Can you swear that - you're affirm your religion is truth, and will never change to disbelieve it?

[leibowde84]

I try to never use the words "never" or "always." (Maybe this is because of my career in software development. I always figured that there pretty much had to be an exception to every rule. ) I would, however, say at this point in my life that the chances of my ever coming to actively disbelieve the core doctrines of Mormonism are pretty remote.

Now that is a reasonable answer ... thank you. Never say never!!

 

[DawudTalut]

Those myths have been debunked for the most part, as most ended up being fabricated. Further, these are both Islamic sources, with an obvious bias to validate this story. Do you have any secular sources (unbiased sources) that claim this based on the available evidence?

yes...The Ahmadiyya claim is that Jesus went in those areas after getting of cross worked with success and died at age 120.
For e,g, secular ref.
The Lost Years of Jesus in Tibet | Tibet Talk
jesus teaching preserved in tibet - Google Search

Do you think about Christians are fast leaving practicing faith, though they love Jesus, as your own avatar has wordings secular (I am not sure if you practice morals in Bible or not).

OP said affirming faith......Does it mean anything if one affirms a faith but do not practice it. One wonders!!

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, I can swear that. I am after all the overlord of all of existence, aren't I?

On second thought, no, of course not.

 

[DawudTalut]

Plz say in easy sentences. Thanks.

 

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

Honestly, I cannot understand how anyone could be so arrogant to answer "yes" to this question. No matter how strong your faith is, you should always keep an open mind about everything. Limiting knowledge to only that which lines up with your already held beliefs is extremely detrimental. Everyone should be open to the fact that their beliefs could be wrong.

As sunset approaches perhaps i can explain why a simple Yes, was and is my appropriate
response Leibowde ....

As mine is more culture, family, tradition, a way of life rather than simply religion,
it is the history of my people ... terms that others seem to use like faith, belief etc
do not come into it as it is who i am and who we are descended from ...

On a personal level having been curious when i was much younger i studied
Comparative Religion ,,,, with a view to a simpler life and a quest to find truth ...
lol i concluded by the time i received my PhD ... all and none were the answer ..
so for me my clear well defined rule book, laws and culture are simpler and easier
to accept and follow than trying to create belief and faith in abstracts....

So the simple Yes ... covers it ....
Shabbat Shalom .....

 

[leibowde84]

yes...The Ahmadiyya claim is that Jesus went in those areas after getting of cross worked with success and died at age 120.
For e,g, secular ref.
The Lost Years of Jesus in Tibet | Tibet Talk
jesus teaching preserved in tibet - Google Search

Do you think about Christians are fast leaving practicing faith, though they love Jesus, as your own avatar has wordings secular (I am not sure if you practice morals in Bible or not).

OP said affirming faith......Does it mean anything if one affirms a faith but do not practice it. One wonders!!

Personally, I adhere to the spirit of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels, but I certainly take into consideration that they were written by imperfect men who, most likely, never even met Jesus. So, I am skeptical about the things that do not make logical sense to me. I am constantly searching for the truth, and I will never be satisfied with any scripture. But, this is beside the point of this thread. I strongly believe that no one should ever use the term "never".

Now, I do have a question about the Ahmadiyya. I looked up the term, and it refers to a specific sect of Islam, initiated in the late 19th century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Because of this, I am confused as to what your claim was about it. I say this because I am assuming that you were not merely saying that a group, started almost 2000 years after the death of Jesus (whether you go by the Crucifixion or your claim), claiming to speak of Jesus surviving the crucifixion provides any sort of objective proof that the claim is true. Again, these are nothing but unsubstantiated claims by men who had a very obvious interest in making them.

 

[leibowde84]

As sunset approaches perhaps i can explain why a simple Yes, was and is my appropriate
response Leibowde ....

As mine is more culture, family, tradition, a way of life rather than simply religion,
it is the history of my people ... terms that others seem to use like faith, belief etc
do not come into it as it is who i am and who we are descended from ...

On a personal level having been curious when i was much younger i studied
Comparative Religion ,,,, with a view to a simpler life and a quest to find truth ...
lol i concluded by the time i received my PhD ... all and none were the answer ..
so for me my clear well defined rule book, laws and culture are simpler and easier
to accept and follow than trying to create belief and faith in abstracts....

So the simple Yes ... covers it ....
Shabbat Shalom .....

But, what if God came down and said that one of the rules was wrong or needed to be amended? Why do you feel that this would be an impossibility?

 

[DawudTalut]

Personally, I adhere to the spirit of Jesus' teachings in the Gospels, but I certainly take into consideration that they were written by imperfect men who, most likely, never even met Jesus. So, I am skeptical about the things that do not make logical sense to me. I am constantly searching for the truth, and I will never be satisfied with any scripture. But, this is beside the point of this thread. I strongly believe that no one should ever use the term "never".

Now, I do have a question about the Ahmadiyya. I looked up the term, and it refers to a specific sect of Islam, initiated in the late 19th century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Because of this, I am confused as to what your claim was about it. I say this because I am assuming that you were not merely saying that a group, started almost 2000 years after the death of Jesus (whether you go by the Crucifixion or your claim), claiming to speak of Jesus surviving the crucifixion provides any sort of objective proof that the claim is true. Again, these are nothing but unsubstantiated claims by men who had a very obvious interest in making them.

Peace be on you.
Speaking of motive:

1-In light of OP’s asking, can you swear that by explaining Elijah’s coming again before Messiah was John the Baptist, as explained by Jesus. I can swear, by the grace of God, that that explanation was right. Now Jesus is in same ship (alleged thought of coming from heaven), we should use wisdom of Jesus too. No one is coming from heaven. These are metaphors common in religion. Mistranslations do play role too.


2-Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah (Mizra Ghulam Ahmad, a.s.) and latter his Successors (Khulafa) has been clearly saying that they have come for spiritual reforms, gain of governments / earthly power is not their aim. Reason? The reason:


Quran tells likeness of Prophet Muhammad with Prophet Moses.


Jesus (a.s.) came 1400 years after and in order of Moses (a.s.), Jesus did not get governmental powers.


Similarly as a Messiah was to come in Islam. Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah came 1400 years after in the order of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), with no governmental intent.


3-So by providing scriptural and secular evidences that Jesus has died, Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah could not have any possible personal gains. On the contrary, he became the focus of opposition by two major religions’ clerics. His station was reforms which he did but with lot of sufferings, which continue till today for his followers.


Thus when OP asks, will you not change your faith, one wishes the founder of religions somehow know this question and answer from heavens..But lets not worry, they were said such things in their life times too, they continued their mission and became successful by the grace of God the Exalted.

 

[leibowde84]

Peace be on you.
Speaking of motive:

1-In light of OP’s asking, can you swear that by explaining Elijah’s coming again before Messiah was John the Baptist, as explained by Jesus. I can swear, by the grace of God, that that explanation was right. Now Jesus is in same ship (alleged thought of coming from heaven), we should use wisdom of Jesus too. No one is coming from heaven. These are metaphors common in religion. Mistranslations do play role too.


2-Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah (Mizra Ghulam Ahmad) and latter his Successors (Khulafa) has been clearly saying that they have come for spiritual reforms, gain of governments / earthly power is not their aim. Reason? The reason:


Quran tells likeness of Prophet Muhammad with Prophet Moses.


Jesus (a.s.) came 1400 years after and in order of Moses (a.s.), Jesus did not get governmental powers.


Similarly as a Messiah was to come in Islam. Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah came 1400 years after in the order of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), with no governmental intent.


3-So by providing scriptural and secular evidences that Jesus has died, Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah could not have any possible personal gains. On the contrary, he became the focus of opposition by two major religions’ clerics. His station was reforms which he did but with lot of sufferings, which continue till today for his followers.


Thus when OP asks, will you not change your faith, one wishes the founder of religions somehow know this question and answer from heavens.

All in all you are just taking people's word for these things though. I admit, what you are saying is plausible, but plausibility is not nearly certainty.

 

[DawudTalut]

People come in various types, ordinary and those whose firm and pure past stands with their words when they claim revelation e.g. when God talked to Jesus, he reported it, why should we doubt (interpretations can be different), same for other men of God.

 

[leibowde84]

People come in various types, ordinary and those whose firm and pure past stands with their words when they claim revelation e.g. when God talked to Jesus, he reported it, why should we doubt (interpretations can be different), same for other men of God.

I don't make that assumption even about Jesus. It is possible that Jesus never even existed in the way we know him today. I believe these things about Jesus. But nothing is certain. furthermore, the vast majority of those who have claimed to speak for God have been proven false, so I find It necessary to be skeptical of anyone making this claim.

 

[leibowde84]

People come in various types, ordinary and those whose firm and pure past stands with their words when they claim revelation e.g. when God talked to Jesus, he reported it, why should we doubt (interpretations can be different), same for other men of God.

My point is that we are taking their word for it that they received any kind of revelation from God.

 

[leibowde84]

Peace be on you.
Speaking of motive:

1-In light of OP’s asking, can you swear that by explaining Elijah’s coming again before Messiah was John the Baptist, as explained by Jesus. I can swear, by the grace of God, that that explanation was right. Now Jesus is in same ship (alleged thought of coming from heaven), we should use wisdom of Jesus too. No one is coming from heaven. These are metaphors common in religion. Mistranslations do play role too.


2-Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah (Mizra Ghulam Ahmad, a.s.) and latter his Successors (Khulafa) has been clearly saying that they have come for spiritual reforms, gain of governments / earthly power is not their aim. Reason? The reason:


Quran tells likeness of Prophet Muhammad with Prophet Moses.


Jesus (a.s.) came 1400 years after and in order of Moses (a.s.), Jesus did not get governmental powers.


Similarly as a Messiah was to come in Islam. Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah came 1400 years after in the order of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), with no governmental intent.


3-So by providing scriptural and secular evidences that Jesus has died, Ahmadiyya Promised Messiah could not have any possible personal gains. On the contrary, he became the focus of opposition by two major religions’ clerics. His station was reforms which he did but with lot of sufferings, which continue till today for his followers.


Thus when OP asks, will you not change your faith, one wishes the founder of religions somehow know this question and answer from heavens..But lets not worry, they were said such things in their life times too, they continued their mission and became successful by the grace of God the Exalted.

You knowing it to be true or swearing it doesn't validate your argument in any way. It is purely subjective. Why should I just take your word for it when you have an obvious interest in it being true?

 

[FearGod]

(1a) Can you swear that - you're affirm that your religion is truth, and will never change to disbelieve it?

(1b) Can you swear that - you'll believe and follow your religion all your life, the chances of you leaving your religion is 0.00% ?

(1c) Can you swear that - the possibilities of your religion being a wrong religion, the chance of it is 0.00% ?

(2) If people can swear that they'll never disbelieve their religion, then why some of them preach to each other and advice each other to convert to each other's different religion?

(3) Is question (1a) meaningless and shouldn't be ask in the first place? Why?

Edit: Add two similar questions (1b) and (1c) and a new question (2). A question have also edited to become question (3).

Can't swear but can ask God to keep his mercy on me, i accepted him in my heart and i hope to end my journey on earth as i am in complete surrender to his will.

 

[JoStories]

You knowing it to be true or swearing it doesn't validate your argument in any way. It is purely subjective. Why should I just take your word for it when you have an obvious interest in it being true?

Yes, and therein lies the rub. All these various faiths come with things that must be accepted on faith, and maybe....just maybe, that faith or,path is not the right one for you. What if your path is supposed to be that of an atheist? Or a Muslim? Etc. no one has the right to try to force anyone to follow what she or he might believe. IMO, of course.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, and therein lies the rub. All these various faiths come with things that must be accepted on faith, and maybe....just maybe, that faith or,path is not the right one for you. What if your path is supposed to be that of an atheist? Or a Muslim? Etc. no one has the right to try to force anyone to follow what she or he might believe. IMO, of course.

l would take that a step further and say that no one can reasonably claim that their religion is the only correct path to God. It is a "know-nothing-know-it-all" type argument, and shows immense ignorance of reality.

 

[leibowde84]

Don't most people enter the race seeking after Truth?
They might disagree over which path leads to the Real Truth, but they are all chasing the same objective goal.

The concept that 'my truth' is appropriate for me, but 'your truth' is appropriate for you and someone else should find 'his/her truth' is alien to me.
If I believed that Islam or Judaism held Real Objective and Absolute Truth, and Christianity did not, then I would surrender my 'perceived truth' and convert to Judaism or Islam.
However, I have compared the teachings of the faiths with what I can know about God from his creation and with my personal body of subjective experiential evidence and concluded that Christianity is the hypothesis that is best supported by the evidence.
Christianity best describes what I know of Objective Reality ... so that is what I believe.

I would not argue against your statement that "no one has the right to try to force anyone to follow what she or he might believe" ... in fact, it is pointless (IMHO).
I cannot 'give' you my subjective experience, I can only tell you about it ... then it is up to you to accept or reject 'my truth' as matching or failing to match your subjective evidence of 'Real Truth'.

Any subjective opinion has the possibility of being wrong by definition. That is why I'm so perplexed that you claim certainty. Subjective certainty is a logical fallacy. It is merely strong faith.

 

[atpollard]

Any subjective opinion has the possibility of being wrong by definition. That is why I'm so perplexed that you claim certainty. Subjective certainty is a logical fallacy. It is merely strong faith.

I was and am torn between participating and just letting this topic be ... that's why I deleted the post.
Since you responded, I guess "in for a penny, in for a pound" ...

Taking the Bible stories at face value for just a moment ... (because I do not want to waste effort on conspiracy theories):

Moses saw a burning bush that was not consumed by the flame and heard a voice from the bush.
Was that event a vision? (making it a subjective reality to Moses, but not an objective reality to a hypothetical 'Fred the Shepherd' who might have happened to be standing nearby and watching the whole event.)
Did the event really happen? (making it an objective reality to Moses and a hypothetical 'Fred the Shepherd' who might have happened to be standing nearby and watching the whole event.)
Does it make a difference to Moses?
Should Moses ignore the vision until and unless someone else can confirm that it was objective reality?
Should Moses be faithful to his senses? (subjective or objective, it WAS real to Moses).

Let's assume, just for this post, that it was an objective reality.
There was a real bush.
There was a real fire.
God Himself really did speak with an audible voice.
... but 'Fred the Shepard' ran from the scene and became a religious hermit speaking to no one ever again.

When Moses goes to Egypt, he has experiential knowledge of an objective reality that has transformed his life and his perspective on God.
Whomever he meets in Egypt can hear of Moses' experience, but they cannot have his objective experience.
For the listeners, it can only be a subjective truth.


Now let's assume, just for this post, that Moses experienced a vision, a subjective reality.
There was no real bush.
There was no real fire.
God Himself really did speak, but it was with a voice heard by Moses alone.
'Fred the Shepard' saw some guy talking to himself, shrugged and walked away.

When Moses goes to Egypt, he has experiential knowledge of a subjective reality that has transformed his life and his perspective on God.
Whomever he meets in Egypt can hear of Moses' experience, and compare his words to their own subjective experiences.
For the listeners, they can accept or reject Moses' subjective truth.

Is it wrong for Moses to believe the evidence of his personal experience?
Can he be certain of what he knows based upon subjective truth?


Back to our reality (leaving Moses behind).
I am certain of what I have experienced.
Some of it was objective ...

My wife was in a coma, her kidneys had shut down, her organs were failing.
The doctors had told her family to say our goodbyes ... less than 72 hours, they estimated.
The nice pastors had offered their nice prayers.
Then everyone left the room and the Pentecostal Pastor (Earl Harrigan) pulled two people aside and said "Now let's really get to praying."
As I am sure you guess, my wife lived.
This is not to convince YOU of anything.
It is part of OUR objective reality.
So is the report from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN that says that my wife could never have children ... and our 9 year old daughter.​

Some of it was subjective ...

I was converted from an atheist life as an arsonist, burglar and drug mule at a Catholic Charismatic Fellowship in large part due to a personal, subjective literal meeting with my Creator (God).
This is also to convince YOU of nothing.
It is part of MY subjective reality.​

I find the sum of MY objective and subjective experiences overwhelmingly convincing that the subjective Truths of Christianity are, in fact, Real, Absolute and Objective Truth.
It is impossible to imagine the evidence or argument that could overturn 'such a great cloud of witnesses'.

Good luck with your search,
I found TRUTH.

 

[leibowde84]

I was and am torn between participating and just letting this topic be ... that's why I deleted the post.
Since you responded, I guess "in for a penny, in for a pound" ...

Taking the Bible stories at face value for just a moment ... (because I do not want to waste effort on conspiracy theories):

Moses saw a burning bush that was not consumed by the flame and heard a voice from the bush.
Was that event a vision? (making it a subjective reality to Moses, but not an objective reality to a hypothetical 'Fred the Shepherd' who might have happened to be standing nearby and watching the whole event.)
Did the event really happen? (making it an objective reality to Moses and a hypothetical 'Fred the Shepherd' who might have happened to be standing nearby and watching the whole event.)
Does it make a difference to Moses?
Should Moses ignore the vision until and unless someone else can confirm that it was objective reality?
Should Moses be faithful to his senses? (subjective or objective, it WAS real to Moses).

Let's assume, just for this post, that it was an objective reality.
There was a real bush.
There was a real fire.
God Himself really did speak with an audible voice.
... but 'Fred the Shepard' ran from the scene and became a religious hermit speaking to no one ever again.

When Moses goes to Egypt, he has experiential knowledge of an objective reality that has transformed his life and his perspective on God.
Whomever he meets in Egypt can hear of Moses' experience, but they cannot have his objective experience.
For the listeners, it can only be a subjective truth.


Now let's assume, just for this post, that Moses experienced a vision, a subjective reality.
There was no real bush.
There was no real fire.
God Himself really did speak, but it was with a voice heard by Moses alone.
'Fred the Shepard' saw some guy talking to himself, shrugged and walked away.

When Moses goes to Egypt, he has experiential knowledge of a subjective reality that has transformed his life and his perspective on God.
Whomever he meets in Egypt can hear of Moses' experience, and compare his words to their own subjective experiences.
For the listeners, they can accept or reject Moses' subjective truth.

Is it wrong for Moses to believe the evidence of his personal experience?
Can he be certain of what he knows based upon subjective truth?


Back to our reality (leaving Moses behind).
I am certain of what I have experienced.
Some of it was objective ...

My wife was in a coma, her kidneys had shut down, her organs were failing.
The doctors had told her family to say our goodbyes ... less than 72 hours, they estimated.
The nice pastors had offered their nice prayers.
Then everyone left the room and the Pentecostal Pastor (Earl Harrigan) pulled two people aside and said "Now let's really get to praying."
As I am sure you guess, my wife lived.
This is not to convince YOU of anything.
It is part of OUR objective reality.
So is the report from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN that says that my wife could never have children ... and our 9 year old daughter.​

Some of it was subjective ...

I was converted from an atheist life as an arsonist, burglar and drug mule at a Catholic Charismatic Fellowship in large part due to a personal, subjective literal meeting with my Creator (God).
This is also to convince YOU of nothing.
It is part of MY subjective reality.​

I find the sum of MY objective and subjective experiences overwhelmingly convincing that the subjective Truths of Christianity are, in fact, Real, Absolute and Objective Truth.
It is impossible to imagine the evidence or argument that could overturn 'such a great cloud of witnesses'.

Good luck with your search,
I found TRUTH.

I think you are confused by the meaning of "objective evidence". For us who are debating the topic thousands of years after the fact, we have no evidence to support his vision being real or even happening at all. Moses could have been lying about the whole thing ... which is why belief in stories such as this is required; thus, it is subjective.

In regards to people "hearing Moses' story", people were far more gullible at that time. They viewed miracles as happening all the time and basic weather events as initiated by Gods. I am not surprised that many people at that time believed him, as they most likely did not require much evidence to support it.

"Is it wrong for Moses to believe the evidence of his personal experience?
Can he be certain of what he knows based upon subjective truth?"

I am not saying anything about Moses or Muhammad. I am discussing the possibilities of them being wrong or flat-out dishonest. Those possibilities should preclude any certainty on the subject. But, you do bring up an interesting point. Moses himself, along with St. Paul (who had a similar vision that only he saw ... leads to my skepticism), could be wrong even if they believe what they are saying. People have hallucinations all the time, and, at that time, they did not know anything about brain activity or neurology. So, that presents another issue with reliability.

I am extremely happy that your wife lived. That is great!! But, that is, again, not objectively evident to be due to God or any divine entity. While the doctor made an incorrect assessment of her health, doctors are wrong all the time about this sort of thing. They always want to give the worst scenario so that, when things turn out better, the patient is optimistic instead of let-down. There is a completely natural/medical explanation for your wife's recovery, I'm sure. The mere fact that the doctor was wrong in no way proves that God had anything to do with it. Praying is also never a good example because it could easily be passed off as coincidence, because for every 1 prayer that seems to be answered, there are about 1,000,000 that are ignored.

 

[atpollard]

I think you are confused by the meaning of "objective evidence". For us who are debating the topic thousands of years after the fact, we have no evidence to support his vision being real or even happening at all. Moses could have been lying about the whole thing ... which is why belief in stories such as this is required; thus, it is subjective.

In regards to people "hearing Moses' story", people were far more gullible at that time. They viewed miracles as happening all the time and basic weather events as initiated by Gods. I am not surprised that many people at that time believed him, as they most likely did not require much evidence to support it.

"Is it wrong for Moses to believe the evidence of his personal experience?
Can he be certain of what he knows based upon subjective truth?"

I am not saying anything about Moses or Muhammad. I am discussing the possibilities of them being wrong or flat-out dishonest. Those possibilities should preclude any certainty on the subject. But, you do bring up an interesting point. Moses himself, along with St. Paul (who had a similar vision that only he saw ... leads to my skepticism), could be wrong even if they believe what they are saying. People have hallucinations all the time, and, at that time, they did not know anything about brain activity or neurology. So, that presents another issue with reliability.

I am extremely happy that your wife lived. That is great!! But, that is, again, not objectively evident to be due to God or any divine entity. While the doctor made an incorrect assessment of her health, doctors are wrong all the time about this sort of thing. They always want to give the worst scenario so that, when things turn out better, the patient is optimistic instead of let-down. There is a completely natural/medical explanation for your wife's recovery, I'm sure. The mere fact that the doctor was wrong in no way proves that God had anything to do with it. Praying is also never a good example because it could easily be passed off as coincidence, because for every 1 prayer that seems to be answered, there are about 1,000,000 that are ignored.

To make is simpler and more personal, if Jesus appeared to YOU in a vision, struck you blind, sent you to a man to be prayed for and your sight was returned, should YOU accept your subjective evidence?

At some point, the statistics become improbable and Faith becomes the more logical conclusion.
I did not yield my atheism lightly, I kept an actual 12 month record of prayers made and answered ... feel free to test it out for yourself.

(or not ... the one advantage of Calvinism is that your salvation is between you and God, I got no dog in that fight.)