All Religions Blaspheme Each Other

 

“. . .because all the major religions in fact blaspheme one another, and ought by their principles to engage in crusade or jihad each against the others – a profoundly disturbing thought. They blaspheme each other in numerous ways. All non-Christians blaspheme Christianity by their refusal to accept the divinity of Christ, because in so doing they reject the Holy Ghost, doing which is described as the most serious of all blasphemies. The New Testament has Christ say “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me”.

This places members of other faiths beyond redemption; they are damned if they know this claim but do not heed it. By an unlucky twist of theology, Protestants have to regard Catholics as blasphemers too, because the latter regard Mary as co-redemptorix with Christ, in violation of the utterance just quoted. All non-Muslims blaspheme Islam because they insult Mohammed by not accepting him as the true Prophet, and by ignoring the teachings of the Koran.

Jews seem the least philosophically troubled by what people of other faiths think about their own – but Orthodox Jews regard themselves as religiously superior to others because others fail in the proper observances, for example by not respecting kosher constraints. All the religions blaspheme each other by regarding the others’ teachings, metaphysics and much of their ethics as false, and their own religion as the only true one.”—A C Grayling

http://www.acgrayling.com/the-secular-and-the-sacred

 

The Trinity, Brothers of Jesus, Was Mary A Constant Virgin?

Hi again quickbeamoffangorn, Good to hear from you again. I’m putting this on column–much easier to edit, allows for more exposition.

OK, I went to your reference link, and I’m still not groking this. I only have Webster’s and Random House dictionaries and not OED. Spiration does not show up in Catholic dictionary.

Your link: “http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm He proceeds, not by way of generation, but by way of spiration, from the Father and the Son together, as from a single principle.”

“Yes, of course Jesus had brothers and sisters, Mary was not a perpetual virgin.”

“Sorry this is simply a misreading of the scriptural data. The former point isn’t proven at all. You are free to hold the latter if you chose, but frankly if one places themselves in St. Joseph’s shoes; I don’t think you’d be keen on bedding down with a women who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. Of course if you dismiss the bible as historically inaccurate then that goes out the window, but then there’s no point in having a discussion either if that’s the case.”

Well on the above point I am going to take Occam’s Razor firmly in hand, place to my throat, and say:

Mathew 1:25: And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her *firstborn son: and he called His name JESUS.

Mathew 12:46-47: While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Mathew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Mark 3:31-32: There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

Mark 6:3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Luke 2:7: And she brought forth her *FIRSTBORN son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Luke 8:20-21 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. And he answered and said unto them, my mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

John: 7:3: His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest..

*To be called the firstborn may imply there are more, and the different scripture selections seem to back this up by referencing “brethren” in a separate manner than “brothers of the congregation.” Just a billion or so Protestant people’s belief. On the point of bedding down with a wife who’d had relations (in a spiritual way) with God-there may be some element of sexuality there you have not considered. 🙂

I consider the Bible historically accurate on most points. People, places, and a number of events, have been shown to be true by archaeological and other sciences. However these same sciences are showing that a lot of Genesis events are not. Of course there is controversy about the sciences intruding in religion, but I feel it is a legitimate area of research.

I’m not even close to being an arian–Sikh’s are weird. That whole mustache and beard thing is creepy. 🙂

LOL, I don’t know if your having a bit of fun at my expense on this one or not. Arianism don’t have to do with Sikh’s. It was the heresy that rocked Christianity in the 4th century.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

I think there may be too many arians around. When you mentioned this term, I immediately thought of the Indian sub-continent. This is from Wikipedia:

The Arain are an agricultural caste settled mainly in the Punjab (Pakistan), with significant numbers also in the Sindh (Pakistan). They are chiefly associated with farming (market gardening), traditionally being small landowners or zamindars

Being slightly dyslexic, I transposed the i and a. Well at least we got a laugh from it. 🙂


I think I do hold the Sola Scriptura position on most things I read in the Bible, as do a lot of people of the Protestant faiths. Although I am not of those faiths, I do follow most of their logic in regards to deciphering Scripture

“The Trinity was fought over for years before it was canonized; it was a human thing. Were it a God-driven message, there would have been no opposition.”

Now here you appear to move into what appears to be a Monothelites position (one will) another heresy only that was condemned in the late 7th century.

Not believing in a Trinity does put me in the category of Monotheism. Me, a Heretic? I’ll fight you all the way to the stake. 🙂

Wasn’t Jesus ministry itself opposed by religious humans? Does it follow that His ministry is therefore human driven? I don’t think that point stands.

The ministry of Jesus was opposed by the Jewish clergy, the Sadducees, etc.. It seems, from Scripture, that the common folk followed him

” Remember, God was supposed to be directing this thing. People were tortured for their non-belief in the Trinity. Does that seem like a Godly enterprise?”

Agreed. This was political then anything else. The Trinitarians were tortured, beaten, exiled and killed by the Arian emperors and when Trinitarian emperors came to power they in turn applied the same method to the Arian believers. Their rational was to create political stablility as a unifying principle for the empire.
Most of history used that principle. The church isn’t excused in going along with the states methods, but that does not invalidate it either IMO.

First, I don’t think there were any non-Trinitarian emperors. Emperors previous to Constantine did not believe in the Christian God. Constantine was the first emperor to convert to Christianity; all the others were pagan. He was the first emperor to legalize Christianity. When Constantine converted the Roman Empire to Christianity he was not a hard believer of one way or another, regarding the Trinity. At the end of the Nicene council he told the members to decide on Trinitarianism or monotheism, they choose the former, and there followed a number of years where the monotheists (arians) were tortured and killed for their beliefs–by The Mother Church, with Rome’s help of course. The 50 Bibles that Constantine commissioned at Nicene’s end contained the Trinity. Again I will ask; does that seem like a Godly enterprise?

“Regarding my using Bible literalism for exposition-Hey, priests and ministers have been doing it for centuries. ”

Selectively yes. I’m not saying it hasn’t been used, I simply saying it’s flawed.

Flawed or not it is used extensively by Protestants, and I feel no shame in using the same tactic.

“I think if this were indeed real (Trinity, Dualism, etc.) that there would not be the dichotomy we see in Scripture.”

Again this goes back to the reformation idea of sola scriptura. Your free to chose that position, just be aware it’s a 16th century creation.

Christianity has down through time constantly adjusted positions. I disagree on the Trinity and I don’t feel apprehension about it. But then I am not leading a billion people.

“There should not be a special class of priests necessary to explain God’s words or meanings.”

Easily understandable given the times we live in. As the secular world increases and the influence of Christianity continues to decline, the quality of all the Christians will increase, because true sacrifices will be required of them- especially in first world countries.

Interesting poll came out last week that said 45% of religious people have, in the last year, “changed” their religion. I wonder what is going on?

Been a pleasure “talking” to you “quick.”

Add to Technorati Favorites