If truth is absoluute then why are therre so many different religions?

[Job8]

Uh, Judaism doesn't have a Gospel.

Technically Judaism does not have a Gospel. But the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) of the Hebrews clearly included the Gospel (Isaiah 53). Thus when the Jewish proselyte from Ethiopia was travelling back to his country, he was reading this chapter and Philip the evangelist told him that it spoke of Christ (Acts 8:26-40). This man was saved and baptized that same day -- he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ out of the Old Testament!

Indeed the Torah included the Gospel (Deuteronomy 18:15-19): The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

It is noteworthy that this same Moses who is so revered by the Jews met with Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration (along with Elijah) and spoke of Christ's departure from the earth. And they both beheld the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Who do you think met Moses at the burning bush? Who do you think called Himself "I AM" in both the Testaments?

 

[smaneck]

2. it would be an excuse (etc) except that many of the NT Apostles/writers, including Jesus Himself, made it clear that 'all' foods were ok to eat, not to be forbidden or acceptable for everyone to eat. This was not made in the case of homosexuality.

Jesus was silent on the latter issue.

Also, some say that the ability to properly cook foods such as pork was the reasoning for these animals not being acceptable. Others say that the God of the Jews wanted His people to be separate (as the Bible says) or distinct from everyone else and these restrictions were one way (of many) that he used to do that. I'm sure there are other trains of thought on foods as well.

Pigs were domesticated when they began hanging around settled farmers in order to eat human waste (not just our garbage.) In the Middle East nearly all people who were herders consider pork taboo.

 

[smaneck]

Maybe it is more interesting but it is also wrong in that there is not a single shred of proof that evolution occurred.

That's how you use your 1+1 logic, by ignoring the millions of pieces of evidence? Sorry, the fossil finds as well as DNA evidence very clearly substantiates evolution.

In fact, scientists have changed their belief system (evolutionary thought) many times.

Science is supposed to be modified with the introduction of new evidence. The problem with biblical inerrantists is they can't do this.

And, many times scientists have agreed with what the Bible has always taught. For instance, the Bible teaches us that the world, earth, is circular or round.

Wrong. The Tanakh presumed a flat earth covered by a dome.

About 500 years ago everyone, including the scientists, said the earth was flat- they couldn't understand gravity.

Only your third grade teacher and everyone else totally ignorant of history believes that before Columbus people thought the world was flat. Sailors, even the cabin boy, knew the world was round, they could tell from the horizon. The Ptolemy system of the universe presumed the world was round. Indeed, in Alexandria during the Hellenistic period they calculated the circumference of the world. They were only off by four miles. The reason the Portuguese refused to fund Columbus' voyage is his calculations were off by about a third!

Today, everyone agrees with the Bible- that and we have gone into space so we have seen its circular shape.

No, today people have reinterpreted the Tanakh to match science, but I should say that by New Testament times Ptolemy's system has already been accepted. It is implicit in Paul's description of going to the 'third heaven.'

But that isn't the only agreement science has with what the Bible has 'always' taught.

Except it didn't.

Never trust a man/men over the Bible.

So much for logic and reason.

 

[smaneck]

Who do you think met Moses at the burning bush?

Baha'u'llah

 

[smaneck]

1. Religious beliefs worldwide are not based on rationality but on tradition.

It seems to me that is precisely what you and Roc are doing. You are rejecting science and therefore rationality, reinterpreting the Bible in order to fit what you can't reject and take the Bible over evidence (science and men.) What do you have left but tradition?

 

[smaneck]

. Some of them are not even familiar with the things their religion taught in times past

Apparently you are not either or you would be aware that the Tanakh never taught that the world was round.

 

[smaneck]

It was stated many times throughout the Old Testament that God would first scatter the Jews all over the world and second that He would bring them back to the very spot He gave them as their homeland, the Land of Promise, again. No one can deny Israel was scattered for nearly 2,000 years. And, likewise, no one can deny they are back in their homeland as a sovereign nation again.

In many ways that was a self-fulfilling prophecy. President Truman supported the establishment of the State of Israel because as an Evangelical Christian he believed it fulfilled prophecy. It is doubtful Israel could have been established without US support. Ironically Luther was so sure it had been prophesied that the Jews would never return to Israel that he stated he would convert to Judaism if they did!

 

[smaneck]

We have 300 plus Million who hate and surround Israel and 7 million Israelis. Who is winning? Ever wonder why that is?

It is not a David and Goliath story. The Jews in Palestine were allowed to arm themselves and trained constantly. Arabs, on the other hand, could not. The Arab countries which surrounded Israel had been colonies up until then and their military was used almost exclusively for ceremonial purposes. Since the establishment of Israel, it is has been provided with the very best of weaponry while Arab countries access to weapons has been carefully and deliberately controlled.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe it is more interesting but it is also wrong in that there is not a single shred of proof that evolution occurred. In fact, scientists have changed their belief system (evolutionary thought) many times. And, many times scientists have agreed with what the Bible has always taught. For instance, the Bible teaches us that the world, earth, is circular or round. About 500 years ago everyone, including the scientists, said the earth was flat- they couldn't understand gravity. Today, everyone agrees with the Bible- that and we have gone into space so we have seen its circular shape. But that isn't the only agreement science has with what the Bible has 'always' taught. Never trust a man/men over the Bible.

Scientific theories change when they are falsified. Sometimes the theories linger-on even after falsification, because they are good enough most of the time (e.g. classical mechanics). The evolution of scientific consensus is a good thing.

The spherical shape of the Earth was discovered by the Greeks in the 6th century BCE, so it has been known for 2500 years. The Bible actually speaks of a flat earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

 

[gord44]

Sure it does. It is so clear and obvious that no one even debates it.

A quick google search saw it debated. Actually alot of Christians against the idea as well. Sorry...

But that fact alone tells us the Bible is absolutely true.

Not seeing it. I was a Christian for nearly 10 years and oh how I wanted to Bible to be absolutely true! It just wasn't meant to be.

And, if that prophecy came true then there must be many others- some that have been fulfilled and some that are yet to be. A quick look will tell us which are which. God rarely (but sometimes) tells us 'when' a prophecy will be fulfilled, He tells us 'that' it will be.

Whatever works for you good sir. If you find peace in Bible prophecy then I am happy for you, but as I said, it's not very convincing for everyone.

 

[Robban]

The answer to this one (and I know you only used it as an example) would be that -
1. Many of the teachings in the OT was meant only for the Jews. I realize that that looks/sounds like a cop-out or some kind of rationalization, justification or excuse. For example, the Feasts, the Temple ceremonies, and a bunch of other ordinances, teachings and commandments.
And
2. it would be an excuse (etc) except that many of the NT Apostles/writers, including Jesus Himself, made it clear that 'all' foods were ok to eat, not to be forbidden or acceptable for everyone to eat. This was not made in the case of homosexuality.

In the case of Christianity there are three main ways (means) of interpreting the Bible. They are-
1. What does the immediate context say
2. What does the distance context say (cross referencing the Bible from Genesis to Revelations).
3. Does it (teaching, etc) go against the character of God as defined in the Bible.

Also, some say that the ability to properly cook foods such as pork was the reasoning for these animals not being acceptable. Others say that the God of the Jews wanted His people to be separate (as the Bible says) or distinct from everyone else and these restrictions were one way (of many) that he used to do that. I'm sure there are other trains of thought on foods as well.

It is common that most think and speak of pork as though it is only thing that matters,
It far from what it is,
any animal that does not both have split hooves and does not chew the cud

Also fish that do not have both scales and fins,

There is a reason,

And science will never understand why.

 

[Rocmonkey]

That wouldn't be testing a religion at all. You would be testing the historical accuracy of a religion's stories, perhaps, but that isn't what is at the core of many religions. Let's say that the early stories of the Torah are not historically accurate. Does that change the message of Judaism? Does that change what Judaism believes about its relationship with the divine? Plenty of us look to the Torah not for a source of history but a source of learning and understanding. What does the story of Noah teach? How about Abraham? How can I relate these things to my life?

Some of the most important things Judaism teaches has nothing to do with the text. Are those things false because Moses might not have existed as the text says he did?

I may have already replied to this post- hope not, but... It would be testing the religion. If Moses or Noah 'didn't' really exist then one must discount the entire thing. Lies and truth never mix to form anything good or worth having. How would one know which parts were true and which were lies? The problem, as I see it, is too many religious folks are too quick to throw in the towel when some science, or pseudo-science (like evolution), comes up with a 'truth'. In stead of checking out what they say they simply accept it as 'scientific fact' which it rarely, if ever, is.

Also, Yes, it changes everything. If God (in this example the Torah's God) can't tell the truth or prevent lies from being placed in His holy word then he isn't much of a God at all. Everything about, say, the Bible, stands on the accuracy of what its God said/taught. I realize there are a few mistakes in the Bible- the words of men. But when God speaks there can't be any untruths. Either God knows everything and is all-powerful or it is all a bunch of man-made stories. We can't have an 'iffy' God. This is one reason why I believe in absolute truth. Oh, every person on earth believes in absolute truth they simply apply/use it everyday in some way so they don't think about it as such.

 

[LoAmmi]

You are confusing historically accuracy to truth. I don't.

Also, evolution is "pseudo-science"? Well, I think with your mindset we have no common ground.

 

[gord44]

Also, evolution is "pseudo-science"? Well, I think with your mindset we have no common ground.

Hehe. Funny evolution is refereed to as 'pseudo-science'. I wonder what is 'real' science? Creation science??

 

[smaneck]

Also, Yes, it changes everything. If God (in this example the Torah's God) can't tell the truth or prevent lies from being placed in His holy word then he isn't much of a God at all. Everything about, say, the Bible, stands on the accuracy of what its God said/taught. I realize there are a few mistakes in the Bible- the words of men. But when God speaks there can't be any untruths.

Very little of what is written in the Bible comes under the category of "Thus speaketh the Lord" but I would agree that those parts must be taken more seriously.

 

[Rocmonkey]

IMO, atheism is the natural result of Occam's razor.
Theism = science + religious speculation

How is Theism speculation?

Atheism = science

Science is defined/described (by scientists) as- The rigorous observation and interpretation of evidence that results ultimately in the ability to predict phenomena. One could add 'duplication' to that, too. I've never seen anything from any atheist that showed conclusive evidence that God doesn't exist.
What evidence is there that proves atheism is science? The way I see it is every design we have today, which is everything, has a designer. Show me one design that doesn't have a designer. And, since the Universe (and everything in it) is so amazing and complex that it is absurd to think it, too, wasn't designed. Since nature can't produce complexity (we never see waves hitting shores and leaving 'John Loves Mary' or clouds that are whole words or sentences) it is, to me, blatantly obvious that an intelligent designer (God) created/designed the Universe and everything in it. There is simply too much complexity for nothing to create everything. Have you ever seen a car just appear out of nowhere? Have you ever seen any complex design simply 'pop' into existence? If so, what? If not, then why would we think the Universe and all of the complex animals, plants, and humans did that? We can't even 'create' life in a sterile lab (been tried-for decades) and yet 'they' say life was created in a bacteria and germ infested swamp of green pond scum. It takes more faith, I think, to believe that life simply spontaneously appeared in a filthy, germ-filled pond of green slime and scum (in light of the fact that every single attempt to create life in a 'sterile' lab has failed miserably) - than it does to believe in God.

 

[LoAmmi]

We can't even 'create' life in a sterile lab (been tried-for decades) and yet 'they' say life was created in a bacteria and germ infested swamp of green pond scum.

Who is this they because I can't think of a credible scientist that would say life was "created" in a place where lift already existed.

 

[gord44]

How is Theism speculation?

Because it's not 100% provable. Using my 5 senses I cannot confirm it without a reasonable doubt, hence the need for faith (especially when stating the case for a particular religion). I am more theistic leaning then atheistic so I do assume there is a sort of divinity, but what exactly that looks like is speculation, guessing and 'faith' (if you are actually subscribing to a particular belief).

 

[Rocmonkey]

Hehe. Funny evolution is refereed to as 'pseudo-science'. I wonder what is 'real' science? Creation science??

Science is defined by scientists as- The rigorous observation and interpretation of evidence that results ultimately in the ability to predict phenomena.

Where is the proof (evidence) that evolution is true- from a purely scientific point of view? I've never seen a single shred and I have looked hard and read a lot. What phenomena have they predicted from observation and interpretation of the evidence? Sure, we know Dinos lived. But the Bible says man and Dinos lived together (Job).

In fact, there are footprints (Texas, for one place) that have both Dino footprints and man's in the same rock strata. That is totally and completely impossible IF Dinos died out 75 Million years ago and mankind appeared on earth for the first time a mere 200,000 years ago. How did a human footprint appear 75 million years ago in rock strata when man didn't appear on earth for another 74,800,000 years? Evolution lies, that's how. Also, how did men chisel/etch exact images of Dinos (Stegosaurus, for one, found in S.E. Asia) on stones/temples when Dinos had been dead for nearly 75 million years? And, these images were 'etched' long before modern times so there is no way they knew what they were drawing. The 'science' of evolution proves evolution didn't occur.

 

[Rocmonkey]

Very little of what is written in the Bible comes under the category of "Thus speaketh the Lord" but I would agree that those parts must be taken more seriously.

True but if there is a God then he would make sure that what he told/revealed to his servants was the truth. The only errors I have found in the Bible are men failing to accurately quote the OT or something as that. For example Paul, Corinthians, speaks of a war in the OT. What Paul says, 23,000 men fail, was incorrect. The number was 24,000 according to the OT. These kinds of mistakes/errors have no effect on the message or meaning of the Bible. He simply got his figures wrong- as all humans do from time to time. But when it comes to the meaning or the message of the Bible there are no mistakes, contradictions or errors when viewed in context.