If truth is absoluute then why are therre so many different religions?

[gord44]

I do have a problem with an ideology that excludes the God of the Bible just because He doesn't neatly fit in the "box"

That doesn't make any sense. The God of the Bible is excluded because he is not observable using the five senses. I am not saying that he doesn't exist, but to claim the God of the Bible has to be included in a process that involves observation of AND only of things that can be observed is silly. If God appeared and said 'here I am, start your research with me' it would be a different story. It is in fact the religionist who forces things to fit neatly into a box by saying if research or a philosophy isn't in their Holy Book, then it cannot be, EVEN if it IS observable.

 

[RLBeers]

To paraphrase a past President, is kind of depends on your meaning of the word "truth". Actually Jesus, Peter, Paul and John, not to mention a couple of other New Testament letter writers deal with this subject. Jesus was the first though, and he spoke about a whole lot of so-called truths being spread about but he was also very detailed on how narrow the path to Heaven was. One God, One Sacrifice, and only One Way to go, everything else is an utter waste of time.

 

[LoAmmi]

Also, did you try to slip one passed us with that comment? While true, God did give the Israelites commandments to sacrifice animals for sins- and other events. In the NT Jesus is both the fulfillment of the law and prophets and He was the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. There is now no need to offer burnt offerings or sacrifices bcuz what God desires most from us is a broken spirit and a contrite heart. (Ps. 51:17, Is. 66:2). But without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (in Both Ot & NT).
Also, check out Lev. 6:24- the 'sin' offering/sacrifice. There must be one bcus God commanded it. How, then, do the Jewish people today get forgiveness for their sins now that there is no modern-day shedding of blood and no temple to perform any sacrifices?

Slip by? Oh no.

Psalm 51:
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.
14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
you who are God my Savior,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
15 Open my lips, Lord,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

2 Samuel 12
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin; you will not die. 14 But since you have shown total contempt for the Lord by this affair, the son that is born to you must die.” 15 Then Nathan went home.

No sacrifice brought there, no blood. Unless you want to count the baby as the sacrifice but that would be contrary to the idea of animal sacrifice.

Leviticus 6 doesn't say that's the only way to be forgiven. Now, how do I get forgiveness? The same way David did.

Hosea 14:2
Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

A prophet of the Lord, right there, saying that we can pay the sacrifice with the vows of our lips as this translation says.

 

[cloudyday2]

Slip by? Oh no.

Psalm 51:
13 Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
so that sinners will turn back to you.
14 Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God,
you who are God my Savior,
and my tongue will sing of your righteousness.
15 Open my lips, Lord,
and my mouth will declare your praise.
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 My sacrifice, O God, is a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart
you, God, will not despise.

2 Samuel 12
13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin; you will not die. 14 But since you have shown total contempt for the Lord by this affair, the son that is born to you must die.” 15 Then Nathan went home.

No sacrifice brought there, no blood. Unless you want to count the baby as the sacrifice but that would be contrary to the idea of animal sacrifice.

Leviticus 6 doesn't say that's the only way to be forgiven. Now, how do I get forgiveness? The same way David did.

Hosea 14:2
Take with you words and return to the LORD; say to him, “Take away all iniquity; accept what is good, and we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

A prophet of the Lord, right there, saying that we can pay the sacrifice with the vows of our lips as this translation says.

Here is an idea: maybe forgiveness or atonement is not a state change in God but a state change in the sinner? The sacrifice of the animal, the penances, the fines, or whatever are designed to satisfy the sinner that God forgives him/her instead of to satisfy God. The broken and contrite heart will not be despised because they are a state change in the sinner that allows him/her to finally accept the forgiveness that God was already offering from the beginning. So the punishment for the sin is unnecessary and irrelevant to God, but it is necessary to satisfy the sinner.

 

[smaneck]

I do have a problem with an ideology that excludes the God of the Bible just because He doesn't neatly fit in the "box"

My observation is that it is the biblical literalists who are keeping God in a box.

 

[cloudyday2]

My observation is that it is the biblical literalists who are keeping God in a box.

The only belief that doesn't put God in a box is nonbelief - atheism.
Any religion is simply idolatry if God actually exists.

 

[Cearbhall]

Cearbhall, I didn't see that on the links you offered.

Of course you didn't.

I'm not sure what to tell you, then. No one is going to take the footprints seriously in 2015.

 

[smaneck]

But without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (in Both Ot & NT).

Only Hebrews says that, not the Tanakh. Yes, there are sin offerings in the Tanakh but nowhere does say that there is no forgiveness of sin without it.

 

[smaneck]

The only belief that doesn't put God in a box is nonbelief - atheism.
Any religion is simply idolatry if God actually exists.

I'm not sure that is true. It seems to me that the god they don't believe in is one that fits in a box as well.

 

[smaneck]

The other problem also being that the gaps get smaller and smaller.

The gaps in what we know about evolution and the origins of the universe are certainly getting smaller. But there are still areas which science, by its very nature, cannot tell us about. I cannot tell us whether God exists. It cannot tell us whether there is such a thing as revelation. And I would argue it cannot tell us what is moral either.

 

[LoAmmi]

The gaps in what we know about evolution and the origins of the universe are certainly getting smaller. But there are still areas which science, by its very nature, cannot tell us about. I cannot tell us whether God exists. It cannot tell us whether there is such a thing as revelation. And I would argue it cannot tell us what is moral either.

But it's almost always evolution and the Universe that the so called "G-d of the gaps" fills. People who look for Him in the gaps never mention the other stuff because those of us who would talk about what you're talking about aren't usually anti-science.

 

[smaneck]

But it's almost always evolution and the Universe that the so called "G-d of the gaps" fills. People who look for Him in the gaps never mention the other stuff because those of us who would talk about what you're talking about aren't usually anti-science.

Too true.

 

[cloudyday2]

I'm not sure that is true. It seems to me that the god they don't believe in is one that fits in a box as well.

It probably depends on the type of atheist. Some atheists claim to have no opinion about God, because God must have a definition before an opinion can be offered ("ignostic"). Then there are the people who just don't care if God exists ("apatheist"). Some claim that it is impossible to know if God exists ("agnostic").

I'm mostly an "apatheist". I think God might exist, but if God exists, then He apparently wants us to be atheists IMO.

 

[cloudyday2]

^I agree that my belief that "God wants us to be atheists" is putting God in a box too.

 

[smaneck]

Some claim that it is impossible to know if God exists ("agnostic").

I find that a completely rational position to take. But I don't class agnostics with atheists.

 

[LoAmmi]

Here is an idea: maybe forgiveness or atonement is not a state change in God but a state change in the sinner? The sacrifice of the animal, the penances, the fines, or whatever are designed to satisfy the sinner that God forgives him/her instead of to satisfy God. The broken and contrite heart will not be despised because they are a state change in the sinner that allows him/her to finally accept the forgiveness that God was already offering from the beginning. So the punishment for the sin is unnecessary and irrelevant to God, but it is necessary to satisfy the sinner.

Doesn't seem like something I would say was a problem. As I posted, David was forgiven due to a change of heart. Hosea says that we offer bulls with our lips showing that we can "sacrifice" with prayer. I don't think we can be forgiven without that change of heart though.

 

[cloudyday2]

I find that a completely rational position to take. But I don't class agnostics with atheists.

There seem to be at least two different definitions for agnostic:
(1) certain that it is impossible to know if gods exist
(2) uncertain if gods exist
By definition (1), a devout Catholic might also be agnostic, because he/she is certain that it is impossible to know if gods exist, but he/she believes emotionally.
By definition (2), an agnostic is just another atheist waiting for some evidence.

 

[smaneck]

By definition (2), an agnostic is just another atheist waiting for some evidence.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[cloudyday2]

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me.

The vast majority of atheists are "agnostic atheists" as opposed to "gnostic atheists". "Gnostic atheists" are convinced that gods are impossible - usually by showing a contradiction between the definition of the gods and reality (e.g. the problem of evil). "Agnostic atheists" don't believe gods exist, but they don't think gods are impossible. It is also possible to be a "agnostic theist" if you believe gods exist, but you accept that it is possible gods don't exist.

When people say they are "agnostic" it doesn't necessarily mean they are undecided about the existence of gods. Believing something is possible is not the same as believing something is plausible. An agnostic usually doesn't believe in gods and therefore qualifies as an atheist.

Of course, people also use the word "agnostic" to mean "undecided" like being agnostic between chocolate and vanilla. I guess the only way to know is to ask each person what they mean.