Maybe the many Gods of the many religions are the same God? Or, maybe the many Gods of the various religions are like mall Santa Claus's, perhaps none real, and none have true credentials?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Maybe the many Gods of the many religions are the same God? Or, maybe the many Gods of the various religions are like mall Santa Claus's, perhaps none real, and none have true credentials?
Could his returning savior be the same as the Christian returning savior? (Jesus on a break).
If a murderous terrorist got 72 virgins in heaven, how could the virgins enjoy heaven? Maybe it's not heaven?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well meaningless arguments that go like... It's your opinion. No. It's your opinion. No. It's... are for children, and we are not children, right.
So, instead of going down that road, why don't we have a meaningful discussion like two adults.
There is evidence for "these things". Lots of evidence.
Man is imperfect. The reality he creates is always endangered by man. - Friedrich Durrenmatt
I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. - Alexander Hamilton
Like it or not, all humans are imperfect.
We're Imperfect
Don't mind the reasons given for imperfection. There will be many, and vary. The reality is what we are looking at. Man is imperfect. There is clear evidence of that.
Therefore, man needs help.
Is there any confirmation of Biblical events from written sources outside the Bible?
The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology is reported to have said this about the Bible (referring to history, not spiritual teachings.)
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” (http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf.)
List of biblical figures unambiguously identified in contemporary sources according to scholarly consensus.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, that he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.
Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.
I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. - Alexander Hamilton
Like it or not, all humans are imperfect.
We're Imperfect
Don't mind the reasons given for imperfection. There will be many, and vary. The reality is what we are looking at. Man is imperfect. There is clear evidence of that.
Therefore, man needs help.
Is there any confirmation of Biblical events from written sources outside the Bible?
The Smithsonian Department of Anthropology is reported to have said this about the Bible (referring to history, not spiritual teachings.)
“Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated.” (http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf.)
List of biblical figures unambiguously identified in contemporary sources according to scholarly consensus.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, that he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by order of Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.
Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia
Christian sources, such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed stories about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.
Non-Christian sources that are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus include Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared to Christian sources such as the Pauline Epistles and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (i.e., Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process.
These are opinions too.
However, remember, the blind man may say, I don't see any evidence, but his blindness is not what determines if the evidence is real.
There is mental blindness as well.
So if you are saying there is no evidence of these things, and it is clearly seen by others, then the conclusion one might have to reach, is that either you deliberately don't want to see, or you are really blind, but I am not going to draw those conclusions, because I may at this point not be clear on what you have in mind, when you say "these things".
So if by "these things" you have something else in mind, besides what there is clear evidence for, please specify, so that they can be addressed, because as far as I know, there is evidence for practically everything in the Bible...
For example, there is evidence of the most hated thing of Atheists, in the Bible - God. Romans 1:20 ; Hebrews 3:4
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Seriously, what?
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Maybe that Muslim has read the Quran as well as some Christians on this thread.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Jesus is a big boy. I’m sure he doesn’t need you as his therapist. The Bible is not a horcrux. God is not there. If I stab the Bible, God doesn’t bleed. To consider scripture equal to God is idolatry. I don’t pray to a book and God is under no obligation to kowtow to the Bible.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Jesus tells us to love our enemies but I don’t see him and Satan going on a road trip together and eating chips. Jesus said we’re to be like God but that is 100% opposite of the point of genesis. Jesus is a hypocrite.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
His name wasn’t Immanuel for starters. He is Joshua basically, which IIRC means Yahweh saves. Immanuel referred to El, who was originally Yahweh’s Dad.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
God brags He can kill souls, so ultimately you can’t trust an eternity either in heaven or hell.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Then why have the commandments?
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
People keep giving their beliefs but I am waiting to see if any Bible verses support these beliefs. No one has quoted any verses yet.
I guess you shouldn't have started it by saying my observations were "Just my opinion".
Well since man is so imperfect perhaps Christians are wrong in what they assume is true about what they hear about the Bible being true. It's not as if objective thinkers are looking at facts and concluding the Bible is true, it is many traditions of believers passing on their belief to the next generation, and those people passing it on to the next. This is one reason what there's some 41,000 different sects of Christian belief under the umbrella of the religion. That's a lot of disagreement about the truth of the Bible.
That there are true elements in some Bible stories does not mean the stories are factual and true. Be aware many stories are based on true events. For example the book A Tale of Two Cities takes place in London and Paris during the French Revolution. The characters are fiction. For Whom the Bell Tolls takes place during the Spanish Civil War which was a true event, but the characters are fictional. A Farewell to Arms and The Razor's Edge both take place during the First World War, but have fictional characters. The dilemma for many Bible stories is their fantastic nature, that being of supernatural events and magic. This type of phenomenon isn't known to exist in reality as we observe none of it occurring in what we observe. plus these are a people from an era of history where embellishment was common, and false explanations given to explain how things work in the universe. Earthquakes were explained as God's wrath, not seismic activity. So we have an obligation to assess these bible stories through a process of what is most likely versus faith and the tradition of belief.
There's a robust debate about whether Jesus was real or not. Even if Jesus ws real the myth built on this person is not known to be factual. It's not as if he's attributed as the first person to make chocolate, which is at least plausible. he's being attributed as being a magical person born to a virgin via God, and then executed to God to pay off God for sins that God allowed in the created it designed. Not only is this scenario outside of likelihood and plausibility, but it's the dumbest theology out there. It points to either an incompetent God always trying to fix the creation is screwed up, or it's an evil God playing with his colony of ants.
The dilemma is that believers are the blind. Evidence is something we can verify exists, and an objective mind can assess it fairly at face value. It is believers who have an ulterior motive here, who need to interpret anything in a way that allows them to justify the belief they adopted from their social experience. Objectivity works. Faith does not. The blindness is those who see things that are not there.
An invisible God? This isn't evidence. You haven't seen it, have you? How does any mortal verify a God that does nothing is invisible? You just adopted this texts because there is no apparent evidence that shows any of it is true outside of belief. What you claim here requires assumptions: that the Bible is true, that a God exists, that your faith justifies belief that reason and evidence fails to provide.
This is an utter failure. And it goes to what you posted at the top, that humans are not perfect. yet you are claiming some sort of perfect knowledge in the Bible that you yourself cannot verify is true outside your flawed judgment.
Last edited:
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
No one is forced to follow the commandments like a slave. Cities have traffic laws but people are not forced to obey them. But there are penalties if you do not follow them and the laws are for the protection of all citizens. God does not force people to obey the commandments but there are penalties because they are for the benefit of all people.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ain't it scary? I guess it's ok when spirits tell folks about info, etc, but what if the Holy Spirit tells them to actually do things? *shivvers"
firedragon
Veteran Member
what were the claims of Apollonius in the 50s onwards, and what were the contrasting claims of the so called "Christians" of that time? What are the sources closest to the source? Think about it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
What a Pauline-mythical-Christianity-holyspiritgod, who plays politics with its denominations; saying something to Mormons and yet different things to Catholics and Protestants? Isn't he divisive, please?
Right?
Regards
Or maybe they are not virgins? Difficult to ascertain with spiritual entities.
ciao
- viole
nPeace
Veteran Member
Please explain why I should have said "your observations".
Perhaps you might want to explain why you conclude that Christians assume anything, and what makes you think they "heard something about the Bible being true".
As far as I know, Christians have arrived at the conclusion that the Bible is true, based on the evidence indicating it is. That's not assuming.
I have heard that argument many times, and it is considered a strawman, because the fact that there is fiction does not make every fact fiction.
Many scientists do not reach such conclusion as "something is impossible because we never observed it, or discovered it".
So where do such arguments stem from? Could it be bias?
There we go. Opinionated bias. Thank you for making that easy for us.
Please start by explaining your understanding of "evidence", because since I have been here, I get the impression that some persons on RF believe evidence is something other than it is understood to be.
Your definition verifies that.
Evidence is a collection of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
The evidence can be strong, weak, circumstantial or conclusive, but it is never always conclusive, as though it proves something.
It is interpreted, and oftentimes the conclusion reaches is not correct.
Take DNA evidence for example. It is a piece of evidence containing a body of facts, but those facts may lead to something very different to what one interprets, or concludes, from that circumstantial evidence.
Example The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing
Evidence is not proof.
Evidence is a body of facts, which indicates something, and one can evaluate, and reach conclusions.
One does not need to see God for there to be evidence of God. In the same way one does not need to see wind, for there to be evidence of wind.
Can you see the wind I can't.
The view that God does nothing, comes from those who believe that.
Those who know God has done, and continues to do, do not have that view. They know what God has done for them. They may not be able to prove to you God's deeds, but as with the blind man that says he sees no evidence, there is no benefits in arguing with such persons. That would not make them see.
I claim no such perfect knowledge of anything. I think each one should go where the evidence leads them.
That's what I do. I can't choose for you.