Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[That Wolf]

Orange im trying.
Maybe another slight derail is needed

So lord Kapila was said to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.
Why would this happen?
And by elements it is phrased 'creative elements' what could this be?

[Arx]

Context? Wikipedia doensn't mention anything about forgotten teachings of his.

[That Wolf]

Context? Wikipedia doensn't mention anything about forgotten teachings of his.

He told the brahmana asuri.
The idiot probably just went home and forgot.

[Orange Wizard]

So lord Kapila was said to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.
Why would this happen?
And by elements it is phrased 'creative elements' what could this be?

The only mention I can find of this is either roughly similar to the classical elements, or about something else entirely.

I think the best answer for this would be the Wikipedia style of things:

So lord Kapila was said^{[by whom?]} to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.

[That Wolf]

So lord Kapila was said to have told people about the elements and metaphysics but it was forgotten about.
Why would this happen?
And by elements it is phrased 'creative elements' what could this be?

The only mention I can find of this is either roughly similar to the classical elements, or about something else entirely.

Oh yes thats right 24 elements of creation and the soul being 25.

[TheDarkStar]

I know this has been responded to, but I have a different viewpoint to add.

And the general Christian viewpoint on sin is that it has to be: A: Made with full knowledge of the consequences and B: Made with full control of your faculties. Someone who kills someone while drunk is guilty of a lesser sin then one who performs the same act in cold blood.

Someone else suggested something similar, that Christianity takes intent into account while mortal courts don't.  Which seems completely backward to me:  Mortal courts totally take intent into account when sentencing, while Biblical laws are just "Anyone who does this is a sinner".  Intent doesn't matter at all.  Remorse might be necessary afterward, but technically all that matters is *knowing about Jesus*.  Not knowing the consequences of sin is no defense, it's the opposite - it practically guarantees punishment.

I believe the opposite of this. People who don't know that something is a sin or don't understand it well have no or less punishment for it. When someone does commit a sin, intent is judged, so someone who does not intend to kill someone but does wouldn't have to deal with as much as a cold-blooded murderer. Additionally, simply knowing about Jesus is nowhere near enough. As it says in (James?): "Faith without works is dead", or in other words, faith is useless unless you do the required works like living correctly and repenting.

Additionally, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is explicitly *unforgivable*, according to Jesus himself.  It's the *only* unforgivable sin mentioned.  And it's a thing which nonbelievers are most likely to do, due to their ignorance.

I also believe that it's unforgivable, but rather than being something that the nonbeliever do, it's something that only someone who knows the truth can do. It's when someone knows fully who Christ is and what He did and then rejecting Him/refusing to follow Him. It requires more knowledge to do than what some random person has.

And I've never heard that Christians aren't as responsible for their sins while drunk (of their own volition).  That would be seriously unjust if true.  There's a difference between premeditated murder and manslaughter, but intoxicating oneself shouldn't be a defense...

Yeah.

Christianity's not actually all that disinclined towards killing, though it's long tried to spin the PR to say otherwise.

Judaism isn't that opposed to killing. From a Christian perspective, it's pretty close to unjustifiable.

Ignoring the obvious point that Christian nations have almost universally been violent...  Often against the Jews...  Jesus doesn't really try to stop people from killing.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

And Matthew 5:

5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

He supports the violent prophecies and teachings of the Old Testament.

That's why I say Judaism isn't that opposed.

He does say that he is going to "fulful[l]" the law, so he removes the need for the OT laws through his suffering/resurrection.

In Christianity, you would be one or more of: failing to turn the other cheek, failing to love your neighbour, or failing to love your enemy. All of which are instructions from Jesus, and fairly solidly unambiguous.

5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Is followed by

5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Clearly the section is a metaphor for empathy and compassion, not a literal guide to life.  Otherwise the early church would have died out in a generation or two *tops*

There were a number of early church leaders who met deaths including stoning, hanging, crucifixion, etc. They didn't attack their attackers. An example is Paul - he went to Rome to preach, knowing he would be executed.

Speaking of...  One of my favorite verses:

16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

In addition to what has been mentioned, John was allowed to live until the Second Coming (as hinted at by some verses in John).

[Frumple]

Yes, its true that people say they have found in many different places. But the thing is, only one can be right! Christianity doesnt allow for other religions to be correct at the same time. It just doesnt.

... what does one religion's insistence on being the only true one have to do with reality? Christianity is perfectly capable of being simply wrong on that point. Baldly asserting otherwise doesn't exactly provide support for the position -- you need some kind of justification, some sort of proof to suggest the position is true, otherwise there is zero reason to support that position over others who do the exact same thing. Of which there are many.

... unfortunately, as noted, there is nothing christian belief provides that isn't attainable elsewhere. Hell, none of it even requires religion -- moral codes are perfectly createable without substantiative metaphysical burdens, the various emotional/psychological states related to it are attainable via lifestyle choices or medication, the organizational aspects obviously constructible from secular means... the list just kind of goes on. S'nothing particularly unique to the belief system.

And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.

[Teneb]

The Bible says you go to Hell (and even that's debatable - "wrath of God" is fairly ambiguous) as punishment for breaking God's law, not following a religion that is the identical twin of Christianity.

I feel like I should note that there are actually very few descriptions or references to hell in the bible. Most stuff associated with hell these days (fire, pits, torture) is from Dante's Divine Comedy.

[chaoticag]

Dante's Divine Comedy is also notable for having a hell that sounds like it isn't. Saladin, Socraties and other figures that Catholicism at the time felt were good people but not christian occupied it. Effetly, it's a hell in the sense that while they acted in a moral manner, they never accepted the teachings of Jesus and were therefore separated from God.

Still, not sure if Dante's stuff counts as Apocrypha even, just evocative.

[Peradon]

Yes, its true that people say they have found in many different places. But the thing is, only one can be right! Christianity doesnt allow for other religions to be correct at the same time. It just doesnt.

... what does one religion's insistence on being the only true one have to do with reality? Christianity is perfectly capable of being simply wrong on that point. Baldly asserting otherwise doesn't exactly provide support for the position -- you need some kind of justification, some sort of proof to suggest the position is true, otherwise there is zero reason to support that position over others who do the exact same thing. Of which there are many.

... unfortunately, as noted, there is nothing christian belief provides that isn't attainable elsewhere. Hell, none of it even requires religion -- moral codes are perfectly createable without substantiative metaphysical burdens, the various emotional/psychological states related to it are attainable via lifestyle choices or medication, the organizational aspects obviously constructible from secular means... the list just kind of goes on. S'nothing particularly unique to the belief system.

And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.

So, if all religions lead to God, how does Christianity fit into it. It explicity says that it is only through Jesus that men can be saved. So is Christianity excluded from "all"?

Also, all other religions dont have Jesus at the center(Except for Mormonism, which is NOT Christian, because they dont believe some of the core teachings of Christianity).

And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.

I think you mean Buhdism, but yeah, I get what your saying. But, no, it does not offer the key things, like, uhh God. Buhdism is the worship of yourself, trying to become nothing, in order to attain perfect transcendence. Makes no sense to me at all. Christianity is a servant's religion. You're not in it for yourself, but for God. Almost all other religions are self-centered, whereas Christianity is centered on God. How is this like Buhdism?

[chaoticag]

And you've got religions such as Hinduism, which is perfectly happy to hold that all religious belief stem from the same source. They've got a nice lil' explanation for it and everything. Why should one not believe that christian belief is just another aspect of the brahman? Just missing or misrepresenting a few key points. It's certainly a better explanation for the apparent viability of other faiths. Bit of inaccuracy or confusion even cheerfully explains stuff like the monolatrist/monotheist shift -- someone just got some bits wrong, lost stuff in translation, etc.

I think you mean Buhdism, but yeah, I get what your saying. But, no, it does not offer the key things, like, uhh God. Buhdism is the worship of yourself, trying to become nothing, in order to attain perfect transcendence. Makes no sense to me at all. Christianity is a servant's religion. You're not in it for yourself, but for God. Almost all other religions are self-centered, whereas Christianity is centered on God. How is this like Buhdism?

What?

Frumple never brought Buddhism up, if you want to go ahead and respond to his beliefs about Buddhism, you'd need to wait until Frumple elaborated on what he meant, and whether he meant Hinduism or Buddhism. As it is, Brahma is principally a Hindu god, and one of the aspects of beginnings, so he might be right here.

Secondly, you bring up Buddhism, but I have no idea what you even mean by that. Mahayana Buddhism? Vajriyana? Shinto? They're all Buddhisms, and also very very different ones. Buddhism isn't quite a monolith, and I think saying it's a religion of worshiping the self misses the point of Buddhism.

[Frumple]

Buddhism has nothing to do with gods, generally. As a rule, it's apatheistic at "best" and generally more atheist or agnostic -- siddhartha said pretty straight up that things such as the existence or non-existence of gods are not questions worth contemplating. He was fairly dismissive of most metaphysical concerns, iirc, and most, if not all, buddhist traditions that came afterwards align pretty well with that. There are, of course, exceptions (Such as christian buddhists, natch), but to the best of my knowledge that's the trend.

Hinduism is something very different. In Hindu belief, gods -- all gods (and, frankly, everything else) -- are simply manifestations of aspects of the brahman, the true reality. Other religions fit into that quite well, especially alongside the natural fallibility of mankind. Christianity expressing aspects of the true reality, even if not with 100% accuracy (just as basically nothing human does, honestly) fits into that just fine. Christianity would simply be wrong about the only path to salvation being jesus. It would be one path, but not the only one. Error alongside truth does not invalidate that truth.

@chao: Brahma's actually something different from brahman The former is an aspect of the latter, though.

[chaoticag]

Welp. I'm a bit Rusty with my Hinduism here. I've got the general picture though. At some point I might reread the Bhagavad Ghita (or as google's autocorrect wants me to call it, the Baghdad Hitachi).

[TD1]

Out of curiosity, how do people reconcile the huge variation within religion with the idea that only one path is right?

Beyond the "all paths lead to God" idea, which I personally don't find convincing (there are steps that lead to God. Different steps for different religions/denominations.)

[Bohandas]

The Bible says you go to Hell (and even that's debatable - "wrath of God" is fairly ambiguous) as punishment for breaking God's law, not following a religion that is the identical twin of Christianity.

I feel like I should note that there are actually very few descriptions or references to hell in the bible. Most stuff associated with hell these days (fire, pits, torture) is from Dante's Divine Comedy.

Pretty sure the association between fire and hell predates dante by a good deal. Most of Dante's hell didn't have fire in fact; instead the unpleasant aspects of the environment were things like tornado force winds, rivers of filth, perpetual hail, and freezing cold.