Origins of religion(s)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nablaise
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nablaise

Guest
To those of you who know Dr. Scott Hahn, you know a little more about the meaning of Covenant and the great significance of family and sexuality. How sexual practice strongly affect people’s relationships with God.

If Abraham had not been involved with other women, there would only be one monotheistic religon. If Jews had not cultivated belief in divorce, they would not have been schism, and all Jews would have recognized Jesus and they would all be Christians. Dr. Scott Hahn helped me to see this through his Our Father’s Plan series which covered the Covenant theology. Also Theology of the Body is great in showing how this is so.

The simple fact is, if humanity had kept to the tradition started by God: one man one woman, we would have one Truth and one Religion.
Divorce brings schism
Polygamy brings multi-monotheism
Prostitution brings polytheism

I believe this is what God is trying to show us by the situation we see in religions and denominations.

In the Bible, idolatry and adultery are basically synonymous. They are both about faithfulness, love, and truth which is what religion is all about. In the book of revelation we see that God use the images of a Bride and a Prostitute to mean faithfulness and unfaithfulness, true Faith, from false Faith. True Prophet and false Prophets.
The Bride deals with one Bridegroom, it is the Faithfulness associated with Truth (true Prophet/cy).
The Prostitute deals with many men, it is the Unfaithfulness associated with many falsehood. Instability and ever changing mind and heart…Lies.

God bless

At the end, you tell true faith by the sexuality believed in.
How simple is our God! And how universal!
“For what can be known about God is manifest plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:19–20)

God bless
 
What I am saying is not a direct statement from Dr. Scott Hahn.
It is my extrapolations from his presentations especially the link I gave above. That together with Theology of the Body…
There is no hole at all in my theory 🙂 I have checked it on religions/denominations and it has passed all tests so far.
 
nablaise said:
If Abraham had not been involved with other women, there would only be one monotheistic religon. If Jews had not cultivated belief in divorce, they would not have been schism, and all Jews would have recognized Jesus and they would all be Christians.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how either of these statements can be true. I assume the reference to Abraham is meant to refer to the idea that Jews are descended from Isaac and Muslims from Ishmael, but even if that is the case, 1) there are other monotheistic (non-Abrahamic) religions, 2) how would the non-existence of Ishmael have prevented Christianity from splitting from Judaism? Besides, if you apply the same principle to Jacob, what happens? If Jacob had only one wife, Joseph would not have been born with who knows what effect on Judaism. I have no idea why anyone would think that Jewish acceptance (or not) of divorce would have had any effect on Jews converting to Christianity. Nothing in Scripture or Tradition that I am aware of suggests that divorce had anything to do with it. Is there some tale that only divorcing Jews remained Jewish and the rest became Christian? If there is, I have not heard it and, to me, it seem directly contrary to Acts.

Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of reasons to be opposed to divorce, but I don’t think this is one them.
 
TMC said:
I don’t see how either of these statements can be true. I assume the reference to Abraham is meant to refer to the idea that Jews are descended from Isaac and Muslims from Ishmael, but even if that is the case, 1) there are other monotheistic (non-Abrahamic) religions, 2) how would the non-existence of Ishmael have prevented Christianity from splitting from Judaism? Besides, if you apply the same principle to Jacob, what happens? If Jacob had only one wife, Joseph would not have been born with who knows what effect on Judaism. I have no idea why anyone would think that Jewish acceptance (or not) of divorce would have had any effect on Jews converting to Christianity. Nothing in Scripture or Tradition that I am aware of suggests that divorce had anything to do with it. Is there some tale that only divorcing Jews remained Jewish and the rest became Christian? If there is, I have not heard it and, to me, it seem directly contrary to Acts.

Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of reasons to be opposed to divorce, but I don’t think this is one them.
Click to expand...
What are the other monotheistic non-Abrahamic religion, beside the universal belief that there is some hight God, a vague, distant monotheism?

May be I was too empirical. Spiritual truth is not empirical, but it is as logical as empirical facts. It is the same Logos in whom all things were created. I will refrain from being too wordy in order to avoid mishaps. What I said beside people’s name is simple and clear enough. They really don’t need any defense.

About Judaism and Christianity. Judaism springs from Juda not Ishmael.
Juda was born in conditions similar to those of Ishmael. There was violence from the beginning in the family of Jacob/Israel. The Childreen of extra women fighting the Childreen of the woman Jacob had loved and wanted. Juda was moderate, the saved Joseph when they tried to kill him, but doing that he banked help for the whole family in Egypt, but also for the whole humanity as it was from his tribe that Jesus came from. But again Jews, his people, killed Jesus who had as ‘father’ ‘Joseph’.

Jesus did not approve of divorce, so only Jews who don’t believe in divorce become valid Christians.
 
Well, you can see it as you wish. I don’t understand this personal attack…
However for me, I wasn’t borrowing his name for authority and gaining credibility purpose. I linked to presentations that I said inspired me towards the conclusions. I gave link to what he said, I am not claiming for him what he did not say or adding on what he said…
 
Sorry dude but any Church that allows divorce and remarriage under any circumstances Appostolic origins or not are appostate. Further more anybody that gives them recognition as Valid is in the same pit.
 
nablaise said:
At the end, you tell true faith by the sexuality believed in.
How simple is our God! And how universal!

God bless
Click to expand...
I would wager that it is a sign of true faith when the sexuality of others ranks somewhere around number 893,412 on your list of priorities. 893,411 is how long it takes a one legged grasshopper to kick all the seeds off a dill pickle.

Your friend
Sufjon
 
nablaise said:
What are the other monotheistic non-Abrahamic religion, beside the universal belief that there is some hight God, a vague, distant monotheism?
Click to expand...
Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, some sects of Hinduism, some versions of Native American religion… I am sure there are others.
May be I was too empirical. Spiritual truth is not empirical, but it is as logical as empirical facts. It is the same Logos in whom all things were created. I will refrain from being too wordy in order to avoid mishaps. What I said beside people’s name is simple and clear enough. They really don’t need any defense.
Click to expand...
About Judaism and Christianity. Judaism springs from Juda not Ishmael.
Juda was born in conditions similar to those of Ishmael. There was violence from the beginning in the family of Jacob/Israel. The Childreen of extra women fighting the Childreen of the woman Jacob had loved and wanted. Juda was moderate, the saved Joseph when they tried to kill him, but doing that he banked help for the whole family in Egypt, but also for the whole humanity as it was from his tribe that Jesus came from. But again Jews, his people, killed Jesus who had as ‘father’ ‘Joseph’.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say Judaism springs from Ishmael (or anyone) I noted that there is a popular notion that Jews are descended from Isaac and Muslims from Ishmael. But you don’t address my point - maybe if Abraham had only one wife Ishmael would not have been born. But lots of other important religious and historical figures are descended from second (or later) wives. The example I gave was Joseph, but there are many others, including about half of the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Jesus did not approve of divorce, so only Jews who don’t believe in divorce become valid Christians.
Click to expand...
This borders on the ridiculous. Jesus didn’t approve of vanity - does that suggest that all those that were vain remained Jewish and all those that were not became Christian? I’m sure that many Jews were just as opposed to divorce as Jesus - and I am sure some of them remained Jewish. Many Christians must have been somewhat accepting of divorce, as the practice has always been with us and remains with us today. Absolutely nothing in Scripture or Tradition supports the notion that divorce was the discriminator between those that followed Jesus and those that did not. If anything the opposite is true. Paul’s admonition that bishops should have only one wife suggests that there may have been otherwise acceptable candidates that had more than one wife.
 
The example I gave was Joseph, but there are many others, including about half of the founders of the 12 tribes of Israel.
Click to expand...
Joseph is not a good example. He was a son of Rachel, the wife Jacob had intended and the only one he actually desired. They other women come to him out of treachery of weakness of faith…from his uncle or his wives.

Look carefully, all that I am saying is that if we had loved perfectly, we would not have sinned, and we would have need of a ‘savior’. If there were no sin, they would be no divisions. If no body fall into a pit, there is no need for someone to follow them the get them out of there. It is this simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top