Too many religions

[nabilb]

So, if I claim the moon is made of cheese, and I get enough people to claim the moon is made of cheese, and we all claim to be prophets, do we get to claim the One True Religion?

ok here we have to use a little common sence, don't take the word of any one but ask yourself the following question and search for the answers
1. what is the fastest spreading religion? Islam Why?
2. what is the only religious book that has no contradiction? Quran
3. why the whole world fights islam nowadays?

 

[Breathe]

Personally:

As an inclusive panentheist, I see all religions as a people's attempts at grasping the Same Divine: I all conceptions of God: Allah, Vāhigurū, Śiva, Viṣṇu, Bahá, Yahweh, and more, as attempts to reach it and to explain it to others: it differs because of the following:

• culture
• history
• traditions
• folklore
• myths
• language
• prophets
• preachers
• reformers

...and many more. These are just a few.

Yet, I believe the truths are still referring to the same Being, just in different ways from their own experiences, histories, cultures, and discriminations; basically, I see some people as arguing over "po-tay-to" vs "po-tah-to".

(Although, who actually does say potato? )


I'm cutting this short, though. Very short. I could, and probably would, waffle incessantly otherwise.

 

[1robin]

Personally:

As an inclusive panentheist, I see all religions as a people's attempts at grasping the Same Divine: I all conceptions of God: Allah, Vāhigurū, Śiva, Viṣṇu, Bahá, Yahweh, and more, as attempts to reach it and to explain it to others: it differs because of the following:

• culture
• history
• traditions
• folklore
• myths
• language
• prophets
• preachers
• reformers

...and many more. These are just a few.

Yet, I believe the truths are still referring to the same Being, just in different ways from their own experiences, histories, cultures, and discriminations; basically, I see some people as arguing over "po-tay-to" vs "po-tah-to".

(Although, who actually does say potato? )


I'm cutting this short, though. Very short. I could, and probably would, waffle incessantly otherwise.

Then why does this one being or concept say contradictory things in each culture. I believe all but Christianity are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. The divine source of the bible is shown by it's consitency over 1500 plus years and 40 authors in differing cultures, prophecy, very reliable witness testimony to miraculous events, and scientific claims unknown to the writers or any one else at the time. It is impossible that all religions are equally valid.

 

[JustWondering]

Then why does this one being or concept say contradictory things in each culture. I believe all but Christianity are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. The divine source of the bible is shown by it's consitency over 1500 plus years and 40 authors in differing cultures, prophecy, very reliable witness testimony to miraculous events, and scientific claims unknown to the writers or any one else at the time. It is impossible that all religions are equally valid.

But there is no conclusive evidence for Christianity being true, or else everyone would be a christian, including myself. Let's be honest. The fact that hundreds of different christian sects with different beliefs is proof enough of christianities inconsitency. Second, how is ancient testimony of christian miracles and scientific claims any more reliable than the testimony of miracles and scientific miracles of other religions?

 

[Breathe]

Then why does this one being or concept say contradictory things in each culture.

Because people rely on different things to understand the way they live (some places don't have deserts, others don't have rainforests, etc), and because some concepts are foreign to them as a group; I think of it like the principle of accommodation or progressive revelation: there would be no point for example, in God explaining to man how we were created, speaking of mutations, alleles, and billions of years to farmers. They knew less than we knew now regarding the mechanics behind the origin of the world, and so on.

In addition, I don't think are actually that different in their outlook; if one listens to the words of many mystics and philosophers from those religions, the teachings are often very similar to those of other religions. Only if one sits and reads, at a superficial level, are there huge differences. Inside they generally aren't too different from one another: the words are different, but generally the conceptions are quite close: everyone wants to reach that Goal: some people envision it in a very personal way (as a personal God) so it still has meaning in their life that they can act upon, rather than being the "useless remote God" type that often plagues high gods of religions, whereas others envision this whole as an impersonal way (Nirvāṇa, Brahman, Tao).

However, even the religions where God is taken personally, say that God is unlike anything and cannot be understood by human minds.

Also, it's not that God "says" things, but they experience things and attempt to say them, so I don't believe God even could "explain" how things happened.

In addition, it's not the words that are important. It's the values behind them. Many texts are riddled with contradictions if one looks on the surface, even within the same religion, let alone different ones -- however, the thing is what the story is trying to teach: is it really trying to be historical?

A lot of the time, I really doubt that is the case. Reading many of these stories literally, for example, you come up with problems without even going against modern science. Contradictions, confusions, and so on. It makes sense more for them to attempt to explain why we're here, as opposed to how we're here, does it not?

I believe all but Christianity are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. The divine source of the bible is shown by it's consitency over 1500 plus years and 40 authors in differing cultures, prophecy, very reliable witness testimony to miraculous events, and scientific claims unknown to the writers or any one else at the time.

You're welcome to believe that. I, however, don't. For any of that.

It is impossible that all religions are equally valid.

It's impossible for all paths to be equally valid? Possibly.

All valid paths to the same Source and some more valid to others' according to their temperaments, interests and outlook in life? Definitely not impossible.

I believe the words of Hillel the Elder are appropriate here (although I think it's valid for more than just the Torah, but every religious text): "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Religion is more important to be lived and acted upon than simply, idly believed, IMHO.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well where you been? If they are all Gods messengers why are they all saying different and contradictory things?

Well, because, the religion has two main part. One part is the spritual laws, second part is the social and material laws.
The first part, Spiritual Laws never changed. All religions teach the same. As Abdulbaha said All religions teach faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy, Showing mercy to the poor, defending the oppressed, giving to the wretched and uplifting the fallen.


But the second part, social and material laws, are changed by every Messenger. There is a good reason for that though. Basically, each age has its own problems, and requirement. That is the reason that for examplein some religions changed such laws of marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries, are different in religions.

There is no correlation or reason between Prophet hood and whatever is arbitrarily decided as the worst place. In fact it is rather contrary to the function of a prophet in many cases and has very little correlation and that is only coincedence.

Well, the historical evidence shows otherwise. Refer to my previous post. It is clear, the Messengers always appeared among the worst and the most cruel and ignorant people on earth, this is the reason, why every Messenger was either killed, or imprisoned, or treated badly.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then why does this one being or concept say contradictory things in each culture. I believe all but Christianity are man's attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. The divine source of the bible is shown by it's consitency over 1500 plus years and 40 authors in differing cultures, prophecy, very reliable witness testimony to miraculous events, and scientific claims unknown to the writers or any one else at the time. It is impossible that all religions are equally valid.

Well, I think I replied to this before, but I do again anyways.

If you believe all but Christianity are man's attempts to reach God. Then in this case, it means that from begining God waited, and finally He sent Jesus, the only True way to Father (as many Christians say). That also doesn't make sense, because, why didn't God send Jesus from beginning? If everyone sinned before, and still a sinner, what was the point of sending Jesus?
Some argure that people before Jesus were saved by Faith in God, if this was the case, then still they could be saved by God, why then Jesus had to come and die? Moreover there are many other people such as Hindus and Bhudists. To say all are wrong and only Jesus is the way, would be a very narrow vission IMO. So, if all these people are wrong, then God just is looking at all His people who are misslead without telling them by sending another Messenger? He doesn't care? In my openion, this is also a blasphemy to the Kind and All-Merciful God.

Therefore, it makes more sense (if you look at it logically without bias) that if God sent Messengers before, He would not stop this at anytime, because Mankind always need guidance from God.
Also, as others pointed out, Christianity has thousands of denominations, and many Christians changed from one denomination to another, simply because the previous denomination was not right to them, and finally many became atheists. So, that means, Christianity as exists today, does not have answeres for people.
For me Baha'i Faith has alot more answeres to fundemental and big questions.

 

[love]

By the way In Islam God has sent a prophets throught the history of man kind to lead them away from worshiping creation(trees,rocks,animals,stars,plants,nature,anscestors,other people,) and told the the prophets to teach that man should only worship his Creator and sustainer and the sustainer of the world

I don't think this post is about Islam or Christianity, but about God.
Man was given the ability to see our Creator through His creation.
What does worship mean to you. Could the word love be an adequate substitute?
Why should we not love what God reveals to us each day of our life through creation?
Are you in danger of worshiping Islam and not knowing God?

 

[paarsurrey]

Can you explain why?

They believed in the one true attributive creator God and had somewhat same basic teaching of religion, in my opinion.

 

[1robin]

But there is no conclusive evidence for Christianity being true, or else everyone would be a christian, including myself. Let's be honest. The fact that hundreds of different christian sects with different beliefs is proof enough of christianities inconsitency. Second, how is ancient testimony of christian miracles and scientific claims any more reliable than the testimony of miracles and scientific miracles of other religions?

You are right in believing that there is no absolute proof that Christianity or any other religion is a fact. However in every meaningfull category by which a religion is judged Christianity is the most favorable. In other words it is the number one contender by any standard. So logic dictates that it should be the first to be considered. If done without bias even evidence presentation experts like Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lynhurst conclude the evidence in the bible meets every standard of modern law. It may be rejected but not on the basis of a lack of evidence. The bible text is far more accurate and reliable than any other single text in ancient history many times over. It contains 2,500 prophecies, and 25,000 historical corroberations.

Your different sects point does not mean what you are claiming. The bible is 750,000 words on the most contentious and profound subjects in human history, it is written litarally, symbolically, and even sometimes crypticaly. 95% of denominations believe 95% of the same doctrine and the 5% they dissagree on are usually second and third tier issues. Christianity is different from many religions in that the Christian is free and not forced into some mold and so a person or people who disagree about a verse or two may splinter off and form their own group. There is supposed to be diversity in the body of Christ, the only absolute doctrine that must unite us is the born again experience by which we become Christians. Which by the way is unique in that it is the only religon that offers and requires supernatural proof by way of sipritual experience from every believer.

 

[1robin]

Well, I think I replied to this before, but I do again anyways.

If you believe all but Christianity are man's attempts to reach God. Then in this case, it means that from begining God waited, and finally He sent Jesus, the only True way to Father (as many Christians say). That also doesn't make sense, because, why didn't God send Jesus from beginning? If everyone sinned before, and still a sinner, what was the point of sending Jesus?

Hello Investigate. As usual who ever it is that tells you this stuff was wrong. All of pre-Jesus history was lived by faith in the future provision of Christ or the messiah the same way that we believe in a Christ or messiah in the past. That was very well indicated in that the animal sacrifices were a type and shadow of Christ's death and pushed sins forward until his arrival where they were actually forgiven. I wish for both our sakes you would get out of the brainwashing tank for a while and become familiar with Christian doctrine and then you could evaluate what ever it is that you are being told to believe about it. No insult intended this even happens in heretical Christian cults.

Some argure that people before Jesus were saved by Faith in God, if this was the case, then still they could be saved by God, why then Jesus had to come and die?

A quick but absolutly suffecient answer is that is what God chose to do and it is consistent with his purpose and the bible says that it was determined before man was ever made. The rest is just commentary.

Moreover there are many other people such as Hindus and Bhudists. To say all are wrong and only Jesus is the way, would be a very narrow vission IMO. So, if all these people are wrong, then God just is looking at all His people who are misslead without telling them by sending another Messenger? He doesn't care? In my openion, this is also a blasphemy to the Kind and All-Merciful God.

He sent many messengers and the message is available to all. Consistent with other verses man has rejected the truth and substituted his own garbage including lumping all the garbage together. Narrowness does not equal not true. In fact most natural laws have very narrow parameters. Jesus also said he was the narrow gate, and God has always been followed by a remnant not the bulk but that is our fault not his. It all started at the tower of Babel. You are substituting what you want to be true for what is true.

Therefore, it makes more sense (if you look at it logically without bias) that if God sent Messengers before, He would not stop this at anytime, because Mankind always need guidance from God.

It is meaningless to think a fallable human intellect can determine what an infinate perfect intellect should do. A roach might as well tell Newton how to do physics. Messengers were sent until the entire and complete message was delivered. This is called progressive revelation. That has been accomplished and no more are needed, even if they were the Holy Spirit being universally available would serve that function.

Also, as others pointed out, Christianity has thousands of denominations, and many Christians changed from one denomination to another, simply because the previous denomination was not right to them, and finally many became atheists. So, that means, Christianity as exists today, does not have answeres for people.
For me Baha'i Faith has alot more answeres to fundemental and big questions.

95% of denominations agree on 95% of doctrine. There is no way every single person will agree on every single word of 750,000 of the most contentious words ever written. Christians unlike many are free to worship in different ways they are not forced into a mold. The bible actually allows for this and even promotes it in some respects. Regardless whatever problems you think are inherent or indicated by differing denominations with the same core beliefs are compounded a thousand times over by trying to reconcile the divisions between different religions that claim vastly different and contradictory truths. You have defeated your own contention.

 

[1robin]

Because people rely on different things to understand the way they live (some places don't have deserts, others don't have rainforests, etc), and because some concepts are foreign to them as a group; I think of it like the principle of accommodation or progressive revelation: there would be no point for example, in God explaining to man how we were created, speaking of mutations, alleles, and billions of years to farmers. They knew less than we knew now regarding the mechanics behind the origin of the world, and so on.

So you are saying that God lied because we would not understand the truth. Even if that were true then why make up different lies. Every religion has a conflicting story of creation.

In addition, I don't think are actually that different in their outlook; if one listens to the words of many mystics and philosophers from those religions, the teachings are often very similar to those of other religions. Only if one sits and reads, at a superficial level, are there huge differences. Inside they generally aren't too different from one another: the words are different, but generally the conceptions are quite close: everyone wants to reach that Goal: some people envision it in a very personal way (as a personal God) so it still has meaning in their life that they can act upon, rather than being the "useless remote God" type that often plagues high gods of religions, whereas others envision this whole as an impersonal way (Nirvāṇa, Brahman, Tao).

Jesus said he is the way and there is no other name under heaven by which man may be saved. That is irreconcileable with any other claim. Some believe that we are reincarnated, some believe you can work your way to heaven, some think we can know enough to get there, some think worshiping Satan is right. These are not compatable even though of course since they all are considering a similar subject they have some commonalty. If all religions are true then God is a liar and a schizophrenic and I do not want to meet him.

However, even the religions where God is taken personally, say that God is unlike anything and cannot be understood by human minds.

He can't be understood in totality. The finite can never fully comprehend the infinate however we can comprehend everything we need to relate to God. If we couldn't or he is unknowable then no religion would be true not all.

Also, it's not that God "says" things, but they experience things and attempt to say them, so I don't believe God even could "explain" how things happened.

So an infinate God could do all things but explain things to creatures he made. That is not God then.

In addition, it's not the words that are important. It's the values behind them. Many texts are riddled with contradictions if one looks on the surface, even within the same religion, let alone different ones -- however, the thing is what the story is trying to teach: is it really trying to be historical?

They all teach different things. Some say work your way to God, Some say to fight demons on a river on the dark side of the world and then become the sun, some say we are reincarnated, others say persue introspection, some say cross the river of Styx and give coins to the boatman. If God said all that he is a lunatic.

A lot of the time, I really doubt that is the case. Reading many of these stories literally, for example, you come up with problems without even going against modern science. Contradictions, confusions, and so on. It makes sense more for them to attempt to explain why we're here, as opposed to how we're here, does it not?

Well yes when man makes up a religion because he has rejected true religion he makes mistakes. However the bible in my experience has never been shown to contain contradictions, or false claims, or even a failed prophecy (I have even debated the few that are said to have failed and they didn't) and I have debated hundreds of each.

You're welcome to believe that. I, however, don't. For any of that.

Well give me your worst and let's see if that is true.

It's impossible for all paths to be equally valid? Possibly.

That is an absolute fact.

All valid paths to the same Source and some more valid to others' according to their temperaments, interests and outlook in life? Definitely not impossible.

I will compare two ofthe most similar. I am the way the truth and the life
no one proceeds to the father except through me - Jesus, Look to yourself and discover that you are already a child of God and equivalent to Christ - heretical Gospel of Thomas. They are two of the closest and are irreconcileable.

I believe the words of Hillel the Elder are appropriate here (although I think it's valid for more than just the Torah, but every religious text): "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Good advice but as that does not help you when you die as there is no indication as to this providing salvation. Good philosophy incomplete theology. What about the Aztec texts that say to tear the hearts out of living men to appease the God's so the sun will come up again. Or the native indians that would take drugs in order to glimpse the supernatural. Or maybe the carribean voo doo and canabalistics rituals. Those valid as well?

Religion is more important to be lived and acted upon than simply, idly believed, IMHO.

Only if it's a true religion. The Catholics wiped out the aztec's (rightly so) for practicing their diabolical religion. If a Satanic cult (or a scientologist) took a family member of yours for some terrible ceremony would you tell him to do whatever he wishes as we are all the same religion and he should practice not just believe his.

 

[1robin]

Well, because, the religion has two main part. One part is the spritual laws, second part is the social and material laws.
The first part, Spiritual Laws never changed. All religions teach the same. As Abdulbaha said All religions teach faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy, Showing mercy to the poor, defending the oppressed, giving to the wretched and uplifting the fallen.

The Aztec's taught that ripping the heart out of a living human would appeas the God's and the sun would rise again, carabean canibals ate each other and performed black magic, some religions have drank poison in order to catch a comet, some have believed the greates act that could be performed was to slaughter their neibors. Apparently Abdulbaha don't know squat.

But the second part, social and material laws, are changed by every Messenger. There is a good reason for that though. Basically, each age has its own problems, and requirement. That is the reason that for examplein some religions changed such laws of marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries, are different in religions.

Nope, every age and group has had the same problems. If the religion was around from the begining then it should have given consistent information. It should not have told the Christians that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no one proceeds to the father without him, and then told the Taoists that contemplation is the way, or the Aztec's that human sacrifice is the way, or the Muslims that obeying certain laws might get you there but flying a plane into a building and becomeing a martyr definatly would. That God and religion would be evil.

Well, the historical evidence shows otherwise. Refer to my previous post. It is clear, the Messengers always appeared among the worst and the most cruel and ignorant people on earth, this is the reason, why every Messenger was either killed, or imprisoned, or treated badly.

Then why did Paul take off for Greece and Rome the two most civilised cultures in existance at the time. Why did God choose Israel who was most of the time a far more moral nation than those around them. The cruelest groups in history were the Huns, Nazis, Stalins circle, some very primitive African cultures, the Aztecs etc..... I have never heard a prophet come out of those people. God chose Israel because Abraham followed him and he led them to the most central and busiest trade route location on earth. That way his message would spread the fastest.

 

[Breathe]

So you are saying that God lied because we would not understand the truth. Even if that were true then why make up different lies. Every religion has a conflicting story of creation.

You're believing God literally "speaks" to people and imparts knowledge upon them. For myself, that is not the case: no lies. No words. Nothing is spoken. It is experienced.

Jesus said he is the way and there is no other name under heaven by which man may be saved. That is irreconcileable with any other claim.

There are different ways of looking at it. For example, seeing Jesus and Kṛṣṇa as one and the same (Kṛṣṇa says things similar).

For myself, I don't put much stock into the Bible, so I do not believe that this is necessarily what was said, and even if it was, Jesus spoke in Parables. Why would this be different? It would be better for another Christian to answer this, since I'm not that well versed on the Bible, really.

Some believe that we are reincarnated, some believe you can work your way to heaven, some think we can know enough to get there, some think worshiping Satan is right. These are not compatable even though of course since they all are considering a similar subject they have some commonalty.

This is where culture, tradition and so on come into it, in my view. With a healthy amount of guess-work on what happens. What they have in common, generally, is that death is not the end. When one goes further, into less mundane, literal readings, one often finds similarities. Nobody can know what lies beyond, for sure. Even reincarnation beliefs have a "final destination" that people can reach, anyway.

If all religions are true then God is a liar and a schizophrenic and I do not want to meet him.

Does that not mean that you have built your own conception of God as a false idol, and worship it instead? By your own admission, if God isn't as exclusive as you are, then you don't want to meet him?

Consequently, I would not want to worship a God who would send people to hell for thinking differently. And a large chunk of others would not either. Many Christians too.

He can't be understood in totality. The finite can never fully comprehend the infinate however we can comprehend everything we need to relate to God. If we couldn't or he is unknowable then no religion would be true not all.

Not necessarily: to think we can comprehend "everything we need to relate to God" sounds rather egotistical a claim to make. What we would know of God, in my opinion, is very minor.

So an infinate God could do all things but explain things to creatures he made. That is not God then.

Why do you think God speaks? Why would you think God uses words, languages, and so on? These are human instruments. With what vocal chords does God speak, and with what lungs, tongue, or lips? The Bible even states God is spirit, so how, why, would It talk?

Incidentally, why would God not being able to do something make It not God? Who made the idea of God being omnimax, even to the point of being an illogical God? Is it really a good idea to make God an illogical God?

They all teach different things. Some say work your way to God, Some say to fight demons on a river on the dark side of the world and then become the sun, some say we are reincarnated, others say persue introspection, some say cross the river of Styx and give coins to the boatman. If God said all that he is a lunatic.

Again, do not think of everything as literal: religions use traditions, histories, folklores, and their own myths. The truths that come, not the descriptions, are what matter. Not the images.

Well yes when man makes up a religion because he has rejected true religion he makes mistakes. However the bible in my experience has never been shown to contain contradictions, or false claims, or even a failed prophecy (I have even debated the few that are said to have failed and they didn't) and I have debated hundreds of each.

People do not 'reject' religion out of choice. People do not believe in a religion because it does not seem true to them. That is all. Most people would believe in X-religion's God if there was evidence to support it.

Well give me your worst and let's see if that is true.

Why would I want to compare penis sizes or get dragged into a ******* contest?

I will compare two ofthe most similar. I am the way the truth and the life
no one proceeds to the father except through me - Jesus, Look to yourself and discover that you are already a child of God and equivalent to Christ - heretical Gospel of Thomas. They are two of the closest and are irreconcileable.

I actually side more with the GoT than the Biblical passage, but still, a quick reconciliation from a non-Christian: You are already Christ-like, you just don't know it. Jesus (a manifestation/prophet/sage/whatever) will help you realize it.

Good advice but as that does not help you when you die as there is no indication as to this providing salvation.

Do we need salvation? From what?

What about the Aztec texts that say to tear the hearts out of living men to appease the God's so the sun will come up again. Or the native indians that would take drugs in order to glimpse the supernatural. Or maybe the carribean voo doo and canabalistics rituals. Those valid as well?

"What is hateful to you"...

Only if it's a true religion. The Catholics wiped out the aztec's (rightly so) for practicing their diabolical religion. If a Satanic cult (or a scientologist) took a family member of yours for some terrible ceremony would you tell him to do whatever he wishes as we are all the same religion and he should practice not just believe his.

"What is hateful to you"...

 

[waitasec]

You're believing God literally "speaks" to people and imparts knowledge upon them. For myself, that is not the case: no lies. No words. Nothing is spoken. It is experienced.

nuff said
:clap

 

[Katzpur]

One major reason for me, that keeps me from being a theist, is that there are too many religions. People seem to concentrate on one religion with blinders on and ignore everything else. How can a theist look at all the religions they don't belong to, past and present, and not wonder if their religion is just as made up or fictitious as all the religions they don't believe in? What makes today's gods more reasonable and credible than past gods like Zeus, Ra, and Odin? Religion still boils down to people believing incredible claims with zero evidence to support any of it. Additionally, if there was a god that wanted to communicate a message to us, I think it would be capable of doing a much better job of it then sending a middle man to preach it in one corner of the world to one group of people. A true god would be capable of sending multiple prophets to multiple people in the world with the same message at the same time. However, we don't see that.

I don't see how the number of different religions in existence would influence your decision to believe or disbelieve in God. I can definitely see why it would influence your decision to associate yourself with any specific religion or to embrace its beliefs, though. It seems to me that human teachings about God have no bearing whatsoever on whether He (She, or It) exists. I think I'd believe in a Higher Power regardless of whether any individual or organization had taught me; but that's just me.

 

[1robin]

You're believing God literally "speaks" to people and imparts knowledge upon them. For myself, that is not the case: no lies. No words. Nothing is spoken. It is experienced.

Even if true that means your or our faulty brains must invent truth from what we see. We can't even agree on who is the best candidate for office so religion being more complicated and devisive would suffer even worse. It is far more effective, effecient, and reliable for God to tell us what is going on. He did so in the bible.

There are different ways of looking at it. For example, seeing Jesus and Kṛṣṇa as one and the same (Kṛṣṇa says things similar).

If both say they are the only way like Christ did then one is absolutely wrong. There is no escape from that verdict.

For myself, I don't put much stock into the Bible, so I do not believe that this is necessarily what was said, and even if it was, Jesus spoke in Parables. Why would this be different? It would be better for another Christian to answer this, since I'm not that well versed on the Bible, really.

There are very simple exegesical methods devloped over thousands of years to identify literal and symbolic verses. Regardless he gave the apostles and the Holy Spirit the ability to communicate the meanings behind all parables. The bible can be rejected but only based on preferance as its textual reliability is a proven fact and it's historical reliability is demonstratably remarkably accurate and more than suffecient for faith. Even if it did have problems there are far more when everyone is running around creating arbitrary philosophies and religions based on what they see. One is effecient and effective the other is impotent. Any God I would worship must be the former.

This is where culture, tradition and so on come into it, in my view. With a healthy amount of guess-work on what happens. What they have in common, generally, is that death is not the end. When one goes further, into less mundane, literal readings, one often finds similarities. Nobody can know what lies beyond, for sure. Even reincarnation beliefs have a "final destination" that people can reach, anyway.

The stakes are too great for guess work. I want irrefutable fact and I find it in the bible.

Does that not mean that you have built your own conception of God as a false idol, and worship it instead? By your own admission, if God isn't as exclusive as you are, then you don't want to meet him?

I did not say that. I said if God is hiding contradictory claims in mountains of garbage then I do not want to meet him. I wish he were as inclusive as I desire however unlike others I do not define what is true by what I want to be true and this is just not the case.

Consequently, I would not want to worship a God who would send people to hell for thinking differently. And a large chunk of others would not either. Many Christians too.

That is your right, I would not worship the God you describe because he must be malevolent. However the difference is that I would admit he was real if he actually was, I would just reject him even though real. You seem to be saying that any God you do not agree with is not real.

Not necessarily: to think we can comprehend "everything we need to relate to God" sounds rather egotistical a claim to make. What we would know of God, in my opinion, is very minor.

What is egotistical about claiming that God gave all necessary revelation about himself in the bible? We did not aquire it by our efforts but by his. That is the opposite of egotistical. If a God did not give us all NEEDED information as in the one you describe then he is not good, loving, or even competent.

Why do you think God speaks? Why would you think God uses words, languages, and so on? These are human instruments. With what vocal chords does God speak, and with what lungs, tongue, or lips? The Bible even states God is spirit, so how, why, would It talk?

Because that is how we relate concepts. God built us to have this capability is he then going to communicate by telepathy. He built us to recieve by certain methods and he employs those methods to transmit.

Incidentally, why would God not being able to do something make It not God? Who made the idea of God being omnimax, even to the point of being an illogical God? Is it really a good idea to make God an illogical God?

Even secular philosophy defines God as the greatest imaginable being. The bible lines up with that exactly and the one described above does not. God must also have certain attributes indicated by the laws of cause and effect to create the universe. All those attributes line up with the omni powerful biblical God and not the one you are describing.

Again, do not think of everything as literal: religions use traditions, histories, folklores, and their own myths. The truths that come, not the descriptions, are what matter. Not the images.

I am very well aware of that and allow for it. However these teachings I listed are literal. There were actual coins made for a literal boatman. It seems to be the tactic of all pluralists to define things as suffeciently vague in order to allow them to be claimed to be anything needed at the time. The existance of parables, symbollagy, or cryptic verses does not allow the irreconcilable to be reconciled.

People do not 'reject' religion out of choice. People do not believe in a religion because it does not seem true to them. That is all. Most people would believe in X-religion's God if there was evidence to support it.

Oh yes they do. Jesus said they did. Respected modern theologians and philosophers say they do. The evidence in the bible is of such a character that the rejection of it can't be done on the basis of evidence but only preference. The greatest legal minds in human history (Simon Greenleaf, Lord Lynhurst etc...) have said the same things. Simon literally wrote the book on evidence.

Why would I want to compare penis sizes or get dragged into a ******* contest?

What the heck are you talking about? Nice appeal to the obsurd. You made a claim about the reliability of the bible but refuse to allow that claim to be evaluated and then claim your position is based on evidence not preference.

I actually side more with the GoT than the Biblical passage, but still, a quick reconciliation from a non-Christian: You are already Christ-like, you just don't know it. Jesus (a manifestation/prophet/sage/whatever) will help you realize it.

Of course you do. The natural mind is an enemy to God. It seeks it's own and rejects the divine. G.K. Chesterton said that if someone does not believe the bible they do not there for believe in nothing instead they believe in anything. The book you are reffering to is a gnostic heretical text with no known source or origin. The fact that you would adopt it based on preferance and dismiss the infinately more reliable bible speaks volumes. The Jesus it speaks about contradicted the teachings you are referrencing and the writer apparently did not know Jesus. Jesus, God, and all the prophets said that the heart of man is wicked (not Christ like), that man had rejected God (not Christ like), that we need God's help to be united with God (not Christ like), and that we have all fallen short of his glory (not Christ like). Self help philosophy are powerless to deal with the guilt we all have.

Do we need salvation? From what?

We are born seperated from God because he is perfect and we are sinful so we need salvation from eternal seperation from God's kingdom. There is no argument that all men are imperfect, we have a sin problem. God is perfect and will not dwell with sin eternally. We need to have our sin problem remedied before we can exist with him. So we either must chose Christ's provision and wind up dwelling with God eternally or reject that provision and get exactly what we chose, stumbling around in the dark grabbing onto every philosophy or man made religion that comes by and eventual eternal seperation from God. The bible makes it clear, we get exactly what we choose and no man is without excuse. That is a small glimps of the salvation message in the bible and may only be rejected based on preference because man hates accountability.

"What is hateful to you"...

The Aztecs religion doesn't believe this. However in your theory you must believe that a religion that said don't do what you hate and one that said cut the hearts out of the neibors are equally valid. When your theory results in these unresolvable paradoxes it is a good signn to abandon it.

"What is hateful to you"...

This thought fragment does not resolve the issue in fact it proves my point. Many religions teach hate and many teach love they are not both correct.

 

[waitasec]

Even if true that means your or our faulty brains must invent truth from what we see. We can't even agree on who is the best candidate for office so religion being more complicated and devisive would suffer even worse. It is far more effective, effecient, and reliable for God to tell us what is going on. He did so in the bible.

yet you haven't established what criteria does one use in order to determine what the bible says is what god says...

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It is meaningless to think a fallable human intellect can determine what an infinate perfect intellect should do.

Yes, then, how could anyone determine for God stop sending more Messengers?

 

[Breathe]

Even if true that means your or our faulty brains must invent truth from what we see. We can't even agree on who is the best candidate for office so religion being more complicated and devisive would suffer even worse.

Exactly.

It is far more effective, effecient, and reliable for God to tell us what is going on. He did so in the bible.

There is no way of knowing this is God's words, and even so, to be honest, if one takes the Bible at face value and in a literalistic manner, it's not really that great. You have to dig to find truths.

If both say they are the only way like Christ did then one is absolutely wrong. There is no escape from that verdict.

Unless they are the same being.

There are very simple exegesical methods devloped over thousands of years to identify literal and symbolic verses. <<snip>> The bible can be rejected but only based on preferance as its textual reliability is a proven fact and it's historical reliability is demonstratably remarkably accurate and more than suffecient for faith.

If this is true:

a) Why do different Christians have different interpretations on major things?
b) Why are these such severe schisms?
c) Why are there people who wish they could be Christians but aren't because they don't see enough evidence to support it?

Even if it did have problems there are far more when everyone is running around creating arbitrary philosophies and religions based on what they see. One is effecient and effective the other is impotent. Any God I would worship must be the former.

I'd rather live in a world with a dozen religions with religious pluralism as a valued concept than a world with one or two religions where differences of opinions were frowned on: even if people create philosophies and religions based on what they see, how is it any different from the way others see other religions? We've (mostly!) long since evolved past "it's demons who made this religion", have we not?

The stakes are too great for guess work. I want irrefutable fact and I find it in the bible.

Good for you. Honestly.
But I didn't.

I did not say that. I said if God is hiding contradictory claims in mountains of garbage then I do not want to meet him.

So if God isn't imparting words directly to people, then you wouldn't want to meet him?

I would not worship the God you describe because he must be malevolent. However the difference is that I would admit he was real if he actually was, I would just reject him even though real. You seem to be saying that any God you do not agree with is not real.

Not at all. Yet if I do not see evidence for this God, and it doesn't seem likely, why should I believe it?

What is egotistical about claiming that God gave all necessary revelation about himself in the bible? We did not aquire it by our efforts but by his. That is the opposite of egotistical. If a God did not give us all NEEDED information as in the one you describe then he is not good, loving, or even competent.

It's egotistical to think that one small, finite religion, which appeared only at a tiny period of time, can contain all the necessary revelation about God. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that God not "giving us" information makes God unable to be good, loving, or competent. This is a very anthromorphic God. It's like expecting God to be a human. God isn't seen as a human by most religions, so why think It would work that way?

Because that is how we relate concepts. God built us to have this capability is he then going to communicate by telepathy. He built us to recieve by certain methods and he employs those methods to transmit.

Where does he get the lungs, lips, tongue, or vocal chords?
Presupposing God "built us to have this capability", then would we not use them for each other? Why would a God use them?

Even secular philosophy defines God as the greatest imaginable being.

Not really. Maybe some Western thought does, as well as some anti-theists and atheists. Secular philosophy defines God in a myriad of ways, accordingly. Besides, there's more than just the West.

The bible lines up with that exactly and the one described above does not.

How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

God must also have certain attributes indicated by the laws of cause and effect to create the universe.

Why? Why not God emanating the universe, for example?

All those attributes line up with the omni powerful biblical God and not the one you are describing.

You're welcome to that view, but this omni-powerful omni-max god simply does not make sense. Omni-max simply raises more questions than it answers.

I am very well aware of that and allow for it. However these teachings I listed are literal. There were actual coins made for a literal boatman.

Folk belief.

Oh yes they do. Jesus said they did. Respected modern theologians and philosophers say they do.

And people themselves say otherwise.

The evidence in the bible is of such a character that the rejection of it can't be done on the basis of evidence but only preference.

Utterly false.

What the heck are you talking about?

I'll keep it simple: I'm not here to play "prove-disprove".

Of course you do. The natural mind is an enemy to God. It seeks it's own and rejects the divine.

This kind of thinking is not only pretty foolish to hold, it's also completely dangerous.

G.K. Chesterton said that if someone does not believe the bible they do not there for believe in nothing instead they believe in anything.

They believe in anything if they do not believe in the Bible? :areyoucra

<<snip>> The fact that you would adopt it based on preferance and dismiss the infinately more reliable bible speaks volumes.

Yes; that I prefer being able to help myself.

Jesus, God, and all the prophets said that the heart of man is wicked (not Christ like), that man had rejected God (not Christ like), that we need God's help to be united with God (not Christ like), and that we have all fallen short of his glory (not Christ like).

Again: This kind of thinking is not only pretty foolish to hold, it's also completely dangerous.

Self help philosophy are powerless to deal with the guilt we all have.

Who has guilt? Seriously, this is no good for people. Holding onto guilt, anger, negativity, making oneself out to be helpless. What a pathetic squandering of what it is to be human.

We are born seperated from God because he is perfect and we are sinful so we need salvation from eternal seperation from God's kingdom. There is no argument that all men are imperfect, we have a sin problem.

I don't believe in sin. I don't believe in salvation. These words are meaningless. I don't believe in separation from God because I believe God is within. I don't believe all men are imperfect.

The Aztecs religion doesn't believe this. However in your theory you must believe that a religion that said don't do what you hate and one that said cut the hearts out of the neibors are equally valid. When your theory results in these unresolvable paradoxes it is a good signn to abandon it.

That isn't what I said though. Nice try.

This thought fragment does not resolve the issue in fact it proves my point. Many religions teach hate and many teach love they are not both correct.

Which religions teach hate? Only a perverted interpretation of religion teaches to hate people.