Yesterday while at church with my mom, I was thinking about the fact that many religious people know little to nothing about other religions. If asked why they have no interest in other religions, they’ll often respond with something that runs like, “This is the right religion for me, I know it, I don’t need to look any further.” This doesn’t make much sense to me.
Let’s make a comparison between religions and say, language. Let’s start that comparison out with a quote from Goethe:
“Wer keine fremde Sprache spricht, kennt seine Muttersprache nicht.”
My approximate translation of this would be: “He who does not speak a foreign language, does not know his native language.” I think the same could be said of religion. If you’re not familiar with other belief systems, are you sure you really understand yours?
As a further example, I suppose one could compare religions (crudely, I know) with that favorite standby of many: food. Suppose you get someone who has never had steak, spaghetti and meatballs, or pizza. You set a plate down in front of him with a steak; he eats it, and proclaims that it’s the right food for him, his favorite out of the three. But obviously, that can’t be right. How can he possibly say that if he hasn’t even tried the other two foods?
Certainly, I’m not saying that everyone who is religious to any degree should be a scholar on all religions (or even one). But I do think that to really understand one’s own path, one needs to at least have a vague idea about the road map that others are using. It’s hard to say that you’re sure your map has the right directions if you’ve never looked at any others.
Perhaps I’m being naive, though. The real truth as to why people don’t investigate other religions, unless they’re experiencing doubt about their current one, is probably that they think that all other religions are wrong. Their religion is the One True Religion, the only one that holds the (right) answers to all of the mysteries of the world. As Ludwig Wittgenstein pointed out:
“If there were a verb meaning ‘to believe falsely,’ it would not have any significant first person, present indicative.”
34 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://system13.org/2007/10/29/one-religion-to-rule-them-all/trackback/
October 29, 2007 at 1:22 pm
zhayena
I really don’t think the problem is that someone tastes just one dish and favour it above the others, the main problem is that they taste only one dish and then claims all the other food they haven’t tasted actually taste bad..
October 29, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Josh
@zhayena: True, true; that’s a better analogy than the one I used. “I love this steak, so therefore, spaghetti and meatballs and pizza are awful, awful foods.”
October 29, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Nils
An interesting point of view and I had to pop out from my feed reader, if only to read the comments. Zhayena’s remark is an apt one and perhaps (unfortunately) even closer to the truth.
I’m happy to say that I don’t suffer from this. I was raised humanist and atheist, but attended catholic schools until college. I’ve seen plenty of religion itself already to know it’s not for me. Not sure if that means I should investigate others, but seeing they’re based on the same conceptions I think I’d be safe in saying I don’t particularly need to.
On the other hand, I can imagine it would be hard to seriously think about other religions when you are involved in one already. It seems contrary to the essence of faith, however ludicrous that may be.
October 29, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Esther
Indeed, Josh.
I grew up Christian but it was through an entirely false representation of the religion. I do believe that most if not all religions (with the exception of Scientology) have many truthful, helpful things to offer to humanity. And although I didn’t really investigate other religions to prove them wrong, half-wrong or correct, I still returned to Christianity when for awhile I ran away from it because of its misrepresentation. You really have to know the other side in order to give discredit where it’s due. 
October 29, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Tom
This one is too good too pass up :).
I would like to inquire into your religion Josh. You seem like a reasonable character so I assume you hold this religion (I do as well, no shame in it). Do you believe that evolution is true? Do you believe in black holes? Does Newtonian and quantum physics agree with you? Have you analyzed and considered other world cosmologies or is the big bang the only one you know? Does the wave mechanical model of the atom make sense to you and do you agree with it?
I only mention those because I was in physics before I was in history and it’s what I know hehe. My point with those questions is that a belief held so strongly to be true is a waste of one’s own time to question.
We commonly believe that Newton’s theory of gravity is true, we’re so convinced of its truth we don’t bother seeking other answers. I mean who would seriously question that if you drop a ball it will fall toward the earth? We hold it as truth because we cannot imagine something else but bear in mind that gravity (like magnetism) is not explained in any way, it just is, it is a property of mass… nice try.
You said it yourself, everyone is convinced their religion is true and you call it arrogance and say they should examine other’s beliefs before making a decision. Well do you examine and cross-examine your beliefs? Do you seriously consider alternate models of the universe? Or when someone comes along with a variable light speed theory, or decreasing mass theory do you toss him to the curb with the label of ‘nut’. When was the last time you reconsidered democracy? Is it really the best form of government? Perhaps tyranny is the way to go (the Greek version). What makes the “tyranny of the masses” any more valid than the tyranny of one man?
October 30, 2007 at 5:54 am
Nils
I can’t speak for Josh, but I just wanted to drop in here and say I don’t think that’s entirely what Josh was talking about.
There are many forms of religion existing next to one another, none of them sufficiently and satisfyingly proven; none that could make a claim to being more true, correct or sensible than the other. You couldn’t even tell which religion allows you to wear the funniest hat.
But I’d say the case is different for science. There have been many stages in the evolution of science, but they were all (mostly) built on the acceptance or rejection of previous assumptions. Yet they need to support one another to be reasonably accepted. You can’t just switch from chemistry to alchemy, say, and still support certain truths about the behaviour of the elements.
Anyway, not to sound belligerent. Wouldn’t want every of Josh’s posts about these things escalate. Lemme just finish by saying that I, for one, do think about this stuff. What if we’re wrong about laws of gravity or motion. What if light does work different from how we think it does? It’s the stuff we ponder late at night that keeps us all on our toes. Not something, I would daresay, that holds true for most religious people.
October 30, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Josh
@Nils: Humanism is A-OK in my book.
Indeed, if you’re heavily involved in a religion, it might be difficult to look at others. However, I think (as Tom mentions down below), that if a belief is so strong that you’re incapable of seeing alternatives, you’ve latched on to it too tightly.
As an aside, one which I’m hesitant to make because I’m not real crazy about the idea of “proselytizing”… Buddhism could be considered both atheistic and humanist, depending on which branch you look at. It’s also not really built on the same conceptions as a lot of other religions; no gods to be worshiped, for example. I’ll leave it at that; I already feel iffy about having written what I did, but I think it’s an important point nonetheless.
@Esther: Agreed, that the vast majority of religions have something helpful to offer. The problem, of course, is sifting out the helpful from all of the unhelpful (or downright damaging).
Out of curiosity, what was the misrepresentation of Christianity that you ran from, and what representation of the religion did you return to?
@Tom: I’m Buddhist (typically leaning more towards Theravadan practice over Mahayana). I do indeed think that evolution is true. Black holes? I don’t know. I’ve read about the theories behind them, but I’ve never been confronted with my spaceship falling into one, so..
I don’t know enough about Newtonian and quantum physics to give any sort of meaningful answer about them. I have looked at other world cosmologies, ranging from “god(s) did it” to “the world has been doing this forever, and will continue to do this forever.” In regards to the wave mechanical model of the atom, I’m going to have to default to “don’t know anything about it” again.
Good point about “a belief held so strongly to be true is a waste of one’s own time to question.” I agree.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at with the gravity (and I’m not being short here, just honest). Certainly, I’ve not questioned gravity any time lately, but that’s because I have visible proof, every day, every second of my life, that the theory of gravity is sound. The moment I see someone trip and go up instead of down, I will gladly throw some skepticism in the theory’s direction.
I do examine and cross-examine my beliefs - all the time, actually. Being Buddhist, I suppose I should wholeheartedly believe in the historical existence of Buddha, in the existence of reincarnation… do I? Iffy on both counts, and I’m okay with that. Despite labeling myself as Buddhist, there’s plenty in Buddhism that I disagree with, and I’m perfectly comfortable in saying as much. I guess that’s worth something, no?
In regards to variable light speed theory, decreasing mass theory, etc. - no, I don’t normally see such things and label the creator as a nut. I don’t know much about either of those things, but I’ll reserve judgment until I do. I refuse to say that the pizza is terrible before having tasted it.
And, in answer to your final question: I reconsider democracy all the time. At least in America, it’s a busted system. The idea of democracy is good, I think, but its implementation leaves a lot to be desired. If our American elections are so “open”, why do the same rich-cat families keep filling all of the spots, just like they’ve done since the country was created?
I agree with Nils’ second comment, in that I don’t know if it’s feasible to compare science and religion. Science hypotheses are tested; if they fail, they’re revised, tossed out, etc. If they pass, repeatedly, they move up the ladder. The reason we’ve accepted the theory of gravity is not that we’re clinging too strongly to a “belief”, but because… well, have any of us ever seen any earth-bound thing not obey the laws of gravity? If people occasionally floated away from the earth instead of being bound to it, I think we’d all be looking at the theory and going, “Something is wrong here.”
And, finally, I just want to say that if my response here seems confusing or muddled, I present my apologies; I had a lot to respond to, from a few of you (thankfully - I love commenters!), and so there are, by necessity, a lot of words here. If I’ve missed something, remind me in a follow up comment and I’ll get on it.
Conversing with intelligent people is addicting, so feel free to give me another hit.
October 31, 2007 at 2:33 am
Nils
You did very well, Josh. No apologies needed. Good grief, surely not for your own posts and comment replies!?
Oh, and I don’t regard Buddhism as a religion actually, but as a philosophy, a world view, or a way of life even.
October 31, 2007 at 9:36 am
Josh
@Nils: I wasn’t really apologizing for my post, just my comment (and even that wasn’t quite an apology, I guess). I didn’t want folks to take it the wrong way and think I was being a jerk.
Fair enough point about Buddhism; depending on how you view it, it is certainly capable of hopping from religion to philosophy to world view, etc.
October 31, 2007 at 10:46 am
Tom
I didn’t mean to pick any fights, my point was only to show the strength of belief. I too am very scientifically minded and the method of science only makes sense to me, I believe I will always arrive at truth using it. That belief in me is stronger than any other. Some people are that way with their religion.
Regarding Buddhism, I once heard a beautiful definition of religion by Dr.Robert Oden “a communication system that is constituted by supernatural beings and that is related to specific patterns of behavior.”
I can only remember three of the characteristics (there were six): ritual; impossible birth of the “god” figure; and a code of conduct of the initiates. I remember he mentioned that Buddha was conceived by an elephant and entered the world through the side of his mother… Of course I don’t know anything about the topic. Is any of that about the birth true? If it is true it sounds religious…
I was always under the impression Buddha was an earthly prince who decided to shrug off society. (forgive me if you’ve gone over this in a previous post. Confession: I haven’t read your entire archive
)
October 31, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Josh
@Tom: Yeah, I didn’t think you were picking a fight. You don’t seem the type.
I’m also scientifically minded, which, perhaps ironically, is what drew me to Buddhist religion / thought. The vast majority of it is similar to science or medicine; it’s been noted many times by various authors that the four noble truths are laid out in the form of a problem (or sickness), the cause of the problem, and the cure for it.
I’m not familiar with that story of the Buddha’s birth. I’ve been reading In The Buddha’s Words by Bhikku Bodhi, which is English translations of a bunch of the original texts we have on Buddhism. I just finished (last night, oddly enough) the section on his birth. In it, the Buddha is supposed to have known he was going to be conceived before it happened, and that his mother became pregnant with him still a virgin*. There’s a bunch of further mythological tidbits in the section, but one thing that was noted was that his mother supposedly gave birth to him standing up (instead of laying down, etc.) It didn’t say anything about him coming from her side.
At any rate, that would certainly fall under “impossible birth of the god figure” - sort of, anyway. Buddhists don’t really deify the Buddha (and in fact, he often mentioned that we shouldn’t, because he was just a guy), so I’m not sure if he’d even qualify as a god figure.
A code of conduct for initiates? Yeah, Buddhism would certainly have that: the Eightfold Path.
And yes, modernist interpretations of the Buddha is that he was an earthly (not divine) prince who gave up his rich life to find more. It’s interesting that many modernist teachings tend to shove the troublesome mythological / supernatural segments of the Buddhist texts under the rug, so to speak. Most of the intro-bios of the Buddha don’t say anything about his, erm, “divine” birth.
** Heh, sound familiar? A lot of scholars claim that there are huge amounts of evidence for the Jesus character being based on the Buddha figure.
October 31, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Tom
There’s much scholarship alluding to Jesus’ birth sequence being a common story. In fact it’s entirely unoriginal. As to the life of Christ, the latter portion, that’s documented rather well. It is one of the reasons why Dr.Oden is so easily able to create a definition of religion.
The birth sequence is actually older than Buddha. The beginning to the Zeitgeist (sp? ) film illustrates it well. Though the film is quite a bit of conjecture and outright wrong in some things.
I wanted to say more but this isn’t a forum (you should get one Josh). I did want to comment on the sweeping under the rug of all things supernatural by those who wish to adopt the “faith” (whichever that may be) but not look foolish in front of others. How they sanitize it to fit into the oh so modern world.
Get a forum :).
October 31, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Josh
Tom: Yeah, I’ve read some of Joseph Campbell’s work; he talks a lot about the archetypal hero figure, and in just about every religion, there’s a character who fits the mold.
Why would you have looked foolish? Are you implying I look foolish, seeing as I pointed it out? (Kidding.
) I suppose one of the things I love about Buddhism is that you can essentially discard the supernatural bits from it, or look at them as symbolic, and still have a meaningful religion / philosophy / pick-another-descriptor. Doing that with other religions often proves, shall we say, problematic. 
And in regards to a forum… well, tell you what. You agree to moderate it, and I’ll set one up.
I’m doing good to find time to moderate comments here and respond to all of ‘em, while keeping my blog posts coming regularly (if not sporadically).
I need to figure out how to produce 20 or so more hours per day, or drop my responsibilities drastically; one or the other would be nice, both together would be marvelous.
November 1, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Matt Davies
You need to ask questions of your religion as religion has been used to manipulate and corrupt people for mans own needs (the hushed up crusades is a good example of this).
I believe the Bible is a logical and sound place to start. It’s prophecies confirm that it is indeed from God. If you base your beliefs upon what you are told by another man then how do you know if your religion is right. The Bible says there is only one way - Gods way as revealed in the Bible - if you don’t know that way its a waste of time.
How do you know your vicar is telling you the truth (Is he telling you its ok to fight in the crusades)? Unless you go back to basics then your will never know (the Bible tells us to do no violence to any man).
On another level why the Bible? Why not the Quran? Or evolution? I have my reasons and have looked at many religions - only one book holds the answers - The Bible. Go here to find out more:
Only True God
We have a lecture on it entitled “The Bible - A Reliable Source Of Hope For The Future” - you can listen to it on the site…
November 1, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Joshua J. Slone
If you could just stop your insistence on 60-minute hours, I’m sure we can fit a few more hours into the day.
November 1, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Josh
@Matt: Wow. Well, let’s go at it one point at a time, shall we?
Hushed up crusades? Unless you’re talking about a different set of crusades, I wasn’t aware they were hushed up. They’re in practically every medieval history text that you can buy - assuming one has the interest to, well, learn.
Regarding the Bible being a logical and sound place to start… well, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that.
You said “if you base your beliefs upon what you are told by another man, then how do you know if your religion is right?” I feel inclined to point out that, technically speaking, the Bible is written by a man - not by God. (Even more correctly, it’s written by many men!) As I understand it, the Bible is often termed “a work inspired by God” - not written by God. Unless you think that God appeared in human form and set down at a typewriter, the Bible was written by man, which is a bit self-contradicting, considering what you said.
You said: “If you don’t know that way [God's way as revealed in the Bible], it’s a waste of time.” Did you even read what I wrote here? I’m thinking… no. At any rate, thanks for letting me know that my way is a “waste of time.” Quite open minded of you.
I’m glad to know you’ve figured it all out, and have discovered that the Bible is the only one book that holds the answers. It’s excellent to have that all cleared up! And, lastly, thanks for the invitation to that site - but alas… no thanks. Considering your comment, I’ve a pretty good idea as to what will be being preached there, and so I’m going to politely opt out.
@Slone: 15-minute hours don’t sound nearly as useful, though!
November 2, 2007 at 6:09 am
Matt Davies
Ok, maybe “hushed up crusades” was a poor way of putting it. What I meant was that many people forget that the crusades which were a catholic instigated – from the Popes at the time. These Popes of the so called “mother church” are supposable infallible and are “God on earth”. What I’m saying is that current believers in the Catholic church rarely enquire into the history of their religion. If they would they might find it has become corrupted. This also causes all other religions who can be traced back to the Catholic church – how do they know their doctrines haven’t been corrupted? The only way is to go back to the source of that religion – if what the religion preaches and teaches things not found in the Bible (eg. Go fight a crusade, pope God on earth, doctrine of trinity, heaven going upon death etc) then I humbly suggest that you may need to question the authority of such a religion.
—-
In regards to the Bible being inspired by God, you are correct in your assessment that the Bible is “inspired by God”:
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2Pe 1:21)
The word inspired means “divinely breathed”. Using the passage quoted above from Peter’s second Epistle we have the idea of men being moved by God’s breath just like a sailing ship is moved through the water by the wind to write the direct revelation from God.
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect(i.e. complete), throughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim 3:16-17).
And we could go on. The point I wish to make is that the scripture is also described as “Gods word”. The men did right it but it was done from God through them. The Bible is Gods word and proof of this is in its prophecies and accuracy’s. Again if you are interested I refer you to the above site – not wishing to have a fruitless debate.
—-
You talk about being open minded. Lets be open minded. I am open to your comments and beliefs, I have probably studied them. I am simply stating a fact – the Bible says there is only ONE way. Are you open minded enough to accept Gods word?
“ I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed… But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.” Galatians 1:6-11
By the way I haven’t figured it ALL out. I have a solid belief based on fact and not blind faith. I am still human though and am in no way perfect and I do not have all the answers. I believe however, that the Bible holds all you will ever need to know about Gods purpose with this earth – and that it can be proved to be the word of God to anybody who would be open minded to it’s teaching…
November 2, 2007 at 7:58 am
Josh
If the Bible was written as divinely inspired word, why can much of it be traced back to written works from other religions? (For more information on this, refer to Joseph Campbell’s Myths to Live By.) This implies that either 1) it wasn’t divinely inspired at all, and various folks wrote new / stole old works or 2) God divinely inspired his penmen to plagiarize - from other religions. You know, the ones that are all wrong.
Are you implying that I’m being closed minded because I won’t accept your claim that the Bible way is the only way, and that all other ways are incorrect? That’s a bit hypocritical, isn’t it? “Open your eyes, be open minded, realize that my way is the only way.”
You said:
What fact? And don’t wave the Bible at me, it’s not fact, it’s a book. Age doesn’t make something infallible.
And lastly, you said:
Apparently not.
November 2, 2007 at 11:40 am
Matt Davies
Josh,
I do agree that “Christiainity” so called has been influenced by outside sources. The doctrine of a trinity, worship of a mother and child, immoral souls etc can all be traced right back to Nimrod, ancient Babylon. You will find that none of these myths actually exist in the Bible. I would suggest that the Bible has not been influenced by ancient cultures but was in fact the influencer, seeing it is the most ancient and oldest amongst the ancient writings. Christianity has been influenced by Gods word ahs not.
What I am implying is that if you study the Bible you will realise that IT teaches you to ask questions of your beliefs and the people you associate with. It is not “my claim” but the Bibles claim! This way of thinking is in agreement with your post, although my Biblical quotation seems to upset you. I am simply stating a fact that if you accept the Bible then you need to accept its message and teachings which, it says, are the only way to salvation – you need to check your on the right path. The only way to do that is study the Bible.
Ok, so I say my belief in the Bible is based on fact. When you have studied the prophecies concerning the Jews return to the land of Israel, Nebuchadnezzar’s Image (Dan 2 – prophecy of the history of Europe form ancient Babylonian times right up until today and beyond), the book of Revelation (in detail symbolic history of Christ’s day right up until our day and beyond), the prophecies of the destruction of Tyre, etc etc and I could go on, THEN we can have a debate about the FACTS of prophecy and the authority of the Bible (if you want to know more check the site I mentioned above). I am open minded, I have looked into these things (not saying I know EVERYthing but I can speak as one who has at least opened the lid and taken a peep, you resist the Bibles claims without,it seems, actually studying it! Who has the closed mind is the question I’m asking myself!
You say age doesn’t make something infallible. I completely agree. But the prophecies in the Bible ARE infallible. Show me on that hasn’t come true? The ones that have come true ARE FACTS. They have all come about and logic states that those which are unfulfilled will be fulfilled just as the ones in the past have. I believe that Jesus will return to this earth and set up Gods kingdom just as assuredly as previous prophecies have come to pass.
The same goes for most religions. Logic states they cannot all be right. At best only ONE can be right.
I guess we might have to agree to disagree in regards to the Bible?
November 2, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Josh
@Matt: I must say, the first paragraph of your response has me scratching my head. First you say that you agree that the Bible had influences from outside sources, and then you say that it was the influencer, because it’s the oldest writing amongst the ancient writings. Logical fallacies aside, that last bit is totally wrong. There are plenty of ancient writings that predate by the Bible, some of them by literally thousands of years.
Regarding prophecies, I don’t really give them much weight, truth be told. Christians in the 11th century were saying that the “end times” were near, because all of the prophecies were fulfilled. Throughout history, you always have Christians saying that the end times are near because.. well, of course, the prophecies have been fulfilled. So, when’s it going to happen? Is it 1000 years late? And, as a further aside to this, I’ve often seen Biblical prophecies and their interpretations a bit like modern-day “psychics”: if you put out enough predictions, and make them vague enough, well - you’re bound to be right some of the time.
That’s not quite right what you said, about “logic states that those which are unfulfilled will be fulfilled just as the ones in the past have.” Just because someone, say, pays their taxes in 2004, 2005, and 2006, that does prove beyond doubt that the guy will pay his taxes in 2007. That’s not logic at work, that’s assumptions and (in the case of religion) more than a dash of hope.
And indeed - you’re more than welcome to believe in the Bible, God, the second coming of Christ, etc. etc. However, it’s not my cup of tea, so I think it would be best if we agreed to disagree. It’s clear I’m not going to get you to see any other way, and I assure you, I’m not converting (back) to Christianity.
November 3, 2007 at 6:24 am
Matt Davies
There is a difference between so called “christianity” and the Bible. Christianity (eg. The Chaolic churhc and its children) have been corrupted as the Bible fortold.
I disagree with your logic. Yes when dealing with a MAN paying taxes you are right - but we are dealing with massive world wide events. Unfortunalty you generalise and I see you have little or no knowledge of what the Bible actualy teaches.
anyway, as you say, agree to disagree…
November 3, 2007 at 8:55 am
Josh
Matt: You think the Catholics (and every denomination that isn’t the one you belong to) has been corrupted. While I’m aware that this concept ties in with your faith, I do take issue with you saying that repeatedly as if it’s fact. It’s not. It’s your opinion.
Regarding the prophecies, I don’t really care whether we’re talking about one man or the entire universe. You can’t say “if X happens, and Y happens, Z will surely, without doubt, also happen.” However, this is what you keep saying, and after poking around on the website you link to, I see that you at least have the group’s backing: “If the past has been acomplished, logic dictates that the future will also.” That’s just totally wrong, but I’m not going to argue the point any further.
Agreed to disagree.
November 3, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Gnorb
Just wanted to chime in and say this is a seriously great post, comments include. Keep up the awesome work, Josh.
November 3, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Josh
@Gnorb: Glad you enjoyed the post (and the comments). Besides my post on the languages (or lack thereof) in Stargate SG1, I believe this post has the highest number of comments, out of the posts on my blog.
Hot topic, I guess.
November 4, 2007 at 5:50 am
Matt Davies
@Josh,
Just coming back to the Catholic point. I appreciate to somebody not familiar with the Bibles teachings it may seem pompous. However it IS a fact that they have moved away from Biblical teaching and most clergy even admit it. All I would say is go back to what the Bible teaches and then compare it with the teaching of the church - then make your own mind up. Even the Bible itself predicts that the beleivers would be corrupted.
To use one of your models, if the Bible says A and the church does/teaches B (whilst claiming its origins are from the Bible) then to me that is corruption, or at the very least deviation. Then the question comes - why do they deviate but thats a whole other subject!
By the way, your point about logic. Are you saying that even though past prophecies have come about, even though they were fortold thousands of years ago, that future ones will definatly not because YOU don’t think so? Where is your evidence for any of that reasoning? I’m just trying to understand that logic.
If you read Ezekiel 38 you will find a northern confederacy who invades Israel and causes Christs return. Without going into too much detail the territories mentioned there are the ancient names for areas of Russia, who are allied with Iran and some African countries. Also we read of some countries (called the “young lions”) resiting this attack but being overcome (Christadelphians beleive this is Britain and Amreica and the commonwealth for many reasons which we won’t go into right now). I’m not going to go into the detail of this stuff, but the reason for bringin this up is that we CAN SEE this coming to pass before our eyes as the prophecies have foretold and as people hundreds of years ago have been waiting for because of their knowledge of the Bible. In todays world nobody knows about these prophecies and so they assume the Bibles nonsense but I’m suggesting the prophecies you described above as not logicaly coming to pass ARE.
Agree to disagree but I’d love to hear your views and try and understand your reasoning.
November 4, 2007 at 11:29 am
Josh
@Matt:
As to why the various groups follow different paths, while I realize there are a multitude of reasons, one of the major ones is the fact that the Bible is open to interpretation, to an amazing degree. It’s not surprising that various groups have formed around the Bible, all seeing different things in it.
Regarding the prophecies and my logic: I’m not saying that something won’t happen because I said it won’t. Wouldn’t that be nice… What I’m saying is, your logic is (in my eyes) incorrect. Just because X number of “prophecies have become true,” it doesn’t mean X number will also become true. It’s not 100% sure. Sure, it’s possible, but it’s also possible that tomorrow, the state of New York will secede from the United States. But do I think it’s going to happen? No.
Perhaps I’d be more inclined to buy into the whole prophecy thing if the Bible said “in year 2007, the United States, led by George W. Bush”, etc. etc. etc. But when you’ve got to paint all of these groups in the Bible with modern counterparts, and, let’s be honest, guess at a large amount of it… well, no thanks.
That brings up something I said above. Why is it that various Christian groups have been saying for around 1000 years now that the end times were near? Were they all wrong?
If the prophecies can be “fulfilled” so many times and nothing happened, I just can’t bring myself to pay much heed to them. When a great voice booms in the sky, or a glowing angel appears before me, then I’ll pay attention, I suppose.
November 5, 2007 at 10:26 am
Josh
@Matt: Matt, I wanted to add one more thing to all of this. I don’t understand how Christian groups that try to read prophecies and predict when the Second Coming will be reconcile their actions with, of all things, the Bible.
From Mark 13:32, spoken by Jesus:
“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
Could you share your thoughts on this?
November 7, 2007 at 11:43 am
Matt Davies
@Josh - interesting questions. I hope I’m not answering them in vain.
Bible is open to interpretation -
There are two things you need to consider when thinking upon this.
I believe that the “doctrines” of the Bible are not open to interpretation. Its main teachings are clear and plain. We Christadelphians call these doctrines the “first principles” - the gospel message which is in NO way open to interpretation. These are black and white (eg.” do violence to no man” - where is the room for interpretation on that?). We base our fellowship (membership if you like) upon these principles which enable us to keep our beliefs as pure as humanly possible.
The other side to the Bible is it’s prophecies and more interestingly it’s symbols. I agree that there could be room for interpretation on these. However I believe that this ‘room’ is very tight if you follow the following rules which the Bible upholds:
1) All of the Bible is infallible - it does not contradict itself. So when interpreting a symbol it has to marry with the rest of the Bible, especially its doctrines.
2) We are not to add our own views to it. We have to compare the Bible with itself allowing the Bible to “be its own dictionary”.
For more on this visit: http://users.aol.com/bible12/princint.htm
–
Prophecy
Interesting point in regards to Christinan groups. I can’t speak for any other group but for us (Christadelphians) our first “pioneers” who attempted to go back to the roots of what the Bible really teaches, have always expected certain things. For example its clearly taught in the Bible that when the Jews will be re-gathered to their land we commence the “latter days” (see Hosea 3:5). The days when Christ would return (see Daniel 2 - Christ is the stone - more on this see http://www.onlytruegod.info/prophecy_nations.php). We have always expected that and they knew back then Jesus wouldn’t return until this happened. You and I have seen that happen (and it is still happening - since 1948). I don’t think any true student of the word would say that prophecies have been fulfilled over and over again. There is a clear plan (granted no dates but that would eliminate the need for faith - God wants us to trust him) which is being carried out and neither you, nor I, nor any other human can stop it.
You make a very good point in regards to the comment from Jesus in Mark. You may not know but later, after this was said, when Jesus arose to heaven this was revealed to him. He then sent a coded message (symbolic Rev 1:1) to his servants showing them the signs of the times. If you compare these signs with ancient prophetic overviews from the ancient prophets like Daniel, you get a more fuller understanding of God plan.
It has all be laid out in the Bible, not every minute detail ok, but the overview. The final day or hour no man does know, but the signs we have been given that we have seen come to pass make us confident that time in close for the few future ones still outstanding. What we cannot do is what the Jehovah Witnesses did when they thought they had an exact date for Christs return - when he didn’t come they had to twist all their beleifs to fit (but thats another discussion).
I think you hit the nail on the head - YOU don’t think it will happen. I agree you do need some faith, but I think this faith can be based on something a little more solid than “I think” or “you” think. Would it not be better to base ones faith on “this is what Gods word says”…
November 7, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Josh
@Matt: In regards to…
… that totally depends on your goals. If you’re wanting to just discuss things and leave it at that, certainly, it’s not in vain. If you’re hoping to convert me - well, yeah, that’s probably a lost cause.
This doesn’t hold up, at least for me. You say that much of the Bible is symbolic in nature, and yet one of the rules for learning from the Bible is that we don’t add our own views to it. It’s highly difficult - if not outright impossible - to read or learn anything without applying our own views to it. It’s even more difficult to do so when you’re talking about symbology or allegory. So, I’m not really sure how you reconcile those two thoughts.
I disagree - I think you need a lot of faith. It’s difficult for me to say this without sounding like a jerk, so I’ll just say it: for me, no, it’s not better to base one’s faith on “this is what God’s word says.” Why? Because I don’t even believe in the Christian God. I’m not even sure I believe in any god. The Christian God is, to me, just like the Greek, Roman, or Celtic gods and goddesses are to you: myths. Like all myths, it contains lessons to be learned, certainly - but to me, it’s still just a myth.
I’m Buddhist, and I even look at large portions of the original texts on Buddhism as myth. Just because the Buddhist texts say that Siddhartha dropped out of his mother, immediately stood up, walked 7 steps, and proclaimed who he was and what he was going to do, that doesn’t mean I’m going to swallow it as fact - because it’s not.
November 7, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Matt Davies
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly ” Rev 1:1
Signified - or coded in symbol. The Bible is telling us that this section is a symbol and needs to be unlocked to understand it. As I say compare scripture with scripture to find the answers - clouds are not literal clouds, heaven is not literal heaven etc etc.
Thats just a simple example but I think its pretty clear what’s symbol and what’s not - another example is a parable is not literal.
Buddihist huh?! Which texts do you hold to / read?
November 7, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Josh
@Matt: I’m truthfully hesitant to buy into any belief system which relies heavily on Revelations. That particular book of the Bible has been interpreted in dozens if not hundreds of ways - and a lot of the interpretations seem totally valid, when one looks at the passages being cited.
Saying which texts I hold to / read is problematic - Buddhism doesn’t have any Bible per se. However, to simplify matters, I’ll say I pay most attention to Theravada teachings (that is, the canonical texts of Buddhism), but I also read texts / thoughts based on the Mahayana tradition (which includes non canonical texts).
To further simplify matters, I’ll just say that I try to follow the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Often I fail miserably, but I do try.
November 8, 2007 at 5:31 am
Matt Davies
Josh,
I think you’ve misunderstood me. Our believes are not based on Revelation - although they are in harmony with it. I was simply explaining how you can tell which areas of the Bible aren’t to literal and require interpretation as you were getting at.
As I said above the gospel is simple – a child could understand it. In regards to why we believe it, eg proof of prophecy, check out Daniel 2 and read this prophecy leaflet. Some prophecies are clear and simple but some need interpreting using the Bible to interpret itself.
As for the different ways of interpreting Revelation – I would suggest (not being dogmatic here) that it is pretty clear how to interpret Revelation as the Bible spells it out itself – its a book of symbol and it is to show the servants of God what will happen from Johns day on into the future - “things which must shortly come to pass”. However its easy to generalize and unless we’re speaking about detail I don’t think there’s much point as you won’t get what I’m on about.
As I said our beliefs are not based on the Revelation. They are based on the simplicity of the gospel which we see confirmed in the prophecies.
—
I’m interested at why you are so critical of the Bible and yet attempt to hold to a Buddhist faith. Why do you follow it? Why are you sure its the right way. Are we talking blind faith here or do you have anything like prophecy?
Don’t get me wrong I have respect for most Buddhist teachings, they seem very peaceful ideas from a human point of view - I just feel they are so ungrounded and futile as they are based on mans reasoning and have no solid foundation. Proof of this is the many, varying, Buddhist texts – some of which contradict each other. Where’s the proof these are the correct way to live ones life and what do you get out of it at the end? Nivana seems a little far fetched and really bit seems a bit like the ageless pagan belief of having an immortal soul (which I hasten to add the Bible DOES NOT TEACH).
Also if you are a Buddhist why did you go to Church (mentioned above)?
Love to here your views.
Matt
November 8, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Josh
Matt,
“Buddhist faith” is a problematic expression. There’s very little in Buddhism that one has to have faith in. Indeed, the primary teachings are atheistic / agnostic in nature. To be Buddhist, you don’t have to believe in God or gods; you don’t need to pray to anything (despite misconceptions which are usually held by many people who know little about Buddhism). To compare Christian faith in a God / angels / second coming of Christ, etc. with that of the major practices of Buddhism is like comparing apples and oranges.
I follow it because it makes sense to me, plain and simple. You asked why I’m so sure it’s the right way; I never said that. I think it’s the right way for me, but that doesn’t mean it’s right for everyone.
Your opinion, one which I’m not going to argue. If you really knew anything about Buddhist practice, you’d realize how silly what you said really is.
And your proof is… oh, right. A book. And here I thought you had an angel in your pocket.
Nirvana seems far fetched; an omnipotent being hovering about in the sky isn’t. Okay then.
And, as a final point, technically speaking, Buddhism professes the theory of no-soul, that is, there isn’t anything inside any of us that makes us us. We’re the result of our thoughts, experiences, actions etc.
November 8, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Josh
Oh, and I forgot to answer one other thing: I was at church because I regularly go with my mom, because she likes the company.