the Catholic Church with gay people, not the highlight of morality.  But my believe is, that religion played a major role and driving force to create the moral construct of todays laws.

 

And one last point, was it not also true that for centuries the most learned of people as a whole where those of the church. The few that could read and write often wrote and developed the laws that are the basis for almost all of todays legal systems?

[darksabre]

Using the Romans as a comparison. In the time of Jesus, was there political corruption, the killing of animals for sport, large coliseums built to watch violent sports, orgies, drug abuse, stealing, infidelity, laziness, greed?

 

Has much changed?

 

If there has been change, would you not agree that a large part of the laws and society construct where basic principles of the Ten Commandments?

 

That some of todays most moral societies have been largely influenced by a religion can not go unnoticed. The Church of England and the Vatican had tremendous roles in developing laws based on church rules through out the world as most of the European countries throughout the centuries "settled" the 4 corners of the earth.

 

I will use one example as I am not the greatest writer to pass along my simple thoughts.

 

The Catholic Church and divorce.

 

When started women where property, if the head of the house chose to discard the current wife he had the right along with any kids he didn't like. Just toss them out penniless and women had no ability to seek a job, they basically suffered then died or relied upon the goodness of others to remain alive.

 

The Church saw this and with the threat of excommunication for the husband (I believe that to be the way of sending you to hell upon your death) tried to put a stop to it. When the Church realized that not all marriages could be saved the Church started the alimony payment system. You want a different wife, you can have one and even get married in the Church and still go to heaven, but you have to keep paying for the old one. The money collected by the alimony was used to create convents and orphanages for the displaced women and children. This continued for centuries till laws finally started to appear for the good of all women and children in those countries, not just the Catholics.

 

I just believe that left to our own devises as human beings our law and society construct of morality would still be much like those of the Romans if not for the presence of religion.

 

I'm well aware that religion doesn't have the greatest track record of morality also, the inquisitions, stoning, the current hypocrisy of the Catholic Church with gay people, not the highlight of morality. But my believe is, that religion played a major role and driving force to create the moral construct of todays laws.

 

And one last point, was it not also true that for centuries the most learned of people as a whole where those of the church. The few that could read and write often wrote and developed the laws that are the basis for almost all of todays legal systems?

What about societies that came to similar moral conclusions despite practicing religions that are in no way related?

[Drunkard]

Using the Romans as a comparison. In the time of Jesus, was there political corruption, the killing of animals for sport, large coliseums built to watch violent sports, orgies, drug abuse, stealing, infidelity, laziness, greed? 

 

Has much changed?

 

If there has been change, would you not agree that a large part of the laws and society construct where basic principles of the Ten Commandments?

 

That some of todays most moral societies have been largely influenced by a religion can not go unnoticed. The Church of England and the Vatican had tremendous roles in developing laws based on church rules through out the world as most of the European countries throughout the centuries "settled" the 4 corners of the earth.

 

I will use one example as I am not the greatest writer to pass along my simple thoughts.

 

The Catholic Church and divorce.

 

When started women where property, if the head of the house chose to discard the current wife he had the right along with any kids he didn't like. Just toss them out penniless and women had no ability to seek a job, they basically suffered then died or relied upon the goodness of others to remain alive.

 

The Church saw this and with the threat of excommunication for the husband (I believe that to be the way of sending you to hell upon your death) tried to put a stop to it.  When the Church realized that not all marriages could be saved the Church started the alimony payment system. You want a different wife, you can have one and even get married in the Church and still go to heaven, but you have to keep paying for the old one.  The money collected by the alimony was used to create convents and orphanages for the displaced women and children. This continued for centuries till laws finally started to appear for the good of all women and children in those countries, not just the Catholics.

 

I just believe that left to our own devises as human beings our law and society construct of morality would still be much like those of the Romans if not for the presence of religion.

 

I'm well aware that religion doesn't have the greatest track record of morality also, the inquisitions, stoning, the current hypocrisy of the Catholic Church with gay people, not the highlight of morality.  But my believe is, that religion played a major role and driving force to create the moral construct of todays laws.

 

And one last point, was it not also true that for centuries the most learned of people as a whole where those of the church. The few that could read and write often wrote and developed the laws that are the basis for almost all of todays legal systems?

You're cherry picking which makes me want to do the same thing. Look at the morality religion has displayed with the way the Bible treats women and homosexuals, along with many countries in the muslim world even today. Look at the way Mormons treated women and some still do (even if they officially frown on it) by turning children (by that I mean young people not children as in their children or implying ) into wives and encouraging men to procreate with kids. Look at the way the Catholic Church looked the other way and played musical chairs with child molesting priests so methodically it makes Joe Paterno look proactive in comparative retrospect. To top it off they used their overflowing coffers to pay for hush money and legal defenses, rather than using it to help the poor.

 

Systems of law existed in many places without Judeo-Christian beliefs and the 10 Commandments. Pagan cultures like the Egytians and Vikings had systems of law in place completely independent of the Bible and I would venture to guess that less formal systems of law and justice existed even back to when a caveman first got caught stealing another caveman's piece of mammoth meat off the fire.

 

I guess that's the disconnect though. If you believe the Bible you believe God created Adam and Eve and civilization has only existed under the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Based on scientific evidence though, people have existed long before the invention of the Judeo-Christian religion and they figured a lot of this stuff out (Cooperation, Societal Rules, basic morality) way before the first writers of the Bible were even born.

[biodork]

I never would have expected so much reasonable discourse on theology from a guy who goes by Drunkard. Good stuff, man. :worthy:

Edited June 10, 2015 by biodork

[MattPie]

I never would have expected so much reasonable discourse on theology from a guy who goes by Drunkard. Good stuff, man. :worthy:

 

You know what they say about Anglicans/Episcopalians? There's never four in a room without a fifth. :)

[Drunkard]

I never would have expected so much reasonable discourse on theology from a guy who goes by Drunkard. Good stuff, man. :worthy:

 

Thanks, Bio. I definitely enjoy the back and forth discussion and I've done my best to try to keep emotion out of it and stay civil while still trying to get my point(s) across.

 

My personal opinion is that man made God and not the other way around but even that is just based on a gut feeling. My theory (I'm sure I stole it from someone/somewhere but I'm not sure) is that the concept of God/religion/afterlife goes back to the earliest people and it's basically a coping mechanism to deal with death and help ease the stress of facing ones own mortality and that's why even early cavemen used to bury their dead with their tools.

[K-9]

I would add that the Romans were about a helluva lot more than orgies, killing for sport, drug abuse, etc. Like the great civilizations before them, their contributions to mankind's advancement is immeasurable.

[woods-racer]

You're cherry picking which makes me want to do the same thing. Look at the morality religion has displayed with the way the Bible treats women and homosexuals, along with many countries in the muslim world even today. Look at the way Mormons treated women and some still do (even if they officially frown on it) by turning children (by that I mean young people not children as in their children or implying ######) into wives and encouraging men to procreate with kids. Look at the way the Catholic Church looked the other way and played musical chairs with child molesting priests so methodically it makes Joe Paterno look proactive in comparative retrospect. To top it off they used their overflowing coffers to pay for hush money and legal defenses, rather than using it to help the poor.

 

Systems of law existed in many places without Judeo-Christian beliefs and the 10 Commandments. Pagan cultures like the Egytians and Vikings had systems of law in place completely independent of the Bible and I would venture to guess that less formal systems of law and justice existed even back to when a caveman first got caught stealing another caveman's piece of mammoth meat off the fire.

 

I guess that's the disconnect though. If you believe the Bible you believe God created Adam and Eve and civilization has only existed under the concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Based on scientific evidence though, people have existed long before the invention of the Judeo-Christian religion and they figured a lot of this stuff out (Cooperation, Societal Rules, basic morality) way before the first writers of the Bible were even born.

 

 

First off let me say that you are correct. I will not debate you and try to convince you that all of religion is the most moral and high of institutions we can ever come to hope for or have seen.

 

Also let me define my version of the word "church". It is a an entity composed of humans for which it's sole purpose was, or is, to teach the word of it's deity. The human part of the church is what makes up the laws or rules, an ethical code of which to live by. That human part is flawed without a doubt. We can debate some of Catholic teachings in which Catholics believe there are 3 forms of the word. Direct from God, through the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and the rest of Church scripture. 

 

Even if you take the stories ( we could spent a year debating the writings of just one Disciple, I don't think this is your intent) of the bible and use them as a moral compass, and not of themselves to be truths, you still have a very good moral barometer for society to live buy. But again there is a lot of the human element in those writings, and as I have said earlier, much of it if is completely out of context with todays meanings and have been miss-used or miss-understood.

 

I guess with some great thought that my best way to express my personal separation of social morality and the morality of God is by a cherry picking example. I'm sorry I have to do it this way but it is the only way I can express this.

 

If I am on vacation in a country that has legalized a very addictive drugs and prostitution, I would not partake in either because of religious moral convictions.  I may enjoy a beer or a little vodka while there, very addicting drugs themselves, but a morally acceptable drug by my faith. We can debate the morality of being a drunkard (just funning !, you have been wonderful to talk to) but I'm not going there.

If another person goes there absent of my moral convictions with his wife and kids and partakes of those pleasures, has he committed a breach of that countries social morality?  He did not break any laws, so should his wife be upset with him based on her moral convictions?  Is not somewhere in this a good bit of religious morality of faithfulness that makes a man sleeping with a prostitute not a morally just act ?. Is making something legal such as paying for sex whether or not you are married, making it morally acceptable for society to do?

 

 

 

A generalization of the saying is "do unto others as one would do unto you".  It is a great moral contract of marriage, but no laws are broken with 2 adults having consenting sex, but a moral contract is broken, I don't believe that moral breach to be broken from a society standpoint. 

 

My believe is that moral contract is based largely with my religious believes, and not on those of laws and the morality of society.

 

You have the same moral values (again a generalization please lets not dissect the Roman, mine or drunkards morality), yours are rooted differently but with the same conviction and intent. Mostly, what is clearly apparent is that your morality includes the ability to listen, as I knew I was not going to change your opinion, you knew the same about me, but we both listened. For all those that have been married for a long time, is that not one of the hardest morals to accept?

 

Cheers Drunkard...

[Drunkard]

First off let me say that you are correct. I will not debate you and try to convince you that all of religion is the most moral and high of institutions we can ever come to hope for or have seen.

 

Also let me define my version of the word "church". It is a an entity composed of humans for which it's sole purpose was, or is, to teach the word of it's deity. The human part of the church is what makes up the laws or rules, an ethical code of which to live by. That human part is flawed without a doubt. We can debate some of Catholic teachings in which Catholics believe there are 3 forms of the word. Direct from God, through the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and the rest of Church scripture.

 

Even if you take the stories ( we could spent a year debating the writings of just one Disciple, I don't think this is your intent) of the bible and use them as a moral compass, and not of themselves to be truths, you still have a very good moral barometer for society to live buy. But again there is a lot of the human element in those writings, and as I have said earlier, much of it if is completely out of context with todays meanings and have been miss-used or miss-understood.

 

I guess with some great thought that my best way to express my personal separation of social morality and the morality of God is by a cherry picking example. I'm sorry I have to do it this way but it is the only way I can express this.

 

If I am on vacation in a country that has legalized a very addictive drugs and prostitution, I would not partake in either because of religious moral convictions. I may enjoy a beer or a little vodka while there, very addicting drugs themselves, but a morally acceptable drug by my faith. We can debate the morality of being a drunkard (just funning !, you have been wonderful to talk to) but I'm not going there.

If another person goes there absent of my moral convictions with his wife and kids and partakes of those pleasures, has he committed a breach of that countries social morality? He did not break any laws, so should his wife be upset with him based on her moral convictions? Is not somewhere in this a good bit of religious morality of faithfulness that makes a man sleeping with a prostitute not a morally just act ?. Is making something legal such as paying for sex whether or not you are married, making it morally acceptable for society to do?

 

 

 

A generalization of the saying is "do unto others as one would do unto you". It is a great moral contract of marriage, but no laws are broken with 2 adults having consenting sex, but a moral contract is broken, I don't believe that moral breach to be broken from a society standpoint.

 

My believe is that moral contract is based largely with my religious believes, and not on those of laws and the morality of society.

 

You have the same moral values (again a generalization please lets not dissect the Roman, mine or drunkards morality), yours are rooted differently but with the same conviction and intent. Mostly, what is clearly apparent is that your morality includes the ability to listen, as I knew I was not going to change your opinion, you knew the same about me, but we both listened. For all those that have been married for a long time, is that not one of the hardest morals to accept?

 

Cheers Drunkard...

Cheers, man. I agree that neither of us are likely to change each others mind but the discussion does allow us to get a better understanding of each other's position.

 

I also agree with your definition of the church but I'm surprised that you said that it's the human part of each church that makes up the rules and laws. I find that extremely encouraging because humans can make mistakes and therefore can change their thinking over time.

 

From my experience in speaking to many religious people though, many of them believe/claim that their rules come straight from their God, whether it's God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, or whichever one they choose to believe in. The problem with that though is most/all religions seem to believe their God is infallible so if rules exist in their ancient holy books that seem to be completely unreasonable like executing people for working on the Sabbath it can't/shouldn't be changed because their infallible deity couldn't have been wrong.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I have been hesitant to contribute to this discussion, but I have really enjoyed reading this thread.  It is a credit to all who have commented as to the civility of this thread.

 

I am extremely busy at work these days and have not had much time to post, but have tried to read some, including this thread.

 

For those not aware I am a practicing Muslim.  Ramadan is going to start either Wednesday, or Thursday, next week depending on the new moon sighting ... as in Judaism, Islam follows a lunar calendar.  I take a break from all non-essential Internet use during Ramadan as part of my fast, so I may not have time to post much in the coming days leading up to my official sign off at the start of Ramadan.

 

My faith / theology / religion teaches me to love and respect all people and all the Prophets (May the Grace and Peace of God be upon them all) of God equally.  I view none as more important than any other.  All were sent to convey the universal message of peace and love, through kindness and generosity.

 

Muslims believe that Jesus was a great man and the last messenger sent to the Jewish people.  We follow the teachings of Jesus, just as we do of Moses, Adam and all other Prophets.  We also believe that he is the messiah (the anointed one ... literally) who will return to earth on the day of judgement.  We do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.  We do not believe he died on the cross.  We do not accept the notion of original sin ... all people are born innocent and, as we grow and begin to exercise our free will, become responsible for our own actions.  God will judge each and every one of us based on our good and bad deeds.  We are not responsible for anyone else's actions, nor is anyone responsible for our actions.

 

Jesus never claimed to be the son of God.  The first Christians did not believe this.  They followed the teachings of Jesus.  Christianity, as a faith in Jesus as the son of God started long after Jesus died.  The stories of his rising from the dead and all the rest came after his death.  Many of the Christian churchs have now admitted that the original word of God has been distorted and altered as we know it in today's Bible.

 

I encourage anyone with a thirst for knowledge read the Qur'an with an open heart and mind, although it does lose much in any translation.  An excellent English version has both the Classical Arabic and English with very useful comments by the writer, is by Yusuf Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Ali)

 

I am not trying to be critical of anyone's faith / religion here.  Just wanting to add a bit to the discussion from a perspective that has not been put forward yet.

 

Salam / Peace.

Edited June 11, 2015 by Sabres Fan In NS

[MattPie]

 

Muslims believe that Jesus was a great man and the last messenger sent to the Jewish people.  We follow the teachings of Jesus, just as we do of Moses, Adam and all other Prophets.  We also believe that he is the messiah (the anointed one ... literally) who will return to earth on the day of judgement.  We do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.  We do not believe he died on the cross.  We do not accept the notion of original sin ... all people are born innocent and, as we grow and begin to exercise our free will, become responsible for our own actions.  God will judge each and every one of us based on our good and bad deeds.  We are not responsible for anyone else's actions, nor is anyone responsible for our actions.

 

 

Interesting, I can fully believe that person named Jesus died on the cross, as it was a fairly common thing at the time. Why do Muslims not believe this part of the story if they believe other parts?

[darksabre]

I'm really enjoying reading this thread and asking a question now and then. To those responding to my questions, thank you. I promise I'm reading and thinking deeply about your answers. Keep up the good discourse everyone.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Interesting, I can fully believe that person named Jesus died on the cross, as it was a fairly common thing at the time. Why do Muslims not believe this part of the story if they believe other parts?

 

We believe that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God, as in it God said that He would safe guard it form the adjustments (for lack of a better term) made by men to the Christian and Jewish revelations.

 

In the Qur'an God states clearly that He did not have Jesus die on the cross, but He made it appear so.

[LastPommerFan]

Interesting, I can fully believe that person named Jesus died on the cross, as it was a fairly common thing at the time. Why do Muslims not believe this part of the story if they believe other parts?

 

We believe that the Qur'an is the unaltered word of God, as in it God said that He would safe guard it form the adjustments (for lack of a better term) made by men to the Christian and Jewish revelations.

 

In the Qur'an God states clearly that He did not have Jesus die on the cross, but He made it appear so.

 

So he WAS crucified, he just didn't "die",  correct?

[dEnnis the Menace]

I have been hesitant to contribute to this discussion, but I have really enjoyed reading this thread.  It is a credit to all who have commented as to the civility of this thread.

 

I am extremely busy at work these days and have not had much time to post, but have tried to read some, including this thread.

 

For those not aware I am a practicing Muslim.  Ramadan is going to start either Wednesday, or Thursday, next week depending on the new moon sighting ... as in Judaism, Islam follows a lunar calendar.  I take a break from all non-essential Internet use during Ramadan as part of my fast, so I may not have time to post much in the coming days leading up to my official sign off at the start of Ramadan.

 

My faith / theology / religion teaches me to love and respect all people and all the Prophets (May the Grace and Peace of God be upon them all) of God equally.  I view none as more important than any other.  All were sent to convey the universal message of peace and love, through kindness and generosity.

 

Muslims believe that Jesus was a great man and the last messenger sent to the Jewish people.  We follow the teachings of Jesus, just as we do of Moses, Adam and all other Prophets.  We also believe that he is the messiah (the anointed one ... literally) who will return to earth on the day of judgement.  We do not believe that Jesus is the son of God.  We do not believe he died on the cross.  We do not accept the notion of original sin ... all people are born innocent and, as we grow and begin to exercise our free will, become responsible for our own actions.  God will judge each and every one of us based on our good and bad deeds.  We are not responsible for anyone else's actions, nor is anyone responsible for our actions.

 

Jesus never claimed to be the son of God.  The first Christians did not believe this.  They followed the teachings of Jesus.  Christianity, as a faith in Jesus as the son of God started long after Jesus died.  The stories of his rising from the dead and all the rest came after his death.  Many of the Christian churchs have now admitted that the original word of God has been distorted and altered as we know it in today's Bible.

 

I encourage anyone with a thirst for knowledge read the Qur'an with an open heart and mind, although it does lose much in any translation.  An excellent English version has both the Classical Arabic and English with very useful comments by the writer, is by Yusuf Ali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Ali)

 

I am not trying to be critical of anyone's faith / religion here.  Just wanting to add a bit to the discussion from a perspective that has not been put forward yet.

 

Salam / Peace.

 

excellent info friend! Thank you for your contribution!! 

 

I have really enjoyed this thread so far.  

[Sabres Fan in NS]

So he WAS crucified, he just didn't "die",  correct?

 

Sorry that I was not clear enough.

 

No, we do not believe he was crucified is the general view, with some minor variations depending on interpretation of the revelation in the Qur'an concerning this matter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death

 

I know that wikipedia is not always 100% accurate, but this account is pretty much accurate.

 

Now, I want to be very clear that I am not discounting anyone's belief system here.  If you are living a good life and are generally a good person in part because you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead I have absolutely no problem with that.

[LastPommerFan]

Sorry that I was not clear enough.

 

No, we do not believe he was crucified is the general view, with some minor variations depending on interpretation of the revelation in the Qur'an concerning this matter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death

 

I know that wikipedia is not always 100% accurate, but this account is pretty much accurate.

 

Now, I want to be very clear that I am not discounting anyone's belief system here.  If you are living a good life and are generally a good person in part because you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead I have absolutely no problem with that.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification. This part from the wikipedia page:

 

The Qur'an is not here speaking about a man, righteous and wronged though he may be, but about the Word of God who was sent to earth and returned to God. Thus the denial of killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of men to vanquish and destroy the divine Word, which is for ever victorious.

 

 

Describes almost perfectly the Catholic view of Jesus's eternal existance as the Word vs. his mortal life here on earth.

[woods-racer]

Cheers, man. I agree that neither of us are likely to change each others mind but the discussion does allow us to get a better understanding of each other's position.

 

I also agree with your definition of the church but I'm surprised that you said that it's the human part of each church that makes up the rules and laws. I find that extremely encouraging because humans can make mistakes and therefore can change their thinking over time.

 

From my experience in speaking to many religious people though, many of them believe/claim that their rules come straight from their God, whether it's God, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Odin, or whichever one they choose to believe in. The problem with that though is most/all religions seem to believe their God is infallible so if rules exist in their ancient holy books that seem to be completely unreasonable like executing people for working on the Sabbath it can't/shouldn't be changed because their infallible deity couldn't have been wrong.

 

I have had a discussion before about the 3 "types" of word surrounding the Catholic Church. Much of the churches laws of conduct have been  changed over time, and unfortunately it was a long time ago we had the discussions  but a little of what I remember is.

 

Dogma.

 

The foundation or pillar of the church. Nicene Creed is an example of Dogmatic word of the church. Not to be debated. I look to it as the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Canon Law has 2 parts.

 

 Within Canon law is the Catholic version of the Bill of Rights. Just like with the Bill of Rights to make a change to it is almost impossible.

 

Then there are the rest of the laws.

 

It is a fully functioning legal system, with courts and trials and codes ect. It post dates Roman Law but pre dates any European law. Changes to the  laws happen, not like modern governments where it is yearly and often tax code changes. 

 

It's in the "rest" of the laws that separations began to form with in the Catholic Church to form the Church of England or Protestant Church. They are laws written by the Church through out the centuries. My understanding, is that these are mans laws based off of the teachings of Jesus (this is how things get touchy).

 

For many centuries Catholic Priests where allowed to get married. Then, boom, Canon Law says take a vow of celibacy.

No meat on Fridays during Lent, only fish.

 

2 examples of "other" laws that are well know and documented that are not the basis (the Bill of Rights) of the Church but are Canon Law and they can be rewritten (I wouldn't bet a penny in my life time).

 

I didn't have time today for this but it has been addicting. This discussion has brought a smile all day because I thought about morality and my believes and not the day to day grind. I also wanted to clarify myself, and I hope I did a good job by including examples of the U.S. laws, of what is undeniable to me (or so should be to all Christians), and why I can understand why much of Christianity sounds like a moral code for society.

 

I also wish to add a disclaimer, I am not a theologian and I consider myself far from one. These are my memories from asking  questions after reading something or from a sermon and getting answers from a few very wonderful Priests and a Protestant Minister.

 

Again,Thanks Drunkard.

[Drunkard]

I have had a discussion before about the 3 "types" of word surrounding the Catholic Church. Much of the churches laws of conduct have been changed over time, and unfortunately it was a long time ago we had the discussions but a little of what I remember is.

 

Dogma.

 

The foundation or pillar of the church. Nicene Creed is an example of Dogmatic word of the church. Not to be debated. I look to it as the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

 

Canon Law has 2 parts.

 

Within Canon law is the Catholic version of the Bill of Rights. Just like with the Bill of Rights to make a change to it is almost impossible.

 

Then there are the rest of the laws.

 

It is a fully functioning legal system, with courts and trials and codes ect. It post dates Roman Law but pre dates any European law. Changes to the laws happen, not like modern governments where it is yearly and often tax code changes.

 

It's in the "rest" of the laws that separations began to form with in the Catholic Church to form the Church of England or Protestant Church. They are laws written by the Church through out the centuries. My understanding, is that these are mans laws based off of the teachings of Jesus (this is how things get touchy).

 

For many centuries Catholic Priests where allowed to get married. Then, boom, Canon Law says take a vow of celibacy.

No meat on Fridays during Lent, only fish.

 

2 examples of "other" laws that are well know and documented that are not the basis (the Bill of Rights) of the Church but are Canon Law and they can be rewritten (I wouldn't bet a penny in my life time).

 

I didn't have time today for this but it has been addicting. This discussion has brought a smile all day because I thought about morality and my believes and not the day to day grind. I also wanted to clarify myself, and I hope I did a good job by including examples of the U.S. laws, of what is undeniable to me (or so should be to all Christians), and why I can understand why much of Christianity sounds like a moral code for society.

 

I also wish to add a disclaimer, I am not a theologian and I consider myself far from one. These are my memories from asking questions after reading something or from a sermon and getting answers from a few very wonderful Priests and a Protestant Minister.

 

Again,Thanks Drunkard.

Thanks for the explanation, man. I was raised Roman Catholic so I've heard of Nicene Creed and Canon law but never delved too far into any of it because by the time I was old enough to really study it or do any research I had already decided that religion just wasn't for me, even though I will say that I'm encouraged by the new Pope compared to the previous one.

 

The vow of celibacy for Priests never made much sense to me, particularly since priests often provide marriage counseling so you'd think having the experience of being married themselves would prove helpful.

 

No meat on Fridays during Lent I also found suspicious, especially since I don't care much for seafood. I always thought whoever came up with that rule was either a fisherman or had close friends or family that were fishermen and I likened it to a politician giving a large donor some sort of kickback with favorable legislation.

 

That being said, I'm glad the discussion has been a positive experience for you. I've definitely enjoyed it as well.

[smj]

Why do you feel the need to equate religion with morality to begin with though? This isn't meant to be snarky, I feel they are legitimate questions trying to make a point.

 

I am not talking about religion.  If there is not a higher being than where does morality come from?  There's no reasonable explanation for evolution to develop a new species saddled with moral dilemmas - it does not pass the logical test.  Why are we born with a moral compass if there is no creator?  And if there is a creator there must be a definitive truth about the creator - a higher being can't meet many different definitions.   

Do you consider yourself to be a good person?  No and it besides the point.  While I may have some capacity to make good choices like everyone it does not matter because I am not perfect.  I believe Romans 3:23.  For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.  I also believe John 3:16 For God so loved the world he gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  

Are you only acting that way because you either fear God's wrath or to try to be Christ like?  I act that way because it is the only explanation I can buy for when things are like they are in this world. 

If you discovered tomorrow definitive proof that there was no God, would you suddenly decide to become evil and sin to your hearts content?

if I knew it was not true what reason would I have to be anything other than self-absorbed and act in my own self-interest?  If there is right and wrong who defines it?  What right does anyone have to define it for anyone else?  And you can see where that leads. 

Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. The are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribble down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to be even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another. We are created in God's image which is why we have a moral compass.  Otherwise there is no difference between humans and animals.  Do you believe we have a soul?  That soul comes from somewhere and wouldn't evolve from nothing.  

[smj]

Sorry that I was not clear enough.

 

No, we do not believe he was crucified is the general view, with some minor variations depending on interpretation of the revelation in the Qur'an concerning this matter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_Jesus%27_death

 

I know that wikipedia is not always 100% accurate, but this account is pretty much accurate.

 

Now, I want to be very clear that I am not discounting anyone's belief system here.  If you are living a good life and are generally a good person in part because you believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead I have absolutely no problem with that.

The problem is I don't believe it is about being "good".  I believe you would agree the definition of God is that He is perfect and I am glad you believe in that concept.  My fear/belief is "good" won't get me into heaven.  I am sinful.  As we all do I wage a spiritual battle within myself and I sometimes made a good choice and sometimes do not.  The apostle Paul put it I do not understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right but I can't.  I sometimes do what I hate.  There is a sin nature inside me that is stronger than I am.  That realistically describes human nature, does it not? 

 

This isn't like baseball where if you hit over.400 you'll be acceptable and if I hit .200 I won't be.  Where Christ is different is that He says no one can bat 1,000 and if we don't we are separated from God.  The creation can't bridge the gap because we made it.  God allowed Christ to be the ultimate propitiation (sacrifice) on the cross for our sins.  His perfection covers our imperfection and builds the bridge to God.  Ephesians says For by Grace you have been saved by faith in Christ and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 

 

When you look at all religions of the world they all require "goodness" and works in an attempt to solve the problem of a perfect God and imperfect mankind.  Christianity (born-again Christianity - not to be confused with the religion Christianity that sometimes believes in works) is the only message that says we cannot meet God's standard through our own accord.  We have to swallow our pride and accept the gift of the messiah, Jesus Christ.  By the way, I think the explanations about Jesus not dying on the cross are much more difficult to believe than he did die on the cross and was raised from the dead because the old testament predicted this and was written long before Christ was born.