The "One True" religion
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: The "One True" religion
Steve3007, the way I have heard it explained is that if a church is called after Jesus Christ, then it is a church of Jesus Christ. If it does not have His name, but that of another - for intance: St. George - then it would be the Church of St. George and not Jesus Christ, even though it contains His teachings. Who would you rather have your church named after: your Lord and Savior on whom is the way to Salvation, or some other guy, even if he did bring the truth of the Gospel unto you?
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
-- Updated Fri Mar 10, 2017 3:56 pm to add the following --
Where I live churches tend to be called things like "Methodist" or "Anglican". The whole "...of Jesus Christ" thing doesn't seem to have caught on much in England. Maybe it will in the future. "Anglican" is the same as "C of E" which is kind of the default religion - the religion of people who aren't really religious.
-- Updated Fri Mar 10, 2017 4:36 pm to add the following --
...but who think village churches are nice.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
So, if I were to start a church and name it after Jesus Christ then it must be of Jesus Christ? What if my church taught that Jesus was not christ? That he was a not only an ordinary man but one who either had delusions of grandeur or whose followers had delusions of his grandeur?... the way I have heard it explained is that if a church is called after Jesus Christ, then it is a church of Jesus Christ.
The “church” that Jesus belonged to was some sect of Judaism or perhaps some amalgam of Jewish sects without affiliation with any particular sect. We can only guess at what his reaction would have been to Paul and the churches established in Jesus’ name. A strong case can be made that while Jesus pointed to “the Father” Paul and his followers pointed to Jesus as the Christ. In other words, Jesus became the object of worship. I do not think he would have been very happy with that development.
There is no church of Jesus Christ for there is no way of determining what it was that Jesus taught and what it was that he would have rejected as blasphemy. As a Jew it seems likely he would have rejected his being deified by Gentiles. There are no writings of Jesus and existent gospels written by Jesus’ disciples and no way of determining the veracity of the existing gospel stories. Given the enormous influence of Paul, Christianity is more aptly identified as Pauline Christianity or the church of Paul.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The "One True" religion
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/History/ ... story.html
..."The time that Jesus Christ supposedly existed is one the most heavily documented periods in ancient history. Yet there is virtually zero historical evidence of his supposed existence in any contemporary historical record."...
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/12/did- ... nt-add-up/
...."The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith. These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. Filled with mythical and non-historical information, and heavily edited over time, the Gospels certainly should not convince critics to trust even the more mundane claims made therein"......
- Papus79
- Posts: 1800
- Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
I think we can all agree then that, based on a 20th century interpretation of the new testament, Christianity is the one true religion.
Where I think you're stuck - you can take whatever sect you would choose of Christianity as being the most accurate, or Messianic Judaism if you've uncovered the heterodoxy of Paul or consider John the Evangelist to be a pagan pantheist stirring up trouble, but you can't simultaneously try to wrangle these ideas out beyond the context of the bible and social organizations based on the bible unless you fully submit your logic to all facts inside and outside of the bible.
For there to be a 'true' religion in the context you seem to be thinking of it that would imply a religion where nature perfectly reflects its tenets. The only thing that can survive that analysis and still disagree is a dualism where the whole of nature and human history is given to an evil deity to trick and deceive by warping all of physical and natural reality out of context with that book or belief. I can't tell someone in the later situation what they should or shouldn't do because I can't present any facts that couldn't have just as easily been engineered by the master strategist and deceiver.
Back in 2013 I went through a short and very deep return of my own Christianity and read the bible several times over in the course of six or seven months (with the help of Blavatski vs. facelikethesun, Steve Quayle, Tom Horn, etc..). I had a job which was that slow that I read every book in the King James at least twice and most of the gospels, less known major prophets, and minor prophets perhaps five or six times. I tried my best to hold the bible together and make the coherent narrative of it that I needed for what I thought at the time was likely my salvation. What ended up emerging was a very different pattern, not a pattern that necessarily defamed the bible or took away its value but rather acknowledged and edified its philosophic roots and finding that particular grasp on it didn't take me back to Catholicism or mainstream Christianity but rather blossomed the ideas contained within it outward into a much more universal dignity.
I wouldn't tell you what to believe about the fundamental nature or state of the universe, I think we all go through ups, downs, and even hairpin turns occasionally in where we think the facts are leading us unless we've traded inquiry and accuracy for social consistency. I think the only thing I'd want to drive home here is the point I made above - ie. that in a dualist system you have the doctrinal encampment and that's really all you can rely on as true.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
Christians aren't Christians unless they believe in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. This major tenet of nearly all Christians' creeds endangers the claim of Christianity to be a reasonable faith.There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed ergo huge mythical tale blown way out of proportion.
In order to be a reasonable faith Christianity must survive the objection that Jesus of the Gospels lacks historical reality. This is possible but would mean that Christianity become Christian Humanism.
Rr6 wrote:
Instead of "Biblical based religions" it's more precise to say "revealed religions". This is because The Bible can be and should be read as literature but not as a special revelation from God. If it's read as literature and not as the unique Word of God, The Bible can and does show a history of the development through time of the One God idea. The One God idea, i.e. monotheism, is not "a dry well" but , with certain additions and adaptations, can be a reasonable faith today.As a religon it doe offers some community and some good moral integrity teachings. Other than that, it is a dry well farce/hoot. imho this goes for all Biblical based religions.
I went to the Mormon website, Lark_Truth, and was disappointed at the naivete and lack of reasoning there. Congratulations to you at doing better job than the Mormon website.
-- Updated March 11th, 2017, 6:28 am to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote:
Yes, he would, according to the Gospel which says he says "I am the way the truth and the life". In other words, JC is supposd to be the incarnation of God on Earth. The reason this is so is that God wanted and wants humans to be saved from their imminent physical and moral destruction.In other words, Jesus became the object of worship. I do not think he would have been very happy with that development.
The Guardian today is reporting that millions of people face starvation. If we had followed the teaching of JC this would not have happened.
-- Updated March 11th, 2017, 6:40 am to add the following --
If we follow the teaching of JC from now this minute, this horror won't happen, otherwise it will happen.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The "One True" religion
[/quote]
One = Uni not multi, or poly{ Latin for many }Belindi---Instead of "Biblical based religions" it's more precise to say "revealed religions". This is because The Bible can be and should be read as literature but not as a special revelation from God. If it's read as literature and not as the unique Word of God, The Bible can and does show a history of the development through time of the One God idea. The One God idea, i.e. monotheism, is not "a dry well" but , with certain additions and adaptations, can be a reasonable faith today.
"U"niverse = "G"od ergo synonyms i.e. "U"niverse/"G"od
Universe = God ergo they are synonyms i.e. Universe/God or as Uni-V-erse/G-o-d
Multiverse is more than one, however, even in multiverse scenarios, they are all connected by gravity ergo they sum-total as the one, finite, occupied space Universe/God/Uni-V-erse.
====================================================================
1} "U"niverse = "G"od ergo synonyms i.e. "U"niverse/"G"od: The Cosmic Hierarchy/outline/list
........1a} Spirit-1{ spirit-of-intent }, metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts i.e. absolute truths, relative truths, concepts of Space, Time, God, Universe, Love, Dogs Cats etc....
{ note #1 to aid Belindi in understanding } The U in the above "U"niverse is in quotes because unlike the Universe that comes later in this hierarchy/outline/list, "U"niverse includes the macro-infinite non-occupied space, that exists outside of our finite, occupied space Universe/Uni-V-erse/God.
{ note #2 specifically to aid Belindi in understanding } The U in the above "U"niverse is italics to reflect that it is specifically considerate of and associated to 1a specifically. Hope these #1 and 2 helps you understand what Ive stated many presented many times here at philo forum in clear format if not always correct grammar
---------------line-of-demarcation-----------------------------------------------
............1b} metaphysical-2, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that, embraces the following,
{ note #3 to aid Belindi in understanding, that, meta{ Greek } = beyond, ergo, macro-infinite non-occupied space exists beyond our finite Universe.
.............1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka Uni-V-erse,
{ note #4 to aid Belindi in understanding, that, Uni-V-erse format is specifically associated with or reflection of Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(, that, I define more below }
.................1c2} Spirit-2, fermions, bosons or any aggregate collection thereof, as physical/energy/time/reality, that, we know is specifically associated with or reflection of frequency aka sine-wave topology ex ^v^v^ or as \/\/\/\/\/\/
.................1c3} Spirit-3, metaphysical-3, gravity that, I speculate is associated with positive curvature of a torus ergo my Space ( ) as mentioned previously above,, that, I speculate is inherent to every particle of Universe except for graviton and dakion{?},
..................1c4} Spirit-4, metaphysical-4, dark energy, that, I speculate is associated with the negative curvature of a torus and inherent to every particle{ fermion or boson } of Universe, except for perhaps a graviton and darkion{?}.
{ note #5 to aid Belindi in understanding, that, very little is known about dark energy, however, what we do know, is that, it appears to have the opposite effect of gravity and my torus scenarios exibit this opposition in positive ( ) and negative )( curvature, that, we find with a torus.
So Belindi, my torus, as derived from explorations of prime numbers, that, led me to four line/level pattern, that, I assigned to positive outer surface peak of curvature, inside sine-wave negative inner surface peak of torus defined by a trajectory of a something, that, defines a torus composed of;
two inversions, one at peak of positive curvature, one at peak of negative curvature, and
a sine-wave topology ^v \/\/\/v^ on the inside as the body of the torus and identified by numbers 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24.
Here is a rough texticonic representation of such bisected torus (^v)(v^) or as (><)(><).
Here is follows is the inside-outed numerical, four line/level pattern, wherein all prime numbers--- except 2 and 3 ---fall on the top line, which translates as the outer peak of positive curvature a spiral torus defined by a trajectory of a something that begins inside the torus on 2nd line/level and labeled as
...1................5........7..................11..........13.......................17........19.......................23.....peak of positive curvature
0........................6..............................12....................................18.....................................24.time/reality inside
............3............................9...................................15..................................21.......................time/reality inside
.......2........4..................8.......10.......................14.........16.....................20..........22.....peak of negative curvature
The prime numbers are in bold. Each religion is personal to each individual. Many, not all share a search for truth and personal experiences.
r6
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
You left out the second part: “no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me”Yes, he would, according to the Gospel which says he says "I am the way the truth and the life". In other words, JC is supposd to be the incarnation of God on Earth.
I am in agreement with those scholars who see a growing legend that transformed of a man into God. John the latest of the gospels makes the most extravagant claims. The two key terms are ‘son’ and ‘messiah’. In accord with Jewish belief both terms referred to men. A son becomes the Son and the Messiah something quite different than what anyone at the time of Jesus’ death would have understood. The Jewish man Jesus becomes the Gentile/Christian God.
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: The "One True" religion
It is rather interesting that the time of Jesus Christ was heavily documented by the Romans, but yet no mention was made of JC's works and miracles, even though several were to Roman citizens. What is heavily documented is the rise of Christianity.
The way I have heard the lack of historical proof of Jesus Christ is this: If there was proof, then there would be no need for faith, and as faith is the way to salvation, then if there was strong evidence of Jesus Christ there would be a lot of souls who were left out of heaven because they didn't have enough faith.
Belindi, I advise that you search Mormon.org again to find the reason that you are looking for. Maybe get into an online chat with a pair of LDS missionaries, much like we do here on this forum. You might find the reason that you're looking for.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: The "One True" religion
I don't own a stun gun. For some their religion may reflected in what they will not tolerate. Ex a stun gun being less cruel--- more humane ---than a 457 magnum bullet. ;--)Lark_Truth--I am stunned at your methodology, Rr6.
As did Belindi in a previous post of mine.I agree with your last paragraph explaining religions being personal to each individual.
There exists a finite set of cosmic laws/principles ergo we are trapped by absolute truth irrespective of ole sayings like.....'the truth will set you free'...
An infinite set of cosmic law/principles would inherently imply no integrity. Integrity = stability = structural stability = finite structural integrity.
Yours, Dear God,
is the only and complete glory.
https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/07/1 ... ds-prayer/
..."By Glory I mean
the synergetic totality
of all physical and metaphysical radiation
and of all physical and metaphysical gravity
of finite
but nonunitarily conceptual
scenario Universe
in whose synergetic totality
the a priori energy potential
of both radiation and gravity
are initially equal
but whose respective
behavioral patterns are such
that radiation’s entropic, redundant disintegratings
is always less effective
than gravity’s nonredundant
syntropic integrating"...
r6
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
I did chat to LDS online. The cultural difference between them and me is impossible to bridge in an online chat. The advisers can inform me about what Mormons believe but are unable to discuss the relative merits and failings of the many religious sects.Belindi, I advise that you search Mormon.org again to find the reason that you are looking for. Maybe get into an online chat with a pair of LDS missionaries, much like we do here on this forum. You might find the reason that you're looking for.
Lark_Truth , you claim to be able to make sense of Rr6's weird notation. But I bet you cannot translate into plain English what Rr6's means.
-- Updated March 11th, 2017, 8:57 pm to add the following --
I just cut and pasted the following from Mormon.org:Belindi wrote:Lark_Truth wrote:
I did chat to LDS online. The cultural difference between them and me is impossible to bridge in an online chat. The advisers can inform me about what Mormons believe but are unable to discuss the relative merits and failings of the many religious sects.Belindi, I advise that you search Mormon.org again to find the reason that you are looking for. Maybe get into an online chat with a pair of LDS missionaries, much like we do here on this forum. You might find the reason that you're looking for.
Lark_Truth , you claim to be able to make sense of Rr6's weird notation. But I bet you cannot translate into plain English what Rr6's means.
Whoever wrote this does not understand the meaning of 'literal'.The idea of God as our parent is not allegorical; it is literal.
The pictures on the website fail to depict the human condition, and even fail to show what Mormons look like, unless all Mormons are young, healthy, happy, heterosexual, and living in or aspiring to live in conventional families.
-- Updated March 11th, 2017, 9:26 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4 wrote:
That is the Jewish literary device of repetition in a different form. Both ' I am the way the truth the life' and ' no one comes unto the Father if not through me' mean the same . They mean that JC is the interpretation which can be understood of the otherwise ineffable ground of being . The claim is that only through a man's paradigmatic life can other men understand anything of God. The historical Jesus was a Jewish teacher who did not intend his teaching for the gentiles, and so Jesus does not consider avatars from societies other than Jews. The Jesus Christ of faith on the other hand is a modification of the teaching of Jesus by Paul for the benefit of gentiles, especially Romans , which draws upon the life and teaching of Jesus .You left out the second part: “no one doth come unto the Father, if not through me”
Like how Paul modified the teaching of Jesus the Jew, so in the 21st century the teaching needs a further modification, not a modification of the ethics, but of the teaching media and the supernaturalism in the myth.
That website Mormon.org is clogged with supernaturalism. I don't know what are the social historical reasons that make America alone among highly developed societies in its backward-looking religiosity. The LDS are American and could not have happened in Northern Europe. The reason I mention LDS again is that it is one of the media for expressing the basic ethical message of Jesus , and any supernatural creed is past believing by educated people in a scientific age.
My interest in the future of religions is because the basic ethical message of Jesus and other main prophets of this age is so badly needed, and religions are not functioning well and in many cases are dysfunctional .
-- Updated March 11th, 2017, 10:04 pm to add the following --
Fooloso4, do you think that the emphasis on the unique individual, Jesus of Nazareth , in 'I am the way the truth the life. None come to the Father except by me' is a Pauline version of Jewish need for a political-religious leader of Jews at the perilous and unhappy time in Jewish history, the Roman occupation?
Was the Gospel in question composed after Paul's work adapting Jesus for the gentiles? If this was the case the author of the Gospel in question was likely to be a Pauline author.
I re-read one of your previous posts in which you say how a claim by a Jew to be divine would be very bad idolatry, and blasphemy.
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: The "One True" religion
Here's some thoughts of mine:
- Would have some form of deity
- A series of myths and stories that would explain the world's origins, the purpose of life, how life is to be lived, etc.
- Prophecies concerning the future
- Demands faith out of it's believers
- Has a lot of logic to it
- Has a definite concept of an afterlife and how to get there
- A challenger to the power and authority of deity (i.e. devil or demonic force of destruction)
- A clearly defined doctrine
- A way for everyone to reach the highest level of glory in the afterlife
- Gives the "why" to life and the world
- Has a form of scripture or religious work that includes the mythology and explanations of that religion and so that the followers do not stray too far from the original concepts of that religion
- Order and not chaos & confusion
- Hope
- Offers peace of mind
- Allows freedom of choice
These are all of the ones that I am able to think of off of the top of my head. Post what you think and give any more that you would like to add. I realize that these points cover a lot of the world's religions, but I would think that any religion has at least some truth to it, or else people wouldn't bother to believe it in the first place. I tried to be as unbiased as possible in this, so it shouldn't sound to Mormon-y.
Ta ta!
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The "One True" religion
Merriam Webster defines 'creed'Perhaps we need to take a different approach to this topic than what we've been wading through these past few pages. What would make up a true religion?
Code: Select all
Definition of creed
1
: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief the Nicene Creed
2
: a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle
Religions should not comform to the first clause of definition 2. Any guiding principle such as The Golden Rule should be thought about with reason and knowledge to the best of any individual's ability.
Mormons hold to a credal religion. LDS all are expected and required to subscribe to the same creed.
- Lark_Truth
- Posts: 212
- Joined: December 24th, 2016, 11:51 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Brandon Sanderson
Re: The "One True" religion
I do believe you are right in both definition 1 "creed" Belindi, but I am confused as to your comment on definition 2. Would a true religion have or not have a set of fundamental beliefs or guiding principles? To me that just strikes me as a very necessary thing for a religion to have as there is so much confusion in the world as to religion that I would very much like to know exactly what my religion believes and what makes my religion different from another religion. Yes a guiding principle should be thought about with reason to the best of an individual's ability, I agree with you there.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: The "One True" religion
I think there are key components to religious beliefs, some of which I think are the following
1. The belief must be deeply held (this one I am least sure about).
2. The belief must not be open to change.
3. The belief must be wholly right.
4. The belief must be untestable.
5. In short the belief has to be unreasonable.
Please note that not all beliefs in all religions are unreasonable. But I hesitate to call these religious beliefs. For example most religions believe you shouldn't murder random strangers for no good reason, but then most atheists would agree. So I don't see beliefs like that as being particular to religion (although of course they are part of the religion). Also please note that anyone is capable of what I would call religious beliefs, for example I am sure there are Atheists who believe in homeopathy.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023