the right religion

[Heathen Hammer]

I am not going down this road with you again. There is no end to it.

There's no good end for you on it, is what you mean.

 

[waitasec]

Well the bible says we either belong to Christ or Satan is our father.

how can anyone take this seriously?

 

[1robin]

I am not sure what you are talking about.

This is the Prophecy Baha'u'llah made regarding fall of Emperor of Germany before it happend:

In the Book of Aqdas, which was begun in Adrianople, and finished in the early years of Bahá’u’lláh’s imprisonment in ‘Akká, He addressed the Emperor of Germany as follows:

O King of Berlin! … Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power (Napoleon III) and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? Whither are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. Wherefore, disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them who reflect. …
O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.—Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

During the period of German successes in the Great War of 1914–1918, and especially during the last great German offensive in the spring of 1918, this well-known prophecy was extensively quoted by the opponents of the Bahá’í Faith in Persia, in order to discredit Bahá’u’lláh; but when the forward sweep of the victorious Germans was suddenly transformed into crushing, overwhelming disaster, the efforts of these enemies of the Bahá’í Cause recoiled on themselves, and the notoriety which they had given to the prophecy became a powerful means of enhancing the reputation of Bahá’u’lláh.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 237-242


Then I will not reply to this for now.

Bring this up in a new thread if you wish to investigate it. When I asked for a prophecy this was given. I assumed possibly in error that the statement about Germany suffering the first conflict was prophetic since I asked for prophecy. On looking at it again I do not think it was prophetic so my claims do not apply. It is simply a statement not a prediction. The only thing that is predicteve is the very vague statements:

and you shall have another turn. And We hear the lamentations of Berlin, though she be today in conspicuous glory.

That would have been fulfilled if Germany ever suffered a defeat which was inevitable. It contains no dates or specifics but I will admit no false predictions. They are just so vague that their fullfillment could not have failed. If the bible predicted that Tyre would fall and that was all it would not be meaningfull. However unlike Baha'i the bible predicted at the name of atleast one of it's conquorers and even said there would be multiple. It also predicted that the first attack would not be complete but that later ones would be. It also said that Tyre would be completely destroyed and it's island used to dry fishing nets. It even said Nebuchadneezer (the first attacker) would go on to destory egypts preeminent status and power. Also that Egypt would never fully recover as well as the Phonecians would never rebuild Tyre. Etc.... Do you see the difference in detail and scope. Tyre isn't even a particularly detailed prophecy in the bible but contains far more detail than the one made about Germany. The bible also says that false prophets will make vague predictions and ones that are not 100% accurate.

 

[Awoon]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

I've never seen any God practice any religion.:no:

 

[1robin]

May peace be upon you as well.

I appreciate the sentament but was hoping for some kind of justification or foundation that explains your claims and statements. Claims without justification have no sticking power or influence.

 

[waitasec]

I appreciate the sentament but was hoping for some kind of justification or foundation that explains your claims and statements. Claims without justification have no sticking power or influence.

no you got that wrong....
claims without evidence

any "justification" is ultimately a subjective justification.

 

[Straw Dog]

I appreciate the sentament but was hoping for some kind of justification or foundation that explains your claims and statements. Claims without justification have no sticking power or influence.

That's the thing, though. I'm referring to a teaching that goes beyond words and beliefs to the direct experience of reality. It doesn't matter how many sources I cite or references I use because it isn't dependent upon any book. Maybe you have to practice meditation to get it.

Anyway, don't worry about it. I realized my folly in attempting to meaningfully discuss the subject matter since it's based on the absurd and arrogant pretense of a "Right religion". Religions are human institutions prone to human error and limitations so there can be no one true religion. Also, religion was made for man and not man made for religion.

 

[waitasec]

Anyway, don't worry about it. I realized my folly in attempting to meaningfully discuss the subject matter since it's based on the absurd and arrogant pretense of a "Right religion". Religions are human institutions prone to human error and limitations so there can be no one true religion. Also, religion was made for man and not man made for religion.

well said
excellent post

 

[1robin]

I've never seen any God practice any religion.:no:

I agree with this in principle. A great philospher I like said that all other religions are man made attempts to reach God. However Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. I found that very descriptive and applicable. In general I define religion as man made and Christinity it's self as a relationship. Christianity has been at times warped into a hollow religion but it is not so it's self in an informal way of understanding religion.

 

[1robin]

That's the thing, though. I'm referring to a teaching that goes beyond words and beliefs to the direct experience of reality. It doesn't matter how many sources I cite or references I use because it isn't dependent upon any book. Maybe you have to practice meditation to get it.

A teaching implies a teacher, and a teacher implies a method of transmission. The method of transmission should be available to everyone and open for scrutiny. I would not say that an invisable means of transmission is false but I would say it has no place in a debate because it is not readily available to both sides. You don't seem to sure where all this stuff you say comes from or how it comes. How then can it be trusted or evaluated?

Anyway, don't worry about it. I realized my folly in attempting to meaningfully discuss the subject matter since it's based on the absurd and arrogant pretense of a "Right religion". Religions are human institutions prone to human error and limitations so there can be no one true religion. Also, religion was made for man and not man made for religion.

If you read my previous post above you will see I agree with alot of what you say about religion however a true "religion" or revelation is a very valid concept. Man has a whole (or a need) that only God can fill. God selected a means to fill it which was rejected by many. Without the right thing to put in the vacume in our soul (for the ones that rejected the correct means) we have created a large amount of false "religion" to attempt to remedy the problem. The fact that not all religions are true is a philisophical fact. Any competing systems that claim to have different and contradictory claims to absolute truth can only have one (or less) correct claiments. For example Christianity says Christ is the only way by virtue of being crucified and resurrected to reach God. Islam says that Christ was not killed and is not the way to God. There is no possability that both are true. Baha'i says they both plus all others are true which in claiming the impossible to be true must it's self be false. And so on and on. There is very good grounds to claim that only one "religion" is true.

 

[Straw Dog]

A teaching implies a teacher, and a teacher implies a method of transmission. The method of transmission should be available to everyone and open for scrutiny. I would not say that an invisable means of transmission is false but I would say it has no place in a debate because it is not readily available to both sides. You don't seem to sure where all this stuff you say comes from or how it comes. How then can it be trusted or evaluated?

Fair enough. I would say the main sources of inspiration come from studying many different wisdom traditions around the world and drawing upon their similarities, but if you still require a name in which to call my views I guess I'd go with philosophical Taoism, especially the writings of Chuang Tzu. It teaches the limitations of language and the stilling of the mind within nature to apprehend one's own vitality and direction in life.

If you read my previous post above you will see I agree with alot of what you say about religion however a true "religion" or revelation is a very valid concept. Man has a whole (or a need) that only God can fill. God selected a means to fill it which was rejected by many. Without the right thing to put in the vacume in our soul (for the ones that rejected the correct means) we have created a large amount of false "religion" to attempt to remedy the problem. The fact that not all religions are true is a philisophical fact. Any competing systems that claim to have different and contradictory claims to absolute truth can only have one (or less) correct claiments. For example Christianity says Christ is the only way by virtue of being crucified and resurrected to reach God. Islam says that Christ was not killed and is not the way to God. There is no possability that both are true. Baha'i says they both plus all others are true which in claiming the impossible to be true must it's self be false. And so on and on. There is very good grounds to claim that only one "religion" is true.

Different religions do teach different solutions to different problems. I would recommend exploring the mystical current present within all traditions to discover the surprising similarities in experience that they all share. Different creeds, similar experiences of the Divine.

How do you explain people of other faiths still being able to fill that "God-hole" apparently? If you think they haven't, then why do so many profess to have found peace within the Divine? I mean, they would describe the experience in similar fashion to how a Christian would describe it. Are you saying they are being deceived? If so, how do you know that you are not? If you must go back to referencing external religious sources outside experience, then we're back to where we started.

All religions contain some truth to them and all religions contain some falsehood. I would hazard to guess that the strictest dogmatic elements of religions are all probably false. They all teach wisdom, albeit human wisdom and open to error. I don't have any reason for accepting the mainstream Christian dogma.

 

[1robin]

Fair enough. I would say the main sources of inspiration come from studying many different wisdom traditions around the world and drawing upon their similarities, but if you still require a name in which to call my views I guess I'd go with philosophical Taoism, especially the writings of Chuang Tzu. It teaches the limitations of language and the stilling of the mind within nature to apprehend one's own vitality and direction in life.

I do not agree with this, but I certainly do not have the experience or education on the subject (oriental philosophy) to meaningfully refute anything here much. I will say that if stilling the mind or apprehending one's vitality is the primary goal then Christianity is not an exact fit. Those issues without a method to survive death in a pleasant disposition are futile in my view. Without Christ all the self improvement in the world ends in heat death and anihilation. However there may be more that you claim to what you are practicing. I do not know.

Different religions do teach different solutions to different problems. I would recommend exploring the mystical current present within all traditions to discover the surprising similarities in experience that they all share. Different creeds, similar experiences of the Divine.

I can only do that on a case by case or a teachings basis. It is impracticle to interview every one but it is possible to evaluate the major core teachings and they are not consistent at all. They are infact mutually exclusive in most cases. That means they all contain false info on core doctrine except for the correct one. If they contain incorrect info on core doctrine they are not from a God I wish to associate with.

How do you explain people of other faiths still being able to fill that "God-hole" apparently? If you think they haven't, then why do so many profess to have found peace within the Divine?

Actually I find the opposite. For example I find the Islamic states anything but a picture of serene contemplation. I know of no other religion that had a man falsly killed who while being killed asked forgiveness for the ones doing it. Now that is true goodness and serenity. In fact most people who belong to another religion I know never even discuss issues surrounding supernatural experiences at all with me. It is always superficial intellectual agreements with a concept or teaching with no reciprosity from a God they never have any realtionship with. I will not of course say that I know you are not experiencing real peace, but IMO there is a good chance you have just maximised the peace that the bible refers to as what the world offers and have no frame of reference that allows you to compare your experience with the peace that Christ gives. Could you ask forgiveness of people who are wrongfully killing you slowly. It also contains the only reliable account of a perfect example of Human conduct. There is no parallel.

I mean, they would describe the experience in similar fashion to how a Christian would describe it. Are you saying they are being deceived? If so, how do you know that you are not? If you must go back to referencing external religious sources outside experience, then we're back to where we started.

I have never heard a single example of what you are describing and believe me that covers alot of ground.

All religions contain some truth to them and all religions contain some falsehood.

I do not believe that is true in regards to original revelation. For example outside of 5% scribal errors I can honestly say that I am not aware of a single error in the bible. Give your worst example if you disagree.

I would hazard to guess that the strictest dogmatic elements of religions are all probably false.

I would agree with 99% of this.

They all teach wisdom, albeit human wisdom and open to error. I don't have any reason for accepting the mainstream Christian dogma.

The bible does contain wisdom that is not intuitive to man. In fact that very issue is complained of by non-believers. It is not natural to think of someone dying for the forgiveness of murderers and lifetime criminals or turning the other cheek. That is a God thing. Regardless I and billions of others are witness testimony to the core claims of Christianity and I do not mean an intellectual agreement to a proposition. The main element of Christianity is that we are all sinful (obvious). It then gives the only concievable plan for rectifying this problem. God will not permenantly dwell with sin forever, something must be done. Billions of Christian's affirm that what was done was real and was applied to them in exactly the same unmistakable manner the bible purports and gained by the road map contained in the bible. There is no equivalent in human history to this experience that every single true Christian affirms in their own lives. The rest of the bible is important but only commentary (true commentary) compared to that core issue.

 

[Astravalon]

Pretty sure. I did not invent that claim. I have heard it from many experts on comparative religions including Ravi Zacharias, Dr White and others. Do you dissagree? What other religious texts require and offers this to every believer? Gimmme verses not books please.

The reason had I asked if you were sure about that is that I’m wondering why a religion would even exist apart from some expectation of deity-man contact.

Here are some passages from another religion’s (Hinduism) text, the Bhagavad Gita, which encourage contact between God and man:

“Adore Me only with heart undistracted; turn all your thought toward solitude, spurning the noise of the crowd, its fruitless commotion” (13:10).

“He gives Me all his heart, he worships Me in faith and love: that yogi, above every other, I call My very own” (6:47).

“Devote your whole mind to Me, and practice yoga. Take Me for your only refuge. By doing this, you can know Me in My total reality, without any shadow of doubt” (7:1).

“Great in soul are they who become what is godlike: they alone know Me, the origin, the deathless: they offer Me the homage of an unwavering mind. Praising My might with heart and lips for ever, striving for the virtue that wins Me, and steadfast in all their vows, they worship adoring, one with Me always” (9:13, 14).

“Whatever your action, food or worship; whatever the gift that you give to another; whatever you vow to the work of the spirit: O son of Kunti, lay these also as offerings before Me. Thus you will free yourself from both the good and the evil effects of your actions. Offer up everything to me. If your heart is united with Me, you will be set free from karma even in this life, and come to Me at the last. My face is equal to all creation, loving no one nor hating any. Nevertheless, My devotees dwell within Me always: I also show forth and am seen within them. Though a man be soiled with the sins of a lifetime, let him but love Me, rightly resolved, in utter devotion: I see no sinner, that man is holy. Holiness soon shall refashion his nature to peace eternal; O son of Kunti, of this be certain: the man that loves Me, he shall not perish” (9:27-31).

“Those whose minds are fixed on Me in steadfast love, worshipping Me with absolute faith, I consider them to have the greater understanding of yoga…Quickly I come to those who offer Me every action, worship Me only, their dearest delight, with devotion undaunted. Because they love Me these are My bondsmen and I shall save them from mortal sorrow and all the waves of Life’s deathly ocean” (12:2, 6, 7).

“He who is free from delusion, and knows Me as the supreme Reality, knows all that can be known. Therefore he adores Me with his whole heart” (15:19).

“On Him let man meditate always, for then at the last hour of going hence from his body he will be strong in the strength of this yoga, faithfully followed: the mind is firm, and the heart so full, it hardly holds its love. Thus he will take his leave: and now, with the life-force indrawn utterly, held fast between the eyebrows, he goes forth to find his Lord, that light-giver, who is greatest” (8:10).

“You find yourself in this transient, joyless world. Turn from it, and take your delight in me. Fill your heart and mind with Me, adore Me, make all your acts an offering to Me, bow down to Me in self-surrender. If you set your heart upon Me thus, and take Me for your ideal above all others, you will come into My Being” (9:33, 34).

“Be absorbed in Me, lodge your mind in me: thus you shall dwell in Me, do not doubt it, here and hereafter” (12:8).

“Who sees his Lord, within every creature, deathlessly dwelling amidst the mortal: that man sees truly. Thus ever aware of the Omnipresent always about him, he offers no outrage to his own Atman, hides the face of God beneath ego no longer: therefore he reaches that bliss which is highest. Who sees the separate lives of all creatures united in Brahman brought forth from Brahman, himself finds Brahman” (13:27, 28, 30).
​

Not that hard but I have debated these issues for years and watched debates from most major religions. I have never heard another religion claim that their religion offers and demands a spiritual experience from every believer. The only person I have heard make a significant claim to supernatural experiences was based on a philosophy. Taoism I believe and not too convincing. Keep in mind I do believe that the experiences are promised by other religions but only in rare cases, also I do not consider enlightenment or the like to be supernatural or probbably even real.

I don’t think I know of any religion that “demands” a spiritual experience from it’s adherents. I think it’s safe to say, however,that God isn’t limited by man-made religious boundaries, and bestows such experiences to anyone, regardless of belief.

 

[1robin]

The reason had I asked if you were sure about that is that I’m wondering why a religion would even exist apart from some expectation of deity-man contact.

I don't know why either but many oriental religious/philosophies among others do so.

Here are some passages from another religion’s (Hinduism) text, the Bhagavad Gita, which encourage contact between God and man:

I did not expect to see this and it is a competent counter to my claim but it is definitely not what I was talking about. This was the latest statement I had made in a series of them that have varying levels of detail:

Christianity is the only faith that requires and demands contact between God and man.

I will have to clarify what I meant. I am not saying anything new as this is a common claim I make and I do so in differing levels of detail. Christianity says man is born spiritually dead and separated from God. God rectified this by sending Christ and anyone who does not reject that truth is saved: That means that the Holy Spirit (God) comes to live in our heart. At the time this happens years of guilt produced by sin is removed and is a noticeable and unmistakable event, the conscience is quickened and sin becomes far more undesirable, many times people speak in tongues they do not know (not most of the time), depression associated with loss is removed or lessened and is unmistakable, the fear of death is removed or lessened. This experience is required as the entrance exam so to speak of Christianity and anyone who has not been "born again" is not a Christian and is not heaven bound. This experience can be far more profound as in tongues of fire in the upper room. It can come with prophecy or in Paul’s case Christ shows up and speaks. Now then let's compare these verses of yours.

"Adore Me only with heart undistracted; turn all your thought toward solitude, spurning the noise of the crowd, its fruitless commotion" (13:10).

There is no mention of reciprocity and this seems to only direct someone to seek earthly solace.

"He gives Me all his heart, he worships Me in faith and love: that yogi, above every other, I call My very own" (6:47).

This one is very confusing it seems to be saying God will worship the man. That has major issues. If not then it is only a direction for an attitude toward a deity. That deity does not need to even exist for this to be followed.

"Devote your whole mind to Me, and practice yoga. Take Me for your only refuge. By doing this, you can know Me in My total reality, without any shadow of doubt" (7:1).

I am not sure what is implied as far as knowing goes. Another issue is that a finite mind cannot comprehend fully (totally) and infinite one. There are major philosophical issues here as well as no specific claims as to what it is to know him. There is no way to know if that has happened or not.

"Great in soul are they who become what is godlike: they alone know Me, the origin, the deathless: they offer Me the homage of an unwavering mind. Praising My might with heart and lips for ever, striving for the virtue that wins Me, and steadfast in all their vows, they worship adoring, one with Me always" (9:13, 14).

How could a normal human become Godlike. If a follower can raise the dead or create planets then once seen I would change my mind. Deathless seems to be a strange claim here. Maybe you could tell me what it is that could happen that would be identified as a fulfillment of this verse. I have never heard anyone say they had achieved this whatever it is.

"Whatever your action, food or worship; whatever the gift that you give to another; whatever you vow to the work of the spirit: O son of Kunti, lay these also as offerings before Me. Thus you will free yourself from both the good and the evil effects of your actions.

Is there a single person that could actually say he reached a state where he is not effected by the consequences of his actions? What a strange claim.

I also show forth and am seen within them. Though a man be soiled with the sins of a lifetime, let him but love Me, rightly resolved, in utter devotion: I see no sinner, that man is holy. Holiness soon shall refashion his nature to peace eternal; O son of Kunti, of this be certain: the man that loves Me, he shall not perish" (9:27-31).

Exactly what is utter devotion. If I screw up once am I still devoted, what about twice. Any meaningful performance standard used as criteria is impossible and illogical. That is another subject. Has there ever been a single example of someone not perishing in this faith. There is in Christianity.

"Those whose minds are fixed on Me in steadfast love, worshipping Me with absolute faith, Quickly I come to those who offer Me every action, worship Me only, their dearest delight, with devotion undaunted. Because they love Me these are My bondsmen and I shall save them from mortal sorrow and all the waves of Life’s deathly ocean" (12:2, 6, 7).

Is there someone somewhere that could honestly claim that they have been completely spared from mortal sorrow and life's troubles? If there are I have never heard of them or seen them. Also almost all these have requirements and do not apply to every true believer.

"He who is free from delusion, and knows Me as the supreme Reality, knows all that can be known. Therefore he adores Me with his whole heart" (15:19).

This is not even possible and so has no example. It also is conditional and does not seem to be something that is performed by the deity on the believer but something the believer has produced by effort.
　
I will have to break this into two posts.

​

 

[1robin]

"On Him let man meditate always, for then at the last hour of going hence from his body he will be strong in the strength of this yoga, faithfully followed: the mind is firm, and the heart so full, it hardly holds its love. Thus he will take his leave: and now, with the life-force indrawn utterly, held fast between the eyebrows, (8:10).

This sounds like a bad trip. All these seem to be somewhat describing a level of achievement gained by work and not a capability bestowed on them from the deity. They would sound just as at home in a martial arts dojo.
　
　
　

"You find yourself in this transient, joyless world. Turn from it, and take your delight in me. Fill your heart and mind with Me, adore Me, make all your acts an offering to Me, bow down to Me in self-surrender. If you set your heart upon Me thus, and take Me for your ideal above all others, you will come into My Being" (9:33, 34).

I am beginning to see a pattern here. The religion is what I have always said all are with the exception of Christianity. Man's effort to reach God. They do not seem consistent with God's efforts to reach man. In Christianity the relationship was earned and paid for by God in this one and most others it seems as if the deity demands you come up to where he is and then you will have some very vague and sometimes illogical or impossible ability or understanding.

"Be absorbed in Me, lodge your mind in me: thus you shall dwell in Me, do not doubt it, here and hereafter" (12:8).

There is no description of anything that would be recognized when gained. These are very vague goals that have no identifiable character. Many religions make great efforts to sound religious but because they are not from God wind up being very vague, making impossible promises, and giving no clear path or a recognizable destination.
　
　
　

"Who sees his Lord, within every creature, deathlessly dwelling amidst the mortal: that man sees truly. Thus ever aware of the Omnipresent always about him, he offers no outrage to his own Atman, hides the face of God beneath ego no longer: therefore he reaches that bliss which is highest. Who sees the separate lives of all creatures united in Brahman brought forth from Brahman, himself finds Brahman" (13:27, 28, 30).

This is the closest to a counter claim you posted it actually does give a recognizable goal however it sounds very conditional and is another example of demanding that man claw their way up to God because he will not come down here. There are some other philosophical issues here but it would take much time to expound on them. There is a kind of Joke about eastern religions. That everyone knows someone who achieved enlightenment but no one can find or produce anyone that claims "they" have achieved it. In other words it is always someone somewhere who has but can't ever be found.
　
　

I don’t think I know of any religion that "demands" a spiritual experience from it’s adherents.

I think it’s safe to say, however, that God isn’t limited by man-made religious boundaries, and bestows such experiences to anyone, regardless of belief.

That is my point Christianity demands and offers proof to every believer. It is the entrance point to the actual relationship. Others hint at one and even some mention vaguely some references to it or some form of it but none guarantees it for every follower. Which is the most fitting concept or characteristic of a true religion. If Christianity was false then it demands of every believer something it couldn't deliver and would have died in the cradle. Since it isn't false and does deliver as promised it has survived every attack or persecution to be the greatest religion and has not resorted to forced conversion in any general way. I want feedback and verification of my God. I do not want to stumble around in the dark having at best a superficial intellectual agreement to a world view or chasing some vague illusive God who demands very strange and sometimes impossible standards before he could be accessed.

In summary you have made a very competent counter claim. Technically I would have to partially concede the point. However as you seem sincere and are not here to win an argument I do not think the premise behind my claims in substance has been overturned. Christianity says every person who does not reject the truth will receive divine confirmation. Even the best of other religions say that confirmation is available but doesn't say what it is beyond a vague flowery implication and is only available to people who can claw their way up to God. The rest have no claims worth considering and some none at all and even others not even a deity at all.

 

[Astravalon]

1robin, I'm not really interested in debating the finer points of the Gita verses I provided, as I don't believe it's relevant to the discussion.

The main issue I was addressing by sharing them was your original claim (in post #2451) that Christianity was the only faith that requires and demands contact between God and man. I responded by demonstrating, via those Gita verses, that this is not the case. The God-man contact element is very much present in those verses, which was the only point I wanted to make.

Whatever other aspects of those verses a Christian would have a problem with are not my concern; I don't have a horse in that race since I realize that interpretation of religious texts varies from person to person anyway.

We may want to just leave it at that, because in your attempts to pick apart the Gita verses, you appear to me to be picking apart crucial aspects of your own bible, since I see so much similarity between them.

Speaking of the similarities, the Bhagavad Gita has been around a lot longer than the bible. Makes me wonder who got their material from whom.

 

[1robin]

1robin, I'm not really interested in debating the finer points of the Gita verses I provided, as I don't believe it's relevant to the discussion.

The meanings or character of what is claimed in those verses has a direct bearing on whether they are equal to the claims in the bible I was referring to. I know why you posted what you did and I said I can give you a certain measure of credit for making a correct counter claim. However I pointed out the larger issue that is what was behind my statement (the character of the experience) which makes your claims less than completely adaquite.

The main issue I was addressing by sharing them was your original claim (in post #2451) that Christianity was the only faith that requires and demands contact between God and man. I responded by demonstrating, via those Gita verses, that this is not the case. The God-man contact element is very much present in those verses, which was the only point I wanted to make.

I gave and still give you partial credit for haveing done so. It is so rare for anyone to concede anything in these forums I would think you would be very satasfied by that. However I pointed out the that simple statement wasn't made with the intention of defining a position by whch things are evaluated. I said that simple statement was part of a larger theme or point that I consistently make that has much more substance to it and less general claims. That is why there is still a significant meaningfull difference between the claims your verses made and what the bible makes. For example there are very few specifics only general claims that are more implications than descriptions. They are more or less conditional and appear to be rare cases which futher seperates them from the bibles in character. Technically you have a some what valid point but justice is not served by claiming the two texts make equal statements concerning contact with God. Especially since I said every believer, with the demands and offers qualifier which make even a technical success a stretch. I was more concerned with examining the issues not who technically won a word fight and I thought you were as well.

Whatever other aspects of those verses a Christian would have a problem with are not my concern; I don't have a horse in that race since I realize that interpretation of religious texts varies from person to person anyway.

That was not the focus of my post.

We may want to just leave it at that, because in your attempts to pick apart the Gita verses, you appear to me to be picking apart crucial aspects of your own bible, since I see so much similarity between them.

I actually was using the post as a learning experience. I found those verses so vague and general that I wanted to gain more specifics and detail in a response by pointing out my issues with them. However if you wish to drop the subject I must respect that.

Speaking of the similarities, the Bhagavad Gita has been around a lot longer than the bible. Makes me wonder who got their material from whom.

That only is true if you ignore the oral tradition that far predates writing in any culture for the bible. It also negates the reliability issue. Time is a far less crucial an issue than reliability.

 

[Astravalon]

[/color]
I gave and still give you partial credit for haveing done so. It is so rare for anyone to concede anything in these forums I would think you would be very satasfied by that.

Okay, first of all, I’m not here to get credit from anyone, so please don’t worry about that. I derive my satisfaction form a Source waaay outside the confines of a random online forum in cyberspace.

However I pointed out the that simple statement wasn't made with the intention of defining a position by whch things are evaluated. I said that simple statement was part of a larger theme or point that I consistently make that has much more substance to it and less general claims.

My previous response was focusing more precisely on your very specific request, which was pertaining to the existence of other religious texts which require and offer contact between God and man. Whatever other rabbit-trails it generates is fodder for another thread, and, like I already said, interpretation of religious texts varies from person to person anyway.

That is why there is still a significant meaningfull difference between the claims your verses made and what the bible makes. For example there are very few specifics only general claims that are more implications than descriptions.

They’re similar, not identical. The Gita is not the bible, and the bible is not the Gita. However, my post was not intended to demonstrate similarities between the Gita and Bible, but rather to answer your specific question regarding contact between God and man.

They are more or less conditional and appear to be rare cases which futher seperates them from the bibles in character. Technically you have a some what valid point but justice is not served by claiming the two texts make equal statements concerning contact with God.

Again, they are presented simply to demonstrate that Christianity is not the only religion in which contact between God and man is involved. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course a Christian is going to want to argue against the Gita (or any non-Christian religious text) line by line, but that’s their business. Like I said, I don’t have a horse in that race, being that I don’t identify as either Christian or Hindu.

Especially since I said every believer, with the demands and offers qualifier which make even a technical success a stretch. I was more concerned with examining the issues not who technically won a word fight and I thought you were as well.

It’s ironic you mention winning a word fight as I was the one who wanted to just give this a rest once I had demonstrated what I had with the Gita. Perhaps you’re projecting just a little on that point?

That only is true if you ignore the oral tradition that far predates writing in any culture for the bible. It also negates the reliability issue. Time is a far less crucial an issue than reliability.

Speaking of which, Hinduism has been around far longer than Christianity.

 

[1robin]

Okay, first of all, I’m not here to get credit from anyone, so please don’t worry about that. I derive my satisfaction form a Source waaay outside the confines of a random online forum in cyberspace.

That may very well be true for you and I must respect that. In my case I am here to defend Christianity (which demands getting to bottom of things) and that requires more than a surface discussion. I am also here to learn about and critique other claims which also requires more than a casual glance at verses or concepts. For instance many people claim that all religions are the same. On closer inspection however they make contradictory claims and so can't all be true. My purpose here requires me to cut through misconceptions and or misunderstandings and arrive at facts. If this contradicts your purpose it is your right to say so. My purpose usually demands quite a bit of debate to seperate wheat from chaff and if that is not desired by you I am probably not the one to diologue with.

My previous response was focusing more precisely on your very specific request, which was pertaining to the existence of other religious texts which require and offer contact between God and man. Whatever other rabbit-trails it generates is fodder for another thread, and, like I already said, interpretation of religious texts varies from person to person anyway.

Just in that one claim I made, especially when the rest of that claim (made countless times in these threads) is taken into account consists of Christianity as the only religion that requires and provides spiritual proof of a deity to every believer. My critique of your verses was to show that as I have said many times other religions do offer or claim to offer a supernatural experience (usually couched in very cryptic and vague language) that is usually highly conditional and available to only a few. There by showing that the ones you posted did not really contradict my claim. There is a infinate difference between supernatural proof for all and one that requires drastic criteria be met and is only available to a few. It is similar to the test for a prophet. The bible says even false prophets do some prophecy and miraculous works but only the ones from God are 100% accurate.

They’re similar, not identical. The Gita is not the bible, and the bible is not the Gita. However, my post was not intended to demonstrate similarities between the Gita and Bible, but rather to answer your specific question regarding contact between God and man.

The differences between them holds a vast amount of meaning and are very important for any one who desires truth. I take this stuff very seriously. In a wager that involves the soul every effort must be made to arrive at pure uncontaminated truth (or as close as posible) and eliminate things that masqerade as truth.

Again, they are presented simply to demonstrate that Christianity is not the only religion in which contact between God and man is involved. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course a Christian is going to want to argue against the Gita (or any non-Christian religious text) line by line, but that’s their business. Like I said, I don’t have a horse in that race, being that I don’t identify as either Christian or Hindu.

Your verses meet the criteria I have stated that other religions offer spiritual experiences but only to the privaledged few. I can not overemphasize the importance on that fact. It is far easier for a person to swallow a religion that only claims that some people somewhere have contact with God than one the requires and offers this to every single follower. It is very unlikely that someone who created a false religion would offer something to every believer that it could not deliver. That religion would have died in the cradle. On the other hand it is far easier for a false religion to survive if it only offers this to someone somewhere. This is far more important that I think you realise.

It’s ironic you mention winning a word fight as I was the one who wanted to just give this a rest once I had demonstrated what I had with the Gita. Perhaps you’re projecting just a little on that point?

I think you are confusing a very strong and necessary desire to root out false hoods from truth no matter how deeply hid as being competative. I was contrasting the motivation of proving a point at all costs verses finding the truth at all costs. As in archeology to seperate what is desired from the dirt that not desired the sample must be agitated.

Speaking of which, Hinduism has been around far longer than Christianity.

Christianity has it's roots in Judaism. The two are inexorably linked and may be easily said to be the same religion. I do not see how it can be known that anything is older than the oral traditions that were eventually recorded as the bible. Once you go back past writing there is no reliable way to sort out what is older than what and it has nothing to do with what is true anyway. If you wish the discussion of this subject to terminate here then I will of course respect that but I feel that we have not come to a clear uncontaminated resolution.

Shalom,
I am interested in leaning more about Hinduism, if you feel qualified to speak on the subject, but I will warn you I will challenge your beliefs in the interest of truth but my purpose is what I have stated not to win anything.

 

[Gui10]

The right religion would be the one commanded by the real god. So that would be Islam, oh wait no it would be Christianity, oh wait no maybe its Judaism... I dont know.