Non-christian religions: Satan's counterfeits or God's partial revelation to lead people from other cultures to the truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmforte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cmforte

Guest
This is from the thread on The Bahai faith:

I think I got you, Vouthon. And thank you. And I love that quote by St. Augustine at the bottum of your post. I believe the same thing. However, I believe, as St. Augustine did, that christianity is the fulfillment of the truth that was only partially revealed by God to “the ancients” who probably misunderstood it, thus any religion that developed after the advent of christianity is, to me, suspect of being influenced by it and/or by other already existing belief systems, which is why some of its teachings are similar to Catholicism.

However, believing that non-christians before the advent of christianity were exposed to God’s truth in a partial way and/or misunderstood it does contradict Scripture, both OT and NT, which insinuates that Satan was behind those faiths, using its similarities or “elements of truth” as a way to confuse people and dupe them into those religions, and therefore rejecting God and His full truth. Jesus certainly did not think that the worship of Zeus contained an “element of truth,” or was part of his revelation and slavific plan, on the contrary, He called Zeus “satan” (adversary). Yet, as pointed out above, I do believe as you, and more importantly, as the Pope and Magisterium does on this matter, but I’m finding it hard to reconcile the two opinions. I know we Catholics don’t believe in Bible alone, yet I also know that both Tradition and Scripture compliments each other and does not contradict each other, and I also know that many early Church Fathers and Doctors (like Justin Martyr) have aslo held the same differing views on the matter. How to reconcile this?

But you did allay my concerns that The Church was becoming relativist. I should know that that could never happen, as Jesus promised The Church would never teach error and would never fail. I just fear that even religious tolerance, when taken too far or just misunderstood, could lead to The Church and/or its members losing our evangelical zeal and getting lazy about trying to spread the Gospel. But again, I should know that, on the part of our Church leaders anyways, that can’t happen. Thanks again.

-Chris
 
I think the earlier pagan religions have a connection with the earlier belief in God, pre-Moses. I think as people dispersed around the world, the faith they carried got interpreted in so many different ways and without contact with a good guide to the faith, they just developed their own understanding of the faith. But from the time Christianity grew, it seems every other faith based on it is just a bad photocopy of the original.
 
ConstantineTG:
I think the earlier pagan religions have a connection with the earlier belief in God, pre-Moses. I think as people dispersed around the world, the faith they carried got interpreted in so many different ways and without contact with a good guide to the faith, they just developed their own understanding of the faith. But from the time Christianity grew, it seems every other faith based on it is just a bad photocopy of the original.
Click to expand...
I agree completely. Exactly my thoughts!!

-Chris
 
ConstantineTG said:
I think the earlier pagan religions have a connection with the earlier belief in God, pre-Moses. I think as people dispersed around the world, the faith they carried got interpreted in so many different ways and without contact with a good guide to the faith, they just developed their own understanding of the faith. But from the time Christianity grew, it seems every other faith based on it is just a bad photocopy of the original.
Click to expand...
So that means, the religions after Christianity is false then?
 
Originally posted by AlainVanille:
Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
Click to expand...
I think the earlier pagan religions have a connection with the earlier belief in God, pre-Moses. I think as people dispersed around the world, the faith they carried got interpreted in so many different ways and without contact with a good guide to the faith, they just developed their own understanding of the faith. But from the time Christianity grew, it seems every other faith based on it is just a bad photocopy of the original.

So that means, the religions after Christianity is false then?
Click to expand...

Well, I for one never said that any religion before christianity were true. They were just misunderstandings and/or misguided views of God. They were false*** over-all,*** but with elements of truth left over from the time “pre-Moses.”

Religions after the advent of christianity, to me, are suspect of being at least influenced by Judaism and christianity, or by other pre-existing religions. In the time of Muhammad, for example, there were Jews and Christians in Syria and Arabia: how do we know he didn’t get his views from them, but spun them for his own agenda? And with the ease of movement and communication in the last few centuries, compared to pre-modern times, how do we know new religions after christianity are completely new and auntonomous revelations?

And as christians we are suppose to believe that all new revelations about God ended with Jesus Christ. That being so, why would we believe that any modern religion that purports new revelations*** isn’t ***false, though containing “elements of truth”, and just not one that copied the “elements of truth” it does have from pre-existing ones, like christianity?

-Chris
 
cmforte said:
Originally posted by AlainVanille]:I think the earlier pagan religions have a connection with the earlier belief in God, pre-Moses. I think as people dispersed around the world, the faith they carried got interpreted in so many different ways and without contact with a good guide to the faith, they just developed their own understanding of the faith. But from the time Christianity grew, it seems every other faith based on it is just a bad photocopy of the original.
So that means, the religions after Christianity is false then?
Click to expand...
Well, I for one never said that any religion before christianity were true. They were just misunderstandings and/or misguided views of God. They were false*** over-all,*** but with elements of truth left over from the time “pre-Moses.”

Religions after the advent of christianity, to me, are suspect of being at least influenced by Judaism and christianity, or by other pre-existing religions. In the time of Muhammad, for example, there were Jews and Christians in Syria and Arabia: how do we know he didn’t get his views from them, but spun them for his own agenda? And with the ease of movement and communication in the last few centuries, compared to pre-modern times, how do we know new religions after christianity are completely new and auntonomous revelations?

And as christians we are suppose to believe that all new revelations about God ended with Jesus Christ. That being so, why would we believe that any modern religion that purports new revelations*** isn’t ***false, though containing “elements of truth”, and just not one that copied the “elements of truth” it does have from pre-existing ones, like christianity?

-Chris
Click to expand...
 
Pre-Christian religions were peoples attempts to describe what they understood about God through experience or through natural reason. The description could be poetic in character, or theological in character.

In all cases you have truth and error mixed in - in some cases error because of our lack of ability to see God clearly, some because of bad will, some because of malign influence. Truth because by nature we all carry the image of God within us.

And I think post-Christian religion is often much the same. Is there a greater element of malign influence? Hard to say, and perhaps not useful to speculate.
 
The Book of Wisdom and St. Paul in Romans say all people have the ability to perceive God through reason and in the world around them.

From there, the next step is seeing common humanity in all mankind and to treat another person the way you would want to be treated.

But only Jesus Christ can save us from sin, and give us both new life and companionship in God, as well as give meaning to suffering…He helps us carry the burden of suffering and enduring evil, mysteries in themselves.
 
We know Christianity is true because Jesus came down, Son of God, right?
 
Throw into the mix the question “what is the definition of Non-Christian?” my understanding as one example is that Mormons consider themselves Christians but AOG sees them as a cult.
Bless you
 
Steven_John said:
Throw into the mix the question “what is the definition of Non-Christian?” my understanding as one example is that Mormons consider themselves Christians but AOG sees them as a cult.
Bless you
Click to expand...
Good question. I know some Protestants who view Catholics as non-Christians. As a non-Christian myself, of course that sounds absurd, but whatever.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
Sufjon said:
Good question. I know some Protestants who view Catholics as non-Christians. As a non-Christian myself, of course that sounds absurd, but whatever.

Your friend
Sufjon
Click to expand...
Bless ya a bunch, trust you and yours are well.
Thats a cracker statement from a protestant.
I remember hearing a protestant complaining about Catholics using the name Catholic as she said they were catholic too.

We humans are such a mixed bunch it does not surprise me we turn unbelievers off religion.
I cant help but feel if we are all a little more humble, not at the expense of truth the modern view of religion would not be so negative.

Bless you and yours on the journey.
 
As a young adult, I was a rationalist skeptic agnostic. Taoism and Zen served for me as stepping stones away from materialism and back to Christianity. They worked as partial revelations to lead me back to truth. And I still find them useful: very little I learned from them was wrong or in conflict with Christianity… but they were incomplete, in need of being put into the context of God rather than a vague deism.
 
Hi Izdaari,
peace and blessings to you.
I live in Australia and had close relationship with our previous AOG pastor.
I took from what he told me that AOG see Islam as a cult.
Do you know what the official position of AOG is?

pray well and stay well
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top