Do you claim any religious faith? / How are you on sharing?

[oftheherd1]

Looking at all the different religions.....

Do you think everyone is praying to the same entity/God?

Or, concerning a religion that's different from yours, do you think the people are praying to an empty seat?

Well, I don't think so. My Bible tells me my God is the only true God, and the others are false gods. So I would say that those who pray to other entities are praying to false gods. What those think who pray to other entities, you would have to solicit a response from them.

 

[granfire]

Well, I don't think so. My Bible tells me my God is the only true God, and the others are false gods. So I would say that those who pray to other entities are praying to false gods. What those think who pray to other entities, you would have to solicit a response from them.

well, pretty much that your efforts are wasted...because theirs is the only true one....

 

[Carol]

In the end, there can be only one.

Er....wait, that was Highlander.

 

[elder999]

Well, I don't think so. My Bible tells me my God is the only true God, and the others are false gods. .

Actually, the Old Testament doesn't say that at all. The prevailing message is that the God you take to be "the only true God," is the God of the Hebrews. Nothing more. Plenty of room for other gods-and, in fact, appearances by them that demonstrate the Hebrew God's superiority, but not that He is the "only true God."

Deut.6:4: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord, He is our God, the Lord is One"

The New Testament, of course, says things somewhat differently.....

 

[Jenna]

ONE OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT GOD known by many names, having representation from within many cultures and existing in many contexts; borne of many histories and many fables, portrayed with a common core, contradicted only through the writings of cultural and contextual and historical isolation.

ONE GOD. To think otherwise is a self-negating faith in a self-negating deity.

ONE GOD. To assume that your god is the only god is a valid and true assumption. Just as it is also true for EVERYONE that shares such a thought.

To think that your god is the only god and that others sharing such a thought are wrong is to view totality through A VERY SMALL FRAME.

Just a statement of my opinion informed by time and finiteness and hope and faith.

Wishes.

 

[elder999]

ONE OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT GOD known by many names, having representation from within many cultures and existing in many contexts; borne of many histories and many fables, portrayed with a common core, contradicted only through the writings of cultural and contextual and historical isolation.

ONE GOD. To think otherwise is a self-negating faith in a self-negating deity.

ONE GOD. To assume that your god is the only god is a valid and true assumption. Just as it is also true for EVERYONE that shares such a thought.

To think that your god is the only god and that others sharing such a thought are wrong is to view totality through A VERY SMALL FRAME.

Just a statement of my opinion informed by time and finiteness and hope and faith.

Wishes.

Around here, people say "God" is too big for one religion.

 

[Jenna]

Around here, people say "God" is too big for one religion.

Then I think around there that people must have perception that transcends being human and being small. Perhaps that is rare. I think it is too rare. Though perhaps it is not and I am not looking hard enough. I think there is peace within the mindset of those people around there. And peace like that within a mind can only extend to peace outside of that mind. Thank you for your post. I am grateful to you.

 

[oftheherd1]

well, pretty much that your efforts are wasted...because theirs is the only true one....

I'm not sure who this is addressed to since I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain that a little more? Thanks.

Actually, the Old Testament doesn't say that at all. The prevailing message is that the God you take to be "the only true God," is the God of the Hebrews. Nothing more. Plenty of room for other gods-and, in fact, appearances by them that demonstrate the Hebrew God's superiority, but not that He is the "only true God."



The New Testament, of course, says things somewhat differently.....

It seems to me you are quick to say things that are not true, or only partially true. Or, you try to take things on a side tracK to move away from things I have pointed out you have said. I probably will not answer all of your statements in that vein. I can understand differences of opinion, or questions about translation, but it seems you simply wish to attack Christianity.

That is not what I do. I try to point out differences in what I believe and what others believe, and give reasons for that. I hope things I say don't come across any other way. If they do, I would ask anyone to tell me so in order that I can phrase what I am saying differently if possible.

But I am a Christian and nothing you say will change my faith. It may do so for those with weak or no faith in God who are searching for answers. That would be sad. But I will not bear the burden of that.

However, for the above:

2 Chronicles 15:3
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

Jeremiah 10:10
But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

 

[oftheherd1]

Problem with that is that Tanach does not prophesize anything Xtians say it does.

That is an interesting statement sir. Can you provide some examples?

Thanks.

 

[oftheherd1]

Interestingly, the New Testament reflects this:



Which is kinda like saying, in a culture where He'd have been" Yeshua ben Joseph, "Jesus, son of Joseph"-Isn't this Mary's bastard?"

Not of "the line of David," at all-especially since Joseph had been cuckolded by the deity......

My goodness, in line with what I said in my post above, where do you get somebody asking "Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" to be them saying Jesus was illegitimate?

BTW, from what little I know (from reading, not personal knowledge), carpenter in Greek can have several meanings, depending on several factors, and one of them is an artisan in wood, or in other words, a carpenter.

I wish to point that out for subsequent readers of this thread to show what I believe to be true, so that subsequent readers will not be left with your comments only.

 

[elder999]

My goodness, in line with what I said in my post above, where do you get somebody asking "Is not this the carpenter,the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Judah, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?" to be them saying Jesus was illegitimate?

By not calling him "the son of Joseph," who was his father on earth, and the husband of his mother-by calling him "the son of Mary," they were, in fact, idiomatically saying "isn't this Mary's bastard?"

BTW, from what little I know (from reading, not personal knowledge), carpenter in Greek can have several meanings, depending on several factors, and one of them is an artisan in wood, or in other words, a carpenter.

Except the word isn't "carpenter."

τέκτων, "tekton,"= craftsman.or artisan.Literally, "one who works with their hands."

"Worker in wood?"sure like a carpenter or sculptor, also a mason, or poet even. It's more about class level in society than actual occupation.

I wish to point that out for subsequent readers of this thread to show what I believe to be true, so that subsequent readers will not be left with your comments only.

And I'll keep pointing out what I believe to be true, so subsequent readers will not be left with your comments opnly...:lol:

 

[elder999]

I can understand differences of opinion, or questions about translation, but it seems you simply wish to attack Christianity.

You misunderstand-it's not an "attack" at all-it's just the truth. Not your truth, necessarily.

I love Christianity-I'm just not much of a Christian.

I try to point out differences in what I believe and what others believe, and give reasons for that.

Pretty sure that's exactly what I did. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

But I am a Christian and nothing you say will change my faith.

That's not my intention-it's as I've said several times, you can believe what you want.

However, for the above:

2 Chronicles 15:3
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

2 Chronicles, 15:4
But when they in their trouble did turn unto the LORD God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them

Jeremiah 10:10
But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

Jeremiah 10:11
Thus shall ye say unto them, the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens

(Showing, in fact, that there are "other gods.")

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

And all of those god's prophets and adherents, as others have said, will call their God "the only true God," why would Jesus (who says these words) be any different?

 

[granfire]

I'm not sure who this is addressed to since I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain that a little more? Thanks.

Directed at you.

Simple:
You assume that your scripture is the one and only, so your deity is the one and only.
So do those other guys.
Well, those monothe..... the once with only one guy in the Pantheon anyhow.

That's why those holy wars are so much fun: each side is just SURE He is on their side....

My take on the thing?
We are mere gnats, floating around on a speck of dust in the universe.
The thought of somebody keeping track of us in comforting, but to assume we hold the answers is ridiculous.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not sure who this is addressed to since I don't understand what your point is. Can you explain that a little more? Thanks.



It seems to me you are quick to say things that are not true, or only partially true. Or, you try to take things on a side tracK to move away from things I have pointed out you have said. I probably will not answer all of your statements in that vein. I can understand differences of opinion, or questions about translation, but it seems you simply wish to attack Christianity.

That is not what I do. I try to point out differences in what I believe and what others believe, and give reasons for that. I hope things I say don't come across any other way. If they do, I would ask anyone to tell me so in order that I can phrase what I am saying differently if possible.

But I am a Christian and nothing you say will change my faith. It may do so for those with weak or no faith in God who are searching for answers. That would be sad. But I will not bear the burden of that.

However, for the above:

2 Chronicles 15:3
Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a teaching priest, and without law.

Jeremiah 10:10
But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

I think one problem is that you take the religious book/writings of another religion and use them as your own so what Jews believe in is actually very important and as they are the 'owners' of that intellectual property surely you cannot read into it more than they do? What's said in the 'Old Testament' is addressed to the Jewish people only. I wouldn't seek to change anyone's religion but it constantly amazes me to see non Jews take what was written for us and mangle it, read into it and generally claim it to be theirs to some very odd ends. Blood transfusions are refused, puritan lifestyles espoused, wars over the meaning of bread etc etc. I'll admit it baffles me quite often!

 

[CanuckMA]

That is an interesting statement sir. Can you provide some examples?

Thanks.

To start with your translation is wrong in several places.

Then the selected quotes of both Isaiah completely the metaphor used that places Israel's relationship to G-d as a parent-child relationship.

And lastly, the Prophets were not forecasting events hundred's of year in the future. Their concerns were a lot more immediae than that.

 

[CanuckMA]

I think one problem is that you take the religious book/writings of another religion and use them as your own so what Jews believe in is actually very important and as they are the 'owners' of that intellectual property surely you cannot read into it more than they do? What's said in the 'Old Testament' is addressed to the Jewish people only. I wouldn't seek to change anyone's religion but it constantly amazes me to see non Jews take what was written for us and mangle it, read into it and generally claim it to be theirs to some very odd ends. Blood transfusions are refused, puritan lifestyles espoused, wars over the meaning of bread etc etc. I'll admit it baffles me quite often!

And he believes that the KJV, a politically motivated bad translation of a translation, to be authoritative.

 

[oftheherd1]

By not calling him "the son of Joseph," who was his father on earth, and the husband of his mother-by calling him "the son of Mary," they were, in fact, idiomatically saying "isn't this Mary's bastard?"

I don't know that to be an idiom. I have never run across that as an explanation, but may search if I have the time. Or perphaps CanuckMA or Tez3 can comment on that.

Regardless, it is not my belief. I have read, and it seems reasonable, that Joesph may have already passed by this time, which was at least 30 years after the birth of Jesus. They would then simply be referring to His still living mother and not referring to His earthly father who was not around.

Except the word isn't "carpenter."

τέκτων, "tekton,"= craftsman.or artisan. "Worker in wood,"sure like a carpenter or sculptor, also a mason, or poet even. It's more about class level in society than actual occupation.

Perhaps I didn't phrase that so you would understand. I am aware of the Greek. It isn't actually τέκτων either. It is ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος but yes, it comes from the same root. That from Matthew 13:55. It is ὁ τέκτων in Mark 6:3, but that isn't what you quoted. Regardless, from my reading, it can be interpreted as 'carpenter' as well as some other things, apparently based on other factors.

And I'll keep pointing out what I believe to be true, so subsequent readers will not be left with your comments opnly...:lol:

That's fair as long as you show it as your belief, from whatever source.

You misunderstand-it's not an "attack" at all-it's just the truth. Not your truth, necessarily.

I love Christianity-I'm just not much of a Christian.

That's fine. I will accept you didn't mean it as an attack. It just seemed to me it did. And of course, it is your truth, just as what I say is sometimes my truth.

Pretty sure that's exactly what I did. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

If that is what you meant, I accept that. I just didn't see it that way. It does not hurt my feelings really. Just didn't seem fair to those who may be influenced by what we say. Anyway, I will try to be more discerning.

That's not my intention-it's as I've said several times, you can believe what you want.

Thank you, because of course, I will. I expect you to do no less.

2 Chronicles, 15:4
But when they in their trouble did turn unto the LORD God of Israel, and sought him, he was found of them

But that doesn't change what I said, and what I said refuted what you said.

Jeremiah 10:11
Thus shall ye say unto them, the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens

(Showing, in fact, that there are "other gods.")

That wasn't the point. The point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God. Yes there were other "gods" (small letter 'g'). They were never considered the true God.

And all of those god's prophets and adherents, as others have said, will call their God "the only true God," why would Jesus be any different?

Because it is what the Bible says. It is also what I believe. But again, the point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God. It does in the first two verses I related, as well as the third, where Jesus is also mentioned.

 

[elder999]

That wasn't the point. The point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God. Yes there were other "gods" (small letter 'g'). They were never considered the true God.

Oh, the Old Testament says he's "the one true God," alright.

The one true God of the Hebrews, which is what I said.

Because it is what the Bible says. It is also what I believe. But again, the point was you said the Bible never said God was the true God.

The Old Testament is what I said didn't quite say that, as I've posted. I also said that the New Testament said something different:

It does in the first two verses I related, as well as the third, where Jesus is also mentioned.

Which is in the New Testament, and is Jesus mentioning himself.

 

[Tez3]

Bit confused again, what did Joseph pass?

Again though even on oftheherd's 'translations' it says G-d of Israel ie the Jewish people, the country even if you wish, whatever but it doesn't say G-d of the Gentiles! ours, of Israel, the Jews, us lot. Why do gentiles get to claim ownership and decide what was said? The Covenant was with the Jews not anyone who wandered by and thought 'Ere I'll ave bit of this'. We don't take the the Bhagavad Gita, start translating it and turning it into a different religion so why do people take the 'Old Testament' and claim it's the word of G-d to them when they aren't Jews? sorry but it's something that puzzles me and at times annoys me when things are 'quoted' and used to justify things that that simply shouldn't be justified.


The KJV has had a huge effect on the English language and how it's used but as a translation it's pretty pants. When Shakespeare wrote his plays he was anxious not to offend the Queen, Richard the Third is a masterpiece of propaganda against Richard who was nothing like the character in the play, it was wise not to upset royalty in those days and the KJV even with it's beautiful language was written to flatter the King and to put forward his views, a fairly standard aim in the days where 'off with his head' was a common phrase uttered by the monarch who strongly believed in the divine right of kings to rule, they also believed in the 'king's touch' where the king would cure people of scrofula merely by touching them.

 

[CanuckMA]

I don't know that to be an idiom. I have never run across that as an explanation, but may search if I have the time. Or perphaps CanuckMA or Tez3 can comment on that.

Regardless, it is not my belief. I have read, and it seems reasonable, that Joesph may have already passed by this time, which was at least 30 years after the birth of Jesus. They would then simply be referring to His still living mother and not referring to His earthly father who was not around.

Hebrew names are always name ben/bat father's name. The only time an individual is referred as name ben/bat mother is when requesting a prayer for the sick.