the right religion

[1robin]

Your feeling is not proof.

If you had felt it you would not claim that. No other force known can instantly eliminate years of depression over loss of loved ones, guilt, and moral decline. I drank and did many other things that I had had been struggling without success to stop for years. I not only instantly abhorred them but lost all physical need or desire for them. I instantly knew things I had wondered about for years. I cursed like a sailor (I am a Navy vet BTW). I not only lost any desire to do it I could not stand to hear it for weeks afterwards. It also matched in every way the description of salvation given in the Bible that I was unaware even existed. I knew God at that moment not Biblical doctrine and had never heard the term born again. yet that is the only term I arrived at to explain what happened to myself. That is independent convergent confirmation. I instantly felt a comradeship with believers who shortly before I felt out of place around. I can go on but I do not think it would help. That is subjective proof. If I was healed by the only medication on Earth claimed to fix my ailment that would be proof it exists and works. However I not only argued from a billion examples of experience but doctrine as well and that was not even addressed.

 

[Ingledsva]

If you had felt it you would not claim that. No other force known can instantly eliminate years of depression over loss of loved ones, guilt, and moral decline. I drank and did many other things that I had had been struggling without success to stop for years. I not only instantly abhorred them but lost all physical need or desire for them. I instantly knew things I had wondered about for years. I cursed like a sailor (I am a Navy vet BTW). I not only lost any desire to do it I could not stand to hear it for weeks afterwards. It also matched in every way the description of salvation given in the Bible that I was unaware even existed. I knew God at that moment not Biblical doctrine and had never heard the term born again. yet that is the only term I arrived at to explain what happened to myself. That is independent convergent confirmation. I instantly felt a comradeship with believers who shortly before I felt out of place around. I can go on but I do not think it would help. That is subjective proof. If I was healed by the only medication on Earth claimed to fix my ailment that would be proof it exists and works. However I not only argued from a billion examples of experience but doctrine as well and that was not even addressed.

The human brain alone can do that.

Also as stated, other people from other religions have claimed similar experiences, so how is your religion any different, or the only correct one?

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you had felt it you would not claim that. No other force known can instantly eliminate years of depression over loss of loved ones, guilt, and moral decline.

I had fear and worry removed from myself and to this very day I never worry. I did the exact opposite and I disacknowledge the name of Jesus and started believing in God alone.
Funny because what I felt was not the removal of fear but the removal of Christianity. The cause of fear, the fear of hell and the fear of death and confusion. Specifics are fuzzy but for you to say your God has done so much yet so many people claim the exact same so this is quite a fickle claim.

So to say "no other force can..." is quite absurd as I know plenty of forces can. Did you know I take much delight in reciting the Hare Krisna Mantra? Saying Bismillah also has positive effects as well. Yet none of these have anything to do with your god. This is all subjective.
To me you associate god in a highly improper and offensive manner (to both god and man) and designate lower attributes to him which are assuredly the conjurings of men and not the Lord of the cosmos themselves.

 

[Philomath]

Don't worry about that. It was a unimportant side note.

Ok then.

However many of the major religious texts claim to be revelation. So if there is no revelation of what value are claims falsely attributed to God. My point is that either revelation as we have it is a great evil or a great good. It must be either dismissed or evaluated and some form of it adopted. I think the worst position is to claim it good but not divine. As C.S Lewis said: Christ was either a madman or divine.The claim he was simply a good teacher history has not made available.

I don't buy into revelation because there's no evidence for it.It's far too easy to make claims of revelation. I believe Jesus was divine in the same way that we are all divine.

I was speaking potentially. There exists much evidence to believe the afterlife is potentially an issue we should recon with now. One thing is for sure if there is one and we have not done so at death there is no further opportunity to do so if any of the major theologies are true. I was a non believer for 27 years but it was the fact that I decide the issue demanded that I ethier determine it true or false. That led me to experience God personally even though I went kicking and screaming most of the way.

Until there is verifiable evidence for the existence of an afterlife I won't believe in one. I don't exclude the possibility. I believe in reincarnation but not an afterlife, and quite frankly I don't care for an afterlife. Even though I believe in reincarnation I understand that there is no evidence that supports the Idea of it.

Christianity claims Christ died and rose for our sins and there is no other name by which men may be saved. Islam claims he did not die for our sins and is not the messiah. They claim that believing that God is one, Muhammad is his prophet, and if we merit it we get into heaven (which is a logical absurdity). Hinduism claims we are re-incarnated perpetually until we reach enlightenment. One or none of those may be true. The only thing that is obvious as more than one can't be. There are a million other exclusive claims but I do not have he time to list any more.

Personally I believe in neither religions claims about Jesus death. I don't believe anyone is a prophet. No one has a monopoly on truth.

You seem to have lost many of the points and questions I made. Christianity may be true or false but the one thing known for sure is it is exclusive. According to the Bible Muhammad is a false prophet. I think your position is actually based on the lack of a position. If we are discussing what food or author is best there is no need to resolve the issue. The very nature of theology demands we take a stand for something and Christianity makes clear that indecision is disaster. In the immortal words of the rock band Rush. "If you chose not to decide you have still made a choice", "There is no hero in neutrality".

You seem to be focusing too much on Christianity and Islam. I draw what I feel to be true, wise, and logical from all religions. Their are of course aspects of religious beliefs which I don't believe in. I also stated that earlier. I accept the fact that all religions have truths but all religions are not the definitive truth...nothing is. Particularly from Christianity I focus almost solely on the ethical and moral teachings from Jesus and his sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas. From Islam I draw on the knowledge of Sufi saints. I don't have a position on Muhammad as I've read nothing about him yet. I've only heard things about him from others. Lastly, can you show my where the Bible says Muhammad is a false prophet?

 

[Ingledsva]

The scriptures are the inspired word of YAH, who is the source of truth, this what I meant to say. lol

So "YOU" think.

*

 

[Ridwando]

If you had felt it you would not claim that. No other force known can instantly eliminate years of depression over loss of loved ones, guilt, and moral decline. I drank and did many other things that I had had been struggling without success to stop for years. I not only instantly abhorred them but lost all physical need or desire for them. I instantly knew things I had wondered about for years. I cursed like a sailor (I am a Navy vet BTW). I not only lost any desire to do it I could not stand to hear it for weeks afterwards. It also matched in every way the description of salvation given in the Bible that I was unaware even existed. I knew God at that moment not Biblical doctrine and had never heard the term born again. yet that is the only term I arrived at to explain what happened to myself. That is independent convergent confirmation. I instantly felt a comradeship with believers who shortly before I felt out of place around. I can go on but I do not think it would help. That is subjective proof. If I was healed by the only medication on Earth claimed to fix my ailment that would be proof it exists and works. However I not only argued from a billion examples of experience but doctrine as well and that was not even addressed.

Indeed, but is it reasonable to expect people to accept that Christianity is the right religion based on the experiences reported by others? If I told you that Islam has had the same effect on me, would it sway you even a little bit towards considering that Islam might be the right religion? It wouldn't, and it shouldn't, because subjective evidence isn't evidence at all.

Regarding C.S. Lewis' remark that Jesus was either a madman or divine - I believe this is a false dichotomy. It really is an over-simplification of reality, a ploy that incidentally Muslim apologists are also fond of using in their attempts to prove that Mohammad was a prophet of God. A person can be deluded without being a madman, truly convinced in the divinity of his own mission.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Truly there is no right religion but only a progressive understanding of what is right int he nature of god.

 

[Muffled]

Except that you see it that way because you think Jesus is God.

To me (if he existed,) he would just be another prophet.

I believe I see it that way because it is that way.

However even if you envisioned Him that way, one would expect you to believe His words and His words make it clear that He is God in the flesh.

 

[Muffled]

The point you seem to be missing is that - YOU - see it as a bar of gold. There is no proof of such to those of us outside the religions of Abraham.

I believe it is provable and any idea that there isn't comes from a pre-conceived notion that doesn't take the arguments into account. (Previous posts on this thread by me)

 

[Muffled]

Indeed, but is it reasonable to expect people to accept that Christianity is the right religion based on the experiences reported by others? If I told you that Islam has had the same effect on me, would it sway you even a little bit towards considering that Islam might be the right religion? It wouldn't, and it shouldn't, because subjective evidence isn't evidence at all.

Regarding C.S. Lewis' remark that Jesus was either a madman or divine - I believe this is a false dichotomy. It really is an over-simplification of reality, a ploy that incidentally Muslim apologists are also fond of using in their attempts to prove that Mohammad was a prophet of God. A person can be deluded without being a madman, truly convinced in the divinity of his own mission.

It is objective truth that Jesus said it would happen. If it happens to a Muslim, He becomes a Christian.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Written religion is temporaneous but religion given instantly by Jesus is contemporaneous and if He wills eternal.

On the contrary:

ALL religions contain two types of teachings, spiritual/eternal and social.

Spiritual teachings dont' change, and include such things as:

• There is a God.
• You're here for a reason.
• Don't murder.

and so on.

Social teachings are intentionally temporary and apply to a given Age (though sometimes retained for later ones as well), such as:

• laws of marriage and divorce
• fasting
• administrative laws and procedures
• prayer

Peace,

Bruce

 

[1robin]

On the contrary:

ALL religions contain two types of teachings, spiritual/eternal and social.

Spiritual teachings dont' change, and include such things as:

• There is a God.
• You're here for a reason.
• Don't murder.

Hello Bruce. I'm bored so I thought I would bother you for a bit. You say here that do not murder is a spiritual teaching and does not change. I agree it does not change but why is it a spiritual teaching and not a social one?

and so on.

Social teachings are intentionally temporary and apply to a given Age (though sometimes retained for later ones as well), such as:

• laws of marriage and divorce
• fasting
• administrative laws and procedures
• prayer

Peace,

Bruce

I agree this except for prayer. Why is it not in the spiritual category?

 

[1robin]

The human brain alone can do that.

Also as stated, other people from other religions have claimed similar experiences, so how is your religion any different, or the only correct one?

I have debated over a hundred Muslims. Only one claimed anything even similar. I have never debated any one from any other faith that claimed anything similar to what I did. I am aware that other religions offer a spiritual experience however it is usually something gained by only a few and in every discussion I have it is always claimed for someone else and not the person I am talking to. In Christianity it is true of every Christian. In others it is some Yogi or Guru that lives on a mountaintop somewhere. You can’t equate things that are not even remotely equal because the might have a slight similarity or two. A basketball and the Earth are not equal just because both are round.

No human brain alone can account for everything I mentioned. Not even to mention that even if it could the chances it would occur at the exact moment a spiritual roadmap was followed to it's terminus is virtually zero. When the fact that it would have had to occur at the same exact point for well over a billion people the odds just get silly. The brain also can't produce convergent confirmation or the fact I assigned the same term the Bible did to my experience before I was aware of the Bible's use of the term. These counter explanations for inconvenient historical and personal facts just don't make sense and I do not know what the conceivable benefit of them is supposed to be. What explains the historical facts agreed on by most NT scholars on both sides (historicity of Christ, his execution, and the empty tomb) is his resurrection. Why invent an alternate explanation that has virtually zero probability? What is the point? It sounds a lot like what conspiracy theorists do when countless inconvenient facts are given by scholars. Most of the time the bizarre natural explanations invented for spiritual claims are so unlikely they would have been an even greater miracle than what is claimed.

 

[1robin]

I had fear and worry removed from myself and to this very day I never worry. I did the exact opposite and I disacknowledge the name of Jesus and started believing in God alone.

Funny because what I felt was not the removal of fear but the removal of Christianity. The cause of fear, the fear of hell and the fear of death and confusion. Specifics are fuzzy but for you to say your God has done so much yet so many people claim the exact same so this is quite a fickle claim.

I suppose if you fell off a cliff but were somehow able to forget you were falling it would be of some relief until reality imposed it's self on you through the facts you dismissed. This is not an equivalent experience to what I described. To say both the stove is hot and the Sun is hot will never equate the two. What you have described has no bearing upon what I did. This appears to be a simple emotional response to the ignoring of possible facts you have no ability to dismiss.

So to say "no other force can..." is quite absurd as I know plenty of forces can. Did you know I take much delight in reciting the Hare Krisna Mantra? Saying Bismillah also has positive effects as well. Yet none of these have anything to do with your god. This is all subjective.

There are no forces even claimed to do what I described. Only after years of meditation are Guru's and Yogis even able to do something as meaningless as lower their metabolism and only remote mysterious holy men on other religions mountain tops are said to have achieved enlightenment. However every single Christian became one by instantly having his guilt removed for a lifetime of sin. No other force (not therapy, not hypnosis, not even drugs) even claim to be able to do this. Seeing people equate things because they have a supposed superficial similarity in a few aspects is not going to resolve the issue. First find me a equal claim in another religions doctrine, then one that is promised or guaranteed to every single follower it their entrance into the faith, then find me a significant number of the religions adherents that even claim to have experienced it. Without even debating what is true of false historically no other religion even makes the same spiritual and miraculous claims that Christianity does. Find me an equivalent not a similarity with a supposed common factor and then and only then can we debate the historicity of the claim.

To me you associate god in a highly improper and offensive manner (to both god and man) and designate lower attributes to him which are assuredly the conjuring’s of men and not the Lord of the cosmos themselves.

My claims about God are the exact same that the Apostles made and that orthodox protestant Christianity has made for hundreds of years. If you find that offensive it is of little concern to me. It is intuitive and God given human nature to expect a supernatural source to perform supernatural feats and the most cherished religious text on Earth offers them in abundance. It is irrational and illogical to claim that a God who does not or will not demonstrate his supernatural power is in any way superior to one that knows our needs and met them with 2500 prophecies, historical miracles, and personal forgiveness. You have a deistic faith I believe. I find that completely inconsistent on every level with benevolence and a classically defined deistic God is irrelevant even if he does exist which is impossible by definition to even know to begin with. That is probably why the classic definition of deism has been found so wanting and warped into a thousand different versions.

 

[1robin]

Ok then.

Sorry I diverge from time to time.

I don't buy into revelation because there's no evidence for it.It's far too easy to make claims of revelation. I believe Jesus was divine in the same way that we are all divine.

Claiming something is easy is not an argument that it is wrong. Jesus raised the dead unless you can do the same then in what way are we divine as he was? As I said revelation if not from God is an evil philosophy or if from God is a perfect truth. There is no third option left open.

Until there is verifiable evidence for the existence of an afterlife I won't believe in one.

There have been literally millions of things not known at one point that were in fact true. I regard this methodology as potentially disastrous. Faith is based on a conclusion drawn from evidence. The greatest experts on evidence in history (Like Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) affirm that the Gospels are reliable by all modern methods of determining such things. Not proof just reliable testimony.

I don't exclude the possibility. I believe in reincarnation but not an afterlife, and quite frankly I don't care for an afterlife. Even though I believe in reincarnation I understand that there is no evidence that supports the Idea of it.

Why would you consider the evidence for reincarnation better than any othe type of after life? I have always found reincarnation irrational. What God would demand I suffer for sins I have no recollection of and were committed by a will I no longer poses. Fortunately I have never found reasonable evidence it is true.

Personally I believe in neither religions claims about Jesus death. I don't believe anyone is a prophet. No one has a monopoly on truth.

My claims were a demonstration that different religions can't all be true not a proof the Bible is true. It is far more consistent with a benevolent God to provide a single revelation than to bury bits of truth in mountains of man made garbage that is inconsistent with each other.

You seem to be focusing too much on Christianity and Islam.

Well I have experienced God directly through Christianity and Islam is number two as far as size goes so my concentration of them is rational if not complete.

I draw what I feel to be true, wise, and logical from all religions.

A god (and many things in science) aren't and shouldn't necessarily be accessible through our wisdom. Our minds are finite and faulty, there is little chance our reasoning is a basis (alone) through which a perfect and infinite mind may be comprehended. A far more logical method is the comprehension f what that God did in the way of reaching us. The Bible is about what I would expect a God to produce (a benevolent God at least). Our choices and capacity are a very unreliable for governing ourselves much less comprehending supernatural fact.

Their are of course aspects of religious beliefs which I don't believe in. I also stated that earlier. I accept the fact that all religions have truths but all religions are not the definitive truth...nothing is.

If revelation does not exist on what basis do you determine which claim to revelation is true. We must have revelation to evaluate revelation in a manner of speaking.

Particularly from Christianity I focus almost solely on the ethical and moral teachings from Jesus and his sayings found in the Gospel of Thomas.

The Gospel of Thomas is not a accepted text in Christianity. It also has a pedigree so unsubstantiated it is not even a reliable historical document. Many things in it seem like rational teaching but it can't be called Christian or apostolic.

From Islam I draw on the knowledge of Sufi saints. I don't have a position on Muhammad as I've read nothing about him yet. I've only heard things about him from others. Lastly, can you show my where the Bible says Muhammad is a false prophet?

There are in fact many places that indicate Muhammad was false prophet. It says that any prophet that claims Jesus was not the unique son of God is not only false but an anti-Christ. Muhammad is not from the line of prophets (Isaac's line) his lineage is unknown but he claims to be from Ishmael's line. Muhammad even when asked to do miracles as the former (Biblical prophets) had done, refused. Anyone claiming to have a supernatural being as a source should be able to demonstrate it as the Biblical authors had done. History records that he gave at least a few surah's that he later admitted came from Satan, he was at one time cursed, he killed poets who wrote unflattering things about him, he killed unarmed and tied up Jews by the hundreds, raided caravans for loot, etc... It was not that he killed that is the problem it is the reasons why. He borrowed from dozens of known heretical works, pagan, and gnostic sources, made historically inaccurate claims. It would take books (and they exist) to explain all the evidence that suggests he was not from God, but I must stop somewhere.

 

[1robin]

Indeed, but is it reasonable to expect people to accept that Christianity is the right religion based on the experiences reported by others? If I told you that Islam has had the same effect on me, would it sway you even a little bit towards considering that Islam might be the right religion? It wouldn't, and it shouldn't, because subjective evidence isn't evidence at all.

That was not the purpose my claims were made in. I made them to identify what Christianity claims and teaches not to prove it true. The personal claims of over a billion people are not to be dismissed but they alone are certainly not proof. I argue for the truth of Christianity in completely different ways.

Regarding C.S. Lewis' remark that Jesus was either a madman or divine - I believe this is a false dichotomy. It really is an over-simplification of reality, a ploy that incidentally Muslim apologists are also fond of using in their attempts to prove that Mohammad was a prophet of God. A person can be deluded without being a madman, truly convinced in the divinity of his own mission.

You are right about Muslim apologetics but I do not see how Lewis's claims fit your description. Jesus claimed to be the son of God and to be the only name under heaven by which men may be saved. He said to drink his blood and eat his flesh, to follow him above all others, to even prefer him over mother and father. If he was from God then these claims are good and rational. If he was not they are evil and illogical. What other option exists. To critique an argument from a scholar as qualified as Lewis would require substantial evidence, philosophy, and logic. I only saw an assertion here from you, all your work is still if front of you I think.

 

[Philomath]

Claiming something is easy is not an argument that it is wrong. Jesus raised the dead unless you can do the same then in what way are we divine as he was? As I said revelation if not from God is an evil philosophy or if from God is a perfect truth. There is no third option left open.

Do you have any proof that Jesus raised the dead? What I meant was that we are all a part of God making us all divine. As far as the revelation part I don't believe in it so that's all meaningless to me.

There have been literally millions of things not known at one point that were in fact true. I regard this methodology as potentially disastrous. Faith is based on a conclusion drawn from evidence. The greatest experts on evidence in history (Like Greenleaf and Lyndhurst) affirm that the Gospels are reliable by all modern methods of determining such things. Not proof just reliable testimony.

Well until there is verifiable scientific evidence for it.....I'm not going to believe in it. How are the gospels which aren't even first hand accounts of the events that took place, reliable testimony for anything?

Why would you consider the evidence for reincarnation better than any othe type of after life? I have always found reincarnation irrational. What God would demand I suffer for sins I have no recollection of and were committed by a will I no longer poses. Fortunately I have never found reasonable evidence it is true.

There is no evidence for reincarnation and in all honesty it's probably just wishful thinking on my part. I'll just have to wait and see what happens when I do die. I don't believe in sins or that God punishes you for them.

My claims were a demonstration that different religions can't all be true not a proof the Bible is true. It is far more consistent with a benevolent God to provide a single revelation than to bury bits of truth in mountains of man made garbage that is inconsistent with each other.

I don't believe the Bible is true, it may contain some truths but the entire Bible is not literally true. But the fact is though that all religions are man made.

Well I have experienced God directly through Christianity and Islam is number two as far as size goes so my concentration of them is rational if not complete.

Ok. Most of my beliefs stem from the Dharmic religions.

A god (and many things in science) aren't and shouldn't necessarily be accessible through our wisdom. Our minds are finite and faulty, there is little chance our reasoning is a basis (alone) through which a perfect and infinite mind may be comprehended. A far more logical method is the comprehension f what that God did in the way of reaching us. The Bible is about what I would expect a God to produce (a benevolent God at least). Our choices and capacity are a very unreliable for governing ourselves much less comprehending supernatural fact.

I'll agree with you there that are minds can't fully comprehend God. I don't believe God has reached out to humans. IMO the bible is a bad example of what I would expect from an All powerful God attempting to reach humanity.

If revelation does not exist on what basis do you determine which claim to revelation is true. We must have revelation to evaluate revelation in a manner of speaking.

I don't determine which revelation is true because I don't believe any of them are true.

The Gospel of Thomas is not a accepted text in Christianity. It also has a pedigree so unsubstantiated it is not even a reliable historical document. Many things in it seem like rational teaching but it can't be called Christian or apostolic.

Whether you personally don't accept the Gospel of Thomas the fact remains that it is a Christian text. What do you believe about it's pedigree that makes it so unsubstantiated? Rational teachings aren't Christian?

There are in fact many places that indicate Muhammad was false prophet. It says that any prophet that claims Jesus was not the unique son of God is not only false but an anti-Christ. Muhammad is not from the line of prophets (Isaac's line) his lineage is unknown but he claims to be from Ishmael's line. Muhammad even when asked to do miracles as the former (Biblical prophets) had done, refused. Anyone claiming to have a supernatural being as a source should be able to demonstrate it as the Biblical authors had done. History records that he gave at least a few surah's that he later admitted came from Satan, he was at one time cursed, he killed poets who wrote unflattering things about him, he killed unarmed and tied up Jews by the hundreds, raided caravans for loot, etc... It was not that he killed that is the problem it is the reasons why. He borrowed from dozens of known heretical works, pagan, and gnostic sources, made historically inaccurate claims. It would take books (and they exist) to explain all the evidence that suggests he was not from God, but I must stop somewhere.

Can you show my that exact bible verse? I'm sure Muslims would disagree with such a statement, and as far as I know Muhammad never did such a thing. All of the killings Muhammad did were no worse than the things God commanded in the Old testament to the Israelite's( that doesn't excuse it though). I don't think Muhammad along with any body else was a prophet.

 

[1robin]

Do you have any proof that Jesus raised the dead? What I meant was that we are all a part of God making us all divine. As far as the revelation part I don't believe in it so that's all meaningless to me.

I personally experienced God on the basis of that fact. The testimony in the Gospels meets all modern requirements for reliability. It is the most reliable conclusion from the accepted historical facts concerning Christ. The supernatural has been reported so many times it is probable that istexists. However I wasn't making the case for its truth. (that requires different argumentation). I was pointing out the inconsistency with the concept of Christ and our existence. Claiming we are part of God is a unknowable distinction without revelation. It is a claim without any meaningful evidence. Where do you get it from?

Well until there is verifiable scientific evidence for it.....I'm not going to believe in it.

Morality can't be produced by natural law. In fact nothing can be created by natural law. Unless you deny material and moral reality then you are being inconsistent. Science is hardly the arbiter of all truth. Many of the most profound concepts in human experience can't be accessed by science. It is one method by which a narrow band of reality can sometimes be verified.

How are the gospels which aren't even firsthand accounts of the events that took place, reliable testimony for anything?

They are firsthand accounts for countless supernatural events. I never said every word was and don't know why that would be relevant anyway. I am not even sure what your claiming here. Are you taking a certain level of uncertainty about an author or two and using that as an argument that all of it's obvious claims of eyewitnesses events are false? The two scholars names (among thousands) are some of history’s greatest experts on testimony and their conclusions are exactly opposite from yours.

There is no evidence for reincarnation and in all honesty it's probably just wishful thinking on my part. I'll just have to wait and see what happens when I do die. I don't believe in sins or that God punishes you for them.

I agree there is virtually no evidence. However the Guru's that believe in re-incarnation claim our role in the next life is determined by our sins in this one. You seem to be taking re-incarnation independently from the context it exists within. Why would you want it to be true? Unfortunately most of the texts that reveal the existence of an afterlife also claim that waiting until you experience it would be catastrophic. You seem to strip concepts from the context they are contained in and examine them independently from the texts they were revealed by.

I don't believe the Bible is true, it may contain some truths but the entire Bible is not literally true. But the fact is though that all religions are manmade.

I disagree but if you are right then they are evil and should be dismissed. I can understand dismissing them or believing them. I can't understand thinking they have any relevance apart from revelation.

Ok. Most of my beliefs stem from the Dharmic religions.

Oriental philosophy (pluralistic theology was derived from it) is a philosophic absurdity and so not an area I commonly mention in theological discussions. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism can be true or false. Oriental pluralism is rationally impossible. It is based on things that logic says are not rationally valid.

I'll agree with you there that are minds can't fully comprehend God. I don't believe God has reached out to humans. IMO the bible is a bad example of what I would expect from an All-powerful God attempting to reach humanity.

I did not mean it in the context of its specific contents. I meant it as an example of what must take place to comprehend God. He must reveal himself as our minds are not equipped to "riddle" him out of reality. I believe the Bible's contents are the best example of revelation but that was not the point I was making. I would expect supernatural acts, I would expect vast information concerning the areas humans desire information on the most (death, purpose, meaning, etc...), I would expect moral validation, I would expect a description of God to be omni-characteristic, I would expect cosmological truths unknown at the time to be revealed, I would expect prophecy. The Bible contains all of these and many more areas that are intuitive to expect of a benevolent God.

I don't determine which revelation is true because I don't believe any of them are true.

It sounds like this determination is based upon preference. I have not seen any attempts at evidence or philosophical reasons why you believe this. For example what do you do with over 2000 prophecies that are detailed and accurate given in the Bible? Issues like that demand accounting for not dismissal.

Whether you personally don't accept the Gospel of Thomas the fact remains that it is a Christian text. What do you believe about it's pedigree that makes it so unsubstantiated? Rational teachings aren't Christian?

That was not my determination (though I agree with it). It has never been an approved Christian document. It is not even a historically accepted document in general. It origins and authorship is a black hole that renders it's reliability unknowable. Christianity is based on Christ. Christian documents are based on known apostolic authorship. Thomas is not among those documents in theological circles or historical circles. I have no claims about whether you should or should not like it or use it but it is certainly not an accepted Christian document. Besides its historical problems and authorship it is makes mutually exclusive claims that the Bible denies and it has an undeniable gnostic tone that strongly indicates it is heretical. The basis for gnostic teaching is self-knowledge and it is well known when it began and what its original sources were and they are not Christian.

Can you show me that exact bible verse? I'm sure Muslims would disagree with such a statement, and as far as I know Muhammad never did such a thing. All of the killings Muhammad did were no worse than the things God commanded in the Old testament to the Israelite's( that doesn't excuse it though). I don't think Muhammad along with anybody else was a prophet.

I was not saying that the Bible says he gave surah’s from Satan. That is recorded in Islamic sources. In fact quite a few of them. If you want them I will supply them. If you search for his revelations concerning the "cranes" you will find entire books written on his Satanic revelations. What Bible verses did you want concerning which claim? I have debated this quite a lost and knew you would point out that Biblical prophets killed as well. That is exactly why I pointed out the reasons and circumstances why he did so. If you will pick only one area to discuss I can get very detailed. For example the first battle of Muhammad (Badr) Islamic sources themselves say was carried out because that years trade goods were plentiful. IOW he did what he did for money not because Allah asked him to. That is the difference I was pointing out. If we simply looked at it in a historical context the Quran is vastly more problematic than the Bible. The Bible is 750000 words by from over 40 authors and covers almost 2000 years. The Quran is less than 100,000 from one very suspicious man and covered 30 years and plagiarized large sections from known false texts. It was (unlike the Bible) controlled by political organizations. The Bible was freely copied by independent, parallel, and vast amounts of people. There is not room here to expand. Please pick your best argument and let's get detailed and rigorous.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hello Bruce. I'm bored so I thought I would bother you for a bit.

Well, it's dirty job, but SOMEONE'S got to do it! :-S

You say here that do not murder is a spiritual teaching and does not change. I agree it does not change but why is it a spiritual teaching and not a social one?

Precisely because it's permanent and hence, doesn't change! (And you doubtless also see its spiritual aspect.)

I agree [about the list of social teachings] except for prayer. Why is it not in the spiritual category?

Because while it's a spiritual act, the particular laws about prayer change from Age to Age, which is why Jewish prayers differ at least in part from Christian ones--let alone details of how Muslim and Baha'i prayers differ from either of these!

(Good to converse with you again, BTW!)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[1robin]

Well, it's dirty job, but SOMEONE'S got to do it! :-S
Precisely because it's permanent and hence, doesn't change! (And you doubtless also see its spiritual aspect.)

It's permanence was not what I was questioning. It is its social application that led me to think it was in the wrong category. Why would its permanency be what determined it's spiritual (ness). Time might be thought of as future eternal concept but it is not there for a spiritual one.

Because while it's a spiritual act, the particular laws about prayer change from Age to Age, which is why Jewish prayers differ at least in part from Christian ones--let alone details of how Muslim and Baha'i prayers differ from either of these!

Again it was not it's permanence or it's temporal-ness that I was contending. It was its spirituality. You seem to equal temporary with social and permanent with spiritual, why?

(Good to converse with you again, BTW!)

Peace,
Bruce

I will give Baha'i (or at least you and the other Baha'i people) that I have debated a compliment. No matter how vehemently I argued against your claims, I do not remember that I ever detected that you guys lost your cool. I cannot say that about any other faith in my experience (of course the number of Baha'i I have debated is a pretty small sample size). Up may be down and left is right to a Baha’i but it is defended with civility (worthy of another cause, maybe, IMO).