Religious Rituals

[cacian]

differences and similarities.

I find the holding of the bible in a court hearing most intriquing.
I am not sure what the actual true significance of it is but it makes think of the Koran book which is not to be held or touched apparently unless you are clean/purified.
They are both similar in the sense that they are the 'words of God' which lives one like me wondering how many Gods are there and different in that one is handled lightly and afidavi randomly and the other is not easily accessible to be touched.

Another ritual is that the picture of Jesus is displayed on a cross, painted, on frescos and so widely visualised with long hair, white and semi-naked but in Islam the prophet Mohamed is never seen because he is I quote: too divine/percious to be portrayed or painted because there is no one like him.

Similarity is they are both prophets, differences one is internationally visualised and the other is never to be seen.

and last but not least in catholic religion one is not to divorce easily for one has to wait at least 5 years before is able to break the marriage union and in Islam one can simply pronounce the sentence I quote :
'I divorce you' three times by a male and one is quit of this union.

Both of similar is that they demand a union by a sanctity of a God and the difference is that one is near impossible to break and the other is done on a whim.( Hurray I'd say marry the islamist way at least one gets to divorce without the need a lawyer. That one single benefit out of it.) sorry I just could not help it.


I find these rituals very interesting.

Any other rituals you wish to share would be most welcome.

[BienvenuJDC]

Actually the Bible teaches us not to swear by physical things, but just to be honest. Therefore the ritual of swearing "on the Bible" violates the teaching that is within it. The Bible teaches us to JUST TELL THE TRUTH.

Matthew 5:36-37
36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

[cacian]

Actually the Bible teaches us not to swear by physical things, but just to be honest. Therefore the ritual of swearing "on the Bible" violates the teaching that is within it. The Bible teaches us to JUST TELL THE TRUTH.

Matthew 5:36-37
36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

Thank you Bien.
What about lying whilst holding the bible? Is there any mention of that because it is easy to just say yes or no.
what does whatever is more mean? is this insinuating one's lies?

[BienvenuJDC]

Thank you Bien.
What about lying whilst holding the bible? Is there any mention of that because it is easy to just say yes or no.
what does whatever is more mean? is this insinuating one's lies?

If you go to another passage in Matthew, it shows that the sect of the Pharisees had devised a list of "rules". If you swear by the temple, it didn't mean anything, but if you swear by the GOLD in the temple, then you had to uphold your promise. (The Pharisees were materialistic therefore the GOLD was more important than that which was spiritual). They would use semantics to deceive. So I believe that He is saying here, that whatever rules are more than that of JUST BEING HONEST, they are rules devised for evil. Which clearly the Pharisees were using to be deceitful.

[cafolini]

Allah is not to be sensed (physically) by any mortal. Yet, Mohamed was definitely a mortal and is supposed to be buried in Medina (Yahtrib, the city of his birth). All these guys are funny jokers. And it is obvious that they no longer count where the action is.
Under the same light, the statistics that give them very large numbers of adepts are falser and falser in reality. I wouldn't waste my time with them.

[BienvenuJDC]

Allah is not to be sensed (physically) by any mortal. Yet, Mohamed was definitely a mortal and is supposed to be buried in Medina (Yahtrib, the city of his birth). All these guys are funny jokers. And it is obvious that they no longer count where the action is.
Under the same light, the statistics that give them very large numbers of adepts are falser and falser in reality. I wouldn't waste my time with them.

I'm glad that I don't serve Allah then. Jehovah desires to be reunited by His people. It's peculiar that people often confuse these two very different personalities.

[cacian]

I'm glad that I don't serve Allah then. Jehovah desires to be reunited by His people. It's peculiar that people often confuse these two very different personalities.

who is Jehovah?

[cacian]

Allah is not to be sensed (physically) by any mortal. Yet, Mohamed was definitely a mortal and is supposed to be buried in Medina (Yahtrib, the city of his birth). All these guys are funny jokers. And it is obvious that they no longer count where the action is.
Hi cafolini I don't get what you mean...can you explain a bit more what you mean ''these guys''?


Under the same light, the statistics that give them very large numbers of adepts are falser and falser in reality. I wouldn't waste my time with them.
again here I am not following.

[cacian]

If you go to another passage in Matthew, it shows that the sect of the Pharisees had devised a list of "rules". If you swear by the temple, it didn't mean anything, but if you swear by the GOLD in the temple, then you had to uphold your promise. (The Pharisees were materialistic therefore the GOLD was more important than that which was spiritual). They would use semantics to deceive. So I believe that He is saying here, that whatever rules are more than that of JUST BEING HONEST, they are rules devised for evil. Which clearly the Pharisees were using to be deceitful.

I have never heard of the Pharisees until now.
They are in the same as the Sadducees.
Did they exist during Jesus time?
I don't understand what you mean by
''they would use semantics to deceive''.

[Paulclem]

When I first became a Buddhist, I didn't really understand the purpose of the Buddhist rituals, and put it down to the reverence to The Buddha before we got to the important stuff - the meditation.

I gradually came to realise that the ritual gives structure to your practice. A Buddhist's motivation is what makes a meditation Buddhist, and this is easily generated when following the prayers and chanting. It acts as a reminder of the practice, is often a communal part of a group meditation - which gives it a special shared meaning, and enables - with practice - your mind to develop the right knd of motivation and focus. It ultimately makes the meditation more powerful.

[cafolini]

Hi cafolini I don't get what you mean...can you explain a bit more what you mean ''these guys''?


again here I am not following.

The Arabs, these guys, produced Islam to become independent of the West. The fight was in Mecca because the Beduins (including Jews) fought for the seat of Abraham. But they lost. The Arabs develop an empire with Malacca as a pivot and conquered northern Africa and inwards, and outwards, the Iberian peninsula. When the first Portuguese reached Malacca one said, "The owner of Malacca has his hands around the neck of Venice." That was the purpose of Islam, and these funny guys, as long as they lasted in the West, did it well and effectively. Any Arab who knows his history knows this is true.
I will not waste my time with the religious dialectics (diahrrealectics?) of this matter.

[BienvenuJDC]

who is Jehovah?

Jehovah is the Anglican form of Yahweh. This is the God of Abraham as viewed by Christian-Judeo religions. There is a Godhead (Trinity) of deities who are the Father (Jehovah), the Son (Messiah/Christ), and the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God). Three distinct persons, but all completely united in purpose and power. All three were involved in the creation account in Genesis. Jehovah is only the Father in respect to showing the relationship of being the heir. All three are equal with the exception that Jesus willfully submitted to Jehovah as an example to others.



I have never heard of the Pharisees until now.
They are in the same as the Sadducees.
Did they exist during Jesus time?
I don't understand what you mean by
''they would use semantics to deceive''.

The Pharisees and Sadducees were two different sects similar to political parties at the time. Varying beliefs (i.e. the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, Pharisees did), but both Jewish. There were other sects as well, like the Essenes (who were the ones who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls). The Pharisees would use semantics (technicalities) to benefit them. They would make a promise (and swear on the temple), but when it came time to fulfill the promise (contract) they would say that the promise wasn't valid because they didn't swear on the "gold" in the temple. It's like making a promise, but then say, "Sorry, I had my fingers crossed!"

[cacian]

The Arabs, these guys, produced Islam to become independent of the West. The fight was in Mecca because the Beduins (including Jews) fought for the seat of Abraham. But they lost. The Arabs develop an empire with Malacca as a pivot and conquered northern Africa and inwards, and outwards, the Iberian peninsula. When the first Portuguese reached Malacca one said, "The owner of Malacca has his hands around the neck of Venice." That was the purpose of Islam, and these funny guys, as long as they lasted in the West, did it well and effectively. Any Arab who knows his history knows this is true.
I will not waste my time with the religious dialectics (diahrrealectics?) of this matter.

Thank you cafolini that makes sense now.

[usman.khawar]

and last but not least in catholic religion one is not to divorce easily for one has to wait at least 5 years before is able to break the marriage union and in Islam one can simply pronounce the sentence I quote :
'I divorce you' three times by a male and one is quit of this union.

Both of similar is that they demand a union by a sanctity of a God and the difference is that one is near impossible to break and the other is done on a whim.( Hurray I'd say marry the islamist way at least one gets to divorce without the need a lawyer. That one single benefit out of it.) sorry I just could not help it.


.

There are some missconceptions about divorce in Islam.

The view which u stated above about divorce is represented by a few sects. This view was set in the era of 2nd Caliph Hazrat Omer who took an administrator order due to the fact that men were dominating women by making them in constant panic. Three times saying in one time become final divorce but before him it was not like that.

Woman is also given the right to take divorce from man known as “Khulaa” if she is not happy with him.

Before his era, there was a process of divorce. Before telling the process I must say that we have popular sayings in Islam that divorce is that legal action which is not appreciated by God. So in Islam due to this process mostly people come back from their decisions of divorce. In the process of divorce, In Muhammad’s era and in 1st Caliph’s era, three or more times saying of the word divorce was consider as one even if a man say 10 times at a time. After giving 1st divorce, one has to wait for 3 periods of women to make 2nd divorce. Then once again after 2nd one has to wait for the same time for final divorce. Moreover if some woman is in her periods no man was allowed to give divorce. After completion the process of divorce, God orders Man to send woman back in very good manners giving some gifts or something.

Chapter At-Talaq:. Verse 1. “O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by Allah. and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.”
Verse 4 : . Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
Verse6: 6 . Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.


Man makes woman in continues fear of separation by saying 1st divorce and then in waiting time taking it back. Due to this very reason 2nd Caliph made this administrator order that three times divorce in one time would be considered final. But we see that Era is changed now again. Now we have choices. We can follow any one of the true companions of Muhammad we want to. In the time when Quran was revealing that era was very simple as Islam is. If we want to understand Islam we have to see how the companions of Muhammad understand that. Where is my view is concern i'would try to follow what was common in Muhammad's era also define in Quran:

Chapter Baqra : 228 . Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods.Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day.And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation.And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them.And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
229 . A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness.It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah.If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom.These are the limits ordained by Allah.so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).

Thanks and Regards

[cacian]

Jehovah is the Anglican form of Yahweh. This is the God of Abraham as viewed by Christian-Judeo religions. There is a Godhead (Trinity) of deities who are the Father (Jehovah), the Son (Messiah/Christ), and the Holy Spirit (Spirit of God). Three distinct persons, but all completely united in purpose and power. All three were involved in the creation account in Genesis. Jehovah is only the Father in respect to showing the relationship of being the heir. All three are equal with the exception that Jesus willfully submitted to Jehovah as an example to others.


Thank you! I have heard of Jehovah's witness is that anything to Jehovah's credibility as God. What I mean why witnesses?


The Pharisees and Sadducees were two different sects similar to political parties at the time. Varying beliefs (i.e. the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, Pharisees did), but both Jewish. There were other sects as well, like the Essenes (who were the ones who discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls). The Pharisees would use semantics (technicalities) to benefit them. They would make a promise (and swear on the temple), but when it came time to fulfill the promise (contract) they would say that the promise wasn't valid because they didn't swear on the "gold" in the temple. It's like making a promise, but then say, "Sorry, I had my fingers crossed!"
Got it!! presumably these sects are similar to what we call the sunnists and suffist in Islam right??

[cacian]

There are some missconceptions about divorce in Islam.

The view which u stated above about divorce is represented by a few sects. This view was set in the era of 2nd Caliph Hazrat Omer who took an administrator order due to the fact that men were dominating women by making them in constant panic. Three times saying in one time become final divorce but before him it was not like that.

Woman is also given the right to take divorce from man known as “Khulaa” if she is not happy with him.

Before his era, there was a process of divorce. Before telling the process I must say that we have popular sayings in Islam that divorce is that legal action which is not appreciated by God. So in Islam due to this process mostly people come back from their decisions of divorce. In the process of divorce, In Muhammad’s era and in 1st Caliph’s era, three or more times saying of the word divorce was consider as one even if a man say 10 times at a time. After giving 1st divorce, one has to wait for 4 periods of women to make 2nd divorce. Then once again after 2nd one has to wait for the same time for final divorce. Moreover if some woman is in her periods no man was allowed to give divorce. After completion the process of divorce, God orders Man to send woman back in very good manners giving some gifts or something.

Chapter At-Talaq:. Verse 1. “O Prophet! When ye do divorce women, divorce them at their prescribed periods, and count (accurately), their prescribed periods: And fear Allah your Lord: and turn them not out of their houses, nor shall they (themselves) leave, except in case they are guilty of some open lewdness, those are limits set by Allah. and any who transgresses the limits of Allah, does verily wrong his (own) soul: thou knowest not if perchance Allah will bring about thereafter some new situation.”
Verse 4 : . Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy.
Verse6: 6 . Let the women live (in 'iddat) in the same style as ye live, according to your means: Annoy them not, so as to restrict them. And if they carry (life in their wombs), then spend (your substance) on them until they deliver their burden: and if they suckle your (offspring), give them their recompense: and take mutual counsel together, according to what is just and reasonable. And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf.


Man makes woman in continues fear of separation by saying 1st divorce and then in waiting time taking it back. Due to this very reason 2nd Caliph made this administrator order that three times divorce in one time would be considered final. But we see that Era is changed now again. Now we have choices. We can follow any one of the true companions of Muhammad we want to. In the time when Quran was revealing that era was very simple as Islam is. If we want to understand Islam we have to see how the companions of Muhammad understand that. Where is my view is concern i'would try to follow what was common in Muhammad's era also define in Quran:

Chapter Baqra : 228 . Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods.Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day.And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation.And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them.And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
229 . A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold Together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness.It is not lawful for you, (Men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah.If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom.These are the limits ordained by Allah.so do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (Themselves as well as others).

Thanks and Regards

Hi usman
what do you mean by

This view was set in the era of 2nd Caliph Hazrat Omer who took an administrator order due to the fact that men were dominating women by making them in constant panic.
do you mean that he wanted to empower women to divorce easily by saying divorce three times?
What happens if a man divorce a woman by saying divorce and then she turns to be pregnant?
You mention they are not allowed to divorce if she has her period.

[usman.khawar]

Hi usman
what do you mean by

do you mean that he wanted to empower women to divorce easily by saying divorce three times?
What happens if a man divorce a woman by saying divorce and then she turns to be pregnant?
You mention they are not allowed to divorce if she has her period.

yes to start the process of divorce man has to wait that his wife gets free from her periods or pregnancy. coz as mentioned in the verses one has to count the exact timings of the periods. and yes there is no need for lawyer. but here at this point again we are given suggestion from God in Quran, that there should be each person from both sides to sit together. if these person wish to make both sides together again they will succeed. i think its seems somekind of lawyer concept but ofcourse it can be happen without them. there are choices.

do you mean that he wanted to empower women to divorce easily by saying divorce three times?

its all about feelings of woman. Mostly men were dominating woman in the sense that by saying 1st divorce they put their wives in constant danger of seperation, Man has already in mind that he will take back the divorce. due to the fear of dumping woman was no doubt feel bad. After 3 periods it is the choice whether to continue the divorce's process or take it back and live again together. This is all about the feelings of wives. to make ensure that man couldnt not dominate woman in this matter, Omer made this law. so due to this Man became careful in using this term as a threat to dominate them. God knows better.

[BienvenuJDC]

Thank you! I have heard of Jehovah's witness is that anything to Jehovah's credibility as God. What I mean why witnesses?

Actually, I think Jehovah's Witness isn't much more than a catchy name that means they witness (preach) about God. Going back to the Ten commandments, there is the commandment "You should not take the Lord's name in vain." The Israelites (Jews) took this to an extreme. They had refused to say His name at all. In fact, when they wrote it, they removed all the vowels which left (YHWH). Later, other took the vowels from the word Adonai (meaning Lord), and somehow derived (Yahweh)...(I however don't understand how that worked, but that is what I read). Yahweh was later anglicized to Jehovah (as I previously mentioned). The religious group, the Jehovah's Witnesses just adapted that into their name.


Got it!! presumably these sects are similar to what we call the sunnists and suffist in Islam right??

Yes, but these are religious sects from Judaism. There is no connection to Christianity however. I don't even know if they even exist today.

[Calidore]

Actually the Bible teaches us not to swear by physical things, but just to be honest. Therefore the ritual of swearing "on the Bible" violates the teaching that is within it. The Bible teaches us to JUST TELL THE TRUTH.

Matthew 5:36-37
36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

That probably goes back to the Old testament prohibition against idolatry also. Worship the Presence, not the physical.


All three were involved in the creation account in Genesis.

This is the first I've ever heard of Jesus existing as part of a Trinity before his conception, let alone all the way back to Creation. Wasn't he brought into existence as a human aspect of God to take the burden of the sins of Man? Where is he mentioned in the early Bible (aside from prophets foretelling his birth and activities as a human)?

[BienvenuJDC]

This is the first I've ever heard of Jesus existing as part of a Trinity before his conception, let alone all the way back to Creation. Wasn't he brought into existence as a human aspect of God to take the burden of the sins of Man? Where is he mentioned in the early Bible (aside from prophets foretelling his birth and activities as a human)?

Colossians 1:15ff,
"15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence."

Combine this with what is said in Genesis 1:26-27

"Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

In these passages concerning the creation, the Hebrew word Elohim is used. The word El is the singular form of God, while Elohim is the plural form. This is seen in the English translation in the verses shown above, when God said, "Let US make man in OUR image..." All three Persons of the Godhead are present, and are eternal.

Also consider John 1:1-5,
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."

Verse 14 shows us that this is referring to Jesus.
" And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

[Paulclem]

So what about rituals then?

[BienvenuJDC]

So what about rituals then?

Are there any that you want to discuss? Feel free to share what you know, or if you have any specific questions, you are free to ask anyone.

[cacian]

So what about rituals then?

the significance of baptism is one.
what does it actually mean to be immersed in water?

[BienvenuJDC]

the significance of baptism is one.
what does it actually mean to be immersed in water?

That is symbolic of the dead, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 6:1-11,
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

[cacian]

That is symbolic of the dead, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Romans 6:1-11,
"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Thank you Bien I was not so clear on why water and so I thought it was to encourage purity ( hygiene).
The other issue I have with the word
''7 For he who has died has been freed from sin''
and
''He died to sin once for all;''
Two questions I have if I may:
One:
If Jesus died for all sins then isn't this idea reading into the future that people will sin?
In other word is this premaditating 'sin', something one may or may not commit?
and where does tha leave those who do not sin ?
Two:
If Jesus was betrayed and then killed how could he have died for someone else's sin?
He did not have the power to stop himself from being killed and yet he makes it to be a sin affair and comes back to life again three days later. Was it mentioned anywhere that he would rise from the dead?
That would have been a proof that he had godly power to tell his apostles that he would rise again in the same way that he tells them he knew he was going to be killed or die?
I mean did he say he was going to die or be killed?
Thanks!

[Paulclem]

What I mean is, rituals are the taking part aspect of religion. I wondered what you thought of this aspect in your religion.

I find Buddhist rituals helpful, as I posted earlier, and I wondered if you thought the same.

[cacian]

What I mean is, rituals are the taking part aspect of religion. I wondered what you thought of this aspect in your religion.

I find Buddhist rituals helpful, as I posted earlier, and I wondered if you thought the same.

If you are talking to me then my answer is I do not have any religious rituals.
I could not make my mind up about all religions because the only I always had in my mind whilst I was growing is why so many religions when surely there has to be the one god only.
That is what my mind was telling me all along. There cannot be thousands of different gods.
So I gave up and decided to start my own religion if you like.

[JuniperWoolf]

I love religious rituals, especially Catholic and esoteric ones (Golden Dawn and all that). They're so intricate, and they smell and look pretty. Plus, you typically get something to eat and drink, like on holiday rituals such as Christmas. Christmas contains an animal sacrifice, it's a widely acknowledged part of the holiday that you kill a bird (although not personally anymore) and then eat it.

[Paulclem]

If you are talking to me then my answer is I do not have any religious rituals.
I could not make my mind up about all religions because the only I always had in my mind whilst I was growing is why so many religions when surely there has to be the one god only.
That is what my mind was telling me all along. There cannot be thousands of different gods.
So I gave up and decided to start my own religion if you like.

Thousands of Gods? You must be a Hindu.:biggrin5:

I was talking to Bien and anyone else.

[cacian]

=Paulclem;1136378Thousands of Gods? You must be a Hindu:biggrin5:
No I am not. I am me. I have nothing to do with hindus. I don't understand their religions especially the worshipping of animals such as cows. I find that most strange.

[ShadowsCool]

That probably goes back to the Old testament prohibition against idolatry also. Worship the Presence, not the physical.



This is the first I've ever heard of Jesus existing as part of a Trinity before his conception, let alone all the way back to Creation. Wasn't he brought into existence as a human aspect of God to take the burden of the sins of Man? Where is he mentioned in the early Bible (aside from prophets foretelling his birth and activities as a human)?

No. Created by God? Brought into existence as a human aspect of God? No!
He had to be God in order to take on our sins. Jesus has been mentioned to have created everything. How could He be created himself?

[ShadowsCool]

If Jesus died for all sins then isn't this idea reading into the future that people will sin?
In other word is this premaditating 'sin', something one may or may not commit?
and where does tha leave those who do not sin ?

All people have sinned. Past, present, future. Since our forefathers begot us with sin, we are all with a sinful nature.




If Jesus was betrayed and then killed how could he have died for someone else's sin?
He did not have the power to stop himself from being killed and yet he makes it to be a sin affair and comes back to life again three days later. Was it mentioned anywhere that he would rise from the dead?
That would have been a proof that he had godly power to tell his apostles that he would rise again in the same way that he tells them he knew he was going to be killed or die?
I mean did he say he was going to die or be killed?
Thanks!

He had the power to stop Himself from being killed. But He had to fulfill His purpose while on earth. That is, to take on sin and be put death for sin; so that all who believe in Him will have life. Otherwise, we'd all have no savior. He was the sacrifice.

[Paulclem]

No I am not. I am me. I have nothing to do with hindus. I don't understand their religions especially the worshipping of animals such as cows. I find that most strange.

Haha -you mistake me Cacian. I was merely jesting with you.

Just to say that Hindu's don't worship animals, but some of the Gods appear with animal attributes such as Ganesh who has the head of an elephant. Cows were part of the creation myth, and that is why they are protected and revered.

[cacian]

All people have sinned. Past, present, future. Since our forefathers begot us with sin, we are all with a sinful nature

but surely this is not right...not everyone is a sinner in the same way not everyone is English.
I have not sins and have no sinned and so why should I feel pressured to think that one is already a sinner before they are even born?
It is a shady prospect if everyone is labelled with a sin...surely that is not what life or Jesus is about...forgive me I do not mean to be rude but I strongly object to being accused of sinning when I have not.


He had the power to stop Himself from being killed. But He had to fulfill His purpose while on earth. That is, to take on sin and be put death for sin; so that all who believe in Him will have life. Otherwise, we'd all have no savior. He was the sacrifice.
I see. This is where it all becomes rather dense for me.
I cannot get to grips with this bit.

[ShadowsCool]

but surely this is not right...not everyone is a sinner in the same way not everyone is English.
I have not sins and have no sinned and so why should I feel pressured to think that one is already a sinner before they are even born?
It is a shady prospect if everyone is labelled with a sin...surely that is not what life or Jesus is about...forgive me I do not mean to be rude but I strongly object to being accused of sinning when I have not.


It is right. Surely it is impossible for someone not to have sin. Sin by definition is doing something contrary to God. I assure you, everyone who ever walked the earth has done things contrary to God.

People may think they are without blemish but they are fooling themselves. Just as good works cannot get you into heaven. Because all are laden with sin. Everyone one of us. I, you, everyone! This is what Christianity teaches.

Now if someone doesn't believe in Christianity, that's another thing. Then they go on their merry way of sinning. But I assure you, we all are conceived in sin.

This is why we need to have faith in Jesus who was a guilt offering, taking our sins with us to the grave. So that our bodies may die but our spirit will live.



I see. This is where it all becomes rather dense for me.
I cannot get to grips with this bit.

A perfect God had to take upon our sins so that we may be presentable to God. Those who don't believe bare their sins on their own and will be found guilty and thrown in hell.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Cacian, you've never lied to someone, even a white lie? Never thought sexually about someone you're not married to? Never cheated in a game of cards or a board game, even if when a child? All those are sins. Like Shadows said, by Christian definitions (and if looking through the lens of Christianity), we are all sinners. The rules set forth by Christianity make it impossible not to be, therefore making the whole Christian religion necessary.

As to my thoughts on rituals . . .

I always have mixed feelings when I see Catholic rituals. They're so grand, with the whole spectacle: the clothes, the huge churches, the chanting. But at the same time I shake my head because it seems so antiquated, like they're stuck so far in the past (of course, I guess that's one of the points of rituals). It also always makes me think, "aren't they the ones who took vows of poverty?"

One ritual I've always found creepy is communion, when people are eating and drinking the body of Christ. Of course I don't actually believe the wine and pieces of bread are magically transformed into his body and blood, but some do, and then they eat it. As far as I'm concerned, Catholics have no room ro criticize cannibalism.

One ritual I've always been confused on is Easter, particularly the whole bunny hiding eggs in one's yard part. Where did that come from? I assume, like the ritual of the Christmas tree, it has it's roots in paganism, but I don't know the specifics. For that matter, I don't really know how the whole Santa Clause thing was started, either.

[cacian]

=Mutatis-Mutandis;1136481]Cacian, you've never lied to someone, even a white lie? Never thought sexually about someone you're not married to? Never cheated in a game of cards or a board game, even if when a child? All those are sins. Like Shadows said, by Christian definitions (and if looking through the lens of Christianity), we are all sinners. The rules set forth by Christianity make it impossible not to be, therefore making the whole Christian religion necessary.
Everything you have described I consider the norms/mistakes people because no one is perfect but then what is the real meaning of sin?


As to my thoughts on rituals . . .

I always have mixed feelings when I see Catholic rituals. They're so grand, with the whole spectacle: the clothes, the huge churches, the chanting. But at the same time I shake my head because it seems so antiquated, like they're stuck so far in the past (of course, I guess that's one of the points of rituals). It also always makes me think, "aren't they the ones who took vows of poverty?"
I absolutely agree the amount of wealth and golds the catholic/pope have is beyond description and yet they think they can have a say on poverty.


One ritual I've always found creepy is communion, when people are eating and drinking the body of Christ. Of course I don't actually believe the wine and pieces of bread are magically transformed into his body and blood, but some do, and then they eat it. As far as I'm concerned, Catholics have no room ro criticize cannibalism.
I agree it is a bit spooky.

One ritual I've always been confused on is Easter, particularly the whole bunny hiding eggs in one's yard part. Where did that come from? I assume, like the ritual of the Christmas tree, it has it's roots in paganism, but I don't know the specifics. For that matter, I don't really know how the whole Santa Clause thing was started, either.
Very good questions and may be someone can shed lights on the easter bunny and the tree.
I think one thing about easter is I do not understand the shifts in dates because chirstmas is dated but not easter.

[JuniperWoolf]

One ritual I've always been confused on is Easter, particularly the whole bunny hiding eggs in one's yard part. Where did that come from? I assume, like the ritual of the Christmas tree, it has it's roots in paganism, but I don't know the specifics.

:D Yes sir, Easter is a spring revival festival. It was for thousands of years, and still is, celebrated as the rebirth of Spring, so symbols of fertility and birth are rampant (new life comes from eggs, fresh pastel-colored flowers spring from the earth, new blades of grass poke out of the dirt, rabbits hump excessively and theirs is the first species of the year to birth offspring), and chocolate is a part of Easter because it's a sweet treat which evokes a sense of childhood (spring is when nature is just born again after winter's apparent "death," the earth itself is as a child, so it's a very child-like time). It wasn't ALWAYS chocolate, chocolate is new, but we've always eaten plenty of sweet childish treats like honey cakes at the Spring holiday.

Many modern pagan revivalists call Easter "Ostara" to dissociate from the Christian holiday, which I guess is fine if that's what they want to do but I don't think it's necessary. "Ostara" is a new word which has no basis in classic religion, and "Easter" already contains themes of rebirth on it's own, as does the Christian Easter story (ie. the "resurrection" of Jesus), so it's all just themes and symbols and stories of rebirth and resurrection. The celebration of the Spring Equinox, the rebirth of Spring, has always contained these themes, symbols and stories, it's never ceased since the dawn of recorded history, and now it's all just blended together.

It's a wonderful holiday, don't you just feel like celebrating when you see the first buds forming on the trees and blades of grass poking up, and the water rushing through the streets like little rivers from the melted snow, and feel the first rain washing all the dust away, and see the sun in the sky later than four in the afternoon? ...Well, maybe it's more poignant for people in the north, which might be why Northern civilizations have always celebrated the Spring Equinox more exuberantly than those further south.

Regarding Santa, he's a sort of god which we've borrowed from Eastern Europe. My boyfriend loves Santa's mythology and has studied it extensively, I'll talk about it later maybe.

[usman.khawar]

I gradually came to realise that the ritual gives structure to your practice.


this sentence of urs seems more realistic to me..

in islam, if a person dont have knowledge, specially remembrance of Lord, at the time of rituals (daily 5 time prays etc), there is no benifit of it rather it become worst in view of God the One and only who enters night into day and day into night, who produce life from dead, and dead from life. . who says that worst beast like people are those who perform rituals(ibadat) without knowledge and do not use their intellect.

[cacian]

this sentence of urs seems more realistic to me..

in islam, if a person dont have knowledge, specially remembrance of Lord, at the time of rituals (daily 5 time prays etc), there is no benifit of it rather it become worst in view of God the One and only who enters night into day and day into night, who produce life from dead, and dead from life. . who says that worst beast like people are those who perform rituals(ibadat) without knowledge and do not use their intellect.

Hi usman interesting you mention the knowledge.
Here in the UK the knowledge is a test you take to become a professional taxi driver ( black London Cabbies) I just thought I'll mention that haha,
on a different note how do you mean one does not have knowldege of the lords do you mean ones that does the abultions and the prayers and deos not believe in them?
Youmention intellect? how is one to use their intellect with relation to God for example?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

:D Yes sir, Easter is a spring revival festival. It was for thousands of years, and still is, celebrated as the rebirth of Spring, so symbols of fertility and birth are rampant (new life comes from eggs, fresh pastel-colored flowers spring from the earth, new blades of grass poke out of the dirt, rabbits hump excessively and theirs is the first species of the year to birth offspring), and chocolate is a part of Easter because it's a sweet treat which evokes a sense of childhood (spring is when nature is just born again after winter's apparent "death," the earth itself is as a child, so it's a very child-like time). It wasn't ALWAYS chocolate, chocolate is new, but we've always eaten plenty of sweet childish treats like honey cakes at the Spring holiday.

Many modern pagan revivalists call Easter "Ostara" to dissociate from the Christian holiday, which I guess is fine if that's what they want to do but I don't think it's necessary. "Ostara" is a new word which has no basis in classic religion, and "Easter" already contains themes of rebirth on it's own, as does the Christian Easter story (ie. the "resurrection" of Jesus), so it's all just themes and symbols and stories of rebirth and resurrection. The celebration of the Spring Equinox, the rebirth of Spring, has always contained these themes, symbols and stories, it's never ceased since the dawn of recorded history, and now it's all just blended together.

It's a wonderful holiday, don't you just feel like celebrating when you see the first buds forming on the trees and blades of grass poking up, and the water rushing through the streets like little rivers from the melted snow, and feel the first rain washing all the dust away, and see the sun in the sky later than four in the afternoon? ...Well, maybe it's more poignant for people in the north, which might be why Northern civilizations have always celebrated the Spring Equinox more exuberantly than those further south.

Regarding Santa, he's a sort of god which we've borrowed from Eastern Europe. My boyfriend loves Santa's mythology and has studied it extensively, I'll talk about it later maybe.

Quite interesting. Thanks, Juniper.

[usman.khawar]

Hi usman interesting you mention the knowledge.
Here in the UK the knowledge is a test you take to become a professional taxi driver ( black London Cabbies) I just thought I'll mention that haha,
on a different note how do you mean one does not have knowldege of the lords do you mean ones that does the abultions and the prayers and deos not believe in them?
Youmention intellect? how is one to use their intellect with relation to God for example?

For example as Prophet Abrahim Did. i explained it many times namely abrahim methodology who 1st of all rejected gods of his time and recogonize actual Lord using his intellect.

jews's child is jews, christians and muslims's is christian and muslim respectively. same is in other cases. children see their parents doing rituals, they dont think about the inner connection with God, self-realization, and God's presence. they never think about God, what He wants from us? why i am here in this world? why i m giving the unique quality of intellect over billions of creatures? what is the top priority of my intellect? who made the 1st man or ist of every species.? so many questions but mainly one " am i slave or liberal ? if there is a God then how can it be possible that i can claim myself liberal ?

knowledge is not concern only to become professional taxi driver , in other cases as well its needed :) ...