the right religion

[1robin]

Night is dark. Day is light. Summer is hot. Winter is cold. Caucasians are light-skinned. Negroids are dark-skinned. Men have penises. Women have vaginas. Which one is true? They can't both be -- right??

I never said anything about every entity only having unique aspects. I said two mutually exclusive claims can't be both true. You responded by claiming non-mutually exclusive claims can possibly be true. Your trying to use a ruler to disprove a thermometer.

Yet -- Jesus did not die, for he lives. It's not an "exclusive event." It's a theological construct. It's a metaphorical statement. It's a metaphysical understanding.

No he died, yet he was later made to live again. BTW only his spirit/slash soul did. He was given a completely new body. His old body is still dead. It was not metaphorical, it was a literal as it gets. Every mainstream Christian doctrine is founded on these events. His body ceased to live forever, first death. His soul/spirit ceased to be united with the father, the second death. He was reunited with the father because he had no sin which required another savior to prevent it. He was given the first resurrection body which will occur to all Christians at the judgment. His was unique in that it had scars from the cross to serve as badges of glory but it was not his original body.

Is it? Or is it a metaphysical truth? Or is it both?

It is the literal and final death of his body, the temporary death of his spirit/soul in it's separation from the father that serve as the most fundamental principles of traditional Christianity. Without either orthodox Christianity would not exist. If I remember correctly your very accepting of non-canonical quasi-heretical Christian teachings. If so we maybe stuck on two different pages. However there is a few very important aspect that are still relevant.

Islam is not talking about any metaphysical event. It is talking about a simple historical one. It's classic interpretation is not that Jesus was unconscious or did not die physically or spiritually. It is that he did not even get on the cross and that someone else whole appeared like him was killed. This is not theology it is basic history. I also want to add that NT consensus regardless of faith that Christ literally died by crucifixion on the cross. All contemporary authors record a physical death. There is no greasy area here to hide any metaphysical speculation in. And it is not the only one. Muhammad god his Hebrew history second hand from his uncle who had massive inconsistencies in names and dates in his narratives.

 

[sojourner]

I can't agree.

Good! We need both -- and all perspectives to join the theological conversation -- and we need to embrace the difference inherent in those perspectives.

I have never heard anyone claim that doctrine is cosmologic. I don't even know what that could mean.

To claim that any belief (doctrine) is "the way it is" or "factual," is to inherently claim that the doctrine is cosmological. Doctrine (once again) is a hermeneutic (method of understanding), not a cosmology (the Way Things Are).

Two doctors saying I do and do not have cancer have colorized credibility whoever is right is at 100% and the other at 0%. What they cannot be is on the same medical page.

But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is one dr. saying, "He's healthy," and the other saying, "He's whole." Both may be speaking about different aspects of the person (and may appear to be at odds), but both are, essentially correct.

Pantheism is incoherent is at best a thought experiment. I do agree that pantheism would be the best candidate for what your suggesting but pantheism and traditional theism are not compatible. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a theology.

Pantheism (as theism) is a theological position. Both are compatible, for both deal with aspects of the Divine.

You didn't say "theology." You said "spirituality." Buddhism is a spiritual endeavor that does not necessarily encompass "God."

That is bizarre given the fact the purpose of the two terms is to distinguish between them.

Is it?

The bible even divides them asunder forever.

Does it?
"God blew into the man's nostrils (air), and the man became nephesh."

Then we are less than human beings when the body dies? Even non-theists recognize that loosing a non essential body part does not degrade the self or soul. A paraplegic is no less human that a complete person. My car rusts and dissolves, it ceases to be a car. My atoms may remain but my body does not. That is why the soul which carries on is distinct from the body.

Kinda interesting how your statement speaks to the spiritual conundrum of our particularity, yet interconnectedness with the universe, yes?

We do know all evidence suggests both came into being and are not eternal in the past.

Do we? We can get back to within a second of the Big Bang, but not before. How do we know that matter and energy were not present before then? Could all matter and energy be compacted into an infinitesimally small point, that, at some point, exploded? Could be!

my religion at least it's core claims are proven fact.

No it's not. It may be intellectual conjecture, but it's not "proven fact."

 

[sojourner]

I never said anything about every entity only having unique aspects. I said two mutually exclusive claims can't be both true. You responded by claiming non-mutually exclusive claims can possibly be true. Your trying to use a ruler to disprove a thermometer.

You're trying to claim that a ruler is a thermometer. I'm telling you that it is not.

No he died, yet he was later made to live again.

Sorta depends on your point of view and theological stance, eh? Either theological stance is as valid as the other. Back to thermometers: The thermometer reads "68 degrees F." Wife says: "It's cold." I say: "It's warm." "Mutually exclusive terms. Which is "right?" Answer: both. Which is "true?" Answer: both. It depends on one's POV and particular understanding.

It is the literal and final death of his body, the temporary death of his spirit/soul in it's separation from the father that serve as the most fundamental principles of traditional Christianity.

Within your theological construct. But happily, since theology is hermeneutical and cosmological, your theological construct cannot be universally applied as a "fact" of The Way Things Are. It can only be applied as How I Understand Things To Be. All perspectives are necessary and interdependent.

It [Islam] is talking about a simple historical one.

So are you.

 

[1robin]

Good! We need both -- and all perspectives to join the theological conversation -- and we need to embrace the difference inherent in those perspectives.

I disagree. Actually I have no idea because I can't find the post that contains the statement you responded to here.

To claim that any belief (doctrine) is "the way it is" or "factual," is to inherently claim that the doctrine is cosmological. Doctrine (once again) is a hermeneutic (method of understanding), not a cosmology (the Way Things Are).

I have never heard cosmological as a synonym for objective. Cosmology deals with time and space and spirituality transcends both. Your for some reason dismissing perfectly good words like epistemological and ontological for lesser words. However since I know what your doing I will just play along accordingly. Jesus dying and Jesus not even being crucified are both ontological claims. We do not know which one is factual, or can't yet prove it but they are mutually exclusive. Neither doctrines are epistemological claims. They are literal historical claims to physical fact. Whether a is true does not effect what type of claim it is. Not to mention what kind of messed up God would give two contradictory doctrines and not clarify in exactitude their metaphysical analogous nature. Plus that neither side grants this mysterious metaphysical ambiguity. Sounds like Baha'i. They do not care if everyone in the faiths who the revelations agree to, literals ore symbology, and symbology literal or anything necessary to claim the man was tall and short.

But that's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about is one dr. saying, "He's healthy," and the other saying, "He's whole." Both may be speaking about different aspects of the person (and may appear to be at odds), but both are, essentially correct.

Know we are not. We are talking about one saying Jesus was both physically and spiritually dead and the process began at crucifixion, and another suggesting he did not physically died, spiritually die nor was he even crucified. Unless you claiming silence in the consent of eventual death is consistent with specific death by crucifixion. However that is not on the table either because Islamic swoon theorists don't he died eventually either. I literally can't think of two more mutually exclusive claims even as theoretical. They are like arc types for things that can't both be true

Pantheism (as theism) is a theological position. Both are compatible, for both deal with aspects of the Divine.

Perhaps but not one I find coherent. Saying nature is God is not to add anything new.

You didn't say "theology." You said "spirituality." Buddhism is a spiritual endeavor that does not necessarily encompass "God."

You brought up spirituality not me. I think it is a silly modern buzzword more conspicuous for a vacancy than relevance. In my experience it is used to cover up for the fact that a person isn't spiritual. I know and have met thousands of evangelicals. I have never heard them say they had spirituality as a closed or separate statement. I rarely hear it even mentioned.

Is it?

Pretty much. I can't even think of a distant potential second. It can be argued Christianity actually adds a unique third.

Does it?
"God blew into the man's nostrils (air), and the man became nephesh."

Unless you view a God with lungs and a human as a beach ball we are definitely not talking about genetic life. Other animals have life but no nephish or spirit. The two as seen here in your example are not identical.

Kinda interesting how your statement speaks to the spiritual conundrum of our particularity, yet interconnectedness with the universe, yes?

My statement was to show ( I re-read it again and it does so) that our spiritual conundrum is not associated with atoms or material entities. Comes with them, is not them. How did you not get that from several attempts to demonstrate it? I must be slipping.

Do we? We can get back to within a second of the Big Bang, but not before. How do we know that matter and energy were not present before then? Could all matter and energy be compacted into an infinitesimally small point, that, at some point, exploded? Could be!

I said every piece of evidence we have suggests that. I did not say what we know.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

No it's not. It may be intellectual conjecture, but it's not "proven fact."

Yes they are. I know them. My ability to prove them does not exist. The same way eyewitness testimony to an event can be. However even if I was lying you have no ability what so ever to state you know that I am. You do not have any access to the totality of what I may know. In what way are my spiritual experiences any less reliable than my visual or auditory ones? How do you what they have revealed? Perhaps you meant not objectively provable to others?

 

[1robin]

You're trying to claim that a ruler is a thermometer. I'm telling you that it is not.

Nope your the one with the body is the spirit/soul claim not me. I am the one with tow distinct entities. But that was not the issue. I said you used the wrong method for the conclusion. You gave a list of things that have shared characteristics to somehow prove the body and soul are identical. Won't work. Even if it was true, that won't work.

Sorta depends on your point of view and theological stance, eh? Either theological stance is as valid as the other. Back to thermometers: The thermometer reads "68 degrees F." Wife says: "It's cold." I say: "It's warm." "Mutually exclusive terms. Which is "right?" Answer: both. Which is "true?" Answer: both. It depends on one's POV and particular understanding.

You flat line for a half hour, you, your doctor, wife and everyone will agree your dead. Sorry about the metaphor but it was the same context. Some intern is still pumping on your chest a weak later yelling he is alive they will lock him away. I think you have gotten just about every aspect of this issue perfectly wrong.


1. I am saying that the claims about Christian in question are exactly the same exact type of claim. Historical, literal, ontological.
2. Your the one saying they are different.
3. But it is here you misapplied my analogy above. You are saying they are different instruments here, me the same.
4. About the soul and body your in the they are the same, camp.
5. I say they are different. They are the same oncological type but there the similarities peter out and the greatest possible dissimilarities appear.
6. It appears your only remedy here is to suggest if any two concepts have similarities that is proof the body and soul are identical.
7. That is about when my eyes cross. It may be that Africa and Australia are both continents with many similarities. It does not prove that a timing chain and Beatle juice are the same entity. Wrap a star around your cam and see how far you get. Actually there is probably more similarity between a star and a car part than the soul and body.

Within your theological construct. But happily, since theology is hermeneutical and cosmological, your theological construct cannot be universally applied as a "fact" of The Way Things Are. It can only be applied as How I Understand Things To Be. All perspectives are necessary and interdependent.

WE are discussing what is true of a faith. What I said is true of core, consensus, traditional Christian doctrine and the same with Islam. Trying to pawn that off on my opinion is a poor and desperate hail Mary.

So are you.

When communicating the Quran, certainly. The Quran and the bible conclude the exact unique opposite claim about Christ's physical death. The bible adds a second meaning which Islam is not speaking to but even if it were they are two opposing views. For death in either context to have any actual meaning (especially as core and central doctrine) is has only one ontological state. You cannot be both physically alive and dead. IMO you were far more formidable with the satirical avatar unless I am confusing you with another.

 

[Ingledsva]

There was not a single mistake in what I said.


That is irrelevant and your making assumptions since I did not indicate what time period this occurred in and it was an analogy. Analogies have a few similarities. Not every aspect of the thing representing another can be glammed onto for convenience. Not even if included would it matter.


See the above. Forget mars since you seem to prefer ignoring the relevant aspect of the analogy. Think about an unexplored cave. Anyone who went into it whether claiming it was hot or cold are in an infinitely better position to know that people in labs guessing about it. Mars was a place holder and the scientific knowledge time frame was not even mentioned because it never occurred to me someone would torture an analogy so badly. Forget caves or planets. Personal experience is always better than indirect speculation.



No my religion at least it's core claims are proven fact. The experiential facts however are not available to export my faith to others. The same way the temperature at any known point to science would be proven to anyone who had been there and felt it. You know very well that was the intent of my statements. I guess the fact you have no contention against it mandated the semantic torturing of an analogy.


Not in mars case because maybe with mars you have a scientific perspective on it. For faith you have absolutely zero. So the theme of my analogy is even stronger.


Yes, in every way possible it is your belief against my facts. Just like my analogy at least in it's obvious spirit, my facts are not available for your review, only my evidence is.

LOL! I can't believe you will keep arguing when you are so obviously wrong.


It is not my belief against yours.


It is verifiable FACTS, against your beliefs.


*

 

[sojourner]

I disagree.

Of course you do, because, for you, your theological position isn't hermeneutical, it's cosmological.

I have never heard cosmological as a synonym for objective. Cosmology deals with time and space and spirituality transcends both.

No. Spirituality pervades both.

Jesus dying and Jesus not even being crucified are both ontological claims. We do not know which one is factual, or can't yet prove it but they are mutually exclusive. Neither doctrines are epistemological claims.

On one side of the coin, yes. But on the other side we have a non-ontological view of Jesus. We have Jesus as myth, as metaphor, as avatar. On that side, it simply does not matter to the shape of the universe (cosmology) whether Jesus really existed, really died, was really crucified, or was really resurrected. We also have all the other human expressions of Deity. If we regard all of them (Xy included) in a non-ontological way, it is possible (and desirable) for all theologies to be in conversation with each other.

Perhaps but not one I find coherent.

Listen harder.

Pretty much. I can't even think of a distant potential second.

"Physical" and "spiritual" are not mutually exclusive, opposite terms. "Spiritual" is one way of understanding the"physical."

Unless you view a God with lungs and a human as a beach ball we are definitely not talking about genetic life.

No, we're not -- that's my point! We are not only talking about Jesus as a real, factual, physical person, whose acts can change the physical nature of human beings. We're also dealing with existential issues here, in which a look at other theological perspectives are necessary to gain a bigger picture.

My statement was to show ( I re-read it again and it does so) that our spiritual conundrum is not associated with atoms or material entities. Comes with them, is not them. How did you not get that from several attempts to demonstrate it? I must be slipping.

My statement was to show that neither by itself constitutes a complete -- or only -- understanding. All understandings must be part of a larger conversation.

Yes they are. I know them.

'K. Prove them. If your ability to prove them doesn't exist, then they aren't "proven facts."

 

[EyeofOdin]

Here's the way I see it, when it comes down to the true nature of divinity and "correct" paths. When discussing this, I always make clear that I don't pretend to know the true nature of divinity. Anyone who says otherwise about themselves is selling you a religion and out to only get your membership, not the safety of your soul.

In my cosmological theory: The Universe is self created and spirits are a byproduct of this creation. Some of these spirits are higher divinities, either by nature of ascension, which will later be called "gods". These divinities will be recognized for their abilities and characteristics, so they will be given elaborate myths and simple titles based on the myths or characteristics by early man while still in Africa. A few deities are notable, being Sky Father, Earth Mother, Sun, Moon, Twin and Man. By the later Proto-Indo-Europeans, they will be called (in the same order as the English translations) Djews Pater, Dehghom Mater/ Pletiwi Mater, Sawul, Menots, Yemos and Mannus. There were others of course, but these are the most central deities.

Sky Father is the father of the gods and king of heaven, and is still worshipped by the Hindus in the Vedic language, as it's evolved from PIE, Dyaus Pitar. He's also been worshipped as Zeus, Jupiter, Tyr etc. Other deities have had their names tweaked slightly by the native tongue as the language evolved but are still the same deity. Demeter and Pirthivi from Dehghom/Pletiwi, Ymir and Yama from Yemos, Sol and Helios from Sawul etc.

My point is that these higher spirits are worshipped and interpreted by peoples as best they could, through their language and their culture and their worldview. Zeus and Tyr are both different in Lore, although they have the same origin and similar functions. The Proto-Hellenics saw Dieus (transitional point of Djews to Zeus) as a stormy sky god rather than as a god of the shining heavens, while the Germanic peoples saw Wotanaz (later Odin) as the chieftain god rather than Tiwaz (later Tyr). Same pantheon, different cultural approach.

So there really isn't a "correct" religion in my understanding. It's all just different ways of looking at the same gods. How Bob applies his native Celtic culture, language and worldview isn't any skin off of Jim's back, who uses his native Roman approach, which is no concern to Jillian who approaches the "higher spirits" (or one of them) through a Semitic lens.

But that's just me being an Asatru Heathen, and having read how my ancestors believed, which wasn't that different.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Always trying some out of topic to spark some ideas of non-religious
We Christians believe that religion is a human experience
Complete in Christ
This don't cancel that debt benefited from the experience of humanity
The teachings of Jesus are a compendium of the finest humanitarian teachings
Why deny this
Do you think that Christianity did not have advanced in human thinking
I'll show you some of what he wrote
Colin Wilson
Says we must admit that Christian own virtue outweighed all the alahataa have been converted most of humanity into creatures with a purpose
This book and his hidden
Recognition of human gods with Christianity
That Christianity contributed to the rise of the human race
And also it compares with Pythagoras
In other pages
So Christianity is the finest art mankind from ideas
Principles and teachings
Because Pythagoras speaks on alviod
Christianity is the positive side of this process
There is a difference between religion turn humanity into this direction and the other religions are calling for murder
If the Buddha had discovered that the universe has a creator under shahra
Science today says that the universe without knowing that a programmer purports, Christian waihodih gave him the qualities of beautiful and fascinating
Greetings
​

 

[DawudTalut]

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?

Peace be on you.
All religions from God were true at their times, they evolved in details but core message was always same. Worship One God, pay His rights and rights of people.

Islam is final version of religions and Allah exclusively promised to safe guard Holy Quran and Islam. This promise was not made with others. That is why their Books were added or subtracted.

Islam regards pious people of previous religions who sincerely believe in God and Hereafter and practice their religion's unaltered parts.

According to Ahmadiyya Muslim Promised Messiah Mahdi (on whom be peace), the long time establishment of religions shows that once they were true that is why they spread in large number of people. Their leaders should be respected.

The right religion is one which connects a believer to God such that they also pay rights of people. If today, some Muslim groups are being extremist, that is not fault of Islam. They are abusing name of Islam.

In every age, true Islam was saved. The latter days weakness in Muslim practice was prophesied. The remedy was told coming of spiritual leader Promised Messiah Mahdi. Ahmadiyya Muslim he has come and now his 5 th Khilafat is serving Islam on the path of peace. Islam gives live.

 

[Aupmanyav]

 

[Ingledsva]

*

Just curious, - what are the captions that go along with those pictures. Is the girl being auctioned off?


*

 

[Flankerl]

No its his wife.


(as far as i remember)

 

[Ingledsva]

No its his wife.


(as far as i remember)

Wow! I would be crying too.


I was reading just last week, about a little girl like her, given in marriage, that hemorrhaged to death after her wedding night rape.



*

 

[sojourner]

Wow! I would be crying too.


I was reading just last week, about a little girl like her, given in marriage, that hemorrhaged to death after her wedding night rape.



*

Apparently, that's to be expected in the "final version of religions..."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just curious, - what are the captions that go along with those pictures. Is the girl being auctioned off?

As Flankerl said, she is probably his wife. Purchased. The consummation of marriage may take place now (might have already taken place leaving the girl dead. How does it matter? It is just a matter of a few dollars) or in two or three years of time. Till that time the soldier of Allah could thigh her (in the manner of Mohammad) or whatever. And if a slave or won as a war booty (Maal-e-Ghanimat), she hardly has any rights. We are back to the Allah's messenger's time in the 7th Century.

 

[outhouse]

Apparently, that's to be expected in the "final version of religions..."

Ya they have this one refined down to the peaceful basics :bonk:

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Wow! I would be crying too.


I was reading just last week, about a little girl like her, given in marriage, that hemorrhaged to death after her wedding night rape.



*

These images are on the market for the sale of Christian women and the Yazidi of northern city of Mosul, the place is the Corniche Street in the brick door connector
Where are the buying and selling of women and children Christians who never left the city after the Khalifa of Islam Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi
Ugliest sight of ever talking about maarsat old to Islam by Muhammad and his followers
But in a modern style in the 21st century belongs to us the Quran as they are in the past
This is the khkikh of Islam
​

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

A child is crying
As a child of the Yezidi community with a special ceremony in the religion they follow religions of ancient Mesopotamia and also some of the teachings of Zoroaster
These small minority and also have a presence in Turkey
Some believe that they worship the devil, but this is not true because they are afraid of the devil only worship him
But this is Islam killing all gods in the alleged Mohamed Nabih
​

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

Either the image of women in niqabs are spoils of war Muslims from Christians and yazidis are herded to the slave market in the Islamic City of modern