God wants different religions

[TagliatelliMonster]

No studies. Just speculation. Great.

So, religion has never been any kind of motivation in any kind of armed conflict ever.

Great.

Be careful not to suffocated while having your head lodged firmly into the ground like that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.
The Viking gods Thor and Odin seemed to be quite big on battle and more specifically, death on the battle field with the axe in your hand. Which would grant you access to the Great Halls in Whalhalla where you can dine with the gods and do battle for eternity between the feasts.

Roman gods didn't seem to mind battle and war either.

I see you have just offered.what some men chose to do, not what God has asked of us.

Men can and do make God's of their own actions.

Regards Tony

 

[metis]

Different religions will cause division.

It can and has, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Take Gandhi as an example of the latter approach.

 

[Ella S.]

What we feel in our hearts manifests itself in reality through our actions, and inactions. There are causes that manifest effects in society due to what motivates people morally.

We ought not murder someone because we ourselves do not want to be murdered, and murder creates an environment that undermines trust, and well being. Murder is also repugnant.

Morality is the consideration wise people have when considering the kind of relationships they desire to be in.

Good relationships are impossible to have without moral honesty.

If these things are not evident to you than I'm afraid you are just blind to reality and nothing further can be said.

People are often aware of their own morals and the causes and effects of those morals.

People also get caught in lies. People get convicted of real crimes. All due to evidence.

People do good things as well and often there is evidence for those things.

No one benefits from nor enjoys being abused or lied to. That's an evident moral fact.

I guess I am blind, because I definitely don't see anything you just said as being "self-evident;" to me, your argument looks like an Appeal to Emotion and an Argument to the People, which are both fallacies.

I thought it was evidence-based, anyway, which shouldn't matter about what I feel is self-evident. Do you know what evidence is?

Evidence is a collection of observations and measurements of the natural world which indicate the probability of a conclusion. You haven't given me any observations or measurements of the natural world, you've merely asserted that you're right and that, if I don't agree, I'm blind and/or evil. That's not rational discourse. That's absurd.

 

[osgart]

I guess I am blind, because I definitely don't see anything you just said as being "self-evident;" to me, your argument looks like an Appeal to Emotion and an Argument to the People, which are both fallacies.

I thought it was evidence-based, anyway, which shouldn't matter about what I feel is self-evident. Do you know what evidence is?

Evidence is a collection of observations and measurements of the natural world which indicate the probability of a conclusion. You haven't given me any observations or measurements of the natural world, you've merely asserted that you're right and that, if I don't agree, I'm blind and/or evil. That's not rational discourse. That's absurd.

I made no mention of you being evil.

If you can't find evidence that murder is immoral or that honesty is a good thing I don't know what else to say to you about it. It's the kind of evidence that doesn't necessarily have measurable quantities. How do you measure the sight of someone in pain? Because you can't measure someone's pain doesn't mean they are not in pain. That's irrational.

I'm certainly not projecting my emotions on others. I don't see how people can get by without a moral compass though.

From what you are saying you possibly think that people can not know something to be true if it isn't measurable or quantifiable. I find that absurd.
Do you deny that there is value and advantages to being moral? Do you deny that there is a cost to being immoral?

 

[ecco]

Thus, to me we need the Bible as written evidence, as a written guide as a car manual gives guidance for a car.

Seeing God
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30

“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18


The Power of God
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26

“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19

Circumcision
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10

“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2

Incest
“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22

“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17

[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12

“And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16
​

Uh, huh. That's a really good guide.

 

[ecco]

For example: false clergy have often used the pulpit as a recruiting station for the political so that parents will send their sons off to the Altar of War as if that is the same thing as the Altar of God which it is Not.

False clergy or corrupt clergy?
Jesse Duplantis
Kenneth Copeland
Pat Robertson
Jim Bakker
Joel Olsteen
The list goes on and on.


ETA Let's not forget the countless Catholic priests who molested children.

 

[Ella S.]

I made no mention of you being evil.

If you can't find evidence that murder is immoral or that honesty is a good thing I don't know what else to say to you about it. It's the kind of evidence that doesn't necessarily have measurable quantities. How do you measure the sight of someone in pain? Because you can't measure someone's pain doesn't mean they are not in pain. That's irrational.

I'm certainly not projecting my emotions on others. I don't see how people can get by without a moral compass though.

From what you are saying you possibly think that people can not know something to be true if it isn't measurable or quantifiable. I find that absurd.
Do you deny that there is value and advantages to being moral? Do you deny that there is a cost to being immoral?

One can find advantages and disadvantages with any course of action, depending on what goal you have. If your goal is to, say, accumulate as much wealth as possible, then morality will not serve you well there.

You are admitting, by saying that it has no measurable quantities or observational data that you have no evidence for your claims, though. You might find that absurd, but welcome to empiricism. Pain itself has been notoriously difficult to measure in psychology, although it can still be measured because it's a physical phenomenon caused by the destruction of nerve cells.

(And in many psych studies, self-report scales of an individual's subjective experience of pain can be used, but these are obviously going to differ from person to person; this is the exact opposite of your claim that morality is universal and that there are moral facts that can be derived from evidence, since pain is not objective in that sense.)

You keep insisting that your morality has nothing to do with your emotions, and yet all you've given me is what you personally feel people should do while generalizing that as an objective imperative without any good reason. You have yet to give evidence for your moral intuition being the "correct" one and continue to merely assert it as such. Your claims that it is "self-evident" is really just another way of saying that there is no external evidence for it and that you are asserting them as-is, which is the exact opposite of empirical.

If you cannot give me evidence that what you believe is moral is truly moral, and continue to rely on a highly subjective and emotion-based "moral compass," then you have already disproven your own claims. Even if you refuse to admit it.

 

[osgart]

One can find advantages and disadvantages with any course of action, depending on what goal you have. If your goal is to, say, accumulate as much wealth as possible, then morality will not serve you well there.

You are admitting, by saying that it has no measurable quantities or observational data that you have no evidence for your claims, though. You might find that absurd, but welcome to empiricism. Pain itself has been notoriously difficult to measure in psychology, although it can still be measured because it's a physical phenomenon caused by the destruction of nerve cells.

(And in many psych studies, self-report scales of an individual's subjective experience of pain can be used, but these are obviously going to differ from person to person; this is the exact opposite of your claim that morality is universal and that there are moral facts that can be derived from evidence, since pain is not objective in that sense.)

You keep insisting that your morality has nothing to do with your emotions, and yet all you've given me is what you personally feel people should do while generalizing that as an objective imperative without any good reason. You have yet to give evidence for your moral intuition being the "correct" one and continue to merely assert it as such. Your claims that it is "self-evident" is really just another way of saying that there is no external evidence for it and that you are asserting them as-is, which is the exact opposite of empirical.

If you cannot give me evidence that what you believe is moral is truly moral, and continue to rely on a highly subjective and emotion-based "moral compass," then you have already disproven your own claims. Even if you refuse to admit it.

The observational data is qualitative, observed by the effects of the actions upon those involved. I'm being objective about personal feelings and the causes and effects that moral and immoral behaviour have on personal feelings of those involved.

Murder is immoral and that's a fact. Murder undermines public trust; another fact. This is true regardless of my personal feelings. The fact that my personal feelings align with my claims of fact is besides the point.

If you want to trust a murderer and have some kind of advantage to do so then that falls on the side of being factually immoral.

Morality objectively must take into account personal feelings.

No victim of murder is going to trust the murderer. Fact.

In society there are many honest things that people rely on every day. Immorality undermines that honesty. Fact.

The qualitative data is there. I'm also willing to bet that the advantages and disadvantages of moral and immoral actions can be measured if someone wants to do such studies.

Logically speaking I trust honesty, and have no trust in the immorality of dishonesty.

There are tons of good reasons for honest actions.

It's logical and it's evident. There is a clear right and wrong.

Society depends on levels of moral actions. Without those you have no society.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see you have just offered.what some men chose to do, not what God has asked of us.

No. Mars, Odin and Thor very much asked for battle.
Odin and Thor specifically. As I said, dying on the battlefield was the greatest honor and granted you access to the great halls of whalhalla.

ISIS type muslims pretty much believe more or less the same. That dying while fighting for islam, grants instant access to paradise as martyrs.

You may disagree with these muslims and vikings and romans that that is what those gods ask(ed) of them, but those muslims, vikings and romans clearly believe(d) otherwise.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It can and has, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way. Take Gandhi as an example of the latter approach.

In the same post, I also said "Does it guarantee war and conflict? maybe not.". You seem to have ignored that part as you are replying to only a portion of that post as if I never said the last part.

I also said that if the ultimate goal is for humans to live peacefully, then introducing anything which likely or potentially becomes a source of extreme division, is a pretty stupid idea.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If God has a preference as to how he should be worshipped he does not make it clear.
Until he does, people will make there own choices and invent new ways to do so.
Some might be nearer the truth than others.
We have no way of knowing.

 

[metis]

I also said that if the ultimate goal is for humans to live peacefully, then introducing anything which likely or potentially becomes a source of extreme division, is a pretty stupid idea.

Almost anything we may say may cause division. A psychologist said that when a person meets us for the first time, roughly 10% would dislike us just with how we may look, and when we speak even just one sentence it may go up from there.

 

[pearl]

If God has a preference as to how he should be worshipped he does not make it clear.

Actually, He did.


Rather let justice surge like waters,
and righteousness like an unfailing stream.
Amos 5,5

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You may disagree with these muslims and vikings and romans that that is what those gods ask(ed) of them, but those muslims, vikings and romans clearly believe(d) otherwise.

Some follow Gods of their own making.

Regards Tony

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Seeing God
“… I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.” — Genesis 32:30
“No man hath seen God at any time…”– John 1:18

The Power of God
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
Circumcision
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” — Genesis 17:10
“…if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” — Galatians 5:2
Incest
“Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother…” — Deuteronomy 27:22
“And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter…it is a wicked thing….” — Leviticus 20:17
[But what was god’s reaction to Abraham, who married his sister — his father’s daughter?] See Genesis 20:11-12
“And God said unto Abraham, As for Sara thy wife…I bless her, and give thee a son also of her…” — Genesis 17:15-16......Uh, huh. That's a really good guide.​

As the circumstances change from a new car's first oil change to its much older check ups, so Bible setting and time frame needs to be considered.

Sarah was Abraham half sister. They were married and it was Not incest that far back in history.
By the later time of Deuteronomy that was the time frame of the Constitution of the Mosaic Law.
If you'd like to take one topic or subject at a time then perhaps more light can be shed on the subject.
To me it is better to go into detail one topic at a time.​

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If God has a preference as to how he should be worshipped he does not make it clear...................

To me Jesus made it clear at John 4:23-24.
God wants to be worshipped with spirit and truth.
Have a spirited form of worship. Let others know what you know.
Worship in truth, religious truth (aka Scripture) just as Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth - John 17:17

 

[Marcos]

1. There can only be either one or no true religion, for if two religions differ (teach contradictory things), they cannot be both true.
2. Either God has revealed Himself or not.
a) If He hasn't, all religions are man-made and thus false.
b) But if He has, there are two options: this religion is known or it isn't.
b.1) If it's not known, then we are, in practice, in the same situation as a).
b.2) But if it is, then there is exactly one true religion.

Since God is the Truth, He never lies, therefore He cannot have revealed anything which is false.
Since God is all-powerfull and provident, He must have established a way in which the true religion He revealed could get to our time unaltered and unblemished, teaching the same truths He revealed.

Thus, if we are in the case b.2), there is exactly one and only one true religion which has reached our time.
Since God is the Truth and never lies, and since He cannot love or desire evil or falsehood, all religions which are not revealed by God (that is, all false and man-made religions) are not willed by God; He does not desire them to exist. BUT He tolerates for some time their existence, as He tolerates other evils to get a greater good out of them (or to respect man's free will).

Now, some may say that God could have revealed more than one religion. In that case, He would have revealed just different "parts" (truths) of the same religion to different people. However, today's religions contradict each other, so it can't be the case that two nowadays religions are true (revealed by God).

Religion is not man seeking God, it's God who reveals Himself to man.
And He has made Himself known to us, He himself has spoken to us:
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Man's search for ultimate truth is a natural process (it's inherent in human nature). Religions/philosophies sprung all over the world. They didn't just expand from one part.

Thus all religions (revealed or not) are (also) man made and subject to human limited view and fallability.

See the Parable of Blind Men and An Elephant:

Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia

 

[lukethethird]

God wants different religions
What does God not want?
Actually, never mind,
don't answer that.