Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Reading Nietzsche is like reading the Bible, everybody can find a different interpretation. I see Nietzsche in the tradition of the Enlightenment. He emphasizes the importance to think for ourselves, to not accept traditional values without scrutiny. He doesn't even explicitly say that there is no meaning, just that we have to find it for ourselves. In that way, he is the father of existentialism.
No problem, lets do that then.
I don't think it's everybody, but there are definitely people who fit this category, I can discern this by certain reactions I have experienced, so no, it's not 'gaslighting' (A term you mis-use with monotonous regularity whilst doing it yourself I might add).
Talking of gaslighting, what's the likelihood of me, an English Christian, knowing all about CS Lewis? Even when I wasn't a Christian I was never an atheist, so no, no atheist ever impresses me, they just show a depressing inability to think logically, being an atheist requires far more faith than any Christian requires.
Ok, so you don't believe in the supernatural, this probably makes you a 'science' guy right? you'd probably be wise to step away from that shovel. Yes I believe in the supernatural, because I've experienced it, and I see evidence of it regularly, prayer itself has supernatural powers, Christians experience that daily across the world, you stick to the corruption that is bought and paid for 'science', good luck with that...
I'm not sure what I did that you think is gaslighting. I haven't said anything to make you seem crazy. I made a suggestion that I believed would help you understand atheists better.
Maybe you could be more patronising next time? that's the gaslighting part, why would any practising Christian not know about CS lewis is more to the point, he's recommended reading to Christians literally everywhere.
There have been some rather large clues I'm British to be fair, just on a spelling basis alone.
My age is irrelevant and there's nothing to indicate my age in anything I have written, this doesn't seem to be much of teen hang-out either.
I didn't take offence, why is that people have to trot out that tired old trope? I found it patronising, but that's nothing new, people who like to present themselves as some sort of well read intellectuals usually do patronise others, it's almost mandatory in my experience. As we've witnessed in the last four years, the so-called smartest in society have turned out be the greatest disappointment in human history, both morally and intellectually.
I realize that this point is pretty unimportant, but patronization is not the same thing as gaslighting. You chose the wrong word.
The truth is, whether someone spells it color or colour barely even registers with me. I just don't notice it. And when I do, I don't consider it important and forget about it. When I read a post, my focus is on the content of their ideas, not who they are or what writing style they use.
There is nothing in this forum that indicates anyone's age. I have no idea who I'm talking to. My motto is that its best not to assume.
Finding it patronizing IS taking offense. When someone feel patronized, it means they feel disrespected, underestimated, or treated as stupid, ignorant, childish, or inferior.
You say potato... being patronising could be construed as gas-lighting, making someone feel inferior and doubt themselves, but no matter, I don't feel either.
You really don't need to feel bad at all, it's water off a ducks back, whether you meant it or not, (I accept you didn't).
I enjoyed it, I will probably read it again at some point.
That's a bit of an assumption, I'm not keen on those. I suppose societally you would be right but not on here.
I'm no expert, but in the UK he is one of the most recognised, mostly due to the Narnia Chronicles (which I enjoyed as a child), but in Christian circles he's a given.
Fair enough.
A good maxim, it can catch one out.
I see it differently, I see it as minor disrespect, I don't get offended as in outraged or anything. I'm pretty thick skinned and old school, I call it as I see it, it makes me something of a dinosaur when everyone is so sensitive these days. I rather liked the description someone else gave me as 'storming in with my flies down and...' (well, you can guess the rest), it wasn't exactly true but it did make me laugh because it was close. I am brusque at times, I am aware of that, I pray to be a little less combative at times but a military background does that to a man. I can assure you I am not 'offended' in the modern sense of the word and there is absolutely no need to be sorry, I accept your explanation no problem.
It's at this stage I realise I am dealing with someone who is totally irrational, and there is literally no point beating my head against this particular door. I must refer to scripture, as one has to do in these situations;How do you think it could be substantiated that most Baha'is in the western world were formerly Christians, which shows that some Christians did pay attention and believe?
However, it is irrelevant as to whether the Baha'i Faith is true or not. It is either true or false.
The fact that you have looked at the claims and find them absurd is irrelevant.
Of course it is not in the biblical scriptures. The fact that God has revealed God multiple different faiths over the course of time was not revealed until Baha'u'llah came and revealed it.
I never said that the Baha'i Faith has copied Christ's story. I said "If you know the history of Christianity you would know that Jesus was treated exactly the way Baha'u'llah was treated, for the same reasons."
Baha'u'llah's story is different from Christ's story.
I did not plagiarize anything. Everything I posted about what happened to Christ is true.
That no one would notice was predicted in the Bible, which says that Christ would return like a thief in the night.
If it would be easy to recognize the return of Christ, Jesus would not have said to watch.
Christians never watched, they just waited, and waited and waited and waited.
And they will continue to wait for the same Jesus to come, even though Jesus said that His work was finished here and He was no more in the world.
(John 14:19, John 16:10, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30)
Meanwhile, the spirit of Christ returned in Baha'u'llah and they missed Him because they were not watching.
Rev 3:2-3
2 Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God.
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
Rev 16:15
Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
Luke 12:39-40
39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
40 Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.
Matthew 24
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Mark 13
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
Jesus said the Son of Man will come as a thief in the night so we should be watching.
Revelation 1:7
"Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”;and all peoples on earth 'will mourn because of him.' So shall it be! Amen."
Son of man coming with the clouds means that the return of Christ will appear in the form of another human being. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, these things hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ.
In other words, the judgment of most people was clouded when Christ returned and it is still clouded for most people.
One thing that clouds the judgment of Christians is their desire for the same Jesus to return to earth.
That is laughable given that one third of the world population are Christians.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
When Jesus said that, Christianity was the narrow gate that led to life. It was narrow because there were very few Christians in the first centuries, but Christianity is no longer the narrow road. It is now a wide road because many people have entered through it. Given that Christianity is now the largest religion in the world, Christianity is no longer the narrow road that leads to life.
No, Christ did not say that. You only believe that Christ said that.
Seminar Rules Out 80% of Words Attributed to Jesus : Religion: Provocative meeting of biblical scholars ends six years of voting on authenticity in the Gospels.
“Most scholars, if they had worked through the sayings as we had, would tend to agree there is virtually nothing in the fourth Gospel (John) that goes back to Jesus,” said Robert Fortna of Vassar College. Jesus says in John “I am the good shepherd . . . I am the light of the world . . . I am the bread of life,” but that “is mostly the work of the author,” Fortna said. Jesus rarely refers to himself in the other Gospels.
THE REJECTED SAYINGS
The Jesus Seminar, a six-year project based in Sonoma to assess the historical authenticity of sayings attributed to Jesus, concluded that about half were words put into his mouth by Gospel authors and early believers in reflection of their own hopes and fears. Among the sayings rejected were the following:
John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.”
John 14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Mark 13:25, 30: (A series of apocalyptic sayings) “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory. . . . Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.”
Matthew 5:11: “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”
Mark 10:32-34: “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”
Seminar Rules Out 80% of Words Attributed to Jesus : Religion: Provocative meeting of biblical scholars ends six years of voting on authenticity in the Gospels.
The provocative Jesus Seminar on Sunday concluded six years of voting on what the Jesus of history most likely said, ruling out about 80% of words attributed to him in the Gospels and emerging with the picture of a prophet-sage who told parables and made pithy comments.www.latimes.com
Sorry, but the narrow gate now applies to the Baha'i Faith since it is the religion that few have found and have entered in.
Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.”
Agreed. I think the metaphors already provided are fairly obvious such as clapping hands river lol
I think the problem is denial, ppl see something that challenges their belief system and as a result, because of denial, it can't possibly mean what it says. The metaphors already included are fairly obvious.
You claimed "only one can be true"
Exactly
This is simply the logical conclusion, unless you can explain to me how conflicting and competing religions, mostly with different and often multiple deities can all be true? can you explain that logic to me?
Facts aren't 'arrogance', they are what they are, you either believe in the self-evident truth or you don't. Whichever faith you believe in you surely must accept only one can be true?
No, I just give my views on this, I can't help it if people's ego's are so fragile they cannot stand a simple opinion, though to be fair it doesn't surprise me. I have had plenty of pushback, which is fine, you won't find me crying like a baby over it.
Blasphemous to whom? and by what reasoning? that claim doesn't even make any sense.
Okay. Forget the word "impose". How do you even preach your theology to others while everything is subjective? You are making an objective statement. That's a contradiction.
You have not understood any of the terms in this sentence.
You twist words again. It was about:
Unfortunately it can, particularly when the truth is uncomfortable.
Interesting! Can you elaborate? The ancient knowledge from the ancient sages of Hinduism did not claim to be prophets. To oversimplify it, they meditated to get their answers. Through experiencing meditation myself, I can conceptualize this process. Did you know this about Hinduism?
Nice, so you speak for us all do ya?
Please demonstrate any logic!