There is but one... Dear Sir, In todays society there are so many different facets of ideology that are of equality to the days of the Old Testament (noted in time as B.C.). There are three major proponents to this equality. Object worship - There are not many people in modern society who pray to a golden cow, but there are more than a few that find there soul worth in possesions (ie. People on government assistance wearing $200 shoes & lower middle class people who are going bankrupt to show off in a new SUV). Ancestor Worship - Those people who pray to and / or give offerings to their deceased loved ones with the belief that the ancestor can have affect on their mortal life and or the ability to bless there passing into the spiritual life. Self Worship - Many religions were and are based on self worth. Hinduism, Bhuddism, Taoism, Atheism, and the Confusseous doctorine all express mans ability to dictate his destiny. These teaching come in different forms ranging from reincarnation to karma. They are all however the same beliefs with different design. Ones own being having the capability to rise and triumph courageously thus creating a more perfect world through basic morality expressed by the individual believer. Ill edit to conclude shortly
I fail to see how Buddhism is self worship when a principle teaching of Buddhism is that the ego is the source of error and suffering. Also, Confucianism is not self worship insofar as it is based on moral duty to the state, to one's ancestors, and to one's family. In a sense, Confucianism isn't a religion at all, but a moral theory; not much different than Aristotle's. I don't know enough about Taoism to comment too much but I suspect that Taoists would not hold the self as the highest object of veneration. And atheists, by definition, don't worship anything.
1. Could we just accept that he lied, instead of trying to cut it 30 diffrent ways that all happen to be self serving. 2. i see. 3. How so? 4. indeed, no one is perfect, but alot of religious people will have you believe that they are.
As a buddhist x-christian, i always fealt it meant don't worship anything more then god. if you believe in buddha, your worshiping to be a good person on earth. if i started seeking idols or greed, then i would be breaking the first commandment. the gods of hinduism, are like different parts of the body of one god. it isn't true polytheism because many of the gods represent different aspects or something of the gods (3 main gods).
Personal Belief... Dear Sir, The belief that man alone is capable of regulating morality is a since of self or humanistic worship. The belief of reincarnation and karma directly relate ones own ability to direct themselfs according to morality. The mentality that I am the alpha being that dictates my life and is ultimately in contol of my actions is form of self worship. TAEKWON! SPooKeY
I don't see how its self worship. It seems more like responsibility to me. A person may believe that he is morally responsible for what he does and for the production of his character; that does not mean he worships himself. To worship means to "bow down and adore." The virtuous people I know, religious or not, do not adore themselves. If anything, they adore virtue itself, or the moral law, rather than their own virtue. Your claim does not hold up it seems to me. Karma and reincarnation are separate issues. But I fail to see how they are self worship. In all cases, to say that I am in control of my actions is not to say that I worship myself. It is to say that I am to be held responsible for what I do and I cannot make excuses to get out of it.
hehe, depends on what we are doing with our actions. i do not self worship. i pray to help others, to be kind and not be selfish with my actions. self worship, would that include all the religious people of our world whom use 3rd world children sweat shop labor? whom waste energy? whom pollute and litter? whom ignore other peoples struggles? whom see good deals more important than the morals involved in the transaction? Those whom see karma as a way to better themselves, are not seeking enlightment. Good buddhists are not attached to the karma of thier actions, they help others out of selfishless love and compassion. Reincarnation is always a good goal, but it is most used to explain how our actions keep us in a cycle of living on earth. Our goal is to stop the cycle, not to stay in it (similiar to christian views on, trying to get baptized to go into heaven or not to commit sins, to not go to hell). Therefore, if reincarnation was an evil thought, it only would be out of desire. Karma would be evil otu of envy, greed and desire. If you are following these paths, then you are not following the paths of buddhism. Christians having other gods, often forget that believing in one god, doesn't satisify this commandment. To satisify this commandment, they have to be humble. "Those whom are humble, shall be exalted, and those whom are exalted, shall be humbled." Therefore, if they are to find other things more important than morals (such as faults of capitalism and greed), they are worshiping other gods.
Tekken, I wouldn't say that he lied. If Jesus was wrong, then he was mistaken, deluded perhaps. There is a difference between being mistaken and being a liar. On the question of interpreting "generations," I think its pretty clear that the Gospel writers intend Jesus' words to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If that is the case, then "this generation" refers to those hearing his words who would be alive at the destruction in 70 AD. The early Church would then interpret Jesus' coming as the establishment of the Church in place of the Jerusalem temple. This is essentially the viewpoint of the book of Revelation. Now, what the historical Jesus meant is another question. Perhaps he meant the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps he didn't. There is no way of knowing. It seems to me that the interpretation of generation as "race" is contrived. I don't see how one gets that out of the context. I will note that this apocalyptic statement of Jesus is placed before the episode of the Transfiguration. This leads some scholars to suggest that Jesus was referring to his own transfiguration, which could be seen by the disciples as a manifestation of the Kingdom of God. My own interpretation is that Jesus was referring to the establishment of the Church at Pentecost and that the disciples would see the Kingdom, which Jesus said, "is within you," when they were filled with the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. At least, I think that this is what is intended by the author of Luke & Acts and it makes the most sense, I think. Nevertheless, the difficulty for Christian theology has been to deal with having to be here, in society, for 2000 years, when the general expectation was that Christ would return before the end of the 1st century AD. Also, by "just war" I didn't mean religious war. I meant that once Christians were in charge of society, they had to deal with issues like conducting warfare, capital punishment, the police force, social welfare, and general administration of the government. So issues not explicitly addressed by Jesus or the earliest Christians, had to be addressed by later generations. For example, the question, "Is it ever just for a nation to go to war?" is not something explicitly addressed by the New Testament. The answer to the question was worked out through Natural Law theory just as much as through Christian doctrine. A classic example of how to deal with the relationship between the Kingdom of this world and the Kingdom of God is Augustine's "The City of God." In this work, Augustine has to show which duties belong to the state and which duties belong to the Church. Its a brilliant work written while the Roman empire is falling into ruin. I highly recommend giving it a read, whether one is a believer or not . It is a classic of western philosophy and literature.
1. Yes, there is a differance between being mistaken and being a liar, i agree fully. But how can you be mistaken about your own arrival? and to be mistaken would mean to be wrong. right? so Either Jesus was wrong {meaning both he and god are not omnipotent} or he was a liar {which would make him an *******} Now if he was deluded, then that would fuel the long standing theory that Jesus was insane. 2. Most Definately, and still no justification for that. 3. Oops, i thought you meant trying to justify war. my bad.
I never understood the whole justification of war and religion either. Thou shall not kill, seems pretty simple to me lol. What moved me away from christianity wasn't jesus or the bible, but how people used it in thier instances to justify their actions, then the next day, be a complete hyprocrit of themself. such as with my dad... I was informing him (christian) how Yahoo gives out emails, messages and personal information to governments on suspected charges. this may seem ncie... but in china, yahoo aided in capturing democratic activists amonst religious practicitoners. and my dad was like "well lets use yahoo, since they have to obey the rules of the country they work in". then i said "aren't your christian morals more important than free internet services"? and i guess i was to hard on him. in the end, i just want people to realize what they think is best for them, has to be best for others as well. if we see child labor as un-christian, un-human ect... then we have to see it unhuman for other people's children as well. morallity doesn't have a national boundry nor is it confined by capitalism. morals that help and do not harm others, should not be sacraficed for good bargains. for instance "thou shall not kill", but its ok to have others drop bombs for you on innocent people as sacrafices for an ultimate and temporary goal? so sad.
Tekken dude, haven't we talked about this three times already? You disagree with "The Bible Answer Man" Hank Hannegraaf. Hank knows first century history. You do not know first century history. Can't you accept that maybe the guy who knows first century history is in a better position to comment on the Olivet Discourse than you are? Come on, be fair. That's an unnecessarily narrow definition, and one that does not fully comport with the idea behind of the First Commandment. There's an element of heart attitude in worship too: In what do I place my faith in the future? In what do I look to for help in times of sadness or need? To whom do I direct my prayers? On what do I spend my money? These also are aspects of worth-ship, which is where the word 'worship' comes from.
Well, what is adoration but a matter of the heart? Of course, true worship implies everything you have mentioned here. Its what Paul Tillich calls, "Ultimate Concern." Essentially, what I consider the very ground and reason for existence is my god.
1. We've talked about this a few times. but it never developed. it was just a few one liners of self-serving anwsers and that was it. 2. I agree.
jewish perspective is close to idol worship? lets think for a second.... where did christianity come from? please explain (ps im not trying to start any flaming, but I just disagree with your comment)
Judaism is a stict monothehistic religion. Xtianity splits the concept with the introduction of Jesus and the Holy ghost. Also the worship and praying to saints and statues of saints is what makes it approach idol worship in the eyes of many Jews. While early Xtians were mailny Jews, Xtianity is not as much of an offshoot of Judaism as most people think. How many of the 613 commandments found in the Torah are observed by Xtians?
It's relevance is only found in doing it, I obey it because I want to, it is therefore relevant to me. God literally took me from the streets, he opened up avenues of growth and opurtunity, and most importantly he died for me, so I worship him because of what he has done for me, if the general world dont acknowledge those things then it is not relevant for them.
There's no need to abreviate "Christian." The doctrine of the trinity is confusing to everyone, but getting beyond the confusion, Christianity is equally as strictly monotheistic as Judaism. Every bit so. There's no two ways about it: it's a monotheistic religion. Christianity isn't an offshoot of Judaism. The founders taught it as the fulfillment of Judaism. Obviously not all of the priests agreed with them, but that is how the religion started, and that is how the New Testament writings present it. I curious now, how many of the 613 commandments are observed by Jews anymore?
