If you accept one, why not others?

[Quirkybird]

I have come to the conclusion that logic and reason don't seem to be uppermost where belief in a religion is concerned. If they were maybe there would be many fewer believers!

 

[Pastek]

If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason.

It can be. Believing in one God and that he created the Universe is logical for many people. Why not ?

With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them?

If you believe in one God, why must you accept other faiths who contradict yours ?
Could you accept other religions yourself ?

It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

I don't know much about Vaishnavism. I've read that :

The belief in the supremacy of Vishnu is based upon the many Avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu listed in the Puranic texts

I'm not sure it fits Christianity, even the trinitarians.

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

Why people couldn't believe in what's in their Book ?
Can you prove that nothing in it is true ?

 

[Thief]

Didn't see the line drawn....

Religion as dogmatic?...that you nod your head to something you cannot prove.
Faith as something blind...with hope as your anchor?

I prefer reason.
I prefer science.
I often post....'no proof.'....science can't go there.
No photo, no equation, no fingerprint, no repeatable experiment.

But science prefers cause and effect....so do I.

As for accepting someone else's belief?......not likely.
The dogma and ritual get in the way.
I have no list of prayers, ceremony, ritual, or congregation.
I follow no one....no one follows me.

Hence the self imposed title....rogue theologian.

 

[rusra02]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand. If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason. With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

I would agree with you if true faith were not based on logic or reason. But unlike many religions who equate faith with blind acceptance, the Bible defines faith as:
"the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen."(Hebrews 11:1) Another rendering of "evident demonstration" is "convincing evidence." Thus, I believe true faith is based on evidence, much as a court decides guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the Bible therefore urges us to worship God with our power of reason.(Romans 12:1) There is but one true God, I believe, and he insists we worship him with truth. (John 4:24)

 

[sojourner]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand. If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason. With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

I don't think we can reject them as factually wrong. We can reject them as incongruent with established hermeneutical norms.

 

[McBell]

There is but one true God, I believe, and he insists we worship him with truth. (John 4:24)

So why all the lies and dishonesty by creationists in the evolution debates?

 

[rusra02]

So why all the lies and dishonesty by creationists in the evolution debates?

For example?

 

[nazz]

I think it's a fair statement to make, that faith and reason oftentimes don't go hand in hand. If a person accepts a god and/or religious scripture, one of the primary reasons is not because it was based on logic or reason. With that, if you find that faith is more important than reason, and accept a god/scripture based solely on faith, then why not accept all of them? It makes no sense for a person of one religion to fight against a person of another religion based on the same criteria, with no real objective evidence to support either claim. If you're going to accept, say, the Christian religion, based on nothing more than faith, then why not accept Vaishnavism as well? They both make pretty much the same claims, have the same ideas, and are separated mostly by only time and language. So why not?

(And "because the Bible tells me so", or some other such, is not an answer. It's a cop-out and a way to avoid thinking for yourself.)

I think this a great question but I don't agree it would be possible to follow all Scriptures simultaneously. There are two many contradictions in doctrine. Although I once accepted both the Bible and Qur'an and even wrote a book harmonizing the two. But in order to do so I had to reject certain Christian and Muslim doctrinal claims.

Speaking for myself I can accept anything from any Scripture I feel is truth.

 

[psychoslice]

I have come to the conclusion that logic and reason don't seem to be uppermost where belief in a religion is concerned. If they were maybe there would be many fewer believers!

I agree, and I always like what you say.

 

[McBell]

For example?

Nice try.
For examples please see the Evolution vs creation subforum.
Unless you really do want me to present a list of your lies and dishonesty...

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I can accept all Major Religions, and in fact Baha'is do, believing that the Will of God is expressed periodically, and His Laws and Ordinances are revealed according to the exigencies of the Age people live. The teachings of Manifestations of God, is like a medicine for the ill body of Mankind. As in each Age, the illness was different, therefore a different medicine was given, hence there are differences between the Laws and Sayings of the Religions, but yet, their foundation is the same. Moreover, the original writings of some of the older Religions does not exist today, and what exist is a message that was orally transmitted for generations before it was written, and thus that message was effected by interpretations and memory of people that transmitted that message from one generation to the next.