Think of it as “My religion has value to me. I imagine other people’s religion has value to them.” Religion doesn’t have to be an all or nothing thing. I think that all but the most fundamentalist of believers acknowledges that they do not have a perfect understanding of the divine, but are instead working towards it in the best way that they know how.
It’s like love. Someone may love their spouse immensely. This doesn’t mean they think they have a perfect marriage, or they never have times of crisis and doubt. They probably on some level recognize that they could have married someone else and probably had a satisfactory marriage. I think most people realize that there are not pre-destined soul mates, but that after enough time two people can grow together to the point that they end up functioning like soul mates.
This also doesn’t mean they think they have a perfect understanding of love. If they had to judge another’s relationship, they may or may not feel confident saying "Yes, that couple is in love’ or “no they are not.” Perhaps they can tell the obviously abusive relationship is not real love, but aren’t willing to make a judgement about the couple that might just fight because they are overworked. They just know that they know what works for them.
“Son of God” is used in the Hebrew Bible as an honorific for kings of Israel (it’s used for David and the Davidic line in particular). It’s is also used a few times to refer to Israel as a whole.
In reference to the Nephilim passage, it’s an artificact of a earlier polytheistic origin, whence the “Sons of El” represented deities subordinate to the “Father” god in the Canaanite pantheon, but 2nd Temple era Jewish texts interpret the Nephilim passage as referring to angels and sometimes change the phrase to “sons of Heaven.”
Judaism was greatly influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism after the exile. Zoriastrianism changed Judaism from a henotheistic religion to a monotheistic one, and also gave Judaism it’s eschaton (The concept of an end to the world and a day of Judgement).
I think it’s more accurate to say that Christianity added an element. It’s kind of tendentious to say that other religions are “denying a part of God,” when Christians made that part up themselves, and it isn’t really 100% consonant with normal montheism, truth be known.
I call bulldust on this, I think they all do lead to something, some a re bit lost due to them idolising an individual.
Do you think that Mother Theresa, Nelson Mandela, JFK, Desmond Tutu etc are not all very much in touch with “god”?
No one can say their way is the only way, even me.
Play the ball not the man.
I feel that it is my duty to spread light and love throughout my life. I am not trying to make you anything you are not. Saving people from self loathing is what I do through example.
The book is not the point, it is meant as a guide. All men & women will read something different into it. The search for spiritual fullfilment will always be about what’s true in your heart not about words on a page. You can read about God in any book, if your heart is open.
Are you sure about that? It seems to have some Western influences. e.g. at the Wikipedia page I see:
one of the Venerated entities is Jesus Christ, along with other people like Quan Âm (Guan Yin), Lão Tử (Laozi), Thích-ca Mâu-ni (Buddha), Khổng Tử (Confucius), Quan Vũ (Guan Yu, Lý Thái Bạch (Li Po), and Khương Thái Công (Jiang Ziya).
In a painting depicting the Three Saints signing a covenant between God and humanity, we see Victor Hugo along with Sun Yat-sen and Nguyễn Bỉnh Khiêm.
Of course, from what it says about their theology, it is very different from Christianity, e.g. There are 36 levels of heaven and 72 planets harboring intelligent life, with number one being the closest to heaven and 72 nearest to Hell (Earth is number 68).
Well, it has influences from western religions, Arnold, but it’s not related to them. For a crude analogy, Jesus is maybe a neighbor who throws house parties, but he’s not an uncle, aunt, or grandparent, or even a godfather.
It’s not the same thing. Hindus (largely) consider the Hindu pantheon to be different facets of the same entity. In other words, “God” is broken down into mini-gods for our convenience, not because that’s how things actually are.
For example, Ganesh is the “remover of obstacles”. If you want to be a pilot, but you’re blind, you pray to Ganesh to remove your blindness. However, you’re not actually praying to Ganesh; you’re asking God/the Trimurti/Brahman to put on his obstacle-removing hat.
My understanding of Shangdi is that worshippers prayed to the lower gods to intercede with God on their behalf. Similar to the way Catholics pray to saints to intercede with God on their behalf.
There are some sects which hold that the lower gods are discrete entities, but that’s not the majority view.
That’s pretty much how it works. Hindus believe that all religions are reflections of the same basic truths- and that all G/gods are manifestations of the same being. So Christians who pray to Jesus are doing the same thing as Hindus praying to Ganesh- praying to a manifestation of the supreme being as they interpret him.
If that is the case, then is the term god/dess the properly translated title for these facets or is the term untranslatable to English? I’m confused by the habit of local Hindus I know that use the term “god/ dess” in regards to these entities. They seem to convey more that these are discrete entities that exist independently while still being part of the whole. Similar to the Christian trinity.
People still act as though they’re separate entities most of the time; it’s a philosophical distinction, rather than a practical one.
That said, the facets are devas- quite literally, gods. The Supreme Being deal has a number of different names depending on what period of history you look at, but translates most simply into English as capital-G God.
Well it is about the battles that exist between what god is really about and mankinds’ desire to chase the shiny new things. It is in some senses a moral play about pain and suffering.
I think that the first book looked at evil as coming from satan. Now we all know that satan is a metphor for the black that exists within all of us when we stray from selfless love [or god]. The golden rule and all that stuff.
read it many many years ago so may be a bit rusty.
Is Zoroastrianism really monotheistic, though? I had understood that Zoroastrianism recognizes two divine beings, roughly equal in power, one of whom is good and one of whom is evil.
OK so a man goes with the snake [representing our fall] to see God to ask him to save the world. A good story that in some ways shows that [evil] satan is a part of who we are as humans.
What happens when we no longer believe? Do the gods go away? In some ways this reflects the argument about what is the true god, is the Mormon god the same as the Christian god? well I say yes.
Modern Zoroastrianism identifies as purely monotheistic, with only one creator God. It’s fair to say it was more akin to a dualistic view in ancient times, but Ahura Mazda was still the only object of worship. He was opposed by an evil anti-God (Ahriman), but Ahriman was not on object of worship, but as a daeva - a devil, who was scheduled to be destroyed on the Day of Judgement. He’s basically analogous to Satan in Christian theology. I suppose it’s debatable whether this would have made ancient Zoroastianism truly monotheistic, but the same can be said about Christianity (not only with Satan, but with its pantheon of angels and demons).
The whole idea of a comsic battle between good and evil forces, culminating in a final battle/day of judgement/end of the world, all comes from Zoroastrianism.