This belief thing

Of course as usual Faith that is simply NOT what the Bible story actually says. There is no mention of Satan in Genesis 2&3 and the serpent does not seduce anyone away from God and the people in the myth do not forget about God and in fact continue on with a relationship over many generations.Second Islam and Judaism also make exactly the same claims and even about exactly the same God.Third, many religions present themselves as the revelation of the one true Creator God and at least one that is far older than either Judaism, Christianity or Islam even explains why you might think such things.All of the Gods as well as this universe are simply manifestations of Brahma's dreams. As happens in dreams, subjects and even characters change and morph as the dream progresses. There is evidence for that in the Bible stories where the God character does change and morph; the god of Genesis 1 entirely different than the bumbling fearful god of Genesis 2&3 and unlike the god in Exodus who changes Pharaohs mind and the punishes Pharaoh just to show off.Religions are simply the product of man and the gods that are created in those religions are also simply the product of man.That does not mean that there might not actually be a GOD but if that GOD does exist it will be totally unlike any of the God(s) and god(s) we create.

You don't like it, obviously, but the Qur'an does give an extremely coherent consistent understanding of the thousands of idolatrous religions. They are the reason God gave us the Qur'an, to show us the true God and set us free from the demons who are the gods of all those religions.So Faith, reality is that your religion has no greater claim of authority than any other religion.It really is "This belief thing".You have your beliefs. Others believe differently. I believe you think you are a Christian and that I am not a Christian and of course that is your right. But religions, all religions are the product of humans only. The god character you market has no greater validity than Ganesha or Odin or Allah or Ra or Turtle or Coyote or Brahma. The Pope has every bit as much a right to consider himself a Christian and actually has the authority of having been elected head of Christianity.

According to the Qur'an the other two Judaic faiths, the peoples of the Book, had both become idolatrous which is why God had to send word to hopefully straighten things out. Unlike the Bible that has lots of unknown authors, the Qur'an was directly dictated to Mohammad from God through the angel Gabriel.You may not like that answer but it is what the Qur'an says. It does recognize that you and the Jews do worship Allah so you at least got that much right.AbE:But there are certain beliefs that are common to most religions; that there are morality questions, that there is a God or gods, that there was a creation, the concepts of stewardship, community, spirituality, that life has value...Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I see Dr A already provided examples of the Qur'an dealing with idolatrous religions and in fact many other religions do as well.But there is another way that religions deal with what YOU call idolatrous religions and that is by acknowledging that different people have different beliefs and those beliefs should be respected. That by the way is also the position taken in the Bible (ain't it great that the Bible is so filled with contradictions? ).I'm sure you are familiar with Kings 5 and the story of Naaman the leper.Remember that as Naaman is about to return to Syria, after he has acknowledged the power of the god of Israel; he asks for two mules of dirt from Israel to take back with him since he wishes to worship the god of Israel and so will need some of Israel so that that god can be with him.But he has a bigger issue. His master still worships the gods of Syria and so he asks "Is it okay if I go with my master when he worships other gods and support him?" and the answer is that of course he can do so. There is no admonition to try to get Naaman's master to change allegiance or for Naaman not to go with him to worship the other gods. Common courtesy was of greater importance than which god was being worshiped.This is the position held by many of the world's religions, that of religion as a path, a journey; an understanding that different people will follow different paths but that the important points, stewardship, concern for the welfare of others and the world we live in are common to all religions.It's also the position held my much of Christianity today. It's only a small limited segment of today's Christianity that tries to deny the worth and value of all the world's religions.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I understand that is your position and belief Faith, but it is not what all Christians believe. For example the vast majority of Christians not only understand that the Roman Catholic Church is Christian but are actually Roman Catholics.The Bible is filled with contradictions and that is much of its strength. As I pointed out to you in Kings 5 there is no attempt to convert Naamans master and Naaman accompanying him and supporting him in worship of a god other than the God of Israel is accepted.The very term Israel alludes to the common Hebrew understanding at that time that mankind struggles with both God and man.But your strongly held beliefs are no more valid than others' strongly held beliefs. The big difference is that most Roman Catholics would recognize that you too are a Christian.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

I understand that is your belief but remember, people can actually read what is written. No, what you pointed out was that Commentators have tried to explain away that and other contradictions; but that is NOT what the story actually says.At the time the story was written the belief was that there was a God of Israel. The Bible simply reflects the various gods that the people of each era created, how they saw their god at that time. The commentators come later and their job is to try to change the perception of the Bible, to recreate its message to fit their belief system.But in the story of Naaman found in Kings 5 there is absolutely no indication that the Israelis did not believe the dirt was both necessary and a reasonable gift or that the gift was made to protect Naaman's new faith. Come one. This is a guy that just got cured of leprosy. That's a foundation for a fairly strong belief. Yup, but we are not living a hundred years ago (and you are exaggerating once again. In some areas you might have denied the Roman Catholic a job or felt a Roman Catholic should not become President but you would not have been tortured or killed for your beliefs for many hundreds of years. And even during the so called Reformation it was as likely that a Protestant would kill a Roman Catholic for their beliefs as that the Roman Catholic would kill the Protestant, particularly when location is considered. Yes, we know that is your belief, but it not a belief held by all Christians.

On the topic "This belief thing", strongly held beliefs have given rise to two professions, the Biblical Commentator and Apologist.There are those Christians who hold a set of beliefs more strongly than any actual reality or evidence. One set of such beliefs is that the Bible is one book, that there really is a correct Bible, that the Old Testament was meant to foreshadow the New Testament and that it is free from errors, contradictions or misrepresentations.It does not matter that there is not one universally accepted Canon but rather many different selections of what should be in the "Christian" bible that range from just those books that were likely Canonized while Jesus would have been alive to monstrous tomes that include over 80 books.Note that it is now an extra-Biblical belief the determines how to interpret the Bible and not what is actually written or actually exists.The need to revise what is actually written to align with what is believed to be true runs right from the very beginning of the Bible until the end. The fact that the two creation myths are mutually exclusive, that the order and method of creation between the stories is contradictory and even the descriptions of the two gods are entirely different simply gets denied. The god character in Genesis 2&3 cannot lie and the serpent cannot tell the truth and so some additional definition of death needs to be created even though it is absent from the story.The goal is to support the beliefs over the Bible, to support beliefs over reality.But despite the Apologists and Commentators, the actual writings still exist. Folk can go read the stories themselves. The different Canons do exist; there is no such thing as "The Bible".But there is another more reasonable explanation and that is to recognize that the so called Bible (from whichever Canon is selected) is simply an anthology of anthologies; a collection of separate stories, tales, myths and laws that reflected individual unique cultures of a given period and how they saw their relationships with the universe, man and god and how they envisioned the god they chose to worship.

The concept of a Bible is a later Christian creation itself and distinct from Canonization; a list of what is in out out of a theology set. It's likely the first five "books" of the Bible were Canonized at the time Jesus was alive and we do know there were also many other books being circulated and accepted as scripture including some that did not make it into the Western Canon. Jesus is said to have even referenced some.But even today, the Jews see scripture as the individual scrolls, each a separate work. It's within Christianity that that distinction has been lost.

To get to the point you outline requires several steps.You skip over some basics.For most people the fact that THEY (and the THEYs can be pretty broad and general) do something has little to do with what the WEs do. They are idolatrous. They worship false gods. They are not members. Well you know what THEY are like!It requires an understanding of what evidence is; an understanding that based on many posts here at EvC is often lacking. Look at the posts where people point to stories of miraculous happenings as evidence, particularly miraculous happenings reported in the basic mythos of a culture or religion.Next it requires a culture of questioning which is a culture often actively discouraged instead of encouraged.Also needed is a requirement to even begin examination of beliefs. Unless there is some reason why stir the pot? It is the high nail that gets pounded down. What are you? Are you weird or something?There has to be some training in the procedures, the techniques of discrimination and decision making. There needs to be training in looking at all the evidence and not simply rejecting those data points that refute a desired position.And then there is the need to actually know something about the other options and not simply the caricatures and propaganda about other positions marketed within your particular framework of reference. It's easy to reject a creation that exists only to be rejected.Familiar is comforting.Membership is comforting.Not questioning is easier than questioning.Study is difficult.Chick Tracts work.Belief systems do change but usually either very slowly or by being intentionally and forcefully suppressed.Atheism and Agnosticism as positions have been around at least as potentials for a long, long time but seldom has either system been in a position to successfully suppress religions and other spiritual beliefs.Neither position has had a marketing machine anywhere near as pervasive as the marketing machine of most religions.While religion has had the ability to unite disparate peoples to a common set of goals, neither atheism or agnosticism seem to offer similar cohesiveness and inclusion. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

The Buddhist view of reincarnation also is more than simple rebirth, rather it is an expression of what you did during this current life determining your starting point in a future life. There is the element of reward, punishment, education, improvement and renewal.The mechanism may be different but the patterns similar.

Actually many such as Hinduism can also accept Christianity as just another set of gods.But there are also still the Nature Worship groups that again vary in about as many different flavors as the Judaic Trinity of Judaism, Islam and Christianity.Remember though, even if all of the worlds religions are wrong it still says nothing about whether or not there is a GOD.

But both of those are also simply not correct. First, there is absolutely no reason even an interventionist god could not use entirely natural methods to intervene. For example by influencing someones thinking or behavior or any other non-detectable method. What it does eliminate is the show off caricature god like the one in the Exodus myth.Second, organized religions as a concept can make sense even when the god they market may be absurd to others. They can align people to accomplish tasks the individual might not consider, promote a sense of identity and unity, gather and distribute resources, and many other similar social functions.

Nonsense. I have already stipulated that religions are all man made and many, many, many times described the difference between the concept of GOD, God(s) and god(s). I will run it by yet again if you want. No, it only eliminates that one god and any similar gods. There could be one GOD or many GODS but not necessarily (actually almost certainly) not any God(s) or god(s) we can discuss. Man does not live by requirements alone nor does the actual existence of a particular God have any real implications when it comes to any religion. Stop and think. Consider just one small aspect of religions, the Christian Bible stories. If you actually read the stories you find they describe many different characters all considered the Judaic God, God of the Bible. It is irrelevant that the actual descriptions of the characteristics are often mutually exclusive, contradictory, evil beyond belief and in many cases jess plain silly. Christianity still makes claim to worship "The God of the Bible".In addition, religion and other social aspects are not mutually exclusive. There is plenty of room for multiple organizations.

Good thing I didn't write that then isn't it?That is a quote from Tangle.

And so since the characteristics of the God character found in Genesis 1 are entirely different than the God character found in Genesis 2&3 then those stories are not talking about the same God. Got it Faith.But as you can see Faith, that is just more evidence that not only are Christianity and Judaism and Islam simply human constructs, the Bible stories themselves are just human constructs and just reflect what the people of a given era, culture and mythos imagined their God to be like and imagined their relationship with a god character (as well as other humans and the rest of the environment) and have meaning only withing those constraints.The God you market is just some amalgam of all the different descriptions, often mutually exclusive, contradictory and even evil that are found in those stories.