Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 118 (8777 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 2:49 AM
360 online now:
dwise1, Huntard, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ThinAirDesigns (5 members, 355 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,274 Year: 20,880/21,208 Month: 1,313/2,326 Week: 649/345 Day: 11/161 Hour: 2/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can many/all religions be true? (Mini_Ditka and Phat)
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 1 of 15 (275013)
01-02-2006 2:25 PM


===============================================
GREAT DEBATE THREAD * MINI DITKA AND PHAT ONLY
===============================================
First off let me state that I am agnostic... However, I have been thinking lately that all religions could certainly be true. What if all religions are just a different way of reaching to a higher power? People will claim the scripture is contradictory... however, that is scripture, that is not a higher being.

Hindus have multiple gods and Jews have one. However, if god is truly omnipotent, omniscient, etc. etc. why can't it be many and yet also one at the same time? I mean, this doesn't make sense to the human mind, but isn't the whole point of god that it is beyond our understanding? Jesus could be the son of god to some and not others and both could be true because god is omnipotent and omnipresent....

So the topic is: Could many/all religions be true? (we could even discuss if this could include atheism... If god is truly unlimited couldn't he exist and not exist at the same time?

This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-13-2006 07:50 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Faith, posted 01-02-2006 3:07 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-02-2006 6:30 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded
 Message 10 by alphablu82, posted 01-11-2006 11:37 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 14 by Rommel, posted 11-30-2006 11:12 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 25816
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2 of 15 (275026)
01-02-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-02-2006 2:25 PM


Sorry, didn't see this was a Great Debate
Sorry didn't see this was a Great Debate.

I think my solution to this helps some -- every few posts a participant should run a banner within the post stating this is a GD thread, as people are always blundering in, not noticing it's a GD, reading the material and feeling like answering it.

Like this:

===============================================
GREAT DEBATE THREAD * MINI DITKA AND PHAT ONLY
===============================================

This message has been edited by Faith, 01-02-2006 03:24 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-02-2006 2:25 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9565
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 3 of 15 (275108)
01-02-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-02-2006 2:25 PM


Reply#1>>>Phat responds to Mini D
===============================================
GREAT DEBATE THREAD * MINI DITKA AND PHAT ONLY
===============================================
Mini-D writes:

First off let me state that I am agnostic... However, I have been thinking lately that all religions could certainly be true. What if all religions are just a different way of reaching to a higher power? People will claim the scripture is contradictory... however, that is scripture, that is not a higher being.

Phat writes:

Some would argue that scripture is itself inspired by such a higher being.


Hindus have multiple gods and Jews have one. However, if god is truly omnipotent, omniscient, etc. etc. why can't it be many and yet also one at the same time? I mean, this doesn't make sense to the human mind, but isn't the whole point of god that it is beyond our understanding? Jesus could be the son of god to some and not others and both could be true because god is omnipotent and omnipresent....
Phat writes:

You have a good point! :)

So the topic is: Could many/all religions be true? (we could even discuss if this could include atheism... If god is truly unlimited couldn't he exist and not exist at the same time?


Hey, Mini-D! This is certainly a topic that has always been discussed by many Theologians, Philosophers, and Apologists throughout the history of debate. I am hesitant as to how to respond to your opening post since I do not know you nor am I fully cognizant of what is is that you actually believe---not theologically as much as practically. Perhaps in my O.P. I can tell what it is that I believe and why.

I am a Monotheist. I believe in the Bible as Spiritually inspired. Most Protestant Creeds see the Bible as innerrent. I do not ascribe to that, but I DO believe that the human authors were inspired through impartation and not only through their own imaginations. When one reads a normal book, one seeks to glean knowledge from the book---to put the knowledge into the mind, so to speak. When one reads the Bible, one pulls knowledge out of the inner Spirit that lives in every believer.

I also believe that there is a difference between knowing about God and knowing God. Of course, everything that I say to you is my belief and not fact.(in context of a relative debate)

I could go on, but I want to address the Great Debate Topic. Could many/all religions be true? If god is truly unlimited couldn't he exist and not exist at the same time? No.(IMHO) There are some things that God cannot do...perhaps according to His choosing to remain true to His own created definitions and meanings...but true nonetheless.

Religions can and are true relative to the individuals who believe in them, but the key word is definition. God Himself created the very meanings behind reality, words, and meaning. God was at one time dead and alive at the same time,(according to Trinitarian belief) but as far as exist and not exist, this would only be true in a relativist framework of believers coupled with non-believers...and even then, God may exist despite some declaring Him a non entity.

Lets lay down some definitions for the purposes of our discussion...shall we?

Websters writes:

religion-1 : the service and worship of God or the supernatural 2 : devotion to a religious faith 3 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious beliefs, attitudes, and practices 4 : a cause, principle, or belief held to with faith and ardor religionist n
---------------------------------------------
belief1 : confidence, trust 2 : something (as a tenet or creed) believed syn conviction, opinion, persuasion, sentiment
---------------------------------------------
empirical \im-pir-i-kel\ also empiric \-ik\ adj : based on observation; also : subject to verification by observation or experiment <~ laws> empirically \-i-k(e-)le\ adv
---------------------------------------------
fact1 : deed; esp : crime 2 : the quality of being actual 3 : something that exists or occurs 4 : a piece of information
---------------------------------------------
relative adj 1 : introducing a subordinate clause qualifying an expressed or implied antecedent <~ pronoun>; also : introduced by such a connective <~ clause> 2 : pertinent, relevant 3 : not absolute or independent : comparative 4 : expressed as the ratio of the specified quantity to the total magnitude or to the mean of all quantities involved syn dependent, contingent, conditional relatively adv relativeness n
--------------------------------------------
absolute 1 : free from imperfection or mixture 2 : free from control, restriction, or qualification 3 : lacking grammatical connection with any other word in a sentence <~ construction> 4 : positive <~ proof> 5 : relating to the fundamental units of length, mass, and time 6 : fundamental, ultimate absolutely adv
-------------------------------------------
ag•nos•ticadj [Gk agnÖstos unknown, unknowable, fr. a- un- + gnÖstos known] : of or relating to the belief that the existence of any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable — agnostic n — ag•nos•ti•cism \-"näs-t€-'si-z€m\ n

These are a few of the words that frame the context of our discussion. If you have any others to add to the list, throw them in! (They call me Mr. Dictionary in the chatroom....it is one of the ways that I can get a handle on what I am saying and why! :)

Mini-D writes:

if god is truly omnipotent, omniscient, etc. etc. why can't it be many and yet also one at the same time? I mean, this doesn't make sense to the human mind, but isn't the whole point of god that it is beyond our understanding? Jesus could be the son of god to some and not others and both could be true because god is omnipotent and omnipresent...

Because, IMHO, God is the Creator. He "imagined" us long before we as a human species "imagined" god or gods. Because of this, also, He created concepts, facts, definitions, and everything about us that makes us who we are.

How can something exist and not exist? It may be true that God can do whatever God wants to do, but I suppose that as a starting point, you and I have to agree on our respective positions of the definition of God as we each see it (Him).

Note the differences between a relative concept and an absolute concept above.

Get back to me, and we can hopefully make an interesting Great Debate, here!

This message has been edited by Phat, 01-03-2006 08:31 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-02-2006 2:25 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-03-2006 1:56 PM Phat has responded

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 4 of 15 (275349)
01-03-2006 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Phat
01-02-2006 6:30 PM


what is a god(s)?
How can something exist and not exist? It may be true that God can do whatever God wants to do, but I suppose that as a starting point, you and I have to agree on our respective positions of the definition of God as we each see it (Him).

To start, i would define god(s) as something beyond our comprehension and understanding. I'm not sure omnipotent is the right word, more just like "power beyond our ability to understand". In addition, this god(s) would have to be unlimited, at least from our perspective (limits we can not conceive of or comprehend seem irrelevant to me).

Maybe I haven't done a great job of defining god(s), but I think have listed some properties.....

This message has been edited by Mini_Ditka, 01-03-2006 02:06 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Phat, posted 01-02-2006 6:30 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 01-03-2006 6:40 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 9565
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 5 of 15 (275474)
01-03-2006 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-03-2006 1:56 PM


Phats Reply#2
So where do you want to take our discussion? I suppose that I don't really want to come across as a proselyte...
Websters writes:

proselytize \pra-se-le-tz\ vb -tized; -tizing 1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith 2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

Because how boring it would be if we all agreed!

Im curious as to why you are agnostic. Do you really believe that the entire story of Jesus Christ was made up by power hungry men?

Another question: Have you or do you have any friends who are staunch Christian believers? If so, do you all ever discuss your different perspectives?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-03-2006 1:56 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-03-2006 7:01 PM Phat has responded

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 6 of 15 (275481)
01-03-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Phat
01-03-2006 6:40 PM


Re: Phats Reply#2
I have no problem going any way you want with this thread. I don't mind a little proselytizing! If I couldn't stand exporsure to other ideas I wouldn't be much of a free-thinker would I?

As to what my beliefs actually are. I might be considered more of an atheist. However, I do not disbelieve in the concept of a god, I simply don't buy any of the ones that have been presented to me. I used to be more of a deist... but eventually I realized that belief in a god(s) was irrelevant and settled on atheist/agnostic.

Interestingly enough, the bible has only made me less of a believer. It seems ridiculously contradictory... In addition, I am against organized religion... in fact, I think organized religion is all about taking the god out of spirituality. I have also read quite a bit about the existence of a historical jesus and found little to no evidence.

To me religion is just something that people created to control other people..... So that was very rambling and probably not well written, but you get the idea.

I would say, the only types of things that have ever made me really wonder about a god(s) are books like "A brief history of time" by hawking. I see far more sprituality in relativistic physics and evolution than I do in religious texts.

To get back to the OP:

My thought is, if god(s) is/are truly unlimited and beyond our understanding why couldn't it/them reveal itself to different people in different ways. We may think it illogical for judiasm and christianity to both be true, but god(s) is/are by definition beyond human logic and rules....

I had a conversation with a good friend the other day that your post reminded me of. He used to be a reasonably devout catholic growing up. Now he is more of a liberal x-tien or deist. We were discussing the lack of evidence for the existence of a historical jesus. He told me, "Honestly, whether he was the son of god or not, or even existed... it doesn't matter to me. What matters to me are his teachings and that following them is the right thing to do."

He is of the opinion that following the golden rule as jesus taught is what matters..... not arguing over whether a bunch of obvious parables are really true.

This message has been edited by Mini_Ditka, 01-03-2006 07:02 PM

This message has been edited by Mini_Ditka, 01-03-2006 07:03 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Phat, posted 01-03-2006 6:40 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 01-04-2006 4:02 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 9565
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 7 of 15 (275804)
01-04-2006 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-03-2006 7:01 PM


Hawking and Relativism versus Organized Chaos
===============================================
GREAT DEBATE THREAD * MINI DITKA AND PHAT ONLY
===============================================
Hi, Mini-D! :) Some people, many of whom are my online aquaintances, look at Christianity as a really great philosophy based entirely on behavior of individuals. They would maintain, as did your friend and perhaps you, that salvation is not the issue---(since they believe that EVERYONE is already saved!)

I will admit that "Christians" and the historical Church has been a poor advertisement for a living Savior and Lord that lives within us!

Mini-D writes:

Interestingly enough, the bible has only made me less of a believer. It seems ridiculously contradictory... In addition, I am against organized religion... in fact, I think organized religion is all about taking the god out of spirituality. I have also read quite a bit about the existence of a historical jesus and found little to no evidence.


I have read quite a bit as well, and based on ONLY what I have read, there IS no conclusion, IMO. Of course, a lot depends on the preconceived bias of the reader. Lets take a guy who was raised around religion, saw the hypocrisies and politics of it, became educated in critical thinking, and concluded that 90% of organized religion was a giant lie and clever marketing ploy! I would be unable to convince this person that SOME people know about God and some people know God. My Belief would not persuade them...especially if they were convinced that a benevolant God loves everyone and has already saved everyone!

My problem with such a belief is that it assumes that humans are quite capable of rescuing/saving themselves and that God need not be real--a good philosophy is enough!

All I can say in response to that is that I believe that God is objective--in that He is outside of my mind as well as in my heart! I am in communion with Him strictly through His Grace and not in and of my behavior.

Mini-D writes:

I don't mind a little proselytizing! If I couldn't stand exporsure to other ideas I wouldn't be much of a free-thinker would I?

Tell me what YOU think that a free-thinker is defined as? Are all free thinkers relativists? Is not deciding the same as deciding? Does being a free thinker allow oneself to remain "in control" and on the throne of ones own mind, heart and soul?

If so, it clashes with my belief that allows The Spirit of God to be the final arbitrator in (most) of my decisions in life asd opposed to my own emotions and logic. I believe, however, that the organized religious have misused this theology to attempt controlling the flock themselves! (All in His name, of course! :rolleyes: )

Mini-D writes:

As to what my beliefs actually are. I might be considered more of an atheist. However, I do not disbelieve in the concept of a god, I simply don't buy any of the ones that have been presented to me. I used to be more of a deist... but eventually I realized that belief in a god(s) was irrelevant and settled on atheist/agnostic.

As I understand it, an atheist is merely one who lacks theistic belief. Thus, atheists dont disbelieve in God...they simply consider the concept unreal to begin with...and are quite sure of that logic---whereas agnostics are unsure of the finality of a theistic reality. Am I close to what you believe with these definitions?
Mini-D writes:

Interestingly enough, the bible has only made me less of a believer.

I agree that the Bible is illogical in and of critical thinking approaches...yet I have personally found that the words seem to speak beyond mere human wisdom to me. My critics think me biased towards innerrency in this regard, yet I would assert that they are biased AGAINST inerrency for the critical thinking/logical reasonings of their own minds..
Mini-D writes:

I have also read quite a bit about the existence of a historical jesus and found little to no evidence.

But how could a wide variety of educated apologists be so deluded and clueless? I can't accept that unbiased historians(who themselves have an agenda---that of disproving what they consider a myth) are so very right while the many fine apologists like Peter Kreeft, Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, and Ron Rhodes, (some of them PhD's) are simply out of it!
Mini-D writes:

To me religion is just something that people created to control other people...


I agree....but it only strengthens the case of an imperfect species and Original Sin.

Mini-D writes:

I would say, the only types of things that have ever made me really wonder about a god(s) are books like "A brief history of time" by hawking. I see far more sprituality in relativistic physics and evolution than I do in religious texts.

HawkingQuote writes:

We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something very special. Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989

Can we really understand the universe? We can't even understand ourselves yet!

This message has been edited by Phat, 01-05-2006 12:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-03-2006 7:01 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-05-2006 8:20 PM Phat has responded

SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 8 of 15 (276209)
01-05-2006 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Phat
01-04-2006 4:02 PM


Re: Hawking and Relativism versus Organized Chaos
I have read quite a bit as well, and based on ONLY what I have read, there IS no conclusion, IMO. Of course, a lot depends on the preconceived bias of the reader. Lets take a guy who was raised around religion, saw the hypocrisies and politics of it, became educated in critical thinking, and concluded that 90% of organized religion was a giant lie and clever marketing ploy! I would be unable to convince this person that SOME people know about God and some people know God. My Belief would not persuade them...especially if they were convinced that a benevolant God loves everyone and has already saved everyone!

Phat, I think you bring up some good points here... and it sort of gets to my overall point. There is no certain way to know if one or any religions are true or correct. My idea is, since god is unlimited and beyond our understanding why couldn't the many world religions be different ways of reaching the same entity(s). Maybe Christians reach god(s) through jesus, Muslims through the Quran, Hindus through their deities, etc. Since god is beyond our understanding, it seems to me that certainly every religion could be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Phat, posted 01-04-2006 4:02 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 01-09-2006 6:21 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Phat, posted 01-20-2006 1:24 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Phat
Member
Posts: 9565
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 9 of 15 (277461)
01-09-2006 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
01-05-2006 8:20 PM


A logical discussion of personal questions
GREAT DEBATE THREAD>>>>NO REPLIES OTHER THAN FROM PARTICIPANTS<<<<

You know something, Mini-D? I am learning a lot by responding to you in these posts! :)

Ultimately, what I say and how I say it carries more weight in my personal responses to you than any amount of "information" or statistics or studies that I could dig up and paste into my reply. (Although additional evidence and opinion is important!) I am coming to some conclusions of my own as I think about how to respond to you, WHY I am responding the way that I am, and WHAT it is that I am hoping to convey to you in the body of my response. Hopefully, I can communicate effectively what it is that I wish to say and not arrogantly hope to "win" this debate so much as to be able to add to it and in synthesis with your responses form a thread which collectively can further knowledge and understanding!

I believe that information and facts in and of themselves do little to convince people one way or another in regards to how they decide their own conclusions. I think that a lot of persuasion has to do with credibility of the individuals, experts, and human sources whom we consult.

Websters writes:

cred•i•ble adj : trustworthy, believable — cred•i•bil•i•ty

Some anonymous source at atheism.org or at apologetics.com, or any other site is only confirming previously held biases within any given debater. The information in and of itself means little in the overall scheme of things.

It sounds as if you, as well as I, have participated in a lot of debates and arguments throughout the years. We have seen individuals with differing beliefs and worldviews trot out the same lists of "contradictions", the same phrases such as ad-hoc, circular reasoning, absolute truth, relativism, Post-modernism, gnosis and agnosis, etc..etc..etc..

At first, I really had nothing to say in response to your message #8, and found that I agreed with you enough that the wind was, in effect, out of my sails! :)

In the interests of furthering this discussion, however, I have found a second wind..(hopefully not just a lot of hot air! )

Mini-D writes:

There is no certain way to know if one or any religions are true or correct.

If I were to suspend my belief, you would be absolutely correct! To deny that I had "met" Jesus and had grown in the awe of seeing mere words on the page of the Bible become confirming truths in my life and answers to questions that I have had in the past would be all but impossible for me to do!

As individuals participating in a forum, we naturally find ourselves gravitating towards the group of people whom share our beliefs--in general--but there are many variables.

EvC is a unique forum in that many of us have developed online relationships with people whom we disagree with. (Not all of them, however!)

I could go on and on, but I'll wrap up this post so as to allow your reply to become synthesized into our overall discussion.

In Brief: I googled up an apologist or two to attempt to glean wisdom from them. While I was impressed with Dr. Ron Rhodes in general (look at some of his FAQ's and his articles) I was struck by the way that he defended the Bible using what many opponents call circular reasoning .

I can understand why he approaches the issue this way, however. For a theist, belief is a prerequisite for any type of defense of a theistic worldview. I think that your historicity of Jesus thread proved that quite concisely. (also confirming that faith and belief in and of itself proves nothing in an objective sense...One must believe FIRST! :)

Im guessing that some of the terms are used in the study of "logic" as logical debates/discussions.

This link from Wiki shows a lot of the definitions of many of these terms and was quite interesting!

Mini-D writes:

I might be considered more of an atheist. However, I do not disbelieve in the concept of a god, I simply don't buy any of the ones that have been presented to me. I used to be more of a deist... but eventually I realized that belief in a god(s) was irrelevant and settled on atheist/agnostic.

So you don't "buy" any of them, eh? I could use the classic catchphrase well then you need to get saved! :) Lets be more specific, however. Let me ask you these questions:
  • Was the fact that the early church was found to be corrupt in many ways a factor in your renouncing organized religion?
  • was strict logic a factor? In other words, did some of the persuasive arguments against the Gospel authenticities and the actual historical evidence of Jesus Christ sway you towards agnosticism/atheism in any way?

  • Perhaps my most important question (in my eyes) is this: Has the behavior of any Christians that you have known personally or observed directly caused you to wonder what they were about and why they were so fanatic, hypocritical, and condescending?

    This message has been edited by Phat, 01-09-2006 04:28 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-05-2006 8:20 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

  • alphablu82
    Inactive Member


    Message 10 of 15 (278123)
    01-11-2006 11:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    01-02-2006 2:25 PM


    Content deleted
    {Sorry, but the various "Great Debate" topics are for designated participents only, in this case, Mini_Ditka and Phat. Feel free, however, to post at topics in other forums. - Adminnemooseus}

    This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-11-2006 11:43 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-02-2006 2:25 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 9565
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.9


    Message 11 of 15 (280308)
    01-20-2006 1:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    01-05-2006 8:20 PM


    Re: Hawking and Relativism versus Organized Chaos
    did you want to continue our discussion? :)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-05-2006 8:20 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    Rawel Singh
    Inactive Member


    Message 12 of 15 (293659)
    03-09-2006 12:50 PM


    All religions are true.
    Religion is a way of living. This living involves all the three asoects of life namely thoughts, the soken word and actionsor deeds. All religions without exception are unanimous on what they say on this aspect. The problem arises only when someone starts saying "my religion is the best or the only way". A careful study of the scriptures will show that such a thing is not there or has been inserted later. This is also applicable to the dogmas and rituals. They are later additions. This particularly stands out when the scripture was not veified by the Preceptor or put in by intereted people. Tkake the case of Mary the mother of Jesus.The Bible says she was a virgin and Isaiahs propecy is quoted. However in the original Bible in Hebrew or Greek the word used means young woman. Similarly equating Jesus to God is a lter addition because Jesus himself had said that no one but God is to be worshipped and served.Jesus' being depicted as is done is clearly a cse of overenthusiasim. The Quran refers to Mohammad as a messenger of God, but some Muslims say he is the last messenger of God. If We cut these things out and try to understand the essence of the scriptures of different religions, there will hardly be any differences.

    This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-09-2006 11:58 AM


    Replies to this message:
     Message 13 by AdminJar, posted 03-09-2006 12:54 PM Rawel Singh has not yet responded

    AdminJar
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 15 (293662)
    03-09-2006 12:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 12 by Rawel Singh
    03-09-2006 12:50 PM


    Not the right place for you to post.
    Great Debates are limited to specified participannts. Please do not post in a GD unless you are one of the invitees.

    I realize that as a new poster you probably are not aware of this so no harm, no foul.

    But I will have to hide your post since you are not one of the people in this debate.

    If you want to comment on this action folow the link at the bottom of this message to "General discussion of moderation procedures".

    {Addition by Adminnemooseus - I point out to those that may not know such, that SuperNintendo Chalmers is the same person as Mini Ditka (hold mouse cursor over SuperNintendo Chalmers in left column to see alias info.}

    This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-09-2006 01:31 PM


    Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 12 by Rawel Singh, posted 03-09-2006 12:50 PM Rawel Singh has not yet responded

    Rommel
    Inactive Member


    Message 14 of 15 (367071)
    11-30-2006 11:12 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
    01-02-2006 2:25 PM


    no-they contradict each other directly
    Certainly, some religions could be considered the same, and many have characteristics that are strikingly similar to other religions (the ten commandments and their meaning are expressed in some form or another in most religions. Howevever, some condradict each other directly- take Islam and Christianity for example. Islam claims Jesus was not the son of god, and therefore could not have saved humanity from their own sins. This death on the cross is the essence of Christianity and forms the cornerstone of any Christian's faith. Also, neither the bible nor the torah mention anything about mohammed, while this prophet is essential to the faith of any muslim.

    Edited by AdminModulous, : rendered invisible


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 01-02-2006 2:25 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 15 by AdminModulous, posted 11-30-2006 11:24 AM Rommel has not yet responded

    AdminModulous
    Administrator
    Posts: 888
    Joined: 03-02-2006


    Message 15 of 15 (367075)
    11-30-2006 11:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Rommel
    11-30-2006 11:12 AM


    great debates
    Great debates are only for invited participants. I rendered your post invisible - you may see it with 'peek'.

    This thread is old and dead - and keeps getting responses from uninvited members - so I'm closing it until the participants decide to start it up again.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Rommel, posted 11-30-2006 11:12 AM Rommel has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017