Why can't all religions be true?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>all the books of the Bible can be true despite contradicting one
another?
Gokudomatic
<gourry.gabrief@gmail.com>every others religions. What were you thinking?... infidel.
On 6 mar, 21:45, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Why can't all religions be true despite contradicting one another if
> all the books of the Bible can be true despite contradicting one
> another?
Because they are all too silly.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With
our thoughts, we make the world."
[Buddha]
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>things only *apparently* contradictory might both be true. This
applies to the books of the Bible as well as to religions.
On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Musycks
<midiamy@iprimus.com.au>That they come from the same wishful thinking, death-defying human
impulse is self evident. But hard to assume they are all the same when
they themselves are deliberately exclusivist, even though each faith
usually has inclusivist adherants.
If you don't accept Christ as Lord and saviour you can't get to Xtian
heaven and you must go to hell. If you accept Christ as god in Islam
you are an infidel and must go to hell. Either way it seems we're all
on the highway to hell.... but that's okay 'my friends are gonna be
there too'.
David Conklin
<dconklin58@yahoo.com>>Because all the books of the Bible aren't true.
|
And the proof would be?
|
|
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> That they come from the same wishful thinking, death-defying human
> impulse is self evident. But hard to assume they are all the same
The question presumes that they are different since I ask why
different religions can't be true in the view of one who finds
different Biblical books true despite their differences.
> when
> they themselves are deliberately exclusivist, even though each faith
> usually has inclusivist adherants.
> If you don't accept Christ as Lord and saviour you can't get to Xtian
> heaven and you must go to hell.
You can according to some passages and cannot according to other
passages. Did the Good Samaritan accept "Christ as Lord and Savior" or
had he even heard of such a savior, according to a reading of the
parable? Does the parable of Lazarus and the poor man claim that the
poor man accepted "Christ as Lord and savior" or that he had even
heard of such a savior?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> A true contradiction is an impossibility, but it is possible that two
> things only *apparently* contradictory might both be true. This
> applies to the books of the Bible as well as to religions.
If it applies to religions too, then a true contradiction between the
Bible and Mahabharata is an impossibility.
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>existence of 'god'. none of them are right, or wrong, because they are
works of fiction ...
On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>last you see all gods are fictitious! About time.
> > another?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> all religions are based on the writings of men who speculate about the
> existence of 'god'. none of them are right, or wrong, because they are
> works of fiction ...
Is fiction neither right or wrong?
bholly72
<bholly72@gmail.com>On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>On Mar 6, 12:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
That's a deep question, wise man.
That's why religion --all religions-- are false.
There's only WISDOM --and it comes from the jungle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
"There are no churches, only beaches and mountains"
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Drafterman
<drafterman@gmail.com>> existence of 'god'. none of them are right, or wrong, because they are
> works of fiction ...
Fiction means not true. Not true means wrong.
>
> On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
>
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why can't all religions be true despite contradicting one another if
> > all the books of the Bible can be true despite contradicting one
e_space
<espace1984@gmail.com>thanks for your opinion though ;^-)
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> yes
"Jesus was Satan" would seem to be fiction. Is it neither right or
wrong?
How about non-fiction? Is it right, wrong, both or neither?
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com>On Mar 8, 12:42 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 12:42 pm, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > yes
>
> "Jesus was Satan" would seem to be fiction. Is it neither right or
> wrong?
Jesus could have been impersonated by Satan...
If Satan became a snake, there's no limit to what he can do!
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Mar 6, 12:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
Observer
Substitute the word religions with the word ignorance s and viola
the answer emerges.
Psychonomist
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> Because contradictions are necessarily false.
That's the correct answer to some other question but doesn't answer
the question asked.
To put the question another way, why shouldn't propositions 1 & 2 have
the same truth value?
1) all the books of the Bible are true despite contradicting one
another
2) all religions are true despite contradicting one another
> Take a logic course.
Study the meaning of "if".
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Mar 6, 7:01 pm, David Conklin <dconkli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Because all the books of the Bible aren't true.
Observer
We must ask you, who claim the truth of this hideous superstitious
filth, to prove such as the burden of proof falls to the one who makes
the claim.
Why would anyone believe the Old testament when as has been proven
many times here by our resident scientists that it flies in the face
of scientific knowledge and and insults the intelligence of all who
read it have you not a modicum or reason?
Take a look at this hideous filth from an other view point lest you be
to much the coward to test your idiotic faith.
This web site is a challenge to you christian zombies who have fallen
victim to the Bokors / the priest craft of christiandumb.
Read it if you dare and learn if you can.
Welcome to the EvilBible.com Web Site
This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the
Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored
the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called
“God” of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This
God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-
murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing,
not to mention the killing of unborn children. I have included
references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow
along. You can also follow along with on-line Bibles such as
BibleStudyTools.net or SkepticsAnnotatedBible.com.
It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of
innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said “Thou shall not
kill”. For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David
ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the
destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He
orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city,
and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another
attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men
and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua
6). In Judges 21, He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-
gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly
raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to
hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap
her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! Just about every
other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings
10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different
god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people
directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your
own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges
11:29-40 and Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea
13:16 & Psalms 137:9).
This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.
Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be
justified by saying that some god says it’s OK. If more people would
actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more
atheists like myself.
Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate
themselves to go to heaven: "For there are eunuchs, that were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made
eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs
for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let
him receive it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV) I don't know why anyone would
follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off
their privates.
The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice
and animal sacrifice.
And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws
of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read
where Jesus makes it perfectly clear: "It is easier for Heaven and
Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law
to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB) There are many more quotes on
this topic at my "Do Not Ignore the Old Testament" web page.
I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving
god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people
want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many
Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain
passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to
read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many
priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible
because they present a message of hate not love.
If you follow the links on the left side of this page you will
learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not
talked about by priests and preachers. You can also discuss things
related to this web site or religion and atheism in general at the
EvilBible.com Discussion Forum.
>
>
> And the proof would be?
Observer
Does one need to post proof that dead people are not and never have
been reanimated as is claimed bu the voodoo hoodoo of zombiism and
Christianity.
Are you too stupid to understand that the
primitive ,uneducated,disciplined, and superstitious fabricators of
these idiotic stories were steeped in superstition and that they
including Paul the psychotic plagiarized more ancient fables and
attached them to poor Jesus making him into a god fraud?
The new testament is the most completely stupid fucking story ever
told.
Think of it a fictive god who is described as being omniscient,
omnipotent, omnipresent and even omnibenevolent is alleged by the same
stupid fucking book from which this quatrain of sutpidity emerged top
have been so completely inept that it required the torture death of
it's self/it's son to save us from its own wrath?
If it weren't for the power mad monster named Constantine 1 who
strangled his own son and who had his wife boiled to death you
dimwits would never have heard of this superstitious nonsense.
What in the world is the reason that you believe is such utter
perversity ?
MAJOR SECTIONS
no jesus here
Observer
Do you really think it all began with a sanctimonious Jewish wonder-
worker, strolling about 1st century Palestine? Prepare to be
enlightened.
Go to this site and learn if you can
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
Psychonomist
>
> David
>
> --- On Sat, 3/6/10, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [AvC] Re: Why can't all religions be true?
> To: "Atheism vs Christianity" <atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, March 6, 2010, 6:05 PM
>
> On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Why can't all religions be true despite contradicting one another if
> > all the books of the Bible can be true despite contradicting one
> > another?
>
> Because all the books of the Bible aren't true.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Mar 8, 5:34 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> all religions are based on the writings of men who speculate about the
> existence of 'god'. none of them are right, or wrong, because they are
> works of fiction ...
Observer
Witness the hideous stupidity of this village idiot.
This poor brain damaged fool is incapable of understanding that that
such as a god or anything to be discussed either exists or does not
exist with out regard to whether the concept is discussed in a work of
fiction.
Therefore one or the other of the opinions as to such existence is
correct.
Somebody is right and somebody is wrong.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
Psychonomist
Observer
<mayorskid@gmail.com>On Mar 8, 9:42 am, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes
Observer
Even one as stupid as this poor shit for brains should understand
better than that.
He , she, it is Wrong again.
Psychonomist
bholly72
<bholly72@gmail.com>On Mar 8, 9:41 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 12:28 pm, bholly72 <bholl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Because contradictions are necessarily false.
>
> That's the correct answer to some other question but doesn't answer
> the question asked.
>
> To put the question another way, why shouldn't propositions 1 & 2 have
> the same truth value?
> 1) all the books of the Bible are true despite contradicting one
> another
> 2) all religions are true despite contradicting one another
>
They do have the same truth value: false. So your point is?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>The question is to those who don't think they have the same truth
value.
A Query
<djb226@uow.edu.au>On Mar 7, 7:45 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why can't all religions be true
Truth corresponds to reality.
According to the Bible, Jesus rose from the dead
According to the Koran, Jesus did not rise from the dead
If Jesus rose from the dead, it is not true that he also did not rise
from the dead, for only one of these propositions could correspond to
reality
Therefore, the Bible and the Koran cannot both be true
Therefore, Christianity and Islam cannot both be true
Therefore, all religions cannot be true
> despite contradicting one another if
> all the books of the Bible can be true despite contradicting one
> another?
Can you give an example showing how the books of the bible contradict
one another in the same way different religions contradict one another?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather
than burnt offerings. - Hosea 6:6
vs.
The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the
firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. Redeem
the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break
its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before
me empty-handed. - Exodus 34:19-20
If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young
pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin--one for a sin offering
and the other for a burnt offering. Leviticus 5:7
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>A Query
<djb226@uow.edu.au>conflict with one another. For I don't see any contradiction.
On Mar 12, 12:02 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> What is your issue here. Spell out explicitly two propositions that
> conflict with one another. For I don't see any contradiction.
The Jesus character dies. The Jesus character is walking around days later.
Either he didn't die or he wasn't walking around days later, both cannot
be true.
--
[users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm]
"I'm tryin' to feed my soul with thought" - Bob Dylan
"The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows."
[Buddha]
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> "all religions are based on the writings of men who speculate about
> the existence of 'god'...... they are works of fiction" So, at
> last you see all gods are fictitious! About time.
But not his god, of course... silly you!
___________________________________________
All religions die of one disease -- that of being found out.
-- John Morley
A Query
<djb226@uow.edu.au>historical evidence. But why should we be unequivocally committed to
assuming a naturalistic interpretation of all of history a priori?
Although it may be reasonable to prefer naturalistic interpretations
of historical events, to exclude even the slightest possibility of a
non-natural explanation seems to go beyond empirical observations of
how the world generally operates, to metaphysical claims about how the
world "must" operate. Do you think you have the right to impose such a
view on history?
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> i'll stick with my opinion that its not right or wrong, its fiction.
> thanks for your opinion though ;^-)
Right.
Except that "fiction = no true = wrong" is not an opinion, it is a
fact.
Don't believe me? How about a definition from the Merriam-Webster?
"
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically :
an invented story"
"
So, you can stick to your own made up nonsensical beliefs that defy
logic and common sense, but don't label factual statement as "opinion"
in order to rationalize your silliness.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> Only if you employ methodological naturalism in your assessment of
> historical evidence. But why should we be unequivocally committed to
> assuming a naturalistic interpretation of all of history a priori?
Spooky supernatural stuff doesn't happen except in works of fantasy.
> Although it may be reasonable to prefer naturalistic interpretations
> of historical events, to exclude even the slightest possibility of a
> non-natural explanation seems to go beyond empirical observations of
> how the world generally operates, to metaphysical claims about how the
> world "must" operate.
You have empirical observations of unnatural spooky supernatural stuff?
> Do you think you have the right to impose such a view on history?
Yes.
--
[users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm]
"I'm tryin' to feed my soul with thought" - Bob Dylan
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of
throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."
[Buddha]
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> Only if you employ methodological naturalism in your assessment of
> historical evidence. But why should we be unequivocally committed to
> assuming a naturalistic interpretation of all of history a priori?
Simon was talking about Jesus coming back from the dead.
As far as we can tell, this is not a historical event.
In fact, historically speaking, the best we can assert is that there
probably was a Jewish preacher probably named Jesus around those parts
at that time. But what he did and what he said, we do not know.
> Although it may be reasonable to prefer naturalistic interpretations
> of historical events, to exclude even the slightest possibility of a
> non-natural explanation seems to go beyond empirical observations of
> how the world generally operates, to metaphysical claims about how the
> world "must" operate. Do you think you have the right to impose such a
> view on history?
Give us one example of a historical event that is explained by "non-
natural" means.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why can't all religions be true
>
> > Truth corresponds to reality.
>
> > According to the Bible, Jesus rose from the dead
>
> > According to the Koran, Jesus did not rise from the dead
>
> > If Jesus rose from the dead, it is not true that he also did not rise
> > from the dead, for only one of these propositions could correspond to
> > reality
>
> > Therefore, the Bible and the Koran cannot both be true
>
> > Therefore, Christianity and Islam cannot both be true
>
> > Therefore, all religions cannot be true
>
> > > despite contradicting one another if
> > > all the books of the Bible can be true despite contradicting one
> > > another?
>
> > Can you give an example showing how the books of the bible contradict
> > one another in the same way different religions contradict one another?
>
> The books of the Bible can be seen as contradictory only when you don't know
> who is being spoken to, what is being spoken about, why it is spoken - and
> what God's purpose was in dealing with Israel in a certain way at a certain
> time.
But, you, thea, happen to know what god's purposes were at those
different times...
And how did you come by such knowledge?
Do explain why god decreed that it was OK to allow rapists to marry
their victim at one time, but not anymore.
What was his purpose then?
> When you understand the Bible as the OT being the genealogy of Jesus and the
> NT showing that Jesus came to earth - and then seeing St. Paul preaching to
> us as Gentiles -
> and the fact that Hebrews goes back to dealing again with Israel - and the
> rest of the Bible as apply to Israel and the nations but not as Christianity
> -
> then you might have some idea of what the Bible is all about.
> It is called *Rightly Dividing* the Word of Truth - and Dispensationalism -
> The Berean Way.
Right, and the way you favour happens to be the correct one, every
Christian who disagrees with those views are wrong.
Got it.
bholly72
<bholly72@gmail.com>On Mar 11, 3:06 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>On Mar 11, 8:06 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:02 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com <
Likewise, all religions can be true by God's giving different people
different dispensations. For example, we could say that he gave
Muslims the dispensation of Islam, he gave Hindus various
dispensations that are collectively called Hinduism, and so on.
> The whole Bible can be made to be null and void, unless you *Rightly Divide*
> it.
Likewise, the collection of all religions of the world can be made
null and void, unless you *Rightly Divide*.
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianity%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> What is your issue here. Spell out explicitly two propositions that
> conflict with one another. For I don't see any contradiction.
Some have eyes but cannot see.
Do you see any contradiction between Paul Powers' character before and
after he got born again?
http://www.adherents.com/people/pp/Paul_Powers.html
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Mar 7, 3:55 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 7:09 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A true contradiction is an impossibility, but it is possible that two
> > things only *apparently* contradictory might both be true. This
> > applies to the books of the Bible as well as to religions.
>
> If it applies to religions too, then a true contradiction between the
> Bible and Mahabharata is an impossibility.
>
I said possible not necessary. It is also possible that there are
irreconcilable contradictions. My own opinion is that each religion
that fits some basic definition of a religion is designed essentially
to accomplish the same goal, namely, to find the meaning of one's life
and to integrate oneself as fully as possible with that meaning. I do
not know of any irreconcilable contradictions between the Bible and
the Mahabharata. Do you?
> > On Mar 6, 3:45 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Why can't all religions be true despite contradicting one another if
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>You're now claiming that after Hosea was a new dispensation. Why
wasn't this on the list of dispensations you gave earlier? If animal
sacrifice was indeed not wanted by God in the dispensation after
Hosea, why was animal sacrifice still being performed in Jesus' time
and why didn't Jesus do more to speak out against it?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Mar 7, 3:55 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 7:09 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > A true contradiction is an impossibility, but it is possible that two
> > > things only *apparently* contradictory might both be true. This
> > > applies to the books of the Bible as well as to religions.
>
> > If it applies to religions too, then a true contradiction between the
> > Bible and Mahabharata is an impossibility.
>
> I said possible not necessary. It is also possible that there are
> irreconcilable contradictions.
If this applies as well to different books of the Bible as to
different religions, then it is possible but not necessary that there
is no contradiction between books of the Bible, and it is also
possible that there are irreconcilable contradictions between books of
the Bible.
> My own opinion is that each religion
> that fits some basic definition of a religion is designed essentially
> to accomplish the same goal, namely, to find the meaning of one's life
> and to integrate oneself as fully as possible with that meaning. I do
> not know of any irreconcilable contradictions between the Bible and
> the Mahabharata. Do you?
Is the following reconcilable with the Bible? It's taken from the
Bhagavad Gita, a portion of the Mahabharata:
God manifested himself on earth as Rama and Krishna among other forms.
When a prayer to any god is answered, it is Krishna who actually
answered the prayer. The Vedas are scripture and were authored by
Krishna.
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>[A Query]The Jesus character dies. The Jesus character is walking around days later.
What is your issue here. Spell out explicitly two propositions that
conflict with one another. For I don't see any contradiction.
Either he didn't die or he wasn't walking around days later, both cannot be true.
--
[users3.jabry.com/sjewins/library/__philorelig.htm]
"I'm tryin' to feed my soul with thought" - Bob Dylan
"The only real failure in life is not to be true to the best one knows."
[Buddha]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:21 AM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Either he didn't die or he wasn't walking around days later, both cannot be
> > true.
>
> It's called *life after death* - the Pharisee way!
> Yep - this is why Christianity believes in life after death - oh! I forgot,
> Islam believes in life after death - no one seems to believe that you die
> and that's all you get -- you come back???
How do you know that no one believes that? There is a school of
Buddhism that holds that if one attains nibbana, then nothing follows
death whereas those who fail to attain nibbana are punished by having
to come back.
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>On Mar 12, 8:09 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 6:40 am, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 3:55 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 7:09 pm, JFG <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A true contradiction is an impossibility, but it is possible that two
> > > > things only *apparently* contradictory might both be true. This
> > > > applies to the books of the Bible as well as to religions.
>
> > > If it applies to religions too, then a true contradiction between the
> > > Bible and Mahabharata is an impossibility.
>
> > I said possible not necessary. It is also possible that there are
> > irreconcilable contradictions.
>
> If this applies as well to different books of the Bible as to
> different religions, then it is possible but not necessary that there
> is no contradiction between books of the Bible, and it is also
> possible that there are irreconcilable contradictions between books of
> the Bible.
>
My statement covered both cases. In both cases it is possible for
there to be an apparent but reconcilable contradiction. In the case
of varying religions, it is *also* possible for there to be
irreconcilable contradictions. Usually at least one irreconcilable
contradiction is perceived, or else why wouldn't they all be
Catholic? But it is *not* possible for there to be an actual
contradiction in the Word of God, or in Church Doctrine. This is not
to say that all passages are equally well understood, nor that none
are obscure. The Bible is a complex work, containing poetry,
allegory, and philosophy as well as history and theology. But all of
it is profitable for the one who seeks righteousness and wisdom.
There is likewise profit in discovering what other cultures have
discovered about the relation of humanity to God, through the various
religions that have developed in different parts of the world. These
represent what is possible for the human spirit to discover, unaided,
about God. But the Old and New Testaments of Abraham, Moses, King
David, and Jesus are what God has done in His world to bring His human
creatures back to Himself. They are His self-revelation, so there can
be no contradiction in these.
> > My own opinion is that each religion
> > that fits some basic definition of a religion is designed essentially
> > to accomplish the same goal, namely, to find the meaning of one's life
> > and to integrate oneself as fully as possible with that meaning. I do
> > not know of any irreconcilable contradictions between the Bible and
> > the Mahabharata. Do you?
>
> Is the following reconcilable with the Bible? It's taken from the
> Bhagavad Gita, a portion of the Mahabharata:
> God manifested himself on earth as Rama and Krishna among other forms.
> When a prayer to any god is answered, it is Krishna who actually
> answered the prayer. The Vedas are scripture and were authored by
> Krishna.
>
Is there any necessary contradiction between Rama, Krishna and Buddha
all being Incarnations of God, and Jesus being the Son of God? The
Son it is who inherits His Father's kingdom, and Krishna has
admittedly died. Is it out of the question of possibility that
Jesus's Dad has blue skin and plays the flute?
What would be the consequences of admitting the Bhagavad Gita as, not
the Word of God (for that is the Bible), but the Song of God (which is
what it is called)? I.e., God the Father's mystical poetry, inspired
by Him, but not as literal truth, but as poetic allegory pointing the
way to self-discipline. The way to self-discipline in both is
remarkably similar.
What is the source of the Scriptures outside the Church? How old is
the Church? If the Church is the Lord's People (etymologically the
origin of the word, "church"), then the Church did not begin at
Pentecost, nor did it begin with Moses, but must have begun with Adam,
who taught the Truth to his children, and all of them tried to keep it
alive, but you know the story, man sinned, and there was the confusion
of tongues that caused the separation of the peoples, and so the
Original Tradition received from Adam was kept alive and handed down
as accurately as it could be. But inevitably, subtle errors crept in,
because God is infinite, and the Tradition of Adam was being handed on
by finite men. Those traditions descended from great men in the past
became the world's major religions outside of the tiny Nation of
Israel. The Covenant of Abraham was also passed down to Ishmael,
though not as an heir. The Covenant of Abraham was superior to any of
the other traditions because it was the authentic update from God
Himself of the original Promise to Adam and Eve:
Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between you and the woman, and your
seed and her seed: she shall crush your head, and you shall lie in
wait for her heel.
Abraham was to become the father of nations, and he was Ishmael's
father as well as Isaac's. But Isaac was the child of God's Promise,
and Covenant belonged to him. It was through Isaac and not through
Ishmael that God planned to crush the head of the serpent as the seed
of the Woman, Mary, the new Eve. Abraham was the father of nations,
and of course taught both his sons about God. So the Arabs, the
descendants of Ishmael, had a religion long before Mohammed, and their
tradition was superior to the tradition of Adam, since it was newer
and more expansive. Thus the rise of Islam is understandably
explained, as coming after Christianity, and in opposition to
Christianity, misunderstanding the Trinity as an attack on the sacred
truth that there is One God. The truth that there is but One God
escaped most of the other children of Adam, but it did not escape
Ishmael, so that the Arabs had a religion of One God before the time
of Christ, though it was not Judaism.
JFG
<thelemiccatholic@gmail.com>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_the_unity_of_religion
The Bahá'í Faith states that religion has the same foundation, and
that there is unity of religion. It is one of the core teachings of
the Bahá'í Faith, alongside the unity of God, and the unity of
humanity.
TLC
<tlc.terence@googlemail.com>can't any religion produce one tiny bit of proof that their belief'
are true????????
Having invisible friends who talk and appear only to you can get you
committed if you say they live on the moon!
> > > > > > another?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> On Mar 12, 8:09 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Abraham was the father of nations,
> and of course taught both his sons about God. So
He could have taught his sons this only if he had heard/thought of
God. If the concept of God was invented after his time and the story
that Abraham was a monotheist was concocted after his time, then he
could not have taught this to his sons.
> the Arabs, the
> descendants of Ishmael,
How do you know that they had such a common ancestor and how do you
know his name?
> had a religion long before Mohammed, and their
> tradition was superior to the tradition of Adam, since it was newer
> and more expansive.
How do you know they all had the same tradition? Do you find Allat,
Al'Uzza and Manat temples in Petra? Or were the temples in Petra to
local gods that were not shared with all other Arabs?
> Thus the rise of Islam is understandably
> explained, as coming after Christianity, and in opposition to
> Christianity, misunderstanding the Trinity as an attack on the sacred
> truth that there is One God.
... or an attack on the claim that there is One God. But then, Muslims
were hardly the first to notice this as such an attack; Jews and
Unitarian Christians noticed it first.
> The truth that there is but One God
> escaped most of the other children of Adam, but it did not escape
> Ishmael, so that the Arabs had a religion of One God before the time
> of Christ, though it was not Judaism.
They had a religion of one God, eh? Were their goddesses Allat Al'Uzza
and Manat all part of this one God?
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> as a Christian it is hard to believe that someone can
> ever believe that they can be *good enough*
It's easy to make everyone not good enough. Just declare as sins some
things that everyone does. For example, make it a sin to walk any way
other than on the tips of your toes and hey presto - just about
everyone becomes a sinner.
> to not be punished for their
> sins. Howcome everyone comes back?
> It seems to me that Christianity is sounding better and better - because #1,
> we don't have to be *good enough*,
According to what you say: Membership in Christianity should not be
denied to Hitler just because he was not good enough. There might be
reasons other than this for denying his membership, though. Those
other reasons, however, might not hold for all his associates. Would
you say that Eichmann, Mengele, etc. could have been Christians
(Christians who were not good enough, that is)?
> #2, the sacrifice for the payment of our
> sin has been paid on Calvary by Jesus Christ, #3, my heavenily home will be
> bright - because the Son of God Himself accepts me, #4, in heaven we will
> never remember anything that happened here on earth, #5, our sins from the
> moment we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation are gone to be
> remembered no more - and that is present, past, and future sins,
If only sins from that moment are not remembered, then sins before
that moment (i.e., past sins) would be still remembered.
thea
<thea.nob4@gmail.com>On Mar 12, 10:52 am, thea <thea.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:21 AM, ranjit_math...@yahoo.com < ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:It's easy to make everyone not good enough. Just declare as sins some
> as a Christian it is hard to believe that someone can
> ever believe that they can be *good enough*
things that everyone does. For example, make it a sin to walk any way
other than on the tips of your toes and hey presto - just about
everyone becomes a sinner.
According to what you say: Membership in Christianity should not be
> to not be punished for their
> sins. Howcome everyone comes back?
> It seems to me that Christianity is sounding better and better - because #1,
> we don't have to be *good enough*,
denied to Hitler just because he was not good enough. There might be
reasons other than this for denying his membership, though. Those
other reasons, however, might not hold for all his associates. Would
you say that Eichmann, Mengele, etc. could have been Christians
(Christians who were not good enough, that is)?
If only sins from that moment are not remembered, then sins before
> #2, the sacrifice for the payment of our
> sin has been paid on Calvary by Jesus Christ, #3, my heavenily home will be
> bright - because the Son of God Himself accepts me, #4, in heaven we will
> never remember anything that happened here on earth, #5, our sins from the
> moment we believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation are gone to be
> remembered no more - and that is present, past, and future sins,
that moment (i.e., past sins) would be still remembered.
ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com>> God says that if we believe in Jesus and the fact that HE, God raised His
> Son from the dead -- !!
How frequently does God say this? At what place and time can he be
heard saying this?