What would happen if all religions were right?

[BruceDLimber]

[E]ach and every myth in your scriptures is easily disproved by simple sciences.

So sorry, but science is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of addressing most religious topics, which is why religion and science are disparate disciplines!

Nor do I stipulate that they are "myth."

But you're welcome to your own opinion, as always! Ours differs.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

"Truth would then be relative, which we know is a false premise."

Not so! Quite the opposite, I fear.

I quote the Baha'i scriptures:

"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof.

"Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."

—(Gleanings, page 157)

Thus everything here is relative, truth included!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Response: Then it would be a case of redifining the definition of "right". For there are many religions which would contradict each other.

Not really.

As I've pointed out by quoting our scriptures,

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best!

Bruce

 

[Forkie]

Thus everything here is relative, truth included!

Peace,

Bruce

Truth is not relative. That completely contradicts the very definition of the word.

 

[AxisMundi]

So sorry, but science is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of addressing most religious topics, which is why religion and science are disparate disciplines!

Nor do I stipulate that they are "myth."

But you're welcome to your own opinion, as always! Ours differs.

Peace,

Bruce

Science is indeed incapable of tackling the topic of Deities.

However, science can certainly be applied to religion, the doctrines and dogma surrounding said Deities.

Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Great Flood are prime examples of science compeltely destroying religious myths.

 

[AxisMundi]

Greetings!



Not really.

As I've pointed out by quoting our scriptures,

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best!

Bruce

If you intend on holding your scriptures up as "evidence", then you must first prove that they are infallible and are indeed self-supporting evidence in the first place.

However, keep in mind that "goddunnit" type of arguments are unacceptable, and providing quotes from the same source exclusively will not work either.

 

[Azakel]

Please reread what I wrote.

The basic tenets of Buddhism are compeltely secular in nature and do not promote, nor disuade, deity or the worship of deity.

My bad, I misread what was written.

 

[Rev. White]

Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Great Flood are prime examples of science compeltely destroying religious myths.

I feel that science greatly confirms scripture, for example, the Great Flood. Science shows that about 7000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled past it's banks and suddenly burst out onto the plains that would become the Black Sea. This would have seemed to the people of that area as if the whole world had been flooded and destroyed. That sure seems consistent with the Biblical flood. Was it the whole world? No. But it was their whole world.

 

[AxisMundi]

My bad, I misread what was written.

Thank you.

 

[Stephen5]

"If you're going to theospam us with bible quotes as if scriptures were infallible, you would first have to prove your scriptures are reliable as self-supporting evidence.

Keep a few things in mind.

Providing even more bible spam won't work. That's like fetching the town liar to prove your story.

You have a hard task in front of you considering the bibles are full of self-contradictions, historical inaccuracies, and each and every myth easily disproved."

>Watch my future postings on the forum including many related and supporting scriptures

>I will prove that the scriptures of the Bible are what they claim to be

>Also let me tell you that I have the right to do this just as you have the right to refute .... no intent to "spam" anything on my part as you say

>If you have the courage to read my postings that are coming you may learn something .... or you may not .... it is all up to you

>And those who reject by condescension and with ill demeanor do not bother me in the least .... so that will not work for you

>I answer reasonable questions from other posters and typically ignore those who come to argue and discredit

 

[dust1n]

I feel that science greatly confirms scripture, for example, the Great Flood. Science shows that about 7000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled[/size] past it's banks and suddenly burst out onto the plains that would become the Black Sea. This would have seemed to the people of that area as if the whole world had been flooded and destroyed. That sure seems consistent with the Biblical flood. Was it the whole world? No. But it was their whole world.

Yeah, and the story was written about a couple thousand years before the Bible was written. :cough: Gilgamesh :cough:

 

[AxisMundi]

I feel that science greatly confirms scripture, for example, the Great Flood. Science shows that about 7000 years ago the Mediterranean Sea swelled[/size] past it's banks and suddenly burst out onto the plains that would become the Black Sea. This would have seemed to the people of that area as if the whole world had been flooded and destroyed. That sure seems consistent with the Biblical flood. Was it the whole world? No. But it was their whole world.

Firstly, said flood would not have been a flash flood. Also, that area of the world is hardly flat, there are mountains and plateaus. Not to mention that people unaffected by the flood would've been quite capable of telling those who do that they remained high and dry.

Secondly, science certain tells us that millions of animals aren't going to fit on a wooden craft too large for the structural capacity of woods available in the Middle East. Nor their feed, including raw meat.

The entire myth simply ignores geography, meteorology, and several other -ologies as well.

 

[Rev. White]

The area surrounding the black sea is mountainous, but the sea area itself isn't. It's very possible that torrential rains weakened the land mass that collapsed, allowing the flood. It's been reported that the sea would have risen at a rate of 6 inches per day, so it wouldn't have been beyond the residence to believe that it was caused by the rains. As for the animals, it was supposed to be a pair of all the animals in their world. It wouldn't have had to hold millions. The Noah legend probably developed from a much earlier event, but with a basis in fact. Here's a link to what Bob Ballard found on his national geographic expedition of that area.

National Geographic: Noah’s Flood/Black Sea Expedition--Flash

:giraffe::giraffe:: hamster :: hamster :

 

[sonofskeptish]

Just for fun...


I think the universe would implode.

The universe would instantly split into a series of parallel universes, each of which would have one of the countless religions that has been imagined as it's sole truth.

That would include a seperate universe for Atheists... who would sudden be living in a world void of supernatural beliefs, allowing them to more rapidly evolve the human species to it's full potential.

 

[Rev. White]

That would include a seperate universe for Atheists... who would sudden be living in a world void of supernatural beliefs, allowing them to more rapidly evolve the human species to it's full potential.

I'll throw them a going away party! :balloons:



J.K. Who would I blame everything on?

 

[Riverwolf]

The same "thing" perhaps, as King Richard and King Ferdinand were the same "thing", ie kings, but they are not the same deity merely named diferently.

Name is not the only difference; form is, as well.

The point is, people saw the same thing, and created two different gods out of that. The core "essence" of Zeus and Indra is that they are the greatest of gods, and both of lighting and thunder.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science is indeed incapable of tackling the topic of Deities.

However, science can certainly be applied to religion, the doctrines and dogma surrounding said Deities.

Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Great Flood are prime examples of science compeltely destroying religious myths.

Not destroyed; proven not historically accurate.

The myths still resonate.

 

[Riverwolf]

Firstly, said flood would not have been a flash flood. Also, that area of the world is hardly flat, there are mountains and plateaus. Not to mention that people unaffected by the flood would've been quite capable of telling those who do that they remained high and dry.

Secondly, science certain tells us that millions of animals aren't going to fit on a wooden craft too large for the structural capacity of woods available in the Middle East. Nor their feed, including raw meat.

The entire myth simply ignores geography, meteorology, and several other -ologies as well.

But was the myth meant to be historical, or was it meant as a story that was based on a barely remembered tragedy?

Have you ever read Joseph Campbell?

 

[Fatihah]

Greetings!



Not really.

As I've pointed out by quoting our scriptures,

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 114;
also Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)

Best!

Bruce

Response: There is nothing there that shows that some religions don't contradict if they were all right. Again, if we take for example, the christians who say that Jesus is God vs the muslims who say that he is not. How can both be right? To say so is a contradiction.

 

[Azakel]

That would include a seperate universe for Atheists... who would sudden be living in a world void of supernatural beliefs, allowing them to more rapidly evolve the human species to it's full potential.

Right because only Atheist can evolve the human potential. How Egotistical and Arrogant. You don't know much about Theist then do you and group us all into a small closed of box(sorry that doesn't work).