Do we all pray to the same God?
- Thread starter mystic
- Start date
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Interesting. Did you not also say:
Forgive me if I seem just a bit confused, for it seems to me on one occasion you are saying it isn't necessary to follow Jewish traditions (as Jesus did), and on the next occasion you are saying it is necessary to follow this particular one commandment that is not part of the ten, in other words "pick and choose" which commandments suit your particular sensibilities? You still wish to eat pork and shellfish, I presume? But you must "sacrifice your first lamb?" (I realize the statement is allegorical, but my comment still stands, this is picking and choosing which commandments given of G-d one wishes to obey, and dismissing the rest)
Interesting. Did you not also say:
Forgive me if I seem just a bit confused, for it seems to me on one occasion you are saying it isn't necessary to follow Jewish traditions (as Jesus did), and on the next occasion you are saying it is necessary to follow this particular one commandment that is not part of the ten, in other words "pick and choose" which commandments suit your particular sensibilities? You still wish to eat pork and shellfish, I presume? But you must "sacrifice your first lamb?" (I realize the statement is allegorical, but my comment still stands, this is picking and choosing which commandments given of G-d one wishes to obey, and dismissing the rest)
May I ask if you are speaking as a Messianic Jew?
I used the lamb as an example. It can be anything. It can be chastity. It can be fasting, or monasticism. Or money. Or abstaining from certain foods. But the point is that it's given to God first. Although it may benefit charity, the act of sacrificing comes before charity? All charity springs first from devotion to God? And is probably common to most religions?
Of course it doesn't negate the need to observe the other commandments.
Last edited:
As most of know, my wife is Hindu and this point is highly stressed in her tradition. She will often bring fresh fruit home on prayer days and she always reminds me not to eat any until a portion has been offered to God. "God always gets the first piece," she'll say.
Lol, that first lamb goes not to god, but feeds the priests and temple workers... Without that charity going to god first, we can't build temples, cathedrals, or
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I understood completely, that is why I said your comment was allegorical. Yes, I have some close association with Messianic Judaism, but that is irrelevant to the conversation. So no, I am not speaking as a Messianic Jew.
It seems a rather common observation of mine through the years, particularly among the various Protestant denominations, how they all lay claim to the Ten Commandments, but when it comes to the other 607 they pick and choose. They make grandiose statements along the lines of "obeying" G-d given commandments and how it is such a good thing to do, but never quite get around to mentioning the ones that are contrary to their preferred way of life. The easy example is the eating of pork or shellfish (an ABOMINATION!), which Christians as a rule dismiss without another consideration, on their way to the next bacon wrapped lobster tail for Sunday afternoon post church luncheon. Rather difficult to take such people seriously from a philosophical point of view, though they may otherwise be quite devout and sincere.
The one that gets me is the denom that plays with snakes because a passage says something about how believers wouldn't be harmed by the serpents. But they otherwise are little different from most other denoms. Christians celebrate Christmas and Easter, often very sincerely and devout, "put Christ back in Christmas!" and "no X-mas in this house!" Which is all silly from a philosophical point of view...both Christmas and Easter are *pagan* holidays, and Christ never was in Christmas until the Christians co-opted December 25 from Mithraism. And "X-mas" *means* Christmas, even Constantine's soldiers marked their shields with the Chi-Rho symbol for Christ, which is a modified X. Don't get me started on Easter, it is a High Pagan holiday that dates back to the Tower of Babel.
Some of the silliest, trivial details get argued over, in a bid for one-upmanship. And yet every one of them has the unmitigated, total and complete TRUTH as given by G-d! Just ask them, they will all tell you the same thing...they have the truth and no one else does!
What I find quite telling, is how unknowing they all are of the history of Christianity. It is like the denom they are in fell out of the sky complete the day they joined, an isolated unit fully self contained, turn-key and ready to roll. Occasionally I'll find someone who at least knows of Martin Luthur, or maybe John Wesley or John Huss, and that's about as far back as they go. Between 30 AD when Jesus was executed until 1517 when Martin Luthur nailed his 95 theses to the church door, the earth stood still and silent as far as Christians are concerned.
(I just realized this is the 500 year anniversary of the birth of Protestantism with the nailing of Martin Luthur's theses...so where's the celebrations???)
Last edited:
But Christ came to make changes. He changed eye-for-an-eye to: turn the other cheek. He ate with 'untouchables'. Many changes. He was very angry towards the outward form of religion, without the true meaning of it. And when there was an argument about circumcision in the Acts of the Apostles, they conferred and as a result decided: abstain from fornication, from blood and from strangled animals and from food sacrificed to idols. We shall lay no other demands upon you.
I understand the difficulty about the 'jot and tittle' of the law. I believe Christ meant the true spirit of the Divine.
I'm not a Bible literalist. The Deutronimcal breaking down the 10 commandments into 600, is typical really of exactly what Christ came to change about Old Testament religion? Imo.
I understand the difficulty about the 'jot and tittle' of the law. I believe Christ meant the true spirit of the Divine.
I'm not a Bible literalist. The Deutronimcal breaking down the 10 commandments into 600, is typical really of exactly what Christ came to change about Old Testament religion? Imo.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That is well and good, I certainly give the Catholics reason to scratch their heads as well, just ask Thomas. In defense of Catholics, I will say that there are a few, a tiny minority, that actually put a great deal of effort and study into their positions...which is more than can be said for the vast majority of Protestants in my experience. I will not say this for all Catholics, among them are those who would tell me a piece of the apple got stuck in Adam's throat, and this is why men have Adam's Apples, or that men have one less rib than women because G-d took Adam's rib to create Eve. There is a long history of scholarship among the Catholics, what remained through the Dark Ages was cloistered away on a remote island off the coast of Ireland at the farthest reaches of the known world, safely out of reach of those who wished to perpetuate ignorance (who were also Catholic, by the way). I find Catholics generally are unknowing of church history as well, although I have found Thomas to be a great sport and far more knowledgeable than most of my acquaintance.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I don't disagree on principle, I do disagree on practice.
This is evident when He overturned the tables of the moneychangers, absolutely.
OK, but there should be a break here as Jesus was not involved directly in this debate. He had already been dead for some time when this happened.
It isn't as clear cut as you say here. What Paul wrote in one place seems like he told the Jerusalem crowd how it was going to be. In point of fact, he was the lower man on the totem pole...he did what they told him to do. He wasn't happy about it. But he did produce much needed tithes that the Jerusalem church needed to continue their mission. In another place speaking on the same subject, Paul is considerably less adamant and more submissive in his tone.
Again, allow me to stress...I am not anti-Paul. But Paul himself wrote that his words should not be taken as Divine, that what he wrote was what he felt was proper application, especially in regards to the pagan converts. So it concerns me greatly when I see a big emphasis on the teachings of Paul at the expense of the other Apostles, particularly James.
As do I, but we again are back at application. I have heard the argument that the remaining 607 commandments were "application" of the ten, and it is a compelling argument. I also recall Jesus' words when He told us that the ten were summed up in the two...Love G-d with all your heart, and do unto others what you wish done to yourself.
That's a good thing in my opinion. The Bible is prose, and poetry, and wisdom sayings, and guidelines for leading a healthy and peaceful life with your neighbors. There is great value. It simply isn't a scientific text or a history text, certainly not in the sense we have come to understand those terms today.
Yet there is not a page of it in which the reader -- be he a king or a beggar -- will not encounter some phrase where he/she hears God speaking directly to his own heart? Down through the ages?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I want so much to agree with you in my heart, but then my head reminds that somewhere in the middle of all the "begets" and again in the middle of all the "thou shalt nots" that one's eyes tend to glaze over and can't wait to finish slogging through....
Shell of the nut?
That sounds like a platitude, not a supported fact in any way. I'd be interested in you proving me wrong, but the number of atheists in the world, not to mention various other religions seems to easily dispute the statement
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I understand what you are saying, wil, but if I'm not mistaken the thread began by asking if the various religions are all reaching out to the same G-d? By definition, *all* religions are going to have platitudes that are not supported by fact in any way. If the subject were whether a particular, or any, religion could demonstrate ironclad fact, your comment would seem to me appropriate. Under the circumstances and the subject at hand, platitudes are a "necessary evil" that is part of the "nature of the beast." Pointing a finger at the obvious and crying foul is counter-productive, no? No need in this thread to convince atheists, atheists wouldn't be praying to any G-d in any form anyway...
Must point out the obvious...
Every page, does not make every reader of all walks of life hear god in their heart for the past 2000 years... That is all I am saying.
Some pages, have affected some readers to feel this some of the time, over the past 2000 years....
Otherwise it gets repeated, tweeted and Alt facts become someone's reality.
Every page, does not make every reader of all walks of life hear god in their heart for the past 2000 years... That is all I am saying.
Some pages, have affected some readers to feel this some of the time, over the past 2000 years....
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Agreed. But as I stated, all religions have their platitudes. Kinda like the Oscars, they are self-congratulatory pats on the back that in the end are meaningless, but also don't harm anyone.
This is one I have never heard before...don't wanna sit in that pew.
And I believe the insistence on setting aside, reason, logic, critical thinking, and facts are a huge issue right now in our religious fervor AND are working their way into government decision making and laws...which does harm a lot of people...
'He brings light to those in darkness, to those in the shadow of death, and guides them into the way of peace.' (This is from the 'Benedictus').
How can you know that, unless you've been there? Perhaps that's who it's there for.
Perhaps it's not about clever atheists? Perhaps it's not about smart minds analysing and arguing the precise letter of scripture?
I mean all scripture.
Last edited: