Choices

[Sheldon]

@muhammad_isa said: "I don't think that anybody can show that Moses didn't exist."

And I responded with the observation, what does evidence of the non-existence of someone look like exactly? It is you see irrational to imply something has credence because it cannot be disproved, this is a known common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam.

The biblical account of Exodus does not have to be true in order for Moses to have existed as a real person in history.

Straw man fallacy, as i never claimed that was the case. However I reiterate:

"Despite many decades of extensive archaeological excavation, no evidence has been found to support the biblical account of Exodus. A dearth of archaeological evidence where it would have to exists of the Exodus myth were true is quite compelling. if it helps you understand, the people who carried out the archaeological digs were not looking to disprove Exodus, quite the opposite."

If there is any objective evidence outside of the bible for Moses as an historical person then someone may of course present it.

Whether you believe He was a Messenger of God/Prophet or not is another matter. Such a thing cannot be proven which is why it is a religious belief rather than a fact.

Well yes, that is why I don't believe the claim, because no objective evidence can be demonstrated for it.

Baha'is believe that Moses was a Messenger of God/Prophet, but we do not believe that Exodus as delineated in the Old Testament represents historical facts.

I see no more objective evidence for one, than the other.

 

[Sheldon]

muhammad_isa said: ↑
The Qur'an is claimed to be the literal word of G-d, dictated to Muhammad by angel Gabriel. One either believes this, or thinks that Muhammad was deluded or fraudulent.

That's a false dichotomy because there's a third option, Muhammad was wrong/mistaken. Someone can be wrong and/or mistaken and not be deluded. And since they believe that they are right, they're not fraudulent since they have no intention of deception.

You're absolutely right, and he could also have be a liar of course, an opportunist.

 

[Sheldon]

How is it possible that Muhammad and his companions could claim that he received revelations from angel Gabriel, being the whole Qur'an over a period of years, and be mistaken?

You understand what possible means right, and mistaken? I'm not seeing the problem sorry. Humans are fallible, and it is possible for them to be mistaken.

 

[joelr]

Sorry, I don't agree with you.. Are you an expert in the study of the OT and Judaism?
I don't think so.

Another strawman? Listen, you said that I claimed Judaism HAD NO AFTERLIFE??? I was responding to that. I said they DID HAVE AN AFTERLIFE but it was limited to just hanging around Sheol.
There isn't anything to disagree with? The OT. afterlife was just tyat. The concept of having a soul hat goes to heaven came during the 2nd Temple Period and was from Greek culture.

You keep saying "I don't agree"? Why? Yes, I am well studied in biblical historicity. But this is from the work of several OT scholars who ARE EXPERTS?

"in line with the typical view of most Near Eastern cultures, the Hebrew Bible depicts Heaven as a place that is inaccessible to humans."

"There is almost no mention in the Hebrew Bible of Heaven as a possible afterlife destination for human beings, who are instead described as "resting" in Sheol.["
This is taken from mentions of afterlife in the OT, Kings, Deuteronomy and Genesis.

That is it. Just read the OT???? That is the only mention of heaven except for a few incidents where God takes people to heaven for a certain reason (while alive) but never mentions what ends up happening.
There is no reference to souls going to heaven in the OT. What about this do you not agree with? You don't seem to know your own religious book?

Then during the Greek occupation we see the concept enter Jewish though and eventually scripture. This is a historical fact?
They are Greek and Persian beliefs.

"During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]"

That is your belief. You confuse the issue about "an afterlife" by talking about souls originating in heaven etc.
Are you an expert in Hebrew, as well?
I doubt it..

i am well read on the subject but an OT scholar/expert said : "the Hebrew Bible depicts Heaven as a place that is inaccessible to humans"

In their books Sanders and Wright explain that Greek and Persian afterlife myths found their way into Hebrew myths during the occupation. Every historicity book on this period says the same?

During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]

All you are doing is. saying "no I don't think so", with no source, no proof? It sounds like you also have no historicity background? So why would you expect to know?

I have no problem with that. Nobody knows for sure what will happen to them after they die.
What we are sure of, is that our souls don't die along with our bodies.

Nope, we not only are not sure of that but there is literally no evidence for a "soul". It's an outdated concept that has been debunked many times in many ways.
When a persons brain changes from illness or damage their personality also changes. There is no evidence of a conscious aspect of people that survives death.

Just because you go to a church and people tell you things doesn't mean they are real?

I'm not "pretending" anything. I believe that the narratives in the Bible and Qur'an are based on truth.
It is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that Moses never existed. How can you do that?
I assume that you are saying that "it is unlikely" that Moses existed in a certain place and a certain time.

Yes, it is highly unlikely Moses was a real character. About as unlikely as Zeus or Heracles being a real character. I cannot prove they were not real but we all know they are myths. some churches have continued the Moses mythology which causes some people to still believe they could be real. scholarship has long since debunked these things. If you really search your thoughts you will realize you are just basing your belief on things you were told and feelings. The evidence does not support any of that.

Places and times are often not identified correctly, and/or OT accounts may not be accurate.

OT accounts are based on older legends and myths. scholars do not believe Moses was a real person. Religions may but they also believe Lord Krishna is real, an angel spoke and gave new Christian instructions to Joseph Smith and all sorts of other nonsense.
Moses is a collection of older Egyptian myths already used for similar leaders in Egypt who also were made up people.

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel.



KL Sparks, PhD Hebrew Bible, Baptist Pastor,


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible’s account of early Israel’s history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israels origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel’s history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It’s primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all) who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories), he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn “what actually happened” (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002 pp. 37-71)

 

[joelr]

Oh, please..
You are wasting both of our time.

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia

I was talking about the gospel Jesus. Weather there was a rabbi teaching reformed Judaism has no impact on the stories of a dying/rising demigod. There is zero evidence of that character from the gospels.

Same artice:

"Virtually all scholars accept that a historical Jesus existed in a non-supernatural human form,"


"
The historical Jesus scholarship is bound by the following limitations:[citation needed]

• There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus; all existing sources are documentary.
• The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letters of the apostles.
• All extant sources that mention Jesus were written after his death.

So just gospels,

"The New Testament represents sources that have become canonical for Christianity ....The authenticity and reliability of these sources have been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted."

So literally no evidence for demigod Jesus.

Beyond this many scholars are now embracing mythicism, that there wasn't even a man who was later mythicized. The latest most recent 700pg historicity study demonstrates the evidence even fro a historical Jesus is poor. But that doesn't matter, the gospel version is the real myth and evidence supports that 100%.

The fist gospel is considered to be Mark by all biblical scholarship. We have 1 fragment from Mark from 140 years after it was written and the rest is even older. Who knows how many re-writes happened during those years - text was not photocopied, it was re-written.
Bart Ehrman NY expert:

"In the debate I pointed out that our earliest copy of the Gospel of Mark was P45 (called this because it is the 45th Papyrus [hence “P”] manuscript to be catalogued), which dates to around the year 200 CE – i.e., 140 years after Mark was first written. That’s our earliest copy. Between the original of Mark and our earliest copy there were something like fourteen decades of copying, and recopying, and recopying of Mark. Year after year it was copied. And the copies were being changed at every point. And then later copies were copies of the earlier changed copies. Then those earlier changed copies were lost; as were the copies based on them; and the copies based on them. Until our earliest surviving copy, P45 – which itself is not a complete copy of Mark, but highly fragmentary. Our first complete copy of Mark dates to around the year 360 – nearly three hundred years (count them 300 years) after the “original” of Mark.

First-Century Copy of Mark? - Part 1 | The Bart Ehrman Blog

 

[joelr]

Awesome stuff. I've gone from believing all religions were true, to one sect of one religion being true, back to all of them being true, but that one new one was truer to believing most all of them were based on myths. So, I agree with everything you're saying.

What's important is that there are archeological findings that can back it up. But then what to do about religions that have a "manifestation" or "prophet" of God that is known to have existed? This would include for sure Muhammad, but mainly Baha'u'llah? Lots of truth and possibly a "God-given" plan to move humanity towards being at peace and harmony with each other. Unfortunately, he claims Moses, Abraham, Noah and even Adam were real. And, that at least some of them were "manifestations" of God.

.

A lot of religions seem to think if everyone followed their Gods moral system then it would bring about peace. What would happen is a religious war. Just Christians and the vast interpretations would have to have a war.
The Bahai prophet gave a bunch of incorrect science, no real philosophy like contemporaries of the 18th century philosophers, no non-vague prophecies and was clearly riffing off Islam and OT. The rest is just fluffy word-salad praise. All older religions are complete religious syncretism combining the same myths, outdated cosmology/science and Bronze age philosophy and laws. All of those things were created by people.
He took a shot at guessing at some future science. It didn't pan out. He said Humans are not animals/didn't evolve from animal, caner is contagious (to others), believed the aether was real (just like science of that time) and other stuff.

If there was actually a theistic God and it wanted to move humanity towards peace it would stop the possibility of "prophets" claiming to be the next God-messenger and debunk all religions. It could speak to all humans at once, give us new sciences moving up centuries forward, create unimaginable technology for us to use, allow us to study the God and it's powers. It could unlock many secrets to math, physics, medicine, create tech to feed all humans and so on. It would end the need for multiple religions which will never allow peace. Everyone could be a prophet. A God could speak to everyone, giving physicists secrets, giving cancer researchers a cure, everyone could have messages and so on.

Every religion is a "revelatory" religion. God speaks through one person and it starts from there. It's always very unimpressive. But people do get taken in. Abraham-Hicks sold millions of books claiming to channel some entity. Conversations With God also sold millions as a sort of passive prophet.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Everyone could be a prophet..

That is rather amusing
I'm not sure how YOU could be a prophet, when you clearly are against everything that God stands for.

 

[Muffled]

That is the quandary of Choice. We have to learn what is God's Will for us, by subduing what we think God's Will is.

Lack of faith can blind us, misguided faith can blind us, life is indeed a great test.

Regards Tony

I believe it was a great help at a time when I had not read the whole Bible. I believe it is also possible that it prepared me for doing religious debates because I had to reason with the JW's about what the Holy Spirit had told me. Try reasoning with the brainwashed sometime. It is a great challenge.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe it was a great help at a time when I had not read the whole Bible. I believe it is also possible that it prepared me for doing religious debates because I had to reason with the JW's about what the Holy Spirit had told me. Try reasoning with the brainwashed sometime. It is a great challenge.

The greatest challenge is our own selves, as that is the only person that we need to teach.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

The Bahai prophet gave a bunch of incorrect science, no real philosophy like contemporaries of the 18th century philosophers, no non-vague prophecies and was clearly riffing off Islam and OT. The rest is just fluffy word-salad praise. All older religions are complete religious syncretism combining the same myths, outdated cosmology/science and Bronze age philosophy and laws. All of those things were created by people.

I think "riffing" off Islam and OT covers it. Which sounds to me to be similar to the old religions taking things from other religions and cultures to come up with their version of "truth".

 

[joelr]

That is rather amusing
I'm not sure how YOU could be a prophet, when you clearly are against everything that God stands for.

Prophets are humans who write stories using past religions, morals, wisdom and laws. Any person could write a set of commands, instructiuons, laws, whatever and say "hey the angel from the OT showed up and gave me these messages."

Paul did it, Muhammud, Joe Smith, the Cargo Cults, the guy in New Zealand right now claiming to be Jesus/

I am not against everything that some fictional Gods claim to be for? I am against taking stories about Gods and demigods and telling people that the stories are true when they are clearly made up.
We already now have laws not based on the authority of Gods but by humans making laws based on increasing well being of everyone. Philosophy based on the merits of the concepts. Not the fact that they are in scripture.

In 400B.C. another Greek text Platos Republic wrote about how to control a society by telling a "noble lie" - a myth about God and so on in order to keep people under control. People who disbelieve are labeled heretics and the whole thing. Centuries later the Vatican used this philosophy to control Europe.

"
n politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic.[2]

In religion, a pious fiction is a narrative that is presented as true by the author, but is considered by others to be fictional albeit produced with an altruistic motivation. The term is sometimes used pejoratively to suggest that the author of the narrative was deliberately misleading readers for selfish or deceitful reasons. The term is often used in religious contexts, sometimes referring to passages in religious texts.


Noble lie - Wikipedia
Examples
Religious context

A depiction of Joseph Smith's description of receiving the golden plates from the angel Moroni at the Hill Cumorah

• Mainstream historical interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Tanakh or the Protestant Old Testament) often consider much of the Tanakh/Jewish Bible to be a pious fiction, such as the conquests of Joshua[13] and the histories of the Pentateuch.[14][15][16] The Book of Daniel has also been described as a pious fiction, with the purpose of providing encouragement to Jews.[17]
• Mainstream historical-critical approaches often view stories in the New Testament such as the Virgin Birth, the Visit of the Magi to Jesus, and others, as pious fictions.[18]
• The Book of Mormon, one of the Standard Works of the Latter Day Saint Movement, has been described as a hoax or pious fiction, and it is not accepted as containing divine revelation by those outside the Latter Day Saint movement.[19]
• The Quran, the sacred text of Islam, has been described as a pious fiction by several authors.[20][21][22] The hadith, likewise, have been described as a collection of various pious fictions by several authors.[verification needed].[21][23]
• Dale Eickelman writes that Muslim jurists employ a pious fiction when they assert that Islamic law is invariant, when in fact it is subject to change.[24]
• The relationship between the modern celebration of Christmas and the historical birth of Jesus has also been described as such.[25][26][27]

 

[joelr]

I think "riffing" off Islam and OT covers it. Which sounds to me to be similar to the old religions taking things from other religions and cultures to come up with their version of "truth".

That is what all religions do and how they form. religious syncretism.
They are also riffing off the older messianic prophecies in the OT

"Baháʼí beliefs are sometimes described as syncretic combinations of earlier religious beliefs.[37] Baháʼís, however, assert that their religion is a distinct tradition with its own scriptures, teachings, laws, and history.[30][38] The religion was initially seen as a sect of Islam because of its belief in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the authenticity and veracity of the Qur’an.[39] Most religious specialists now see it as an independent religion, with its religious background in Shiʻa Islam being seen as analogous to the Jewish context in which Christianity was established.[40] Muslim institutions and clergy, both Sunni and Shi'a, consider Baháʼís to be deserters or apostates from Islam, which has led to Baháʼís being persecuted.[41][42] Baháʼís describe their faith as an independent world religion, differing from the other traditions in its relative age and in the appropriateness of Baháʼu'lláh's teachings to the modern context.[43] Baháʼu'lláh is believed to have fulfilled the messianic expectations of these precursor faiths."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think "riffing" off Islam and OT covers it. Which sounds to me to be similar to the old religions taking things from other religions and cultures to come up with their version of "truth".

Maybe using the negation term 'riff off' will give a better understanding of Progressive Revelation?

All things are made new. The world works in cycles.

The term "riff off" only supports what Baha'u'llah has offered, that the fundamental basis of all Faiths is One and each Message makes New of the previous Message/s.

It supports the OP in that, when God makes all things New, then we are faced with choices, to embrace the new, or stick.with the old.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Prophets are humans who write stories using past religions, morals, wisdom and laws. Any person could write a set of commands, instructiuons, laws, whatever and say "hey the angel from the OT showed up and gave me these messages."

Though the Messengers are born human, they are more then men, they are born of the Holy Spirit, not the human spirit.

That aside, you have offered and person can give the Word of God in their own Writings.

This is a challenge set by the Mesengers, they challenge mankind to do what you offer, produce such Writings, that have at their core elements such as this;

"The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked. No sooner had but a glimmer of its effulgent splendour shone forth upon the mirror of love than the blessed word 'I am the Best-Beloved' was reflected therein. It is an ocean inexhaustible in riches, comprehending all things. Every thing which can be perceived is but an emanation therefrom." Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 173

Here is a link to other aspects that the challenge evokes

Word of God | Bahá’í Quotes

This is why the finite mind in the flesh body cannot produce words of spiritual capacity.

"The world and what is witnessed therein, to the one who has clear insight, will never be equal to one word of the Words of God; because it is forever and ever transitory and evanescent; but the Word of God is eternal and everlasting, as the eternality of the names and qualities." Bahá’í Scriptures, p. 234

This is how God works the major plan, via the revitalising capacity of the Word

"The Word of God is the most effective instrument by which the Prophet creates a new civilization. It penetrates into the hearts of people and becomes the spirit of the age."

Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh v 1, p. 190

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Maybe using the negation term 'riff off' will give a better understanding of Progressive Revelation?

All things are made new. The world works in cycles.

The term "riff off" only supports what Baha'u'llah has offered, that the fundamental basis of all Faiths is One and each Message makes New of the previous Message/s.

It supports the OP in that, when God makes all things New, then we are faced with choices, to embrace the new, or stick.with the old.

Regards Tony

I'm meaning it like each culture borrowed religious ideas from others. One of the problems with "progressive" revelation is that it ignores several religions. Like those of the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, the Aztecs, the Babylonians and so on. Even with Hinduism, Baha'i barely touch on it. For those that believe in the incarnations of the God Vishnu, Krishna was the eighth and Buddha the ninth with the next one, Kalki, being the awaited tenth.

Baha'is ignore the incarnations previous to Krishna. Even though there are Hindu teachings about them. Also... If Kalki is the tenth, then several manifestations of the Baha'i Faith are left out. And would include at least Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab and probably Abraham, Moses, and Zoroaster too. And that would assume the Baha'u'llah is Kalki.

Is any of that important to most Baha'is? Probably not, because they are satisfied with what was borrowed from the previous religions. The names of their founders being added to the list of God's manifestations and a few verses borrowed to show the assumed continuity between the different religions. But I know, "It is for me to decide" or "That is the quandary".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm meaning it like each culture borrowed religious ideas from others. One of the problems with "progressive" revelation is that it ignores several religions. Like those of the Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, the Aztecs, the Babylonians and so on. Even with Hinduism, Baha'i barely touch on it. For those that believe in the incarnations of the God Vishnu, Krishna was the eighth and Buddha the ninth with the next one, Kalki, being the awaited tenth.

Baha'is ignore the incarnations previous to Krishna. Even though there are Hindu teachings about them. Also... If Kalki is the tenth, then several manifestations of the Baha'i Faith are left out. And would include at least Jesus, Muhammad, and the Bab and probably Abraham, Moses, and Zoroaster too. And that would assume the Baha'u'llah is Kalki.

Is any of that important to most Baha'is? Probably not, because they are satisfied with what was borrowed from the previous religions. The names of their founders being added to the list of God's manifestations and a few verses borrowed to show the assumed continuity between the different religions. But I know, "It is for me to decide" or "That is the quandary".

CG that is not correct. What is not explained in the Writings is up to us to decide.

I know of no Baha'i that would outright reject any pass Messages.

In fact if it came up, I personally would ask for a record from the Messenger so I could read it for myself.

The Issue would be, is that a true and accurate record of what that Messenger offered? In the end, I could only judge it against virtue and morality, which means I would also need to be well versed in history of that culture, keeping in mind many traditional practices are not based on those scriptures, and if they are based on them, we would have to sort out how much influence man has put into that traditional practice.

Regards Tony

 

[joelr]

Though the Messengers are born human, they are more then men, they are born of the Holy Spirit, not the human spirit.

Wow because I was born half Asgaurdian. I'm related to Thor! See how easy it is to make a claim.

That aside, you have offered and person can give the Word of God in their own Writings.

This is a challenge set by the Mesengers, they challenge mankind to do what you offer, produce such Writings, that have at their core elements such as this;

"The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked. No sooner had but a glimmer of its effulgent splendour shone forth upon the mirror of love than the blessed word 'I am the Best-Beloved' was reflected therein. It is an ocean inexhaustible in riches, comprehending all things. Every thing which can be perceived is but an emanation therefrom." Bahá’u’lláh, Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 173

Like this description, it's a bunch of overly flowery praise, saying not much at all. I have been reading his words. They are not impressive, not opening doors or demonstrating any type of higher spiritual, philosophical or material knowledge or information.
I am however finding Kant to be incredibly dense and almost other-worldly. Yet he isn't claiming to be a messenger.
I am reading Plato's Republic, a conversation with Socrates and others and understanding these are powerful words. I am finding some deep spirituality in Vedic writings.
NOt here.

Here is a link to other aspects that the challenge evokes

Word of God | Bahá’í Quotes

This is why the finite mind in the flesh body cannot produce words of spiritual capacity.

"The world and what is witnessed therein, to the one who has clear insight, will never be equal to one word of the Words of God; because it is forever and ever transitory and evanescent; but the Word of God is eternal and everlasting, as the eternality of the names and qualities." Bahá’í Scriptures, p. 234

This is how God works the major plan, via the revitalising capacity of the Word

"The Word of God is the most effective instrument by which the Prophet creates a new civilization. It penetrates into the hearts of people and becomes the spirit of the age."

Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh v 1, p. 190

Regards Tony

You keep quoting these writings and giving links to even more writings, they are devoid of philosophy, spirituality, wisdom, and then someone has the nerve to set some challenge?
He hasn't written anything? It's all long winded praise about how great God is and his words are?
"Oh this food from heaven, these words!!!! The great multitude of truth the words garner!!!"

Ok? Cool. SAY SOMETHING????? It's like wisdom 101? Everyone be nice and God is (25 flowery descriptors).

YOu sent a link to an entire page of quotes describing the words of God? Why? This is "it's true because it says it's true"
Well his actual words that try to say something other than how great God is and how great his words are are not impressive. Not interesting. Not better than any modern philosopher. Not more spiritual than Vedic scriptures or even Deepak Chopra for that matter. Deepak's How to Know God is far deeper than any of this. (probably because he's drawing on Hinduism).

I don't see the point of this post at all?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't see the point of this post at all?

Yes you should have remained silent.

Regards Tony

 

[joelr]

Yes you should have remained silent.

Regards Tony

Instead of a rebuttal any type of counter point your answer is to suggest suppression of others thoughts and beliefs?
I'm not attacking the religion I'm giving definitive reasons why these words are clearly not from a God. Even worse is you sent that ridiculous post to me.
Now you call for silence?

Suggesting one remain silent rather than express their beliefs is also counter to the entire point of a discussion/debate board.
There you go. Silence the heretics. Right out of Plato's Republic.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Instead of a rebuttal any type of counter point your answer is to suggest suppression of others thoughts and beliefs?
I'm not attacking the religion I'm giving definitive reasons why these words are clearly not from a God. Even worse is you sent that ridiculous post to me.
Now you call for silence?

Suggesting one remain silent rather than express their beliefs is also counter to the entire point of a discussion/debate board.
There you go. Silence the heretics. Right out of Plato's Republic.

I see silence is a position I should use more often in life, you are free to choose to say as much as you wish.

I see there was nothing offered in your post that needed rebuttel. You are free to have those views, which means we have little to talk about on this topic.

Your choices are not my choices, as I choose Faith and all the wisdom it offers, even if I still have a long way to go to live that wisdom.

Regards Tony