Biblical Monotheism

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it that most religions in the world see all faiths as potential paths to enlightenment except the biblical religions? Isn't it sort of narrowminded for them to think that only their path is the truth and that all others will burn in hell? Even considering the percentage difference, most religious conflict is caused by biblical groups. One of the few times non-biblical groups are violent in modern times is when they are defending themselves from biblical groups (ie the hindustanis protecting themselves from the islamic pakistanis and bangalis). Don't you think that a belief system that believes all faiths are good would be less likely to cause terror than a faith that believes only they are the true path? Isn't there such a thing as "diversity"? In this day and age where we are tought to not be racist or sexist isn't it still ironic that people are so religiously bigoted by thinking everyone but them goes to hell or are infidels?? If I was a member of a faith that believed only men went to heaven and that women had to take testosterone supplements in order to not burn in hell, i'd be sexist. If i believed in a faith where only white people went to heaven and people of ethnicity had to bleach their skin white so they wouldn't go to hell, i'd be racist. Yet, religious biblicals always preach that the only way to heaven is by believing in god, allah, or jesus. Isn't that religious bigotry? You'd think that by now in the year 2008 people would be beyond that type of narrowmindedness.

Most non-biblical religions tend to be a variant of polytheism, and polytheistic religions usually are more tolerant. Just think about ancient Rome, the Romans would accept anyone else's gods so long as their own gods were honored. The biblical monotheistic religions of Judaism and Christianity would not accept such a system though because to them it was not an issue of different gods but false ones.

How can a faith, an irrational assertion of a particular dogma, be considered more or less narrow-minded? The issue isn't narrow-mindedness so much as the assertion "this path is the correct path".

Yes, a belief system that says that one way is correct is more likely to cause terror than a belief system that says that multiple ways are correct. The issue is that the ethics and meta-ethics of such a belief system would cause it to not care about what is more likely to cause terror.

Diversity exists... but I think the term you search for is tolerance, the only way things are more or less diverse is by changing the parts of a given system.

No, it really isn't ironic. Sexism and racism both tend to refer to certain traits of the secular society, religion refers to truth statements beyond secular society. Part of dispelling sexism and racism was finding out truths to counter those ideas, and a change in legal elements towards freedom to rise and fall. There is no way to prove who goes to heaven or to hell though and changing the religions themselves would be to force changes upon doctrines that some people within that doctrine are sure to oppose.

Actually, you'd simply be a member of a weird cult if you did that. Some might call your belief sexist, but really, I wouldn't give a crap and just call it stupid and perhaps cruel. Really though, I would judge you on your personal behavior towards women. If you forced your ideas on women then yes, sexist, if you were tolerant towards women as a good number of believers are to those who believe differently then no.

Some religions actually have had beliefs where skin color played a role in human nature. I think the book of Mormon has some passages saying that black skin was God's curse and that interbreeding between blacks and whites was against God's will.

The issue is that the religion claim is more of a truth statement claim. Let's just say that a biologist comes up with the claim that white people are stupider than asian people, or women are less talented than males, and he claims that this is a truth about the nature of existence according to some element of biological theory or statistical happening, well, I would not necessarily call him a sexist or a racist. I imagine that some would, but the issue really falls down to a theory and a claim of truth. Perhaps this should be weighted against other claims of truth, but heck, given we are talking about religions, the proving of truth really does not seem to have a lot to do with the issue. Frankly though, I see no reason why people'd be past this thing, what makes a tolerant religion better than a non-tolerant religion? Nothing, you are simply assuming it is better based upon your own ethical stances by importing logic from one part of human existence to a part that is alien to that and different by nature. Really, I would sooner call you intolerant than call a Christian or a Muslim to necessarily be intolerant, because your argument is towards a lack of toleration towards a set of truth claims that have very little bearing with many things.

It's not narrowminded. It's logical. If two religions contradict each other, then it would be illogical to believe that they both teach the truth about God. Christians believe that other faiths can be potential paths to enlightenment but Christianity isn't about finding enlightenment or feeling good about oneself. It's about learning the truth and living to please God so that God will reward those who follow his teachings and commands with eternal life in heaven.



The alleged 9/11 hijackers were alleged to be Muslim. However, claiming to follow a religion does NOT mean that one is actually a follower of that religion. Sociopaths and evildoers can claim anything they want, such as being a good Christian or Muslim, but it doesn't make them one and their actions have nothing to do with the religion they claim.



It's not bigotry. A "Christian" who preaches that everyone will go to heaven and no one will go to Hell is NOT a Christian. If God taught that only people who follow his teachings and obey his will and live to please him will go to heaven and those who don't will go to hell, then his followers must believe and preach that or else find a new religion. Christianity has been around for 2,000 years. Why should people change religions just because some modern liberals don't like what it teaches because it doesn't conform to their new politically correct views? That seems intollerant and narrowminded.

[quote]Yet, religious biblicals always preach that the only way to heaven is by believing in god, allah, or jesus. []/quote]

I have to object to this and some of your other generalizations. Judaism has no hell and does not hold that the only way to Gan Eden is believing in G!d. It holds that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world-to-come.

I think the larger issue is that both Islam and Christianity attempted to take a tribal religion and interpret its unique covenantal language universally.


And still I would object further because there are liberal Christians and Muslims for whom not everything you say holds true.

Maybe i did come off as being somewhat narrowminded and that's not what i meant. I just personally find it insulting whaen someone believes that what i believe is wrong and that only what they believe is right and therefore i must adhere to their beliefs. Not all christians and muslims believe only their faiths are correct. My GF is christian and she believes all paths are devine. I guess what i meant was that i didn't like ultra-religious attitude. Hindus, buddhists, taoists, wiccans, and even satanists just believe "to each his own". Religious christians, muslims, and the like typically (in my experiance) think that it's their way or the highway. Very black and white. I believe that there is only one truth, but the ultimate truth is too complex for little humans to grasp. All faiths have a variation of their opinion of the truth. All faiths are part of a puzzle. If you look up into a tree, it looks like all the branches are seperate. But as you look lower, you see that all the branches connect to the same trunk. Sorry for the analogy, my fellow aspies!

Let's just put it this way: by believing in any truth statement, you believe that contradictory statements are wrong, and so much as you believe people should pursue truth, you also believe that other people should believe as you do. Really though, why are you offended that other people think you are wrong? You only make the belief-based claim that they are wrong in return, and neither way really does more involving the nature of truth.

Not only that, but really, your objection to the understanding that there is only one way is your counter-claim in terms of faith that the truth is something different from their understanding. Really, neither side has actually proven anything, both are making assertions, and you are merely asserting that you are more right because of some elements of our culture. In essence, you are asserting a different faith and a different religion of some form.

I agree. I don't practice any religion but i was raised jewish. I don't believe in judaism though. I remember as a kid being told that i needed to be saved or i would burn in hell for not accepting jesus. I just find it offfensive to think that they are implying that my grandfthers (who were good people) are suffering in torment for not accepting the "true path". They want me to be christian maybe, but i don't want to accept a religion that says my dead relatives are burning in torment which they brought upon themselves for not beliveing in the "true religion". Do you see what I mean? I know not all christians believe that you have to accept jesus to go to heaven. Not all muslims are terrorists who think you must accept Allah. Not all jews are ultra-zionists who believe they are the chosen people. But the ultra religionists in those groups unfortunately seem to speak for everyone.

Well, part of the implication of there statement is that your ancestors AREN'T good people and that this relates to the fact they failed to accept the "true path". Part of this issue does go back to the foundations of morality, and you are failing to recognize that with diverse definitions of good, some people that you consider good will end up being considered evil. The issue then falls down to what is true and what isn't true, according to their scriptures, the fact that your grandfathers are suffering in torment is a fact, this is true in those scriptures whether you want it to be or not. The question then falls down to the truth value of these scriptures, but that really is not your concern so much as a subjective preference for a certain idea. Calling an idea true or false based upon purely subjective elements is intellectual dishonesty.

OK. I somewhat get the feeling that you are one of those people that believe that only through christianity can you go to heaven or be saved. If that is your belief, then that is your belief. I'm sure you may very well be a nice guy (or girl) but I can't say that I'm not somewhat offended. Don't take this the wrong way, but if you are a person that believes only his/her path is the good one and all others are doomed to hell just because they don't believe in the same path as you, I feel kinda sorry for you. When I was younger that kind of stuff offended me alot. Now that I'm older I can just see that religionists like that are just naive. Here's an analogy that I wrote earlier:

When you look up into a tree you see many differen branches. One branch may have more leaves than the others. One may be curved. One branch may hang down. They all look like just seperate different branches. But when you look lower, you see that ALL of the branches connect to one large trunk!

Faith is faith. Yes, there can only be one truth. But like i said, humans are just human. We don't have the level of brainpower to see the whole truth. ALL religions are a puzzle piece of the truth. Why do you think so many religions experience religious miracles?! Spirituality is when you see everyone connected instead of just individual beings.

Does my personal belief matter? I am your critic attacking your logic, my own suppositions on salvation do not matter, only the fact that I believe that your supposition needs to be reworked. After all, no matter what my belief is, I also would assert that it cannot change the validity of my logic on this issue. You can be offended by whatever you want though I suppose, frankly, some people find their socioeconomic background offensive. Once again, you cannot prove naivety, as you are not disproving an assertion, only trying to assert I am wrong with another assertion.

But how do you know that all branches are on the same tree? You assert that the branches *can* be on the same tree but we would not necessarily know, but what if part of one branch IS the claim that it alone IS the tree? How do we deal with that? Either the branch is unhealthy or it is not a part of that tree. You assert that the branch is unhealthy, I assert that the health of the branch is unknowable as is the existence of the supposed tree that all other religions connect to. It is still a faith based claim and relies solely on whether or not one accepts your faith, which claims to know the answer despite also asserting our inability to know the answer.

Ok? You still are just making metaphysical assertions rather than proving anything. Why can't human beings see the whole truth? Why must all religions be a puzzle piece? Who says that any religion has ever had a miracle or that all of them have had them or even that these miracles all came from benevolence? Finally:
spir-i-tu-al (spiri-choo-l)adj. 1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial. 2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul. 3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific. 4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred. 5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

Nothing there that really says that spirituality must related to everyone being connected instead of just individual beings. If the rest of humanity died, then why couldn't the one remaining man still experience spiritual things?

The heart of the matter isn't that certain theologies are wrong, but rather that you interpret everything through your own theology which states them as wrong. The fact that you do not analyze yourself strongly enough using ample doses of skepticism leads to these problems. If you took a more rationalistic, skeptical view then seeing through your own claim would be easier, and it does not take a fundy to recognize that it does have logical flaws.

Religious institutions are highly political. They want to prove they're better than other faiths, or they're the only true faith for obvious reasons.

No that's a generalization too. Buddhism is often a missionizing religion. Some forms of buddhism have various hells and the very idea that by rejecting the teachings of the buddha one becomes trapped in samsara is hardly "to each his own."