MJ's religious beliefs.

[Indra]

You just QUOTED me where I said that he held onto the roots of Christianity while educating himself on other things as well?? Did you read what you quoted?

What exactly are you disagreeing with, since you quoted my entire posting? That Tracey is speaking up for him, you disagree with the assessment that it was polite of Gatlin to refuse define him?

I allowed for plenty of possibilities, I even said "Christian", so I am not sure what exactly it is you're disagreeing with.

What are people trying to prove? That he's Christian and still a Jehovah's Witness? Christian only?

MJ was a bit more multifaceted than a one liner on a bumber sticker.

Sorry, think I made a misstake on the whole quoate thing. I think the only thing you and I disagree on is that I personally believe Michael was pretty safe in his faith and that it was very much like JW faith (NO I AM NOT A JW!). I think we see his interest in religion in different ways. I never took it as him not being secure in his own faith, more him wanting to learn about everything....

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Sorry, think I made a misstake on the whole quoate thing. I think the only thing you and I disagree on is that I personally believe Michael was pretty safe in his faith and that it was very much like JW faith (NO I AM NOT A JW!). I think we see his interest in religion in different ways. I never took it as him not being secure in his own faith, more him wanting to learn about everything....

Talk about projection here... So you somehow assumed why I am thinking that he educated himself- in search of a new 'religion'? I do not see Michael Jackson as an insecure man-child who was clinging to the notion that one religion and especially one denomination alone would be his salvation. He may have been very much of Christian leaning so that he felt secure enough to show up both in Kingdom Halls, Methodist Churches, Synagogues with a Bhagavad G?t? in hand, having read his Tagore and Rumi.

Educating yourself further isn't a sign of insecurity. "I know that I don't know" is not insecurity, but incredible wisdom. (although I understand that that very notion flies in the face of Christianity today...)
Reading Michael's poetry sure as heck allows you insight.

Seems like other folks are in need of security and need to 'know for sure' what he was and what he wasn't. The notion that those that dig deeper than just one denomination of one religion are insecure wanderers is rather tiring. And especially early Christianity was always 'searching'. Not out of insecurity, but only because the search yields the results. Those early Christians didn't have the luxury of sitting somewhere while all truth fell into their lap in form of a neat book. They had to go through the entire 'process', no wonder Christianity today is just a mere shadow of it's own former glory, rejecting everything it once stood for, making the complete 180 degrees? Those early Christian mystics would be the ultimate outcasts in today's Churches, lol.

Please never assume why someone else thinks something about MJ, or not. Your assumption couldn't be any more wrong from my thoughts about MJ. Unless I completely misunderstood you which I don't think is the case.

 

[IvoryKeys]

In plain terms, I think Indra is telling you she believes Michael was secure in his faith in Christianity, and still wanted to know about everything else, every other religion and faith out there regardless of his belief. Does that make sense? I don't think she tried to assume something from you. More like trying to understand what your opinions are.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I don't know guys if you actually realize that religions are much more connected than what you seem to claim.

Jesus is not only a reference for Christians.

If we take early Christians for example, they did not call themselves Christians, they were Jews just like Jesus was. They followed the teaching of their Jewish master.

If we take Muslim's religion for example, they believe that Jesus was the announced Messiah, Virgin Mary's son, that he was a mighty prophet, that he will return at the end of times.

If we take Hindu's religion, some of them could perfectly opt to believe that Jesus was a god and venerate him, just as they would venerate Brahma for example.

How can we know for sure to which religion MJ felt the closest towards the end of his life knowing that main religions do share common grounds even regarding Jesus. In other words you can follow Jesus' teachings all your life without labeling yourself Christian.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

I don't know guys if you actually realize that religions are much more connected than what you seem to claim.

Jesus is not only a reference for Christians.

...

Of course they are. All religions picked up on some 'truth' beyond our immediate physical selves, that's why they are so similar but for some reason that seems hard to see.

You could have absolutely endless discussions of why reincarnation isn't as foreign a thought to Christianity as many of today's Christians would have you think; or why a Christian mystic could very well be delighted to look at Sufism. All religions should be able to discuss the "Tree of Life" in fascinating discussions because of all that overlap, I very much agree.

 

[IvoryKeys]

I see we are at a disagreement with the history of Jesus in religion and the monotheistic religions all together. I'll leave it at that since this is a thread for MJ's specific beliefs and not for religion itself.

 

[Autumn II]

Cassie I think I remember the article you mention. But I think they were quoting from an earlier article. I don't think MJ was saying that at that time. I remember reading that article and being surprised at the comment until I remember something that gave me the indication it was old. I'm sorry I couldn't help more. But this is what I remember.

What tips me off is that if you say it is from the early 2000's, by them pioneers did not get 90 hours, they got 70. Also by then, I don't think brothers would go door to door with afros. I think this was taken from an older interview. I will try to find it, but I am really bad at internet research . I'll see what I can come up with.

Right. I remember that interview (it was in TV Guide), and I think they were quoting from earlier statements. Or, they mixed in earlier statement in to flesh out the article? It's generally known that Michael left the JWs in the late eighties.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I see we are at a disagreement with the history of Jesus in religion and the monotheistic religions all together. I'll leave it at that since this is a thread for MJ's specific beliefs and not for religion itself.

No history disagreement here, just making a point that following Jesus's example does not mean being a Christian.

I remember once when a British Christian priest was interviewed, he explicitely admitted that Muslims, for example, live closer to the way Jesus lived and observe his religion just as close (washing before praying, prosternating while praying, fasting, saluting with "may peace be with you = salaam/shalom,...), than modern Christians themselves.

 

[IvoryKeys]

I definitely don't disagree with you either on that, haha! Though I can't fully harp on Christians as I know many many good ones who do follow through with the teachings. Both sides have the good and the bad.

 

[Autumn II]

Fascinating thread. The Christians among us have a vested interest in whether or not Michael was Christian, because if he was not, then he was not "saved," which is intolerable to some. So, in that sense, I understand the strong arguments. But also, I am NOT worried, about that. As I've said before, I'm a Unitarian/Universalist. What that MEANS, is that we believe that a loving God would not condemn anyone to "hell." That is NOT loving. "Universalist" means "universal salvation." Some religions evolve, and some evolve a little bit, and some, not at all. The UU's have EVOLVED, from their beginnings as an alternative type of Christianity. We now embrace ALL faiths. Michael was not a UU, but he might have liked it and connected to it?

Michael was very CLEAR about his spiritual beliefs, post JWs. He was INCLUSIVE. His song-lyrics tell us that.

 

[Lucilla]

Fascinating thread. The Christians among us have a vested interest in whether or not Michael was Christian, because if he was not, then he was not "saved," which is intolerable to some. So, in that sense, I understand the strong arguments. But also, I am NOT worried, about that. As I've said before, I'm a Unitarian/Universalist. What that MEANS, is that we believe that a loving God would not condemn anyone to "hell." That is NOT loving. "Universalist" means "universal salvation." Some religions evolve, and some evolve a little bit, and some, not at all. The UU's have EVOLVED, from their beginnings as an alternative type of Christianity. We now embrace ALL faiths. Michael was not a UU, but he might have liked it and connected to it?

Michael was very CLEAR about his spiritual beliefs, post JWs. He was INCLUSIVE. His song-lyrics tell us that.

Depends on the Christian. It could be the same with every faith, some Muslims fans are probably worried he is not saved, some orthodox Jews fans probably think the same, some Wiccans fans probably think the same.
So please let's not generalize.

Michael wanted to unite people of all races and religions , which is what a Christian, Muslim, Jew, Wiccan should do.
Of course he wouldn't want to talk about his own faith, he was very polite and he wanted us to unite.

This is an example

When this happened, the last thing these people did was talk about the differences in their religions, and no matter how hypocrite you think this is, the message was clear: Unity. So, instead they focused on what they have in common.

Michael also focused on what we, humans, have in common. He wrote about that in his songs.

In his songs we can clearly see that unity was his goal, and probably all his life because He already said that was his goal in the 70's when he was still a JW.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

I am unclear at which point the Christian fear of 'unsaved' would set in. He left the JWs, at which part did he declare to have rejected Jesus because he left JWs?

I don't recall any statements of that kind.

And Lucilla, yes, I have seen seen literally all religions and religion like organizations express some kind of worry that they didn't know 'for sure' what he 'was'. If people are in anguish over his religious beliefs, than I do find that worrisome, but what is one to think when literally Muslims, Jews and Christians 'feared' for him? Doesn't that make you think?

 

[Lucilla]

I am unclear at which point the Christian fear of 'unsaved' would set in. He left the JWs, at which part did he declare to have rejected Jesus because he left JWs?

I don't recall any statements of that kind.

Exactly, me neither.

And Lucilla, yes, I have seen seen literally all religions and religion like organizations express some kind of worry that they didn't know 'for sure' what he 'was'. If people are in anguish over his religious beliefs, than I do find that worrisome, but what is one to think when literally Muslims, Jews and Christians 'feared' for him? Doesn't that make you think?

I'm not quit sure what you mean.
What should that make me think? That all religions should disappear off the face of the earth? Who knows, really (Because for me, there is no right answer for that matter).

 

[Indra]

In plain terms, I think Indra is telling you she believes Michael was secure in his faith in Christianity, and still wanted to know about everything else, every other religion and faith out there regardless of his belief. Does that make sense? I don't think she tried to assume something from you. More like trying to understand what your opinions are.

Thanks you - you got it.

 

[Indra]

Talk about projection here... So you somehow assumed why I am thinking that he educated himself- in search of a new 'religion'? I do not see Michael Jackson as an insecure man-child who was clinging to the notion that one religion and especially one denomination alone would be his salvation. He may have been very much of Christian leaning so that he felt secure enough to show up both in Kingdom Halls, Methodist Churches, Synagogues with a Bhagavad G?t? in hand, having read his Tagore and Rumi.

Educating yourself further isn't a sign of insecurity. "I know that I don't know" is not insecurity, but incredible wisdom. (although I understand that that very notion flies in the face of Christianity today...)
Reading Michael's poetry sure as heck allows you insight.

Seems like other folks are in need of security and need to 'know for sure' what he was and what he wasn't. The notion that those that dig deeper than just one denomination of one religion are insecure wanderers is rather tiring. And especially early Christianity was always 'searching'. Not out of insecurity, but only because the search yields the results. Those early Christians didn't have the luxury of sitting somewhere while all truth fell into their lap in form of a neat book. They had to go through the entire 'process', no wonder Christianity today is just a mere shadow of it's own former glory, rejecting everything it once stood for, making the complete 180 degrees? Those early Christian mystics would be the ultimate outcasts in today's Churches, lol.

Please never assume why someone else thinks something about MJ, or not. Your assumption couldn't be any more wrong from my thoughts about MJ. Unless I completely misunderstood you which I don't think is the case.

I really don't think I deserve that kind of an answer from you and I am sorry if I assumed wrong. What I took from what you wrote about Michael's interest in other religions - considering this is a discussion about his religion - was that you thought he was trying to find something and therefore never really belonged to one religion, but I guess you just wrote it for some other reason and again sorry for that.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Regarding Michael being "not saved", I'd say only sectarian groups have that kind of fear. Mainly religions advocate that you can be saved without belonging to the specific religious group. The values within a religion are usually universal and easily comparable with the values within another religion.

Gandhi so rightly stated: " I am a Muslim and a Hindu and a Christian and a Jew and so are all of you." Michael had pretty much the same concept of spirituality, but I guess that some don't see the universality of the message; as if only one place in the world would be blessed enough to get a divine message and not a single other place in times when there was no internet nor telêphone lines to communicate from one side of the planet to another.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

All religions claim to be the one true religion. All of them. Which of course raises the interesting question, how come all of them have that claim- does it mean they are all wrong, or that they all got at least something right?

And within all religions you have even further division. Catholics think you're a poor fella if you didn't join in 8 out of 10 sacraments, other Christians regard Catholics as the devil- whatever suits the need for an enemy.

You have a split in north/south in Buddhism and a Sunni/Shia split in Islam. And Hinduism is another story all in itself.

One can easily follow Christ and still recognize the universal message in all religions and philosophies, seeking universal wisdom. You will be told that this has nothing to with 'Michael's religious beliefs', which is why nobody wants to discuss this with you, because that means you're didn't stick MJ into one convenient drawer.

Denying the fact that he was an open minded student of all wisdom is as pointless as it is pointless to deny Michael's Christian standpoint. To deny either one is pointless.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

All religions claim to be the one true religion. All of them. Which of course raises the interesting question, how come all of them have that claim- does it mean they are all wrong, or that they all got at least something right?

And within all religions you have even further division. Catholics think you're a poor fella if you didn't join in 8 out of 10 sacraments, other Christians regard Catholics as the devil- whatever suits the need for an enemy.

You have a split in north/south in Buddhism and a Sunni/Shia split in Islam. And Hinduism is another story all in itself.

One can easily follow Christ and still recognize the universal message in all religions and philosophies, seeking universal wisdom. You will be told that this has nothing to with 'Michael's religious beliefs', which is why nobody wants to discuss this with you, because that means you're didn't stick MJ into one convenient drawer.

Denying the fact that he was an open minded student of all wisdom is as pointless as it is pointless to deny Michael's Christian standpoint. To deny either one is pointless.

Of course each religion claims to be the right one and knowing the truth. If that wasn't the case, the religion itself wouldn't exist.

But my point is, not all religions force you to be their member. In other ords, you can be saved without being their member.

So, what I meant basically is that usually, a sectarian approach is when you claim that all other will persih if you are not their member, while religious approach is much more broader and accept the division. For example, both Orthodox and catholics share the same values and I highly doubt that they mutually exclude themselves or claim that they will be not saved if tehy're either Catholics or Orthodox. The same with Sunni and Shia, there is no hierarchy in islam to tell anyone to be Sunni or Shia, neither do they believe in mutual exclusion.

As long as the values and principles are the same, why believing that the roses in my garden are better than the roses of my neighbor which have the same roots and which are cherished and watered with the same love?

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

...

But my point is, not all religions force you to be their member. In other ords, you can be saved without being their member.

So, what I meant basically is that usually, a sectarian approach is when you claim that all other will persih if you are not their member, while religious approach is much more broader and accept the division. For example, both Orthodox and catholics share the same values and I highly doubt that they mutually exclude themselves or claim that they will be not saved if tehy're either Catholics or Orthodox. The same with Sunni and Shia, there is no hierarchy in islam to tell anyone to be Sunni or Shia, neither do they believe in mutual exclusion.

As long as the values and principles are the same, why believing that the roses in my garden are better than the roses of my neighbor which have the same roots and which are cherished and watered with the same love?

Hm, I will have to disagree especially with the statement that for example within Christianity everyone has the same basic core values and beliefs- you would think that the basic story of Yeshua would suffice to unite- but apparently that isn't so. Man made theology gets heavily in the way. From the Trinity to is "Is Jesus God or not"- the funny thing is that Hinduism does something very similar, only much more complicated in its layout.

However, it's the followers that make other follows of the same Christianity out to be devils incarnated- and believe me, I've heard plenty of that. But I have never read any public declaration from any Christian Church that damns their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox fellows into hell.

And what Shiites and Sunnis do to one another looks as if they observed Protestants and Catholics a bit too closely.

And you brought up another point, that of free will. There was this anguish here that was mentioned for some Christians (and even other religions). While I understand where this anguish would come from theoretically, you can't help but include free will in that process if your one true religion requires such anguish.

And I agree with your picture of the rose. The rose is the perfect image for a universal quality. (even when you look at the rose from a Christian standpoint). A rose will always be a rose, no matter what you call that precious rose.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Hm, I will have to disagree especially with the statement that for example within Christianity everyone has the same basic core values and beliefs- you would think that the basic story of Yeshua would suffice to unite- but apparently that isn't so.

Well, it should. Yeshu'a/Yeshu/Isho/Isso/Eessa/Yassu'a didn't teach anything new actually. He said it himself (according to what we can find in the four Gospels). He just tried to make people cease sticking to the litteral meaning and forgetting deeds and their relevance. Today's sects do exactly the opposite of his teachings, not to mention that today's Christianity in general is actually more "Paulism" than Christianity which probably completely differ from the religion that was followed by the early Christians who were actually Jews.

Man made theology gets heavily in the way. From the Trinity to is "Is Jesus God or not"- the funny thing is that Hinduism does something very similar, only much more complicated in its layout.

Let's not forget that the official man made theology debating Christ's divinity and/or trinity was above all interpreted by the Romans (who had been polytheists and to whom trinity was a common concept), hence clear split between Christians (Paulians?) and Jews who never had the concept of trinity in their scriptures.

However, it's the followers that make other follows of the same Christianity out to be devils incarnated- and believe me, I've heard plenty of that. But I have never read any public declaration from any Christian Church that damns their Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox fellows into hell.

Interesting word - devil. It is even more interesting when you know that it has exactly the same root as divine or god. Language barrier leads to misinterpretation among different religions. They know that and that's why it would be strange --knowing that -- to exclude others from the promised Eden.

And what Shiites and Sunnis do to one another looks as if they observed Protestants and Catholics a bit too closely.

Purely socio-political. Religion has nothing to do with people following some political parties and not other.

And you brought up another point, that of free will. There was this anguish here that was mentioned for some Christians (and even other religions). While I understand where this anguish would come from theoretically, you can't help but include free will in that process if your one true religion requires such anguish.

Free will is important as long as it doesn't harm others.

And I agree with your picture of the rose. The rose is the perfect image for a universal quality. (even when you look at the rose from a Christian standpoint). A rose will always be a rose, no matter what you call that precious rose.

Well, my point was, despite the differences, the ones who believe that others will perish no matter what only because they don't belong to their group is where a religion ends and where a sect starts.

I think that if Michael was reading books on the subject, he was aware of all this and that's why he never clearly stated to which group he felt the closest. He always appeared extremely close to all religions and cultures bearing in mind that there are more common things that unite humans than dogmatic differences established by none other than humans too. Him claiming to be like Jesus (to follow his example) makes him no more Christian than Gandhi claiming to be Christian too (as a matter of fact he was Hindu).

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

Well, it should. Yeshu'a/Yeshu/Isho/Isso/Eessa/Yassu'a didn't teach anything new actually. He said it himself (according to what we can find in the four Gospels). He just tried to make people cease sticking to the litteral meaning and forgetting deeds and their relevance. Today's sects do exactly the opposite of his teachings, not to mention that today's Christianity in general is actually more "Paulism" than Christianity which probably completely differ from the religion that was followed by the early Christians who were actually Jews.


Let's not forget that the official man made theology debating Christ's divinity and/or trinity was above all interpreted by the Romans (who had been polytheists and to whom trinity was a common concept), hence clear split between Christians (Paulians?) and Jews who never had the concept of trinity in their scriptures.

I would think that that wasn't even an immediate problem for the early ones, particularly since it took a while for this sect (as they were called) to take hold. And the Romans of course haven't been the first ones to try and adjust that concept to their multitude of Gods. It's actually quite fascinating to see how often you'll find the motive of resurrection for example. The Romans knew the Greeks and what do you find there? Temples built to Hera, being heralded as the virgin (early, early stuff). And what did the Greeks do? Brought it back from Egypt. Where did the Egyptians get these ideas? Down to Babylonia and Sumeria you go and their tales of resurrection and renewed life- if you look at the Gilgamesch Epos you can easily see where Christianity becomes universal to all these cultures.

Interesting word - devil. It is even more interesting when you know that it has exactly the same root as divine or god. Language barrier leads to misinterpretation among different religions. They know that and that's why it would be strange --knowing that -- to exclude others from the promised Eden.

Absolutely. "Deva", Sanskrit for 'deity'/God. And right there we can go back to the Trinity as well, in this case simply called the trinity being labeled "Trimurti" (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva/ Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwara). Hence my comment about calling fellow believers devils incarnated. Would love to expand on that later.

Purely socio-political. Religion has nothing to do with people following some political parties and not other.

Oh, most definitely political. When has a belief ever stopped mankind in its political tracks? Absolutely never ever.

...
I think that if Michael was reading books on the subject, he was aware of all this and that's why he never clearly stated to which group he felt the closest. He always appeared extremely close to all religions and cultures bearing in mind that there are more common things that unite humans than dogmatic differences established by none other than humans too. Him claiming to be like Jesus (to follow his example) makes him no more Christian than Gandhi claiming to be Christian too (as a matter of fact he was Hindu).

Michael seemed also quite versed when it came to Gandhi as he quoted him extensively at the Bollywood Awards, explaining his own philanthropic stance.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

I would think that that wasn't even an immediate problem for the early ones, particularly since it took a while for this sect (as they were called) to take hold. And the Romans of course haven't been the first ones to try and adjust that concept to their multitude of Gods. It's actually quite fascinating to see how often you'll find the motive of resurrection for example. The Romans knew the Greeks and what do you find there? Temples built to Hera, being heralded as the virgin (early, early stuff). And what did the Greeks do? Brought it back from Egypt. Where did the Egyptians get these ideas? Down to Babylonia and Sumeria you go and their tales of resurrection and renewed life- if you look at the Gilgamesch Epos you can easily see where Christianity becomes universal to all these cultures.

Absolutely. "Deva", Sanskrit for 'deity'/God. And right there we can go back to the Trinity as well, in this case simply called the trinity being labeled "Trimurti" (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva/ Brahma-Vishnu-Maheshwara). Hence my comment about calling fellow believers devils incarnated. Would love to expand on that later.

Oh, most definitely political. When has a belief ever stopped mankind in its political tracks? Absolutely never ever.

Michael seemed also quite versed when it came to Gandhi as he quoted him extensively at the Bollywood Awards, explaining his own philanthropic stance.

I see we are on the same wavelength.

What you should check if you haven't is Romans' soldiers belief in Mithra (brought from Persia). Many churches across Europe have been built on Mithra's temples.

As far as Deva is concerned it comes from an even older root : Daiwos which evolved in 1) Deus/Theos/Dieu/Divine* & 2) Diav(a)o(l)/Diable/Diabolo

*In Slavic languages Divine has the same root as Div = a Giant.

 

[IvoryKeys]

OT: this is a very interesting thread to take part in, and I invite other members who might be lurking to please post!

I love reading all the opinions of the members here on the board!

 

[Bo G]

Oh no, not the return of Bo G after all this time?!

No history disagreement here, just making a point that following Jesus's example does not mean being a Christian.

I remember once when a British Christian priest was interviewed, he explicitely admitted that Muslims, for example, live closer to the way Jesus lived and observe his religion just as close (washing before praying, prosternating while praying, fasting, saluting with "may peace be with you = salaam/shalom,...), than modern Christians themselves.

This is such an important point you're making. And this extends beyond nonChristian religions. I'm a humanist, meaning I have a nontheistic spirituality, or philosophy of ethics and meaning, and many of us take inspiration from Jesus. Especially his compassion for the poor, which is horrifyingly lacking in this world (including the US Christian right-wing political faction.)

Thomas Jefferson tried to follow Jesus' teaching but did not believe in his divinity or miracles, distributing to Congress a book consisting of the New Testament with all references to these removed -- he believed these were added much later. Here's the actual Bible he cut up, on display at his home, Monticello in Virginia.

Educating yourself further isn't a sign of insecurity. "I know that I don't know" is not insecurity, but incredible wisdom.

Such an unpopular concept for most. Society is increasingly pushing people to have hardened, unchangeable opinions, and considers it a virtue to have firm faith without evidence. And it is this thinking that most people define as "spiritual." Thus anyone can claim they have special knowledge others aren't privy to and acquire power, and the pursuit of objective truth becomes devalued and irrelevant.

I do ask that those here who believe in broad inclusion take that the the full distance to include nontheistic philosophies such as humanism, naturalism, and the nontheistic sects of Buddhism.

As for Michael, the evidence indicates that he was a strong theist, had a Jeffersonian notion of Jesus (meaning that he was not a Christian by the most commonly understood definition and most likely could not be accurately considered "saved" by many groups' definitions. He was a seeker enjoying deeply engaging with many religions, especially Christianity and New Age.

 

[ginvid]

Of course each religion claims to be the right one and knowing the truth. If that wasn't the case, the religion itself wouldn't exist.

But my point is, not all religions force you to be their member. In other ords, you can be saved without being their member.

So, what I meant basically is that usually, a sectarian approach is when you claim that all other will persih if you are not their member, while religious approach is much more broader and accept the division. For example, both Orthodox and catholics share the same values and I highly doubt that they mutually exclude themselves or claim that they will be not saved if tehy're either Catholics or Orthodox. The same with Sunni and Shia, there is no hierarchy in islam to tell anyone to be Sunni or Shia, neither do they believe in mutual exclusion.

As long as the values and principles are the same, why believing that the roses in my garden are better than the roses of my neighbor which have the same roots and which are cherished and watered with the same love?

But the question becomes, are all religions the same road leading one eventuality. Or, are all religions roses in different gardens? Of course not. (I say this from the standpoint of Christianity.) If you have a Bible, and you are following that Bible, and you claim that God is the author of the Bible, you have to admit that the God of the Bible never took on a stance of accepting whatever people wanted to do. The God of the Bible was always very much about having a group separate from the other religions and the other national groups. Through most of the Bble this was the Jewish nation. Once you reach the end of the Bible, a "spiritual" nation is emphasized, belonging to many national groups, as opposed to just one, however, this group is still a separated group. It is not every rose garden is correct, but many roses taken from many different gardens to create a garden that is united to become God's spiritual nation.

To say that God accepts any religion or any way that a person wants to worship is saying that there is no truth, or that truth is left up to individual interpretation. If you look at how the world even runs based on it's systems and properties, that goes against what is natural. In the world there cannot be multiple, diversive truths. Either we have gravity or not. Either things fall at a constant rate or not, etc. If you portend that the Bible is just as much the truth as gravity, then either something is right or not when talking about basic truths.

Religions has for many years played a part politically. Religious institutions for many years are what controlled the government. Even though I think it really does not play nearly as big a part as it did.

What would let me know MJ's mindset more, I think, would be to know what parts of the Bible he regularly read. He was quoted as saying that he read the Bible daily. But that does nt mean that he gave credence to the whole Bible. He could have been reading the same parts over and over. Many different religions read the Bible at least in part because they respect some of the same basic principles in it. They believe in loving your neighbor, in not lying, in showing love to children (a part MJ always quotes). But that does not mean they accept all of it as being divine.

By the end of MJ's life, he might have just felt the Bible was a good book to follow in part. It is very difficult to tell. Being well versed in something does not make a person a follower, it makes them well versed. I think MJ may have held to some JW teachings (for instance when in an interview, he was asked about Obama, he mentions how he does not get involved in politics from how he was raised). But I think some of these things are what he did as a matter of practice, not a matter of worship. Meaning he continued in a way he was used to continuing in.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

But the question becomes, are all religions the same road leading one eventuality. Or, are all religions roses in different gardens? Of course not. (I say this from the standpoint of Christianity.)

All comparable messages in various religions lead towards the same end. It's like a top of a mountain, it's up to us to take a path towards its top.

If you have a Bible, and you are following that Bible,

Which one? There isn't one translation of the bible, but hundreds all claiming to be the right one, not to mention additional books in some branches of Christianity or the apocryphas.

and you claim that God is the author of the Bible, you have to admit that the God of the Bible never took on a stance of accepting whatever people wanted to do.

The Bible was not written by God himself, but by humans. Most of the scriptures have been written hundreds of years after the prophets actually died. The Bible is a reported speech, not a direct dictation. By the way many fragments are missing.

The God of the Bible was always very much about having a group separate from the other religions and the other national groups.

The God of the Bible or the scribe who wrote those parts in the Bible? If God created us all, why would he privilege one dot on Earth and give message only to those people there and not to the other side of the world like American Indians for example? Why would they be kept away from God's message?

Through most of the Bble this was the Jewish nation. Once you reach the end of the Bible, a "spiritual" nation is emphasized, belonging to many national groups, as opposed to just one, however, this group is still a separated group. It is not every rose garden is correct, but many roses taken from many different gardens to create a garden that is united to become God's spiritual nation.

There is only one garden though : Earth. And there is only one humanity on Earth: all of us.

To say that God accepts any religion or any way that a person wants to worship is saying that there is no truth, or that truth is left up to individual interpretation.

I didn't say that. I'd rather say that there is one truth, but that humans transformed it, yet we still can find the same message.

If you look at how the world even runs based on it's systems and properties, that goes against what is natural. In the world there cannot be multiple, diversive truths.

There is one truth, of course, but no one can claim to have it 100% due to misinterpretations.

Either we have gravity or not. Either things fall at a constant rate or not, etc. If you portend that the Bible is just as much the truth as gravity, then either something is right or not when talking about basic truths.

Think. If the Bible was the truth we wouldn't have been discussing it at all just like we don't discuss that there is gravity. The truth is always clear, the Bible is not due to many translations, interpretations and lacking parts in the original.

Religions has for many years played a part politically. Religious institutions for many years are what controlled the government. Even though I think it really does not play nearly as big a part as it did.

It depends on the country actually.

What would let me know MJ's mindset more, I think, would be to know what parts of the Bible he regularly read. He was quoted as saying that he read the Bible daily. But that does nt mean that he gave credence to the whole Bible. He could have been reading the same parts over and over. Many different religions read the Bible at least in part because they respect some of the same basic principles in it. They believe in loving your neighbor, in not lying, in showing love to children (a part MJ always quotes). But that does not mean they accept all of it as being divine.

Michael was said to read not only the Bible, but all kinds of books. He claimed that he had more than 3000 books in his library and that he read them all.

By the end of MJ's life, he might have just felt the Bible was a good book to follow in part. It is very difficult to tell. Being well versed in something does not make a person a follower, it makes them well versed. I think MJ may have held to some JW teachings (for instance when in an interview, he was asked about Obama, he mentions how he does not get involved in politics from how he was raised). But I think some of these things are what he did as a matter of practice, not a matter of worship. Meaning he continued in a way he was used to continuing in.

Well of course that you usually act the way you were educated. If he was educated not to take part in politics, then he probably wouldn't. But honestly, what is the use of it not being educated in politics? I always say, if you don't take care of politics, the politics will take care of you.

 

[ginvid]

All comparable messages in various religions lead towards the same end. It's like a top of a mountain, it's up to us to take a path towards its top.

That is not true. They most certainly do not lead to the same end. By means of the Bible, Jesus spoke many times of opposing roads. One leading off to destruction, one on the opposite path. He says that one road is cramped and the other has few people on it. He never spoke as though all ways were different ways to the same point. But rather, spoke of there being only one way.


Which one? There isn't one translation of the bible, but hundreds all claiming to be the right one, not to mention additional books in some branches of Christianity or the apocryphas.

Not all Bible translations claim to be the "right" one. The only one I ever hear that about is TKJV. All Bible translations from those who have made a scholarly effort to translate accurately, have the same basic truths in them. They do not differ greatly. Some are more accurate than others. But that does not mean that they differ so greatly that rtuth is lost. (BTW you remind me of my teacher so much with that question.)

The Bible was not written by God himself, but by humans. Most of the scriptures have been written hundreds of years after the prophets actually died. The Bible is a reported speech, not a direct dictation. By the way many fragments are missing.

I am of a different opinion. The Bible was written physically by man, but was inspired directly by God.

The God of the Bible or the scribe who wrote those parts in the Bible? If God created us all, why would he privilege one dot on Earth and give message only to those people there and not to the other side of the world like American Indians for example? Why would they be kept away from God's message?

The scribe wrote according to God. God did create us all, and in the beginning of creation, there was only one way, one set of people. As man procreated, they were brought up in and adopted views contrary to what was God given. They created gods and created their own ways of life. But there were still those who were willing to comply and enter into an agreement to follow God's laws. Any, no matter what nation they were, who wanted to adopt these views could do so.

There is only one garden though : Earth. And there is only one humanity on Earth: all of us.

No, by your own analogy, there are many gardens.

As long as the values and principles are the same, why believing that the roses in my garden are better than the roses of my neighbor which have the same roots and which are cherished and watered with the same love?

The fact that you say how can the roses in my garden be considered better than yours points to the existence of many gardens or at least more than one.


I didn't say that. I'd rather say that there is one truth, but that humans transformed it, yet we still can find the same message.

I agree with this.


There is one truth, of course, but no one can claim to have it 100% due to misinterpretations.

I don't think anyone has it 100% either. When Jesus spoke to his disciples, some things he would not tell them because he said at that point they would not be able to understand. Therefore, at some points, even the disciples had misunderstandings about some things. But what exacerbates the problem is when people do not let the scriptures interpret themselves, but try to interpret them based on popular opinion. I do however think that based on the scriptures, I can say who I believe is closest. IMHO.

Think. If the Bible was the truth we wouldn't have been discussing it at all just like we don't discuss that there is gravity. The truth is always clear, the Bible is not due to many translations, interpretations and lacking parts in the original.

I have thought about it very much. Do you know how hard a concept like gravity was to prove? Do you know how difficult it was to prove things like the make up of our solar system? Had this been a few hundred years ago on a forum, we could be arguing whether or not the sun was the center of the universe. And, we rightfully could not argue that because it is something that is discussed at depth then it cannot be true. It just shows that some things are harder to verify than others. It took until we got a powerful enough telescope to prove the make up of the solar system. We prove gravity by its effect. The Bible has many truths that have been proven. Some are going to take future events to verify it. But that doesn't necessarily nullify it as not true.

The Bible is very clear.


It depends on the country actually.

I can see how that can effect this. But throughout history religions have almost always effected government. Whether you are talking about ancient Egypt, to the Babylonians, to Greece, even down to Rome and Indian groups, religion or at least spirituality has either influenced or been an integral part of government.

Michael was said to read not only the Bible, but all kinds of books. He claimed that he had more than 3000 books in his library and that he read them all.

Ok. Never said he didn't. That was a response to those who said that Michael reading the Bible pointed to him being Christian.


Well of course that you usually act the way you were educated. If he was educated not to take part in politics, then he probably wouldn't. But honestly, what is the use of it not being educated in politics? I always say, if you don't take care of politics, the politics will take care of you.

There is a difference in what you wrote. Being educated in what is happening politically and partaking of politics are two separate things. Just because you do not get involved in government does not mean you do not take the time to learn what is going on around you.

PS. How do you quote separate sentences and then reply to them without them being inside the quote?

 

[Bo G]

There is only one garden though : Earth. And there is only one humanity on Earth: all of us.

This to me is the essence of the most profound and true connection humanly possible to that which is greater than ourselves. By pining for a theoretical more awesome paradise elsewhere, available to only a select group, people are just not as fully committed to this world, its inhabitants, and our long-term future as we need so badly.

But honestly, what is the use of it not being educated in politics? I always say, if you don't take care of politics, the politics will take care of you.

Michael knew this, which is why he celebrated Clinton's victory at his 1993 inauguration, and helped save the Democratic Party from a financial crisis during the Congressional elections in 2002. His reference to "we have four years" in This It was in part a reference to taking advantage of the new Obama administration to work on global warming.

At the time of the 2007 Ebony interview, the party was split right down the middle during the Democratic primary of Obama and Hillary Clinton. It was a very difficult and sensitive time for the party, and Michael wisely refrained from commenting on it. It was always Michael's priority not to alienate any portion of his fanbase. He went a bit overboard making excuses, though, lol, claiming he was brought up to stay out of politics, when in fact he'd been heavily nvolved at times.

Politics governs our world, like it or not, and to not participate as an informed and active voter is to avoid one's duty to current and future generations.

 

[ginvid]

BoG, out of curiousity, what makes you think his "four Years" was a reference to the Obama administration as opposed to being about what many environmentalists agree to as a pivotal time period for changes in the Earth? I'm just curious.

Thanks.

I do think MJ went too far as well sometimes to try and please people. I think because of his childhood and wanting to be liked by everyone, he did try not to alienate anyone. Plus I think he thought it was just good business.

IMO, to be informed about what is taking place in the world is important. But I view it as an oppotunity to see where we are in the stream of time. I view it as an opportunity to see the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. I respectfully disagree with your last sentence.

 

[Bo G]

BoG, out of curiousity, what makes you think his "four Years" was a reference to the Obama administration as opposed to being about what many environmentalists agree to as a pivotal time period for changes in the Earth? I'm just curious.

Thanks.

I do think MJ went too far as well sometimes to try and please people. I think because of his childhood and wanting to be liked by everyone, he did try not to alienate anyone. Plus I think he thought it was just good business.

IMO, to be informed about what is taking place in the world is important. But I view it as an oppotunity to see where we are in the stream of time. I view it as an opportunity to see the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. I respectfully disagree with your last sentence.

You're being generous! You surely disagree with nearly every sentence there

Well you're really absolutely right that "four years" was also a reference to a pivotal time climate-wise, though that news came not from environmentalists but from scientists, as I summarize in this page of my blog, http://mjjtheman.wetpaint.com/page/MJ's+Final+Campaign .

But four years coincidentally also happened to be massively important for the climate politically. Obama had just been inaugurated, and there was no guarantee he'd win a second term. The Republicans are hostile to global warming action, so if Obama wasn't urged by the people to take make full use of his four years, that crucial window of opportunity would be lost. Next, it was all in the papers, which you can also see on that blog page, while Mike was rehearsing, about the next climate treaty global summit that fall in Copenhagen. This would replace the Kyoto Protocol, and be the last such summit for many years. Since this had been Michael's top priority for several years, he absolutely was aware of this. He knew the urgency of people around the world pressing their leaders to sign a binding treaty, and the US, which had refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, was viewed as the single most important signatory. China and other countries did not want to sign if he US didn't. But Michael died, and so did the Copenhagen treaty, because the US once again refused. Michael was clearly both scientifically and politically astute.

So you're saying there is no virtue in good citizenship? That we're essentially a passive audience sitting bach enjoying watching this staged drama of Biblical prophecy occur?

What if you're wrong? Then you've contributed to the suffering of billions. If I'm wrong, well I've simply worried myself unnecessarily, big deal. Therefore we are morally bound to act, in case the Bible has been misinterpreted. It sure wouldn't be the first time.