Differences in the Comprehension of Religious Tenets

[Xar]

During a discussion in another thread, something was said that made me thoughtful. While discussing the tenets of Christianity, this small thing came up:

Take, for example, the famous part in the Gospels, in which Jesus says "no one comes to the Father, save through me". That one could be taken in many ways, from the most literal (follow Christianity or, no matter how good you are, you'll not go to Heaven) to the most metaphoric (be good to others and work for the betterment of mankind, and you'll go to Heaven).

My own answer to that was:

As an educated believer, I lean towards the latter, mostly because the concept of a loving and compassioned God is incompatible with the concept of a jealous God. From such a point of view, the idea that your actions do not matter, if you do not follow that particular religion, makes no sense. But - of course - others interpret that sentence otherwise, and strongly believe that you will be saved only if you convert. Are they wrong? Well, that's their interpretation of the sentence: if they live by it without bothering others with it, that is perfectly fine. It is when they start trying to persuade you that you'll go to Hell unless you follow their way that their interpretation intrudes upon yours, and the action they attempt becomes morally wrong (even though, in their eyes, they're doing you a favor).

On the other hand, Avatar, who is not a believer, answered:

Xar's example is a good one. Personally, I've always seen that line as meaning exactly what Xar doesn't. That only through conversion to Christianity can you achieve "salvation."

Now, this could of course be simply a personal matter, and therefore not really useful, but it also could not. So, I've started to wonder exactly whether there are differences in the way believers and non-believers approach the tenets and scriptures of different religions. Putting aside for the moment the idea of whether such scriptures are divinely inspired or not, the question is:

When reading such scriptures (either out of belief or out of scholarly curiosity), we of course have then to interpret the passages, especially the ones that are supposed to hold important meanings. As mentioned above, often such readings can be given widely different interpretations, depending on the person. But is there a general trend shared, to one degree or another, among those who believe in the religion described by those scriptures, and another among those who do not?

The reason I ask myself that is because I find it particularly significative that Avatar's interpretation of that passage from the Gospels is actually the most restrictive one - the one that basically says "no one can be saved unless he or she follows this religion". [/quote]

[Avatar]

I think that, on the whole, non-believers, (certainly myself) tend to see all organised religion as prescriptive organisations/institutions, what have you.

Certainly your interpretation would not be in the best interests of Christianity as an organisation. Indeed, one of the greatest issues I've ever had with a strictly Christian interpretation, (and there are threads in which it has been discussed), is the apparent insistance of my interpretation.

In other words, that if you do not believe in Christ and accept him as your saviour, then you cannot get into heaven, no matter how good a life you've lived, no matter how you've helped your fellow man.

In fact, I'm under the impression that the restrictive interpretation is the official one. (Not that it is one that all Christians necessarily share, as is clearly in evidence here in the Close, but nonetheless, it is the official interpretation.

No organisation like the church is going to say, "it's OK if you don't follow our tenets, just live a good life and that's what will count. It's in their interests to have people "tied" to their dogma/doctrine.

Indeed, IIRC, the very question that I've asked is whether or not god cares more about how you act than he does about whether or not you believe in him.

Overwhelming response in general is that if you don't believe in him, the way you act does not matter to him.

Now obviously this sentiment is not shared universally by believers, but certainly enough share it to make it unsurprising that non-believers take it as a fundamental tenet of religion.

Certainly non-believers share (in general) a view of religion based on their own experiences with the religious, or their own studies therein, and their perception of the trends within any given religion as outsiders.

Religion is, by it's nature, exclusionary. "Believe in what we believe, or else..." "The Chosen People," the "Saved."

I very rarely recieve the impression from religion, especially prescriptive, monotheistic ones such as Christianity, that it doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you act "right."

--Avatar

[Cybrweez]

I believe the interpretation is only through Christ may you enter heaven. If not, why did He come down to earth? What was the point of sacrifices in the Old Testament? I don't think any other interpretation is valid, but it sounds nicer so people do like it better. That probably has only come around since the PC idea of intolerance became so warped.

[Xar]

This is getting interesting... you see, Cybrweez, the problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you can only access Heaven through belief and acceptance of Christ, it follows that you may do countless selfless, spontaneous good deeds, and yet, if you do not follow Christianity, you won't be admitted to Heaven. This clashes with the concept of a loving and compassionate God, and is better suited to the concept of a jealous and vengeful deity - exactly the opposite message that is described in the Gospels.

You also have to remember, of course, that the Gospels were written by human beings, who might have written down their interpretations of these concepts through their own educations.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Indeed, IIRC, the very question that I've asked is whether or not god cares more about how you act than he does about whether or not you believe in him.

Overwhelming response in general is that if you don't believe in him, the way you act does not matter to him.

I must have missed where you asked this.
It's a good question.
As well as Xar's

Personally I was raised Catholic but it was my reading from other sources that drew me away.
My "breakthrough" was after reading "Joshua" by Joseph Girzone.
A simple story about Jesus interacting with the world today.
After that, the few times that I go to Church I shake my head thinking that they are missing such a simple and beautiful and powerful message from Jesus with all of thier dogma.

Also, I was always confused by some parts of the Bible being a parable to some but then to hear from other that it was literal.
(And I don't mean the real parables either!)

It saddens me to hear that people believe that Jesus cares more about people's faith in him that doing good for fellow Man.
I think this MUST go back to the rigid teachings of all organized religions to control thier members and ensure future $$ contributions.

There's a quote from Jesus that I always thought was dangerous to any organised religion but when they mention it it's usually said in a positive way to tell people that God is with them.
But I always heard a different message.

"where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them"

To me this screams "To reach me you don't need a Church, just your love of God with your fellow man".
This line alone minimizes the importance of *EVERY* organized Christian religion, imho.

[Xar]

After that, the few times that I go to Church I shake my head thinking that they are missing such a simple and beautiful and powerful message from Jesus with all of thier dogma.

Also, I was always confused by some parts of the Bible being a parable to some but then to hear from other that it was literal.
(And I don't mean the real parables either!)

It saddens me to hear that people believe that Jesus cares more about people's faith in him that doing good for fellow Man.
I think this MUST go back to the rigid teachings of all organized religions to control thier members and ensure future $$ contributions.

There's a quote from Jesus that I always thought was dangerous to any organised religion but when they mention it it's usually said in a positive way to tell people that God is with them.
But I always heard a different message.

"where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them"

To me this screams "To reach me you don't need a Church, just your love of God with your fellow man".
This line alone minimizes the importance of *EVERY* organized Christian religion, imho.

I agree with you, HLT... the message is simple; of course, in ancient times there was also need for a guide who could help others find their way - this was the role Peter was appointed to, according to the Gospels: to help and guide the followers after Jesus's Ascension. But during the centuries, like all temporal institutions, the Church has strayed from its roots and from its true meaning, becoming a means to control the masses. When the Vatican lost the sovereignty on the Papal States, during the early 20th century, it moaned its loss of temporal power for a while, whereas in truth, this loss would allow it to focus once more on the spiritual side of its existence, rather than the temporal rule of lands. Nowadays, the Church is spread all over the world, and so it happens very often that human interpretation - whether to self-interest, ignorance or misunderstanding - can cause some priests (but not all) to claim that only by following organized religion can you hope for salvation. But this isn't always the case: when I was a child and used to go to Church every weekend, and prepared myself for my first Communion and then, afterwards, for Confirmation, I was blessed with having teachers - priests, all of them - who encouraged us to read between the lines, to understand the unadulterated message of the Gospels, to keep our mind open, to look at things critically, and above all, to understand that it was actions, and not faith (or lack thereof) that matter to God. Now I don't go to church very often; I feel more at ease with a closer, personal relationship to the divine. When I do go to church, it is because I desire serenity and peace, and I usually go there not during the Mass, but when there's no official celebration going on and the church is almost empty, save for a few people praying silently. I go to church this way when events prompt me to feel that my everyday relationship with God is not enough to sustain me during those times, and I need the serenity and peace of the church. But, as I said, not to listen to liturgies - just to gather myself in the silence and quiet of the place, where I feel closer to the divine.

[Cybrweez]

This is getting interesting... you see, Cybrweez, the problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you can only access Heaven through belief and acceptance of Christ, it follows that you may do countless selfless, spontaneous good deeds, and yet, if you do not follow Christianity, you won't be admitted to Heaven. This clashes with the concept of a loving and compassionate God, and is better suited to the concept of a jealous and vengeful deity - exactly the opposite message that is described in the Gospels.

Actually, in the OT, God says He is a jealous God. And Holy. The Bible teaches your good deeds cannot outweigh your sins. Man doesn't like that, we like to earn our way. We like to look at it as, I've done alot of good, I deserve something. God looks at it like, You've done wrong, how are you going to make it up? Take parent/child relationship as example. If your kid does something wrong, do you say Go do 3 chores and I'll forget it ever happened? I hope not.

You also have to remember, of course, that the Gospels were written by human beings, who might have written down their interpretations of these concepts through their own educations.

I believe the gospels were written by men inspired by God, as was the entire Bible.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Actually, in the OT, God says He is a jealous God. And Holy.

That would make another good thread.
I can't reconcile the God of the Old Testament with Jesus in the New.
The Old Testament God is a major A-hole, imho.
Jesus isn't.

The Bible teaches your good deeds cannot outweigh your sins. Man doesn't like that, we like to earn our way. We like to look at it as, I've done alot of good, I deserve something. God looks at it like, You've done wrong, how are you going to make it up?

Isn't the best way to "make it up" by good deeds?
How else do you make ammends?
Say you steal someone's money.
Which is better: pray to God for forgiveness or give back the money to those who you stole from and ask them for forgiveness?
Which one of those options makes not only the thief a better person but also the person who has been robbed?
Ideally you want that person to do both but why on earth wouldn't God *prefer* the 2nd course of action?

But I also see what you are saying.
A murderer who builds a hospital doesn't get a free pass to heaven either.


Before you said that you only get to heaven through Jesus.
But what of those who live good lives, hurt no one and commit no sin but don't worship Jesus?
The Jesus I've read about in the Bible would love that unbeliever and hold open the door for him.

Take parent/child relationship as example. If your kid does something wrong, do you say Go do 3 chores and I'll forget it ever happened? I hope not.

Well, yeah, I would.
If he/she's sincere with the apology then the 3 chores in this case is just some good punishment.
Would I forget what they did?
I'd try.
It's the old "forgive and forget" thing.

[Xar]

Once again, well said, HLT... Cybrweez, take for example all the people who lived before Jesus's birth. There surely were many good souls there (just think of all the children who died before reaching their third or fourth birthday, for example); but - for obvious reasons - they didn't follow Christianity. Would such people have deserved being forbidden from entering Heaven only because they had the misfortune of being born before Jesus? What of the atheist who doesn't believe in any deity, but lives an exemplary life, helping others whenever he can, giving money to charities, and striving to make the world a better place?

Also, what of the man who, while professing his faith in Christianity, cares little about other people, and prefers to use his life for personal gain rather than helping others when he has the chance?

In any case, although I agree with you that both the Gospels and the Bible were written by men inspired by God, you must still remember that this isn't the same as saying God Himself actually wrote those books: He may have put the ideas in those men's minds, but the words, and the whole context, was theirs. For all we know, even though Genesis says it took God six days to make the world, each of those "days" could have been millions of years long: the translation from an idea inspired by God to words written by men who lived in ancient times, whose understanding of the world was limited, and who likely had a varying degree of instruction, has to be taken into account when considering books such as the Bible, I think.

[Prom_STar]

What we seem to have here is the question of universalism--that is, can a loving God really send people to hell? The strictest inerpretation of scripture is simply: Yes. But the question isn't that simple. As others have quoted, in John 14:6, Jesus says those famous (and rather unpopular words) "no one comes to the father except through me." Trying to say Jesus is really just saying "be good to each other" is straying from a literal interpretation. It's getting us into a higher critical interp. of the Bible. The problem there is it puts us above scripture--which is entirely illogical if it is the word of God (of course, that's a whole other issue).

The main argument people make in favor of a nicer interp. of that verse (and others, for that matter) is that God is love; how can love send someone to hell? Well, God is love, yes, but He is more than that. We can't forget that God is holy--1 John 1:5 "God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all." Sin is His exact opposite and cannot coexist with him. God is also just. The fact is, we all deserve hell. If God were fair (and I for one am certainly glad He is not) we would all receive the just consequence of our sin: eternity separated from God.

But God doesn't want that for us--He loves as and desires fellowship with us. That's why He sent His son to die on the cross for us (and if anyone doubst God's love he need only look to the cross and see love hanging there, dying for him).

The Bible is often mistakenly seen as a set of rules (a list of thou-shalt-nots) or as a story of God, the kid with a magnifiying glass, tormenting ants (ie us). But the fact is, the Bible is the story of a loving God redeeming His creation--a creation that rebelled against Him by its own volition. A creation he still loves regardless.

We need only reach out and accecpt the gift offered to us.

note: the basic problem with universalism (whatever form it takes) is basically the same: if all go to heaven whether or not Christ died, why did He have to die? In essence, it invalidates His sacrifice--and that's why it can't be true.

[Avatar]

And yet, what you (and CybrWeez, (good to have you both joining in) ) seem to be saying is that this loving god, who wants that no man should die, is willing to allow them to die if they do not worship him.

No matter how righteous a life they live, if they refuse to worship god, all their righteousness, all their good works, might as well not have been done. As a point of fact, that god would rather you worshipped him, than live a good life.

That the love you bring into his creation is meaningless and worthless, that the people you help would be better off not being helped, unless you worship this god.

And I find that impossible to reconcile with the concept of a loving, and above all, just god.

As far as that interpretation that seems to be shared by Prom_Star and CybrWeez goes, HLT, those who live good lives, hurt no one and commit no sin but don't worship Jesus might as well not bother.

Personally, I prefer your and Xar's interpretation. If there was a god, I'd be a lot more inclined to follow it if that was its approach. As far as the other approach goes, a god like that wouldn't be worthy of worship as far as I'm concerned.

(And why should our worship matter to an omnipotent and omniscient being? Why should it matter so much that, in essence, we're condemned to an eternity of torment if we fail to accept and worship it?)

And why did Christ have to die in the first place? For some nebulous concept of sin. As though somebody can take the responsibility for your "bad" deeds from you? The whole thing sounds too much like a set-up to me.

If we posit Christ as the son of god, then the only answer is that god wanted him to die. As an omnipotent being, that "sin" could have been removed simply by an act of will on the part of god.

Instead, he kills his (anyway immortal?) son, who died knowing why he died, and that he would ascend into heaven without any problems. (What did he sacrifice again?)

In keeping with Prom-Star's point about the love of god, I must ask what it cost god to have his previously incorporeal son executed, when he was just going to be reunited with him a few days later? How does that demonstrate his love? And it isn't as though Jesus volunteered either out of his love. Didn't he ask that god remove that cup from his lips?

If god is love, then our acts should be what is important, as long as they spread love. The offer of salvation only to the select few believers, on the basis of that belief, rather than to all, on the basis of the manner in which they conduct their lives seems not only selfish, but egotistical.

--Avatar

[sgt.null]

we have a choice Av. without choice we are mindless drones. we can accept CHrist or reject Him. free will plays a huge role in salvation.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Avatar, I'm not inany position to explain this since the concept is too bizarre for me but Jesus *is* God.
They are the same entity.
"Son" and "Father"are just a concepts.
Throw in the "holy spirit" and you've got the trinity.
To be honest, I don't like the concept.
I prefer the literal son of God idea.
Maybe someone else who understands it can explain it.
Or maybe I misunderstood something along the way.

The beauty of Jesus is that he doesn't even have to be the son of God, imo.
His message still works.
The Resurrection is still as powerful and meaningful, perhaps even more so.

There's a thread that asks who created who first: God or Man?
It could also be asked who made Jesus God, Man or God?

[Avatar]

Excellent question HLT. I can easily accept that Jesus was no more than an elightened teacher, because, elaborating on your point, there doesn't even need to be a god for most of his message to work.

I'm familiar with the nature of the "Trinity" of course, but that just makes my question even more relevant. How could it be considered a sacrifice? What exactly was he sacrificing?

--A

[sgt.null]

He sacrificed His life. He became man, He went through death for us.

three aspects of God fill three different functions in our life.

[Avatar]

But he died in the sure and certain knowledge that he was going to be "saved."

He wasn't risking anything.

--A

[Cybrweez]

No matter how righteous a life they live, if they refuse to worship god, all their righteousness, all their good works, might as well not have been done. As a point of fact, that god would rather you worshipped him, than live a good life.

They are not distinguishable. If you worship God, you WILL live a good life. It can be no other way. Therefore its misleading to say God doesn't desire anyone to live good lives. So no offense, but your little rant about love being meaningless is a little whiny. Some call it a straw man.

As far as that interpretation that seems to be shared by Prom_Star and CybrWeez goes, HLT, those who live good lives, hurt no one and commit no sin

Don't need to go any farther. There is no person that has committed no sin. As Prom_Star said, we like to focus on our good, and ignore our bad.

Personally, I prefer your and Xar's interpretation.

That's what I said before. Man prefer's to be able to earn his keep, hence, more people would like the sound of Xar's interpretation. Which also makes me think its man opinion, not God's. If man invented religion, then it would be something he'd prefer.

(And why should our worship matter to an omnipotent and omniscient being? Why should it matter so much that, in essence, we're condemned to an eternity of torment if we fail to accept and worship it?)

Why not? Personally, I think its silly to ask why God would do anything He does. First off, we have NO idea where He's coming from. Secondly, its His creation, He can do whatever He wants. But coming from a pessimistic bias, many view His actions as mean, coming from another angle they are seen as loving.

And why did Christ have to die in the first place? For some nebulous concept of sin. As though somebody can take the responsibility for your "bad" deeds from you? The whole thing sounds too much like a set-up to me.

The penalty of sin is death. That's the reason for the sacrifical system in the OT. However, Jesus was perfect, no sin, and sacrificed Himself for all mankind's sins. It is the defining act of His love. To give one's life for another, even when that other hates you and doesn't give a hoot.

If we posit Christ as the son of god, then the only answer is that god wanted him to die. As an omnipotent being, that "sin" could have been removed simply by an act of will on the part of god.

What, pretend it never happened? Remove the actual sin itself? The first is not just, the second removes our free will.

Instead, he kills his (anyway immortal?) son, who died knowing why he died, and that he would ascend into heaven without any problems. (What did he sacrifice again?)

Actually, the Resurrection is the sign that God accepted the sacrifice. The sacrifice wasn't death, although Jesus did die, but on the cross, when Jesus took on the sins of all, God turned His face away. Jesus was separated from God, and that is worse than death. "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"

And it isn't as though Jesus volunteered either out of his love. Didn't he ask that god remove that cup from his lips?

Yes He did, b/c that separation was a sacrifice, and a tough one. If there was another way, Jesus was all for it. But, not My will, but Your's be done.

HLT, Jesus claimed Himself that He was God. That's why the Pharisees were ready to stone Him at one point. So man didn't make Jesus God, He did.

[Prebe]

If you worship God, you WILL live a good life.

Like reverent Jim Jones?

[Xar]

Prebe is right - many people worship, or think they worship God, but lead dissolute or evil lives. In their eyes, they are acting well - they're simply blind to the misery they cause.

In any case, Prom_Star, I've studied the ideas of medieval theologians, and their answers to the concepts you described, in particular: what happened to those good souls who had been born before Jesus's coming, and had no chance to turn to Christianity (this includes the souls of patriarchs such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)?

The answer they postulated is as follows: before the coming of Jesus, mankind could not enter Heaven because their souls were burdened with their sins; therefore, all souls, upon death, would enter Sheol (or Hell, depending on the theologian). There they stayed until Jesus died on the cross: the theologians described an event they called "the Harrowing of Hell" which they supposed took place during the three days between Jesus's death and Resurrection, in which He descended into Sheol (or Hell) and brought out all the good souls, leading them to Heaven, which had opened its gates upon Jesus's death.

Now, this can be a naive or oversimplified explanation, but it suggests a few points - notably, that Jesus's sacrifice was needed to "open the gates of Heaven" and that the good souls who had been born and died before His coming did not automatically go to Heaven upon death, but had to wait until He died on the cross and redeemed mankind.

Avatar, as for Jesus's sacrifice, Cybrweez explains it well when he describes how the true sacrifice wasn't Jesus's mortal death as much as His separation from God; likewise, the full meaning of Jesus's coming is not simply in His death, but in the fact that He lived a mortal life, as both Deity and Man. Also, He did choose to die out of love for God's creation; but, since He was both God and Man, His human nature was present even though overshadowed by His divine stature. Hence, when confronted with the ultimate sacrifice he was about to make for the salvation of mankind, it was Jesus's human part who feared what He knew was to come, and prayed for another way. Just like probably any of us, in such a situation - knowing you're being betrayed and you'll be tortured and killed horribly - would likely dread what would be to come.

It's quite a complicated concept, which is rather difficult to explain - more or less like the concept of the Trinity, I suppose.

[High Lord Tolkien]

If you worship God, you WILL live a good life.

Like reverent Jim Jones?

Prebe, picking one crazy person out of the whole history of Mankind that worshiped God doesn't really help the discussion.