Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Sherapy
I didnt know boy scouts teach that. I just meant in general teaching kids how to survive in the woods and stuff.

many of us as parents do not support this genre as it encourages our kids to be intolerant of others if they are gay.......i stay away from many social structures because they teach of intolerance and have the underpinings of exclusisiveness especailly in how one does or doesn't experince god whether covertly or in error.....

i beleive all paths lead to god and god is basically a generic label to inspire many experssions which is to be decided by each of us in our way ......

it is the example of the person that speaks to me of "g?d' not the ritual or the church or the definition... all people have beauty in them even those I don't care for and its in these moments i have the incredible gift of beholding this essence.... no criteria is required for me to see ones inherent beauty...........i think that is Ex. message...

if i want to see how one is representing g?d i look to their example..the boy scouts are clear on their example imo...it doesn't serve my needs bascailly......

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brave_new_world
many of us as parents do not support this genre as it encourages our kids to be intolerant of others if they are gay.......i stay away from many social structures because they teach of intolerance and have the underpinings of exclusisiveness especailly in how one does or doesn't experince god whether covertly or in error.....

i beleive all paths lead to god and god is basically a generic label to inspire many experssions which is to be decided by each of us in our way ......

it is the example of the person that speaks to me of "g?d' not the ritual or the church or the definition... all people have beauty in them even those I don't care for and its in these moments i have the incredible gift of beholding this essence.... no criteria is required for me to see ones inherent beauty...........i think that is Ex. message...

Beautiful words Sheri.

if i want to see how one is representing g?d i look to their example..the boy scouts are clear on their example imo...it doesn't serve my needs bascailly......

!!!! :w00t: bloody hell! You knew what I meant about the boy scouts. Dont be so bloody pedantic. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
i agree with some of this i recognize sceince for what it is and i recognize religion for what it is...

its an antiquated system that can't help us with our modern day issues, even the basic simple ones...Such as conflict resolution, parenting ( i recently got a alternative way of child care implemented for those who choose to parent in non violence and no longer use the traditonal reward/punishment methods at my local YMCA).

We are moving away from so many things that we once used because we know more.... it can't help with communication skills, understanding the world we live in or self awareness ( as it teaches one to deny the self in favor of an outside at present an invisible agent, so it really teaches dependency not self reliance or self responsibility ) ..... let alone getting along with someone who is different with you or disagrees with you ..

How about sexual differences, i am not even really getting into the fear tthat surrounds the embracing of ones sexuality that is natural to the human experience .....nope it can't help here........

gosh, the issues we have now with global warming and the things to solve them religion can't help yet it claims it can,it claims it can do alot of things that it just can't...... .....

often through the suggestion to pray, well prayer imo is the same as doing nothing ..don't you think its to get up and be the changes get proactive and responsible fro ourselves..............

finally, one of its major trips is to exclude so many if not all the other disicplines as useless and absurd..such as science and evolution for cripes sake....( not all christians do this but alot do) .we can read many threads on here to support this posit....

this leads to ignorance not effectiveness IMO ... ..........

Now not all christians adhere to this of course there is a wonderful side many redefining the face of religion in many ways and I am all for it to be honest , we are moving away from a fear based construct, an arrogance based posit and i credit the religious for stepping up to the plate those that do .. in support of these changes.....and i think its gonna be alot more too ...it will have to or religion cannot survive in its current form ....

jorel .if you dig the ritual and tradition of a religion, hey great for you and I sincerely mean this .....

if anything i'd say buddhism is the hot new movement, diesm and agnostism is huge. Paganism is popular with the young ones...coming up ... ..

i think its time to celebrate our growing pains, to look forward to growing up thats what man is doing he is growing up and in the process somethings aren't gonna be useful anymore but new things replace them... this is life this is incredible change is life........there are so many alternatives, i myself have a blast checking them all out i always walk away richer for it but I dont have to sign on any dotted lines and its all good......

Geez Sheri, a guy goes camping for the weekend and 7 pages worth of posts pop up.... I couldn't possibly comment on the stuff I've read til now, there way too much...

So yes I'll agree with your comments regarding science. They are all true.

There is one part though that I will comment on though, Paganism, isn't that the worship of the ancient gods of polytheistic belief?

The very ones that God gave the nations over to... because of their disbelief in him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
how about Man ? not being able to answer questions like what happens after we die ? very logical. that would soothe and give hope. but that doesn't make it real. and as time goes on this myth becomes ingrained into our psyche as a culture. Man tends to make up answers for questions that have no answer.

Then again where would that leave Mr. Walker and Omnaka for example, who both to travel into this spiritual world themselves? (albeit with different contexts) Are they then liers?

And just because you or others don't know, again does not invalidate the existence of such a world...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Then again where would that leave Mr. Walker and Omnaka for example, who both to travel into this spiritual world themselves? (albeit with different contexts) Are they then liers?

And just because you or others don't know, again does not invalidate the existence of such a world...

With regards to those of us who claim to 'know' God or their spiritual purpose or whatever, what does the fact that people from all religions tell us about personal experiences? A Christian might think they have at some point experienced the Holy Spirit, and across the world a Muslim might claim to have experienced Allah. But what now? We have (in my example) two contradictory viewpoints, the Christians experience vs. the Muslims experience. So how do we know who is right? How can either say they 'know' when they both have contradictory experiences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
With regards to those of us who claim to 'know' God or their spiritual purpose or whatever, what does the fact that people from all religions tell us about personal experiences? A Christian might think they have at some point experienced the Holy Spirit, and across the world a Muslim might claim to have experienced Allah. But what now? We have (in my example) two contradictory viewpoints, the Christians experience vs. the Muslims experience. So how do we know who is right? How can either say they 'know' when they both have contradictory experiences?

Do they really have contradictory experiences Church?

Allah is God, it is the muslim concept of God, even if they deny his visible manifestation as the Angel of the Lord or his physical manifestation as Jesus Christ... is this enough of a reason for God to reject the plea of a muslim believer who comes to him by faith, which after all is Gods only Prerequisite...

Tell me how these experiences are contradictory or even why they should be so...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Do they really have contradictory experiences Church?

Allah is God, it is the muslim concept of God, even if they deny his visible manifestation as the Angel of the Lord or his physical manifestation as Jesus Christ... is this enough of a reason for God to reject the plea of a muslim believer who comes to him by faith, which after all is Gods only Prerequisite...

Tell me how these experiences are contradictory or even why they should be so...

Well, no, their experiences don't contradict in the sense that they both experienced something that they believe is divine. However, they are contradictory when it comes to the specifics, i.e. where a Christian might say 'oh! I experienced the Holy Spirit!" and the Muslim would say that "oh! I have experienced Allah!" So what I'm getting at is that in every religion there are hundreds and thousands of people who claim to have experienced something divine. I'm not suggesting that they did not experience anything, but what I am questioning is WHAT exactly they experienced. Given that we have hundreds of thousands of people who have personal experiences with their God, how do we know what is right or wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
MW, I think Ex. is pointing out that how does one determine that one is experincing god and one isn't .....its a very valid inquiry and one that is worth the investigation......

for all this talk of keeping ones mind open i am not seeing evidence of this....its being imposed that one is sensitive to a certain feature of ones enviornment if it behaves differently according to the presence or absence of the feature ( most god theories follow this line) .....as soon as we pass beyond the simplistic answer and question phase the definition of possessing a certain knowledge via a specified behavior demands the consideration of 'purpose' and 'intent"....

as Ex is addressing....

IMO, If we are completely certain of a proposition we do not seek a ground to support our beleif ..if its so self evident as it seems that god sightings are touted in the alleged beleif , what we imply is that doubt has crept in and that our self evident proposal has not wholly resisted the assaults of skeptisism .....

I appreciate ive been over this with you before supra, but not with ex, and he raised some good points. Having nothing but time onmy hands, i took time to reply to his queries. How does one keep an open mind on what constitutes a giraffe. After a certain point keeping an open mind on what is a giraffe becomes simply silly or a question so academic as to be pointless to any but pure philosophers.

I think you are saying what i have been saying for a long while. Once you know god exists. You candiscover more about his purpose and intent by investigating his behaviour. I appreciate this is a basic principle of human behaviour but as it is the only reference point available we might as well use it Any sentient behaviour will probably form us something of that sentients purpose and intent.

And you completely miss my point. I know the giraffe exists. I not putting forward points to support belief, im applying scientific methodologies to discover more about the nature of the giraffe, so as to better accomodate it in my home, and come to decent living arrangements for both of us. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Well, no, their experiences don't contradict in the sense that they both experienced something that they believe is divine. However, they are contradictory when it comes to the specifics, i.e. where a Christian might say 'oh! I experienced the Holy Spirit!" and the Muslim would say that "oh! I have experienced Allah!" So what I'm getting at is that in every religion there are hundreds and thousands of people who claim to have experienced something divine. I'm not suggesting that they did not experience anything, but what I am questioning is WHAT exactly they experienced. Given that we have hundreds of thousands of people who have personal experiences with their God, how do we know what is right or wrong?

I get your point, there are many such people true to your interpretation, that is a given. So how do we know?

Usually we look for something that is undeniably within scriptural reference, as such I would discard anything that advocates something contrary to scripture. Now that doesn't mean that what was said is a lie, but it is just the fallback we christians use to assure us that we don't fall into error.

Take David Koresh for example, when he started saying he was the Messiah, that is when his followers, who were knowledgable in the scriptures, should have takena step back and taken notice that something was wrong there... The bible exists as a handbook for this very purpose... not to be mislead.

Naturally if the message is implicitely compatible with what we know of God, then it should be accepted at face value....

Even a Muslim can experience God, that is true and I defy anyone to say differently. God does not respect denominations or even religions when he decides to make a move...

If a muslim experiences God and preaches a message of peace, why shouldn't we accept that God gave him that message and that experience?

If a Pastor from a church says he is Christ incarnate, we should not accept that message, because it is contrary to the spirit of Gods message...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
With regards to those of us who claim to 'know' God or their spiritual purpose or whatever, what does the fact that people from all religions tell us about personal experiences? A Christian might think they have at some point experienced the Holy Spirit, and across the world a Muslim might claim to have experienced Allah. But what now? We have (in my example) two contradictory viewpoints, the Christians experience vs. the Muslims experience. So how do we know who is right? How can either say they 'know' when they both have contradictory experiences?

Who says the'yre contradictory. Ive never claimed that. If i had the experiences i have had within the context of a muslim culture or an early celtic culture, they would remain the same experiences.

I would interpret them differently, and come to different conclusions, because of my cultural context. A well read , educated, or simply self aware person, can know thi,s and make some allowance for it, but it remains true that every real experience of every living day, both responds to our existing experiences, and informs our future ones.

Even the language/symbols of our cultures create nuances of difference and understanding.

Some things are more universal than others. From the earliest known cultures, through the ancient egyptians , abrahamic religions, to the present day, beings and other symbols of light have been commonly recorded.

Even there the interpretation put on such symbols/beings or visitations, depends on the culture, and specifically the technological level of the society.

Ps sorry a lot of this debate continued as i typed so some has been answered.

Justto give you an example of what i mean. in my early teens i read a book by LOis Lamour called Sacket. In it was a passage from Blackstone one of the founding fathers of common law as it applied in england and america.

Here is a quote from wiki on blackstone

U.S. courts frequently quote Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England as the definitive pre-Revolutionary War source of common law; in particular, the United States Supreme Court quotes from Blackstone's work whenever they wish to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far, or further (for example, when discussing the intent of the Framers of the Constitution). His work has been used most forcefully as of late by Justice Clarence Thomas. U.S. and other common law courts mention with strong approval Blackstone's formulation also known as Blackstone's ratio popularly stated as "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" — although he did not first express the principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Blackstone

I was struck by this passage at the age of 13 or 14.

"that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole; or in other words,that the community should guard the rights of each individual member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it was impossible that protection could be extended to any"

Sackett

Louis L'Amour

1961

A decade later, as i began to read the biblie, it resonated with me how similar the laws, and intent of laws, of the old testament were to these words. Thats one of the reasons i felt comfortable choosing christianity as a cultural context to put around my experiences with god.

By the time we lost everything in the bushfire we had almost alll amours published works(over 200 volumes including many early magazine stories) in our library of some 10,000 books.

Every one of those books, and many other influences, helped formulate my world view, so when I see an angel of light, my reaction is going to be unique to me , as will every one's who has such an experience.

This may not be good or bad, it is just the way things are.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Kim Jong-il's official biography [1] states that he was born in a secret military camp on Baekdu Mountain (백두산) in northern Korea on February 16, 1942[2]. Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens. However, Soviet records show he was born in the village of Vyatskoye, near Khabarovsk, in 1941[3] where his father, Kim Il-sung, commanded the 1st Battalion of the Soviet 88th Brigade, made up of Chinese and Korean exiles.

Kim Jong-il's mother, Kim Jong-suk, was Kim Il-sung's first wife. During his youth in the Soviet Union, Kim Jong-il was known as Yuri Irsenovich Kim (Юрий Ирсенович Ким), taking his patronymic from his father's Russified name, Ir-sen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il#Birth

This hardly proves that the obedient soldier would view Kim Jong or any superior officer as a divine being.

A common belief in China is the reincarnation within 49 days after death in a prior life. For that reason at the birth of a child there are prophesies written about him and they are usually lofty and filled with cosmic events and celestial messages. There is no reason to believe that a birth within Kim Jong's family would have been treated any differently.

I remember once when a farmer in a northern province mildly complained that the military was confiscating too high a percentage of his annual crop and he was burned to death inside his barn. The next day there were a host of messages written on stones and placed around the ashes. It is a tradition that remains from olden times but does not mean that a death or birth is a proclamation of a divine entity. I suspect that the sincere belief that a national leader was divine died with Hirohito.

I doubt there are any groups that demand absolute silence and dont make room for inspired ministry. And yes I did worship in silence before becoming a quaker and you dont have to believe in this way of worship to commune with them. One could speak their piece and leave if they wanted too. My point to you is that you cannot make blanket statements about religions you dont understand.

Possibly not, I only recalled a Quaker friend who attended Nixon's church stating that with them silence was required as referenced to "Be still and know that I am God" (Psalm 46:10).

On this technicality though we can say that obeying the law is indoctrination because it requires me to change behaviour and social conduct. How it isnt indoctrination (pending on the government though) in the strong sense of inducing communism or the nicene creed. School likewise is indoctrination as it requires children to change many of their ways. A belief or doctrine doesnt have to be religious to be a belief or doctrine. In fact a doctrine can be anti-religious and be used to indoctrinate people. Like in red china for an example. People are liable to be killed, sent to prison or tortured etc if they are caught with a picture of the Dalai Lama in their house.

My suggestion that indoctrination was inherent to the faith was based upon some basic philosophical tenents. I think any child who was not already a Quaker and attending public schools and having science classes would need to have some orientation . . . . however subtle . . . . to enter a world where knowledge was gained experientially and science could not challenge the basis of faith. The tradition of "standing aside" would be difficult for someone who had always defended their opinions and kept them in spite of a different view from the majority. To adapt to the concept of surrendering that posture would require some indoctrination at any level.

I think it is commonly held by Friends that because of the liberal nature of their church . . . . the idea of indoctrination or alterations of life styles is invalid. I tend to differ with that and concede that I may be wrong but it is not because I do not know the faith . . . . it is only because I believe human nature would testify otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

If you want to call the lifestyle an indoctrination, you can do that (and I'd be happy to be called indoctrinated into a lifestyle, that's fine, it's an indoctrination I'm proud of I believe it to be socially responsible), but don't confuse it with an indoctrination into a religion. There is none in the RSOF--it would be quite impossible since there is no one specific doctrine, no creed, and no statement of faith. Like BNW brought up, there are also Atheists and Agnostics at my Meeting, not because they're religious, but because they believe in the lifestyle and social commitment. And well, maybe because they like potluck. LOL

Never did I refer to religious indoctrination or confuse it with anything else . . . . quite the contrary, I referred to changes in behavior and lifestyle.

And it's true, not all Quakers are pacifists, we have a couple of military men at my meeting, and you might be familier with the phrase "Fighting Quakers" ... another term for Free Quakers who do believe in military force as a last resort. Nathaniel Green of the US Revolutionary war was a Free Quaker, as was Betsy Ross.

Would you agree that members with careers involving violence is an exception from the most basic philosophy that the faith tries to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts and differences and to help others through service?

Perhaps what you really didn't like was my use of the word "ability" I'll rethink using that specific word again, I can see it clearly rubbed you the wrong way. You felt that I implied that someone with no ability was less than. Nothing could be further from the truth.

You're right . . . . that reference did sting. But at the same time there is the blanket assumption that God speaks. Regardless of the religious orientation, this is a claim that deserves a thread of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Geez Sheri, a guy goes camping for the weekend and 7 pages worth of posts pop up.... I couldn't possibly comment on the stuff I've read til now, there way too much...

So yes I'll agree with your comments regarding science. They are all true.

There is one part though that I will comment on though, Paganism, isn't that the worship of the ancient gods of polytheistic belief?

The very ones that God gave the nations over to... because of their disbelief in him?

camping how fun.. welcome back, i was wondering about you....after al lthe effort I put in that post..lol..

I rather apprecitate the paganists belief in many gods.. its seems more valid as far as that goes.. sort of analogous to all paths lead to god/life whtever you label it.. if you do.....IMO....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
camping how fun.. welcome back, i was wondering about you....after al lthe effort I put in that post..lol..

I rather apprecitate the paganists belief in many gods.. its seems more valid as far as that goes.. sort of analogous to all paths lead to god/life whtever you label it.. if you do.....IMO....

Why would many paths be more valid than one path?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Why would many paths be more valid than one path?

it supports my worldview which is all inclusive...bascically, I see no division or separation by color, creed, sexuality, hair style,shoe size, relgion etc.....i think all paths lead to some value ... ..i wouldnt choose BM"s path but i respect her posit etc etc Lady R brings a beauty to the idea of god that is refreshing its no wonder people love her psots.........Darkwind is amazing to me he is a pagan his respect for nature is astounding.. Micheal is Jewish his capacity for tolerance/openess is breath taking see what I am saying Ex's pov brings tears to my eyes and pulls on my heart strings......... ... all paths are inspiring. son... not just one.......

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
it supports my worldview which is all inclusive...bascically, I see no division or separation by color creed or religion...ithnk all paths lead to god/life (the generic label used to mean many things depending on prefernce.. )

So basically it's personal preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
So basically it's personal preference.

it supports my worldview which is all inclusive...bascically, I see no division or separation by color, creed, sexuality, hair style,shoe size, relgion etc.....i think all paths lead to some value ...

..i wouldnt choose BM"s path but i respect her posit etc etc Lady R brings a beauty to the idea of god that is refreshing its no wonder people love her psots.........Darkwind is amazing to me he is a pagan his respect for nature is astounding.. Micheal is Jewish his capacity for tolerance/openess is breath taking see what I am saying Ex's pov brings tears to my eyes and pulls on my heart strings......... ...

all paths are inspiring. son... not just one.......

or is it just who one is the path they walk reflects them...., for all kinds of reasons childhood, self awareness, etc ....... I am not ready to sign on any dotted line I dont know....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell
Never did I refer to religious indoctrination or confuse it with anything else . . . . quite the contrary, I referred to changes in behavior and lifestyle.

Changes to who? I'm sorry, I'm confused now. We all choose lifestyles because we believe them to be good, healthy, successful, whatever... what's wrong with that? I'm not getting your meaning here.

Would you agree that members with careers involving violence is an exception from the most basic philosophy that the faith tries to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts and differences and to help others through service?

Not necessarily... it's an individual choice. However, most choose a pacifist path... It's really about having choices. Again, what the heck is wrong with being a pacifist? Did I miss something?

You're right . . . . that reference did sting. But at the same time there is the blanket assumption that God speaks. Regardless of the religious orientation, this is a claim that deserves a thread of its own.

Of course I believe God speaks (I use that term very loosely)... perhaps a better word would be compels. I've personally experienced it. I've experienced it in groups as well when it becomes not so individual... but you're right, that's another thread entirely.

Edited by MissMelsWell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Changes to who? I'm sorry, I'm confused now. We all choose lifestyles because we believe them to be good, healthy, successful, whatever... what's wrong with that? I'm not getting your meaning here.

I have had this discussion many times with Quakers . . . . especially around Whittier, California in the heyday of Richard Nixon . . . . and the difference is this. . . .

Most commonly the response of Quakers is much like we have seen here . . . . "I didn't need to change anything. I already worshipped in silence . . . . I was already a pacifist . . . . I always believed in having an open mind on religious concepts.” That appears to be fine and good but it personalizes the question too much to provide an answer.

Society is not so homogenized that such beliefs are held even by a miniscule percentage. It is a society with children spoon fed violence in daily doses. It is a society where scientific advances clearly challenge established religious beliefs. A society largely predicated upon individual thought and will.

The measure of indoctrination, therefore, cannot be established by one who was a pseudo-Quaker prior to entering the church, but by comparing it to the average person from a modern society entering its fold.

We would find that for a person to suddenly decide to be a Baptist would require only a proclamation of faith and baptism. To change to Catholicism would be a bit more regulated with a profession of faith, catechism and communion.

But for all its external simplicity, the change to Quakerism would seem to be more challenging and polarized from popular thought of a religious experience. The very refusal to permit deliberative, objective thinking to dominate a worship meeting is counter to the normal human experience. The idea that a minister or priest should be academically prepared to teach Scripture is diluted with the concept that there are no clergies and the Bible is not holy.

I believe my point is verified by the fact that Quakers were once held in suspect because they had strayed so far from orthodox beliefs and practices that many considered them to be heretical.

The desire to simplify these concepts is pronounced in your questions, “What’s wrong with that?” No one is claiming that there is anything wrong with anything. I am a well known critic of the Bible and can share this Quaker concept so certainly I find no fault with it. But we are instead discussing the question of “indoctrination” and I am saying here that it cannot be related to current Quaker members who had prior beliefs leading them into Quakerism but the indoctrination that would be required of the average person with no prior inclinations.

Not necessarily... it's an individual choice. However, most choose a pacifist path... It's really about having choices. Again, what the heck is wrong with being a pacifist? Did I miss something?

Again, I find no fault with it and have not suggested that pacifism is in error.

Of course I believe God speaks (I use that term very loosely)... perhaps a better word would be compels. I've personally experienced it. I've experienced it in groups as well when it becomes not so individual... but you're right, that's another thread entirely.

And here we would have to explore the inspirational sources which is a fascinating theme. If my zeal incites a jolt of adrenalin do I dare call it a message from God? If I speak in unintelligible babblings, am I truly filled with a holy spirit?

Or if I feel those same things and recognize it as the inspiration brought by my personal beliefs . . . . a physical reaction to the depth of my devotion . . . . am I labeling it wrongly? If so, why would I have the same inspiration that others call messages from God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Do they really have contradictory experiences Church?

Allah is God, it is the muslim concept of God, even if they deny his visible manifestation as the Angel of the Lord or his physical manifestation as Jesus Christ... is this enough of a reason for God to reject the plea of a muslim believer who comes to him by faith, which after all is Gods only Prerequisite...

Tell me how these experiences are contradictory or even why they should be so...

yet it is only your opinion and that of some man written text that God has a prerequisite ............ God may not reject anyone at all. a God that is not petty and all knowing wouldn't .

How do you know you got it right ? maybe your wrong and your the one getting rejected ? you don't know. so it's only your opinion God rejects anyone. not a fact.

check your egotism .... just because the bible says so doesn't make it fact.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
yet it is only your opinion and that of some man written text that God has a prerequisite ............ God may not reject anyone at all. a God that is not petty and all knowing wouldn't .
Really? Why not?

How do you know you got it right ? maybe your wrong and your the one getting rejected ? you don't know. so it's only your opinion God rejects anyone. not a fact.
God isn't rejecting anyone, it's people rejecting Him, or only accepting Him if He will bow to their whims.

check your egotism .... just because the bible says so doesn't make it fact.
And maybe it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
Really? Why not?

God isn't rejecting anyone, it's people rejecting Him, or only accepting Him if He will bow to their whims.

And maybe it does.

again , just your opinion. which doesn't make it fact or true. just because the bible says something doesn't make it fact or true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
again , just your opinion. which doesn't make it fact or true. just because the bible says something doesn't make it fact or true.

That is your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
again , just your opinion. which doesn't make it fact or true. just because the bible says something doesn't make it fact or true.

No, that's your opinion, and the fact that it's your opinion does not make it true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
No, that's your opinion, and the fact that it's your opinion does not make it true.

Well, not necessarily. While I am unsure of what to believe of this link (which I got from danielost... thank you daniel) it does raise some interesting questions about who Jesus was.

Jesus, history or myth?

While I am not bringing into question the spiritual significance of the Bible, I am questioning its historicity. Did Adam and Eve really exist? Did Abraham? Did Moses? Realistically, there is no real evidence for any of these people to exist. There are certain things in the Bible that are true, for instance, there obviously is a Jericho and a Jerusalem, I personally believe that the Bible post King Saul is more or less historically accurate (more or less), etc. etc. But there are a lot of questions that we can ask of the Bible that cannot be answered by any means other than faith, so to posit that you 'know' this is true because the Bible says so is a little bit less than the truth. You have faith that it is true, but there is not a lot of evidence for many of the things in the Bible, ie Eden, Noah's ark etc. etc. Even Jesus' historicity is dubious at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.