Quote: (01-29-2016 07:35 AM)avantgarde Wrote:
Mormons added new scriptures And questionable beliefs. Jehovah's Witness once called bible studies focuses on the bible and analyzing the historical and textural context of scripture and avoid pagan stuff or greek philosophy influence. It was through the scripture, trinity was found to be false and Jesus was never referred as The God but once the word as a god meaning authority(John 1:1). In the Old Testament, if you look through Ecclesiastes 9 and genesis 3, you can find proof for body soul mortalism. Gehenna translated as hell in some translations was a place where people sacrificed to Baal and later on a place they burned the criminals' bodies and trash. The word stauros commonly translated as cross originally meant upright pole or stake, but later some historians said crucifixion eventually became a cross being used to execute but others maintain a stake being used to punish the convicted. In addition the cross is found in various pagan religions worldwide, from the babylonian symbol Tammuz, egyptian ankh, Aztec t cross, Hindu and Buddhism swatsika...
First, what perspective are your writing from? Just curious. Jehova's Witness or Jewish would be my best guess, but it could be other. Serious question. I'm just curious as to your context, without any judgement.
That Scriptures are "new" is irrelevant from my perspective, whether true or not. The Old Scriptures are no more credible, and are very likely made up stories meant to install a theology within a group. The entire purpose of the Mormon scriptures is, according to them, to restore the true perennial religion that was first practiced by Adam. That's their purpose. If they succeed in that, or have come close, then their relative historical truth is inconsequential. Not even Rabbis hold the Old Testament to be "true" except in a theological sense.
"Questionable beliefs" is a completely relative assertion. All of these beliefs are questionable. Without appealing to faith, the only method that, in my mind, would bring any belief out of question is when the belief system can be mapped to philosophy and then be shown to be the best type of belief for human society in terms of the results that it brings. And that result is really why most people practice religion, whether they admit it or not. Sure, there are true believers, and as a result there will always be Jonestown, but don't believe for a second that any religion gets past cult status without being socially beneficial. In fact, this social result is what I understand to be "Holiness" or the "presence of the Holy Spirit"; though this concept deserves a much greater elucidation than this. But we all disagree as to what those "best results" are, don't we? The Mormon society is demonstrably higher functioning, to modern standards of community coherence and prosperity, than almost all other groups in the West. That's a pretty good result, and so personally I would be reluctant to be so dismissive of their theology. Their theology is also much deeper / more complex than most people know.
You claim that Jeohova's Witnesses avoid philosophy. But all belief can be mapped to philosophy; that is its theology can be stripped of theological terms and explained in terms of how it defines person-hood among other philosophical concepts. All religions can be mapped to philosophy, even if that philosophy is unique. Mormons also claim, as one of their foremost claims, that they avoid Greek philosophy and paganism. It is true that their philosophy is largely bereft of what would be traditional paganism (animism / sometimes pantheism; though the term "paganism" is also relatively meaningless as a word traditionally meant to signify anything not within a Judaic or Christian tent -no matter how close the belief was in its structure, in actuality). Their theology can be mapped philosophically like any other, however, and most theologies can find a loose pedigree in either Plato or Aristotle, even if they came before those philosophers. Again, theology (applied philosophy), in its practical essence and stripped of all of the mythological bells and whistles, is largely about definitions of person-hood and the resulting perspectives and social results.
Yes, and the Mormons, the Jews, and any number of Christian religions would take you through similar Biblical proofs for their religion and against other sects. I get it, and don't disparage your process. Its just that this is not what I find to be most compelling, personally, especially given the volumes of proofs given by all of these religions. We need a clearer signal that is buttressed by Biblical proof, but not comprised solely of personal Biblical interpretation and logic. That is how a purer theology, that is less subject to splintering or other corruption, will be arrive at.
As for you earlier claim about Judaic monotheism against my claim of two manifestations. What I read was from a Jewish source as an explanation for the contradiction and problems associated with ex nihilo creation, that has traditionally provided a large theological stumbling block for most religions when they adopt it. Judaism has adopted it, and the explanation that I had read was too-quick to be a theologically credible in terms of bridging the divide between the material and supernatural realm without creating two gods. And, indeed, the source quoted a solution as being "two natures". Though, I now cannot find the source and will report back if/when I do. If I don't I would be interested in your view on Judaic ex nihilo theology and how its various theological problems are overcome from a monotheistic standpoint. God cannot be both material and supernatural, at least without a Christ-like figure (that is also subject to a wide range of interpretation as to his true nature). God is either in the world or he is not. From both theologies cascades a slew of theological consequences. Traditional religions overcame this stumbling block by claiming that matter was eternal (ie: there was no supernatural realm). Problem solved. Creation ex nihilo is a relatively new theology. Last, on this point, "pagan" religions that were thought to be polytheistic often only believed that the various gods were emanations from a single god, at least in the priesthood class and other higher classes (the plebs may have mistakenly believed in polytheism). Older gods were often re-conceptualized into emanations of whatever God was now the demiurge. This many gods / emanations in one god is similar to Judaic belief that has many names, or emanations or functions that act in separate space from where the godhead resides, of the one god.
Last, I found a reference to Zeus as the Demiurge. This was a belief of Plotinus, which is where I likely picked up the concept. Though, I cannot comment on this further than it being a Neoplatonic claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge#Neoplatonism
