Various sects and religions directly contradict each other. Thus they can't all be right. For example some say Jesus is the son of God and some say he is not.
They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.
That's not to say that they can't all have something valuable to teach, or that they can't all be important to understanding culture, history or human nature. (Except for Scientology--I don't think it has anything valuable to teach except for 'hold on to your wallet'.)
That only reflects that the original message has been corrupted or forgotten. It also may reflect that there is no compulsion in religion.
As no two are the same, that would mean that 10,000 messages were corrupted while exactly one was not. Hard to believe...
Of course there is compulsion in religion: "Do what I say or burn forever" is pretty strong.
If one sees an old building right now in shambles and one believes that once it was a in good condition and might have been a marvelous building; nobody would say one is wrong.
[20:17] ‘So let not him who believes not therein and follows his own evil inclinations, turn thee away therefrom, lest thou perish.
- what is the nature of "perishing?"
Agreed. What does it have to do with corruption of religious beliefs? Are you trying to say that all religions were once beautiful and right, but have now fallen? If so, your evidence for same?
After all, if one is to continue the building analogy, we can either think the building was always a shambles, or we can look at old photos to see what it once was. When we look at old "photos" of religion, though, we see that it is better now then millenia ago; man has improved it's religions, not allowed them to crumble like the building.
It reflects that they are not all truthful. You didn't say "mean well" or "reflect some underlying truth". You said they are all truthful and this is impossible.
Since the revealed religions are all from the same source of the One-True-God hence they are truthful in origin; this is what naturally it should be.
Hence nothing. There is absolutely no reason to think that the One-True-God has not lied through his teeth to us.
I don't agree with you; however you can have your own opinion, no compulsion.
Does it occur to you that when your assumptions lead to nonsense statement (directly contracting stories are simultaneously all true) that maybe some of your assumptions are false.
For example, some modern religions are known to originate with specific not very holy people. Ergo, being a religion does not mean being made by God or someone sincerely inspired by what they assume to be God.
Jesus being a god or son of god is not the core teaching of Jesus or Moses.
Jesus said that no one comes to the father but by him. It seems a core teaching. He said no one. Jesus stated that he is the only way to the father.
The core teaching of Jesus is as follows:
When Jesus was asked which of the commandments He esteemed to be the greatest, He replied,
‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’”
Matthew 22:37 NIV
Then Jesus added, “This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it:
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Matthew 22:38-39 NIV
Jesus said further,
“All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 22:40 NIV
Jesus' core teachings is as follows:
When Jesus was asked which of the commandments He esteemed to be the greatest, He replied,
‘“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’”
Matthew 22:37 NIV
Then Jesus added, “This is the first and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it:
‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
Matthew 22:38-39 NIV
Jesus said further,
“All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 22:40 NIV
It is however absolutely core doctrine to some religions.
So now you are saying some religions are "more true" than others? That is not very different from saying there is only one true religion.
You're back you've been gone for ages.
However, how do you define a revealed religion? Revealed by whom? I think every religion has something useful to say to society and human nature and many of them have shared wisdoms, but truth....... Religions with conflicting ideas cannot all be true, and who gets to decide which is the true one? Nobody alive has ever been a witness to the claims of each religion's prophets, so there simply is no evidence available to support one over another. Personally I think all religions are manmade fabrications because none of them describe a God that come close to what an ideal perfect God should be. For example Allah wants to kill infidels and the Christian god loves unbelievers when they are alive but hates them when they are dead.
Like the religion revealed to Moses; he never intended to propound a religion till he was addressed by the One-True-God Allah Yahweh with a clear message thus:
[20:13] ‘Verily, I am thy Lord. So take off thy shoes; for thou art in the sacred Valley of Tuwa. [20:13] ‘Verily, I am thy Lord. So take off thy shoes; for thou art in the sacred Valley of Tuwa.
[20:14] ‘And I have chosen thee; so hearken to what is revealed
[20:15] ‘Verily, I am Allah; there is no God beside Me. So serve Me, and observe Prayer for My remembrance.
[20:16] ‘Surely, the Hour is coming; I am going to manifest it, that every soul may be recompensed for its endeavour.
[20:17] ‘So let not him who believes not therein and follows his own evil inclinations, turn thee away therefrom, lest thou perish.
https://alislam.org/quran/search2/showC … mp;verse=8
It sounds a lot like the bible to me. I hope that is not totally disrespectful. I'm just saying...
At first I was confused as to what you meant when your statement read 'revealed religion'. As time passed you clarified that statement. I would like to place a different wording when the subject of religion is raised. Think about all religions and what their philosophies are. Have you heard of the late Stuart Wilde who was a lecturing about the ancient Chinese religion of Taoism? It is quite fascinating. Go to your library and borrow a pack of CDs entited "Infinite Self".
Believing that will conflict with any religion. The core of each religion serves a specific purpose which conflicts with other religions. Mormonism was started so that Joseph Smith could have multiple wives.
Edit: The only way a black person could join the mormons (until rather recently) was if they promised to be a slave in the afterlife. And the only reason they changed there views on that was because Jimmy Carter told they he would pull their tax immunity.
Well, Kukai argued that all words have some bit of truth to them, even outright lies, because all words, all sounds emanate from the dharma body of the Cosmic Buddha. Doesn't mean he was right, of course, lol.
I'm curious, though--how many 'revealed religions' are there? The working definition we have right now seems too vague. 'Ones like what was revealed to Moses' can either exclude everything except Judaism, or include everything except Scientology and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Good question. There are said to be 4,200 religions. I don't know how connected they are.
Not to mention the thousands of denominations among those religions--each one claiming that theirs is the TRUE version of the revealed religion. Talk about blind men and an elephant.
If there is free will then there would be denominations and differences; but that is not a problem one could always find truth from the false; man is endowed with wisdom and reason.
If one can always find the truth from the false, why are there still so many variant revealed religions, and so many denominations thereof (as opposed to one true denomination and thousands of abandoned ones)? You seem like you're trying to have it both ways.
Not all of them claim to be Revealed from the One-True-God Allah Yahweh.
So only religions claiming origin from Yahweh are 'revealed'? Okay, that's a good working definition. That narrows us down from 4000+ religions to probably at least a dozen , plus the thousands of denominations among those.
The One-True-God is known from His attributes; He has been named by different people differently in their own language like Allah, Yahweh,Ahura Mazda, Parmesher etc; that should not bother one.
There is no need to name the religion; submission to Truth or One-True-God Allah Yahweh is needed.
what do you mean in the origin? all religions pertaining to the beginning of everything?
Religion is nothing without the human mind to drum up excuses for their failings.
Sorry, my words failed me....should have said 'your' failings.
Very kind of you to shine the light my way. But no thanks. can you say more about MY failings?
Oh, can I take this one?
You've failed to convince me that any God exists. You've even failed to convince me you believe in any God?
I have failed to "convince" you??? Good. I cannot convince you or anyone else of anything you gotta get ur own... if I convince you. You may be UNconvinced.
You have a faux humbleness about you when you say you 'can't convince anyone of anything'. That's bollocks--of course you can. That's what persuasive speaking and writing is all about. You just won't be able to with your level of debate skills, lol.
The kingdom of God is different... no "debate" skills needed. Lol
God is the "convincer" for they that follow him. It takes personal experience to "get". I cannot tell you of my experience to get you to "firmly believe" you need your own personal experience. You must ask in faith for that. My experience can "save" no one but me. Ask jonny.
You have a pretty poor excuse for a god, who can only "convince" a small minority of the population he even exists, let alone that they should obey him.
Maybe you should cast about for one with a little more in the way of natural abilities?
My God is. And so is the God of many others. I am convinced already. You do the casting...
Oh, I do. I cast all the time.
But all I ever find are people, not gods...people that tell me they have a god but cannot show him to me. People that say their god will contact me, but it never happens. People that say their god did this or did that, but cannot show he did. People, in other words, that live in their imagination rather than the real world.
You never consider yourself the imagination station?
You somehow believe that there is evidence for all truth. Crazy that your evidence comes from other books; written by other people. Not from rocks YOU amassed in Nazareth; Jerusalem; or Eden. You take the words of ... because they say, "we tested"
Of course I understand that there are truths without evidence, or at least evidence we've found. The vast majority of truth fits into this category.
I also understand that all lies and falsehoods also fall in this category, and that we cannot tell the difference between them until the evidence is found. Do you?
Indeed! My experience has saved me from your rubbish, Cgenaea!
What exactly is your illness? Pathological Projection?
The format, of the major religions, is similar in structure, but they have divided them self with semantics and the need to be correct. In religious thought there is basically a top spot that has a Creator and then there is a level of spiritually that a person needs to grow through to find peace with the Creator. A person believes in a Creator (Believer) or they do not believe in a Creator (a Non-Believer). The divisions created by the need to be correct is what hurts the Believers from seeing their common ground and leads many people to being Non-Believers
I agree with you.
The format of all revealed religion is almost the same; when the original message in the original language revealed on the founder of a revealed religion is lost or becomes diluted in the debris of time the differences are made.
Yes. I for one, know that the bible says just that. The petty quarrel over words is a dividing factor. Jesus attests to the fact that there are important matters of the law. Our focus should be there. Some things are just not that important. I just heard someone actually singing, Go tell iton the mmountain that Jesus Christ is born. Some of you may have heard it too if you are watching this channel. I believe Jesus. That's one of those important matters for me. I realize that so many disagree, but I am ok with it. I hold no ill will. I tell what the bible says. It is the only constant truth for me. That is another huge dividing factor.
You did originally say core teachings. I thought you meant more than one.
Jesus, Moses, Muhammad and all other founders of revealed religion were truthful in origin and had same core teachings as the were sent by the same One-True-God Allah Yahweh.
Is it really the same God if each God is different? Is the Muslim God also Jesus? Is the Christian God without Jesus?
Jesus did not believe that he was literally a god or son of god.
No, but the early 'orthodox' Christians killed off all the other early Christians who said Jesus was not divine, and burned their writings, and stamped out the denominations which held that Jesus was not divine or literally the son of God (because they apparently thought that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about when he said he wasn't literally the son of God, or the inspired scribes just wrote it down wrong, or something, right?).
I believe this is during the time of Council of Nicea which is 325 AD, so not quite early early-- roughly 300 years later. Also the ascension to heaven reportedly does not appear till 200 years after Christ(pbuh) in the Gospel of Luke. And there is much in the Gospels to confute the notions of God or literal son of God or a physiological ascension to Heaven.
Jesus calls himself the Son of Man often enough. He only called himself a God or a son of God in the same sense as in The Book of Exodus God tells Moses (pbuh) . . ."Behold I send you as a God unto Pharoah . . ." as in, prophets are representatives and messengers of God. The Jews never took Moses to be a God. Even today, by reading the Gospels one can discover much of the origin.
I consider pre-Nicaea to be pretty early, lol. It's before the established orthodoxy, and before Christianity was endorsed by Constantine. Is there an academic delineation for when 'Early Christianity' ended?
I suppose in contemporary academic and conventional terms it would be 'early' but would not be for those who were around at the time or even some time after. Constantine's involvement itself is cited as a potential factor in how these seemingly pagan concepts of worshiping man as God and other pagan customs such as the Easter bunny crept into Christianity. Was there some fusion with Roman religious doctrine to please Constantine? Possibly.
Jesus was a follower of Moses;his core teachings explain it evidently.
You mean, "I am the way; the truth; and the life..."? Or, "if you have seen me (the way I do things); you have seen the father (the way he does things)"
I want to be clear on your statement.
There is One God and many many many many confused people
The nation of Islam and Christians both come from the SAME man; who was promised a great number of descents. Both faiths from the SAME man of FAITH.
The Lord promised Abraham a son via Sarah. The promised child came, and a great nation of fath comes from him. The Lord also promised Hagar a great nation from her son. And surely as we know, the promise was kept. Same God.
Ishmael, being raised into adulthood by Abraham, surely knew the God of his father. Now yes, there is a divide, but that was also promised. As a note: the bible is batting a thousand on the promise thing...
That's not at all true. One might say that according to the bible Muslims are related to Jews, but Christians were not decedents of anyone biblically.
Right. All with FAITH in Jesus' message were his "family"; Jew and Gentile alike. Abraham is the father of both nations. His sons were divided. Both yielded "great nations" with differences. Remember that one son parted from the bosom of Abraham. Went a different way...
Im having yet another "dummy" moment what race were Adam, Eve, and Noah (the first "chosen")??? Please help my ignorance.
All were of the race that gave rise to Jesus; as all depictions by the church have Jesus as Caucasian, those people must have been white, too.
Reality and truth were never strong points of religion, were they? In truth, Adam and Eve were "born" in the heart of Africa and were thus black. Noah, only a few generations from them and with no other race to mix in, was also black.
Well...the bible speaks of love smitten angels who came down to mate. What race were they???
As they are of the spirit world, with no physical manifestation, they don't have a race. They also don't have the DNA that determines race.
Of course, without physicality, they cannot mate either, and the tales are thus just that; more biblical tales with no connection to reality.
It's mutual, actually. One firmly stuck in reality, the other floating freely through their imagination, both trying to communicate and both failing miserably.
Such is life, but Xmas is coming and I'm waiting for Santa. Excitement, happiness, joy - all waiting for the big day with my family.
I'm talking about Gods chosen people. You know the people who he wanted to mark. Well the men he wanted to mark. It seems he didn't care much of women in the early days. According to the bible God had his chosen people and didn't want them to mix with anyone else. Thus Abraham and Sara were married and siblings.
Oh them!!! They rejected him. He knew they would. He offered his gift to all those who accepted his message. Those who opposed him "Jew and Gentile" were shaken. The family changed.
Not changed... added to...to replace the ones who were "broken off"...The Gentiles were grafted into the Vine to replace some of the "tribes" that did reject God...The family never changed...Read Romans Chapter Nine...
Yes thanks. No longer "racially" spoken of. The point we were discussing (I think) is that Christianity was offered to the Jews initially. Race began when we realized Abraham being father of both Ishmael and Isaac was the father of the Jews and not Gentiles (or something like that)...
I don't know if I would use the term Christianity...but yes Grace and Mercy was offered to the Jews (the Chosen) first...
Fine with me. Christianity carries many negative connotations. Grace and mercy's good.
The claim that all Jews are chosen people is a racial assertion.
Actually, the offspring of Abraham are Gods Chosen...Which would include the Jewish and the Muslim...
The original Chosen were Abrahams Offspring...The "Gentiles" were grafted in later...We talked about this already remember..
"And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.”
"and said to me, ‘Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you, and I will make of you a company of peoples and will give this land to your offspring after you for an everlasting possession."
Im with you now. too late on the withdrawal... God chose Abraham and made nations of both his sons. Chosen has a different connotation. The Jews were the chosen until... When you say Muslims chosen, you mean brought up by God???
Chosen...As in God made a nation of them...
The Muslims worship the same God as the Christian and the Jewish.
A little confusing. God made a nation of the first son, true. But from my understanding, the promise comes through Isaac. Once rejected by the chosen few, the free-for-all began. This at that time includes those of WHOMEVER, Ishmael's kids too. The bible speaks of Ishmael as being somewhat rebellious.
The One-True-God Allah Yahweh chose His messengers prophets among the Jews for them as he chose for other nations from them. Not all the Jews were chosen by One-True-God Allah Yahweh ; it is a wrong concept and a corrupted one.
They will be my people and I will be their God. Wasn't that spoken of the rescued Hebrew clans from Egypt?
Edit** just a bit later, the Jew did/would not get it. The Gentile is offered salvation.
Mercy of the One-True-God Allah Yahweh extends to all nations and regions of world as He is Lord of all the Worlds; only the wrong-doers deprive themselves from His mercy.
Yes!!! A thousand times... one True God. Since we all do wrong sometimes, I must add that the wrong in question is the turning away from his grace. To deny him is "wrong"...
May we do no wrongs! We seek the mercy of One-True-God Allah Yahweh.
Please be explaining. If you do no wrongs, why would you need forgiveness?
Yes it is. Because I was speaking of a certain race. It is not however racist.
Both the "Muslim" and the "Jew" are part of God's Chosen...But what we call "Christianity" was only offered to the Jews (Israelites) first.
Christianity is not founded by Jesus; it was founded by Paul and his associates and it has got nothing to do with the Word of Revelation descended on Jesus from the One-True-God Allah Yahweh .
What was the movement (for lack of a better term) that Jesus started? Was it not the same as Paul? Day after the ascension of Jesus to heaven; what were
his followers called? Do we know?
Jesus wanted to revive the teachings of Moses.
Paul had nothing to do with Jesus or the movement that Jesus was assigned from the One-True-God Allah Yahweh.
I don't get it. All Paul EVER talked about
was Christ. Please explain your statement that Paul had nothing to do...
Also, Jesus...revive the teaching of Moses???
Many biblical scholars believe that Paul was a Roman spy sent to tame the new Christian movement, to teach its itinerants safer, more Roman-approved doctrines to keep the peace in the empire.
And all he had to do was say, "Oh yeah, I totally saw God. I was walking down this road by myself and he appeared! It was amazing! Of course, there are no witnesses who can corroborate this story and you'll have to take my word for it, but it's true!"
I see. So you are also sure that the bible is full of unreliable information??? That is dangerous to faith. Disbelief in any of it would lead to all of it being in a sense disregarded. I mean how can we go to scripture for the reproof that it claims to be if we must be wary of every other chapter? Seems like another tactic to rid the world of the written word of God to me.
Naturally, do you trust the reporter of information if he stands often accused of blatantly lying to you???
Just because you operate under the false assumption that the Bible is perfect (and thus none of it can be discredited) doesn't mean that it is. If you want to find spiritual guidance or whatnot in it, that's your business, but don't go trying to convince everyone it's a perfect document when it's clearly not. Especially in the case of Paul's letters and writings.
It's an amalgamation of popular stories and doctrines cobbled together by Roman-Catholic bureaucrats to create a unified text, which they only did because some schmuck was already doing so on his own and the Church didn't like that.
The Council of Nicaea, as it was called, threw out hundreds of scriptures--including those written by Jesus' followers--because they conflicted with the aforementioned safe, Roman-friendly doctrine they sent in Paul to establish in the first place. Gnosticism was a big no-no to the Romans.
If one means from the "chosen people" a certain race only and thinks that the other nations are not chosen; then of course it is racial a assertion and one is racist.
If one means that the Jews were chosen for Word of Revelation and righteous people among them were chosen from amongst them by God Allah Yahweh as He chose persons from other nations also then that is not racial.
I agree with the observation"Chosen...As in God made a nation of them..."
I'm gonna throw out a wild guess and say that, according to the mythology we have present, Adam and Eve would have looked like other Hebrews (that is to say, Middle Eastern, with dark hair and dark skin)--as would Noah, and Abraham, and all of the other characters described in the Torah. After all, they're telling their own mythology, and they're not going to make up something like 'Okay, so Adam and Eve were Koreans' for several reasons (they believed in an unchanging God who made everything as it currently appeared, including people; they believed that they were descended from these chosen people, and as chosen people themselves, it's logical to conclude that their distant 'chosen' ancestors looked like them just as much as their recent 'chosen' ancestors did; they didn't know Koreans existed; etc.). The characters in the Hebrew mythology are going to be of the same ethnicity as the Hebrews themselves.
The Church (based in Europe) depicted Jesus as Caucasian because they wanted to appeal to Europeans, who, for the most part, aren't Middle Eastern. There are depictions of Jesus as black, and of a Chinese Jesus in other parts of the world--the fact that white artists made him white doesn't indicate that Jesus was actually white, and certainly doesn't indicate that mytho-historical characters like Noah (who was based on a Sumerian legend) or Adam and Eve (who were made out of red dirt/clay, a very popular creation legend in the areas surrounding the Fertile Crescent) were white. Light skin was also considered a sign of beauty in many cultures (even among light-skinned people, so this isn't just the modern demand that dark-skinned people conform to white standards of beauty--someone whose skin wasn't tan didn't work outside, and were thus aristocratic and wealthy), so depictions of holy characters as light-skinned isn't necessarily an indicator of their ethnicity, merely their beauty.
But I think Adam, Eve, and Noah are all mythical characters anyway--it's like asking what race Zeus or Apollo were. They were most likely thought of as ethnically Greek, but they weren't real, so the question is academic at best.
So your saying the story of Adam and Eve some 6-10 thousand years ago conflicts with what science knows about the migration of humans out of Africa.
Oh! What a breath of fresh air! To hear some downtoearth, good, sensible, educated points of view for a change! Thankyou Katie.
Yeah! You know that I would not be in this conversation if we were discussing Zeus. I just don't give the make-believe my time. Oh how I wish EVERYONE were that way...
Funniest thing you've ever posted. I only hope you meant it as humour.
Humbly, no. If people would stop talking about what is truly imaginary for them, this conversation would go a lot smoother.
But your God is just as make believe as Zeus. That's the thing. There was a time when people such as yourself went around telling people about Zeus.
There is no difference, so I thought you made a good joke back there. Oh well.
Now don't you think this conversation would go much smoother if you did not spend so much time on the imaginary???
Just because we think it's imaginary doesn't mean we can avoid it. When the majority of Americans believe in it and make policy decisions based on that belief, we can't just ignore it. It affects all of our lives.
Oh! So you are trying to change my mind in an effort to rid the world and its policies of the imaginary God and Jesus creeps?
But I thought everyone liked freedom and safety.
Yes, I like the freedom and safety to be able to make whatever decisions I want about my body and my reproduction, I like the freedom and safety of not being under the Christian Taliban, I like the freedom and safety to be able to say that I don't believe, and not have that get me landed in prison, or have other opportunities taken away. I like the freedom and safety of a society that believes because of empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, not one that makes all of its decisions based on what Ted Haggard is telling them God wants. I like the freedom and safety of a world where whether you believe in Jesus or not, or if you believe in Allah, or the Mother Goddess, or Lord Krishna, or whatever is IRRELEVANT, because your private beliefs are not part of the public policy.
A world ruled by religion is not free or safe, because it's a system relying on the ultimate Big Brother, a system where thoughcrime is punishable by death--after which you will burn in hell for all eternity. I don't want any part of that.
They were here first!
Just kidding... but your society if you are American affords all that; yes???
We can do what we want with our bodies; right? We may proclaim out loud our belief systems we advocate; right? (Can the Taliban be Christian since their belief system diminishes Christ???) We are not under Taliban rule; right? We are not jailed for not believing; right?
Your private belief definitely affects the pubic; right?
I think all these freedoms come from those trying to escape the Monarchy rule for freedom of religion, yes? What is the real complaint? You rather I shut up regarding my belief; as you have so graciously refused to do?
But there are those Christian policy makers who try to stonewall our rights to do as we wish with our bodies--who try to block access to birth control for women who want it and abortions for women who need them, who pass laws trying to control how other people live their lives and force them to conform to their religion's idea of how you should live, who get into our school boards and sabotage our children's education, who try to remove the wall of separation between church and state--the only thing preventing us from being governed by a Christian Taliban (rather than just having it control the public discourse and support things like clinic bombings and the systematic destruction of our science curriculum). But fundamentalist Christians, Christian Dominionists, Premillennial Dispensationalists and their ilk don't care about our freedoms--either your freedom to believe a different denomination than theirs, or my freedom to disbelieve altogether. They think that America is a 'Christian Nation'--specifically, their kind of 'Christian Nation' that has a holy duty to do things like go to war because God told them to, who would use nuclear force to try to bring about Armageddon, who would carelessly use up natural resources as fast as they can because 'God gave us dominion over the world, and besides, the end is coming soon anyway, so we might as well cut down all the forests and not worry about climate change'. These people have lobbying power, there are politicians in America whose beliefs align with this, and they are able to exercise that power in every election because every Christian in this country enables them.
These people say that I'm not patriotic, that I'm not an American because I'm an atheist, and that not only offends me, but it scares me. George H. W. Bush said that atheists can't be called patriots or citizens of the United States of America. A president of this country said that. Doesn't that bother you, as someone who values your rights? Doesn't it worry you that there are people with power who would say things like that, people who try to turn the tide of public opinion to hate entire groups of people because of something like their religion--especially in a country which has freedom of religion at the top of the list of laws of the land? Doesn't it bother you that atheists are ridiculed and spat upon and terrorized everywhere from schools to the military because of this attitude having penetrated even to the highest levels of politics? It ought to bother everyone that there are entire groups of people in America who are too afraid to stand up for their rights, no matter who those groups are.
There are many countries around the world where you CAN be jailed for disbelief, where the punishment for blasphemy or apostasy is DEATH--I don't want anyone to die because of any religious belief or doctrine. What a senseless waste of life and potential!
++++++ read it.Read it again and again Cgenaea! This effects everyone in the world. Get you religious head out of the sand. Face the real world and do something practical to save us from christian hypocrisy.
You've really thought about this huh? But you forgot that Christian sects are spat upon too. we have an equal opportunity on the spittle...
Atheists seem to HATE Christians. They are also more likely to "do something about it" than Christians. Wouldn't you say???
And Mr. Bush??? You should hear what he says about poor black people... lol
Christians are not responsible for any loss of freedoms they may cry til it hurts. We are still protected by our founding documents of liberty. Again... are the Taliban considered Christian? Do they claim to follow Christ?
Really? Did President Bush say that poor black people were not patriots or citizens of the United States? He would have never gotten away with uttering something like that....publicly. But with atheists, it was perfectly ok for the president, no less, to spew this outright bigotry, without an ounce of condemnation.
......So what did George H.W. Bush say about poor black people, that would be comparable to what he said about Atheists?
It is totally irresponsible to make extreme statements, then not have ANYTHING to back them up. This is an outright validation of fraud, as you have no reason to withhold evidence. But the truth is that you don't have any evidence to support anything you spout, and only assert knee jerk reactions to questions that debunk these absurd beliefs.
Again....this is like playing Chess with a pigeon. I would be completely ashamed.
Oh puleeez! I have a response but it is third hand and not worth repeating. What strikes me funniest is that you spout off nonsensical knee jerk reactions to the love of God without restraint. I can say what I want or unsay what I want. Dont be mad.
You back to the pigeon thing??? You seem to love this game your coo... I mean move.
Of course I've really thought about it. These are issues that affect my life and my experience of the world. And I don't 'forget' that Christian sects are often given a sideways glance--but none of those sects are considered the least trusted minority in America, or the least likely to share 'your vision of America' (behind even Muslims, and this is in a post-9/11 America). Even members of weird Christian denominations like Mormonism can make it into the presidential race, weird Christian Dominionists can be nominees for Vice President, weird churches like the Westboro Baptist Church can still be supported by private donations (which is why they didn't just drop off the face of the earth after losing their court case and being sentenced to pay over $10 million in damages to the families of the soldiers whose funerals they protested). Even members of Christian Science-type sects which let their children die rather than taking them to the hospital have long been able to fall back on 'It's their religious belief!' arguments (thankfully, they are now being prosecuted for their children's deaths).
We don't hate Christians, we hate the positions and actions that they advocate. I've always had the pleasure of interacting with perfectly decent, nice Christians who I don't hate--I just think that their religious beliefs are foolish and potentially dangerous.
Atheists are more likely to 'do something about' their rights being taken away or their characters being smeared because atheists tend to be fairly aware of these issues, y'know, being on the receiving end of them. Christians have the benefit of being privileged in that regard--they don't have to realistically worry about not getting a job because of their beliefs, of having someone call them a Christian as a slur (Christians have power in America, after all--society supports the idea that being Christian is better than not being a Christian, just like society supports the idea that being a wealthy Southern white man named 'Bush' is better than not being that sort of person, which is why Bushes have gotten away with saying ridiculous crap for decades).
Au contraire, the Christian Right is responsible for curtailing many rights--they think that America exists to cater specifically to them. Talking heads like Pat Robertson and Ted Haggard have a shockingly strong grip on politics; Ted Haggard had a weekly phone conference with Bush #2 to tell him what God thought about political issues. The Christian Right thinks that freedom of religion only applies to them, and that everyone should have to pray their prayers and follow their traditions, so they try to pass laws to make everyone fall in line with their beliefs (because America is the new Israel in the minds of the Christian Right), and a lot of those laws are aimed at taking away women's rights. So yeah, hate to break it to you, but politically-minded Christians are indeed working on taking away freedoms. They think that if they don't then Jesus won't like America anymore.
The Christian Taliban is not the same group as the Taliban from Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Christian Taliban DOES claim to follow Jesus, and think that they need to take over American government to make sure EVERYONE follows Jesus. These Dominionists and Premillennial Dispensationalists think that we need to go to war and force other countries to convert to Christianity, that America needs to kill people who disagree with their extremely fundamentalist view of Christianity--they want Christian Sharia law. They are to Christianity what the Taliban was to Islam; hence, 'Christian Taliban' or 'American Taliban'.
Actually, I DON'T have a job right now. I live in a religious part of the country, and the places where I might be able to get a job relating to my existing skills (namely teaching in private schools) are all religious in nature. My applications get passed right over because I'm not a Christian.
Pat Robertson thinks I am an evil Grinch that eats babies and shoots up Sikh temples, and am a lesbian communist witch because I'm both an atheist and a feminist. His views on atheists and women get blasted across the airwaves every week. (And his views on African-Americans aren't much better--he thinks that every black person in the country is suddenly going to turn all Django and start killing white people. His views on other minorities and all non-Southern Baptists are also pretty horrid. He's just a terrible person.) Besides, school-sponsored prayer had no place in public schools to begin with--they're PUBLIC schools, so they can't promote a religious view. There are private, religious schools where you can go if you want your children to be forced to pray a certain way. And any student is still allowed to pray on their own in school. Many students have self-organized 'meet at the flagpole' morning prayers, lots of people I went to school with prayed before eating lunch, Muslim students were allowed to fast for Ramadan, etc.
Religious part of THIS country, right? How the heck would someone know your Feminist/ Atheist view from a job application? You braggin'??? now, they know about my bogus-assed drug charge. DWB... the cop let me "borrow" his crack pipe... said he found it in the seat of the squad car. No reason for stopping my car. Illegal search. No seizure cuz he found nothing but he sure looked. AFTER receiving license/ reg/ ins. (My problem with this country.) Happens to my peeps often. And that's the kind of information that goes on job applications. He was SUCH an ass. But I know that he was repaid for his "kindness" to me. People don't just get away with stuff like that. I have 1 charge on my record... thanks to a bored and prejudiced cop. My field frowns upon druggies hard. I'll expunge; but so tempted to pop up a tent; or write it in a book. I saw the whole thing. And the public "defender" was NO help. "Take the little six month supervision, you'll be fine as long as you DO NOTHING ELSE..." I get lumpy throated every time I think of it!!! My country tis of thee...
Yes, the religious part of this country, though I did likely get passed over for a teaching job in Japan because I'm an atheist. They outright asked me in the interview what I would say if a student asked me who Jesus was (and when I didn't say 'Our lord and savior' or indicate that he was anything more than 'a wise man with a lot of wise things to say', the interviewer responded 'So it sounds like your beliefs don't align with ours, correct?', and I was sunk, because religious schools are allowed to discriminate along religious lines, and that school's administration offices are in Seattle). Many parochial schools or organizations require an affirmation of faith for their employees, and many of them ask what church you attend near the top of the application, and if I put 'none', they'll just skip it. (There are no private schools within 50 miles which are not religious in nature, which makes it difficult for me to get the level of teaching experience required for graduate programs in education or for state certification to teach in public schools...so I'm left with a highly specific degree which has no real job prospects outside of academia, but my degree is not advanced enough to get a position in academia. But hey, that's what you get for following that 'Study what you love and don't worry about money!' advice, lol!) Most employers now also make regular use of Google to see what their applicants and employees are up to, as well--it would be hard to miss my support of women's rights and separation of church and state. (Title VII doesn't protect employees from discrimination based on political affiliation; it's up to local governments to pass laws about whether or not the local Republican campaign staff have to hire Democrats, or if Planned Parenthood has to take on pro-life employees and volunteers. Many places don't have such laws, though.)
Ugh, that's awful! It sickens me to see people in positions of authority and ostensibly 'enforcing the law' target citizens like that, just because of what they look like. It's an absolute disgrace, and a lesson to all the privileged folks who say that racism doesn't exist anymore because we have a black president.
There are no public schools in your area??? Seems weird that an Atheist would want to be surrounded by "we love Mary because she birthed our Lord and savior" all day. Application to a religious institution as an atheist??? Japan holds out for Jesus??? Lol
Question: how long will a Catholic school be a Catholic school if the practice was to hire atheists to teach their children???
That is a sign that the racial incidents mentioned in the Bible contain elements that are additions made later by men and not revealed by the One-True God Allah Yahweh who loves the whole human kind generally and the righteous specially for their good deeds and He is not racial. I would like to quote here the respective attributes of the One-True God Allah Yahweh in this connection:
[1:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[1:2] All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
[1:3] The Gracious, the Merciful,
[1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[1:5] Thee alone do we worship and Thee alone do we implore for help.
How can we know that? If the text has been altered/corrupted, how can you tell the parts which are legitimate from the parts that are not? How can you tell that the writers who came after that altered text were able to make that same judgement? After all, a misinterpretation of a word has brought about the absurd notion that Mary was a virgin when she conceived, and an entire branch of theology has been built on that misinterpretation.
If the texts have been corrupted, how can you make your original claim that they were true to begin with?
Since your goal is honesty and truth with evidence; we can not know for sure what text was altered or mistranslated. It all depends upon your own faith and which report you believe. Mary had no virgin birth??? Not many ride with that assertion. You apparently do. I cannot argue with you on what you have accepted. It is your acceptance, for now. I believe the current translation of scripture. Says Jesus broke her hymen inside out. Sound unreasonable??? I know!!! But I believe it. Can you show me different? Probably... but I won't believe you.
Well, it sounds unreasonable because the Bible makes no mention of hymens, but that aside, the Hebrew word used in Isaiah, 'almah', means 'a young woman'--it was later translators who decided that it should be translated to 'parthenos' (Greek for 'virgin'), and that's the only time in the entire Bible that 'almah' was interpreted as meaning 'virgin' rather than just 'young woman' with no implications regarding her virginity/marital status (since in the ancient world, those two were inextricably linked). Catholics also maintain that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, even though Mary and Joseph were said to have other children. That's some impressive mental acrobatics on their part.
Only one Gospel (Matthew) says that Mary was a virgin, and all of the Gospels which were written before Matthew don't mention it--Paul doesn't mention it, either, even when specifically talking about Jesus's birth! The writer of Matthew most likely mined the Old Testament for possible prophecies that he could pepper his story with to make Jesus seem more legitimate, except that the prophecy in Isaiah is not believed to be a prophecy about the Messiah among Jews, so there's no reason to believe that the virgin birth story was meant to convince them (more likely, it was to convince Greek-speaking Gentiles who were used to hearing stories about gods coming down and impregnating women whose children were great culture heroes, like Hercules and Perseus) OR that the prophecy itself was referring to Jesus (especially since the prophecy was about a specific conflict between Judah, Israel and Syria, and the child who was born had nothing to do with it--the prophecy states that 'by the time this child is old enough to tell right from wrong, the land will be at peace because God is totally going to smite those other guys'. Only by taking it out of context can it be construed to be a prophecy about the Messiah.)
Moreover, there is no evidence that there was a virgin birth, and indeed, it's more likely that the story is a lie--if some girl nowadays said that her pregnancy was the result of God magically impregnating her, nobody would believe her (and if she persisted in this belief, there would be concerns about her mental health). In Mary's time, the punishment for pre-marital sex was DEATH. Even if Mary herself claimed that this baby was conceived magically by God, she would be lying to save her life. But it's not Mary claiming this--it's some dude who we don't even know who says that this guy Matthew told him that Jesus's mom was a virgin. No eyewitness accounts, no evidence, no doctor's report stating that she was a virgin in spite of being pregnant, nothing. Just some guy writing down what he heard some other guy say once.
But the bible gives accounts of other miracles from this child. If joke or fairytale, would it have lasted all this time? (Rhetorical...)
The Iliad is considerably older and is still here. Does that mean that that tale is true, too?
You just WAIT til I find out what that is!!! I'll be back!!!
Greek mythology??? Really..
Belief in it is acceptable. Probably won't qualify on the last day but, people do what they want.
As I...as you...
And no doubt you will put as much importance on the book when someone tells you it is true as others do when you tell them that the upstart, young bible is also true with its impossible tales. Kind of makes one wonder why you will believe the one but not the other; there can be no more fanciful tale, after all, than living in the belly of a fish for days on end.
But it is not really mythology; Homer was a poet and the Iliad is perhaps his best work. Truth and reality in the form of poetry; a true story in dactylic hexameter. At least the demigod Achilles is as real as any god in the bible...although perhaps Homer was speaking metaphorically with some of his report. Ancient historians did that sometimes, you know.
Jesus did it all the time
I won't believe your story. The demigod is not my God. My God is not your God. We're clear...
I'm hurt. Really hurt.
We have good evidence the Iliad is true - after all it's about the well known and documented siege of Troy. Something that all the world knows about, especially that neat horsie thing. We know who wrote the Iliad, something that cannot be said for anything in the bible. Achilles has only one name unlike Yahweh - we know who he is.
Won't you believe with me? Achille was a real hero, not some childish, temper prone thing going around murdering children. He deserves our worship, far more than Elohim ever did.
It amazes me that one could speak so... but hey, when you have no spiritual parameter, sky's the limit... see? We may dream anything. I don't think homer was going for praise and worship. My God is. But he does not demand it.
Ah the Iliad...the time of Achilles, Hector, and Paris and a great many other heroes and legends...one of my favorite stories of all time. It saddens me when Achilles kills Hector though... all of that courageous, noble bravery that accomplished so many amazing feats, all done sans demigod lineage...simply epic. I just hated to see him go
Sorry, totally off topic, couldn't help myself...let the OP topic commence!
The Qur'an is very clear that Mary was a virgin.
It is not difficult to do; if there are contradictions the one matching with the core teachings and that which is reasonable is truthful as the One-True-God Allah Yahweh is All-Wise.
Did you read your own reply?
ALL people, Jews and Gentile alike, are acceptable. And Abraham is the father of all even though they are not all descended from him.
No wonder atheists have difficulty communicating with believers!
Yes! Remember, I told you the reason wehave ssuch a problem with communications. We speak along darn near opposite and parallel lines.
But, Abraham is the father of Faith. All with Faith in God are his "descendants" and come after him. See??? The kingdom of God is spiritual. Not flesh and blood. Both boys have Abrahams blood. All the faithful of God's promises and provision have Abraham's Faith. Get it??? I got MY money out!!!
All I see is use of the English language in ways that bear no resemblance to common usage or definitions. Along with declaring that all races are one, as that is the subject here.
And in spite of your claims, not all people have the blood of Abraham in them. We are NOT all descendants of the man and changing "descendant" to mean "share the faith" doesn't cut it.
Heeeheee... all of the faithful have the same blood COVERING them. God is not bound by cultural nor linguistic lines. you may "argue over words" if you want. Truth is truth. We all "black, brown, Puerto Rican or Hatian", of Faith in God, belong to God... (you probably didn't "get" that either...hip hop culture... (black,brown...) each culture has its own language. God speaks one language. You must work to understand him. He's already got us pegged.
No, we don't have blood covering us. You can say that, meaning some made up spiritual thing, but in the real world it is a lie.
Yes, we are all technically all races; so intermixed by now that only really artificial definitions "separate" the races. Nevertheless, those definitions are commonly used and mean something to most people. Just not what YOU mean when you use the word.
If god speaks only one language, then relatively few can understand him. Even such things as body language and the "language of love" varies considerably by culture. That would actually explain quite a bit, wouldn't it?
Speak for yourself on the blood thing. I have it. Yes we are all mixed up racially. What were we discussing again??? He SAID only a few would understand. You been sneaking and reading somebody's bible??? again yes, the culture of God understands the language of love. Jesus dunnit (this time)
Fyi... the God relationship is something you initiate most often (lessen you want some donkey talking to you on the avenue ) the invitation is offered to all with an ear to hear. You most often cannot see what you don't seek. You miss it every time.
Legal definition of INSANITY:
2. any form or degree of mental derangement or unsoundness of mind, permanent or temporary, that makes a person incapable of what is regarded legally as normal, rational conduct or judgment: it usually implies a need for hospitalization
3. great folly; extreme senselessness
What category does ranting and raving about a false imagination fall under???
I don't know. But after reading this, there is something not computing:
No offense, but this might fit definition #3:
3. great folly; extreme senselessness
You agree? Right?
One should remain focused on the core teachings of Jesus rather than Paul.
I don't want to start bashing Paul; he is not my concern.
Jesus did not write Bible so all of it cannot be trusted and believed equally.
One thing is sure; Jesus primarily got the Word of Revelation from the One-True-God and Paul did not.
The core teachings of Jesus should therefore be focused and the rest of the narratives should be interpreted in line with the core or if they don't fall in line with that then it should be discarded or ignored.
Following reasonable principle guides us under the situation:
[3:8] He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book; in it there are verses that are decisive in meaning — they are the basis of the Book — and there are others that are susceptible of different interpretations. But those in whose hearts is perversity pursue such thereof as are susceptible of different interpretations, seeking discord and seeking wrong interpretation of it. And none knows its right interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge; they say, ‘We believe in it; the whole is from our Lord.’ — And none heed except those gifted with understanding. —
https://alislam.org/quran/search2/showC … mp;verse=0
The book was sent. That means something. We have that word for a reason. Not for reading's sake; but for doing. Now, if it were possible that it was in some way corrupt, what good is it?
Sent, was it? Via USPS? UPS? Fedex? A stork or pelican?
The "book" was conjured and written by none other than men.
Sent down from heaven via spirit. all books are conjured. But I like the way God conjures. Who's your favorite conjurer??? Lol
What's the postal address of that heaven you speak of? Cloud Nine?
3:16 John Way Ct., Lovegodaboveallville, Kingdom of God Almighty 11111 or P. O. Box 321, City of Bible Reproof, KOG
Please expect your pkg anytime between here and until or you will forfeit your benefits. Someone must be available to receive the parcel and sign on the dotted line.
If a clever sense of humour indicates a high intelligence, you win a prize with this post, Cgenaea.
How is it, then, that you persist with some of the most illogical contentious religious rubbish in your beliefs?
My guess is that you don't really believe in those things. You only use your statements to stir up argument. It only serves to draw attention to yourself and keep the pot boiling. This you have managed to accomplish, but it has become boring for me, so this discussion rarely gets my look-in these days.
Intelligence??? Yes... By today's standard of typical assessment with materials someone or thing thought up to measure what some societal scientist put together
as what they feel intelligence to be. But though scientists call me intelligent; I have been pegged much more often than not, as UNintelligent and so far beyond the grip of logic, right here among the HP crew. Though my very personal favorite is the assumption that i am incapable of critical thought. Illogical is related to belief system very strongly. My sense of humor is related to the late Billy Carson.
So you have noticed that my words stir up argument and yours leave a fresh clean feeling in the air? That's written too.
"Prefer the lie." May be a good search term.
Muhammad did not write the Qu'ran either, his followers did. And just as he got the Word of Revelation from Allah...His followers did not...
So the same can be said of both the Bible and the Qu'ran...
Muhammad applied two methods for Quran; he learnt by heart whatever was revealed to Him from the One-True-God Allah Yahweh word for word and from him his followers; secondly Muhammad dictated to the scribes as a secondary measure. Jesus adopted none of the above measures in case of Bible.
The topic of the thread emphasizes that core teachings of revealed religions of Moses, Jesus,Muhammad, Krishna,Buddha and Zoroaster etc are the same; they support one another and are from the same source of One-True-God Allah Yahweh.
And how do you differentiate from things that you think up and hear in your head from something that is "revealed" and how do you reach the conclusions that that revealing source was a god at all? How do you decide which God? How did you personally come to the conclusion that Allah and yaweh were the same God at all? How did you test the premise prior to coming to your conclusion - or is it just a feeling that you have? How do you know you can trust your feelings, when the teachings of both Allah and yahweh contradict each other, but both do teach that humanity is imperfect and fallen, and that human instincts or feelings should NOT be trusted?
Let me insert: God provided instruction in written form. It is written by people I trust. In the same way, all people believe the words of people they trust. I trust Jesus; I trust Paul. I trust the scribes. I trust the canon translators. I trust the spirit of God to guide me in understanding what's important and what leads to those things of importance and what is simply background information. All those things are essential in realization of the message.
And the Muslims have the same trust in Mohammad as do the Mormons for Joseph Smith.
You trust people you've never meet, do you do that because it confirms you beliefs?
I briefly thought about responding to her post...but refrained as it wouldn't make a difference...
Even though evidence has proven that the scribes made errors, added to or took away from the original texts, they can not be trusted completely...
It is proven that God nor Jesus actually wrote anything, but rather it was written down years later by someone from the oral stories that were passed down.
There is little to no Proof that Jesus existed.
There is proof that Paul was writing from his interpretation and did not agree with the "original disciples".
The Canon translaters were working with faulty copies from the start and translated more based in the "faith" than on actual wording.
Nothing we have is original texts, we have copies of copies at best...worse than that for some texts...
New Biblical Studies by scholars (quite a few actually now) are showing that the Gospels were probably written closer to the 125-150CE timeframe instead of 65-95CE as previously thought...(Actually something I briefly touched on as a possibility in my dissertation over ten years ago) and are based on early Christian leaders interpretation of the "faith" based on Paul's and other early author's writings.
The oldest copy we have of the Gospels is from the Book of John...and is dated to around 125CE. It was orginally thought to be a copy of the original because it was found in Egypt and written on papyrus ...But is now being studied as a possible original as new studies are showing that the author was most probable part of an early Christian (gnostic) group in that area of Egypt...
I agree with most of the contents of your post regarding NT Bible.
The mythical Jesus of Bible is a construct of Paul, has no historicity and is faraway from the real Jesus as also from his core teachings.
Can you prove the historicity of ANY Jesus? If you can't trust the NT because of poor scholarship and cannon by committee (and I agree) then how do you know anything about Jesus at all?
"If I can get you believe me here; let's try THIS area..." now the very existence of Jesus is under question (not new but...just clever) some will swallow hook, line, and sinker. Good work for... not God.
Except his historicity had been questioned since the late first century. There's simply no evidence of him
I find that statement somewhat absurd. There are written accounts available from what I hear. It's just discounted. But that is the way the cookie crumbles. Many will disbelieve. Then to strengthen their case, they read and give credit to the report that strengthens their case.
You are claiming that there are extra biblical written accounts. Where? What do they say?
No she's not - just that she heard there were some. She's not seen them and it's unlikely she's spoken to or read accounts of people that have.
Need I say the world is full of liars? That will claim nearly anything under the sun in order to make a profit? And suckers to listen to them, believing any wild claim that makes them feel good?
I was thinking of writing my own book for the good of the people. I'll market it towards those who have faith in something absurd and sell it for lots of money, wait that's been done over and over again. It's like they can't get enough. I think I'll call it and former Atheists near death experience.
Ooooo dissertation... sounds serious DS. wait til the REAL real scrolls with the real real dates are discovered.
We will know them by the smell of Old Spice. Lol
Seems that the bible will have NO chance
at changing people's lives if we just keep telling them, "it cannot be trusted as instruction because so many people touched it.!!! Jesus who?"
Now THAT'S clever!!!
Ever play the game where a secret is whispered person to person all the way around the room? And compared to what was actually said by the first person?
Telling people that "it can't be trusted because so many people had a hand in it" isn't nearly so clever as ignoring that every person that DID participate in the final product(s) we have today have left their personal interpretation/mark on the "sacred" writings.
You know...I really believe the Lord knew exactly how he wanted the message relayed. It is written down for a reason.
can you point me to ONE place in the entire bible where god ordered that "his words" be written and compiled in a book? Can you show me where he gave mankind the authority to dictate what "his words" words? Can you tell me the criteria that god listed, and the methods by which that criteria can be ascertained? If you read the entire book, you will not find the command to build a bible.
God had very specific commands and dictated authority regularly throughout the Bible - but not when it comes to what HIS word should be, who should write it, and how it should be assembled. What DID happen was several hundred early church leaders had a whole pile of "scripture" - and they voted on it. If human nature is so sinful that it cannot be trusted, how does VOTING compile the spirit of god or his intention? Couldn't he have faxed it down from heaven? put his finger stamp of approval on it somewhere?
Yes, it was written down for a reason. It was written down because a person felt that what they were writing was their interpretation of what god was saying or what god wanted, so they wrote it down. Interestingly, when it comes to the epistles in the new testament - no one knew that the letters they were writing would eventually become "scripture" They were writing very specific letters to very specific communities - and they never imagined that they would be applied verbatim to the religion as a whole.
I mostly agree with the contents of your post about Bible.
I do not know the answer for many of the questions posed. I only know that God started Moses and the others with written rules. So it is well within his character/ nature. I believe the bible as it stands today has his approval.
you don't know the answers because they don't exist.
Since God had no problems giving laws that he wanted written down, don't you think that the item that should be on the top of his list was making sure that "his word" was authorized, instructions were given and passed on?
Never does God order his people (or any people) to write the bible. Never did God say "these books are in, those I don't like so they're out). Never did he give someone (or a bunch of someones) the authority to compile and contribute to his best-selling work. Never. Not once. The bible was a man-made invention. It is not authorized by god, it was not ordered by god (and he loved giving orders) and it was not given god's stamp of approval once finished. The bible wasn't even finished for several hundred YEARS after Jesus supposedly existed. If god wanted to make sure that his final chapter was told correctly, shouldn't he have done something about it at the time?
Are you concerned that God forgot the story? The answers to every last question you asked is available, just not to me. Maybe you can find out why God waited to relay the message. I am in awe
as to how it makes a difference (and who told you)? Jesus may have said that the bible was coming and that we must follow it. That may have been one of those dropped scriptures you keep referring to. He may have said that his Disciple Paul would be in charge. But they mistranslated the name and got the dates wrong. I don't know... and you don't either.
That makes a very fine rationalization for accepting that everyone touching it has changed the sacred word of god. For some anyway - for others it is just that. A rationalization, recognized for what it is.
It was written down because Constantine said to do so in order to gather all Christians into a more powerful political group, better able to trample anyone disagreeing. That move made such things as the Crusades and the Inquisition much more likely.
Good question!!! I simply trust they who go along the lines of spirit. I know you are not familiar with such a phenomenon however it is how we do it. I know spirit when I hear it. Many others do too!!! one may become familiar with it but...takes faith.
That sounds very much as if the answer to Rad was "Yes, I trust those people that that say things that agree with my beliefs.". Yes?
Not necessarily - people selling anything are not automatically trusted regardless of what they say. And people that are TOO agreeable are the same.
Ok. So you only trust some of the people some of the time. Paul, Jesus and the bible never. I got it...
Well, I trust most people some of the time. And no one all the time - even the conclusions I draw myself are sometimes suspect when the conclusion matches too closely what I want to hear.
And you're right - when people lie too often they get no trust at all. And finally, when unknown people report what a third party has said, and make their living from it, they will never be trusted and their statements will always require further corroboration.
Funny, that's exactly what the Muslims say. You can't be both right can you? I'll let you in on a little known secret, we all here those thought in our mind, the ones that tell us right from wrong. You're not special at all. You simply don't trust yourself enough to make good decisions on your own, but what you don't understand is your decisions and thought are yours.
What I have learned about the Muslim faith is that they have many of the same principles. Where we disagree; God is judge. Not me; not anyone else. I do believe that many of many faiths (or sects) will live with God forever.
Wasn't it you who said that you need Jesus to get to God?
The bible says that you need to have faith in Jesus as the firstborn of many who trust God in all; and the sacrifice to end all blood sacrifice.
Ahhhh... Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the father but by me.
Seems like a GREAT trick to say, "Pssst, he din really say that. You can get to God tonight, follow me!"
So in other words, you do not believe in the Bible where it says "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart, you shall be saved"? You don't believe that's necessary to gain salvation, and even if you do that, you're not guaranteed a spot? "Not all who say Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, only those that do the will of my father"
That would be rather sad were it not such a huge rationalization.
You don't have a clue who wrote the words of the bible, and thus cannot possibly say you trust those people. At best you can rationalize it somewhat by claiming God picked them to write and guided their words, but even then you do not know if that is true, either.
It is true we have copies upon copies of manuscripts having said that I will say but the dead sea scrolls are in existence I believe in the Nag Hamdi Library in Egypt at this time. So the old testament is acknowledged by scholars as authentic. However, the N.T. we have the words of historians at the time Jospephous, Luke a scribe for Paul, Pontias Pilot's secretary the accounts are in Rome. So yes we do have historical accounts.
We know Paul, Luke was an historian well educated along with St. Paul. You may want to brush up on the early Christian religions stolen by the Romans. They were hijacked and used for their own political purposes such as Constantine a pagan that purportedly embraced the Church.
I do not think you care if the word is divinely inspired so I will not go there. I believe that the hate for Christians today lies in the Christians themselves. Since Biblical history and textual scripture needs to be translated from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin a lot gets lost in translation. To believe that every dotted word is inherently perfect is not plausible. It is through faith that Christians believe. I choose to believe but as a scholar I know that there are many sentences dropped, Mistranslations from Hebrew to Greek to English such as the Virgin Mary is not what the Church believes Virgin in Greek means a woman unmarried . So a Virgin birth is possible but not necessarily true.
So one needs to become a bible scholar/ history major in order to understand the kingdom of God? The thing that shakes me about "discovered" mistranslations of scripture is that the word gets out that the bible is not worthy of much trust. How on earth could that be??? We learn about Jesus where??? We learn about his character where??? We learn what God expects where??? So, anyone considering having faith in God has nowhere to go but men of today? Are they possibly accurate without biblical instruction? Please tell me.
Jesus didn't say love your neighbor!!! He said RUB your neighbors. Sounds silly to me...
You cannot tell me that no other accounts of Jesus exist outside of the bible. I just know...
I do not need evidence that Jesus was here. I feel it!!! that is all the proof I need actually. I believe. But the bonus is that I have been provided with many life experiences to confirm.
Understood. You "just know" things without ever knowing them. And you do not need evidence for "proof" that is satisfactory to you.
We knew that already.
If you just remove, "without ever knowing them" you'd have yourself a true statement.
What you are essentially saying is that you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true as long as they make you feel good and you like them. I cannot respect that position.
No. She's saying that she knows her beliefs are the truth and has her own proof And does not need yours to the contrary. Quite simple, actually
"I feel it!!! wink that is all the proof I need actually."
I know that is not proof. Cgenaea knows that is not proof. You know that is not proof. What it is is a decision to accept as true whatever makes her feel good. Quite simple, actually, and the proof of THAT statement is that she does not make non-religious decisions the same way. She knows better.
Honestly, the truth does not always afford me a "happy" disposition. I sometimes get really down about the truth actually. But I cannot deny that truth to make me "happy" again. I must pray and conform to that truth for my happiness. Now you all may have a different method of what is denied for happiness but I must walk my own walk. I feel quite steady actually.
What she has said is we need to turn off our intellect to imagine God. I can imagine all kinds of things, I do it for a living, but none of our imaginations are real unless we can back them up with evidence. I can't sell a client on a concept unless I show it to her/him.
Hmmm... you may show them the final product. But the intricacies of how you did it remain a mystery to them??? Or do you show them your entire process so that they may not need you next time???
Simply put; do they have faith that you can do the job? Do your satisfied customers continue to search for one who can do it better? Just think for a second before you respond
I get very confused with Cgenaea's responses. He or she does not remain consistent. One moment I feel, "Ah, here is some logical, intelligent point of view, well expressed, coherent." Then, sometimes within the same post, he/she goes into illogical argument that leaves me wondering, "Is this person mentally stable?"
If I felt something genuine about this person, (is she/he suffering some kind of psychosis, for example), then I can warm to those needs and tread gently towards him/her.
If, on the other hand, he/she is playing us along, just to create argument, without any solid base of learning and education, then I suggest this entire hub and thread is a sham. That is the reason I offer very few replies here, and only on rare occasions.
Will now go to a new Discussion which has just occurred to me.
Ok jonny, SHE is in the room! and SHE does not have the least bit of concern about what he/she thinks about her mental capacity. SHE is well aware that a debate in Christian subjects requires some brain and SHE rises to each challenge. it is also well understood by SHE that the topic of debate is not an easy pill to swallow; but SHE is willing to stay in the room screaming the same darn thing repeatedly until SHE has no more. Or until she is booted again for being LIKEWISE stern in her opinions.
I cannot respect a position of angst against God. I cannot respect a position of superiority for education's sake. And I really cannot respect one who thinks he knows because somebody ELSE told him the "real" truth; and talked about their so-called evidence in books that refute the very existence of Jesus. It's almost laughable.
1. You cannot in all likelihood have angst against a character that you don't believe exists
2. My inability to respect your position is against your position, not you. Yet your inability to respect a position seems to include the person, as well.
3. I don't have to rely on what I've been told, and I don't have a need to fall back on faith. The information, research, documents, history, archeology etc. are all out there for anyone to research and discover. If your fall back position is faith, then all you're basically saying is that you have no proof or evidence. If you did, blind faith would not be necessary.
4. I cannot prove conclusively that a person named jesus did not exist, nor would I want to. But my inability and unwillingness to prove a negative does not, by default, prove the contrary. You believe in a historical jesus for no other reason than because the Bible says he does, and the Bible does not claim to be a history book. You cannot provide any extra biblical sources because you don't know of any, and you don't care to educate yourself on what you yourself claim is the most important thing in your life. How can you not want to know everything there is to know about it, if it's important enough for you to come on he day after day and preach about it in your ignorance? You demonize education and scholarship, and criticize anyone who is more well versed than you are - even if they share your belief in god. That's prue and simple arrogance
1. One does not study, for MANY years (and I do mean many) about a mythical character. Unless of course...
2. I'm sorry that I did not clearly underline that my disrespect was for the position and in no way the person.
3. AGAIN, whose "report" do you believe? It does not matter that one oozes with evidence about something unreal. When it comes to matters of faith in God, no one can prove or disprove any of it. It takes faith also to believe the other books/accounts/ so-called evidence. Don't you see??? Many people want to do away with God and his instruction. It's been like that a long time. We could find anything from any period and stamp a debunker certification on the front.
4. I love education and scholarship it's a wonderful tool for figuring out math problems and stuff. But it just does not work for the kingdom of God. Nietzsche cannot tell me about Jesus. Neither can Crowley. However, the one little book in question is full of information about him. Every time I hear, "that was a mistranslation," or, "Jesus did not live or die." My knees shake. He is real to me. He spoke for God. And he showed us how to live. We are here to stay. Until...
1. I've explained this to you before. Maybe you just weren't paying attention. When I was studying the Bible and theology in college, I was a Christian. I wanted to be a missionary. A lot of the information that I have provided in the forums is what is taught at CHRSTIAN college when learning basic apologetics. You're taught to spin doctor it so it doesn't sound so bad or scary - but very few people in the field of biblical scholarship will reject these facts outright. They are what they are - and it's information that's coming from YOUR side as well as the secular side, yet you refuse to accept it because you don't like it and it may make you a tad uncomfortable. A lot of people are like that, but those people aren't considered to be intellectually honest.
Now that I'm going back to school for a degree in History, it is IMPOSSIBLE to study history without studying the culture and the religious beliefs and origins of the people of whatever time period you're studying. Since my focus is on ancient history and European History, a lot of that focus rests on Christianity. It interests me. People study things all the time. If someone studies ancient Greek culture, for example, does that mean that they must belief in Zeus or else they wouldn't be studying it? Many Christian debaters spend year studying Judaism or Islam so that they can better understand their opponents and possibly witness to them. Does that mean that they believe in those other religions? By your logic, it seems that they must. Studying something from an intellectual standpoint does not mean that you have to believe it is necessarily true - and there is a christian example of this. The Creation Research Institute tells their students to lie about their Christian beliefs and to get their degrees in scientific fields, which means studying and taking tests on evolution. They don't believe evolution is true, but in order to get a scientific degree, studying it is necessary.
2. Thanks for Clarifying.
3. It isn't about believing "reports". Its' about studying and investigating various claims for yourself in order to find out whether or not they're true. When I was in Christian college, I began to have doubts - but I didn't automatically turn into an atheist overnight. I spent years researching the claims of Christianity, comparing it with other claims, and researching the history behind it. That's part of the reason that I have such an interest in the subject - because I love history. All history. We don't have to have faith in evidence. Evidence is proof enough whether or not the claims are true. We don't have to accept that evidence on faith. We can test it. It can be demonstrated and proven. That's the difference between faith and knowledge.
4. So you love education, unless its in a subject that may disagree with your predetermined beliefs. Again, intellectually dishonest.
When did you become a Christian, CGenaea? Why did you become one? What information did you gather, and what research did you do in order to come to the conclusion that Christianity was the correct religion and you should believe in it?
Let me also clarify that I have no notion that studied materials necessarily make up a person's belief system. Faith is the operative word. Faith is belief without eyewitness. I have faith that God is above. I believe Jesus lived and died and lived again. You have faith to the contrary. Or at least that it is more likely, untrue based upon the evidence you have seen (or more than likely NOT seen) that someone uncovered for you. I know from our last conversation about this that you don't like calling YOUR unseen belief faith but that is just what it is. Fix the definition any way preferred.
Many people make it through bible college without shaken faith; or handing it over. I wonder what happened. Then again, I'm clear. It no longer made you happy...so it was necessary to quit liking it. (sounds silly don't it?)
I know that you once adored the God of Abraham to the point of devoting a lifetime of study to him only to "find" good evidence that he is not??? Sorry to hear that...
you have no idea the process I went through, the research I did myself or how difficult of a process it was. Please don't presume to understand or speak for me. This is why our conversation was terminated last time.
I don't propose to speak for you. I do not understand how you got to that conclusion. However, in turn, you do not know my process or the research that I did to reach my stance. I have explained before that I grew up in church. I didn't like it. So many different opinions. So much money. So many misquotes and twisted teachings. But!!! Before I let go, I let the Lord in. I asked him to show me what he meant. He did. And no book writing debunker can ever take that away. In this respect, we differ.
Stick to your beliefs. But don't presume on behalf of anyone else that your beliefs are more valid than theirs.
When ever you declare that you don't care what others think about you and your opinions that is a lie! You do care. You are here to convince others your view is the right one.
That's why I asked, see. I asked what your process was and how you reached the inform decision that Christianity was true and you wanted to devote your belief to it.
Informed decisions are somewhat relative person to person. What I consider a well thought out and good "search" tool is hogwash to others. But at the same time, a well thought out and good "search" tool to another bunch.
I think it unfair to say that I just didn't put enough time into studying it with all the surrounding information or I would uh...come to the same conclusions??? No amount of biblical scholarship is capable of convincing me that I have been "had" by a god that I only thought I knew. For some, that proves a rather convenient avenue for keeping conscious and subconscious from ringing all kinds of alarms because of a sin that is "liked" more than the (now) silly old rules. It works rather well actually. Many many people will back you up. And all the evidence knits together in such a way that it lets one off the "hook" of damnation. They prefer the lie and say, "what damnation? I don't see no damnation" The EVIDENCE has shown me the light and set me free...
Just so you know J, I have plenty of education on the ways of God. No, bible college never saw me one day But I have lived this life day after day for 13 years or more. I will not read for very long or understand much information about what the ancient corrupted church did to destroy all evidentiary faith (hmmm evidentiary faith... you will hear that term again, I like it.) in God. No dropping of scripture will turn me
To me it is likened unto, "Genaea, you aint got no left arm. Here, I'll prove it to you with concrete evidence!"
When did I ever say that you didn't put enough time or effort into research? I just asked a question. Instead of building a straw man, paragraph long response about things I didn't say, why don't you focus on what I actually did say? It's really not that difficult.
You stated earlier something to the effect of me wanting to know all there is to know about what I like so much or something about my "speaking out of ignorance" but I really believe that a logical and reasoned search of confirmation for the scriptures ends up much more often than not, a futile endeavour. Many people even within the church seek to destroy the message of God. Who can you trust to tell you the truth about God? Who did you trust? Plus it seems to me a search to let one off of an imaginary hook. Jesus came to break the chains imposed by the high priests. We are free to love God unconditionally without the "strings". We are free to take him our "burden" or "thorn" boldly and obtain his everlasting mercy. It is written. Fire and brimstone preaching is counterproductive. It does not bring the good news part swiftly enough. Life more abundantly. The "doing" part starts in your head; moves to your heart and then your feet.
How'd I do???
Answer: Go inside of one's self, ask a question; listen; ask a question; listen; ask a question; listen..... The Buck stops when you can no longer ask a question.
If you'd just use your intellect rather than your imagination you'd see the light.
To be perfectly fair, it's very likely that there was a historical Jesus. After all, movements like Christianity have to be spring-boarded by someone, and it's not unreasonable to suggest that someone was a popular rabbi named Jesus. He would've just been a rabbi with some crazy ideas (Put aside material desires and give to the poor? Better keep this guy a secret from Joseph McCarthy.) who was arrested as a political dissident and executed.
Now, where the bullcrap starts flying in is when people claim this guy was Human!God and cured diseases that didn't even exist at the time and was less dense than water and had a 3-day cooldown self-resurrection spell.
Does that mean there was an Adam and Eve, along with the talking snake, to springboard Judaism?
'Cause I really have serious doubts about that one!
Judaism is a bit different from Christianity, though. Judaism is a belief system based on a large collection of oral history and myths (such as the tales you've alluded to) and a series of laws believed to have been written down by Moses.
Christianity, however, revolves exclusively around one guy and his purported divine deeds, with innumerable texts written about him (most of which were censored or dismissed by the Council of Nicaea), so it makes sense for there to be some real-life figure at the center of it all, similar to the legends of King Arthur or Beowulf--it's extremely likely that someone inspired those stories, and even more likely that the reality would look absolutely nothing like the legend. In fact, with other messiahs running around like Apollonius of Tyana, it's even more reasonable to suggest there could have been another so-called messiah named Jesus. The only real difference is that one got a religion based off of him and the other didn't. And they're not the only ones--look at this shyte!
Just to remind everybody that the topic is "All revealed religions in the origin are truthful".Please
Ok. Just on that topic - the premise is wrong. All the religions are not in agreement. In my opinion, none of the major religions have grasped and understood the original and central objective, i.e., helping every individual to connect with One-ness of the universe. Those enlightened individuals who have taught the central truths, have all been misunderstood, even The Buddha.
If the religions had understood and taught truth, then we would not be having any disagreement in this Hub.
Since there is no compulsion in religion; everybody believes or disbelieves on one’s own will; hence there are disagreements and corruptions yet the core teachings of revealed religions remain the same and by believing in the One-True-God the believers get connected to the Oneness.
Oneness, like how well Muslims and Christians get along?
The purpose of life for Muslims is to make all people Muslims.
The purpose of life for Christians is to make all people Christians.
I thought my purpose for life was to live it the best I can, be a good boy, and love people. Thanks for revealing my real purpose... Wanna be a Christian?
I never said it; and it is not related to the topic.
I can't speak for Muslims, but regarding the Christians, your definitely incorrect.
Are we to share the gospel? Absolutely.
"Make all people Christians"? Absolutely not.
There are folks we are not even encouraged to bother discussing it with, and we certainly are not held accountable for making anyone a Christian. We couldn't if we wanted to, so if anybody tells you they "saved" anyone, rest assured they don't even understand how that works. I don't get any Brownie points if you sign up, and don't lose any if you don't.
Good thing, huh?
If you don't even get a single brownie point for a new sign-up, then please, please stop offering the pen and dotted line. As a group, not you personally.
Never!!! The pen and dotted line will be available to you for the rest of your days. Now, how many of those are there???
You dont know you say? ...
Oh, sure - available is fine and even appreciated. Just not pushed into my hand every day - that gets a little tiresome.
How many what? Pens? Hundreds of thousands, I would guess. Why?
Who cares? As I mentioned before, Hell is nothing to even worry about anyway.
Which of your emotions drives the question, Beth?
So, to believe in Hell, I must be emotionally driven?
I believe in AZ. and the thought of summer time there still strikes fear into my heart.
I'm assuming you are leading... you are looking for fear, yes?
B/c anger, joy, and sadness don't really fit.
But what do any of my emotions have to do with it?
And to be precise... I did not have to believe in hell one way or the other to have made that statement.
It could be said of all things that are taken too casually, that deserve consideration.
"I have always skated on this ice, this time of year."
"None the less, you might want to consider it."
Well, yes, it must be emotion driven. As there is no rational reason to think it exists, the belief must be emotional. What else is there?
*You have found no rational reason to believe in the Bible as a whole.
So... ok then.
There are parts in the Bible that is close to the original; they should be accepted and believed; there are parts that are added by the narrators for the interest of the public and to cater them; they should be ignored.
how do you know there are parts of the Bible that are close to the original since no one has any originals to compare them to?
The parts that are closest to the core teachings of a messenger prophet of the One-True-God Allah Yahweh.
But with no originals and only copies of copies of translations of copies, how would you know what that is? Or do you just decide and find things that fit your decision?
I am not selecting any specific teachings for anybody; one could find the core teachings of the founder of a revealed religion oneself.
The teachings that are not in the core should be interpreted within the ambit of the core; if it is not possible then the non-core should be ignored.
So, would you call the following topics Core Teachings, or Throw-away bits?
Death sentence for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality.
Expect to find virgins in heaven.
Women to hide their faces in public.
Or are these just cultural dictates, with nothing to do with what the founder taught?
Excellent questions jonny. I'm curious too.
But I'll be rolling my eyes again...lol
I mentioned core teachings summed by Jesus; the matters mentioned by you do not fall within that.
Cultural difference could affect one's understanding of a revealed religion; one should guard against them.
All you have to do is ask someone who studied all the "reliable" stuff. Lol
No originals? I find that a weird statement. But it only confirms that when it comes down to it, we just gotta trust something/someone or just remain content in a state of quandary. No test is sufficient. This stuff was done thousands of years ago. There are just too many factors that inhibit accuracy because of all of the things we don't know and cannot find out about the time period. Weather for one is a huge factor in dating. Now I know they don't want you to know that because of all the "evidence" they have amassed thus far, but it is obvious to me. ...gotta have faitha faitha faitha (where is that George Michael anyway? I'll be back)
Open your bible to the story about the woman caught in adultery. Now read the footnotes. It says that this story is not included in the earliest manuscripts that we have - and was added later or inserted by a scribe from a margin in a footnote.
True. It's in a footnote of the Bible, and since you say that everything in the bible is true, it must be.
Oneness of human purpose of life in revealed religions is mentioned as follows:
[1:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[1:2] All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
[1:3] The Gracious, the Merciful,
[1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[1:5] Thee alone do we worship and Thee alone do we implore for help.
[1:6] Guide us in the right path —
[1:7] The path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings, those who have not incurred Thy displeasure, and those who have not gone astray.
Depends I guess on whether or not "in the origin" has any meaning for you individually. To me, it kind of throws something off (I don't know what). Please explain what in the origin actually refers to. We do not all agree about what the beginning is. We spoke briefly about core messages but again that differs as well it seems from person to person.
My heart is so warmed. I know you ALL know why. My father is here.
I do love you very much bcuz of our kinship. We ARE family (agree or no). <3
I believe that heaven and hell exists. But no cause of "worry" for me. Anyone "worried" about hell?
I actually doubt that very many are worried about hell. Those that don't believe in it are obviously unworried while those that DO believe think it is only for someone else so are also unworried.
So maybe the best recommendation is that we all get together for a dirty rotten night of debauchery, then we can all go to Hell. Otherwise it's going to be a very lonely place, if we are all so pure and innocent as to never get there.
How about a Hub Pages Hangout. Any one of us can nominate just one Hubber for Membershp. Only one requirement for entry: you got to be Evil.
Ive been thru a few years of hell... at least 5 years, and to say that it was lonely is an understatement. I cannot express to you the darkness of this time. I know that I am not alone in this b/c life is like that sometimes. Even if hell were to be without fire etc... I could not imagine an eternity without hope. Have you ever felt hopeless? That alone is enough to make me think a thousands nights of debauchery would not only *not be worth it... it would add to the loss of hope and light. I would not wish that on my worst enemy.
My post was, of course, totally in jest, Beth, but I warm to your story of reality and with every respect.
I knew you were kidding. I guess the subject, as you can see, is very real to me. Thanks for allowing me to share.
Thanks for sharing. It allows for camaraderie and hope that if you "made it" we can make it too. Darkness has fallen across my land (in my best Vincent Price voice) many times.
Yes, life is like that.
Ah, dammit. My alignment is Chaotic Neutral.
Sorry, guess I can't make it.
Pure and innocent??? Shoooot me???
I can hang with the BEST of them (my cross). However, truth is held tightly. I have no "shame" because God has forgiven me for the 10,789,123,753.8th time and he promised to hold me as I get closer to his ideal for me. (What...? I'm makin good strides lol). Jesus covers and comforts along the way. Man may only point crooked fingers.
If there are parts that seemingly contradict with the core beliefs, unless aligned with the core, should be ignored.
There is a thumb rule; anything which contradicts with the Al-Fatihah- the first chapter of the Qur'an should be understood within the meaning of this short chapter of only seven verses should be ignored.
This is true for all the revealed religions of the One-True-God Allah Yaweh; whether Abrahamic or non-Abrahamic.
Got it. So why is the Qur'an not only 7 verses long? It just seems weird that we have holy books with so much "filler" and laypeople are expected to sort through all the "gobbledygook" to sift out the needed information. How in the world...? God is not the author of confusion. To me, he authored the bible; and attended all the chapter/verse edit meetings with a big gavel. I am throwing NO SCRIPTURE OUT. It all works together.
Would you throw out the gospels of Mary, Peter, Judas, etc.? Or would you include them even though they were discarded at Nicaea as Gnostic teachings, hardly fit for the church composed of bishops, priests, etc.?
Don't know nothing about no book of Mary or Judas. Nut'n Honey You must go after that info seeking it out. Too busy seeking God rather than seeking out his "lie" to me.
To each their own. Some what information and truth, some want to feel good and be happy.
If it keeps you happy and content to not know everything possible then that's probably what you should aim for.
Information and truth is the smokescreen for seeking a loophole. Many people are afraid to not measure up on the last day and end up in hell. They are afraid that since their desire outweighs what they consider good enough for God; it is much better to "discover" that "he is a fraud anyway!!!" Not many people realize how God works. Maybe they are too busy looking in the wrong corners and throwing out scriptures. But hey, to each his own...
Truth does not make a loophole. If it shows such a thing, it can only show it, not provide or make it.
Yes, people are afraid. Which is the biggest reason they believe what makes them feel good, that soothes the fear, rather than what is real.
You're right - not many people realize how God works. Probably because they make up what they want God to be instead of searching out what He really is. That "feel good" thing again rather than truth and fact.
"God" is still only what a person believes in his/her mind. Nothing more real than that.
Probably the biggest and most frequently used placebo in the world.
It is your opinion or imagination for which you are welcome to have; yet not a reality.
I don't agree with it.
Uhh...placebo for what? It sounds as if you might be saying that penicillin is a placebo for leeches, or perhaps prayer, (example), but I don't think you are.
I beg to differ. (Surprised right? )
The placebo is all that goes against truth. The mind ignores the truth. Our desires are very important to us. We don't want to do right and allow God's will for us.
The lie is the feel good tonic. People prefer it these days. The bible promised they would. If the bible is truth (and I fully believe it is); then all else that goes against it is a loophole lie.
It "feels good" to release the pressure of having to be "good enough" and makes you "happy" when "do what thou wilt" is your motto. whew!!! Lets us off the hook don't it???
God's instruction is strictly to love him above all else; do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Sometimes we'd rather just be selfish; and stand on the heads of others to get ahead; or back stab; or steal because we feel entitled. When our conscience says, "whoa, God said..." we may quiet that urging with a God who? bandaid. And then feel "happy" again. The truth is found in scripture.
Yes, it "feels good" to think we'll live forever. It "feels good" to think we will be forgiven for evil we do. It "feels good" to think something is watching over us as a guardian angel. It "feels good" to think there is a Big Daddy somewhere that loves us no matter what.
There are lots and lots of "feel good" reasons to swallow the message of the bible (or at least the one we make up out of the whole cloth of the words there). Not so much in the way of truth and fact.
Truth and fact are not relative terms. Truth is truth. It feels horrifying to know that there is a God and that he may not be pleased with our lives as is. So we start searching for the feel good "well he's not even there!!!" And we find it every time. But we trick ourselves into belief in that lie to feel relief from our screaming conscience.
Learn of him is an admonishment that Jesus made. We cannot learn of him from his enemy. That information is biased. And so is the one who gives it credence.
And you believe in God because it feels good and a forgiving God because it makes you feel even better because you can still do all the things you want to without guilt or fear of hell. Yup you've got that wrapped up nicely.
When you know and love God; you work to please him.
Your life's work to please someone you think will forgive you anyway. And what is it exactly you are doing to please your God? Feeding the starving, Helping the sic?
Talking to well-educated and knowledgeable Atheistic individuals about the greatness of his love is pleasing to him, I think. But keeping him in my heart and agreeing with him in faith; using each day to seek him in his fullness is pleasing to him, I'm sure. Loving him above all and loving my neighbor is pleasing to him.
According to you all you need to do is love him, but that's not at all what the bible says. Notice how the God you believe suites your lifestyle perfectly? It's almost like he is a figment of your imagination.
Then at the end of your life, you are facing the reality of death and think to yourself, "I really doubt it now, that there is any consciousness after my last breath."
And you think also, "I prayed to God and got forgiveness, that time, but I never actually went to my friend and asked his, or her, forgiveness. Because, regardless of whether or not there is God waiting for me, there is still a duty I have to do, right here in the realm of consciousness. I must do it Now, not wait for the If and When."
Did you get THE MESSAGE early???
At the end of my life; and at my last breath... I will see him.
You will see "him" for the lie that you have built up for yourself.
The sad thing is, the nonsense you have instilled in your brain takes up so much time trying to convince others that what you are saying is true, ---- time and time again you repeat what you believe, as if getting others to agree will further prove to you your perception of truth.
It does not matter to me what you have in your brain. Your choice. It just saddens me, that's all.
And repeating your lack of faith gains you what?
Either her beliefs *don't matter to you and therefore you are indifferent, or her beliefs *do matter to you and that makes you sad. So if you actually *do care, to the point of being saddened, why so?
Fair comment Beth.
I am saddened because to me it looks like a narrow mind, a narrowing of potential consciousness and awareness in this precious life which can be all too short.
You will probably reply that my way of thinking is narrow, too. But I can give to the possibility of some kind of "higher being" without the guilt trip that seems to be instilled in the religious "faith."
Guilty? Oh! The bible calls it conviction. No need to feel guilt when you say sorry from a clear and humble heart hell-bent on knowing you were wrong.
You have a perception about faith. It is not necessarily correct, but it is yours and you're entitled to it, just as is she entitled to her beliefs.
The difference is, she is sharing (invited and encouraged by these threads, her opposition and this entire forum) her belief in her Creator.
You are sharing your disparagement of her personally. Do you see the great disparity?
She is allowed to believe in God. She is allowed to say *why she believes in God. This is a religious forum. So if you have the same rights, then that would allow you to say that you don't believe in God and why, but it seems that simple propriety would keep us from implying that those who believe differently from us are somehow pathetic or lacking in intellectual stability.
What do you expect when grown adults believe in children's fairy tales and say they talk with God and He talks back to them? No one is saying you're not allowed to believe in these things, but don't expect to be treated like a grown adult when you aren't acting like one.
Forgive me if I'm reading this incorrectly, Jonny, but it appears that this statement slightly contradicts your last statement. You said here that you are open to the possibility of a creator without the guilt attached. I can understand the part of without guilt. But sometimes it appears that you call a belief in God nonsensical. Now Ggenaea's beliefs as they are may be a certainty to her based on her knowledge and understanding of the bible, but considering some of the elements of the bible and principles contained in, they still speak to a possibility of a creator (which you expressed an openness to). So looking at the seemingly apparent (again to me) contradiction, I have a question for you. Do you feel that it is the actual belief in God that is nonsense, or is it the guilt attached by some people that's nonsense?
Needed a night's sleep before answering, Deepes, was very tired after visiting an Ecological establishment here in Ibiza.... wonderful stuff, right up my street!
I don't see a person's need to "believe in god," non-sensical, because I see it as a human trait, which seems to be inherent across our species. Can't explain it, so just let it be.
I do see the 'guilt trip' as part of that belief system, and the 'guilt trip' itself seems also to be part of the belief pattern.
If a person can be honest enough and open-minded enough to be aware of that 'guilt trip' working in their life, then the hard-and-fast attachment to the god concept, and its intensity, can sometimes be reduced. Then the horizon of experience can be widened. In my opinion, anyway.
I don't know if this answers your questions, or whether it makes for more confusion.
It partially answers my question and gives me more of an insight into you so the other part I can leave alone because it's not totally relevant in light of your opening statement. Thanks for your response. Glad you slept on it rather than answer it tired
Wow jonny. I was just thinking the same of you. I had no idea that a person could be saddened by the brain of another. You have shown me...
My perception of truth is not affected by any thoughts I hear that others have. It is so liberating. Are your thoughts affected by the thoughts of others?
The contents of my brain seem to have mattered a great deal in these forums. I am consistently bombarded with questions of my faith and practice and unreasonably vast amount of ignorance.
I do what I may to explain but you know already that pigeons and chess...
Very well worded. Your paragraph says it all.
I think it really would be horrible to know that there is a god that is displeased with our lives. Very scary no matter how you look at it.
But of course we cannot know either that such a god exists of what it wants of us. All we have is the bible, compiled by an emperor for political purposes, to rely on for either bit of information.
And having a sneaking suspicion, an opinion or belief, that there is a god that is displeased with us - well, that's a different matter. Not nearly so scary, particularly when we begin digging for the truth of this supposed god. Partly because it is so easy to decide he wants us the way we are - it makes us feel real good.
Well, feel good your way. I will feel good God's. Let us see who wins
Wins? Whoever enjoys life wins. Hopefully both of us.
Enjoying life is risky according to the bible. Lol
Now I KNOW you won't get that one
I do know that. At least it is risky according to organized religion and it's interpretation of the bible.
Which is one reason I don't follow either - a god that requires a life of unhappiness as it promises a long life of happiness isn't one I choose to either believe or worship. Either religion, the bible or both are just flat out wrong or the Christian god is not something worthy of my worship.
You showed me what I meant again. You don't get it.
If you know people will not understand your wording, why do you write? To sew confusion? To reinforce beliefs of a third party? For self promotion?
Free country. I am just as entitled to my words as you are yours.
Or maybe just to stir the pot? To create argument?
Well everyone likes to feel important, can't blame a person for that. You get it where you can, I guess. So be gentle.
If you stir it...they will come (like burnt pieces of crusty stuff stuck at the bottom...) HAhhhaaaaa
I give here the first chapter Al-Fatiha of Qur'an:
[1:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[1:2] All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds,
[1:3] The Gracious, the Merciful,
[1:4] Master of the Day of Judgment.
[1:5] Thee alone do we worship and Thee alone do we implore for help.
[1:6] Guide us in the right path —
[1:7] The path of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy blessings, those who have not incurred Thy displeasure, and those who have not gone astray.
Hello. I really would like to know if the Koran contains throw away information too.
That would be all the bollocks about efreets and djinn.
Core teachings of Qur'an should be ascertained and the narratives which do not belong to the core should be interpreted within the core.
did you notice that this time you did not use the word "ignored"?
Earlier, I think I mentioned the same for teachings of Jesus.
If you please I will amend my words.
I noticed that the bible and Qur'an sometimes agree. But my take is that no words can be stricken from the bible. I don't know much of the Qur'an. But are there words there that confirm that some of it should be ignored? Jesus said not one dot or tittle may be stricken.
Jesus' words were for the Revelation he received from the One-True-God not for whatever has been compiled after him.
Can you please just come up with a shorter nickname for the deity you believe in? One-True-God-Allah-Yahweh is just exhausting and obnoxious.
How about Allweh? Then I can point and laugh and say, "'Allweh,' eh? Well, I suppose you can allwehs call him 'Al'!"
The One-True-God is known by His attributes and many proper names in different languages; in Arabic language it is Allah:
[7:181] And to Allah alone belong all perfect attributes. So call on Him by these. And leave alone those who deviate from the right way with respect to His attributes. They shall be repaid for what they do
https://alislam.org/quran/search2/showC … ;verse=180
I don't find any obnoxiousness in it; sorry.
I must agree with you there.
The words compiled after him were of him and his ministry. We get the picture of his thought processes (the way we should think) from the new. The cultural preferences are important. People get a glimpse of how difference works for or against. We get to see what worked. And how the earliest practices were employed. We were given instruction on how to be flexible with our brother; as in not eating the sacrificial meat if it caused problems with your brother's faith. We were taught in the NT how to be righteous. How to not be righteous. It all works together.
"for the interest of the public and to cater them; they should be ignored."
This was the statement that I disagreed with.
Has anyone noticed that the insults hurled at my shield have evolved from a constant downpour of "you're a liar"; to you're delusional; to you're ignorant; and nowadays it's, "you just want to FEEL happy" ??? Are there weekly bulletins on how to insult the Christian posted somewhere? I've noticed that it is done pretty much in a united fashion.
Are you sure they are bulletins for Christians or bulletins for Cgenaea?
"you just want to FEEL happy" is an insult? Who knew?
See how subtle...? It diminishes or belittles the walk of faith in God for the public eye. You didn't know that feelings don't count??? Right is right. (Ok yes it makes me happy ok?) But how can it not? Happiness is the result of the blessed assurance; not the motivation for the silly assertion that i made this up. I'm creative, but not even I am THIS good.
You obviously are that good. Take credit where do.
I've seen court shows (think "Judge Judy") where one or both claimed to be of God (pastor, maybe) and therefore automatically assumed to be truthful and in the right.
I've seen hundreds/thousands of craiglist posts from people selling things "from a Christian home" as if that means they won't rip off a buyer.
I've had many people just mention, in passing, that they are Christians in order to convince the listener they are not trying to scam them. Even the scammer emails from all over the world say that about half the time.
I'd therefore say that perhaps the "walk of faith in God" DOES need diminished in the public eye. It does NOT give the speaker any special powers or attributes; those "walking in faith with God" are no better people than anyone else. Maybe such a statement does need to be belittled a little and bring those self righteous people back to earth.
Now, you know how the rest of us think about people who say the talk with God.
I think you missed my point. If someone claims one thing, then does the opposite, that is kind of the definition of lying, right?
So if someone says they are a Christian in order to have you feel safe with them so that they can take advantage of you, that would be a scam.
So when David Hampton convinced ppl that he was Sidney Poitier's son, do you then blame Sidney Poitier or his other children? Or do you say... "David Hampton is a liar."?
Seems more the definition of hypocrisy. Lying would be more like telling everyone they have conversations with God.
Maybe they were; IMHO people often do.
But it is irrelevant. Whether lie or truth it does NOT make them a better person, any more likely not to harm others. Witness the Catholic priests with their child abuse. Of the JW crowd, with holding simple medical treatment until their child dies. Or the TV mogul preachers, rolling in their millions of $$ collected from the rubes believing in them.
Whether people claim to walk with God, or (as near as I can tell as no one knows if another actually spoke with the Lord) actually do so, it does not make them better people as a whole.
This is a very interesting statement. Remember though that at the end of the arguments, the judge makes the final ruling of who is right in relation to the letter and intent of the law. Sometimes one person wins, sometimes both won, sometimes neither side wins. Ultimately, no matter how many arguments each side comes up with, reality of whether God exists or not will be the final judge depending on what happens next. If God does exist (out of respect, though I do believe), he will make the final call as to who truly followed his intent. If not, then what does it matter because we'll all be gone anyway
The point was that an awful lot of people make a point of their religion in an obvious bid to convince a listener that just because of that, that they are better people. Won't lie in court, won't scam anyone and would never cheat a buyer all because they attach that magical "Christian" label to themselves.
Personally, it just makes me reach for my wallet to protect it, not because I distrust Christians particularly but because so many use it in order to run a scam. Either way, the claimant needs brought back to earth.
I got your main point, and I didn't disagree. But that one point ultimately created another one.
It often does. But your last line, "If not, then what does it matter because we'll all be gone anyway" I have to take exception to. The comment is very plainly saying that what we do doesn't matter because we'll all die anyway - rape, child abuse, murder, theft - nothing matters.
Not something I can agree with, not even in the slightest. What we do matters a great deal to us and to those around us.
Oh no. I didn't mean it like that. Forgive me on that one. Of course we still want to be ethical and moral in our treatment of others here no matter what happens at the end of this life. Sorry for that
Deepes, there isn't a chance I would take you for meaning such a travesty. For making a misstatement that gave such an impression, yes, but never for meaning it.
I do appreciate that you would point the misstep. It's all to easy to take a misstep and run with it, on both sides
Isn't it just!?
Now if I could just convince myself that Santa would be here in a couple of days. I've got the grandkids convinced, and leaving out the milk and cookies, but I'm having a little trouble believing it myself...while they are most definitely running with it for all they're worth, I'm lagging behind.
Having fun with the two little ones (4 and 6) this year. Their parents hadn't helped them write their Santa letters, so I did. They typed them onto Facebook, including their picture, pecking out the letters as I spelled them. My sister saw it and Santa, using her computer, wrote back. Instant excitement!
If it's any consolation, regarding use of the Internet to communicate with Santa, I was in the Himalayas 3 years ago, doing a short trek, 3000 metres up there, on a narrow, lonely track with my guide. A couple of ponies came up fast from behind us, and as they passed one of the pony riders pulled out a cell phone and started talking on it.
So I reckon Santa might just possibly have similar technology at the North Pole.
People of God have the attributes of Jesus but are human. Jesus, having been spawned by God was able to set a marvelous example. Those who love God follow the example and obey the commands as much as humanly possible. The bible lets us know how to spot the yeas.
So we're clear, one may only TRY to diminish. Some will buy it.
This pretty much opens the door for Christians to do just about any deplorable sin that they desire....then just claim that they fell short of Jesus' marvelous example. What a scam.
Not entirely. Though some may try to use it in that manner, it is not a "Get out of hell free" card. The idea is that once you repent you do not willingly go forth and do whatever you want. It's basically an admonishment to live a good and moral life. Willful immorality is not covered like that. You can't go out, rob someone, repent, then go rob someone else. The intentions of the person will be considered at the end
That phoney Christianity used as a manipulation may fool a person or two but God knows the truth in each. He is never fooled. And no one will get away with it.
Does that include Islamic believers trying to say that Islam and Christianity are equally true?
I don't know. But I do know who definitely won't make the cut. If you want to know who that someone is, read your bible.
I think it's pretty clear that the bible thumpers, scaring people into following them with a constant repetitious chant of "Live my way or BURN!" won't be among them.
Probably just the ones that quietly live their lives, leaving others alone to do the same. It's called the Golden Rule - something I do believe Jesus would have approved of.
There is so much about this post that makes me to know that you don't even want to understand this stuff. It's starting to seem like chronic clogged ear.
You haven't figured out yet that we are trying to help you?
I figured that out a long time ago.
But the help you offer may only lead me in the opposite direction of my goal. Thanks but no thanks.
In the key of C: If you don't know me by now; you will neva neva neva know me. Ooooooo. Sing with me! Altogether now!!!
Dumb as wood??? Have you not heard me for years now say the same thing over and over over and over over and over??? You don't know where I'm headed??? You don't know my intent?
But if by some chance you HAVE missed it, then maybe it is by design. I will not tempt the hands of fate by ruining their surprise for you.
My daddy was a musician for the choir. He did C a lot. He did a lot of flats too. Pick a key that's jazzier; an' start singin' for Rad. He can't hear me.
C# on the piano, but particularly Db on violin are much more interesting.
OOOOhhhh! Cgenaea. God forgive you for such a presumption!
Sorry, it's not critical thinking to claim God understands, it's a rationalization.
You caught that, too? The incredible egocentricity giving rise to equally incredible rationalizations that only the speaker knows the innermost thoughts of God and can thus do no wrong because God will always agree with "critical thinking"?
Egocentric? Hmmm. Let's get the "definition" of THAT word. See who fits it.
Are you in possession of a long red cloak, with white trimmings, and a red hood, Cgenaea? You could easily hide your eccentricities behind that and put them to good use entertaining the christmas crowds.
Wrong wrong wrong again. My assertion that God understands comes behind the critical thought. He understands me putting two and two together and finding four. You do not seek to understand what i am saying. It was clear in your post. And this one too if technicality is ordered.
I means that her critical thinking will always please God because it always produces the answer He likes, and that if you take her at her word you will misunderstand her meaning.
They just don't have the Spirit...so if they consumed these SPIRITS first, it would make perfect sense!!!
Thank you, Jesus!
Try it. Maybe that will work. Lowered inhibitors just may work... how many times does one call HIM after a few too many???
Of course, for some reason, certain people don't actually need to imbibe, as they are naturally off balance....through nothing other than INDOCTRINATION. They are absolutely tripping, but don't have the awareness to know that it's only a trip! The mind is a terrible thing.
Off balance??? Are you referring to those of us who have decided to stay with God although he does not always do as we desire??? Or are you still speaking about the imaginary being who has proven to you to be totally NONexistent???
Maybe we should revisit what off balance really is...
I most certainly do seek to understand what you are saying. From what I gather your critical thinking has led you to understand that God excepts you with all your flaws allowing you to do and say as you please. What you should however understand is that that's a rationalization for your own benefit and no critical thinking has led you there.
I brought up critical thinking because it helped me to realize that you do not want to hear/understand me. When I say that the Lord wants us to have faith in him alone; it leads you to the conclusion that he does not want us to think for ourselves. You listen without listening. You respond with simply opposite lines of thought. When I think about that critically; I see a refusal to meet me where I am. No problem. Unless we are trying to come to a meeting of the minds. But when our minds are made of different materials, will they ever meet??? My bet is a fat NO. What you think???
Critical thinking tells you God gave us brains to not think with? God wants zombies?
It doesn't take critical thinking to come to that conclusion.
Now that statement made no sense to me... I mean, I have said many times that we must not be zombies. It is a conscious decision to do things his way. His way works. He does not demand that we think like him; he has given us a choice in the matter.
Are obedient children called zombies where you are from?
Obedient to Gods words? Like keeping and beating slaves with clubs, burning witches and killing those who work on Sundays?
Sure that works. Perhaps you may want to move to Saudi Arabia where they have no separation of church and state and women can't vote or drive? Sure that works.
No, like loving him before all and keeping aware of the commands that Jesus taught. And not allowing another's word to supersede.
Perhaps, you need to be introduced to critical thinking, you don't appear to have a grasp on the concept.
THANK YOU!!! all my boxes are checked. I know all your boxes are checked but still, we think critically in opposite directions. You may say that I'm not doing it right; but I would repeat the same phrase in my assessment of the opposing view.
I guess you still don't have a grasp, there's no such thing as critical thinking in opposite directions, there is only critical thinking. Repeating the same phrases is not thinking, it's just repeating.
I wonder why it's necessary to have to teach basic skills to writers?
"I guess you still don't have a grasp, there's no such thing as critical thinking in opposite directions, there is only critical thinking. Repeating the same phrases is not thinking, it's just repeating.
I wonder why it's necessary to have to teach basic skills to writers?"
Did I misunderstand this post or were you saying here that you were having to teach her basic skills that you felt you had and she didn't?
It's quite the rampant problem with believers here, which is very strange considering this is supposed to be a site for writers. One would expect they would at the very least attain some skills common to writers such as critical thinking skills, how to use a dictionary, that sort of thing.
Because they REFUSE to listen.
Critical thinking is critical whether I think about how well the bible is put together; or how foolish people are who believe in its authenticity (the former being my own line of critical thought). We both use/have used processes in our thoughts; considered the information as well as self to come to our conclusions (though I may only speculate for you). And we do this thinking in opposite directions. Critical thought should have revealed this long and tedious explanation long ago. But, maybe I am the only one thinking critically.
Okay, but why do you refuse to listen?
No, it still appears you don't have a grasp of critical thinking. What you're explaining that you do is called confirmation bias.
Another label... do we have a name for your viewpoints?
Confirmation Bias isn't a viewpoint; it's a logical fallacy.
For example, you drive your car every day and it works just fine. One day, it stalls on you. You take it to the shop and get it fixed, and it works just fine until, once again, it stalls on you about nine months later. "Stupid car," you shout, "It's always breaking down on me! That's all this car does!"
You've blinded yourself to the many, many times it's worked just fine and highlighted those few moments where it didn't. That, in essence, is Confirmation Bias.
You are not really following either. My viewpoint was labeled once again. I confirm what I believe through biblical and personal testimony. Confirmation bias (not surprised it has a name because every other paragraph is labeled. The commenter has opinions based on what they consider facts and evidence based on other standards and THAT viewpoint is...uh...better? Or better yet, labeled "gospel truth" without the gospel part??? Yet UNlabeled.
Yes, it's called "explaining elementary and fundamental skill sets in human beings"'
That would be an exquisite example of confirmation bias, with not even a trace of critical thinking.
Your "education" is not needed nor the least appreciated (but that is ONLY my opinion. I have more than enough knowledge on my subject to educate.
You fail to see that even the person who has adamantly claimed the neutrality position is yet ignoring some evidence based upon OTHER and MORE PREFERRED or LIKABLE "knowledge". Now that is fine with me. I have much experience with thinking critically about biblical information. I think critically at all times.
When you think critically about it, you take with you your biases such as "God has not been proven" to weigh out what you JUST heard (such as Jesus was who he said he was; he did what he said he would do; and we are admonished to do as he said) see? Everyone confirms according to bias. Even Science has "proven" strategies that must be considered (a sort of bias) in experimental design until...
Yet, it does not show up in any of your posts, I only see confirmation bias, no critical thinking whatsoever.
No, that's what you do.
What would you know about science? Nothing.
I am so in awe! No "THOUGHT" behind the words. Only BIAS.
But you missed that right???
If I hit my scientific friends with a formula where pi is represented as 3.17 (because 7 has really been a good number for me) there will be a hiss in the crowd. You know why???
Right! my thought process starts off on the WRONG scientific foot. Such as it is with the kingdom of heaven. If I start my biblical thought process with "God is hateful and very possibly nonexistent" I throw off my whole "experiment". Understand???
That is usually how the thought process ends, especially after reading the bible.
Even the parts about Jesus? He claimed to be one with his father. His character displays what God is. Love...
Those are just words written by unknown humans, which mean nothing. After applying critical thinking, then still believing that these words are actually the words of the son of the Creator of the universe is completely psychotic.
Wow Sir...I didn't know you felt that way. Let me rethink myself...ok, done. Belief in God is healthy. Sorry you're not "psychotic"...
It makes you "happy" because you "like" it so much. And studies these days show that happiness is healthy. Something that the bible said thousands of years ago.
but other people are just as happy without a belief in god - or with a belief in god other than yours. Is that not healthy too? Wouldn't it be unhealthy to make then unhappy and desire for them to change?
Yes. Pretend belief or coerced belief could definitely give the "believer" some kind of hives or something. I only tell my story as it goes. Belief in it is only a mild suggestion. Not a demand in any way. The people were mad at me for my "believe or don't, I have no stake in you coming tp God" they said it sounded like I was being...I forgot the adjective but it wasn't cute.
Are you healthy because of the sole fact that you believe in God, or are you healthy because you try to take care of yourself?
I also am pretty healthy.... a bit of osteoarthritis that goes with age, nothing to worry about. Being able to walk out in the winter sunshine makes for good health.
Even if I had a belief in some kind of god, that would not make me more healthy. But an awareness of this world's natural beauty works wonders for the mind.
The mind is capable of marvelous feats. Happiness and health are both affected by it. How'd you know??? but belief in God would probably make you heathier. Just kidding; it takes a full-hearted devotion and unwavering faith equipped with patience to do the trick. Though the bible does attest to "a merry heart" being like medicine.
Yes . I was taught as a child that my body is a temple and I should take care of it for my health. So majority of things I do for myself and others IS because of my belief in God. We've had this discussion before and I know that others have picked up good morals and ethical behavior without the Christian belief in God, but that does not diminish the usefulness or value of these beliefs in my life. Once I started reading more things on my own, the things I found and learned on my own in reading other books confirmed and reaffirmed what o got from the Bible. Don't misunderstand me here. I'm not saying the other books got their ideas from the Bible nor am I submitting this as any proof of God. What I am saying is that no matter what happens at the end, I am still doing things that I do because I learned from the Bible as well as other places that it is good to do. I have no fear of things that are outside of my control, so I don't worry about them. I do what I need to do here
So, if you didn't believe in God you wouldn't do things for yourself or for others? I don't believe in God and I shovelled my neighbours driveway a few times because he's recovering from surgery and I spent Christmas afternoon helping another retired neighbour who has trees lying on his roof because of the ice storm and I'm worried that the trees will cover his furnace chimney. Without God you wouldn't do those things? I think it's safe to say you would.
Clarification: The things I do is because of what I learned from my belief in God and in the Bible. So to answer your question, sure I would, but that still does not change the foundation of my learning these things which still shows the value of religion as a teaching tool depending on how it's taught
Are you sure? My Jewish friend spent his entire day on the 23rd helping his neighbours cut down trees that might endanger their houses. No bible required. Perhaps it should be said that your parents and yourself had something to do with the kind of person you are rather than giving the credit to the bible.
Rad, sorry, but either you are reaching in an effort to give me a hard time, or you haven't truly taken the time to learn me and my beliefs. Given our history, I'm going with the former (lol). I never said I give credit to the Bible. I gave credit to my curiosity and search for knowledge and understanding. I can't give credit to the Bible specifically because it can't give me information unless I make the effort to pick it up and look in it. I did say I looked in other books as well. I have stated a belief in God, but I also have stated that I believe that we (or at least I given my understanding of some scripture) were not meant to be as dependent on God as some people believe. No, god does not want us to be mindless zombies. The bible tells us to evaluate things and keep what we need.
I'm simply reacting to your words.
It certainly seems to me from these two quotes that you do give credit to God and the bible for the things you do for yourself and for others.
I'll be shovelling out me and my neighbours from under the ice and the freshly fallen blanket of snow for the next few hours. ;-)
Not necessarily. It's not the belief nor the book. Its in the application of that learning that makes the difference. But the overall point still lies in the person directly. I give credit to the foundation of my learning. But now that I have that knowledge, I apply it.
Okay, it's interesting that in this last post you didn't give credit to God or the bible, but gave credit to who you are to your learning which makes more sense.
If you reread my posts, I o was giving credit toy learning the whole time, though maybe not in the clearest terms. I think your issue is more with the source of my learning. You latched onto the words God and Bible and appear to have tried to run with it. You were looking more at the source than me saying I learned.
You prompted me to look for studies of the effects of Religion on longevity. From what I just read, Jews, Mainland Protestants and Evangelical Protestants have slightly longer life expectancy when compared to those claiming no officiation, Black Protestants and Catholics, but it also show that the first group has on average a 3 year longer education. So is it the education for the religion that extends longevity?
Bible simply says merry heart. No reading involved (you know he likes us a little on the "dumb" side) hahaha
A 3 year average could include 3 years shorter or 3 years longer. Am I right mathematically?
When I am dead I will not have the awareness either way. It does not bother me. Only life in the Here And Now is of importance to me (apart from a little planning and preparation for a "maybe" future.)
It simply said they spent an extra three years getting educated.
I'm not up on the studies and current statistics, to be honest. But I have read and learned that in certain case health can be affected by your mood and emotional state. As much as I see the world for what it is here, I am an optimist in relations to something better than here and now that may be out here. Even if there isn't I can still do what I can here to try to facilitate the better I see and hope for.
Go on..... tell us what you know about that Love. How does it make your life, you as a person, better or more acceptable? Or does it have another objective?
Is this Love represented in all the revealed religions of the world?
So what "material" is your mind made from, as opposed to his mind...And can you provide proof? Or, are you playing Chess again? Thanks
Chess it will forever be.
My mind is spiritual. His mind is fleshy (blood and stuff). I just got a revelation. The bible talks about carnal and spiritual mindedness. Different stuff.
You just refuse to be reasonable at all. You haven't proven any such thing as a "Spirit" yet you think it is respectful to continue to use it to explain your position. Lordy...you even think that you are a critical thinker. Something is VERY wrong here.
Nobody says that; what is correct is that Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad; their Word of Revelation being from the same one source in the original language revealed was equally truthful.
I am beginning to agree with you. At last, thank you for sharing with us.
Although I have come to an a-theist way of thinking, and cannot forsee my self changing from that for now, provided I get the same acceptance and respect for having that view my acceptance and respect is held out in return.
It is only in the face of adamant claims that I stand my ground.
I appreciate if they the Atheists accept reason and are committed to it as far as reason could go reasonably; to that extent the Truthful Religion does accommodate them within its folds; beyond that even reason would leave alone.
I don't despise Atheists; I don't judge anybody.
Just curious: you are using that word Atheist as a noun, with a capital A. Presumably there is some kind of militant organisation behind that.
Please don't group me in with it. I have no need to "belong" to any such organisation. I prefer to do my own thinking, my own choosing and my own discussion.
Please note I used "a-theist" with intention. It describes my thinking, it does not put a label on me. There might be some things i would agree with if discussing with those "Atheists," but no more, no less, than I might with anyone of any religion. Currently I do not align with any of them and prefer to direct my thinking along Buddhist (adjective again) lines.
But please keep the dialogue and the freedom of expression going.
Truthful religion respect everybody.
One has to investigate to find the Truth.
Although all religions contain at least a grain of truth, the core belief that there is a mythological creature flying around the sky that made us all appears, to the best of our knowledge and evidence, to have exactly zero truth in it.
As such it deserves no respect, although the person believing the fable does.
I wonder what that person you call Jesus would have said to anyone, in his lifetime, if they had tried to portray him as a perfect man of god, without sin, without fault, without blemish.
I do believe we have a few examples. I would check with the theif hanging near Jesus at the end of his life first; then work my way back.
Matthew 27:46 is a pretty good indication that Jesus was not the perfect man as described. No one believing their god has abandoned them, and making that belief public, can be without fault.
Just to remind that the topic of the thread is "All revealed religions in the origin are truthful".
Please focus on the topic.
We are still on subject, somewhat. While I applaud your attempt at thinking to keep us on topic, religion is one of those things that so many subtopics can be discussed, but they can still fall under the main one
Please don't blame religion for that; it is a human fault that could be improved.
Nobody was blaming religion. My statement is not solely limited to religion. A sub topic does not change the subject. A sub topic is just a side road that is still part of the journey. At times the detour is necessary. Again, I applaud your efforts, but you cannot control and direct areligious discussion in general and in an open forum in particular. A majority of side conversations are equally as relevant to the main subject.
And critical thinking in the exploration of discussions is not a human fault. It is a natural inclination generated be curiosity of the complexities of the human mind and life in general. If that is "improved" in the manner in which you want to keep it focused on one thing, that removes the complexity of the mind, thus brainwashing people.
Without humans, religion is baseless anyway..No god ever invented religion.
That I believe is the truth of it. All religions consist of a load of man made rules and ceremonies. This doesn't preclude the existence of God that is above all the clamour. Now how determine the truth of this God is quite another thing.
Just curious, if we throw all religions out the window what do you have left that points to any God? Speculation?
Does meditation point to the god of self? Other "spiritual" mental activities? ("spiritual" because I have no other term for what I'm trying to say)
Interesting point. I don't think meditation (focusing on one thing) has anything to do with any spirit or spirits. The spirits would only be a distraction from ones focus.
I would say yes to that, because for me the pursuit of full consciousness and awareness starts with understanding one's self and one's motivations. Out of that awareness can come a pure love for neighbours who are going through their own personal search for meaning. This also works for me when I warm to the needs of a very religious person, regardless of whether I agree with that person's pronouncements.
I honestly don't know. I cannot accept Islam because of its barbaric laws, Judaism because of all the ceremonies and laws, Christianity (as popularly understood) because of its bizarre definition of God and pseudo supernatural experiences.
Not entirely. What it appears that DPH is referring to is organized religion that has ritualsa and doctrines that are exclusionary to some people and carry a mob mentality that only they are right and the people that are part of the organization are safe. If you get rid of all of that, you still have personal faith which brings religion back to a personal philosophy. You also still have some of the core elements of the Bible that generally get overlooked (in somecases) in favor of the hateful, ddogmatic negativity
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are
presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new
evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is
extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it
is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize,
ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.”
― Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks
Sometimes people hold a certain faith in God until one day, they don't get what they want. All hell breaks loose. Adversity is seen as the proof that there could not be a God who would allow this to happen. Therefore the conclusion based from the disappointment is disbelief. But who wants such a manipulative love???
And some people actually grow up, and understand that there are ups and downs in life, which means that it would be absurd to become disappointed at imaginary mythical characters, or have faith in a childish fairy tale. You need to move on from this asinine and dishonest mindset. Your beliefs are just as illogical without anyone being disappointed. To be disappointed in an imaginary character would be just as childish as your ridiculous beliefs. Unbelievable!
Yet every last one of your posts assert with fierce anger at the bleeping absurdity that is God. It baffles me. How could one respond with such ferocity at mythology? It just appears that it affects the mood of your posts from an extremely personal viewpoint causing overkill. I mean you seem to stab at this air 56 fatal times instead of the just 1 fatal blow. The courts would call it a crime of passion. That is something that illustrates "personal" attachment.
You just refuse to let go of your distorted mindset, although it has been explained that no one is mad at your imaginary God. I am, however, livid at those who are behind this fraud. Can you fathom the difference, or will you, mindlessly, continue to parrot the same abject fraudulent assertion as before? NO ONE IS MAD AT YOUR IMAGINARY GOD>>>
There....you have been corrected. Insanity is repeating the same nonsense over and over, even after it has been found to be false.
Tell me about it. In my mind, which leans toward spirit, there is absolutely no way that God does not exist. If you ask me, it would be absurd to think otherwise. It is unequivocally truth that The One True God is on his throne in heaven listening to your heart.
Please do not be mad at me for standing behind my truth. You adamantly stand behind yours. Can't we all just get along??? You go your way...
What? No snazzy tag for the unwitnessed (definitely not eyewitnessed) evidentiary claim that the biblical account is a large false-flag?
Confirmation bias works both ways. There is plenty that directly points to the existence of God. But that data is seen as impossible because someone else with a -more acceptable-opinion is believed instead. Confirmation bi...
There is zero objective evidence that directly points to the existence of God. Only "evidence" that has been filtered through, and grossly affected by, the emotions of the "observer".
Don't forget, the first step of critical thinking is to remove all bias, all beliefs and all desires for a particular conclusion from the equation.
Even if there is evidence that points to the existence of some kind of transcendent and intelligent higher reality, if anything, it does not lead anywhere to Western religious figures...
Question - what is a "higher" reality? I mean, what makes it "higher" than our reality?
How else is one to describe that entity? Higher seems a satisfactory description to my way of thinking. It's metaphor, analogy, whatever you like to think.
If we see our current physical state as being limited to what we can perceive with our senses, a nd anything that we cannot perceive as beyond the senses, then it's reasonable to see it as a "higher" state.
Admittedly any perception is therefore totally subjective to the beholder, and unarguable because none of us has a common knowledge and understanding of that "higher" state. Every one's view/imagination of it will differ from the next person's.
I just find that perpetual description rather amusing. It is a relative term, not absolute, and the reverse, from the other state's viewpoint, is just as valid.
Given that creatures in a different "dimension", "reality" or "universe" are as unlikely to see us as we are them, I don't see them as "higher". Given that both the "alternate reality" and any intelligence there will have their own limitations, and that some of those are likely to be our strengths, I don't see them as "higher".
It's just a little amusing that everyone is always looking for and claiming existence of something "higher" (better? superior by some undefined standard?) than themselves. Much like claiming the ET above our planet has to have a better moral structure because of it's power, just before it unleashes the death ray and starts sucking all the water from the oceans.
Fair enough.... I can see your points of view, logical.
But you see Wilderness, it is a term that I use because our language is so lacking.
I don't necessarily mean "higher reality" in a sense that it some how surpasses our morality, because I don't even see morality as a lone standing entity that "exists." I don't mean the "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts and my ways are higher, etc" type stuff you find in the Bible and other religious books/religions. What I mean is similar to what Johnny said. A reality beyond our immediate perceptions. But I think he and I may differ there, if I understand his standing, because I don't think it is a separate reality or Universe. I don't necessarily buy into other dimensions (although I don't know the research, so I can't say). But what I speak of is aspects of our current reality that are hard for us to perceive BUT not impossible. Actually it's everywhere around us. There more you magnify anything you can find on this planet, the fewer differences and separations you'll find. If you look at everything on an atomic level, every single thing, you'll find a whole lot of empty space. Why? What holds us together. Observe everything, and look at the reoccurring patterns that are everywhere.
The higher reality that I speak of is less of a separate being, and more of the freedom from the illusion of how we currently see reality. It is the origin and nature of Universe, it is the Universe itself. And we and everything else is a part of that. Whatever "that" is.
I can't really explain the concept that well.
But I have a video you should watch that may help me get some of my point across. This is about a brain scientist that experienced a stroke, and then shared that experience in this TED talk.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_tay … sight.html
I understand and in many ways agree with you. There are facets of our universe and reality we haven't even thought of yet - probably more than we have thought of.
In addition, I use the same verbiage, "higher this or that" myself because there is nothing else that fits any better. I just find it comical, that's all, even when I do it myself. It is not "higher" in any sense of the word, after all.
This is a quote from a free publication entitled "Natural Awakenings" (NaturalAwakeningsNJ.com), article entitled "Near Death Experiences" which I would like to share with your reading audience. The quote was said by Anita Moorjani and it states,"I was overwhelmed by the realization that God isn't a being, but a state of being...pure consciousness". That sentence is mind blowing! Think about what Anita Moorjani was trying to illustrate for all of us.
All we can do is imagine what Anita was trying to illustrate. What does that even mean? "Pure consciousness"?? "A state of being"?? "Mind blowing"?? Does she even know what she's talking about?
Sounds biased to me... but I guess that's not important.
But does Cgenaea even want to be convinced of that?
The topic of the thread is "All revealed religions in the origin are truthful". Please
I would like to address that statement of yours a little more.
If you mean the objective and the path of every "revealed" religion is the same, how can that be? Do Islam and Christianity have the same objective? They are both, to some degree, evangelistic. Do they preach the same path to that objective? Obviously not.
Compare Hinduism and Buddhism. Do they have the same clear objective? For the individual human being? Do they espouse the same path? The same religious practices? I don't think so.
However, if you look at the lives (as we are led to understand their historical accuracy) of each of the original proponents of each religion, it seems to me they had something very much in common.
They had learned to meditate. This means to go into that still, quiet, infinite space where one can view the physical universe of Life in its complexity and its unity. Buddhism teaches this today, so does Hinduism. Christianity, when stripped of its religiosity, also teaches this. I suspect, although I have only scraped the surface of that study, Mohammed himself also knew what it meant to go away alone and meditate.
This meditation is sometimes seen as the prayer which churches practice in public, within worship. True meditation is far from such trivial practice. Can you imagine a "god" patiently listening to the repetitive chants and words uttered day after day, week after week, as though they have some magical way of opening the charitable thoughts and actions of that "god?" I would not regard such a god as worth my time. Certainly not "him" having any interest in my person; a mere speck of biological formation, lost in the sea of the universe.
That meditation goes to the center of the universe. It opens the door, for anyone who practises it, a door to an infinite well of knowledge and consciousness. It leads to an awareness of Complete Union, Integration, One-ness. No division. No argument. No arrogance. No fighting. No doubts.
No need for different "faiths" or "Religions." And for this reason I have distanced myself from any religion which puts the human species on a pedestal and calls it "god's special" gift to the world. We are nothing if separated by our own ego from the entire Unity of the World.
And all this has been written while I am alone, on "Christmas" morning!!!!
"And for this reason I have distanced myself from any religion which puts the human species on a pedestal and calls it "god's special" gift to the world."
And what has it been replaced with???
I am really curious. I am somewhat distanced from religion myself, though I cannot deny God. What have you put in place of religion?
And I am quite intrigued about your last statement here. Do you feel lonely? Is there no one willing to spend Christmas morning with you? Are you alone by choice? Or is it confirmation that your post contains only your view? Though trying to weigh as many possible motivations...are you feeling that "that world" owes you more than it is currently putting out???
There are many people that surround me daily. I am in the basement "alone" though I can hear the presents rolling across the floor.
... my point being that I can have a holistic view of the world which does not depend upon getting sucked into the lies/make-believe/commercialism of christmas.
I will not even begin to discuss this aspect of my life with you.... it's my business, my choices which suit me and not available for any judgment.
".are you feeling that "that world" owes you more than it is currently putting out???"
Not at all. It owes me nothing more than I choose to put into the world.
"There are many people that surround me daily. I am in the basement "alone" though I can hear the presents rolling across the floor. smile"
So this begs the question of you, Cgenaea. Why are you in the basement alone, chatting on the computer when you have children up stairs enjoying their toys?
I often wonder. What is worse? Not sharing so you won't be judged or judging those open enough to share.
Emile, some of my conclusions, for myself, have come from lots and lots of inward searching. To argue the results of that searching would de-value my findings, for me. I make no apology for this "selfishness." Any such argument could never be proven for anyone else, so "my stuff in this case is my stuff."
Yes, I stay away from petty argument from others who simply wish me to level with their points of view. This is very similar to people with a christian perspective who do not wish to let go of their way of thinking.
Comes back to personal choice again, a point which I have made numerous times.
Well aint that about a blip. safely keeping your view which admittedly would never be proven for anyone else??? HA!!! At least I've got many many many backers on this issue; though many more opposers, at least someone says what I say. But you have no one? Right, keep it personal. They would eat you alive on this forum
Oh, well - it got you going didn't it......
Not only children; many others... I choose background, out of the way, and as much peace available. My choice...
Not opening your view for others to annihilate or at least poke at is acceptable. Yet you annihilate exposed views of others. nice and safe but not fair. Right??? Just an observation; no real need to be fair...who's looking?
Only when someone else tries to put their view as being the only "right' understanding and try to convert others to their "right" way.
Apart from that I do respect the views of others. Maybe not perfectly, but at least I try to live up to this standard.
Have you been listening??? Respect the views...? Others putting views as only right ones??? What about the bible being the "view"? My religious views come from the bible. I did not write it. And I personally have not twisted anyone's arm about any of it.
"Do Islam and Christianity have the same objective?"
The modern Christianity is invented by Paul not by Jesus. It has nothing to do with Jesus.
The objectives of Jesus and Muhammad are the same; they are not different from one another.
It is time the Christians should realize it.
Please tell me how Jesus and Paul differ. Not that I feel they are the same. Oh! Nor that Paul could be as perfect.
Ah, Jesus is said to have taught to turn the other cheek. Mohammad was a military leader who taught to kill.
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
I think he's right - both religions seek total conversion of all people; to force all people to follow the tenets of their religion.
Of course, methods differ somewhat, as do those tenets.
Jesus forced nothing. Remember? He was very gentle with man as far as conversion. Now temple practice was different. It angered him to see the thievery in the house of God.
Yes, he got rather angry, didn't he? And the use of force (force beyond what normal men could ever produce) was pretty evident.
But, you know, there is force and there is force. I force my grandkids to behave (most of the time) but it is not through use of physical force. It is through love and caring instead, but that doesn't make it any less forceful; to many people that kind of "force" is far more effective.
The Christian religion, operating under the auspices of their god and it's worldly manifestation of Jesus, has chosen mental force. Islam chose physical. Same ultimate goal ("convince" everyone to follow the religion, whatever "force" is used) but different methods.
You just gotta pick a side... or, stay on the side you are on.
Pretty much. And in this part of the world there are 2+. Christianity, reason, and to a lesser extent, Islam. You take your pick.
If we could only convince everyone to make that choice ONLY for themselves instead of trying to make it for everyone around them.
Well, you forget that you have chosen to ignore the information provided. Or, you have considered it nonsensical and CHOOSE to leave it rather than take it.
Yes, well when ignorant goat herders try to tell me how the cosmos was formed I tend to ignore it. The same as when barbarians from long past uncivilized times try to tell me how I should live my life or what my morals should consist of.
Neither one is of much value outside of entertainment purposes. Or, in rare cases, as a rough foundation to build a useful moral structure on. The most common use is as a good guideline on what NOT to believe.
As you probably know, the religion debate ALWAYS includes many objections to the very existence of God. That must be hashed and rehashed until everyone is angry and/or gets booted for crazy-talk...but I digress (see how easy that is ) When people even hear the word religion, it wakes up the conscience. Unfortunately, the first thought for most after that awakening is, "that unproven stuff again!!! Let me go straighten these foolish zombies believing in that fairytale mess out!!!" They deny the religion core and all... for this group all the origin of any of it comes from an imaginary place. No, that does not keep them from joining a conversation about the religious mindset; it DRAWS them to it. God vs no God is the origin of mostly all religious debate between yeas and nays.
I was waiting for a response...oh well, I guess she had to go change her persona. I can wait...
Huh. Minato and Yu can change their Persona at-will in less than a second.
Yet, I choose to stay me. I cannot fathom actually coming as someone or something else. Though, I have every right to be who or whatever I want here...truth is important to me.
Searching for the truth is valuable to Yu, as well--it is kinda the main theme of Persona 4, after all--but Shadows aren't just going to sit back and let you walk all over them. You need to switch Personas in order to summon Yoshitsune and cast the Ziodyne spell that will take out the minotaur in the back.