Then we'd still point out their hypocrisy, as we'd hope someone would do the same for us in a constructive way.
In my opinion.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Individual Religions to Catch out Hypocrites?
- Thread starter wizanda
- Start date
In my opinion.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
Like often in life, we only notice something is wrong when we have something to compare against; so we can only test that something is accurate, if we have a second source.
Thus are individual religions, where people almost refuse to look at additional sources purposefully, a way by the Divine to catch out the hypocrites?
Like what if all the religions help clarify each other, and only by putting all the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle together, can we hope to see the bigger picture.
Thus automatically within almost any religion, can people really be true to its values, whilst ignoring teachers of said values?
Like has each religion been given a perspective of the truth, and parts that are slightly obscured; so that only when we have made that extra step to truly see, do we notice the hypocrisy?
In my opinion.
The truth is known to the religions.
If every one of them taught the simple basic truth of love of neighbor, there would be no religious fighting.
Golden Rule - Wikipedia
The problem is the religious still don't harmonize, just because they're told to be righteous...
Religiousness is like Nerdism; thus people will still always argue over small print, language, and grammar.
In my opinion.
hey Wizanda
I see one in a box, looking out into another box, inside another box, in a box.
That to me is a case of pretence of virtue, or seeing another `god` outside of one's box.
Like myself, thinking I have a `spirit` inside of myself, wondering from where it came,
wondering where it will go, and if it will have any cognizance to take with it ?
Maybe I do see from where you are coming, or to where you are going.
Whether it makes sense or not, it explains a lot, somehow !
Maybe I have to come up with another `title` for my `spirit` or `mindform`.
Oh well...I'll have to think on it...hypocritally !
I see one in a box, looking out into another box, inside another box, in a box.
That to me is a case of pretence of virtue, or seeing another `god` outside of one's box.
Like myself, thinking I have a `spirit` inside of myself, wondering from where it came,
wondering where it will go, and if it will have any cognizance to take with it ?
Maybe I do see from where you are coming, or to where you are going.
Whether it makes sense or not, it explains a lot, somehow !
Maybe I have to come up with another `title` for my `spirit` or `mindform`.
Oh well...I'll have to think on it...hypocritally !
Having left the box to being pure thought form in my NDE; then the box is a nice place in many ways, it is where we grow, and it is amazing what we can manifest in this Sandbox, when people don't limit the potential of an infinite scope.
In my opinion.
But Shiva is the creator (as well as destroyer and perseverer). Well, to a Shaivite, of which I am one.
Your point seems kind of fuzzy, You could make an argument for Hindu Universalism but it will be a generalization and it's not always been like that and isn't always.
The other examples are not equal to that one since it's not a part of their religion even if understanding those other religions will help contextualize what maybe the original authors meant. That said they too are something different than how they started. For better or ill this happens. The start of every religion is very different from how it is today and the religion it was based on is very different from when it started to when the other religion sprang out of it.
There are of course the hold outs, originalists so to speak. If the newer interpretations worked out the kinks and intent of the original author, or if they are a corruption that is ruining the religion is something we could debate all day.
I see it kind of like music. A new genre pops up for someone into something specific, and eventually mainstream culture adopts it and waters it down into something with influences from everything. So maybe the apparent sameness in religion is simply the pop music of theology; a process which strips religions of their originality to make it more accessible to more people.
That's what I love about Hinduism, it ha the power to be universal and accessible without sacrificing theological development and complexity. But unfortunately shifts in culture is threatening that and centuries of progress.
I agree with you but not because of what you said about inspiration, but because one could argue that focusing on a single text makes one much less hypocritical. There is a lot less to contradict if you limit your sources instead of willy nilly saying everything is considered part of your scripture.
That said, I take from things that are not canonical, if that makes sense. He kind of has a point about other religions contextualizing the others but it's misplaced. You can take inspiration from and use things that are less true to contextualize what you think is more true.
Like often in life, we only notice something is wrong when we have something to compare against; so we can only test that something is accurate, if we have a second source.
Thus are individual religions, where people almost refuse to look at additional sources purposefully, a way by the Divine to catch out the hypocrites?
Like what if all the religions help clarify each other, and only by putting all the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle together, can we hope to see the bigger picture.
Thus automatically within almost any religion, can people really be true to its values, whilst ignoring teachers of said values?
Like has each religion been given a perspective of the truth, and parts that are slightly obscured; so that only when we have made that extra step to truly see, do we notice the hypocrisy?
In my opinion.
wisanda,
I believe that you have a little misunderstanding of what true Christianity is. The Holy Bible says there is only ONE faith, Ephesians 4:3-6. This means that there should be NO divisions, all should speak the same truth, even have the same line of thought, 1Corinthians 1:10.
In the first century they called Christianity, The WAY, which means there is only one way, Acts 9:2, 22:4, 24:14, 22.
Jesus said that it is very hard to get saved, and that many would try, but would not be able, Luke 13:23,24. Jesus said to go in through the narrow gate, because wide is the gate that leads to destruction and many go through it, but few are the ones who go in the narrow gate, which was the Way.
When you understand the truth of God’s word you are NOT to have anything to do with unbelievers, wxcept to help them to learn the truth, 1Corinthians 10:20-22. Christians are not to get unevenly yoked with unbelievers, 2Corinthians 6:14-18.
Another thing we have learned, bad associations corrupt good morals. Also, those who walk with wise persons and you are likely to become wise, but if you keep with unwise you will be hurt, Proverbs 13:20, Colossians 1:9-14, 2:8.
"True", "Christianity". But hey you got down the "faith" part (not saying faith is bad but when it's by itself it kinda is). Too bad all that substantiates your claim is only one source with a questionable history.