Having been raised in a southern Church of Christ (pure Bible teaching, literal interpretation, no instrumental music even) I have always wondered about this. I know there are various versions of the Bible and even those other books some don't consider a part of it, but there is a great deal is consistency among them all. I have been in many, many churches and have even attended the Mormon pageant in upstate New York, and I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the diversity of beliefs based upon one central "book." Equally as perplexing, is that almost all religions have a "holy Text" of some sort. What is this thing we impart to things written, as if they are written by the hand of some Gawd, him/herself. Well, I guess it is usually believed that they are, right??
The one central tenant, in most, it seems, is the idea of treating others well, although there are some beliefs which are contrary to that. The words of Jesus, himself, when asked about the greatest commandments, that is the things most important to do, is to treat others as yourself. (Yes I know he said to first love God.)
Within the Church of Christ, they and many others like the Baptists and the Methodists, tend to treat the Bible like a legal book, interpreting it as if it were the Constitution itself. I came to see that this is very narrow and tends to confine God to what man has described God to be, leaving him/her no choice but to conform to man's image of God.
I know there are labels for some of these things; religious labels which affix patterns and descriptions upon issues such as these, apparently giving then substance. But naming it, doesn't give it life, by any means.
Reading some of the discussion here in this portion of the OPP forum causes me to have concern that these things will never pass. I once felt that if I were the deceiver him/herself, that if I wanted to lead people away from God, I would invent the Bible or something which people would view as "holy writing." I hope that isn't offensive but I have seen what "legalization" of the "scriptures" can do to groups who once had common cause and beliefs.
nwtk2007 wrote:
Having been raised in a southern Church of Christ (pure Bible teaching, literal interpretation, no instrumental music even) I have always wondered about this. I know there are various versions of the Bible and even those other books some don't consider a part of it, but there is a great deal is consistency among them all. I have been in many, many churches and have even attended the Mormon pageant in upstate New York, and I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the diversity of beliefs based upon one central "book." Equally as perplexing, is that almost all religions have a "holy Text" of some sort. What is this thing we impart to things written, as if they are written by the hand of some Gawd, him/herself. Well, I guess it is usually believed that they are, right??
The one central tenant, in most, it seems, is the idea of treating others well, although there are some beliefs which are contrary to that. The words of Jesus, himself, when asked about the greatest commandments, that is the things most important to do, is to treat others as yourself. (Yes I know he said to first love God.)
Within the Church of Christ, they and many others like the Baptists and the Methodists, tend to treat the Bible like a legal book, interpreting it as if it were the Constitution itself. I came to see that this is very narrow and tends to confine God to what man has described God to be, leaving him/her no choice but to conform to man's image of God.
I know there are labels for some of these things; religious labels which affix patterns and descriptions upon issues such as these, apparently giving then substance. But naming it, doesn't give it life, by any means.
Reading some of the discussion here in this portion of the OPP forum causes me to have concern that these things will never pass. I once felt that if I were the deceiver him/herself, that if I wanted to lead people away from God, I would invent the Bible or something which people would view as "holy writing." I hope that isn't offensive but I have seen what "legalization" of the "scriptures" can do to groups who once had common cause and beliefs.
Having been raised in a southern Church of Christ ... (
show quote)
Christians believe/know that the bible was inspired by God though man held the pen to write the text. If one doesn't believe that his word is perfect - as the bible tells us it is - then what do we have? We have different belief systems to cater to the whims of man rather than God's law. That is the work of Satan. Not the fault of the bible.
Rose42 wrote:
Christians believe/know that the bible was inspired by God though man held the pen to write the text. If one doesn't believe that his word is perfect - as the bible tells us it is - then what do we have? We have different belief systems to cater to the whims of man rather than God's law. That is the work of Satan. Not the fault of the bible.
That's an interesting point of view, though I personally don't think there is an evil force at work in the universe. I don't even blame anything, I just wonder how there can be common threads of what we need to be yet find so many versions of it. My personal take is that man has created God thru the need to understand our place in the universe, so to speak. The different versions of biblical thought being the ones that facilitate that understanding.
nwtk2007 wrote:
That's an interesting point of view, though I personally don't think there is an evil force at work in the universe. I don't even blame anything, I just wonder how there can be common threads of what we need to be yet find so many versions of it. My personal take is that man has created God thru the need to understand our place in the universe, so to speak. The different versions of biblical thought being the ones that facilitate that understanding.
If man did create God then how can we explain the complexity of life and our planet? IMO it takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe in a Big Bang and evolution.
I do know there is a Satan. How else to explain why people do evil things? And not always overtly evil but evil can be very subtle. That battle starts in the mind. How else can we explain evil or malicious thoughts?
Rose42 wrote:
If man did create God then how can we explain the complexity of life and our planet? IMO it takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe in a Big Bang and evolution.
I do know there is a Satan. How else to explain why people do evil things? And not always overtly evil but evil can be very subtle. That battle starts in the mind. How else can we explain evil or malicious thoughts?
If Gawd created everything then Gawd made Satan. It's a contradiction in and of itself.
nwtk2007 wrote:
If Gawd created everything then Gawd made Satan. It's a contradiction in and of itself.
Why? Satan is a fallen angel. He didn't start out as the "father of lies". We all have free will. It would have been very easy to create automatons but He didn't do that. He lets us choose our own path.
Rose42 wrote:
Why? Satan is a fallen angel. He didn't start out as the "father of lies". We all have free will. It would have been very easy to create automatons but He didn't do that. He lets us choose our own path.
I don't believe in angels either. But I do think there are higher beings, if higher is even the correct way to describe it.
I reread your first post. While there may be some commonalities in the books of various religions, they are superficial commonalities.
One fundamental difference is it's only the God of Christianity who sent His Son to make the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. Christ came to serve rather than be served.
Superficially - and only very superficially - they may seem similar but there are many fundamental differences. Turning water into wine was but a tiny piece of what Christ did.
That article purposefully ignores the deep fundamental differences. Its not even remotely close to being a carbon copy of any other religion.
Rose42 wrote:
Superficially - and only very superficially - they may seem similar but there are many fundamental differences. Turning water into wine was but a tiny piece of what Christ did.
That article purposefully ignores the deep fundamental differences. Its not even remotely close to being a carbon copy of any other religion.
True, but there are similarities which, objectively, one could note a potential link. Oral history was the method of passage of these beliefs and histories. Virtually every story in the Bible has a similar tale which predates the biblical one. Observe the similarities of Hammurabi and Moses laws.
nwtk2007 wrote:
True, but there are similarities which, objectively, one could note a potential link. Oral history was the method of passage of these beliefs and histories. Virtually every story in the Bible has a similar tale which predates the biblical one. Observe the similarities of Hammurabi and Moses laws.
Yes there are surface similarities but big fundamental differences as seen below. The below bit is taken from -
https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.htmlThe differences between Mosaic Law and the Hammurabian Code are equally significant. For example, the Law of Moses went far beyond the Code of Hammurabi in that it was rooted in the worship of one God, supreme over all (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). The moral principles of the Old Testament are based on a righteous God who demanded that mankind, created in His image, live righteously. The Law of Moses is more than a legal code; it speaks of sin and responsibility to God. The Hammurabian Code and other ancient laws do not do this.
The Code of Hammurabi focused exclusively on criminal and civil laws and meted out harsh, and sometimes brutal, punishments. In this way, Hammurabi has more in common with Draco than with Moses. The Law of Moses provided justice, but it also dealt with spiritual laws and personal and national holiness. As a result, the Mosaic Law dealt with the cause of crime, not just its effects. The Mosaic Law elevates the value of human life, and its whole tenor is more compassionate than that of the Hammurabian Code. The spiritual dimension is what makes the Law of Moses unique.
In his book Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, Fred Wight writes, “The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi’s Code. . . . The great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ [Leviticus 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code.”
This is what sets the Mosaic Law apart from all the other law codes of antiquity: its strong emphasis on spiritual matters. The closest the Hammurabian Code comes to effect such spirituality is its proclamation that those who stole from the gods would be put to death. Unlike the Mosaic Law, Hammurabi’s Code had no provision for forgiveness.
Rose42 wrote:
Yes there are surface similarities but big fundamental differences as seen below. The below bit is taken from -
https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.htmlThe differences between Mosaic Law and the Hammurabian Code are equally significant. For example, the Law of Moses went far beyond the Code of Hammurabi in that it was rooted in the worship of one God, supreme over all (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). The moral principles of the Old Testament are based on a righteous God who demanded that mankind, created in His image, live righteously. The Law of Moses is more than a legal code; it speaks of sin and responsibility to God. The Hammurabian Code and other ancient laws do not do this.
The Code of Hammurabi focused exclusively on criminal and civil laws and meted out harsh, and sometimes brutal, punishments. In this way, Hammurabi has more in common with Draco than with Moses. The Law of Moses provided justice, but it also dealt with spiritual laws and personal and national holiness. As a result, the Mosaic Law dealt with the cause of crime, not just its effects. The Mosaic Law elevates the value of human life, and its whole tenor is more compassionate than that of the Hammurabian Code. The spiritual dimension is what makes the Law of Moses unique.
In his book Highlights of Archaeology in Bible Lands, Fred Wight writes, “The Mosaic Law gives strong emphasis to the recognition of sin as being the cause of the downfall of a nation. Such a thought is entirely lacking in Hammurabi’s Code. . . . The great fundamental principle of the laws of God in the Hebrew Bible may be summed up in the words: ‘Be ye holy, for I am holy’ [Leviticus 11:45]. Such a principle as this was utterly unknown to the Babylonians as seen in their law code.”
This is what sets the Mosaic Law apart from all the other law codes of antiquity: its strong emphasis on spiritual matters. The closest the Hammurabian Code comes to effect such spirituality is its proclamation that those who stole from the gods would be put to death. Unlike the Mosaic Law, Hammurabi’s Code had no provision for forgiveness.
Yes there are surface similarities but big fundame... (
show quote)
Philosophically, yes, but there are parts where Moses plegarized Hammurabi. But the other similarities are striking.
nwtk2007 wrote:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/31885/31885-h/31885-h.htm
I've seen some of that before. Written by a non-believer with an agenda.
These resemblances are all very superficial and nothing more. If one examines the bible versus the books of other religions the differences are vast.
No other religion has anything like Christ.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.