by AhHah 89 Replies latest watchtower bible
Frenchy and Carmel,
I enjoyed your comments. You have both given me some things to ponder. I hope this is just the beginning of more open sharing of thoughts on God and religion from everyone interested. This is exactly what I had hoped this survey would stimulate! Thanks for responding!
The Bible is not a handbook of religion and/or doctrines but rather a compilation of writings intended to serve as a compass rather than a map.
I like that. "compass rather than a map". It seems to make so much sense. Thanks.
Path
The Bible is not a handbook of religion and/or doctrines but rather a compilation of writings intended to serve as a compass rather than a map.
I have been thinking about this statment also. I also would like to believe that that is what God and the Bible writers intended. However, much of the old testament with all of its laws and rules and penalties and judgments and destructions would seem to contradict that statement. "Your word is a lamp to my foot, a light to my roadway" -- if memory serves on that one. Also, thinking about the new testament, especially the epistles of Paul, we again see many rules about how to worship, the authority of the apostles, the authority of Christ as the only way to approach the Father, "he that is not for me is against me", etc., etc. Altogether, that sounds to me much more like a map than a compass. Although the Gospel accounts are less that way, there is still the restriction of salvation only to those who accept Christ.
If one were a practicing Buddhist, would one find validation for one's faith and worship when reading the Bible or comdemnation? Insofar as one does not accept Christ as one's ransom and savior then my impression is that one would find condemnation. My point is that the Bible describes God as not tolerating any form of worship other than Christianity, and for that reason, does not seem to fit your description.
"That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. What do you think?"
Edited by - AhHah on 5 October 2000 21:12:28
Edited by - AhHah on 6 October 2000 11:55:0
Carmel:
#9 In my belief system, the day of judgement is a reocurring phenomena, not a one time even that is limited to the Christian cosmology. Therefore, when Muhammed came it was the "judgement day" for the Christians. When Jesus came it was the Judgement day for the Jews. So collectively the "time of the end" refers to the end of the era of the most fecund part of a religion. Once it begins to decline and is corrupted by human fecal factor, it is renewed and is the "time of jugdment".
Are you saying that God personally intervenes from time to time in mankind's history to introduce a new (and presumably better or more pure) religion, and that all God-fearing persons should recognize the new "prophet" and jump aboard the new bandwagon? If so, with the advantage of hindsight, what makes Moslem, Judaism, or Christianity any better than the other? In other words, where is the improvement? If you are not saying that God has anything to do with this cycle, then why do you call it a "day of judgment"?
I am just trying to understand what you are saying.
Ahah,
Perhaps it would be insightful to consider when you were going to school as a metaphore. All of your teachers from kindergarten to senior in highschool had to have a "degree" to teach. Each came into your life at a time when a previous teacher had prepared you for what came next. As you changed, your need for a different education changed. Was Mrs. White who you loved in third grade "better than" Mr. Snodgrass in fourth grade?
Of course not. You may have liked the nappys in the afternoon and wish it were still that way, but by forth grade you got another outside recess or learned a different team sport rather than napping.
Your algebra teacher in 8th grade isn't better or worse in terms of qualifications. You are different and the school board knows that once you have completed a series of courses in math, algebra comes next. Even though you though Mrs. Pennywinkle was the only one you would ever learn from, life deals a different reality. Calculus and foreign language are eventually in the cards.
As to the exclusivist scriptures in the Bible indicating there is only one way to learn "reach the father" it is true. Recall Jesus said, "when I am in the world, I am the light of the world". Certainly there was no other way to reach the father at the time of Jesus than through the "annointed one, Christ". That this is taken by Christians to mean for the entire globe and for all time is, IMHO, an unrealistic rendering. What are the "fruits" of such a doctrin? The feeling and exposition of superiority, untold inhumanity to mankind by the Christian church down though history. Were I asked to test the fruits of exclusivity in any relgion, I would have to say it is found wanting.
Hope this makes sense.
carmel
Carmel,
That makes excellent sense.
I am still wondering why you feel so certain that Christianity, of all the many religions in the world, with all of their devout followers, is the only form of worship that God approves (and presumably the only one that leads to "salvation").
And, would you still feel that way if you were raised as a Buddhist or something else?
Edited by - AhHah on 6 October 2000 11:42:33
Ahhah,
I must have stated something very poorly to have given you the impression that I belive Christianity is the only way to salvation. I am apposed to exclusivity in all cases as well as finality as it is believed in contemporary Islam.
Mr reference to the verses in the bible that are interpreted as "exclusive" can be understood quite differently and I cited the example of Jesus saying one could only reach the father through him. This could be understood in at least a couple different ways that is not exclusivist. For instance, the verse I referenced where He said that "While I am IN the world, I am the light of the world". (emphasis mine) Suggesting that other lights may exist when He is no longer "in the world".
At another level, on a more global scale, one could not show preference for one Prophet of God to the exclusion of others (ie Jesus of Nazareth) and still access the father.
I'll leave it at that with the reiterance that I am definitely a pluralist when it comes to "salvation issues".
carme.\l
I appreciate the clarification. It is somewhat confusing though.
While Christ was on the earth, he was the only way to the Father, even though there were many other belief systems in place at the time. After he left the earth, he was only one of the prophets that cannot be excluded to approach the Father, even though the religions based on all the major prophets that you have named eventually become "corrupted by the human fecal factor" and must then face their "time of judgment". Did I get it right?
What about Confucious, Buddah, Allah, Vishnu, or even Joseph Smith (LDS) to name just a few? Where do they fit in? How do they qualify to become the "judgment day" for one of the other prophets? I just don't understand how one can be certain to pick and choose God's prophets and know which ones to ignore. Wouldn't everyone pick different prophets? I guess I just don't get your logic.
Thanks for trying to explain.
Edited by - AhHah on 6 October 2000 17:44:47
Excellent questions and observations Ahah,
Addressing them the best I can on this medium, it seems that the Abrahamic, Judeo/Christian/Muslim dualistic religions pretty much evolved isolated from the monistic contemplative religions of the east, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Not until the agressive expansion of Islam into India and other areas did the two streams of religions really "collide". True, some Christian missionaries penetrated these areas, but it was really Islam that spread out into Africa and the sub continent of Asia. The real Christian attempt to reach the ends of the earth was on the backs of colonialism from western European nations looking for materialist conquest and of course with the blessing of the Church providing conquest was for the glory of Christ. And this, not until well after the glory days of eight to tenth century Islamic expansion.
So the two types of religions really evolved in relative isolation. Recall that the apostle Paul indicated during his ministry that the gospel had allready been taken to the "whole world". It has not been until the 19th century that it would even be possible for the vast majority of Buddists, and other monists to be confronted with the claims of the Christian/Muslim/Baha'i messages.
Getting to the point, for a Jew to become a true believing Muslim, he would have to accept the teachings of the Koran which specifically endorse Jesus as a prophet of God. So within the "religious world" of the west, for one to be a "true follower" one would have to accept the line of succession from one prophet to the next to be truely respectful of the divine plan as adumbrated by the most recent chronologically.
It becomes a much more challanging concept to insist that a Hindu needs to acknowledge the western linage of Gods Messengers. Especially after how much carnage and havoc the maurading Muslims wrecked on them. (Of course they learned it from the Crusaders a few centuries before in Palistine)
To conclude, it seems that we are challanged to understand that each of these traditions originated with an individual who claimed to be a messenger of God, (even Buddha said there is no god we can comprehend, but endorsed the idea of a crator) and their influence was positive for a certain period until division and disunity for many reasons began to neutralize its force.
Obviously there is a pattern of renewal and "return" which should become apparent. Everyone of these spiritual giants talked of His "return" and gave evidence in their sacred scriptures as to the time, place or conditions which would be in place when that event took place.
I digress. Hope I have made some sense. Gotta go do a honey-do project. Back in a while.
carmel
Interesting history review.
You rightly acknowledge that major religious branches have mostly developed independently from each other, which underscores the reasons for my questions of your original post about your cycle of "judgment days" for major religions.
You seem to have agreed that it "becomes a much more challenging concept" to reconcile your theory of God passing the torch from one religious system to another when one considers the vast and ancient Eastern religions.
Yes, there are similarities between them, but, more relevant to this post, they all still exist, even though colonial expansion has permitted relatively recent growth of western religions. I just don't see the evidence for recognizing any intervention by God to show his ever changing endorsement of new prophets/religions as the old one meets it "judgment day".
Recall Jesus said, "when I am in the world, I am the light of the world". Certainly there was no other way to reach the father at the time of Jesus than through the "annointed one, Christ".
Also, if the above was true, where did that leave those practicing Eastern religions who never heard of Christ?
Isn't it possible that God instead blesses individuals and does not bless, support, or influence any of the man-made religious organizations at all?
