The reason I can't get down with one religion hardcore is..

[BiblicalAtheist]

There are things that I'm willing to accept as unknowable. You feel that I have to defend something because I have something to prove; an agenda to me. How can you actually explain forever? You can't without explaining away your own explaination for things. Again, my hands are tied. If you were expecting something better...maybe you will soon enough. You just not going to get it from me.

You really should retire from trying to tell me about me. As I have said before, and will say again, I would like you to be answer a question in all truthfulness, which for some unknown reason to me, you are unable or unwilling to do.

 

[supaman4321]

No matter what religious group it is, and I have mingled with people from nearly all religious followings.. I have found the majority are extremely strange..

Some were insulting about others beliefs. Some were non stop speaking about God and nothing else. Or some came across almost like they were and little too sure of themselves that they were already saved and heaven bound, as they were right and were not open to anyone or anythi ng else...

AND only TINY amount of people, were actually regular people, that loved God and went about business like you wouldn't know they loved God hardcore.. which to me is the best way to be..

So I have my faith. And as I stated some time ago here I lean towards Islam, BUT am extremely open to all religions and learning more as life goes on.. I think there is just too much beauty in all of them... which reminds of this quote I read 2 nights back:

"Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams - they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do - they all contain truths." - Muhammad Ali

I dunno, just some random thoughts off the dome.

Salaam

I can definitely understand what you mean i've run into a lot of religious fanatics from multiple religions and i look at it differently now than i once did, before i never really "got it" i guess you could say, i believed in God but ascribed to no religion other than belief in one Creator that ruled over everything but i left it at that and people that were really gung ho about their religion were extremely weird and annoying to me. Now that i've accept Islam the first thing that i've realized is that people should NEVER be judged for what they say but what they do as numero uno, and number two which is actually most important to me is that don't let somebody that professes a religion be your only source of info on said religion, judge the religion by what it says for itself if that isn't possible then you shouldn't even bother to begin with it if you need to read somebody else' interpretation to even begin to understand it. Once you understand what the religion says about itself and the actions and conduct that it's followers are suppose to have then you can more fairly and accurately understand and judge it's followers.

Now I can talk about God all day long with either a fellow brother, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever because i love to understand people's thought processes on their creator and why they choose their particular form of worship but I also won't try and work a verse of the Qur'an into every conversation with everybody that I speak to and things like that because i've found that the people that are the most blatant and in your face about their religion are the biggest hypocrites, if you believe and you're on the right path God knows better than you do and the same can be said if you're not so there's no need to be flamboyant about it i think.

two things about the quote from ali, I'm not sure if he's still a muslim or not but the viewpoint that he puts fourth is concurrent with the teachings of the Qur'an accept the truth that you can take from ANYTHING because whatever truth you can find in this world HAD to come from God because he is the source of all truth and wisdom, and the second thing is that like oceans, rivers, lakes, and ponds they all contain water and they can all also contain filth , much like religion they can all contain truth as well as falsehood and lies some moreso than other much like different bodies of water.

Insha'Allah you are guided to and accept the truth

Salaam

 

[Rock_Well]

How is it not? You think/feel you have found who god is in that one book, you think/feel you have found god's wisdom in that one book, and you think/feel in those teaching is the wisdom of god. What you said in that one post, is exactly what you have done.

No, The Book simply teaches us and provides a means for us learn the will of God. God who is the creator, gives the truth. For out of his very mouth comes wisdom and understanding. God made His own claims, i just observe what He says and accept it. You haven't.

Why have you not "put intense study, research, and careful examination of facts; not just some vague, preconceived idea" into other religious texts? I would gather from previous posts it is because you think/feel the bible is the word of god already, so why bother.

How many other religious texts claim to have revelation of words that come directly from God?

Now, why do i need to strongly consider those writings that don't make the claim to be from God over the writings that do?

This is essentially what you have said, but using a different object:

You: My city is the only city in America that does things right.

Me: Have lived in the other cities in America to know this is true?

You: No, that is just my belief and in that belief I have much faith.

You could be right, but you could also be horribly wrong^^^^

No, what's being done here is you setting up a straw-man. My position has been oversimplified in your representation.

And if you'd have happened to be born in the middle east, what say you then? The koran or bhagavad gita would the "one" book that is correct or most correct. Beliefs in and of themselves are personal things, though beliefs in and of themselves, do not constitute proof of whether something is right or wrong. So more accurately, on belief through "intense study, research, and careful examination of facts" you believe the bible being truth. It may not be, but you have nothing else to gage it against really because you have not put such intense and rigorous energy into other religious texts.

I'm not going to get into the endless realm of what-ifs. Preferably i'd rather just focus on reality.

You claim the Bible MAY not be truth. What reason do you have to believe that it isn't other than you own personal desire for it to be as you say it MAY be.

Personal experience is one of the ways we can know if something contains truth. Here is an example:

You: Do not put your hand in the fire, it will get burnt.

Me: *puts my hand in the fire* it gets burnt.

It was through experience that I found what you said had truth in it. If I had not experienced it, I would have to believe what you said was true and then have faith in that belief.

You: Do not put your hand on the fridge, it will get burnt.

Me: Have you ever put your hand on the fridge?

You: No.

Me: Then how do you know it will get burnt?

You: I believe that is what will happen.

Me: *puts hand on the fridge* it does not get burnt.

It was through experience that I found what you said did not contain truth. It is through experience that we are able to learn whether something is truth or not. If you had not experienced personally, truths within the bible, I highly doubt you would give credence to the bible. But like with the fridge burning, you cannot say whether it is actually true or not because you have not experienced whether it is or not, which is my point with other religious texts. You cannot say truthfully they don't contain wisdom or understanding because you have not experienced it, you just believe it. And that's okay, just be forth right and truthful about it.

I understood what you said, however....personal experience is ok to use as a guide to what is right or wrong, but it is not a good thing to use as a standard for all judgments.

Using this approach to life, you might find yourself arguing that heroine the drug is not necessarily bad, to the person that doesn't use it. Because there's no way they can know it's bad before they experience it first hand.

Obviously, the idea is a falsehood.

Only if you have a lack of control over your feelings, only if you are ignorant to the source of your feelings, only if you give no awareness to your feelings.

This is another falsehood. Feelings are not just a one way street. There is no escaping the idea of mutual responsibility, which is taught in the Bible. To a considerable degree, we are responsible for the well being, and feelings of our fellow brother or sister.

Right, the movie is not real, but the things depicted in movies and shows are most often real things that happen to real human beings. And human being can relate to those things, because they can imagine themselves in those positions in the real world, which really do take place, but people watch it in a movie so they can get close to the experience but at a far enough distance to remain safe.

We not talking about why people watch movies, but why feelings aren't sufficient evidence in determining if a situation is 'real' or not.

So are you of the opinion that experiencing things to gain understanding is bad? That only personally wanting to experience one thing and the understanding of that one thing is much better? I do not know if you are simply trying to smear me here, but I'd be mindful about the assumptions, they tell more about you than me.

No. To me, experience is a valuable teacher for a person in understanding more about themselves, what they feel, what they like and how they want to be. I do not hold experience as being the only way to gain understanding of any one particular thing though. A lot of times all it takes is for a person to hear the right words. In a lot of instances i find words to be more giving of understanding than any single experience alone could ever have given - without going through the constant the frustration of trial and error.

My overall point, which is getting lost in the posts after posts, is that you and allissowack, cannot in all truthfulness, say that god has limited itself to one book if that is all you've learned from is one book.

Just because i haven't read every book in the world, doesn't mean i cannot tell a person about what i HAVE found/read to be true in smaller contexts and why i believe what i do.

 

[alissowack]

You really should retire from trying to tell me about me. As I have said before, and will say again, I would like you to be answer a question in all truthfulness, which for some unknown reason to me, you are unable or unwilling to do.

Well forgive me for my terrible mind reading skills. I don't know the answer and I believe that there are just things that I just don't need to know or try to ponder or I run the risk of making God what I want Him to be. I believe God is limitless and boundless, but the details surrounding this belief is beyond me. I can't "test" this belief nor do I feel I have the right to try. I don't feel it is also my right to say what God is or isn't limited to. It is whatever the Bible says and in faith trust that all that it says is true.

 

[supaman4321]

Unless i'm mistaken the Holy Qur'an is the ONLY book that makes such a claim, there's a difference between God supposedly inspiring men to write and God putting HIS words into somebody else's mouth to proclaim, which oddly enough is a prophecy in the bible..hmmm...

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

No, The Book simply teaches us and provides a means for us learn the will of God. God who is the creator, gives the truth. For out of his very mouth comes wisdom and understanding. God made His own claims, i just observe what He says and accept it. You haven't.

How do you know other religious texts don't to that, you don't, because you have not read them. You have started with the base that the bible is the one book that does, so all others must not. I accept many many things in the bible, because I have directly experienced the truth from it.

How many other religious texts claim to have revelation of words that come directly from God? Now, why do i need to strongly consider those writings that don't make the claim to be from God over the writings that do?

The qu'ran for one, the bhagavad gita for another. You don't have to, but at least if you did you could say in all truthfulness god has limited his understanding to one book, the bible. But you haven't, so you can't. It is by belief, and by faith you uphold that belief.

No, what's being done here is you setting up a straw-man. My position has been oversimplified in your representation.

How so? Maybe you could elaborate.

I'm not going to get into the endless realm of what-ifs. Preferably i'd rather just focus on reality.

You claim the Bible MAY not be truth. What reason do you have to believe that it isn't other than you own personal desire for it to be as you say it MAY be.

I do not claim the bible MAY not be truth, I have no desire for it not to be. If you pay attention, you will notice I use the bible to describe things, I help to explain some of the understanding I've gained from the bible. I do not know if you are hung up the screen name I choose and that clouds your perception.

Being born in the middle east and following those texts is a reality. However if it is turned into a "what-if", it can be rejected as non-reality.

I understood what you said, however....personal experience is ok to use as a guide to what is right or wrong, but it is not a good thing to use as a standard for all judgments.

Using this approach to life, you might find yourself arguing that heroine the drug is not necessarily bad, to the person that doesn't use it. Because there's no way they can know it's bad before they experience it first hand.

Obviously, the idea is a falsehood.

If the idea was falsehood, there would be no truth to it, which obviously there is. If you had noticed, I said experience is ONE of the ways things can be found to have truth in them or not. Who's creating the straw-man arguments?

This is another falsehood. Feelings are not just a one way street. There is no escaping the idea of mutual responsibility, which is taught in the Bible. To a considerable degree, we are responsible for the well being, and feelings of our fellow brother or sister.

I am not responsible for the emotions of others. I am responsible to be truthful at all times, if that bruises someone's ego, that is something they need to look deeper into. I am responsible for the well being of my brothers and sisters, but it seems rather silly I should waver from truth in order to save someone from their uncontrolable, unaware emotions.

We not talking about why people watch movies, but why feelings aren't sufficient evidence in determining if a situation is 'real' or not.

Oh right I see what you're saying, and I agree.

No. To me, experience is a valuable teacher for a person in understanding more about themselves, what they feel, what they like and how they want to be. I do not hold experience as being the only way to gain understanding of any one particular thing though. A lot of times all it takes is for a person to hear the right words. In a lot of instances i find words to be more giving of understanding than any single experience alone could ever have given - without going through the constant the frustration of trial and error.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, I said experience in ONE of the ways that we can know if there is truth in something, not that it is the ONLY way. If you have not directly experienced truth in the bible, why do you ascribe to it? You've had to experience in some sense no?

Just because i haven't read every book in the world, doesn't mean i cannot tell a person about what i HAVE found/read to be true in smaller contexts and why i believe what i do.

Did I said you couldn't? Did you miss what my overall point was? That you cannot in all truthfulness say that god has limited itself to one book if all you've ever read is one book?

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

Well forgive me for my terrible mind reading skills. I don't know the answer and I believe that there are just things that I just don't need to know or try to ponder or I run the risk of making God what I want Him to be. I believe God is limitless and boundless, but the details surrounding this belief is beyond me. I can't "test" this belief nor do I feel I have the right to try. I don't feel it is also my right to say what God is or isn't limited to. It is whatever the Bible says and in faith trust that all that it says is true.

No one is asking any of that of you. You are twisting and turning the entire question into obscure things, posing answers to questions not asked and making wild claims totally out of context. No one asked you to mind read, no one asked you to know or ponder things that would run the risk of you wanting god to be what you want god to be. You are so far 'out there' on what is being asked, and are saying a bunch of irrelevant things, either you totally don't understand what is be asked or you are being very very deceptive.

 

[KLICHE]

Salaam

I can definitely understand what you mean i've run into a lot of religious fanatics from multiple religions and i look at it differently now than i once did, before i never really "got it" i guess you could say, i believed in God but ascribed to no religion other than belief in one Creator that ruled over everything but i left it at that and people that were really gung ho about their religion were extremely weird and annoying to me. Now that i've accept Islam the first thing that i've realized is that people should NEVER be judged for what they say but what they do as numero uno, and number two which is actually most important to me is that don't let somebody that professes a religion be your only source of info on said religion, judge the religion by what it says for itself if that isn't possible then you shouldn't even bother to begin with it if you need to read somebody else' interpretation to even begin to understand it. Once you understand what the religion says about itself and the actions and conduct that it's followers are suppose to have then you can more fairly and accurately understand and judge it's followers.

Now I can talk about God all day long with either a fellow brother, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever because i love to understand people's thought processes on their creator and why they choose their particular form of worship but I also won't try and work a verse of the Qur'an into every conversation with everybody that I speak to and things like that because i've found that the people that are the most blatant and in your face about their religion are the biggest hypocrites, if you believe and you're on the right path God knows better than you do and the same can be said if you're not so there's no need to be flamboyant about it i think.

two things about the quote from ali, I'm not sure if he's still a muslim or not but the viewpoint that he puts fourth is concurrent with the teachings of the Qur'an accept the truth that you can take from ANYTHING because whatever truth you can find in this world HAD to come from God because he is the source of all truth and wisdom, and the second thing is that like oceans, rivers, lakes, and ponds they all contain water and they can all also contain filth , much like religion they can all contain truth as well as falsehood and lies some moreso than other much like different bodies of water.

Insha'Allah you are guided to and accept the truth

Salaam

Wa Alaykum as salaam,

I totally agree. My mother and sister are not into religion. they believe in a creator and at times are doubtful but I know that is their decision. but I told them a few times if there is anything they ever wish to know in regards to the Quran or anything Islamic related, that they can ask me, and at the most unexpected of times they do lol So we will sit, even though it is usually brief they aske me "what does Islam say.." about such and such and I refer back to what i've read and give them the best answer I can. And we spoke once where I too had said i won't be preaching to people, that if they really want to know where I stand or what I know then yeah I'll chat, but knowing going to just randomly say "hey let me tell you.." type of approach.

 

[alissowack]

No one is asking any of that of you. You are twisting and turning the entire question into obscure things, posing answers to questions not asked and making wild claims totally out of context. No one asked you to mind read, no one asked you to know or ponder things that would run the risk of you wanting god to be what you want god to be. You are so far 'out there' on what is being asked, and are saying a bunch of irrelevant things, either you totally don't understand what is be asked or you are being very very deceptive.

I could be wrong, but this is my attempt to answer the question. I believe that God has limited Himself to one book. But I also believe in respect to that one book, that He has not limited Himself; that it all of life points back to that one book. How and what that looks like for every person in the world? I don't know. For some people, it takes a "miracle" to believe. Even a tragedy may be used to bring people to believe. Who knows? I'm not in a position to determine someone's fate through what the Bible says.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I believe that God has limited Himself to one book. But I also believe in respect to that one book, that He has not limited Himself; that it all of life points back to that one book.

Thank you, finally a straight answer.

 

[alissowack]

Thank you, finally a straight answer.

You're welcome? I believe my answers are never straight.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

You're welcome? I believe my answers are never straight.

That's not something that need be believed, it can be witnessed!

 

[Rock_Well]

Unless i'm mistaken the Holy Qur'an is the ONLY book that makes such a claim, there's a difference between God supposedly inspiring men to write and God putting HIS words into somebody else's mouth to proclaim, which oddly enough is a prophecy in the bible..hmmm...

Which is one of the reason why i have a Quran. Because it makes the claim also, we have to consider it. I've found that the teachings of the Quran and of the Bible don't match though. And actually the Bible does present itself to be from God, not from men.

 

[melanated khemist]

Which is one of the reason why i have a Quran. Because it makes the claim also, we have to consider it. I've found that the teachings of the Quran and of the Bible don't match though. And actually the Bible does present itself to be from God, not from men.

Just because it presents itself to be from god doesn't mean it IS. LOL at a book being from god. The book doesn't even present the correct tools for experiencing a So-called god.

 

[Rock_Well]

How do you know other religious texts don't to that, you don't, because you have not read them. You have started with the base that the bible is the one book that does, so all others must not. I accept many many things in the bible, because I have directly experienced the truth from it.

The qu'ran for one, the bhagavad gita for another. You don't have to, but at least if you did you could say in all truthfulness god has limited his understanding to one book, the bible. But you haven't, so you can't. It is by belief, and by faith you uphold that belief.

I don't have to try and read ALL religious text to know what's what - I got people that know for me.

I don't have to burden myself with the gargantuan task of trying to obtain ALL the facts - I got one God knows for me. What's wiser? Simply relying on God, or putting myself in the position of having to be more wise than Him? "I have seen everything during my lifetime of futility; there is a righteous man who perishes in his righteousness and there is a wicked man who prolongs his life in his wickedness..Do not be excessively righteous and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?" (Ecclesiastes 7:15-16)

A religious text claiming and also KNOWN to be from God would not be a secret would it? Surely i would've heard about it by now but i haven't. In contrast, how many people you know that don't know about or have access to a Bible, the best selling book of all time, The Book of books?

Plus, I have a Qu'ran. I open it from time to time. I don't have a bhagavad gita, but i know about some of the the teachings. A lot of which just don't sit right with me.

How so? Maybe you could elaborate.

I'm not completely ignorant of what's taught in other religion like you suggested.

I do not claim the bible MAY not be truth, I have no desire for it not to be. If you pay attention, you will notice I use the bible to describe things, I help to explain some of the understanding I've gained from the bible. I do not know if you are hung up the screen name I choose and that clouds your perception.

I been peeped that. But i also notice you tend to be selective of the things taught in the Bible that you will accept. Which throws me off. Because if a person gonna use the Bible to establish truth in one area, one must use it to establish truth in all others. What is your rejection of one verse over another based on? Facts?

Being born in the middle east and following those texts is a reality. However if it is turned into a "what-if", it can be rejected as non-reality.

what we do know: i was not born in the middle east.
what we do not know: IF i was born in the middle east, that i would not have accepted what is taught in the Bible.

If the idea was falsehood, there would be no truth to it, which obviously there is. If you had noticed, I said experience is ONE of the ways things can be found to have truth in them or not. Who's creating the straw-man arguments?

But not ALWAYS. In my judgment, truth is a constant. The idea of truth you present might actually be found to be false at times.

Plus, It was the Messiah himself who said - "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."(John 5:31) It is a case of 'you need more people'.

Because"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD ponders the hearts." (Proverbs 21:2)

I am not responsible for the emotions of others. I am responsible to be truthful at all times, if that bruises someone's ego, that is something they need to look deeper into. I am responsible for the well being of my brothers and sisters, but it seems rather silly I should waver from truth in order to save someone from their uncontrolable, unaware emotions.

Pretty much. Jesus said to owe each other nothing but to love each other, which involves being truthful. In the context we stray from doing this, are we held accountable...at times this can involve being partly responsible for what someone else feels.

Again, as I pointed out earlier, I said experience in ONE of the ways that we can know if there is truth in something, not that it is the ONLY way. If you have not directly experienced truth in the bible, why do you ascribe to it? You've had to experience in some sense no?

Did I said you couldn't? Did you miss what my overall point was? That you cannot in all truthfulness say that god has limited itself to one book if all you've ever read is one book?

Yes, i have personal experience of what i believe to be God working in my life. There has been times where i've been faced with situations where i literally could have ended up dead, but somehow escaped without a scratch. Times where everything just seems to fall in place and go my way without me even trying. Things like that.

But i understand that religion also is not always about just personal experience. A lot of it is, but it's about more than that. Too many people want every aspect of a religion to deal with specifically, with things like personal experience and emotions. it's not always about that. But certainly i wouldn't have as much faith as i have without personal experience also. It would be kind of foolish for me to sit up here and argue the Bible with anybody if not.

 

[supaman4321]

Which is one of the reason why i have a Quran. Because it makes the claim also, we have to consider it. I've found that the teachings of the Quran and of the Bible don't match though. And actually the Bible does present itself to be from God, not from men.

what teachings don't match in your opinion?

and no the bible does not present itself to be in the same way that the Qur'an does, the bible is clearly a collection of writing written by men inspired or not is up for debate, we don't even have to get into the content of the book just the style of writing is more like something you would find in an autobiography or a history book

The Qur'an on the other hand is written not like a book but more like it's name, a recitation, it was meant to be spoken which is why it reads the way it does, once again whether it is the word of God not withstanding it's clearly written from the point of view of somebody being dictated to and told exactly what to say. The author of the book not only addresses the reader directly but he also tells the reader what to say to other people (doubters as well as believers) which is completely different from the way the bible is put together.

I would be interested in having a serious conversation about your views on the Qur'an and how you feel it differs as compared to the Bible or Torah

Wa alaikum

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I don't have to burden myself with the gargantuan task of trying to obtain ALL the facts - I got one God knows for me. What's wiser? Simply relying on God, or putting myself in the position of having to be more wise than Him?

No one said you had to gain ALL the facts, but at least maybe something more than the “cardinal tenants”. No one said putting yourself in the position of having to be wiser than god. Do you think gathering understanding is putting yourself in the position of having to be more wiser than god?

A religious text claiming and also KNOWN to be from God would not be a secret would it? Surely i would've heard about it by now but i haven't. In contrast, how many people you know that don't know about or have access to a Bible, the best selling book of all time, The Book of books?

Those texts are known and claimed to be from god. Maybe you would have known about it yourself if you had learned more than the “cardinal tenants”. Why do you think it is the best selling? Is it because it’s the best or could there be other reasons?

Plus, I have a Qu'ran. I open it from time to time. I don't have a bhagavad gita, but i know about some of the the teachings. A lot of which just don't sit right with me.

Which teachings of the bhagavad gita don’t sit right with you? And do you mean a lot of the some you know about, or a lot of the teachings in and of themselves. Because if you only know some, I don’t think that could be considered a lot.

I'm not completely ignorant of what's taught in other religion like you suggested.

That is not what I suggested. I suggested, that you have made the claim the book you believe in is the correct one and no others, even though you haven’t put much time nor energy in the others. You haven’t ‘visited’ the other texts, ‘lived’ in the other texts to truthfully know if your statement is actually true.

I been peeped that. But i also notice you tend to be selective of the things taught in the Bible that you will accept.

Humor me and give examples if you could.

Because if a person gonna use the Bible to establish truth in one area, one must use it to establish truth in all others. What is your rejection of one verse over another based on? Facts?

Elaborate on what you mean in your first sentence. Which parts are you referring to that I reject?

what we do know: i was not born in the middle east.

what we do not know: IF i was born in the middle east, that i would not have accepted what is taught in the Bible.

You are denying the reality that if had been raised in the middle east, you would more than likely be following another religious text as earnestly as you follow the bible. I can only assume you are attempting to call it a ‘what if’ and dismiss it to avoid a REALITY you don’t want to deal with.

The idea of truth you present might actually be found to be false at times.

Can you give examples? And recall, I did say it was one of the ways, but you rebuttal with a statement that makes my statement back into a universal.

Plus, It was the Messiah himself who said - "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."(John 5:31) It is a case of 'you need more people'.

And who was jesus’ witness? God. A god that does not come down to testify. Or other people, but what to do when no one is around to witness? Guess the witness will be god. So where exactly were you going with that verse?

Pretty much. Jesus said to owe each other nothing but to love each other, which involves being truthful. In the context we stray from doing this, are we held accountable...at times this can involve being partly responsible for what someone else feels.

In context to what I said that you responded to, either you don’t know you are talking about here, or I don’t know what you are talking about here.

But i understand that religion also is not always about just personal experience. A lot of it is, but it's about more than that.

Have any examples?

Too many people want every aspect of a religion to deal with specifically, with things like personal experience and emotions. it's not always about that.

Again, what else is it about, could you give examples.

But certainly i wouldn't have as much faith as i have without personal experience also. It would be kind of foolish for me to sit up here and argue the Bible with anybody if not.

What would be even more foolish is if someone argued the bible if they couldn’t give examples of how they experienced truth within the bible.

 

[Rock_Well]

what teachings don't match in your opinion?

and no the bible does not present itself to be in the same way that the Qur'an does, the bible is clearly a collection of writing written by men inspired or not is up for debate, we don't even have to get into the content of the book just the style of writing is more like something you would find in an autobiography or a history book

The Qur'an on the other hand is written not like a book but more like it's name, a recitation, it was meant to be spoken which is why it reads the way it does, once again whether it is the word of God not withstanding it's clearly written from the point of view of somebody being dictated to and told exactly what to say. The author of the book not only addresses the reader directly but he also tells the reader what to say to other people (doubters as well as believers) which is completely different from the way the bible is put together.

I would be interested in having a serious conversation about your views on the Qur'an and how you feel it differs as compared to the Bible or Torah

Wa alaikum

Peace

This may be worthy of a separate thread.

It should be noted that the books of the Bible encompass a variety of different writing styles, depending on the writer and their literary style. Not only that, but not all of the books are of the same nature. Some books deal mainly with History, some deal specifically with Law, some contain poetry, some contain observations of life, some are letters (epistles)...whatever the book it certainly doesn't come off as being just a inspired book of man to me. The writer speaks as one that holds authority. Not saying this is all that is needed to make a judgment that it's from God, but men compositions aren't usually so compelling.

I never knew the Qu'ran is written in a way that is mean to be recited though. Interesting to say the least, but when it comes to doctrinal matters, the two texts clash on certain points.

 

[Rock_Well]

No one said you had to gain ALL the facts, but at least maybe something more than the “cardinal tenants”. No one said putting yourself in the position of having to be wiser than god. Do you think gathering understanding is putting yourself in the position of having to be more wiser than god?

Those texts are known and claimed to be from god. Maybe you would have known about it yourself if you had learned more than the “cardinal tenants”. Why do you think it is the best selling? Is it because it’s the best or could there be other reasons?

Simple test to knowing if a text is from God: do the teachings match previous revelations from God? If it doesn't, i learned to put it away from me.

I do not believe in a God that will tell one group of people one thing, and another group something totally contrary. The Bible tells us that such is against the nature of God, which is critical in understanding before one can truly accept anything about God really.

Which teachings of the bhagavad gita don’t sit right with you? And do you mean a lot of the some you know about, or a lot of the teachings in and of themselves. Because if you only know some, I don’t think that could be considered a lot.

I mean the main tenants. I don't know too many details beyond that but it certainly isn't necessary for a person to go any further down a certain path once they've already found that they know a better course.

I used to be into the NewAge way of viewing the world, and though i can still relate to it, i no longer stand for it since God rightfully convicted me a few years ago and showed me the error of it's ways.

Anyways, Hinduism is not from God - it's a man made religion and it deals with idolatry.

What doesn't sit right with me:

1. It teaches that God is an impersonal force. (needless to say, which is something i actually used to believe at one point; and i'm so grateful to God He delivered me from this perverse view that hijacked my mind for years).

2. It teaches that man is divine (God) - contrary to scriptures.
A desire to be God-like is how Satan tempted Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5). In Acts 12:22-23, God had King Herod struck down by an angel for accepting praise of diety from the people. Herod should have known better.

3. It teaches reincarnation - contrary to the scriptures which teach man dies only once (Hebrews 9:27)

4. It teaches man is completely responsible for his own happiness and suffering. It rests on a foundation that says a religion should be man's way out of all suffering in life.

The Bible teaches everything is not based on the single individual - (Ecclesiastes 9:11)
It teaches that righteousness likely brings about many hardships and persecution.

I could go on, but i don't want this post to get too long.

That is not what I suggested. I suggested, that you have made the claim the book you believe in is the correct one and no others, even though you haven’t put much time nor energy in the others. You haven’t ‘visited’ the other texts, ‘lived’ in the other texts to truthfully know if your statement is actually true.

i don't have to live my life as a heroine addict to find out if it's wrong or not. Sometimes a person just has enough common sense.

Humor me and give examples if you could.

Just the other day i observed an unrighteous handling of the scriptures put together by you in one of your posts regarding Jesus being the Christ.

Elaborate on what you mean in your first sentence. Which parts are you referring to that I reject?

None in particular at the moment. That you appear to believe God has revealed his will in more than one religious text testifies that you don't fully accept what's taught in the Bible. In due time, a person will either be proven by God to be a non believer of His word, or a believer. There's no middle ground.

You are denying the reality that if had been raised in the middle east, you would more than likely be following another religious text as earnestly as you follow the bible. I can only assume you are attempting to call it a ‘what if’ and dismiss it to avoid a REALITY you don’t want to deal with.

You don't know that. Your assertion is based on the assumption that people mainly only follow one religion over another because they are raised in a particular place of the world. There could be plenty of other reasons for why a person choose one religion over another - something which we are not always able to gauge from our limited vantage point.

Can you give examples? And recall, I did say it was one of the ways, but you rebuttal with a statement that makes my statement back into a universal.

Ok point proven, it may be ONE of the ways. It's not the most reasonable.

And who was jesus’ witness? God. A god that does not come down to testify. Or other people, but what to do when no one is around to witness? Guess the witness will be god. So where exactly were you going with that verse?

God testified on behalf of Jesus through miraculous signs and wonders.

Even if a person reject Jesus, the miraculous works being done go to serve as God being a witness.

Again, what else is it about, could you give examples.

One example: Just observe what happens to Job. Satan tried to prove that the only reason why people follow God was because of the blessings. Yet he couldn't get Job to curse God even while God tried his faith heavily enough to the point that his friends thought he was being punished by God for something. Job could've taken the easy way out and sinned but he chose not to. Another example: Moses could've stayed living the life of luxury alongside Pharaoh and them and care less about the Hebrews. In good faith, he chose to step down and suffer alongside his people.

Life in general is not always about personal pleasure and neither should religion be.

 

[BiblicalAtheist]

I do not believe in a God that will tell one group of people one thing, and another group something totally contrary. The Bible tells us that such is against the nature of God, which is critical in understanding before one can truly accept anything about God really.

Hmmmm, maybe the supposed contradictions are actually a lack of understanding? Like maybe the way heaven is currently understood is incorrect or not fully understood. And maybe heaven isn’t a final destination after death. After all, jesus did say the kingdom of heaven was at hand. “At hand” meaning within reach, readily available.

I mean the main tenants. I don't know too many details beyond that but it certainly isn't necessary for a person to go any further down a certain path once they've already found that they know a better course.

Okay I getcha now, you’re satisfied with the bible and have no reason to look elsewhere.

Anyways, Hinduism is not from God - it's a man made religion and it deals with idolatry.

How is this not also true for the bible then? Did man not pen the bible by inspiration of god? Could it not be possible for other texts to be written by inspired people as well?

What doesn't sit right with me:

1. It teaches that God is an impersonal force. (needless to say, which is something i actually used to believe at one point; and i'm so grateful to God He delivered me from this perverse view that hijacked my mind for years).

2. It teaches that man is divine (God) - contrary to scriptures.

A desire to be God-like is how Satan tempted Eve in the garden (Genesis 3:5). In Acts 12:22-23, God had King Herod struck down by an angel for accepting praise of diety from the people. Herod should have known better.

3. It teaches reincarnation - contrary to the scriptures which teach man dies only once (Hebrews 9:27)

4. It teaches man is completely responsible for his own happiness and suffering. It rests on a foundation that says a religion should be man's way out of all suffering in life.

Okay this kind of goes along with your satisfaction of the bible and thus all is judged by way of your understanding of those particular scriptures.

i don't have to live my life as a heroine addict to find out if it's wrong or not. Sometimes a person just has enough common sense.

Yeah and I don’t have to jump off a high-rise to understand I’ll splat at the bottom, but we are kind of talking about spiritual wisdom, not material things. So how would you test if there is any truth in supposed spiritual wisdom? Would you use logic, experience, belief, what?

Just the other day i observed an unrighteous handling of the scriptures put together by you in one of your posts regarding Jesus being the Christ.

I don’t recall atm which post that was, however I will admit not everything I say is conventional church teachings, and in my defense I say; I can only relay how I’ve come to understand something. If it’s incorrect, I have faith god will reproach me, always does.

That you appear to believe God has revealed his will in more than one religious text testifies that you don't fully accept what's taught in the Bible. In due time, a person will either be proven by God to be a non believer of His word, or a believer. There's no middle ground.

I thought I said god couldn’t limit its wisdom and understanding to one text. If you are going to say I said things, please be accurate. What is God’s Will btw?

And by god’s word do you mean the bible? “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” So lets exchange ‘word’ for bible. In the beginning was the bible, and the bible was with god and the bible was god. Are you saying god is the bible? Or jesus is the bible? Help me to understand.

Ok point proven, it may be ONE of the ways. It's not the most reasonable.

How is experience not the most reasonable way? What other way is the most reasonable?

One example: Just observe what happens to Job. Satan tried to prove that the only reason why people follow God was because of the blessings. Yet he couldn't get Job to curse God even while God tried his faith heavily enough to the point that his friends thought he was being punished by God for something. Job could've taken the easy way out and sinned but he chose not to. Another example: Moses could've stayed living the life of luxury alongside Pharaoh and them and care less about the Hebrews. In good faith, he chose to step down and suffer alongside his people.

Hmmmm, those sounds a lot like personal experiences to me, and specifically in job’s case, laden with heavy emotions too. If religion didn’t deal with personal experience, how and why would people practice it?