Not exactly.
If, as some Creationists assert, the earth is only 6000 years old, then fossil evidence of a Great Flood before that wouldn't make sense would it?
The fossil evidence would have to match exactly with the time that Noah was supposed to be around for it to make sense.
So, isn't my question germane - does the evidence match the Creationists timeline?
Full Version: Miscellaneous Religious Topics.
JohnWho' date='Aug 4 2007, 09:25 PM' post='586026'
Not exactly.
If, as some Creationists assert, the earth is only 6000 years old, then fossil evidence of a Great Flood before that wouldn't make sense would it?
The fossil evidence would have to match exactly with the time that Noah was supposed o be around for it to make sense.
So, isn't my question germane - does the evidence match the Creationists timeline?
Since CGM is taking a bit to respond....i'll take a stab at it Mr. Who.
In a word...yes.
Not exactly.
If, as some Creationists assert, the earth is only 6000 years old, then fossil evidence of a Great Flood before that wouldn't make sense would it?
The fossil evidence would have to match exactly with the time that Noah was supposed o be around for it to make sense.
So, isn't my question germane - does the evidence match the Creationists timeline?
Since CGM is taking a bit to respond....i'll take a stab at it Mr. Who.
In a word...yes.
It just gets more interesting every day....
Saudis might take Bibles from tourists. (Of course this has been happening for quite some time already.)
Excerpts:
Despite a series of initiatives aimed at generating foreign tourism, the Saudi Arabian government continues to bar Jews and Christians from bringing items such as Bibles, crucifixes and Stars of David into the country and is threatening to confiscate them on sight, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: "Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others."
And more:
An official at the Saudi Consulate in New York, who declined to give her name, told the Post that anyone bringing a Bible into the country or wearing a crucifix or Star of David around their neck would run into trouble with Saudi authorities.
"You are not allowed to bring that stuff into the kingdom," the consular official said. "If you do, they will take it away," she warned, adding, "If it is really important to you, then you can try to bring it and just see what happens, but I don't recommend that you do so."
Asked to explain the policy, the official said, "Every country has rules about what can or cannot enter."
Ever so tolerant are they.
(Source)
Saudis might take Bibles from tourists. (Of course this has been happening for quite some time already.)
Excerpts:
Despite a series of initiatives aimed at generating foreign tourism, the Saudi Arabian government continues to bar Jews and Christians from bringing items such as Bibles, crucifixes and Stars of David into the country and is threatening to confiscate them on sight, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: "Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others."
And more:
An official at the Saudi Consulate in New York, who declined to give her name, told the Post that anyone bringing a Bible into the country or wearing a crucifix or Star of David around their neck would run into trouble with Saudi authorities.
"You are not allowed to bring that stuff into the kingdom," the consular official said. "If you do, they will take it away," she warned, adding, "If it is really important to you, then you can try to bring it and just see what happens, but I don't recommend that you do so."
Asked to explain the policy, the official said, "Every country has rules about what can or cannot enter."
Ever so tolerant are they.
(Source)
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 6 2007, 12:38 PM) 
In a word...yes.
Wow!
Fossil evidence from over 50,000 years ago supports the Creationists assertion that the earth is only 6,000 years old!
Sorry John, I missed the keyword in your question...."before"....
Does that mean you are considering changing your guess?
jk
jk
Watch Out Canada...
Excerpt:
The people responsible for a controversial billboard depicting Hezbollah’s leader said they did it to honour their freedom fighting families back home — and it’s their Canadian right to do so.
“In Canada we want peace,” said Hussein Dabaja, a Lebanese-born Hezbollah supporter. “We’re not trying offend anybody. We have freedom of speech. It’s a free country. We can do anything. Every Lebanese in Canada has somebody that died in Lebanon, the freedom fighters. Who is Hezbollah? Our brothers, our family, our parents, our friends. We came to Canada and they stayed there to fight.”
The billboard went up Friday at the corner of Wyandotte Street East and Marion Avenue, and immediately drew fire from the Windsor Jewish Community Centre, the Lebanese Christian political group Kataeb and others.
Among other Lebanese leaders, the sign prominently depicts Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the political and military group representing Shia Muslims. Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the Canadian government, was created in 1982 primarily to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon that lasted two decades.
“The sign shows the Lebanese community finally got a chance to express their feelings about what is going on, to show respect,” said sign supporter Ayat Choukeir. “Before we were Canadians we were all Lebanese. To see a part of Lebanon in our city makes us really happy.”
Dabaja said the billboard was not meant to be an anti-Jewish statement.
“People who have something against the billboard don’t like Hezbollah and they don’t want peace,” he said.
Excerpt:
The people responsible for a controversial billboard depicting Hezbollah’s leader said they did it to honour their freedom fighting families back home — and it’s their Canadian right to do so.
“In Canada we want peace,” said Hussein Dabaja, a Lebanese-born Hezbollah supporter. “We’re not trying offend anybody. We have freedom of speech. It’s a free country. We can do anything. Every Lebanese in Canada has somebody that died in Lebanon, the freedom fighters. Who is Hezbollah? Our brothers, our family, our parents, our friends. We came to Canada and they stayed there to fight.”
The billboard went up Friday at the corner of Wyandotte Street East and Marion Avenue, and immediately drew fire from the Windsor Jewish Community Centre, the Lebanese Christian political group Kataeb and others.
Among other Lebanese leaders, the sign prominently depicts Hassan Nasrallah, the head of the political and military group representing Shia Muslims. Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by the Canadian government, was created in 1982 primarily to resist the Israeli occupation of Lebanon that lasted two decades.
“The sign shows the Lebanese community finally got a chance to express their feelings about what is going on, to show respect,” said sign supporter Ayat Choukeir. “Before we were Canadians we were all Lebanese. To see a part of Lebanon in our city makes us really happy.”
Dabaja said the billboard was not meant to be an anti-Jewish statement.
“People who have something against the billboard don’t like Hezbollah and they don’t want peace,” he said.
Moderates? You decide.
Excerpt:
AKARTA (AFP) - More than 70,000 members of a hardline Muslim group held a rally in Indonesia that heard calls for a caliphate — or Islamic rule — to govern the world.
The supporters of the Hizbut Tahrir group filled up most of an 80,000-seat sports stadium in the capital Jakarta, waving flags as they heard fiery speeches saying it was “time for the caliphate to reign.”
The meeting was held as part of “civic education” for Indonesian Muslims, said Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, a spokesman for Hizbut Tahrir. The organisation advocates Islamic rule and is banned in several Middle Eastern countries.
Supporters travelled to the stadium in convoys of buses from other parts of Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country. Local and foreign speakers were invited to give speeches.
But Yusanto said that two inivtees, Imran Waheed from England and Syeik Ismail Al Wahwah from Australia, had been denied entry and deported from Indonesia on Friday. “The organising committee deplores the deportation because they came to Indonesia at the invitation of the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia to give their good advice for the progress of Islam, for the progress of this country,” he said.
Excerpt:
AKARTA (AFP) - More than 70,000 members of a hardline Muslim group held a rally in Indonesia that heard calls for a caliphate — or Islamic rule — to govern the world.
The supporters of the Hizbut Tahrir group filled up most of an 80,000-seat sports stadium in the capital Jakarta, waving flags as they heard fiery speeches saying it was “time for the caliphate to reign.”
The meeting was held as part of “civic education” for Indonesian Muslims, said Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, a spokesman for Hizbut Tahrir. The organisation advocates Islamic rule and is banned in several Middle Eastern countries.
Supporters travelled to the stadium in convoys of buses from other parts of Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority country. Local and foreign speakers were invited to give speeches.
But Yusanto said that two inivtees, Imran Waheed from England and Syeik Ismail Al Wahwah from Australia, had been denied entry and deported from Indonesia on Friday. “The organising committee deplores the deportation because they came to Indonesia at the invitation of the Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia to give their good advice for the progress of Islam, for the progress of this country,” he said.
From a children’s program on Egypt’s Al-Nas TV, Egyptian cleric Mahmoud Al-Masri instructs children on the times when it is appropriate to lie: to a wife, to Jews, and to reconcile two arguing Muslims. (Courtesy of MEMRI TV.)
Excerpt:
But there are three types of lies that are permitted. Let me tell you what they are.
(These are clearly written and instructed in the qur'an.)
The first, my dears, is lying to the wife in matters of the heart. You are not married yet, but Allah willing, you will be one day, and then you will know what I’m talking about. The wife always likes her husband to say sweet things to her: “I love you,” “I’m crazy about you,” things like that. All the forbidden things he used to say before he was married –he should say them now, when they are no longer forbidden. The wife always likes to hear emotional stuff, in order to feel stability in life. The wife does not want money. She wants sweet words and emotions. Sometimes, the husband reaches the point where he gets tired of his wife, and can’t stand her, and doesn’t want to see her anymore. The same goes for the wife – she can’t wait for the day that Allah will take him away from her. So what should we do in such a situation? In order to preserve the Muslim family, the Prophet Muhammad allowed the husband or wife to lie to one another – but only about matters of the heart, mind you. About what?
Children: Matters of the heart.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: Matters of the heart. If the wife asks her husband: “Do you love me, Abu Muhammad?” He should say: “Of course I love you, honey. How could anyone not love you?” He might not love her at all, but when he says: “I love you,” she feels happy and stable, and feels that this is still her home, and that these are still her children and her husband. Right? But if he were to say to her: “The Prophet has forbidden lying, so I cannot tell a lie – I hate you, I want to kill you, and get rid of you...” Can they possibly continue to live together after this? No. That’s why the Prophet Muhammad said: “You are allowed to lie to your wife, but only about matters of the heart.” He is not allowed to lie to her about money, or about his comings and goings, and so on. No – only about matters of the heart. “Do you love me?” “I’m crazy about you, my life, you are a part of my heart. If you opened my heart, you wouldn’t find anybody there but you.” You should say such things that will make her happy and fix matters. That, my dears, is the first kind of lies that are permitted. What lies?
Children: Permitted lies.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: Permitted lies. There’s no such thing as a “white lie” or a “black lie.” No, there are exceptions. My dears, the second kind is lying to the enemy in times of war. What does this mean? For example, somebody joins the army, and a war breaks out, between us and the Jews, for example. He is captured by the Jews, who ask him: “Where do you keep your weapons, where is your artillery, and where are your airplanes, and so on?” He knows, but what will happen if he tells them the truth? He will destroy his country, right? So what should he do? If, for example, he knows that the tanks are at Heliopolis, he should say they are at Hilwan. Is he lying or not?
Children: Yes.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: But it is permitted, in order to defend his country. Do you get it, my dears? So this is the second kind of lies that is permitted. The third kind is in order to reconcile two rivals. What does that mean? What’s your name?
Ahmad: Ahmad.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: And what is yours? Mahmoud. Ahmad quarrels with Mahmoud, and the two are mad at each other, After the show, they might got out and hit each other. What should we do? We take Ahmad aside, and say to him: “Ahmad, you are mad at Mahmoud, but Mahmoud loves you very much, and keeps saying: I love Ahmad very much and don’t know why he’s mad at me. I want to make up with him, and if I was sure he would agree to make up with me, I’d tell him I love him very much.” And then you go to Mahmoud and say to him: “Why are you mad at Ahmad? Ahmad praises you, and loves you very very much.” Did I lie to him? Yes, I did. But is this lie permitted or forbidden?
Children: It’s permitted.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: How come? Because we are reconciling two Muslims.
And at one point they wanted to ban Veggie Tales from NBC Saturday morning kids programming here in the states.....um.....yeah.
Excerpt:
But there are three types of lies that are permitted. Let me tell you what they are.
(These are clearly written and instructed in the qur'an.)
The first, my dears, is lying to the wife in matters of the heart. You are not married yet, but Allah willing, you will be one day, and then you will know what I’m talking about. The wife always likes her husband to say sweet things to her: “I love you,” “I’m crazy about you,” things like that. All the forbidden things he used to say before he was married –he should say them now, when they are no longer forbidden. The wife always likes to hear emotional stuff, in order to feel stability in life. The wife does not want money. She wants sweet words and emotions. Sometimes, the husband reaches the point where he gets tired of his wife, and can’t stand her, and doesn’t want to see her anymore. The same goes for the wife – she can’t wait for the day that Allah will take him away from her. So what should we do in such a situation? In order to preserve the Muslim family, the Prophet Muhammad allowed the husband or wife to lie to one another – but only about matters of the heart, mind you. About what?
Children: Matters of the heart.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: Matters of the heart. If the wife asks her husband: “Do you love me, Abu Muhammad?” He should say: “Of course I love you, honey. How could anyone not love you?” He might not love her at all, but when he says: “I love you,” she feels happy and stable, and feels that this is still her home, and that these are still her children and her husband. Right? But if he were to say to her: “The Prophet has forbidden lying, so I cannot tell a lie – I hate you, I want to kill you, and get rid of you...” Can they possibly continue to live together after this? No. That’s why the Prophet Muhammad said: “You are allowed to lie to your wife, but only about matters of the heart.” He is not allowed to lie to her about money, or about his comings and goings, and so on. No – only about matters of the heart. “Do you love me?” “I’m crazy about you, my life, you are a part of my heart. If you opened my heart, you wouldn’t find anybody there but you.” You should say such things that will make her happy and fix matters. That, my dears, is the first kind of lies that are permitted. What lies?
Children: Permitted lies.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: Permitted lies. There’s no such thing as a “white lie” or a “black lie.” No, there are exceptions. My dears, the second kind is lying to the enemy in times of war. What does this mean? For example, somebody joins the army, and a war breaks out, between us and the Jews, for example. He is captured by the Jews, who ask him: “Where do you keep your weapons, where is your artillery, and where are your airplanes, and so on?” He knows, but what will happen if he tells them the truth? He will destroy his country, right? So what should he do? If, for example, he knows that the tanks are at Heliopolis, he should say they are at Hilwan. Is he lying or not?
Children: Yes.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: But it is permitted, in order to defend his country. Do you get it, my dears? So this is the second kind of lies that is permitted. The third kind is in order to reconcile two rivals. What does that mean? What’s your name?
Ahmad: Ahmad.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: And what is yours? Mahmoud. Ahmad quarrels with Mahmoud, and the two are mad at each other, After the show, they might got out and hit each other. What should we do? We take Ahmad aside, and say to him: “Ahmad, you are mad at Mahmoud, but Mahmoud loves you very much, and keeps saying: I love Ahmad very much and don’t know why he’s mad at me. I want to make up with him, and if I was sure he would agree to make up with me, I’d tell him I love him very much.” And then you go to Mahmoud and say to him: “Why are you mad at Ahmad? Ahmad praises you, and loves you very very much.” Did I lie to him? Yes, I did. But is this lie permitted or forbidden?
Children: It’s permitted.
Mahmoud Al-Masri: How come? Because we are reconciling two Muslims.
And at one point they wanted to ban Veggie Tales from NBC Saturday morning kids programming here in the states.....um.....yeah.
Personally I'm refraining from posting on religious topic at the moment, but I think you're going a little too far there jwinathome we get your point, you can stop spamming your view, we've heard it enough times already.
QUOTE(ussr1943 @ Aug 14 2007, 11:09 AM)
Personally I'm refraining from posting on religious topic at the moment, but I think you're going a little too far there jwinathome we get your point, you can stop spamming your view, we've heard it enough times already.
.Agreed,I am of the opinion that a lot of Members share your view,judging the number of PM's I have recieved,on this point.
Enough is Enough.Some people just can't take a hint,or don't wish to.
1) Its not spam.
2) Its informative.
3) This thread was not posted in for several days.
4) Its not "my view."
5) Terrorism is a huge subject in today's society. (It just so happens that 100's of people are murdered every day by islamic extremism.) That's not my fault...Its the terrorists'.
2) Its informative.
3) This thread was not posted in for several days.
4) Its not "my view."
5) Terrorism is a huge subject in today's society. (It just so happens that 100's of people are murdered every day by islamic extremism.) That's not my fault...Its the terrorists'.
Yes I would consider it spam, why?
1. we've heard your view before, nothing new to add to your thoughts
2. here are the dates of your last 3 posts
-Yesterday, 11:31 AM
-Yesterday, 11:19 AM
-Yesterday, 10:36 AM
3. you posted the last 3 replies on the same day within an hour
4. noone replied to anyone of the above posts I've mentioned until I did, so if you wern't adding anything new to the discussion, and your posts were in rapid succession without anyone else poesting inbetween, meaning your not letting others talk before you post again, without modifying your existing posts.
5.It is your view, and I quote
This whole time you've just posted everything you could find about Islam that is bad, even when noone replied to any of the articles you posted, you also refuse to accept the fact your narrow minded and limited to your own view and intolerant of others.
6. don't be smart with me.
1. we've heard your view before, nothing new to add to your thoughts
2. here are the dates of your last 3 posts
-Yesterday, 11:31 AM
-Yesterday, 11:19 AM
-Yesterday, 10:36 AM
3. you posted the last 3 replies on the same day within an hour
4. noone replied to anyone of the above posts I've mentioned until I did, so if you wern't adding anything new to the discussion, and your posts were in rapid succession without anyone else poesting inbetween, meaning your not letting others talk before you post again, without modifying your existing posts.
5.It is your view, and I quote
QUOTE
I believe Islam is fundementaly wrong
This whole time you've just posted everything you could find about Islam that is bad, even when noone replied to any of the articles you posted, you also refuse to accept the fact your narrow minded and limited to your own view and intolerant of others.
6. don't be smart with me.
Ill ask one more time ussr....if you have substance that you wish to post to suggest that islam's fundamental teachings are good, and that the life of muhammed is that of peace and humility....by all means do so.
I also add the question...do you detest the acts of terror that are committed by the self-proclaimed muslims?
(I generally ignore personal attacks, such as your last post, simply because they add nothing to the conversation.)
Spam:
an unsolicited often commercial message transmitted through the Internet as a mass mailing to a large number of recipients
to post a message many times to a newsgroup, an inappropriate message to multiple newsgroups, or to send an unsolicited message, often an advertisement, to many people
If the moderators of the forum feel I am spamming, I will definitely stop. Until then....
I also add the question...do you detest the acts of terror that are committed by the self-proclaimed muslims?
(I generally ignore personal attacks, such as your last post, simply because they add nothing to the conversation.)
Spam:
an unsolicited often commercial message transmitted through the Internet as a mass mailing to a large number of recipients
to post a message many times to a newsgroup, an inappropriate message to multiple newsgroups, or to send an unsolicited message, often an advertisement, to many people
If the moderators of the forum feel I am spamming, I will definitely stop. Until then....
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 08:52 PM)
1) Its not spam.
2) Its informative.
3) This thread was not posted in for several days.
4) Its not "my view."
5) Terrorism is a huge subject in today's society. (It just so happens that 100's of people are murdered every day by islamic extremism.) That's not my fault...Its the terrorists'.
2) Its informative.
3) This thread was not posted in for several days.
4) Its not "my view."
5) Terrorism is a huge subject in today's society. (It just so happens that 100's of people are murdered every day by islamic extremism.) That's not my fault...Its the terrorists'.
Hi Jwinathome,Have you ever thought why so many regular Speakeasy Posters have not replied to your posts,and simply moved on. The Media does an excellent job informing the Public on world affairs,and not so Biased,I might add.If Members couldn't be bothered replying to your posts,then It's time you asked yourself some serious questions.
Actually DSTM, I think the media tries very hard to display extremism less than what it is. There is much evidence that suggests it. Let me know if you would like to see it.
I thought I would try and change the tack of this thread a little.
There are many different religions on this planet - most of which have a sacred text (or texts). I've listed a few below:
Judaism - Tanakh
Christianity - Bible
Hinduism - Vedas
Taoism - Tao Te Ching
Buddhism - Tipitaka
Islam - Qur'an
Sikhism - Gurū Granth Sāhib
Jainism - Shauraseni
Zoroastrianism - Avesta
So, my question is: How does one choose between these various competing beliefs? How does one decide that, for example, the Vedas are correct and the Bible is wrong? I cannot remember if it was this thread or another, but some people said that they believe that their religious beliefs are rational. If this is so, how does one use their powers of reasoning to choose between this assortment of religious texts and pick out the one that contains the "truth"?
There are many different religions on this planet - most of which have a sacred text (or texts). I've listed a few below:
Judaism - Tanakh
Christianity - Bible
Hinduism - Vedas
Taoism - Tao Te Ching
Buddhism - Tipitaka
Islam - Qur'an
Sikhism - Gurū Granth Sāhib
Jainism - Shauraseni
Zoroastrianism - Avesta
So, my question is: How does one choose between these various competing beliefs? How does one decide that, for example, the Vedas are correct and the Bible is wrong? I cannot remember if it was this thread or another, but some people said that they believe that their religious beliefs are rational. If this is so, how does one use their powers of reasoning to choose between this assortment of religious texts and pick out the one that contains the "truth"?
By all means, let us return the discussion to the original topic. These words provoked a thought:
"If this is so, how does one use their powers of reasoning to choose between this assortment of religious texts and pick out the one that contains the "truth"?"
I am not sure that using reason would lead anyone to choose one text over the other, or more precisely one interpretation over another interpretation. One might, for example, be led to the viewpoint that all of these texts are historical, human documents with distinct intellectual provenances, all of which contain perspectives to consider in thinking about the subject matter of religion. This would be a decision not to decide.
Reason might tell us, to look at it another way, that truth is always a process of encompassing rather than a "being" (of sorts) out "there" to be "found." Certainly, the more we attempt to clarify our thoughts about something, the more seriously we meditate upon any subject, the less common and the less obvious does our thinking become. As Ortega y Gasset writes," Every intellectual effort sets us apart from the commonplace, and leads us by hidden and difficult paths to secluded spots where we find ourselves amid unaccustomed thoughts." So in this case, reason might provoke a serious thinking about religion and religious truths.
Cheers,
John
"If this is so, how does one use their powers of reasoning to choose between this assortment of religious texts and pick out the one that contains the "truth"?"
I am not sure that using reason would lead anyone to choose one text over the other, or more precisely one interpretation over another interpretation. One might, for example, be led to the viewpoint that all of these texts are historical, human documents with distinct intellectual provenances, all of which contain perspectives to consider in thinking about the subject matter of religion. This would be a decision not to decide.
Reason might tell us, to look at it another way, that truth is always a process of encompassing rather than a "being" (of sorts) out "there" to be "found." Certainly, the more we attempt to clarify our thoughts about something, the more seriously we meditate upon any subject, the less common and the less obvious does our thinking become. As Ortega y Gasset writes," Every intellectual effort sets us apart from the commonplace, and leads us by hidden and difficult paths to secluded spots where we find ourselves amid unaccustomed thoughts." So in this case, reason might provoke a serious thinking about religion and religious truths.
Cheers,
John
Okay, I'll bite.
Let me ask....
Where do hindus get the belief that "no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding"
?
Is that taught in vedas?
Considering how vastly different the "religious paths" are...does the above make much sense? Oh, and do hindus have a medium by which they measure whether or not a religious path is "genuine" or not?
Also, I wonder what answer the hindu has to being attacked by terrorists? (It is a growing problem.) Do they believe in defending themselves? I ask seriously.
Let me ask....
Where do hindus get the belief that "no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding"
?
Is that taught in vedas?
Considering how vastly different the "religious paths" are...does the above make much sense? Oh, and do hindus have a medium by which they measure whether or not a religious path is "genuine" or not?
Also, I wonder what answer the hindu has to being attacked by terrorists? (It is a growing problem.) Do they believe in defending themselves? I ask seriously.
QUOTE(jgweed @ Aug 14 2007, 01:07 PM)
By all means, let us return the discussion to the original topic. These words provoked a thought:
"If this is so, how does one use their powers of reasoning to choose between this assortment of religious texts and pick out the one that contains the "truth"?"
I am not sure that using reason would lead anyone to choose one text over the other, or more precisely one interpretation over another interpretation. One might, for example, be led to the viewpoint that all of these texts are historical, human documents with distinct intellectual provenances, all of which contain perspectives to consider in thinking about the subject matter of religion. This would be a decision not to decide.
Reason might tell us, to look at it another way, that truth is always a process of encompassing rather than a "being" (of sorts) out "there" to be "found." Certainly, the more we attempt to clarify our thoughts about something, the more seriously we meditate upon any subject, the less common and the less obvious does our thinking become. As Ortega y Gasset writes," Every intellectual effort sets us apart from the commonplace, and leads us by hidden and difficult paths to secluded spots where we find ourselves amid unaccustomed thoughts." So in this case, reason might provoke a serious thinking about religion and religious truths.
Cheers,
John
"If this is so, how does one use their powers of reasoning to choose between this assortment of religious texts and pick out the one that contains the "truth"?"
I am not sure that using reason would lead anyone to choose one text over the other, or more precisely one interpretation over another interpretation. One might, for example, be led to the viewpoint that all of these texts are historical, human documents with distinct intellectual provenances, all of which contain perspectives to consider in thinking about the subject matter of religion. This would be a decision not to decide.
Reason might tell us, to look at it another way, that truth is always a process of encompassing rather than a "being" (of sorts) out "there" to be "found." Certainly, the more we attempt to clarify our thoughts about something, the more seriously we meditate upon any subject, the less common and the less obvious does our thinking become. As Ortega y Gasset writes," Every intellectual effort sets us apart from the commonplace, and leads us by hidden and difficult paths to secluded spots where we find ourselves amid unaccustomed thoughts." So in this case, reason might provoke a serious thinking about religion and religious truths.
Cheers,
John
Then again, reason might tell us to not look at it any other way. For me, its not about "choosing texts"...and as you say John, some may be led to to view the texts simply as historical, human documents, etc. but it may also lead people to "the view" that these texts are indeed the Word of God. See, it seems that many are disqualified simply because they hold to a religion. Yet, some, like my father for example are unbelievably studied in nearly all religions, including "non-believing" religions. Yet, he still loves Jesus. He has considered the perspectives, he has BEEN the other perspectives (NOT raised Christian). But everything has led him to Father God. I don't think there is anything wrong at all with being decisive.
What does a "serious thinking" about religious truths mean? See again, it seems that just because a person believes in God, they are disqualified from having "seriously thought" about it. And that is very simply not true.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 07:18 PM)
Okay, I'll bite.
Let me ask....
Where do hindus get the belief that "no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding"
?
Is that taught in vedas?
Let me ask....
Where do hindus get the belief that "no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding"
?
Is that taught in vedas?
In the Rig Veda it is stated that "Truth is one but sages call it by many names." Some (but by no means all) Hindus take this to mean that all genuine religious paths are valid. This doctrine was held by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836-86), who was an influential Hindu religious teacher from Bengal.
QUOTE(Budapest @ Aug 14 2007, 01:42 PM)
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 07:18 PM)
Okay, I'll bite.
Let me ask....
Where do hindus get the belief that "no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding"
?
Is that taught in vedas?
Let me ask....
Where do hindus get the belief that "no particular religion teaches the only way to salvation above all others, but that all genuine religious paths are facets of God's Pure Love and Light, deserving tolerance and understanding"
?
Is that taught in vedas?
In the Rig Veda it is stated that "Truth is one but sages call it by many names." Some (but by no means all) Hindus take this to mean that all genuine religious paths are valid. This doctrine was held by Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836-86), who was an influential Hindu religious teacher from Bengal.
Okay, understood...but how do they determine what is and isn't a genuine religious path?
Another question....(I have no idea the extent of your knowledge of hinduism)...
Is the following also supported in the vedas?
"It is guaranteed that, if one dies thinking proper thoughts about Krishna, he will be immediately taken out of the reincarnation cycle to the spirit realm. In order to be sure one is thinking right when he dies, his life must be filled with constant thought of Krishna."
The reason I ask...is because I would like to know who revealed this, and was it by personal experience? Or was it revealed in another way, according to hindu beliefs?
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 07:43 PM)
Okay, understood...but how do they determine what is and isn't a genuine religious path?
I'm not sure. I believe that it mainly has to do with the religious beliefs in question being sincerely held.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 07:43 PM)
Another question....(I have no idea the extent of your knowledge of hinduism)...
Is the following also supported in the vedas?
"It is guaranteed that, if one dies thinking proper thoughts about Krishna, he will be immediately taken out of the reincarnation cycle to the spirit realm. In order to be sure one is thinking right when he dies, his life must be filled with constant thought of Krishna."
Is the following also supported in the vedas?
"It is guaranteed that, if one dies thinking proper thoughts about Krishna, he will be immediately taken out of the reincarnation cycle to the spirit realm. In order to be sure one is thinking right when he dies, his life must be filled with constant thought of Krishna."
Actually, my knowledge of Hinduism is not that good. However, this quote that you gave sounds to me like something from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (better known as 'the Hare Krishna' movement). Now while the Hare Krishnas' core philosophy is based on Hindu scripture such as the Bhagavad-Gita, I think most people would not classify it as being a part of Hinduism (in the same way as most people would not classify Mormonism as being a part of Christianity).
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 01:18 PM)
Also, I wonder what answer the hindu has to being attacked by terrorists? (It is a growing problem.) Do they believe in defending themselves? I ask seriously.
Hello everyone, Just to add a little here.
It seems this type of thinking would be more in line with Buddhism than Hindu philosophy. In fact in the Bhagavadgita (which is part of Hinduism by the way), Krishna tells Arjuna the charioteer to "fight if you must". His way of telling Arjuna that it is not given to us to destroy the soul. That is outside of any powers we possess.
QUOTE(jwinathome @ Aug 14 2007, 07:43 PM)
Is the following also supported in the vedas?
"It is guaranteed that, if one dies thinking proper thoughts about Krishna, he will be immediately taken out of the reincarnation cycle to the spirit realm. In order to be sure one is thinking right when he dies, his life must be filled with constant thought of Krishna."
"It is guaranteed that, if one dies thinking proper thoughts about Krishna, he will be immediately taken out of the reincarnation cycle to the spirit realm. In order to be sure one is thinking right when he dies, his life must be filled with constant thought of Krishna."
I found the reference. In the Bhagavad-Gita at Chapter 8 versus 6 and 7 it reads:
Whatever state of being one remembers when he quits his body, that state he will attain without fail. Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of Krishna and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty of fighting. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.
The reference to fighting comes from the fact that the context of the text is a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna that takes place just before the beginning of a battle.
In the Gita we see the evidence of what Krishna was trying to convey to Arjuna:
We are helped to understand that right mental state through Yoga will result in right actions.
2.14
O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed."
2.16
O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed."
2.17
"That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul."
2.18
"The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata
2.20
"For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."
Of course the supreme fight will always be with ourselves.
4.42
Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the weapon of knowledge. Armed with yoga, O Bharata, stand and fight."
We are helped to understand that right mental state through Yoga will result in right actions.
2.14
O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed."
2.16
O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed."
2.17
"That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable soul."
2.18
"The material body of the indestructible, immeasurable and eternal living entity is sure to come to an end; therefore, fight, O descendant of Bharata
2.20
"For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain."
Of course the supreme fight will always be with ourselves.
4.42
Therefore the doubts which have arisen in your heart out of ignorance should be slashed by the weapon of knowledge. Armed with yoga, O Bharata, stand and fight."
I have a question that I hope hasn't been asked already in this thread. If it has I apologise for bringing up old topics but because of the sheer size of this thread i cant look through it all!
If im right in thinking (im not religious so correct me if im wrong) to deny God is one of the greatest/unforgivable sins, right? So to be an atheist means that you would go to hell (if it exists).
Now, I suppose I would be classed as an agnostic. I dont readily belive in a religion but i do think that there are MANY things that we cannot even begin to comprehend in this universe so I am open to the concept of there being somthing larger than us all.
Just wondering what would happen to me? Anyone got answers?
If im right in thinking (im not religious so correct me if im wrong) to deny God is one of the greatest/unforgivable sins, right? So to be an atheist means that you would go to hell (if it exists).
Now, I suppose I would be classed as an agnostic. I dont readily belive in a religion but i do think that there are MANY things that we cannot even begin to comprehend in this universe so I am open to the concept of there being somthing larger than us all.
Just wondering what would happen to me? Anyone got answers?
QUOTE(athelos @ Sep 8 2007, 11:29 AM)
I have a question that I hope hasn't been asked already in this thread. If it has I apologise for bringing up old topics but because of the sheer size of this thread i cant look through it all!
If im right in thinking (im not religious so correct me if im wrong) to deny God is one of the greatest/unforgivable sins, right? So to be an atheist means that you would go to hell (if it exists).
Now, I suppose I would be classed as an agnostic. I dont readily belive in a religion but i do think that there are MANY things that we cannot even begin to comprehend in this universe so I am open to the concept of there being somthing larger than us all.
Just wondering what would happen to me? Anyone got answers?
If im right in thinking (im not religious so correct me if im wrong) to deny God is one of the greatest/unforgivable sins, right? So to be an atheist means that you would go to hell (if it exists).
Now, I suppose I would be classed as an agnostic. I dont readily belive in a religion but i do think that there are MANY things that we cannot even begin to comprehend in this universe so I am open to the concept of there being somthing larger than us all.
Just wondering what would happen to me? Anyone got answers?
I can answer this question. Please understand that I'm not trying to be mean or spiteful with this reply. I'm just giving a biblical perspective on this question.
According to the bible (i.e. Christian), any that do not accept Jesus as their Saviour and confess there sins to Him, will never enter heaven.
"Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." John 14:6. fir the full context read the Whole chapter of John14.
There is only one unforgivable sin listed in the bible. That sin is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God. Blasphemy according to Websters Dictionary is:
1. impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.
2. Judaism.
a. an act of cursing or reviling God.
b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3. Theology. the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
The most important being definitions 2a and 3.
Merely being open to the possibility of God existing or even acknowledging that He exists is not enough. Satan and his demons know the truth about God and fear that truth because it means their rebellion against God has condemned them to hell. They had full knowledge of God and rebelled, trying to take God's power for their own. Satan (i.e. Lucifer) was the highest most powerful angel that God created and God did not spare him from hell because Lucifer knew the truth and rebelled anyway. Whit humans it is no different. Once we know the truth about God through the bible, the willful rejection of that truth will condemn us.
I know this may sound harsh and unfair to many. It was not meant to be an insult or a slap in the face, just an explanation of what is layed out in the bible. All of us have to make a choice at one point in our lives. Please choose wisley.
Seafox14
In general, there are two conceptions of what a God is. The first is that the deity is self-sufficient and self-contemplating(the great Artificer, the Unmoved Mover for example) beyond time and space, and if it performs any action, it is to create being and set it in motion according to laws it creates. In this view, God may exist, but has no conception of mankind, nor professes any interest its history, and is beyond any kind of worry about whether it is believed in or not.
The second is that the Deity, in addition to creating the world, takes an interest in it, and evinces care and concern about each of its creations. This second conception is divided into two general parts. Some religions see the Godhead as benign, all-good, all-knowing, and understanding that men are men and not supposed to be gods. Other religions see the Deity as vindictive, capricious, and willing to punish men for their lack of belief in the True Way.
Your own choice about the nature of God will determine whether or not , Athelos, whether or not you will be punished for honest doubt or the rejection of some or all of the viewpoints set forth by various religions.
Cheers, and don't panic.
John
The second is that the Deity, in addition to creating the world, takes an interest in it, and evinces care and concern about each of its creations. This second conception is divided into two general parts. Some religions see the Godhead as benign, all-good, all-knowing, and understanding that men are men and not supposed to be gods. Other religions see the Deity as vindictive, capricious, and willing to punish men for their lack of belief in the True Way.
Your own choice about the nature of God will determine whether or not , Athelos, whether or not you will be punished for honest doubt or the rejection of some or all of the viewpoints set forth by various religions.
Cheers, and don't panic.
John
Thanks for the confidence boost jgweed . I just get confused by it all. I hear stories of how (most) God(s) are kind, all knowing, forgiving but would be willing to sentence so many billions to eternal punishment just for having, as you put it jgweed, honest doubts on the matter.
I mean, maybe in years/days/months to come i may turn to religion but at this moment in time I cant honestly say to myself I'm ready to believe whole-heartedly. So if I were struck down by a bus tommorow I would be forever sentenced to some kind of hell? I cant think that if there is a God that is as wise as ive heard could do such a thing... But as I said in previous posts, there must be things in this universe bigger than us all and maybe we arent supposed to understand...just follow? *sigh* Who knows....
. I just get confused by it all. I hear stories of how (most) God(s) are kind, all knowing, forgiving but would be willing to sentence so many billions to eternal punishment just for having, as you put it jgweed, honest doubts on the matter.I mean, maybe in years/days/months to come i may turn to religion but at this moment in time I cant honestly say to myself I'm ready to believe whole-heartedly. So if I were struck down by a bus tommorow I would be forever sentenced to some kind of hell? I cant think that if there is a God that is as wise as ive heard could do such a thing... But as I said in previous posts, there must be things in this universe bigger than us all and maybe we arent supposed to understand...just follow? *sigh* Who knows....
No one said being religious, or even unreligious was easy. I would simply think that any God worth having would certainly understand how one could have doubts about His existence, or for that matter, about His nature. I would hope that if these doubts were authentic and not flippant, that God would not spend a twinkling of an eye figuring out how to punish a honest doubt. Nor would a just God use the fear of torture, eternal or otherwise, to force someone to believe.
Cheers,
John
Cheers,
John
I have a query regarding christian theology that perhaps people could give there opinions on.
Consider 4 people:
1. Faithful christian
2. One raised as a christian but rejected the christian faith
3. An illiterate Indian peasant farmer who has never heard of the christian god or Jesus
4. A newborn baby
Now if all these people were to die, what would happen to their "soul" according to christian theology?
I think that #1 would go to heaven and #2 to hell. But what about #3 and #4? I think that under catholic and most orthodox theology #3 may go to purgatory and #4 to limbo. But I understand that the doctrines of purgatory and limbo were rejected by the protestant church. Does this therefore mean that according to protestant theology #3 and #4 end up in hell? Do people go straight to heaven or hell (or wherever) when they die or do they have to wait for judgement day to learn their fate?
Any thoughts?
Consider 4 people:
1. Faithful christian
2. One raised as a christian but rejected the christian faith
3. An illiterate Indian peasant farmer who has never heard of the christian god or Jesus
4. A newborn baby
Now if all these people were to die, what would happen to their "soul" according to christian theology?
I think that #1 would go to heaven and #2 to hell. But what about #3 and #4? I think that under catholic and most orthodox theology #3 may go to purgatory and #4 to limbo. But I understand that the doctrines of purgatory and limbo were rejected by the protestant church. Does this therefore mean that according to protestant theology #3 and #4 end up in hell? Do people go straight to heaven or hell (or wherever) when they die or do they have to wait for judgement day to learn their fate?
Any thoughts?
Budapest, I will take a stab at it...
Christian theology teaches that rejection of Jesus Christ's death, burial and resurrection = eternity in hell.
However, my readings of the Bible lead me to believe that mankind underestimates and does not have the capacity to understand the mercy and compassion that Jesus has for us. So in essence, its impossible to know (as a man), who will and who will not go to Heaven. We can only guess based upon judgments. Knowing for yourself is a different story. (In other words, its not about looking at other people and saying to myself...I am going to Heaven and you aren't. It is more like, "I desire to be with Jesus for eternity...come, and see who He is and how much He loves you.")
#1 is obvious, #2 is hard to say, but I've never known anyone that has rejected Christianity who loved Jesus Christ, #3 would eventually have the gospel presented to him, for this is a promise of God, #4 speaks of God's mercy, in no way would God send a baby that does not have the "mental" capacity to embrace the savior, to hell.
I'm not catholic, so I cannot speak for their doctrine.
Just my thoughts.....God makes it very plain that mercy triumphs over judgment. Jesus loves man, and wishes none to perish!
Christian theology teaches that rejection of Jesus Christ's death, burial and resurrection = eternity in hell.
However, my readings of the Bible lead me to believe that mankind underestimates and does not have the capacity to understand the mercy and compassion that Jesus has for us. So in essence, its impossible to know (as a man), who will and who will not go to Heaven. We can only guess based upon judgments. Knowing for yourself is a different story. (In other words, its not about looking at other people and saying to myself...I am going to Heaven and you aren't. It is more like, "I desire to be with Jesus for eternity...come, and see who He is and how much He loves you.")
#1 is obvious, #2 is hard to say, but I've never known anyone that has rejected Christianity who loved Jesus Christ, #3 would eventually have the gospel presented to him, for this is a promise of God, #4 speaks of God's mercy, in no way would God send a baby that does not have the "mental" capacity to embrace the savior, to hell.
I'm not catholic, so I cannot speak for their doctrine.
Just my thoughts.....God makes it very plain that mercy triumphs over judgment. Jesus loves man, and wishes none to perish!
Nor would a just God use the fear of torture, eternal or otherwise, to force someone to believe.
Cheers,
John
Couldn't agree more.
Cheers,
John
Couldn't agree more.
Another question that may sound strange but just something that came to me while i was twiddling my thumbs at work (slow day). Does anybody reckon that christianity, judaism, etc will die out eventually?
Now this may sound like a real stupid question but when thinking about it, its possible isnt it? I mean look at the ancient egyptians and their religion. That was HUGE considering the age but its all but dissapeared. Does anyone think its possible or am i missing something (we never really covered ancient egypt in history classes)?
P.S. Please dont shout at me anyone that is religious. Im not saying it will im just giving something to ponder over...Be kind
Now this may sound like a real stupid question but when thinking about it, its possible isnt it? I mean look at the ancient egyptians and their religion. That was HUGE considering the age but its all but dissapeared. Does anyone think its possible or am i missing something (we never really covered ancient egypt in history classes)?
P.S. Please dont shout at me anyone that is religious. Im not saying it will im just giving something to ponder over...Be kind
Without having time this afternoon to go in-depth, I would say no to your question.
Ancient Egyptian Religion has virtually morphed into modern-day beliefs. However, it was not based upon any sort of "canonical law" which is why it eventually faded. The two major religions of the day, Judaism and Christianity, (with Islam being a debatable religion) are based upon canonical writings. Plus, there are central figures (i.e. Yahweh, Jesus Christ, mohammed) in these religions (monotheism) as opposed to the AER which was strictly polytheism (consisting of like 2000 different gods/goddesses.) With AER, there really wasn't much for man to identify with. There was no real "theological system" if you will compared with current. It was very scattered with some gods being worshipped by the whole, while some other gods were only worshipped by certain local groups, etc.
So thats a short answer...and just my opinion.
Great question though.
Ancient Egyptian Religion has virtually morphed into modern-day beliefs. However, it was not based upon any sort of "canonical law" which is why it eventually faded. The two major religions of the day, Judaism and Christianity, (with Islam being a debatable religion) are based upon canonical writings. Plus, there are central figures (i.e. Yahweh, Jesus Christ, mohammed) in these religions (monotheism) as opposed to the AER which was strictly polytheism (consisting of like 2000 different gods/goddesses.) With AER, there really wasn't much for man to identify with. There was no real "theological system" if you will compared with current. It was very scattered with some gods being worshipped by the whole, while some other gods were only worshipped by certain local groups, etc.
So thats a short answer...and just my opinion.
Great question though.
Religions can die out, or they can become transfigured, or some of their aspects/dogmas can become incorporated into other religions. For example, the figures of Osiris and Isis were transported into (at least) Roman cults, the heresy of Akenaten and its monotheism seems contemporary, the belief that the kind of afterlife one got was somehow based on one's actions while alive (the feather and the scale) may have had influence elsewhere. Certainly the religion of the Egyptians was an amalgam itself of many different local religions and deities---just look at the pantheon of gods and goddesses in the versions of the "Book of the Dead."
"Does anybody reckon that christianity, judaism, etc will die out eventually?"
Eventually can be a very long time, and no one knows what mankind will believe three centuries from now, or that they will find it necessary to hold religious beliefs at all. And it may be that both Christianity and Judaism will survive but in very different forms than they now have. Since these two are based on writings, this may help to ground them over time, but there is no reason to suppose that how the text is interpreted will remain constant, since there are disputes even within adherents of both now.
Regards,
John
"Does anybody reckon that christianity, judaism, etc will die out eventually?"
Eventually can be a very long time, and no one knows what mankind will believe three centuries from now, or that they will find it necessary to hold religious beliefs at all. And it may be that both Christianity and Judaism will survive but in very different forms than they now have. Since these two are based on writings, this may help to ground them over time, but there is no reason to suppose that how the text is interpreted will remain constant, since there are disputes even within adherents of both now.
Regards,
John
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.