Conflicting religions

[MachineGod]

Mine is the only truth. Christianity is the only truth. Both are individual claims only. Not correct. Nor there is a proof. There is no contradiction. The only clause is incorrect.

O…k

I definitely agree with that, but your just admitting that both cannot be true… only one, or the other, or neither. To claim that both are true is the contradiction.

What you intend is that “all religions are valid” (your faith) despite them knowing it. Therefore even though another faith says they are the only valid faith, they would be wrong. If they are wrong…then all faiths are not valid. Get it?

The only way you could still be correct, is if your faith is the profound truth, while the others are not fully true.

Tell me, what is God? Do you think God is another human, albeit a superior one, or totally transcends his creation?

I don’t think god is a “human”, and yes, I think she would transcend (exist independent of) her creation. However, that creation is a reflection of god…and logic, as we know it, would be the fundamental principle of that creation and therefore god’s logic.

Your statement requires me to call circle a square, which if I do, it fits perfectly.

Of course you can…but then the shape that is called a square is merely being called something else. That is just changing the definition. Yes, god could do that, but god cannot make a square according to the definition we know, that is also a circle according to the definition we know. It is logically impossible, by the nature of god…the same way god can’t - exist, and not exist, in the same context, at the same time. If god is infinite and omnipotent, can It destroy Itself?

There are many things beyond man, which are beyond any sophisticated instruments man can build. Those are the divine....

How do you know this?

You have no idea of god head. Your logic is purely human. Relgion cannot be analysed by logic like yours.

And we continue…YOU are analyzing religion by human logic, right now. Are you saying your logic isn’t human? The only difference here is you fail to see the fallacy.

What is the logic for a God itself?

I would say it’s the same as the universe and all creation was built upon.

Are you an atheist or a theist?

Uggh. Must you require a label? If you want to label me, label me human…not humanist, just…human.

Atheism does not lead to God is ur view, not the Hindu view. In Hindu view atheists can also reach God, perhaps might take a few incarnations longer than a theist.

How is that? The incarnations suggest an evolution of the spirit. That means one must change, and sooner or later that evolution does not an atheist make. It would be the equivalent to conversion. Hence…atheism…perpetual atheism, doesn’t “lead to god”.

You have not understood one wee bit. This is not a question of which is a superior religion. It is only a question of validty of religions. For example, one religion may be like taking a flight. Another may be a bullock cart(or a car or a ship) path to God. The bullock cart and the flight are indeed different and built on different technolgies, but they will lead to their destinations.

No, I understand. I just disagree.
Since your into analogies…if there’s an ocean between the cart and the destination, one must change modes of transportation to get there, whereas the flight just keeps on going. Hence, the Cart would be an invalid path…it hits a roadblock.

If you are theist, please clarify how you would arrive at the truth.

Arrive at what truth?

 

[Arthra]

My good friend Ram wrote:

"Can you show me something in bible which shows its philsophical depth like the hindu scripture, like in upanishads or the brahma sutras, for example the abstraction of God, the detailed relationships between God and Soul etc? The bible just summarises them in a few verses, that is why I mentioned it to be a front panel."

My comment:

You're being selective in comparing the two religions Ram...

By saying that the philosophic speculation in the Upanishads is superior to the Bible one could just as well take the speculations say of Christian philosophers and theologians and say you cannot find anything in the early Vedas like that...

The canon of scripture in Hinduism and Christianity is different and just because mystic speculation is not explicitly in the Bible does not mean Christianity or any other religion is inferior to Hinduism in terms of mystic speculation.

Mystic specualtion is widespread in many religions that drank from the same fountain of truth that the ancient Rishis drank from.

Of course you are free to think whatever you wish but I suspect there are some underlying assumptions on your part that you should be aware of...

In friendship...

 

[Chuck®]

Jesus came to this world not to come down on people,
but to reach out to people.
God sent His Son into the world not to point His finger at the world,
but to embrace the world and draw it to Himself.

An old legend tells of a traveler attempting to circle the globe
who found himself trapped in quicksand.
As he slowly sank, Confucius came by and said,
“Confucius say, it is evident man should avoid such situations.” And he went on his way.
Mohammed came by and said, “Alas, it is the will of Allah.”
And he went on his way.
Buddha came by, and said, “Let this man’s dilemma be an illustration for many.”
And he went on his way.
Krishna came by and said, “Better luck next time.”
And he went on his way.
Jesus Christ came by, reached out to the man, and pulled him out.

You see, the unique thing about our Lord
is that, while all others tell us what we must do to reach up to heaven,
He alone reaches down from heaven and pulls us out of the quicksand of sin.

God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world,
to give us some cute spiritual sayings,
or to make us feel bad because of our spiritual inadequacy. No,
the purpose of God in sending His Son was singular:

to save us.

~ Chuck ~

 

[Amandine]

You see, the unique thing about our Lord

No. Any of those men would have saved that man in a heartbeat. What a poor analogy.

 

[rahma]

Mohammed came by and said, “Alas, it is the will of Allah.”
And he went on his way.

Actually, if the Prophet Muhammad (saws) had come across this situation, he would have said something along the lines of - trust God but make sure you tie your camel too. And if the quicksand is a metaphor for sin, then the Prophet (saws) brought the rope with which one can pull themselves out by the grace of God.

 

[sanaa]

Jesus came to this world not to come down on people,
but to reach out to people.
God sent His Son into the world not to point His finger at the world,
but to embrace the world and draw it to Himself.

An old legend tells of a traveler attempting to circle the globe
who found himself trapped in quicksand.
As he slowly sank, Confucius came by and said,
“Confucius say, it is evident man should avoid such situations.” And he went on his way.
Mohammed came by and said, “Alas, it is the will of Allah.”
And he went on his way.
Buddha came by, and said, “Let this man’s dilemma be an illustration for many.”
And he went on his way.
Krishna came by and said, “Better luck next time.”
And he went on his way.
Jesus Christ came by, reached out to the man, and pulled him out.

You see, the unique thing about our Lord
is that, while all others tell us what we must do to reach up to heaven,
He alone reaches down from heaven and pulls us out of the quicksand of sin.

God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world,
to give us some cute spiritual sayings,
or to make us feel bad because of our spiritual inadequacy. No,
the purpose of God in sending His Son was singular:

to save us.

~ Chuck ~

thats just rubbish . Buddha, Mohammad,Confucious,Krishna would have all saved that man . and as an allegory its still rubbish . Jesus would have asked do u believe am the Son of God before saving the man and if the man would have replied no he like billions of others would be condemned eternally . on the other hand Krishna would not care if the drowning man believes in him or worships him . He "saves" all regardless of religion .

 

[Arthra]

thats just rubbish . Buddha, Mohammad,Confucious,Krishna would have all saved that man . and as an allegory its still rubbish . Jesus would have asked do u believe am the Son of God before saving the man and if the man would have replied no he like billions of others would be condemned eternally . on the other hand Krishna would not care if the drowning man believes in him or worships him . He "saves" all regardless of religion .

Well Sanaa I think all of these Beings would have tried to pull the man out of the quick sand... The Golden Rule is pretty universal and Jesus tole the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) who provided for a man who was robbed and beaten near to death on the roadside... Prophet Muhammad would have saved him as a deed of charity and surely the Buddha would have reached out His hand and risked His own in the process...

 

[rahul_sharma]

Jesus came to this world not to come down on people,
but to reach out to people.
God sent His Son into the world not to point His finger at the world,
but to embrace the world and draw it to Himself.

An old legend tells of a traveler attempting to circle the globe
who found himself trapped in quicksand.
As he slowly sank, Confucius came by and said,
“Confucius say, it is evident man should avoid such situations.” And he went on his way.
Mohammed came by and said, “Alas, it is the will of Allah.”
And he went on his way.
Buddha came by, and said, “Let this man’s dilemma be an illustration for many.”
And he went on his way.
Krishna came by and said, “Better luck next time.”
And he went on his way.
Jesus Christ came by, reached out to the man, and pulled him out.

You see, the unique thing about our Lord
is that, while all others tell us what we must do to reach up to heaven,
He alone reaches down from heaven and pulls us out of the quicksand of sin.

God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world,
to give us some cute spiritual sayings,
or to make us feel bad because of our spiritual inadequacy. No,
the purpose of God in sending His Son was singular:

to save us.

~ Chuck ~

WHAT RUBBISH!! Just representing lack of Spiritual understandings of an egoistic but innocent child of Lord.

 

[rahul_sharma]

Well Sanaa I think all of these Beings would have tried to pull the man out of the quick sand... The Golden Rule is pretty universal and Jesus tole the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) who provided for a man who was robbed and beaten near to death on the roadside... Prophet Muhammad would have saved him as a deed of charity and surely the Buddha would have reached out His hand and risked His own in the process...

well, you could have replied something like this to those christians/muslims also in favour of Hinduism (after all you are a Bahai). I have noticed you are mostly opposed to hindu posts and neglect christian, muslim posts which are against or insulting Hindu religion....maybe because Hinduism is already doing that work of uniting the religions for which new bhai-faith was started and therefore you might be feeling Hinduism competing with this so called uniqueness of Bhai-faith. Hinduism already believes in oneness of all religions, so nothing for a Hindu new when Bhaifaith repeats that. Keep up this good work of Uniting.

 

[sanaa]

Well Sanaa I think all of these Beings would have tried to pull the man out of the quick sand... The Golden Rule is pretty universal and Jesus tole the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) who provided for a man who was robbed and beaten near to death on the roadside... Prophet Muhammad would have saved him as a deed of charity and surely the Buddha would have reached out His hand and risked His own in the process...

yes thats what i said , that Buddha , Mohammad , Confucious,Krishna would have all saved the man . ( first line of my post) . and as am hindu i elaborated on the Krishna bit

 

[Arthra]

Thanks Rahul for your response:

Rahul wrote:

well, you could have replied something like this to those christians/muslims also in favour of Hinduism (after all you are a Bahai). I have noticed you are mostly opposed to hindu posts and neglect christian, muslim posts which are against or insulting Hindu religion....

My response:

What i personally have taken some exception to Rahul are the posts that make claims that all ancient ciivlizations were "Vedic" or the "evidence" posted about Vimanas from shaky sources... I've never to my knowledge ever supported posts "insulting to Hindu religion"... If you think I have then please refer to them.

My main objection to Sanaa's post was her line:

"Jesus would have asked do u believe am the Son of God before saving the man and if the man would have replied no he like billions of others would be condemned eternally ."

So to me this seemed a misrepresentation... Maybe she was just reacting though and writing from her feelings.

Rahul:

"...maybe because Hinduism is already doing that work of uniting the religions for which new bhai-faith was started and therefore you might be feeling Hinduism competing with this so called uniqueness of Bhai-faith. Hinduism already believes in oneness of all religions, so nothing for a Hindu new when Bhaifaith repeats that. Keep up this good work of Uniting."

My reply:

Well Rahul, I think it's fine if Hinduism is uniting the world's religions... If Hindus can recognize the good in other religions and work for peace then it can only be for good.

I think we need beliefs that are accepting of others and promote friendship and that reduce fanaticism.

To me the Emperor Akbar made a good start of that with his "Din-i-Ilahi".

The Baha'i Faith is new as you've posted and there are probably more Baha'is today in India than most other countries and Baha'is do accept Krishna as Manifestation of God.

- Art

 

[sanaa]

My main objection to Sanaa's post was her line:

"Jesus would have asked do u believe am the Son of God before saving the man and if the man would have replied no he like billions of others would be condemned eternally ."

So to me this seemed a misrepresentation... Maybe she was just reacting though and writing from her feelings.

what is the misrepresentation in this ? when u dont take it literally and take it is an allegory , the poem meant only Jesus will "save" u , however if u happen to choose the wrong religion you are not saved . you are condemned .

 

[Arthra]

what is the misrepresentation in this ? when u dont take it literally and take it is an allegory , the poem meant only Jesus will "save" u , however if u happen to choose the wrong religion you are not saved . you are condemned .

Maybe Sanaa you've confused what the teachings of Jesus were as opposed to what some Christians would say.... and in any event, would you agree that we need to rise above religious sectarianism and mischaracterizing other peoples religions? If so, I think we can agree on that.

- Art

 

[sanaa]

Maybe Sanaa you've confused what the teachings of Jesus were as opposed to what some Christians would say....

are u trying to say that mainstream christianity has got it all wrong ?

and in any event, would you agree that we need to rise above religious sectarianism and mischaracterizing other peoples religions? If so, I think we can agree on that.

- Art

ya i agree

 

[jlujan69]

A: Can God have multiple religions which all seem contradictory to us by logic and reasoning, but still have them all ultimately true?
B: Umm...well...errm....

Sure, God can if He wants. Do all religions have a common source? Yep--their source is man.

I belong to a religion that teaches that the way to the Father (and, thus Heaven) is through a relationship with the Father through the Son and not by joining a religion (even joining the Christian religion).

 

[Chuck®]

No. Any of those men would have saved that man in a heartbeat. What a poor analogy.

But they didn't did they!
What a poor understanding.

 

[ghazirizvi]

But they didn't did they!
What a poor understanding.

I really hope you are not serious about this. It is only an analogy, it is not true.

 

[Chuck®]

Christianity - TRUE BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY - cancels out all other "ways to heaven"!

The Bible clearly states there is only ONE WAY, ONE TRUTH, ONE LIFE
and that is found in Jesus Christ and Him alone!

"... I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6 - Jesus Christ

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12

"And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." 1 John 5:11-12

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved ... " Acts 16:31

"A conviction that there is a definite way to heaven is not tolerated in this day of professed tolerance because it assumes that all roads don't lead to the same place, that truth does exist, and that there is a distinction between what is right and what is wrong. Instead of such old-fashioned convictions, ecumenical broad-mindedness is the new wave for the new millennium. We are expected to set aside the rational necessity of being certain about our eternal destiny in favor of a mindless tolerance that promises only to avoid religious arguments in this life but offers no sensible assurance for the next."
(An Urgent Call to a Serious Faith, pg. 39 - Dave Hunt)

~ Chuck ~

 

[Delta One]

Ram,

A: Do you believe God can do anything?

Delta One: Yes, so long as it is something that can logically exist and be able to done...

A: Is God above human sciences, logic and reasoning?

Delta One: As the Creator of all things we should expect that He is above everything. Science is man's attempt to explain God's Creation. When God intervenes like He did to the Israelites when they were wondering in the desert for fourty years, we are told that their feet didn't swell, the shoes didn't break and their clothes didn't wear out -- this is the total opposite of what should happen according to the second law of thermodynamics! So, obviously, God has power and control over even the laws of nature.

As for logic, in some cases yes and in other cases no (IMO) like the following:

A: For example, can God make two plus two equal five?

Delta One: No because it can't logically happen, IMO.

A: How about this: Can God make two plus two equal five and at the same time also have two plus two equal four?

Delta One: No for the same reason as above. A similar question to ask is: Can God make a two sided triange? It is obvious that such an object cannot exist and yet be a "triangle" where "tri" = three. Such things cannot logically exist and are impossible by their very nature. Of course, this is all IMO.

A: Can God have multiple religions which all seem contradictory to us by logic and reasoning, but still have them all ultimately true?

Delta One: No, once again because logic tells us no because it is an impossible existence. A false religion cannot imply truth (logic).

Person A is a Hindu like person believing in the validity of all religions.

This last question works against you. How can all the religions in the world that vastly contradict each other all be "valid"? Some religions even believe that there is something under the Earth supporting it -- Hinduism is one such religion if my memory serves me correctly that says that there is supposedly a ginormous elephant underneath the Earth supporting. Obviously this is a lie and as such if we can't trust your religion on areas that we can test and observe - why trust it on spirtual matters that we cannot test and observe?? Don't worry, many other religions say similar things and all are equally wrong and therefore invalid.