The MENA "Let's discuss religion and our own personal belief" thread

[catknit 144]

First of all venusfire - you're explanation of 1 person/being/whatever being seen thru many angles and with different names is very valid. Additionally, many Christians [as earlier as their teens] do start to question the how of the Trinity because it is a complex thing. To those interested, I would highly recommend reading Marcus Borg. Some fundementalists get their panties in a wad over his take on the Trinity as well as Jesus and who he historically and spiritually was. But, he makes some great points and valid arguments.

Not to complicate the Trinity - God in parts - is Jesus God argument even more....

One way to look at this is to tease apart the historical Jesus [pre-Easter] with the spiritual Jesus [post-Easter]. For many people understanding and believing the early story of Jesus is easy - he followed the traditional prophet story line. It's the post-Easter Jesus where things start to get a little funky. How I've resolved this in my mind - at least as of today, my beliefs rollercoaster [which is very very normal Leyla ]; Jesus pre-Easter was very much a man - an special man - but merely a man. The difference comes post-Easter - he's a vessel for God at that point - flesh filled with God substance [for lack of a better term - again I was taught the water scenario for explaining the Trinity].

Additionally, about the Gospels - yup, not eye witness accounts. Most biblical scholars peg them at least one generation if not more from Jesus' time. John being written even later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Keep in mind that those three are considered the synoptic books and are most likely the most "eye witnessy". John's written in a completely voice with a totally different feel.

[Leyla 0]

Leyla- I understand if you're frustrated then you care and you really are searching for the truth; I think that's really good and clever. Is it hard? yes; but why not? I mean if God created everything and made everything around you and IN you; isn't He worthy of looking for? or looking for His path? God promised to be found; if He was looked for. Take it easy on yourself and let it naturally happen while you keep that connection you have with God....if you get somewhere in the end you will be veryyyyy grateful and if you didn't I'm sure you will at least be at peace that you did all you can for it. I never heard anyone have it easy... whatever he/she was looking for; there must be a struggle or it wouldn't be worth at all in my opinion. Struggle teaches you the worth of what you're looking for; so when you have it never ever take it for granted and by the way that's not only about religion that's about anything in life. I honestly believe that's OK we're different and there are so many beliefs I mean I never expected humans to be robots and we all follow one thing whatever it is! What kind of life would that be? I think it's more normal and natural that we are different and believe in different things and even argue about it; which is in my opinion is very healthy...The only time I would hate it is when violence takes place other than that we should be enjoying this and learning as much as we can.

I agree with you 100%. When I officially reverted back to my spiritual quest as opposed to adhering to a religion, I was not really scared of God's wrath. Here is why: I believe that God can see into my heart, soul, and mind. I believe that HE understands it even when I can't make sense of the jumbled mess inside. So, he knows I am not outwardly rejecting him or religion. He should know that I am very confused and am trying hard to fit all the pieces together and get closer to him.

I don't believe that God will punish me because I couldn't find the truth. I mean, now-a-days how am I supposed to find it? We've run into it a little on here. Islam has the answer. Christianity has the answer. Judaism has the answer. Everyone has the answer. How am I expected to pick one? I guess I'm a little "New Age." I actually like to refer to myself as a "Gnostic". To me it means an everlasting quest for knowledge about God.

I just want to say I'm very proud of everyone on this thread so far. Everyone is being so understanding and so nice. Thank you so much. I knew we could do it

[Nagishkaw 510]

It's not about a religion. It's all about a relationship. Pray. Ask God to reveal to you the truth. God is not the author of confusion...the advisary is.

[Leyla 0]

It's not about a religion. It's all about a relationship. Pray. Ask God to reveal to you the truth. God is not the author of confusion...the advisary is.

[doodlebugg 10]

And yet not one of the authors of the four gospels witnessed the crucifixion.

why is this significant though? i don't recall there being any human witnesses to prophet muhammad being visited by gabriel at mt. hira either, but that in no way changes my absolute belief that it happened. his wife khadija was not there when it happened, but believed his account unequivocally. my decision to no longer believe the accounts of the crucifixion as told in the bible weren't based on suddenly finding out the gospel writers weren't there. i'd known that for years, and had continued to still believe that account long after i knew they weren't eyewitnesses. my religious beliefs aren't the product of trivial physical details. i guess i'm not understanding why they are brought up.

I guess we're on different wavelengths then because I don't think that that was a trivial point. I know that you are much more well read than I am in religion. I, unlike you, was always told by my parents and my teachers at CCD that these were the original companions of Jesus. It was a real eyeopener for me and at that point if something is not authentic as it was taught it loses all validity to me. For me, I could talk for years about what this that or the other verse means but if it's not even written by people who were there then it's just second/third/fourth hand accounts of what happened and I think everyone goes through that exercise in school where you are told something and then told to pass it on and the next person passes it on and by the end of the line it's not what was said originally.

No I don't know of witnesses to much of what happened to Muhammed either but in my head I'm comparing the validity of the Quran to that of the Bible. The Quran in its original form was directly written by people who talked with Muhammed and there are thousands of people today that can recite it from memory and if they were all in a room they would be saying the exact same words.

So , for me, not for everyone, if a book/article, whatever, cannot be validated then it isn't worth my time to quibble over. Maybe it stems from the fact that I have spent many years working as an auditor and nothing but nothing goes into the workpapers that cannot be ticked, tied, verified etc.

Again, that's just the way I work. To me it's like comparing an article in a reputable newspaper written by a professional reporter to something someone wrote in a blog that no one can validate.

[doodlebugg 10]

First of all venusfire - you're explanation of 1 person/being/whatever being seen thru many angles and with different names is very valid. Additionally, many Christians [as earlier as their teens] do start to question the how of the Trinity because it is a complex thing. To those interested, I would highly recommend reading Marcus Borg. Some fundementalists get their panties in a wad over his take on the Trinity as well as Jesus and who he historically and spiritually was. But, he makes some great points and valid arguments.

Not to complicate the Trinity - God in parts - is Jesus God argument even more....

One way to look at this is to tease apart the historical Jesus [pre-Easter] with the spiritual Jesus [post-Easter]. For many people understanding and believing the early story of Jesus is easy - he followed the traditional prophet story line. It's the post-Easter Jesus where things start to get a little funky. How I've resolved this in my mind - at least as of today, my beliefs rollercoaster [which is very very normal Leyla ]; Jesus pre-Easter was very much a man - an special man - but merely a man. The difference comes post-Easter - he's a vessel for God at that point - flesh filled with God substance [for lack of a better term - again I was taught the water scenario for explaining the Trinity].

Additionally, about the Gospels - yup, not eye witness accounts. Most biblical scholars peg them at least one generation if not more from Jesus' time. John being written even later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Keep in mind that those three are considered the synoptic books and are most likely the most "eye witnessy". John's written in a completely voice with a totally different feel.

Yes that was part of what got my mind going on this a long time ago. There are some that talk of the Q Gospel (i think that's what it's called) that has all of the verses that basically match Matthew, Mark and Luke and in those verses it is not said that Jesus is God. I've talked about a book that goes into this in depth before and it's available online but I can't look for it now.

[childress_london 3]

And yet not one of the authors of the four gospels witnessed the crucifixion.

why is this significant though? i don't recall there being any human witnesses to prophet muhammad being visited by gabriel at mt. hira either, but that in no way changes my absolute belief that it happened. his wife khadija was not there when it happened, but believed his account unequivocally. my decision to no longer believe the accounts of the crucifixion as told in the bible weren't based on suddenly finding out the gospel writers weren't there. i'd known that for years, and had continued to still believe that account long after i knew they weren't eyewitnesses. my religious beliefs aren't the product of trivial physical details. i guess i'm not understanding why they are brought up.

I'm wondering why none of them witnessed the crucifixion?

[childress_london 3]

About this different or same God part of the conversation.... my sister brought that up, too. Here's how I look at it. Not to put myself in God's place AT ALL, but just for simplicity's sake of explanation - if someone wanted to ask who I am, they would get different answers from different people. My children would say I'm mommy, and probably mention something about how old I am, or whatever. My husband would say I'm his wife, and talk about something completely different. My ex would say... well, you get the idea. My parents would call me daughter and I'd be young to them. Now, all the people who were asked would see something different, they'd all have different 'names' for me, and they probably wouldn't agree exactly on who/what/how I am. Some might say I'm a simple, boring person, and others might say I'm lots of fun and have an interesting personality. Now, I'm not trying to say that any religion tries to say anything bad about God (with whatever name they give Him) - just trying to explain it with my inadequate words and experience. Just pointing out that it's possible (and I believe) that we DO all believe in the same (real) God, but see Him in different ways. Not to start an argument, but how do we really know that any of us are right? Maybe we all have it wrong. Either way, just because some think He's 'one' and some believe He's a 'trinity' doesn't mean it's not the same God. I don't change depending on other's perception of me. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this very well, but I hope you all understand what I'm trying to say.

I guess this is why I can't really link myself to a religion. I was raised Catholic, but haven't been to church in years. I DO believe there is ONE God, but as far as which 'details' I believe... not so sure. Does He consist of three 'parts', however you want to define them? I'm not sure. Is Jesus His son, a prophet, just a really good person or spirit, or what? Again, not sure. I tend to agree with the point someone brought up about how the Holy Books have been written/interpreted/copied/passed down etc by humans. Not to trivialize the subject, but I'm sure you've all played that game where people whisper a phrase down the line and the last person says it out loud and it's compared to what the first person said. I think that basically we all believe in doing the right thing, treating each other nicely, being honest, etc.

I'll be honest, too - even though I don't know that God cares if I eat meat on Fridays during Lent, I still don't do it. I've observed Ramadan with my husband since we met, and I don't know that God wants us to necessarily do that, either. Maybe I'm just being extra careful. For now, I'll just listen to and think about what others say, and do the best that I can.

Oh, and I didn't decide to question the Christian faith because of my husband - it happened earlier than when I met him. I also don't intend to convert to anything either. Unless something changes in the future, I just don't identify with any religion enough to become part of it.

I sincerely hope I didn't upset or offend anyone. I apologize if I did - it was not my intent.

venusfire

I agree with you here. I think we have different religions and different ways to worship God because of the different cultures. In the U.S. we have a mix of cultures and therefore a good mix of religions and it's easy to get confused and wonder which one is the right one. But if you look at when people were more isolated, you can see that their beliefs and religions were based on what they knew in their culture. I don't believe any religion is more right than the other. We are all just loving and honoring God in our own way. Just as one person prefers pizza and another steak, we choose the religion that best fits us. And you will notice that the basic core of all religions is the same (love, forgiveness, etc). It's mainly the rituals and rules which are different. Then there are those who do not believe in God, of course and that's a whole 'nother thing.

First of all venusfire - you're explanation of 1 person/being/whatever being seen thru many angles and with different names is very valid. Additionally, many Christians [as earlier as their teens] do start to question the how of the Trinity because it is a complex thing. To those interested, I would highly recommend reading Marcus Borg. Some fundementalists get their panties in a wad over his take on the Trinity as well as Jesus and who he historically and spiritually was. But, he makes some great points and valid arguments.

Not to complicate the Trinity - God in parts - is Jesus God argument even more....

One way to look at this is to tease apart the historical Jesus [pre-Easter] with the spiritual Jesus [post-Easter]. For many people understanding and believing the early story of Jesus is easy - he followed the traditional prophet story line. It's the post-Easter Jesus where things start to get a little funky. How I've resolved this in my mind - at least as of today, my beliefs rollercoaster [which is very very normal Leyla ]; Jesus pre-Easter was very much a man - an special man - but merely a man. The difference comes post-Easter - he's a vessel for God at that point - flesh filled with God substance [for lack of a better term - again I was taught the water scenario for explaining the Trinity].

Additionally, about the Gospels - yup, not eye witness accounts. Most biblical scholars peg them at least one generation if not more from Jesus' time. John being written even later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Keep in mind that those three are considered the synoptic books and are most likely the most "eye witnessy". John's written in a completely voice with a totally different feel.

Yes that was part of what got my mind going on this a long time ago. There are some that talk of the Q Gospel (i think that's what it's called) that has all of the verses that basically match Matthew, Mark and Luke and in those verses it is not said that Jesus is God. I've talked about a book that goes into this in depth before and it's available online but I can't look for it now.

I don't believe Jesus was God.

[childress_london 3]

It's not about a religion. It's all about a relationship. Pray. Ask God to reveal to you the truth. God is not the author of confusion...the advisary is.

Very good quote. I agree.

[SP&JM 0]

And yet not one of the authors of the four gospels witnessed the crucifixion.

why is this significant though? i don't recall there being any human witnesses to prophet muhammad being visited by gabriel at mt. hira either, but that in no way changes my absolute belief that it happened. his wife khadija was not there when it happened, but believed his account unequivocally. my decision to no longer believe the accounts of the crucifixion as told in the bible weren't based on suddenly finding out the gospel writers weren't there. i'd known that for years, and had continued to still believe that account long after i knew they weren't eyewitnesses. my religious beliefs aren't the product of trivial physical details. i guess i'm not understanding why they are brought up.

I'm wondering why none of them witnessed the crucifixion?

Because they weren't alive. The Gospels were written down long after Jesus' death...of course, it wouldn't be the first history to start as an oral tradition and later be written down. The original Christian community was small and close-knit. Why would you need a Gospel when you knew Jesus? As time went on and the history/stories were in danger of being lost/changed too much the Gospel writers probably decided to write them down to the best of their ability.

If you want to read something written by people who knew Christ, you can read the Epistles, letter from apostles like Peter or Paul (for example, there are several authors) to communities of Christians - although since so much time has passed, they've probably been edited too at least the original written version was from the apostles. These are actually very common readings in Catholic masses - one of the sweetest ones (and most applicable to all of our situations here) is a letter from Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,

5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,

6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.

7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially,

10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.

12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.

13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

I was never taught that the apostles wrote the Gospels (although I might have assumed it when I was younger). Humpkinbumpkin if you were taught that I can imagine your disappointment and disillusionment when you learned otherwise.

Samantha

Edited May 8, 2009 by SP&JM

[childress_london 3]

Aha! See, I have always assumed the apostles wrote the Gospels! This requires further research. I do remember being thoroughly shocked when I took a class on the Bible in college and learning how there was some decision later on what books to keep and which ones to get rid of! :-O So I guess I should not be surprised about the Gospels either. And, remember the game telephone? That's what I think of when I read the Old Testament. Most of that was passed down via word of mouth and stories and not written down until much later. So how much from the original story do you think it is? But isn't that the reason four different people wrote the Gospels - to show some authenticity to the accuracy of the stories?

[childress_london 3]

Here is an article on who wrote the Gospels. It seems as if the apostles Matthew and John did know Jesus personally.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021231gospels.html

"Three of the New Testament gospels are termed “synoptics” (from the Greek word meaning “seeing together”) because they cover basically the same story. These are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of the gospel writers, only two of the apostles Matthew and John had known Jesus (Matthew 4:21; 9:9)."

Edited May 9, 2009 by childress_london

[Leyla 0]

I've always had an issue with the books that were not included in the Bible. I also have a question about why (generally speaking) all of the gospels tell more or less the same story give or take some extra stories. What about the missing years of Jesus? After he is left at the temple we don't really hear a lot about him until he gets baptized by John the Baptist. There are a few books out there with stories of Jesus as a boy. Why were those not included?

Hmmmmmm.....

[doodlebugg 10]

Here is an article on who wrote the Gospels. It seems as if the apostles Matthew and John did know Jesus personally.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021231gospels.html

"Three of the New Testament gospels are termed “synoptics” (from the Greek word meaning “seeing together”) because they cover basically the same story. These are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of the gospel writers, only two of the apostles Matthew and John had known Jesus (Matthew 4:21; 9:9)."

That is from a Church of Latter Day Saints website and it is incorrect. There are many many opinions that disagree with that.

[childress_london 3]

Here is an article on who wrote the Gospels. It seems as if the apostles Matthew and John did know Jesus personally.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/articles/021231gospels.html

"Three of the New Testament gospels are termed “synoptics” (from the Greek word meaning “seeing together”) because they cover basically the same story. These are Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Of the gospel writers, only two of the apostles Matthew and John had known Jesus (Matthew 4:21; 9:9)."

That is from a Church of Latter Day Saints website and it is incorrect. There are many many opinions that disagree with that.

Hmmm so then there is some disagreement as to who the Matthew and John who wrote the Gospels are?

I've always had an issue with the books that were not included in the Bible. I also have a question about why (generally speaking) all of the gospels tell more or less the same story give or take some extra stories. What about the missing years of Jesus? After he is left at the temple we don't really hear a lot about him until he gets baptized by John the Baptist. There are a few books out there with stories of Jesus as a boy. Why were those not included?

Hmmmmmm.....

I agree...that's so frustrating.