I am not sure yet what to do with the info. Not because of others believing in it but because of the Bible. Not directly something the Bible says but the way it seems to work. So I donāt have a opinion really more of just some thoughts that are questions just as much as statements.
I generally reject concordism in favor of accommodation. That means that I believe that God reached out to ancient Jewish people through a worldview they understood. Ancient Jewish people were part of ancient Mesopotamia and they shared some core beliefs such as nothingness was darkness and water as opposed to just a black void. Iām not going to spend to much time on it. Plenty of threads talks about accommodation versus concordism and books like those by John Walton touches on it in depth.
Based off of what the Bible said about divorce it seems that sometimes God permits things because of the hardness of their hearts. God says he hates divorce but permitted it die to the hardness of their hearts.
So those two things tie into this discussion because of this. Is it possible that a higher power accommodated the Jews by taking on a god they were familiar of, Yahweh and he looked at where they were morally and ethically and socially and he begin to reveal a plan with them that lead towards righteousness despite meeting them where they currently are. If so, he would have permitted actions , thoughts and beliefs that he does not truly believe in to better meet them half way and work on guiding them where he wanted. But is it really logical that out of every nation, out of millions of people, he just picked the Jews to reveal the truth to mankind. Or is it possible he accommodated nations all around the world as various gods and met them where they were guiding them towards goodness. Could the same higher power that was Yahweh met the Norwegians as Odin and met them where they were and begin to improve them through prophets and so on. Could the contradicting laws between faiths sometimes just simply be god meeting different nations where they are.
That does not mean there is not a force of evil. Almost all faiths also have evil. Could Satan have also accommodated many nations and thatās why there is some villain in each faith.
None of this is my opinion, because I donāt yet have one, itās just simply some thoughts I have.
There is also the concept of all other faiths are evil and the byproducts of either liars or deceived people.
I think I see what is meant there, and I want to press that further just a bit - probably investing more in those words than you were interested in packing into them. But Iām just using that thought as a springboard here.
Itās a recently traditional formulaic view that might try to portray Christian conversion as a āonce-and-doneā event with only one strictly binary question to be answered: are you āinā or āoutā? Did you say and believe the right things in your heart? If so - good job! You must be āinā.
But if that view were entirely true to the faith, then there is little reason for all the presumably āinā people to keep meeting each Sunday morning to hear continued preaching. I mean ā¦ yes ā¦ there are the hoped-for consequences of their now-acquired faith that they might be going to church to learn how they can even better love their neighbors and to be exhorted toward greater and greater works of generosity and love. But letās face it. At least here in the U.S. a large share of our church-going isnāt with the āwhat can I give to and do for my communityā motivations, but more with the āI need thisā sort of motivation. And that is not a bad reason to go to church - donāt misunderstand me in this. [And for pretty much all of us, it will actually be a varying mix of those two drivers.]
So what is it that drives the presumably āalready savedā people to keep needing more? I suggest that conversion has to keep happening. Sometimes it is the presumable āChristiansā who are most needing to hear good news. To hear it fresh - and if their church is doing its job, to challenge them out of settled complacencies and/or other sins that remain entrenched. Itās been said that some churches in Africa see a need to send missionaries to the U.S. And I suggest that may not be just a flippant reversal of our own cultural expectations, but to address a very real need. It could well be that one of the vaster spiritual deserts in the world, most in need of some Good News has been North America for the last couple of centuries.
All this is to say that it may be well and fine (maybe!) if we wish to address which parts of everybody elseās cultures and religious practices ought to be switched out for an upgrade - or who is most in need of some pointedly prophetic preaching. But then letās realize that our own church communities and cultures almost certainly remain in constant need of the same. Delivering me from my own sin seems to be a full-time job for me ā¦ and somebody more than just me too, and with no sign of anything less than on-going, full job security for them.
Some of it is theologically too. For me and the congregations I attend salvation *is not forever. We reject Once Saved Always Saved and believe that christians can fall away back into destruction. So part of us meeting up regularly is to help keep
Encouraging one another to continue running the good race towards salvation and that itās a time to fellowship and encouragement for each other.
They just are. It doesnāt really impact me at all. Why are there so many dfifferent styles of cars? Types of music, galaxies, stars?
Religion holds no interest for me. In fact, religion is repulsive.
Have you read C.S. Lewisā Mere Christianity? Quite a bit of the book addresses this question. Itās a very worthwhile read. He makes many points on this topic but perhaps most famously he uses the āmad, bad or Godā argument: Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia.
Simple
The one existed the other not. The first ones followers died brutal deaths claiming theyve seen him ressurected the others did not. Polytheism is scientificaly impossible meaning that for it to hold truth the universe must have existed since the dawn of time(spoilers it had a begining).
I wont get into the Hindu theology as some said here. The arguments that abkve users made like āmany Hindus choose to worship one deityā are kinda pointless because everys Hindus deity comes from basically fairytales.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
30
Yeahhhh. He missed out myth. And nuances on āmadā and ābadā.
In many cases Iād call an irrelevant conclusion fallacy, as most of the time I see this question brought up is as a counter to arguments showing god is consistent with science, but that question is irrelevant to the debate.
Now in the cases in which it not, the answer will depend on the question. If the question is āwhy are their so many religions?ā, well the answer is quite simple, if as the bible claims we are creatures of spirit then it makes sense that we would seek out that spirituality and their for the many religions would be an expected result not an anomaly, in fact the opposite would present an anomaly that would have to be explained.
Now the more relevant question āwhy follow Christianity?ā. Well ultimately its going to come down to personal revelation.
I do think that their are some religions that can be proven wrong. For example, the polytheistic religions in my opinion are in consistent with what we observe of the universe, since each god has his own domain youād expect each domain to behave differently and their for rules of physics to be inconsistent across space and time, yet what we observe is consistency across space and time of the law of physics. it is in fact one of the core tenets of science.
But this is not something Iām confident can be applied to every religion, it be hard to disprove islam on the bases of science especially since a we share large portion of our philosophy in particular when related to sciences. So ultimately, it going to come down to personal revelation as I donāt think their is an argument that show irrefutably to Christianity and even if their is their probably isnāt enough time in a life time to study them all.
To me, it is so extraordinarily clear that Jesus is God, it is beyond my comprehension how anyone who learns the basics about him, could think othrewise.
Of course, that is a figure of speech because I do know. It is just that itās so impossible that He did what they claimed and lived as they did if what they conveyed wasnāt true. You, anyone, cannot make up stuff so totally absurd, so far removed from reality, and proclaim it to be true, unless it is true.
Sounds like youāre a Christian. Sorry, when you said you find āreligionā repulsive, I thought you might be an atheist - glad to hear that youāre not.
As for me, Iām Catholic. I donāt find my religion ārepulsiveā - on the contrary, I find Catholicism to be a beautiful religion and and Iām totally in love with it. And I wasnāt always a Catholic - I was once a very anti-Catholic Protestant.
Iām not a Catholic - but am now an admirer of much about Catholicism. Iām curious - do you find it frustrating that there seems to be such a (I would say āhealthyā) variety of opinions within the Catholic fold? For example, Iām a big admirer of Bishop Robert Barron and his online ministry (āWord on Fireā), but I gather you would find his (and the Popeās) attitudes towards science (evolution in particular) to be problematic?
Iād never heard of Bishop Robert Barron, but I will look him up - thanks.
I have no problem with the Pope or a Bishop accepting āevolutionā. Catholics are free to reject āevolutionā and believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago, if they want to. And after all, the Pope might be correct - whatever he refers to as āevolutionā might be the truth.
