| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/09/2007 02:15:11 AM · #51 |
Since Christianity began, how many NEW religions have there been, that are widely accepted by a large following? I wouldn't count the Mormons in this, because they are an offshoot of Christianity. I can only think of a couple offhand, and they go WAY back also. There's definitely been a dearth of "new" religions that catch on. Why is that?
R.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:18:54 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you have a man in your life tell you he loves you, how are you convinced? This isn't a sarcastic question. I'm serious. Answer for me, and then ask yourself if your own questions in the post could be asked about your own answer. |
If he's not an immediate family member, i might think he's gay, and i'll tell him i'm straight. if it's a girl, i will judge (in not-so-nice term, test?) from her actions. dont we all do that? but if comes along a person claiming to be the messenger from god, i'm not sure...
you see, the difference is, someone who loves you wont ask you to do things his/her way, unlike someone who claims to be god's messenger, because he ask that you follow his ways and do things. that's what separates my example, with what you just said about a loving man (or woman, which i preferred). |
Or, maybe a messenger from 'god' would ask that you follow him and do the things he asks, because ultimately he knows it will benefit you. Personally, this is where faith and personal experience combine with healthy skepticism(not exactly the word i want) and historical perspective to provide the avenue for seeking and knowing truth. If this 'messenger' comes from 'god', who wants the best from you, of course he would ask that you follow his ways. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:26:59 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Since Christianity began, how many NEW religions have there been, that are widely accepted by a large following? I wouldn't count the Mormons in this, because they are an offshoot of Christianity. I can only think of a couple offhand, and they go WAY back also. There's definitely been a dearth of "new" religions that catch on. Why is that?
R. |
I believe cultural and familial influences must play a large part in this... Generically speaking, as not to go the us v. them route, it certainly played a part in my life and in the lives of friends and aquaintances. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:31:28 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Since Christianity began, how many NEW religions have there been, that are widely accepted by a large following? I wouldn't count the Mormons in this, because they are an offshoot of Christianity. I can only think of a couple offhand, and they go WAY back also. There's definitely been a dearth of "new" religions that catch on. Why is that?
R. |
lol! I have an answer for that but.. I can't, cause the pre-requiste would be to believe in something I know nobody here does.. there is no reason for me explain anything that no one believes in the first case..
I really have stopped making any sense.. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:31:36 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by mpeters:
Originally posted by crayon:
you see, the difference is, someone who loves you wont ask you to do things his/her way, unlike someone who claims to be god's messenger, because he ask that you follow his ways and do things. that's what separates my example, with what you just said about a loving man (or woman, which i preferred). |
Or, maybe a messenger from 'god' would ask that you follow him and do the things he asks, because ultimately he knows it will benefit you. Personally, this is where faith and personal experience combine with healthy skepticism(not exactly the word i want) and historical perspective to provide the avenue for seeking and knowing truth. If this 'messenger' comes from 'god', who wants the best from you, of course he would ask that you follow his ways. |
you see, in extreme cases - how much, or WHAT does it take, for a "god's messenger" to convince a person to kill his own child (assuming he loved the child) in the name of faith or belief, as an act of sacrifice for good, or as prove of devotion?
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 02:33:16. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:43:10 AM · #56 |
In the Old Testament story of Abraham, he came this >< close to killing his son. This ultimate test of faith was given by God to illustrate to to Abraham the provision of a substitue sacrifice(the sheep caught in the thicket) as well as a test of ultimate obedience. Keep in mind that in this case Abraham had already seen the workings of God. This wasn't just an out of the blue request from and unknown being.
I dont think this directly addresses your question... I do however, think it dangerous to focus on the extreme ends of the spectrum(killing one's son for instance).
This particular scenario takes more faith than I posess... |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 02:48:32 AM · #57 |
Matthew 24:11
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."
there have been, are, and will be many false prophets
unfortunately many will believe them
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:16:11 AM · #58 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
Matthew 24:11
"And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many."
there have been, are, and will be many false prophets
unfortunately many will believe them |
i believe that was taken from the bible?
anyway regardless of the religion, the question was originally; how would you know if a prophet is the real deal? especially in this modern day? how did they know it was a real prophet back in the old days? how did that successful "prophets" convinced people in the old days? would that SAME method he/she used be able to convince you, today? |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 03:23:28 AM · #59 |
i believe that was taken from the bible?
anyway regardless of the religion, the question was originally; how would you know if a prophet is the real deal? especially in this modern day? how did they know it was a real prophet back in the old days? how did that successful "prophets" convinced people in the old days? would that SAME method he/she used be able to convince you, today?
yeah, i see what your getting at.
i guess at the time it would be hard to tell whether the prophet was telling the truth. I'm assuming we're talking about the prophets who fortold Jesus' coming.
Nowawdays, I wouldn't believe anyone who told me anything different than whats written in scripture because I now know what happened, what is true, and what to make of it all. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:31:19 AM · #60 |
From the Bible:
Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15)
"You will know them by their fruits" essentially means to me that if they ARE from God what they say will be true - EVERY TIME. If they are NOT from God, what they say will NOT be true ALL of the time. There are people that I consider to be "false prophets" who claim to predict things, or do things in the name of God, but not everything they say comes true, or happens, therefore, in my mind, they are proving themselves to be false.
For anyone who really has questions about Faith, Christ, Christianity, I highly recommend the books by Lee Strobel
, a journalist, and former hardcore atheist, who, in a search to prove Christianity was a crock, became a Christian. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:37:37 AM · #61 |
Jesus' Abilities.
(Not meant to rattle any cages)
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 05:58:42 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by lhall:
For anyone who really has questions about Faith, Christ, Christianity, I highly recommend the books by Lee Strobel
, a journalist, and former hardcore atheist, who, in a search to prove Christianity was a crock, became a Christian. |
I would highly recommend Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as a fascinating and easily readable analysis of why all religion is of extremely questionable validity and why it is objectionable.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:07:03 AM · #63 |
2000 years from now Im pretty sure human kind would of managed to destroy this beautiful planet by then.
Did someone mention David Blaine? .. how about that little 12 year old artist too? she claims her talents are from God. There are a lot of things we cannot explain, some put it down to a God others prefer scientific explanations. 1 thing for sure is that these 'opinions' have been around many many years, they have saved many lives, they have also started most wars. There is a PLUS and a NEGATIVE in everything we see and do, we draw either and add it to our persona to become the person we are now, some people draw the negative on faith and others are very positive, both are totally valid it just depends upon your experience. I hope there is a God, I also hope that God speaks in a universal tongue. I have a few questions that need answering.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:20:32 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Since Christianity began, how many NEW religions have there been, that are widely accepted by a large following? I wouldn't count the Mormons in this, because they are an offshoot of Christianity. I can only think of a couple offhand, and they go WAY back also. There's definitely been a dearth of "new" religions that catch on. Why is that?
R. |
There are quite a few.
Here is a list of religions. Here is a list of religions that have been started since 1850.
Major world religions that post date Christianity include Islam (C.7 CE), Sikhism (C.16 CE), and Taoism (depending on how it is defined) could be considered as arising in C.2-4 CE. The only older, distinct, current major world religions are Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. So Christianity is pretty much in the middle of the spread.
Of course, you could consider religious movements more generally. Abrahamic religions, Dharmic religions and other indiginous and pagan belief systems all have their origins far beyond the Common Era.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:33:05 AM · #65 |
You cant compare a presidents existence to the existence of Satan. I believe in a higher power, but I dont believe in Satan and I dont believe what most religious people interpret what "they" think it means in the Bible.
Originally posted by sabphoto:
------
Originally posted by Chinabun:
... |
You say they follow what was written in a book years ago by people they don't know...let me ask you this...Do you believe that George Washington lived? That he was President of the US? That he was a great general? Why, have you ever met him, seen him have actually tangible proof that he exsited and isn't just someone written in a book to make us feel better about our history? Someone that we can look up to and believe? Sure you believe in him cause he's of "our" time and there for he must be real.
What scares me is all the people that have to have a scientific reason for everything and can't accept things just the way they are and have to bash others if they don't see it that way it scares me cause they will never accept the truth.
---------
|
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 06:33:44. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 06:41:40 AM · #66 |
Is it rational to believe in something just because people say so?
Plenty of that going on. Check out your local public school. Or Internet cafe...
My personal favorite is how someone can do hours, weeks, months, years, decades of research, all to be laughed off by someone saying 'yeah, but my friend told me that this guy he knows saw this documentary on the internet that totally proves .
In DPC terms, I could apply this to the vast tomes of research that could be done in the hardware forums on the artesian wealth of knowledge that overflows within and the weekly 'what camera should I get? my friend said the _________ was the best ever, so I decided to post a thread about it instead of actually thinking or reading'...
On the other hand, it applies quite equally in other terms as well.
National Geographic had a very interesting article recently about the guy who leads the International Human Genome Project by means of an interview. He is a believer in God and Jesus. His interviewer could be termed as a leading opponent of anyone expressing any faith or belief.
As has already been pointed out though, Jesus performed miracles that were neither doubted nor replicable by todays standards. He was killed under false charges that he claimed to be God. Were people more cynical then or less?
What is interesting is that when people came to Jesus asking for a miracle to prove that he was indeed the Messiah, he refused. His performance of miracles was not to provide a show, but rather to prove that he had authority. Once that was accomplished, it was up to people to make their own decisions.
Would I believe? Hard to say. There are a few things that do indeed stand out to me about Jesus though. I probably have a different idea of Jesus than most though.
I appreciated the comment quite early on that expressed that the poster would have a problem with people coming to his door trying to convince him of something. Jesus himself sent 70 disciples to do this very thing in the last chapter of Matthew. It is quite likely that his apostles, including Paul, shared in similar activities.
Gives an interesting point of view for Crayon's original question in my eyes. ;)
EDIT: Just an addition on the point of family providing a source for belief...
Actually, I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't have a belief if my parents hadn't. Interestingly, I don't really think that my beliefs are the same as my parents either (probably closer to my father's, and less so my mother's, although nominally the same).
If I hadn't, I can tell you that I'd have been a pretty bad boy though, and although I'm currently a little low due to loneliness caused by some decisions I have made to do 'the right thing', to not have made those decisions would certainly have made my life a lot different than it is now. Having seen first-hand (in my older sister) the results that I probably would have encountered, I'm pretty glad things turned out this way.
So perhaps there is a reason that Christ Jesus set up arrangements for 'a helper' and apostles to provide a blueprint for what we now call 'religion'. (Careful now, I'm not trying to suggest that Christianity is the only religion, only referring to the fact that Jesus in particular did have something to do with organizing groups of people together - and I'm NOT suggesting that religions are following that just by putting on the mantle of his name)
And maybe it's a good thing that we are influenced by our parents. It's probably not a coincidence that almost everyone on the planet is familiar with who Jesus is.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 06:54:16. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 07:09:12 AM · #67 |
| matthew recommended "the god delusion" and i agree. its a good book but i feel like the people that "need" to read it are the people that wont read it. //www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0618680004/bookstorenow600-20 |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 07:29:40 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Since Christianity began, how many NEW religions have there been, that are widely accepted by a large following? I wouldn't count the Mormons in this, because they are an offshoot of Christianity. I can only think of a couple offhand, and they go WAY back also. There's definitely been a dearth of "new" religions that catch on. Why is that?
R. |
There are quite a few.
Here is a list of religions. Here is a list of religions that have been started since 1850.
Major world religions that post date Christianity include Islam (C.7 CE), Sikhism (C.16 CE), and Taoism (depending on how it is defined) could be considered as arising in C.2-4 CE. The only older, distinct, current major world religions are Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. So Christianity is pretty much in the middle of the spread.
Of course, you could consider religious movements more generally. Abrahamic religions, Dharmic religions and other indiginous and pagan belief systems all have their origins far beyond the Common Era. |
To follow up on this - I did not address the meat of Bear_Music's question - the "why".
I think that there are a couple of main reasons.
1) The major religions are under constant revision in order to better reflect society's changing moral standards. Examples of this include the development of standards and interpretation by ecumenical councils, by revolution such as that of Lutheranism/Protestantism, by proclamation such as the acceptance of evolution by the pope, and by the growth of generic spiritualism by which people may be selective over which rules they follow. Because the religious orders adapt (or are adapted) to change, there are fewer reasons to invent/switch to a new religion.
2) Society grows accustomed to historical and social conventions introduced by religion. Regionally, the idea of a god or gods, the kinds of powers they might exert become accepted and sound plausible. Totally new religious beliefs (such as incorporating UFOs and aliens) sound implausible to many. Consequently, people tend to believe in the historically more plausible religious tenets, which tend to be expressed in a fashion that is recognisably similar to an existing religion. Hence the number of variations of each of the major religions.
edit to add: plus, religions tend to be used to explain many of the same natural phenomena and questions, and so a certain level of coherence would be naturally expected.
Indeed, if you were to compare, say, modern Christianity with C.2 CE Christianity, you might come to the conclusion that they are different religions.
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 09:02:19.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 08:22:47 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by crayon:
with all our technological capabilities to create magic, and all the hoaxes and scams in our modern world, what is your opinion, or rather, what do you think would happen, if someone claims to be god's messenger appeared today? imagine also, him performing some neat abilities or power.
next, what difference does it make, if that same person existed way back in the past? are people in the past more vulnerable? |
Easy. If someone said they were God's messenger you'd first have to make sure you're talking about the same one. After that, you simply look to compare their actions and words to the scriptural standards. As far as performing tricks and stuff, it really isn't necessary to do so in order to be a messenger. Now, on the other hand, if the person said they were God, that might be a different ball of wax all together.
What difference did it make if the messenger existed in the past? I think that a lot of time we give the people of the past too little credit. Sure, we have amazing technological advancements but they were able to devise ways to do the most complex things, with the simplest means and tools, and the fewest people--and we're still trying to figure out how they did it. We can't discount them as fools for believing or not believing such a person. When it is consistantly shown historically that most people who SHOULD be believed in such instances, usually aren't believed by the majority of people--until it is too late anyway.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 08:52:10 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would highly recommend Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion as a fascinating and easily readable analysis of why all religion is of extremely questionable validity and why it is objectionable. |
thanks for this. there's a long queue for this at my library, but i added myself into it. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 09:17:36 AM · #71 |
If I've learned anything of value in my short stint on the planet, it's that faith can be a great comfort to those who have it.
So, regardless of what I believe, I will not try to proselytize.
In the long run, what counts is that we all (humans sharing this tiny world) should try to treat one another with respect and compassion, no matter what our individual beliefs happen to be. Life is hard...and you're a long time dead. |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 09:54:12 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by Fromac:
If I've learned anything of value in my short stint on the planet, it's that faith can be a great comfort to those who have it.
So, regardless of what I believe, I will not try to proselytize.
In the long run, what counts is that we all (humans sharing this tiny world) should try to treat one another with respect and compassion, no matter what our individual beliefs happen to be. Life is hard...and you're a long time dead. |
I suppose that the problem arises when your faith (comforting or otherwise) provides that you should not treat everyone else with respect and compassion. So - I agree with your sentiment. However, as religion does not teach universal respect and compassion I do care about other people's arbitrary belief systems.
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 09:57:10 AM · #73 |
hm...i have not read the book but it seems pretty interesting.
Although,
Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides
it seems he may be addressing some questions that really don't matter all that much.
we aren't made to understand where God came from (he always was, always is, and always will be - something our mind doesn't understand and doesn't have to understand)
we dont need to know how he communicates with everyone at once
many things seem impossible, but we're not God. we don't need to understand it.
thats where faith steps in
i may look into the book when I have some free time but by the sounds of things, some issues he addresses are really not that important to sway my faith
|
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:08:38 AM · #74 |
| One of my students today asked me if I believed in the god of the 'holy bible' and when I responded 'no' she got quite fanatical... this to me spells out exactly what would happen... although not all, many who base their lives around the various doctrines are quite emotional and extreme... chaos is all I can see... |
|
|
|
02/09/2007 10:12:53 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by EvanH:
hm...i have not read the book but it seems pretty interesting.
Although,
Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides
it seems he may be addressing some questions that really don't matter all that much.
we aren't made to understand where God came from (he always was, always is, and always will be - something our mind doesn't understand and doesn't have to understand)
we dont need to know how he communicates with everyone at once
many things seem impossible, but we're not God. we don't need to understand it.
thats where faith steps in
i may look into the book when I have some free time but by the sounds of things, some issues he addresses are really not that important to sway my faith |
The argument on the nature of god arises in the context of the religious argument "how/why do we exist, if not at the whim of God? The universe is too complex, and the odds of us are existing are so long, that there must have been a creator god."
The response is that it is perverse to conjure up a god, infinitely more complex than the universe, in order to explain the complexity of the universe. Rather than saying "we do not need to question the nature of god", we merely need acknowledge that "there are physical limitations that will impede us from exploring what is outside the universe or what (if anything) was responsible for its creation".
Prof. Dawkins puts it much better than me!
Message edited by author 2007-02-09 10:14:54.
|
|
