Why do Christians accuse other religions of believing in false prophets?

[dybmh]

Already been covered .. it is not by the "EL" in the name that we are saying Azazel is a god silly .. it is because the Israelites sacrificed to this God .. go read the passage

No, they sent it over a cliff. That is not a sacrifice. That would be disrespectful. When the israelites make an offering, none of the bones can be broken. This breaks like, what? All of its bones. If this is a ritual to a god, it would only make it angry. Take a look at leviticus, take a look at exodus when they make an offering so that the angel of death passes over. No bones can be broken.

 

[dybmh]

You are the one sounding Idiot .. as "Oliun" matters not -- the Bible uses the that word not me .. and it matters not what the Transliteration is because it is the Translation that matters . EL Supreme .. the hebrew Word used - which is transliterated Oliun - is then translated EL Supreme.

Then, please, type is correctly as Elyon. Seriously. if it doesn't matter, then type it correctly. The bible does not use that word. The PDF you're using has it and no one else.

Try doing a google search for "El Oliun". Nevermind, I'll do it. Take a look for yourself: link No one uses that name. It's wrong. You've got three links in latin. That's it.

If you have a problem with this translation .. then state what translation you would prefer .. or shut up .. as you have been asked this 5 times now. Who is the stupid one here .. what part of "Give your Translation" are you having such great trouble understanding.

I have given it. "supreme" is fine, even "most high" is fine. Adding EL to it when it's not written that way is a problem. And pretending that "EL" is the same as "Ail" is a problem.

 

[Brian2]

Already been covered .. it is not by the "EL" in the name that we are saying Azazel is a god silly .. it is because the Israelites sacrificed to this God .. go read the passage

I don't see any sacrifice to Azalel. But it is interesting that you want to make something/someone a god because you see service or sacrifice to it. That is the reason that idols are gods. People serve them. But they are not really gods.
Angels have gifts from God and humans also have gifts from God and that does not make any human or angel a real God, just someone who is like God is some ways.

 

[Sargonski]

I don't see any sacrifice to Azalel. But it is interesting that you want to make something/someone a god because you see service or sacrifice to it. That is the reason that idols are gods. People serve them. But they are not really gods.
Angels have gifts from God and humans also have gifts from God and that does not make any human or angel a real God, just someone who is like God is some ways.

Azazel, in Jewish legends, a demon or evil spirit to whom, in the ancient rite of Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), a scapegoat was sent bearing the sins of the Jewish people. Two male goats were chosen for the ritual, one designated by lots “for the Lord,” the other “for Azazel” (Leviticus 16:8). The ritual was carried out by the high priest in the Second Temple and is described in the Mishna. After the high priest symbolically transferred all the sins of the Jewish people to the scapegoat, the goat destined “for Azazel” was driven into the wilderness and cast over a precipice to its death.

Perhaps not a regular Sacrifice .. but Azazel is a divinity .. What kind of entity did you think the goat was being sent to

Leviticus 16:5 The community of Israel shall give Aaron two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 6 He shall offer a bull as a sacrifice to take away his own sins and those of his family. 7 Then he shall take the two goats to the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence. 8 There he shall draw lots, using two stones, one marked “for the Lord” and the other “for Azazel.”[a] 9 Aaron shall sacrifice the goat chosen by lot for the Lord and offer it as a sin offering. 10 The goat chosen for Azazel shall be presented alive to the Lord and sent off into the desert to Azazel, in order to take away the sins of the people.

 

[Sargonski]

A lump of wood carved into an idol becomes a god if people worship it and serve it.
Satan becomes a god if people serve it and thereby worship it.
Otherwise a wooded idol and Satan are no gods.

No that just means that YHWH has created that entity with those powers or given them those powers.
Having those powers or doing things that God does may be why angels are called "sons of God" or "gods" (and remember that the word for god can be translated as something like "mighty ones") and humans who do the work that is for God to do may also be called gods. (as the human judges in Psalm 82)

No Brian -- a lump of wood does not become a God if people worship it. The lump of wood has none of the powers defined as "God-like"

If these angels have God like powers .. they are Gods - regardless of who gave them these powers. Having "God- LIke Powers" = a God. This doesn't mean this entity is the Most High God .. but is still a god .. in comparision with you. All you are doing is engaging in circular definitonal fallacy .. which is why you can't definition for God .. because you know it will make your premise false or nonsense.

Satan is a God .. a literal "Son of God" .. same as Jesus being born of divine seed .. the difference being Satan is the offspring of 2 Gods .. Jesus being the offspring of God and Human.

and last .. the Bible distinguishes between "Son of God" and Angels .. The Sons of God being on a higher realm on the divinity scale.

Deut 32:43

"O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him, all sons of the divine
O nations, rejoice with His people
and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land"

Notice the angels are on a lower wrung than humans. Notice further that the "Sons of the Divine" are up in heaven .. bowing to God .. these Sons of the Divine are not humans.. as some desperately try to claim in other passages ..

The Sons of God .. are Sons of God .. and regardless of what you think .. that is what the Israelits believed .. believing in the existence of many Gods.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I will give you one to get you started 3) Should we kill children for the sins of the parents/Tribe - or should we have a rule stating that children should not be punished for the actions of another.

You are confusing 2 issues here, imo.

The first, is that nobody should be punished for the sins of other people.
The second, is that our parents affect how we will behave i.e. how we are raised

ANY person who repents to G-d, and becomes righteous is not punished.
..and that is why parents are concerned for their children, and want them to have religious knowledge.
i.e. they are concerned that they will go astray

 

[dybmh]

Perhaps not a regular Sacrifice .. but Azazel is a divinity .. What kind of entity did you think the goat was being sent to

If the word azazel is not a name, just a label attached to the goat that as sent away, then there is no other power. It's just part of the ritual for casting away sins.

Leviticus 16:5 The community of Israel shall give Aaron two male goats for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 6 He shall offer a bull as a sacrifice to take away his own sins and those of his family. 7 Then he shall take the two goats to the entrance of the Tent of the Lord's presence. 8 There he shall draw lots, using two stones, one marked “for the Lord” and the other “for Azazel.”[a] 9 Aaron shall sacrifice the goat chosen by lot for the Lord and offer it as a sin offering. 10 The goat chosen for Azazel shall be presented alive to the Lord and sent off into the desert to Azazel, in order to take away the sins of the people.

Leviticus 16:8,10, 26

​

And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot for the "goat, he goes away" ( עזאזל ).​

But the goat, on which the lot fell to be for "goat, he goes away" ( עזאזל ), shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go to [ be the ] "goat, he goes away" ( עזאזל ) into the wilderness.​

And he who let go the goat to [ be the ] "goat, he goes away" ( עזאזל ) shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterwards come into the camp.​

​

Klein Dictionary, עֵז 1

עֵז f.n. (pl. עִזִּים) goat. [Related to Pun. and Palm. עז, Aram. עִזָּא, Syr. עָזָּא, Ugar. ‘z, Arab. ‘anz, Akka. enzu (= goat). According to some scholars...

www.sefaria.org

​

עֵז goat. [Related to Pun. and Palm. עז, Aram. עִזָּא, Syr. עָזָּא, Ugar. ‘z, Arab. ‘anz, Akka. enzu (= goat). According to some scholars these words derive from base עזו in the sense ‘to be daring’; according to others they derive from the base עוז, appearing in Arab. ‘anaza (= he turned aside), in allusion to the movements of the animal.]​

Klein Dictionary, אזל 1

אזל to go, go away. — Qal - אָזַל 1 he went away, was gone; 2 it was exhausted. [BAram. and Aram. אֲזַל, Syr. אֱזל (= he went, went away, was...

www.sefaria.org

​

אזל to go, go away. — Qal - אָזַל 1 he went away, was gone; 2 it was exhausted. [BAram. and Aram. אֲזַל, Syr. אֱזל (= he went, went away, was gone), Arab. ’azal (= eternity), ’azaliyy (= long since past, eternal). cp. zāla (= he went away.] Derivatives: אֵזֶל, אַזְלָא, אָזְלָת◌.​

Klein Dictionary, עֲזָאזֵל 1

עֲזָאזֵל m.n. ‘Azozel’ — the rock from which the scapegoat was hurled on the Day of Atonement. [In the Talmud explained as a compound of עַז (= firm,...

www.sefaria.org

​

עֲזָאזֵל m.n. ‘Azozel’ — the rock from which the scapegoat was hurled on the Day of Atonement. [In the Talmud explained as a compound of עַז (= firm, rough), and אֵל (= strong). According to some scholars עֲזָאזֵל would be a compound of עֵז and אָזַל (i.e. ‘the goat went away’); according to others it would stand for עֲזַלְזֵל, which would be related to Arab. ‘azzala (= he removed), and would lit. mean ‘complete removal’.] See לַעֲזָאזֵל​

 

[dybmh]

If these angels have God like powers .. they are Gods - regardless of who gave them these powers. Having "God- LIke Powers" = a God. This doesn't mean this entity is the Most High God .. but is still a god .. in comparision with you. All you are doing is engaging in circular definitonal fallacy .. which is why you can't definition for God .. because you know it will make your premise false or nonsense.

No, angels cannot create. They have no will of their own. They only do their job and revert back into nothingness. An angel is not a god, that is an equivocation fallacy, and a fallcy of false generaliztion. You've accused others of this fallacy, so you should know how they work.

and last .. the Bible distinguishes between "Son of God" and Angels .. The Sons of God being on a higher realm on the divinity scale.

Maybe, but that doen't mean that angels are gods, nor that sons of god are gods. And most important, there's nothing that says "sons of god" is literal. You WANT it to be literal, You NEED it to be literal. But I think I showed you that it's not literal, and can't be literal.

Deut 32:43

"O heavens, rejoice with Him
Bow to Him, all sons of the divine
O nations, rejoice with His people
and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.
For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons,
be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes
And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land"

The first verse introduces, then the next two verses go together, then the fourth verse returns to the original idea. This is poetry. A BB A. A is in heaven. BB is not. Then A is in heaven. Or, the angels could be on earth.

"O heavens, rejoice with Him

Bow to Him, all sons of the divine​

O nations, rejoice with His people​

and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.

Notice the angels are on a lower wrung than humans. Notice further that the "Sons of the Divine" are up in heaven .. bowing to God .. these Sons of the Divine are not humans.. as some desperately try to claim in other passages ..

No, not really. There's more than one way to read this.

The Sons of God .. are Sons of God .. and regardless of what you think .. that is what the Israelits believed .. believing in the existence of many Gods.

But not big Moe. Big Moe and the patriarchs did not believe in multiple gods. Angels? Yes. Other gods no.

You keep ignoring verse 39, which confirms that neither the sons of god, whatever that means, nor the angels are gods. And this comes from the LXX which you have decided is authoritative. Thats where the extended version of verse 43 comes from. So quoting 43 and saying, "looky-looky there's other gods" doesn't work because you are ignoring/skipping verse 39 that explicitly says "There are no other gods."

Deuteronomy 32:39

ἴδετε ἴδετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν θεὸς πλὴν ἐμοῦ ἐγὼ ἀποκτενῶ καὶ ζῆν ποιήσω πατάξω κἀγὼ ἰάσομαι καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὃς ἐξελεῖται ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν μου

There is no other god!

ἴδετε (idete) - See
ἄρτι (arti) - now
ὅτι (hoti) - that
ἐγὼ (egō) - I
εἰμὶ (eimi) - am
καὶ (kai) - and
οὐκ (ouk) - not
ἔστιν (estin) - is
πλὴν (plēn) - except
ἐμοῦ (emou) - Me
θεός (theos) - God

 

[Sargonski]

You are confusing 2 issues here, imo.

The first, is that nobody should be punished for the sins of other people.
The second, is that our parents affect how we will behave i.e. how we are raised

ANY person who repents to G-d, and becomes righteous is not punished.
..and that is why parents are concerned for their children, and want them to have religious knowledge.
i.e. they are concerned that they will go astray

This has nothing to do with parents affecting how we behave .. never said anything of the sort .. so the one confused is you.

"Nobody should be Punished for the sins of others"

I agree .. and in fact so does the Rule of Law .. but you are totally lost "Confused" as you put it .. as this not about what you think.. but what God thinks.

Does your God YHWH Agree .. or Disagree .. and once again .. this is not about what you think .. so support your answer with Scripture .. showing us what God thinks on the issue

Tell us about this God of Yours .. the one you wish to pretend is not nasty ... in some land of disingenuous oblivion .. that hopefully we are now going to exit.

Tell me about your God Muhamu .. What hast Yahu to say on the Issue.

 

[Sargonski]

​

עֵז goat. [Related to Pun. and Palm. עז, Aram. עִזָּא, Syr. עָזָּא, Ugar. ‘z, Arab. ‘anz, Akka. enzu (= goat). According to some scholars these words derive from base עזו in the sense ‘to be daring’; according to others they derive from the base עוז, appearing in Arab. ‘anaza (= he turned aside), in allusion to the movements of the animal.]​

All know the story of the Goat .. now a deflection tactic .. from the passage you have been complaining about .. You did not like the translations ... "God Most High" Nor "God Supreme" -- What is this translation you think is better ?

 

[dybmh]

All know the story of the Goat ..

Great! then you'll understand why azazel is a goat, not a god. And sending it away with the sins was just sending it away with the sins. It wasn't an offering to any god, else, that god would get angry for the disrespect.

now a deflection tactic .. from the passage you have been complaining about .. You did not like the translations ... "God Most High" Nor "God Supreme" -- What is this translation you think is better ?

It depends on the verse. My objection is when you add "EL" to the verse if it's not there while at the same time ignoring YHWH when it's what is actually meant.

So, for example, in Deuteronomy 32, we've been looking there recently:

​

Do you thus requite YHWH, O foolish people and unwise? is not he your father who has bought you? has he not made you, and established you?​

​

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.​

​

When the elyon, the most high, divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel.​

​

For YHWH's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.​

​

The verse in the middle, Deut 32:8, has the word elyon. not El-elyon. Just elyon. It's referring to YHWH, the one and only god. YHWH dvidied the nations and picked on for itself. but there are no other gods, certainly not EL. This can be seen by the names YHWH which are bracketing the verses. And it is confirmed in verse 39. There is no other god. Not one, not many. But you seem to attach the word "EL" to the word elyon, even though, it's not there. And that ignores that it would be Ail, not EL.

So, it's not a translation problem, it's misinterpretting and adding the name El/Ail when it's not written, and it's obviously talking about YHWH and no other gods exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is interesting that there seems to be a greater variety of ideas these days for understanding the Bible.
Archaeological errors in the past and wrong theology (eg Documentary Hypothesis etc) and secular ideas coming into the interpretation of the Bible, seems to have multiplied the possibilities for misinterpretation.

That is possible, there is, of course, the vast chasm in remote possibilities that some religions have conjured up though. As well as where any of us puts our loyalties. By that I mean the footsteps of our lifecourse.

 

[Sargonski]

No, angels cannot create. They have no will of their own. They only do their job and revert back into nothingness. An angel is not a god, that is an equivocation fallacy, and a fallcy of false generaliztion. You've accused others of this fallacy, so you should know how they work.



Maybe, but that doen't mean that angels are gods, nor that sons of god are gods. And most important, there's nothing that says "sons of god" is literal. You WANT it to be literal, You NEED it to be literal. But I think I showed you that it's not literal, and can't be literal.



The first verse introduces, then the next two verses go together, then the fourth verse returns to the original idea. This is poetry. A BB A. A is in heaven. BB is not. Then A is in heaven. Or, the angels could be on earth.

"O heavens, rejoice with Him

Bow to Him, all sons of the divine​

O nations, rejoice with His people​

and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him.



No, not really. There's more than one way to read this.

the Angels are not in heaven in the picture .. but it matters not whether Angels are in Heaven. What matters is that the because the Sons of the Divine are in heaven .. and are clearly distinguished from the Angels in this passage.

Hence why they removed this clear reverence to other divinities from th Masoretic Text .. which comes 1000 years later. .. a wee bit of Pious Fraud .. to save the copyist from being burned alive for heresy .. us perhaps understandable.

Which version is your special translation transcribed ?

 

[dybmh]

the Angels are not in heaven in the picture .. but it matters not whether Angels are in Heaven. What matters is that the because the Sons of the Divine are in heaven .. and are clearly distinguished from the Angels in this passage.

They're not necessarily in heaven. The nations aren't in heaven in the passage. There's no problem that the son's of the divine are different than the angels. Israel were known as God's first born.

Hence why they removed this clear reverence to other divinities from th Masoretic Text .. which comes 1000 years later. .. a wee bit of Pious Fraud .. to save the copyist from being burned alive for heresy .. us perhaps understandable.

Or it was just different versions floating around at that time.

Which version is your special translation transcribed ?

The version that says there are no other gods? Just a few lines up from verse 43 that you're focusing on? That's the same version you're using the Greek LXX. I already told you. These sons of the divine cannot be gods. Verse 39 prevents that miscomprehension for those that are reading the chapter line by line and in order.

 

[Sargonski]

Great! then you'll understand why azazel is a goat, not a god. And sending it away with the sins was just sending it away with the sins. It wasn't an offering to any god, else, that god would get angry for the disrespect.



It depends on the verse. My objection is when you add "EL" to the verse if it's not there while at the same time ignoring YHWH when it's what is actually meant.

So, for example, in Deuteronomy 32, we've been looking there recently:

​

Do you thus requite YHWH, O foolish people and unwise? is not he your father who has bought you? has he not made you, and established you?​

​

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations; ask your father, and he will show you; your elders, and they will tell you.​

​

When the elyon, the most high, divided to the nations their inheritance, when he set apart the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the people of Israel.​

​

For YHWH's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.​

​

The verse in the middle, Deut 32:8, has the word elyon. not El-elyon. Just elyon. It's referring to YHWH, the one and only god. YHWH dvidied the nations and picked on for itself. but there are no other gods, certainly not EL. This can be seen by the names YHWH which are bracketing the verses. And it is confirmed in verse 39. There is no other god. Not one, not many. But you seem to attach the word "EL" to the word elyon, even though, it's not there. And that ignores that it would be Ail, not EL.

So, it's not a translation problem, it's misinterpretting and adding the name El/Ail when it's not written, and it's obviously talking about YHWH and no other gods exist.

 

[Sargonski]

They're not necessarily in heaven. The nations aren't in heaven in the passage. There's no problem that the son's of the divine are different than the angels. Israel were known as God's first born.



Or it was just different versions floating around at that time.



The version that says there are no other gods? Just a few lines up from verse 43 that you're focusing on? That's the same version you're using the Greek LXX. I already told you. These sons of the divine cannot be gods. Verse 39 prevents that miscomprehension for those that are reading the chapter line by line and in order.

Of course they are in heaven .. as that is where the party is happening .. just like in Job .. the Sons of God.
The fact that you choose the version that edits out scripture .. telling of your critical analysis skills.

Still waiting for your version of Psalm 82 .. for the 5th time .. you jump around so much in this little deflection of deception dance . cant remember your own boasts Brother D .. Looking for Sons of the Supreme One .. don't you remember ... crying and whining about Oliun which turned out not to make one wit of difference .. other than to showcase a case of ignorance.

Who are these Son's of the supreme one ? who is the Supreme one D ..

 

[dybmh]

Of course they are in heaven .. as that is where the party is happening .. just like in Job .. the Sons of God.
The fact that you choose the version that edits out scripture .. telling of your critical analysis skills.

I didn't edit anything out. I'm using the translation you brought. And Deut 32 is being spoken to the israelites as they are heading into the the land. So, it's happening on earth.

The reference to the sons of god in job is just a poetic phrase. There's nothing god-like about them.

Still waiting for your version of Psalm 82 .. for the 5th time .. you jump around so much in this little deflection of deception dance . cant remember your own boasts Brother D .. Looking for Sons of the Supreme One .. don't you remember ... crying and whining about Oliun which turned out not to make one wit of difference .. other than to showcase a case of ignorance.

Oh. I didn't know you were asking for Psalms 82. Theres a couple of different ways to translate it. I think the KJV does an OK job with this one. But still, that's just Asaph's point of view. And they're not literal gods.

1{A Psalm of Asaph.} God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Who are these Son's of the supreme one ?

They are people who act like they think they're gods, but will die like men.

who is the Supreme one D ..

God. Asaph uses the name Elohim, which is a revelation of strict justice.

 

[Sargonski]

I didn't edit anything out. I'm using the translation you brought. And Deut 32 is being spoken to the israelites as they are heading into the the land. So, it's happening on earth.

The reference to the sons of god in job is just a poetic phrase. There's nothing god-like about them.



Oh. I didn't know you were asking for Psalms 82. Theres a couple of different ways to translate it. I think the KJV does an OK job with this one. But still, that's just Asaph's point of view. And they're not literal gods.

1{A Psalm of Asaph.} God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.



They are people who act like they think they're gods, but will die like men.



God. Asaph uses the name Elohim, which is a revelation of strict justice.

What a rude joke mate -- just making stuff up ... " God Most High" is not a Human ... YHWH is not judging among the Humans .. he is judging "Among the Gods" YHWH is not Judging among the Humans .. that would simply be stupid

Regardless of what moronic things you would like to make up to defile Scripture .. to the Israelite who wrote that song .. and who sung that song .. "Among the Gods" meant "Among the Gods" as they all believed in a divine Pantheon.. the idea that YHWH defeats humans to inherit all nations .. and example of idiotic desperation -- as Micheal Heiser informed you .

All the Israelites also knew what the Congregation of EL was .. as did the author Asaph .. and he uses the Name EL .. not "Elohim" and Elohim is not a name .. you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Sargonski]

ANY person who repents to G-d, and becomes righteous is not punished.
..and that is why parents are concerned for their children, and want them to have religious knowledge.
i.e. they are concerned that they will go astray

There is no free pass through Judgement --

"becomes righteous" - and how does one do that Muhamu ? become "Right with God" Tell me True .. tell me why .. Was Jesus Crucified .. was it for this that "Daddy Died" ? and once again full marks if you can name that tune or the artist . Hint initials RW

Repentence is Good - but you have yet to repent Brother M .. the Heresy was brought to your attention .. Putting God in this nasty little box of anthropomorphic failure. How is it not blasphemy to make God Small ? ... Put words in Gods Mouth .. attribute to the Goddess Actions she never did..

What You know of the Logos ? .. gonna tell others how one can become right with God.. What must one do to achieve this state of righeousness .. not that you need bother .. as you have to repent first .. so might as well have fun until you are willing to do that much aye mate

 

[RestlessSoul]

From Muhammad to Krishna to Buddha and Baha’u’llah, it has been a norm amongst Christians of many denominations to accuse religionists of other religions of believing in satan himself and that all of these Teachers are ‘false Prophets’. Many times I have heard this said to me and others. Yet nowhere in the Bible does it categorically state by name that any of These Teachers are false. It is an interpretation by priests and clergy. All of Them taught love just as Christ did.

To be fair, I know of excellent Christians and priests who respect other religions and Prophets and they, I believe, are true Christians who practice love and tolerance towards all.

As a Christian, what do you believe about Muhammad or Buddha or Krishna and Baha’u’llah? Do you believe the different religions should mix with one another or shun each other? I once invited some Christians who knocked on my door to say some prayers together for humanity but they told me that their elders forbid them to do that because they could get ‘spiritually infected’! If Christ taught to love even ones enemy then this attitude towards other religions doesn’t sound right. What do you think?

I agree it is most un-Christian to judge our neighbours.

Personally I believe, like English poet, artist, and mystic William Blake, that all religions are one. Just different manifestations of the same deeply felt need (denied by some, but felt nonetheless) to connect with the eternal and the divine.