My LEGO Nexus Organization

Here is a VERY interesting article...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/themes/religion/index.html


Discuss your thoughts on the article, and the concept.

god. *scoffs*

my faith fluxuates, yes, but honestly look at how screwed up the world is. if prayers were answered, if god was really watching out for us, would the world be like this?


no. it would not.

As an atheist, I find it interesting to watch members of the branches of Abrahamic faiths try to distance themselves from each other, when from my perspective they are basically the same thing.

Well, of course there are differences. But my point is that the three faiths are much closer than many of their followers would like to believe...

-Canama

They all believe in the same god, but from our textbooks I think the prophets they believe in are different.

If you would like to discuss the existence of God, you can debate here. (http://www.mlno.org/index.php/topic,6734.0.html)

I read the article and it is very interesting. Even though they have very similar basis', they also have big differences. The existence of Jesus, Muhammad, or lack thereof of both greatly distinguishes the 3. To me, this is a large enough difference to consider them separate religions.

Considering its from PBS, its almost not worth talking about...
Its kinda like asking a atheist to teach you about religion... ???

What is wrong about PBS?

And I like to think I know more about religions than the average religious person. I probably know less about Christianity than the average Christian, sure, but I think I know more about Buddhism than they do.

-Canama

PBS is an excellent source. Did you actually read the article??

God always answers prayers, buddy.  Just not always the way we want him to.

Earth, as I see it, is a testing ground for we, the sentient humans who inhabit it.  This is the place where both God and ourselves can see if we truly deserve to live eternally with Him in Heaven.   

Then why does his criteria - faith, not morality - seem so arbitrary?

-Canama

Heh I'm taking AP Human Geography and we're currently covering world religions.
ALL religions are man-made, and it is a proven fact. Even if there is a single deity that exists in our world, religions are just our perceptions and theories on whom this deity is and what he does. A good example is Islam and Radical Islam. Normal Islams believe that Allah is peaceful whereas Radical Islam's believe that anyone who is not them must die or be converted (much like the Crusades with the Christians).

I took AP World History last semester; you don't need to tell me that!

The only difference between God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, really, is that one was invented thousands of years ago and one is less than a decade old (And, of course, one of the two has no serious followers.)

-Canama

Dude, this is not the is God real topic...

All religions are man made... they must be.. that is their nature.  The point is when you see an aspect of faith that is common to many religions around the globe that had no way to communicate a thousand years ago... that aspect must be more credible.  The differences are what man added in an attept to wield the power of the church for their own reasons.

I was just explaining the primary difference between these religions. And I do agree with your statement above. It is mostly caused by hierarchial diffusion.

wait, why are religions man made? are you saying that people interpret gods and make a religion based around what they perceive and feel about the gods? because all religions that I know of are based on gods, so they aren't originated by humans...

anywho, I've heard about the three religions one god things before and I, as a Christian, pretty much see how it works. Although because they are different only one of them can be real...

The CORE of all three is the same... the REST is man made.

okay. unless you believe that the Bible and the Christian religion is the inspired word of God...

But the Bible and Torah are both the word of God, interpreted by different people and the 10 commandments are simplified in the Jewish faith "Harm no one".
And the Catholic concept of purgatory and reliving your sins corresponds with the middle eastern concept of being born over until you reach enlightenment.. in both you have to do it until you get it right...

And if man would only learn to look for the similarities instead of the differences we really could achieve one world some day.

I'm just saying.....

Same fundamentals. Different practices. Simple. In order to unify it as one world as MsRowdy said above is to find a general order of practices and principles that everyone can abide by.

1: Bible and Torah are both inspired words of God. I don't believe they can both be true...

2: The 10 Commandments have two sides: There is only one true God, and Love your neighbour as your neighbour would want to be loved.

3: Purgatory is not Christian, though. AFAIK Catholics have purgatory while other denominations have eternal life in heaven. If purgatory is real then I feel bad for those that go there because you could never outlive your sins and leave purgatory to end up in heaven. Same for reincarnation.

4: Man is full of sin and will never unite as one. The closest you could ever get to uniting people is massive genocide until only one race and religion survives, and that would be awful on many levels. The tower of Babel is the last known time that humans were united as one, and if we learn from this we'll come to see that man can never truly come together for good.

Just my views. Please tear them apart, because I like to see other people's views.

The fundamentals are not the same. Maybe only in the most generic way, but as soon as you look at things slightly deeper the differences are immediate. As I said above, man will never come together under any set of practices and principles because we are corrupt and naturally different.

1. This is a discussion, and not a debate.

2. As long as people scrutinize the differences and cling to "only my religion is correct" we will continue to grow apart instead of together as the Lord intended.

1: Sorry.

2: But how can anyone know what the Lord intended? And the Lord seperated people at the tower of Babel...

I'm not trying to argue, but the points don't make that much sense, unless you're just trying to say: There's one God and people interpret Him in three different ways, and so there's three religions which should really be one. But when you look at the core beliefs of the religions they are different, and can't all be right. I know that people want peace, but I don't think peace is achievable on earth, nor do I believe that peace is necessarily good, as we wouldn't have progressed as far as we have without it (although we wouldn't have morally degenerated this far without it).

The concept of three religions/one God seems good, but I don't really think it can be possible without twisting around the various religious beliefs. There's just too much that's different. Having said that, as a Christian and creationist (we won't argue that here, though) I believe that one single-triune- God created everything, so all religions should start out with one God that is the same.

Because His entire life here on earth was about love and acceptance.

But He spoke against some teachings and laws of the Jewish religion (in the Bible)...

The Tower of Babel?

Surely you jest, there's no evidence that thing existed. And the idea is absurd! "A tower that can reach the heavens"? That makes no sense! How would a primitive culture build such a thing. (I am assuming for the sake of this argument that Heaven is real, which it isn't.) (Also, if God doesn't want us to get to high places, funny that we got away with rockets.)

Also, separating a peaceful, united humanity proves your god is a **** and entirely unworthy of worship.

EDIT: Woah that wasn't actually censored? I will apply some self-censoring then...

-Canama

AGAIN THIS IS NOT A DEBATE.

And you, Canama know better than to post things that get censored...
~MsRR

To be fair, Canama, a.) the builders probably thought they could do it (remember, they didn't have our modern scientific knowledge about the size of the earth and the vastness of space), and b.) "A tower that can reach the heavens" is a far more poetic way to express the concept than "a tower that is really [bleep]-ing tall." ;)

Honestly, Red's explanation makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.  Assuming for the sake of argument that there is one God who exists as a conscious being, and that these ancient people observed His interactions with the world, what would be their natural reaction?  The same thing we do today when we see something we don't understand, we come up with an explanation for it.  The explanations various people around the world came up with became the religons we see today.  The different "denominations" and divisions between and within religions come from alternate interpretations of the same evidence.

This is not dissimilar to the scientific method that scientists use today; scientists observe data, various scientists formulate hypotheses, hypotheses that successfully explain the data become theories while the rest are discarded; as more data is observed and the leading theories continue to explain the data, more people accept the different theories.  If counter-evidence is discovered to a particular theory, those who learn of it will modify or discard the theory, but as long as concrete counter-evidence is not found, the theory persists, even if other theories explain the data just as well.

Ideally, scientists would be able to set aside their own opinions for a moment and analyze the other theories, imagining them to be correct for the sake of analysis.  In doing so, the scientists could isolate the facets of each theory that are identical and accept them as being true, and then find ways to determine which parts of the theories that are also true and which parts are not.  However, observation shows us that scientists can be as dogmatic about the theories they subscribe to as people of different faiths can be about the religion they believe in.  If scientists, people who are trained to be unbiased and logical, cannot put aside their human dogmatic tendencies, why should we expect people of faith (or even atheists and agnostics) to be any different?

The problem boils down to this: people do not know how to learn, nor do they know how to analyze what they read, think, and see, nor to they know how to lay aside their personal beliefs and examine ideas from a different perspective.  People do not know this because they are not taught, and as long as we do not teach our children to think about the world, the things they observe, and the things they are told, then we as a race are doomed to more of the same narrow-minded thinking we see all around us today.

Most people, when asked a question about spiritual matters would answer "yes" or "no".  Both of those answers are wrong. The correct response, the one that shows that one knows how to think with an open mind, is something along the lines of "I don't know, but I believe that..."

This topic was intended to be an intelligent discussion of an ARTICLE..
It is NOT a debate on the existence of God, or the contents of the Bible but rather the commonalities that can be found when religions are looked upon with an open mind.

Thanks

Is there an active topic that this discussion could be continued in (in debate form)?

I've pretty much stated my opinion about this and I don't anything more to say, and it won't do good to reply to Canama's post here.

Any debate topic is considered active.. we threw away the 30 day rule as the same topics keep coming up. There are a few that might interest you.