The decline of traditional religion in the West

[loverofhumanity]

That’s the very problem of which I speak.
YOU think YOURS is a “true religion” and others are presumably “not true”.
THEY think THEIR’S is a “true religion” and YOUR’S is “not true”……
Thus the division.



Did you not say:

That sure sounds to me as though you are saying that your religion is “superior to others”.
Do you seriously not hear yourself?
Pot meet kettle.


Absolutely correct!
What you seem to be missing is the fact that yours
is among them.

Not at all. I believe all the religions are true and all equal. Everything in this word decays including religions, mine as well. There is no such thing as a religion for all time. In due time our religion will be superseded by a future religion. We call it progressive revelation.

 

[ppp]

Not at all. I believe all the religions are true and all equal. Everything in this word decays including religions, mine as well. There is no such thing as a religion for all time. In due time our religion will be superseded by a future religion. We call it progressive revelation.

What do you mean by true? When a religion makes a claim that is either immoral or factually incorrect, in what way is that true?

 

[loverofhumanity]

What do you mean by true? When a religion makes a claim that is either immoral or factually incorrect, in what way is that true?

I don’t know how you understand it but to me it means a revelation was revealed by God to meet the needs of the age. Religious leaders sometimes make claims that are incorrect or untrue morally. But the Prophet does not. However, just because we may disagree with God’s idea of moral does not mean we are right.

I believe God knows what is best for us better than we do but we do not often see that so we accuse God of being wrong just because He does not approve of our standards. What’s to say our views on morality are correct? Who defines what is right or wrong, good or bad and moral or immoral? The majority? Popular opinion? Governments? There is no such thing as perfect impartiality when it comes to humans so we will always have biased views.

The only impartial One to me is God and His Prophets because I believe He created us and knows what is best for us. Just my understanding.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Not at all. I believe all the religions are true and all equal. Everything in this word decays including religions, mine as well. There is no such thing as a religion for all time. In due time our religion will be superseded by a future religion. We call it progressive revelation.

In due time our religion will be superseded by a future religion. We call it progressive revelation.

Along with thousands of other religions that disagree, thus continuing the divisions we see today, contributing to the lack of “inclusiveness” and exacerbating the conditions which preclude peace.

I believe all the religions are true and all equal.

That’s funny.
Didn’t you say?:

it is my personal view that there is a distinct difference between religion and true religion. And that the religions of today have all sorts of man made ideas and doctrines that cause more harm than good. So if they decline it’s good for humanity.

These 2 statements don’t appear to jibe.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Along with thousands of other religions that disagree, thus continuing the divisions we see today, contributing to the lack of “inclusiveness” and exacerbating the conditions which preclude peace.


That’s funny.
Didn’t you say?:

These 2 statements don’t appear to jibe.

Let me attempt to explain. Let’s take the Word of God in the Bible for example. Christ said to love and be as one. That is true religion. But after time, religious leaders fought wars, spilled blood and caused their followers to hate others of different religions. That is man made and not what was originally taught by Jesus.

So here you have the religion of Christ - what He taught, to love one another but yet religious leaders created their own religion of conquest, bloodshed and killing.

So the religion of Christ, what He taught is always good and true. But over time, clergy have corrupted it for their own purposes. That is not true religion. We always believe in what Christ taught but reject much of what the priests have added which has caused wars and hatred and is not true religion as Christ taught it,

This is why religion is renewed in every age by God sending a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Let me attempt to explain. Let’s take the Word of God in the Bible for example. Christ said to love and be as one. That is true religion. But after time, religious leaders fought wars, spilled blood and caused their followers to hate others of different religions. That is man made and not what was originally taught by Jesus.

So here you have the religion of Christ - what He taught, to love one another but yet religious leaders created their own religion of conquest, bloodshed and killing.

So the religion of Christ, what He taught is always good and true. But over time, clergy have corrupted it for their own purposes. That is not true religion. We always believe in what Christ taught but reject much of what the priests have added which has caused wars and hatred and is not true religion as Christ taught it,

This is why religion is renewed in every age by God sending a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.

Trust me, I don’t require an explanation.
Apparently you do however.

Let’s take the Word of God in the Bible for example. Christ said to love and be as one. That is true religion.

First of all, you appear to have skipped the first half of the Bible….

Jews had a covenant with God.
Which caused divisions in Judea which led to derision and bloodshed (as depicted in the Bible).

Along comes a jew named Jesus (who you accept as a true prophet of God) “a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.” Christianity.
This causes division with in Judaism, the effect’s of which are still causing derision and bloodshed today.

Some time later along comes a guy named Muhammad (who you accept as a true prophet of God)
“a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.” Islam.
This causes derision with the Jews and the Christians, (not to mention others) the effects of which are still causing derision and bloodshed today.

Some time later along comes a guy called the Báb (who you accept as a true prophet of God), “a new Prophet to reestablish true religion”, who starts a new religion splintering off from Islam. Bábism.

A mere 20 or so years later, along comes a guy named Baha’u’llah (who you accept as a true prophet of God) “a new Prophet to reestablish true religion”, who starts yet another new religion. Baha’i Faith.

Granted, I’m unaware of any bloodshed shed as of yet caused by this division.
I suspect it has to do with it not being perceived as a threat in the eyes of Islam…yet.

However, at no time along this timeline of
“God sending a new Prophet to reestablish true religion” over and over, was the sending of this “new prophet” served to calm the divisions and derision.
Instead in each instance it has served to cause new and additional divisions.

This is just within your religions lineage.
There are multiple other religious lineages which follow the same trends.

Religions…ALL religions which are seriously and closely held, cause division and derision.
Including yours.
It may not be their intent, but it has proven to be the inevitable result.

 

[ppp]

I don’t know how you understand it but to me it means a revelation was revealed by God to meet the needs of the age.

It means demonstrably corresponding to reality. Even if I believe that a god existed and that it revealed something to someone, and that would be insufficient to make it true.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Let me attempt to explain. Let’s take the Word of God in the Bible for example. Christ said to love and be as one. That is true religion. But after time, religious leaders fought wars, spilled blood and caused their followers to hate others of different religions. That is man made and not what was originally taught by Jesus.

So here you have the religion of Christ - what He taught, to love one another but yet religious leaders created their own religion of conquest, bloodshed and killing.

So the religion of Christ, what He taught is always good and true. But over time, clergy have corrupted it for their own purposes. That is not true religion. We always believe in what Christ taught but reject much of what the priests have added which has caused wars and hatred and is not true religion as Christ taught it,

This is why religion is renewed in every age by God sending a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.

I wish we could get a new one. People are sure not following Jesus' teachings anymore.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Trust me, I don’t require an explanation.
Apparently you do however.

First of all, you appear to have skipped the first half of the Bible….

Jews had a covenant with God.
Which caused divisions in Judea which led to derision and bloodshed (as depicted in the Bible).

Along comes a jew named Jesus (who you accept as a true prophet of God) “a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.” Christianity.
This causes division with in Judaism, the effect’s of which are still causing derision and bloodshed today.

Some time later along comes a guy named Muhammad (who you accept as a true prophet of God)
“a new Prophet to reestablish true religion.” Islam.
This causes derision with the Jews and the Christians, (not to mention others) the effects of which are still causing derision and bloodshed today.

Some time later along comes a guy called the Báb (who you accept as a true prophet of God), “a new Prophet to reestablish true religion”, who starts a new religion splintering off from Islam. Bábism.

A mere 20 or so years later, along comes a guy named Baha’u’llah (who you accept as a true prophet of God) “a new Prophet to reestablish true religion”, who starts yet another new religion. Baha’i Faith.

Granted, I’m unaware of any bloodshed shed as of yet caused by this division.
I suspect it has to do with it not being perceived as a threat in the eyes of Islam…yet.

However, at no time along this timeline of
“God sending a new Prophet to reestablish true religion” over and over, was the sending of this “new prophet” served to calm the divisions and derision.
Instead in each instance it has served to cause new and additional divisions.

This is just within your religions lineage.
There are multiple other religious lineages which follow the same trends.

Religions…ALL religions which are seriously and closely held, cause division and derision.
Including yours.
It may not be their intent, but it has proven to be the inevitable result.

This division you speak of is the fault of the followers disobedience to their own Holy Writings.

There is actually only one progressive Faith of God we believe. This is how it would have panned. In each is religions scriptures a promise is given that a future Prophet/Messiah will appear. Just briefly, the Jews were prophesied Christ and were supposed to turn to Him. If they had obeyed their scriptures all would have accepted Christ and there would have been no division. But as this did not occur there supposedly were two religions. In the New Testament the coming of Muhammad is prophesied so all Christians would have accepted Muhammad. And again, in the Quran there are plenty references to the Bab and Baha’u’llah which would have meant there would only have been one religion in the world. And the same with the next Prophet to come in the future.


Baha’u’llah has mentioned this. He says ‘This is the changeless faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future’.


Because there were prophecies in the Holy Books indicating another Prophet to appear in due time then the division in the world arises from the followers failing to obey their scriptures not any fault of God and His Messengers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

It means demonstrably corresponding to reality. Even if I believe that a god existed and that it revealed something to someone, and that would be insufficient to make it true.

My understanding is that humans have innate spiritual capacities, like a kind of sixth sense, to be able to recognise God and His Messengers. But this sense can become distorted or clouded by impure motives and selfish ambitions. I believe we are spiritual beings but that we have allowed our worldly attachments to prevent these innate abilities from functioning properly.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I wish we could get a new one. People are sure not following Jesus' teachings anymore.

I believe that God never leaves us alone and that for each age He sends us guidance and that He has sent Baha’u’llah for this age with laws and teachings to unite humanity and create a world spiritual civilisation.

 

[ppp]

My understanding is that humans have innate spiritual capacities, like a kind of sixth sense, to be able to recognise God and His Messengers. But this sense can become distorted or clouded by impure motives and selfish ambitions. I believe we are spiritual beings but that we have allowed our worldly attachments to prevent these innate abilities from functioning properly.

I understand that you believe that. But just restating your belief does not make it credible.

 

[F1fan]

I don’t know how you understand it but to me it means a revelation was revealed by God to meet the needs of the age.

These kinds of replies drive me nuts because what you believe is not factual, or even plausible. You are just expressing what you believe as if what you think means anything. It doesn't. We don't care what you believe. We care about facts. reality, and coherent explanations. Theists don't seem able or willing to understand this.

We atheists understand theists believe in ideas that are not based on facts or reason. We ask questions to pressure theists to think. But theists don't think, they just repeat what they believe as if what they believe is truth.

I suspect one reason religion is in decline is because more people want truth, not religious dogma.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I understand that you believe that. But just restating your belief does not make it credible.

I can’t prove to other people that what I believe is true. If you think it’s wrong or incorrect or untrue then to you that is true and I respect that because I’m a strong believer in freedom of thought. So if your investigation leads you to the belief I am misled then I uphold and support your right to believe that.

 

[F1fan]

I can’t prove to other people that what I believe is true.

Then why believe it? If you can't convince others how did you ever come to a valid conclusion your beliefs are true? Or are you admitting that your beliefs are not rational and you believe for other reasons?

If you think it’s wrong or incorrect or untrue then to you that is true and I respect that because I’m a strong believer in freedom of thought. So if your investigation leads you to the belief I am misled then I uphold and support your right to believe that.

In logic and debate all propositions are by default untrue. The claimant of a claim has to demonstrate (prove) their claims are true, or at least likely true. This is done with evidence.

So if a person makes a claim they can't show is true or likely true, then we throw it out. It doesn't matter if you believe it, we throw it out. If you are going to debate you need to respect others and actually defend what you claim is true with evidence. It is disrespectful to claim something is true and then admit you can't defend why you believe it.

 

[ppp]

I can’t prove to other people that what I believe is true. If you think it’s wrong or incorrect or untrue then to you that is true and I respect that because I’m a strong believer in freedom of thought. So if your investigation leads you to the belief I am misled then I uphold and support your right to believe that.

Thank you for your permission to not believe your claims.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Then why believe it? If you can't convince others how did you ever come to a valid conclusion your beliefs are true? Or are you admitting that your beliefs are not rational and you believe for other reasons?


In logic and debate all propositions are by default untrue. The claimant of a claim has to demonstrate (prove) their claims are true, or at least likely true. This is done with evidence.

So if a person makes a claim they can't show is true or likely true, then we throw it out. It doesn't matter if you believe it, we throw it out. If you are going to debate you need to respect others and actually defend what you claim is true with evidence. It is disrespectful to claim something is true and then admit you can't defend why you believe it.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY POLICY. I hope you have a good one and many presents. I always appreciate what you say and you are correct, I do need to try and be better at providing evidence.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

This division you speak of is the fault of the followers disobedience to their own Holy Writings.

There is actually only one progressive Faith of God we believe. This is how it would have panned. In each is religions scriptures a promise is given that a future Prophet/Messiah will appear. Just briefly, the Jews were prophesied Christ and were supposed to turn to Him. If they had obeyed their scriptures all would have accepted Christ and there would have been no division. But as this did not occur there supposedly were two religions. In the New Testament the coming of Muhammad is prophesied so all Christians would have accepted Muhammad. And again, in the Quran there are plenty references to the Bab and Baha’u’llah which would have meant there would only have been one religion in the world. And the same with the next Prophet to come in the future.


Baha’u’llah has mentioned this. He says ‘This is the changeless faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future’.


Because there were prophecies in the Holy Books indicating another Prophet to appear in due time then the division in the world arises from the followers failing to obey their scriptures not any fault of God and His Messengers.

According to your beliefs from your point of view.
According to their beliefs from their points of view
you are disobedient to the “Holy Writings”.

When I said:

at no time along this timeline of
“God sending a new Prophet to reestablish true religion” over and over, was the sending of this “new prophet” served to calm the divisions and derision.
Instead in each instance it has served to cause new and additional divisions.

I notice you don’t deny that peace or unity have never been ushered in by the arrival of any
“new prophet”.
Instead you give your take on why.
The “why” is only from your subjective perspective, which is contrary to their perspectives.
Since religions can’t even agree internally, much less among other religions, the fact remains: religions exasperate divisions and derision.
Religions do not mollify divisions or derision.
As result, they are an obstacle to peace.

 

[danieldemol]

Err. So? How about the writing mate? Did you miss it?

Obviously I didn't miss it because I asked you a specific question about it which you have not responded too. Don't you bother to read in full the posts you are responding to?
Here is the question you missed again;

Are "Maail" and "Gain" terms that english speaking western academics who study philology would use? Just asking because I couldn't seem to find any reference to them using a quick google search.

Valiant, but a seriously dishonest effort in your part

Ad-hominem /yawn

Lol. that's when he died.

Exactly, he died 5 years into the eighth century. You know, since you allegedly value honesty and all.

And this guy is irrelevant to all the 7th century manuscripts I have given.

Whether or not they are seventh century or eighth century is what we are debating. It is not a given.

So go ahead and prove that the Quran is 8th century material.

There is little in the ancient world that can be proven, you are setting the goal poasts unattainably high here. Historians don't deal in proof, they deal in what is most probable.

Nice cut and paste. Great effort.

But provide evidence that the Qur'an is 8th century.

I referred to the evidence in summary. It was the marks of late production of the Tubingen and Birmingham Qurans, the notorious abscence of the Quran from early Islamic culture and also from any of the reports about Muhammad’s followers and their religious faith in the contemporary sources, as well as historical circumstances being highly favorable for ʿAbd al-Malik to accomplish the publication of a canonical version of the Qur’an, and external confirmation of this tradition in multiple sources close to the events in question.

Sure you can handwave away the evidence if you wish, but a good hypothesis seeks to explain *all* the evidence, not just parts of it.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

@danieldemol

You asked "Are "Maail" and "Gain" terms that english speaking western academics who study philology would use? Just asking because I couldn't seem to find any reference to them using a quick google search."

Anyone who studies anything about the history of the Qur'an will know it. Most basic.

Exactly, he died 5 years into the eighth century.

Yeah. So when did he compile the Qur'an? 8th century or 7th century? What does your book say?

Whether or not they are seventh century or eighth century is what we are debating. It is not a given.

That's exactly the debate. That was your claim. You claimed it was 8th century or to use your own words "the turn of the 8th century". If you are withdrawing your claim, no problem. Do it with respect. Or if you did not claim that, it's my bad so you can point it out.

There is little in the ancient world that can be proven

Many things can be proven if you know the subject. Please try not to make arbitrary statements you don't understand made out of nothing.

I referred to the evidence in summary.

No. You have provided evidence that it's 7th century, not 8th century. Your book and your cut and paste is against you. Maybe if you study a little more your own book you might understand things better.

And then, you can provide your reasons why you believe that book so passionately without even reading it fully. You believe it completely like Gods word just after some 10 dozen pages.