The apologetics say a prophet is simply a "mouthpiece" for god. Not necessarily telling the future, but certainly not out of the realm being a spokesperson for god.
-
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!
Is this the simplest and strongest argument of all for not believing in religions?
- Thread starter suzy smith
- Start date
Philomath
Sadhaka
No they don't. Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism all have no prophets. Jainism and Buddhism don't even have a God.
Last edited:
Still wrong. Not all religions even have gods in them. Even the theistic religions don't all have "mouthpieces for god" in them. That's an Abrahamic concept. People don't seem to get that the Abrahamic religions only speak for a very, very narrow group of concepts and that there are many thousands of religions outside of that.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Philomath
Sadhaka
opcorn:
Am I missing something?
I was being brief, rather than clear. Sorry about that. It's hard to type on my mobile.
God has never told me anything about any religion. It has always been some human telling me about the divine. That is what I mean when I use the word religion, "human attempts to understand, explain, and/or manipulate the unknown". By prophet I mean the humans who claim to speak with authority on the subject.
If God wants me to know something I will find out. Humans feeling inclined to speak about the unknowable tend not to impress me.
It is more credible when they seem to recognize that they are talking about their own opinion on something they don't know any more about than anyone else. But when someone claims to have special insight I consider them a prophet.
Tom
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
The very first sentence in the OP explicitly states the post is about Christianity and Islam. I know you saw it because you had to delete it when you misrepresented the OP in your quote.
Philomath
Sadhaka
My whole point here is that she could have simply said Abrahamic religions in place of religion (which a number of beliefs fall under). From her post it can appear that Christianity and Islam = all religions when that's not the case. If she's referring solely to those religions she can make it clearer in the title and use better wording (yes I know I'm being nitpicky). I'm not sure how I misrepresented the OP when I directly quoted her words.
Last edited:
Philomath
Sadhaka
That's a very broad definition of a "prophet" then, and by those standards practically anyone who claims to have experienced God in some way might be considered a "prophet".
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
You misrepresented it by omitting the part about the thread being about Islam and Christianity. I think it was clear within the context of the OP that "religion" as it was used was referring solely to Islam and Christianity.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
So...the prophets we know by name, you do acknowledge?
Do you have a preference?.....seeing that you are difficult to impress....
suzy smith
Life is for having fun
Thank you freethinker, I was beginning to loose the will to live here!
The first line of my thread, [not the heading for which a am doing a penitence as I type this] says 'If the God of the bible or the Quran was all powerful’
Argument for arguments sake and nitpicking seems to be a popular pastime here? [Now someone is going to have a go at me for saying that!]:sad:
“Life is for having fun” -Suzy smith 2014
Last edited: