On Faith and Salvation

[Carlo Borromeo]

---

All of them insisting that each is right, when in fact none of them can see the whole elephant because they refuse to exchange places and feel from the other blind man's perspective.

thanks for the elephant analogy...mao na sad unta na ako next post...ang dissent even among Christians...kon kinsa jud insakto...

Thanks.

But I'm just waiting for some idiot to completely miss my point and say:

"So, you're saying that God is an elephant?"

and

"If God created us in his image, does that mean that we too are elephants?"

[Gwynhuever]

toink...ha ha ha...yaw binuang diha bro...kinasing kasing baya ni akong pag post dire sa imong thread didto ra ba sa pikas nag pa membro na lang ko sa pop corn club kay wa nay pag asa for objective discussion...i am hoping dire puede pa....

[Carlo Borromeo]

toink...ha ha ha...yaw binuang diha bro...kinasing kasing baya ni akong pag post dire sa imong thread didto ra ba sa pikas nag pa membro na lang ko sa pop corn club kay wa nay pag asa for objective discussion...i am hoping dire puede pa....

I'm hoping, but not expecting too much.

Here's another set of thoughts, but not mine, and I'm hoping that there will be people who can give their thoughts on the matter:

Karl Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational — religion is a delusion and a worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by rendering them servile and more amenable to accepting the status quo. In the preface to his doctoral dissertation, Marx adopted as his motto the words of the Greek hero Prometheus who defied the gods to bring fire to humanity: “I hate all gods,� with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.�

Third, religion is hypocritical. Although it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries. In the Middle Ages the Catholic Church preached about heaven, but acquired as much property and power as possible.

Martin Luther preached the ability of each individual to interpret the Bible, but sided with aristocratic rulers and against peasants who fought against economic and social oppression. According to Marx, this new form of Christianity, Protestantism, was a production of new economic forces as early capitalism developed. New economic realities required a new religious superstructure by which it could be justified and defended.

Marx’s most famous statement about religion comes from a critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law:

Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions.
This is often misunderstood, perhaps because the full passage is rarely used: the boldface in the above is my own, showing what is usually quoted. The italics are in the original. In some ways, the quote is presented dishonestly because saying “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature...� leaves out that it is also the “heart of a heartless world.� This is more a critique of society that has become heartless and is even a partial validation of religion that it tries to become its heart. In spite of his obvious dislike of and anger towards religion, Marx did not make religion the primary enemy of workers and communists. Had Marx regarded religion as a more serious enemy, he would have devoted more time to it.

Marx is saying that religion is meant to create illusory fantasies for the poor. Economic realities prevent them from finding true happiness in this life, so religion tells them this is OK because they will find true happiness in the next life. Marx is not entirely without sympathy: people are in distress and religion does provide solace, just as people who are physically injured receive relief from opiate-based drugs.

The problem is that opiates fail to fix a physical injury — you only forget your pain and suffering. This can be fine, but only if you are also trying to solve the underlying causes of the pain. Similarly, religion does not fix the underlying causes of people’s pain and suffering — instead, it helps them forget why they are suffering and causes them to look forward to an imaginary future when the pain will cease instead of working to change circumstances now. Even worse, this “drug� is being administered by the oppressors who are responsible for the pain and suffering.

[iron_golem]

please take note of my post carefully. I am not bashing the Catholic faith in particular but the idea of organized religion in general.

But the Catholic faith is an organized religion, so it gets the bashing as well.

the Jews have Moses and the Hebrew prophets....the Christians have Jesus ...Muhammad for the Muslims....Khrisna for the Hindus....Gautama for the Buddhists ( ug uban pa...ang mga major players lang atong i consider kay mosamot na ka complicated) ....all these sages...the common thread through their lives and teachings is love, compassion, understanding and respect for all living creatures. All of these messengers had the same message....na twist na lang ang truth when organized religion come into play....

To my knowledge I have to disagree that that these messengers had the same message. I would rather say some of these messengers hold an amount of truth but some falsity as well. Only one had the message of all truth and exempted of any falsity--the Jesus of Christians.
why so?
1) you say sages, but Jesus was not only a human sage, He was also God and therefore can never say any falsity (unless you deny the divinity of Jesus). The other messengers (except the prophets of the Jews, which Jesus did not contradict) are liable to falsity.
2) Muhammad fostered prayer and worship to the one true God the father, which is true, but did not claim he can save people if they believe in him. Muhammadans also believe that Jesus was only a prophet, but not God, which directly contradicts Christianity's truth, so therefore Muhammad has taught a falsity.
3) Hindus not only have Krishna but Shiva, Vishnu, Devi and all the other dieties
4) Buddhism teaches one can save oneself (self-enlightenment, awakening) and no real concept of a God and creation

I could agree that there is a general "theme" of love, compassion, understanding and respect... even you can count the secular humanists of today as well (who do not hold any beliefs in a supreme being at all) to preach the same. But when it comes to hard questions like "is there a god, and if so, is there one God or many gods? is there life after death? do we die just once or do we experience life and death as a continuous cycle? is there heaven and hell?"... you would have to examine if that religion can claim the truth about such hard questions. Fact is, these sages/messengers cannot claim absolute truth like that one about salvation. Only Christianity's founder claimed absolute truth about salvation, the others are found lacking or do not even have a concept about salvation. To the Jews, Jesus did not say they are doomed, for he said "I did not come to break the law (the law of Moses which is the law of God), but to fulfill it.." God will always be faithful to His chosen people and will always honor the old law. But to the other religions, Jesus said exclusively "except through me". So if you know of Jesus, and you know of all these other religions, which is your pick?

We do not decide for ourselves what is true. Our convenience for what we like to be true clashes with all other subjective ideas of what is true. There is only one truth, the rest cannot contradict that particular truth. We can know this truth through faith and reason. Take away reason and it's what you call despicable blind faith. Take away faith and you don't have to worry about what being 'spiritual' means.

If we will let ourselves decide what is true, because of how we feel or how we convince ourselves of our own perception of truth, we unknowingly place ourselves in danger of believing a falsehood. If we subject ourselves to our own capabilities at truth, how sure are we that the truth we arrive for ourselves is the truth about God? It's so tolerant to say "seek God through your own way". But how can we be sure that we do not deceive ourselves along the way? Why is it that both can believe in the same God but one says there's nothing wrong about abortion while the other says that it is a grave offense against God?

That is why we need to be taught about God. We need a teaching authority, which is what the Church does, not through it's own initiative, but through Jesus initiative to all his disciples (the early church!) to teach all men the truth about God! Not to twist it! Jesus did not want everyone to wander aimlessly for themselves, Jesus wanted his disciples to teach those who could not teach themselves!

The early church needs to be organized as well! Why so, because they need to agree amongst themselves about their teachings. And that is what the councils were all about. If they were not organized, then everyone of the converts could challenge their authority in claiming what is true and what is not. The church needs to be organized because it needs to correct errors and to preserve truths! The assurance that the Church herself would not err and not twist anything? By Jesus promise to protect her through the Holy Spirit for all time. "I will not leave you orphans." "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'" There you have it. Take it or leave it.

All these is what I stand for and believe for; it's not a mere series of opinions, it's a statement of beliefs. Loving my neighbor means leading them to truth. If they would choose for themselves otherwise, then I do not wish to impose it on them (but in fact God wishes so) but at least plant the seeds. I know it's not me or other bigoted folks out there that can change hearts, but the Holy Spirit.

[Carlo Borromeo]

If you believe:

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in His own image, in The Image Of God created He him; male and female created He them." (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV)

If God created Man in his own image, doesn't it also mean that in order for Man to catch a glimpse of God all Man has to do is to look at Himself?

[weedmeister2]

@ Carlo:

So, you're saying that God is an elephant?



Blasphemous boy! You will rot in purgatory where satan is a HIPPO!

[Carlo Borromeo]

[mannyamador]

If God created Man in his own image, doesn't it also mean that in order for Man to catch a glimpse of God all Man has to do is to look at Himself?

If you refer to the physical image, NO. That's interpreting the Bible literally. That is precisely the manner in which the Bible should NOT be interpreted.

[mannyamador]

The fact is, Christians themselves can't even agree amongst themselves what it means to be a Christian. How many branches of Christianity are there? Countless, and new ones sprouting everyday. Each with their own interpretation of what it means to be Christian.

Well, let's be accurate. SOME Christians can't agree. But they comprise a minority of Christians. The Catholic Church has ONE consistent body of doctrine, and the number of Catholics outnumbers ALL other churches combined. I repeat: ALL other churches combined. So the MAJORITY of Christians DO agree on a body of doctrine.

[Gwynhuever]

If we will let ourselves decide what is true, because of how we feel or how we convince ourselves of our own perception of truth, we unknowingly place ourselves in danger of believing a falsehood.Â* If we subject ourselves to our own capabilities at truth, how sure are we that the truth we arrive for ourselves is the truth about God?Â* It's so tolerant to say "seek God through your own way".Â* But how can we be sure that we do not deceive ourselves along the way?Â* Why is it that both can believe in the same God but one says there's nothing wrong about abortion while the other says that it is a grave offense against God?Â*

bro..thank you for your post...it made me pause and think...you had some very good points there too....anyway stuff like this is very difficult to discuss on a forum such as this one...kay we have limitations...on all the points you raised about the sages...i also have "counter statements" but i'd rather not go into that...kay mag tuyok2 na sad ta....i wish we can discuss our views over coffee one of these days because i find your way of defending your faith very objective...and as a result it does not get me defensive...

anyway i just picked one part of your post (in quotes) to answer....

bro it is also important to realize the truth of an idea can not be established based only on the authority of its proponents...usahay the very religious leaders we look up to... because of their positions no longer engage in actively seeking the truth....what i am trying to say here is that only when individuals are free to challenge authority does spiritual growth become possible....i believe in Jesus...he is the best for me....but i also accept that the bible instead of being eyewitness accounts or fact based chronicle ...is only a collection of inspiring stories....i'd rather not put down into words the inconsistencies....because i do not want to scrutinize the bible and find faults...because as i said inspite of it all i get inspiration from it....what i am really trying to stress here is that the greatest religion there is.. is the one that ensures we wipe the tears from every eye and bring hope and decency to everyday life....