Thousands of Religious Sects - Which one is right?

nds1

01-18-07, 01:07 PM

Is anyone forcing you to make a choice?

No. However, the nature of consciousness and full ability to reason dictates that every single human must understand all or most of the options of choices out there in terms of a specific belief system.

Ten people look at the same person and their minds subconsciously and involuntarily produce judgments about that person. Each of the ten viewers have a range of ideas and judgments about what the person they are viewing could be like, based on their sensory perception of that person. A fully functioning mind must have a range of ideas on the truth of reality.

The fully functioning and reasoning human mind involuntarily knows and understands what the options are for "The Truth of Reality."

The main options are:

1) There is no God.
2) There is one God.
3) There are multiple Gods of equal power.

There are probably an infinite number of possible specific belief systems withing each of the three categories. This is because there are an infinite number of opinions and interpretations of things.

Here are some examples of specific belief systems:

1) Atheism - one universe - evolution - aliens exist - etc. - etc. (the category of atheism, theism, and monotheism can be derived down to specifics in every area of reality).

2) Atheism - multiple universes - evolution - aliens don't exist - etc. - etc.

3) Monotheism - one god - no trinity - no son of god - prophets exist - we can eat red meat - we can't eat green plants - etc. - etc.

4) Monothesism - one god - god is a trinity - Jesus is the Son of God - there were prophets - we must fast once a week - we shouldn't pollute the earth - we should not eat any vegtables - etc. - etc.

5) etc.

6) etc.

There are probably infinite possible belief systems (combinations of specific beliefs in different areas) about the truth of reality within each of the three main categories.

Is there one correct, or optimium belief system? There might be. And it might not be any of the major belief systems currently being followed (Atheism, Catholicism, Protestentism, Evangilism, Muslim, Sunni, Shiite, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). It could involve different pieces of some of the major belief systems along with additional aspects which aren't in any of the major belief systems.

The point is, there has to be One Ultimate Truth. There has to be One True Belief system, in which beliefs in all areas of reality (aliens, food, God, science, astronomy, etc.) are true, or correct.

So this means that none, or one of the current major belief systems of the world are correct. None or One. Definetly not all, and definetly not some.

There is either no God, one God, or multiple Gods. There is ONE ULTIMATE TRUTH.

Jesus either was the Son of God, or wasn't the Son of God.

There is either one afterlife, multiple afterlifes or levels of afterlifes, or no afterlife at all.

There has to be ONE TRUTH. Not two. Not three. ONE.

SetiAlpha6

01-18-07, 02:03 PM

You will know the truth, you will know the One, when His noodly appendage touches you! You will know!

Until then? Good Luck! Best Wishes! and Kind Regards!

Ramen!

nds1

01-18-07, 02:33 PM

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different belief systems.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one truth.

Which belief system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Atheism? Christianity? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Take your pick.

All of the current belief systems out there today are a certain, specific percentage true. The percentage of truth or correctness of each belief system is measured by how close that belief system matches up with the one true belief system.

For example, here is a possible chart:

Belief System A = 78.23% True
Belief System B = 64.35% True
Belief System C = 62.23% True
Belief System D = 56.32% True
etc.
etc.
Belief System Z = 00.01% True

So in our world today:

Christianity - Sect A = ?% True
Christianity - Sect B = ?% True
Christianity - Sect C = ?% True

or:

Atheism - Sect A = ?% True
Atheism - Sect B = ?% True
Atheism - Sect C = ?% True

draqon

01-18-07, 03:09 PM

SnakeLord

01-18-07, 03:20 PM

everything is truth and false at the same time.

Thank you for that wonderful pearl of hogwash. You thought you could contradict yourself in one sentence and get away with it? Pfft.

Christianity - Sect A = ?% True
Christianity - Sect B = ?% True
Christianity - Sect C = ?% True]

Amount of christian sects, (I'm not sure of absolute figures but from what I have heard it is many).

Amount of religions.. (many)

That will give you your basic odds.. 1 million religions, 1 million to 1 of being correct. You then have to take into account the possibility that every religion made thus far is created by man and then assume that if a god exists it could be anything the human mind can comprehend or anything the human mind cannot comprehend. The resulting odds are a gazillionbillionmillionsquillion to 1 that you have got the right god, religion blahdeblah.

Atheism - Sect A = ?% True
Atheism - Sect B = ?% True
Atheism - Sect C = ?% True

Atheism can not technically ever be wrong. Ok there are differing degrees but the only thing that connects atheism is a lack of belief in gods - and more generally those gods that people's little brains come up with. I, and no atheist, can really state it an impossibility that there is a god of some kind. For all we know there could be an omnipotent banana in charge of the cosmos... Atheism itself just lacks a belief but will happily believe the day someone shows something to support the claim.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 05:20 PM

A good night's sleep usually gets rid of most headaches, so just sleep on it if your thinking of choosing a god and the temptation will be gone by morning.

That's a worthy comparison... a headache pill vs a god. I see how that could work :bugeye:

witty responses, but unfortunately they don't touch on the logical fallacies worked into the general principles

No sect is right; no religion is right; belief in any religion is incredulous.

without offering reasons for opinions one runs the risk of posting responses that can be copy/pasted with the greatest of ease, eg

Some sects are right; some religions are right; disbelief in any religion is incredulous.

So I guess the only solution is to just tolerate your religion and quit whining.

I'm not the one whining about it

Even if that religion is wrong, right LG?
thats my point, to say that religion is wrong requires a lot more than just pointing ou there are a variety of approaches, just like it requires a lot more to determine that headache cures don't work simply because there are a lot of brands on the market

Tell that to Martin Luther. There's a guy who wasn't about to tolerate bullshit.
I don't understand the context of this reference

Here's the difference between headaches and religion:

In order to have a headache, we don't do anything since it isn't in our control (as far as the physiological prcoess involved).

In order to have a religon on the other hand, we must choose one.
therefore I gave the eg of choosing a headache tablet, not choosing a headache
;)

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 05:28 PM

nds1

01-18-07, 05:53 PM

Here is the new thread introduction:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for water.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true water.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it pani? Jal? Aqua? Wasser? вода? 水? Take your pick.

:rolleyes:

Your water analogy makes no sense and is irrelevent. Religions and names for water cannot be compared.

Your analogy implies that I said that Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. are all the exact same religion, and all have the exact same beliefs and rules with the exact same bibles, etc.

Obviously, this is not the case.

Religions all have different rules, different Gods, different views on the afterlife, different sacraments, and different overall views.

Water on the other hand is the same no matter what you call it.

Your analogy would work if my introduction was this:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for religion.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true religion.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it el religiono? Relijino? relijion? relajsk? Take your pick.

Here's your mistake LG:

All water is the same no matter what you call it.

All religions ARE NOT the same. Some believe Jesus is the Son of God. Others don't. Some believe in one God. Others don't. Some believe we shouldn't eat red meat and should fast. Others don't.

To you LG, all religions have exactly the same beliefs and rules. LOL. That's a good one. ;)

SkinWalker

01-18-07, 06:04 PM

Very seldom if ever are the different names for water (they are finite, not infinite) referring to different substances that have different basic characteristics.

The different beliefs, specifically, the different religions and gods, have often very contradictory and differing characteristics. Clearly the analogy is flawed and, thus, can be dismissed by the rationally minded. I'm sure the irrational are still willing to defend it, however.

nds1

01-18-07, 06:04 PM

I don't understand the context of this reference

Martin Luther grew up Catholic. Then he realized how fucked up and corrupt it was at the time. The Catholic Church was running a business and taking people's money through BS things like indulgences. All the morons and zombies back then who didn't know better just kept paying up and thinking they had a one way ticket to heaven.

Martin Luther went against the big religion of the day. The branch of Christianity which he started may not be the 100% true religion, but at least Luther knew that the Roman Catholic Church sure as hell wasn't 100% correct, and far from it.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 06:10 PM

Very seldom if ever are the different names for water (they are finite, not infinite) referring to different substances that have different basic characteristics.
originally I tagged something in earlier about the absurdity of having an "infinite" series of beliefs, for the same reasons .... but I omitted it because I thought there was no point discussing it since it would just diverge the topic and it was obviously figurative

The different beliefs, specifically, the different religions and gods, have often very contradictory and differing characteristics. Clearly the analogy is flawed and, thus, can be dismissed by the rationally minded. I'm sure the irrational are still willing to defend it, however.

Actually it is apparent to many persons who study interfaith dialougues that it is only the details that change - like for instance some people have water in clay pots, some people have water in galvanized iron water tanks, some people in wells, some in rivers, some in ponds, some in taps and some in plastic bottles

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 06:25 PM

Martin Luther grew up Catholic. Then he realized how fucked up and corrupt it was at the time. The Catholic Church was running a business and taking people's money through BS things like indulgences. All the morons and zombies back then who didn't know better just kept paying up and thinking they had a one way ticket to heaven.

Martin Luther went against the big religion of the day. The branch of Christianity which he started may not be the 100% true religion, but at least Luther knew that the Roman Catholic Church sure as hell wasn't 100% correct, and far from it.
so it seems his issue was more institutional than theological

Your water analogy makes no sense and is irrelevent. Religions and names for water cannot be compared.

Your analogy implies that I said that Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, etc. are all the exact same religion, and all have the exact same beliefs and rules with the exact same bibles, etc.
actually it implies that the details differ, but the essence is the same, much like water can be 'packaged' differently by different names - maybe it would have been better to stick to what I posted for skinwalker, about water coming in clay pots, wellls, bottles etc

Obviously, this is not the case.

Religions all have different rules, different Gods, different views on the afterlife, different sacraments, and different overall views.
water also comes in different packages, like for instance sometimes in comes in clay pots, other times plastic bottles or rivers, wells, ponds etc - but the poitn is that it all serves the same purpose - quenching thirst -

similarly religion has basically two applications - the do not's - (aimed at eliminating or regulating activities that exacerbate conditional life) and - the do's - (aimed at helping the conditioned living entity progress into the field of transcendence)

Water on the other hand is the same no matter what you call it.
similarly there is only one absolute nature - in otherwords there is only one god, just like there i sobviously only one sun, even though it may be shining directly above the head of a million people according to their individual claims at midday

Your analogy would work if my introduction was this:

There are billions of people on this earth. There are probably an infinite number of different names for religion.
There can only be one correct belief system. There can only be one true religion.

Which naming system is the true one, or has the most percentage of truth? Is it el religiono? Relijino? relijion? relajsk? Take your pick.
but if you examine what you have given, hinduism, christianity, you have given different names for religious practice, so its not so distant - obviosuly there can only be one god (if several processes lay claim to an absolute factor, then the logical conclusion is that they are referring to teh same thing)

Here's your mistake LG:

All water is the same no matter what you call it.

All religions ARE NOT the same. Some believe Jesus is the Son of God. Others don't.
some have experience of water coming in clay pots. Some have experience of water coming in plastic bottles

Some believe in one God. Others don't.
some have experience with a water manufacturing company releasing one type of packaged water on the market. Some have experience with several water manufacturing companies releasing several brands on the market

Some believe we shouldn't eat red meat and should fast. Others don't.
some believe you should drink reverse osmosis filtered water - some are happy enough to drink whatever comes out of the hand pump

To you LG, all religions have exactly the same beliefs and rules. LOL. That's a good one. ;)
Its not uncommon for an athiest (and even the odd theist on occasion too) to label secondary religious principles as primary, and vice versa

SkinWalker

01-18-07, 06:51 PM

Actually it is apparent to many persons who study interfaith dialougues that it is only the details that change - like for instance some people have water in clay pots, some people have water in galvanized iron water tanks, some people in wells, some in rivers, some in ponds, some in taps and some in plastic bottles

Actually, I think your full of it. Perhaps you could cite references to these "persons" and their scholarly works. Is your analogy about water or is it about vessels?

You aren't being very clear. As usual. But, then, the postmodernist "theologian" prefers obscurity and obfuscation since clarity and reason give away the game. Your analogy still fails. Miserably.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 06:54 PM

Actually, I think your full of it. Perhaps you could cite references to these "persons" and their scholarly works.
you mean you have never encountered such works?

Is your analogy about water or is it about vessels?
its about how one who is not familiar with the essence tends to get bewildered by the details - like rather than focusing on what water is, focusing on the vessel - similarly, rather than focusing on what the role of god is, one is focusing on the vessel it is delivered in

You aren't being very clear. As usual. But, then, the postmodernist "theologian" prefers obscurity and obfuscation since clarity and reason give away the game. Your analogy still fails. Miserably.
and once again you are using nastiness as a substitute for philosophical thinking

SkinWalker

01-18-07, 06:58 PM

Perhaps, but you are clearly using nonsense for the same.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 07:02 PM

Perhaps, but you are clearly using nonsense for the same.
More nastiness and an absence of anything remotely close to philosophy (or "post modernism" as you call it)
:rolleyes:

draqon

01-18-07, 07:05 PM

allright so Rastafarianism is right, because I said so, allright? Yeah.

nds1

01-18-07, 07:08 PM

LG, hear me out.

True or False:

Jesus, the man presented in the Bible, was either the Son of God or was just a man. He couldn't have been both.

True or False.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 07:08 PM

allright so Rastafarianism is right, because I said so, allright? Yeah.

certainly a step up from being a staunch atheist

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 07:10 PM

LG, hear me out.

True or False:

Jesus, the man presented in the Bible, was either the Son of God or was just a man. He couldn't have been both.

True or False.

i would say that he is a special or unique son of god, since all living entities are sons of god (given that the existence of god is the foundation that all other existences emmanate from)

draqon

01-18-07, 07:10 PM

certainly a step up from being a staunch atheist

thats cause I lied. Atheism is the only way to live.

nds1

01-18-07, 07:12 PM

Okay LG, here's another one:

True or False.

Mumammad's visions involving the great archangel Gabriel were genuine. Gabriel really did talk to him.

True or False.

draqon

01-18-07, 07:14 PM

Okay LG, here's another one:

True or False.

Mumammad's visions involving the great archangel Gabriel were genuine. Gabriel really did talk to him.

True or False.

both true and false. False because nothing like this has happened. True because Allah sais so.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 07:15 PM

Okay LG, here's another one:

True or False.

Mumammad's visions involving the great archangel Gabriel were genuine. Gabriel really did talk to him.

True or False.

i can't say - I am not particularly familiar with the Koran - in other words I am not familiar with the context of the incident nor with the explanations and commentaries of islamic practioners on the subject

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 07:16 PM

thats cause I lied. Atheism is the only way to live.

what do you want?
A cookie?

draqon

01-18-07, 07:17 PM

what do you want?
A cookie?

a life.

nds1

01-18-07, 07:20 PM

LG. True or False.

Jesus performed all the miracles as illustrated in the Bible, and he also was resurrected and came back from the dead.

True or False.

draqon

01-18-07, 07:22 PM

LG. True or False.

Jesus performed all the miracles as illustrated in the Bible, and he also was resurrected and came back from the dead.

True or False.

Both True and False
True because Bible says so. False because there is no such thing as resurrection...once dead...is forever.

nds1

01-18-07, 07:29 PM

LG, you don't know for sure if Muhammud's visions were real, but you claim that those visions could have been real.

But you agree that they were either real, or not real. Right?

The point here, everyone, is that even LG must admit that things must be either true or false. That's it.

Water, is made up of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen. It will never change. That is one truth of reality which we know through scientific analysis.
Water can only be ONE substance. I don't care what vessel people drink it in. It is H20. Nothing more. Nothing Less.

So let's say one group of people claims that water can have 4 hydrogen atoms. This would be FALSE. Not TRUE. Therefore they would be WRONG, or INCORRECT.

Again, either Jesus was God himself, or he was just another man. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. IT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.
Also, either Muhammad really talked to the angel Gabriel, or his mind made it up. THERE IS NO IN BEWTEEN. IT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.

The point is LG, you describe religions as vessels of water. You say that we can all get water from any possible type of vessel. We can CHOOSE any vessel we want, and guess what: We are right every time! WOW, THAT'S AMAZING! No matter what religion we choose, we are right!!!

Even better, we can just create our own vessel, or religion, and we'll still be able to get the water, or go to heaven!!! AMAZING!

Okay everyone, I just created a new religion called Blankism. Here is our dogma:

1) We must cut one limb off every day to worship all 5 of our Gods
2) We must fast for half of the year

Who's with me?

Okay LG, so we know that every possible religion is correct. So which one should we choose then? The easiest one to follow? The hardest one to follow? The one that sounds the most logical? The one we were brought up to believe?

Adstar

01-18-07, 09:22 PM

nds1

What is the point of this thread? What point are you making or what are you seeking to find out from it?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

draqon

01-18-07, 09:25 PM

nds1

What is the point of this thread? What point are you making or what are you seeking to find out from it?

My guess he/she is testing the sanity of people here...sanity to accept any religion and follow it.

As for his only true or only false...life doesnt work that way. Life is in between.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 10:02 PM

a life.
you should rethink my offer.
Life can be pretty pointless without cookies
:D

nds1

01-18-07, 10:23 PM

nds1

What is the point of this thread? What point are you making or what are you seeking to find out from it?

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

My guess he/she is testing the sanity of people here...sanity to accept any religion and follow it.

As for his only true or only false...life doesnt work that way. Life is in between.

I am a male, just for the record.

Why start this thread?

Because I believe there is one truth. However, many people seem to disagree with this for some reason.

Some people seem to think that 2 plus 2 can actually equal 5, and it just baffles me.

Also, Dragon was correct in saying that I find religion overall very interesting because all these religions have different beliefs, yet all claim to be of one God, or multiple Gods. See where I'm going here?

Adstar, I know you believe that accepting Jesus as your personal saviour is the only way to heaven if you have been exposed to the bible or oral tradition of Jesus.

Lightgigantic and dragon seem to disagree with you. Why is that? Could Adstar be INCORRECT? Could LG and/or Dragon be INCORRECT? Or can all three of you be INCORRECT? Yes, all three of you could. But, all three of you sure as hell all can't be right.

The whole point of choosing a religion or choosing atheism is to dictate how you will live your life. If you decide to believe in a God, then you must serve that God throughout your life. If you choose no God, then you don't have to serve anything but yourself.

Different religions order their followers to live different, specific ways (fasting, no red meat, no murder, no adultery, no other Gods, no stealing, etc.).

So if all religions get you to heaven, then WHAT DICTATES WHAT RELIGION YOU CHOOSE? That is the main point of this thread.

Adstar, you chose to be a certain sect of Christianity. Why? What do you base your belief on? A book? Were your parents Christian?

LG, you chose hinduism and the Vedas (correct me if I'm wrong). Why did you choose this? Was it appealing to you? How did you go about deciding what religion you think matches up closest with the Truth of Reality?

Dragon, you chose atheism. Why? Is it because of logic and reason?

Why do Muslims choose to be Muslim? What is their motivation? Do they believe Muhammad's visions were real?

Why do Chinese choose to be, well, whatever they are?

The point of this thread is, people believe things blindy because they have been exposed to them.

If Adstar was never exposed to the possibility of Jeses, Adstar would never have become a Christian.
If LG had never been exposed to the Veda books and Hinduism, LG would not be a Hindu.

If Dragon was never exposed to atheism, he might not be an atheist.

If Muslims were never exposed to the Quaran or Muhammad, they would never have become Muslims.

Let me state something right now:

Not all religions can have the same accuracy and percentage of full truth since there is something called the Law of Contradiction.

Let's say that there exists these Truths:

1) There is one God.
2) God created the universe and earth,
3) There is no Satan.
4) There are no angels, just humans.
5) God doesn't want us to eat any animals.
6) God doesn't want us to murder people.
7) God doesn't want us to steal.
8) Karma exists, and we can become animals when we die.
9) God wants us to fast for 1 week out of the year.
10) God says we don't have to accept Jesus as Savior.

Let's say a religon exists, in which the founders of the religion proclaim that the following are the truths of reality:

1) There is one God.
2) God created the universe and earth.
3) Satan exists.
4) Angels exist.
5) God doesn't want us to eat any animals.
6) God doesn't want us to murder people.
7) God doesn't want us to steal.
8) There is no karma, and we either go to heaven or hell when we die.
9) God doesn't care about us fasting.
10) We must accept Jesus as Saviour.

In this case, this hypothetical religion got 5 out of 10 truths correct. So it is50.00% True.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 10:24 PM

LG, you don't know for sure if Muhammud's visions were real, but you claim that those visions could have been real.

But you agree that they were either real, or not real. Right?

If you are asking whether or not I think it is possible that a class of higher entities that are more spiritually advanced are capabale of communicating with saintly persons, I would say it is true.

If you want to ask me whether I think it is possible that a particular saintly person at a particular time had a particular encounter with a particular higher enity, it would require an examination of the particulars

The point here, everyone, is that even LG must admit that things must be either true or false. That's it.
and the next question is "what are our limits that enable us to determine th e truth or falsity of an item?"
For instance is it possible to determine the truth or falsity of something that has particulars we are not familiar with?

Water, is made up of two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen. It will never change. That is one truth of reality which we know through scientific analysis.
Water can only be ONE substance. I don't care what vessel people drink it in. It is H20. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
therefore there is a fundamnetal understanding on what the singular aspect of god is - for instance if a religion advocates that god says it is okay to kill all people of a particular cast/colour/creed at all times, then it raises problems such as why would god, the seed giving father of all living entities and absolute controller, give facility for such living entities to exist? (tends to suggest politics or a theological fallacy, namely that god is not all compassionate or all powerful)

So let's say one group of people claims that water can have 4 hydrogen atoms. This would be FALSE. Not TRUE. Therefore they would be WRONG, or INCORRECT.
just like theistic conclusions can be determined true/false if one has a theoretical basis, as indicated above

Again, either Jesus was God himself, or he was just another man. THERE IS NO IN BETWEEN. IT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.
Also, either Muhammad really talked to the angel Gabriel, or his mind made it up. THERE IS NO IN BEWTEEN. IT IS EITHER TRUE OR FALSE.
I think it would difficult to establish jesus as the absolute cause of all causes, but since he was representing god so effectively, he has a degree of the potency of god behind him - for instance when an ambassador of a monarch visits, he has a degree of the potency of the king behind him, and thus it is praise worthy to give him the respect one would ordinarily reserve for the king (and the ambassador remains in such an esteemed position for as long as he represents the casue of the king)
Thus in the vedas you have defintions of different avatars of god, and jesus could be accepted as a saktya(power)avesa(portion) avatar - ie an "ordinary man" who is empowered by god (by dint of their purity) to perfrom god's business.
As a further point, it doesn't recommend that one offer "less" worship to a saktyavesa avatar, even though they have not created the universe or exhibited other absolute opulences of being the cause of all causes

The point is LG, you describe religions as vessels of water. You say that we can all get water from any possible type of vessel. We can CHOOSE any vessel we want, and guess what: We are right every time! WOW, THAT'S AMAZING! No matter what religion we choose, we are right!!!
actually the water analogy only holds up in regard to examinations of bona fide religion - just as real water can be distinguished, so can real religion. To widen up the analogy you could move into murky grounds such as a can of seven up entering in (it contains water, but also sugar and additives) as a half baked measure and also someone with sand in a water bottle trying to pass it off as the cure for thirst (an outright cheat)

Even better, we can just create our own vessel, or religion, and we'll still be able to get the water, or go to heaven!!! AMAZING!

Okay everyone, I just created a new religion called Blankism. Here is our dogma:

1) We must cut one limb off every day to worship all 5 of our Gods
2) We must fast for half of the year

Who's with me?
this would be an example of the sand in a water bottle - you take something which is not intrinsically religious (ok maybe there are a few drops of water in the bottle down the bottom, because you mention the words "worship" in relation to "god") and label it "religious"

Okay LG, so we know that every possible religion is correct. So which one should we choose then? The easiest one to follow? The hardest one to follow? The one that sounds the most logical? The one we were brought up to believe?
ideally one should follow a religion that one understands with their intelligence and logic, but it is common for people to follow for reasons as you outline

draqon

01-18-07, 10:32 PM

nds1...I was born in Russia...all around me are orthodox christians...yet I am an atheist. I do not say it freely and try to hear God in me when I stand in church and look at the ikon of God and Deva Maria. I feel only happiness for others and me and my life...I imagine this God...but all I see is life with fields, cities, rivers, and people. I chose atheism because other religions do not suit my beliefs...I simply do not want to believe in God because I do not feel him and he has no proof. I know that humans need to have some sort of belief for their lifes without any evidence for that belief. I simply dont want God because I do not want this heaven as promised or hell. I want to believe that life recycles...that this is natural of universe...and is also logical of everything I see around me recycles. So why cant humans recycle through life too? Through this I came to accept atheism and believe that I have lived many lives prior and will live many live in future. I also have based my belief on dreams that I have which seem to remind me of my other lifes faintly.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 10:45 PM

draqon

01-18-07, 10:47 PM

so what about religions that advocate time is cyclic instead of linear, either with god (hinduism) or without god (buddhism)

buddhism is very close to my beliefs...but this idea of not to kill is too exaggerated. I understand not to kill species of own or not to kill without necessity...but not to kill to eat when its the logical thing to do...sorry no go with me. Also I totally dont agree with this idea of suffering...humans were created to enjoy life...not to suffer...

Perhaps I do not understand buddhism...and this makes me question its truthfullness

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 10:49 PM

buddhism is very close to my beliefs...but this idea of not to kill is too exaggerated. I understand not to kill species of own or not to kill without necessity...but not to kill to eat when its the logical thing to do...sorry no go with me.
how do you determine the logic or necessity of killing to eat?
Do you live in siberia? (I don't know what they eat there, apart from vodka - probably reindeer and frozen potatoes)

draqon

01-18-07, 10:54 PM

how do you determine the logic or necessity of killing to eat?
Do you live in siberia? (I don't know what they eat there, apart from vodka - probably reindeer and frozen potatoes)

I live in Michigan, USA

logic of necessity to kill to eat is simply for food need and keeping biosystem recycling.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 10:57 PM

I live in Michigan, USA

logic of necessity to kill to eat is simply for food need and keeping biosystem recycling.

so in other word s if we don't eat those millions of chickens, hogs and cattle that we have artificially bred in factory farms they will take over the world as we drop down dead from exhaustion from having a lack of animal flesh in our intestines?

nds1

01-18-07, 10:58 PM

Lightgiagantic, what if you are wrong? What if you are going to hell because you don't accept Jesus as your personal saviour? Or because Muhammad's visions were genuine and you don't accept Allah as the only God? Are you willing to risk that?

therefore there is a fundamnetal understanding on what the singular aspect of god is

Oh really? How about the Trinity, do you believe in that LG? How about Allah, do you believe in him?

Answer me this - What exactly is the fundamental understanding on what the singular aspect of God is?

for instance if a religion advocates that god says it is okay to kill all people of a particular cast/colour/creed at all times, then it raises problems such as why would god, the seed giving father of all living entities and absolute controller, give facility for such living entities to exist? (tends to suggest politics or a theological fallacy, namely that god is not all compassionate or all powerful)

So you are using human logic to determine what God would or would not allow or disallow. What are you basing your logic on exactly? Morals?

theistic conclusions can be determined true/false if one has a theoretical basis, as indicated above.

Where is this thoretical basis derived from? Human logic? A vision from God?

Christians say it's accept Jesus AS THE SON OF GOD or go to hell? Are they INCORRECT LG?
Muslims say, its Allah or hell? Are they INCORRECT LG?

They can't be both correct and incorrect. It is one or the other. What do you think LG?

nds1

01-18-07, 11:04 PM

so in other word s if we don't eat those millions of chickens, hogs and cattle that we have artificially bred in factory farms they will take over the world as we drop down dead from exhaustion from having a lack of animal flesh in our intestines?

LG, you seem to be against eating animals.

In terms of God, do think it is INCORRECT to have factory farms and/or eat the food produced by them?

draqon

01-18-07, 11:05 PM

so in other word s if we don't eat those millions of chickens, hogs and cattle that we have artificially bred in factory farms they will take over the world as we drop down dead from exhaustion from having a lack of animal flesh in our intestines?

no. the reason is in survival of the fittest. I am a biological entity and soul in it. I have two duties to perform. One is to follow the soul demands and the other is to follow biological entity demands. The soul demands are to follow the truth...which I chose as atheism/buddhism. The biological entity demands is to survive no matter what and replicate/pass dna to other life.

Now it is important to remember that I am in a specific timeline of human developmental stage. Such timeline when variety of food is available but there is no sure trusted choice of foods that cover the benefits of eating meat, which requires animals to be killed. Thus in order to be the top of survival of the fittest I choose the road that gives me advantage based on previous history. Humans in past ate meat and it gave them energy and they were able to go on with life. Same thing applies to me. I eat meat because it satisfies me the most and gives me most energy. I tried other foods...they did not give me enough energy and satisfaction I need to be that top survival of the fittest organism leading a life. Furthermore by humans having animals as their food source and other different choices of food sources...the chances of survival go up...because if one food source fails...the other can reimburse for it.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 11:10 PM

Lightgiagantic, what if you are wrong? What if you are going to hell because you don't accept Jesus as your personal saviour? Or because Muhammad's visions were genuine and you don't accept Allah as the only God? Are you willing to risk that?
then i would have failed to apply my reasoning to properly understand what is god and the process to approachhim - given that i am doing that now (applying reason etc) its not apparent what other course of action I should take

“
therefore there is a fundamnetal understanding on what the singular aspect of god is
”
Oh really? How about the Trinity, do you believe in that LG? How about Allah, do you believe in him?
what to speak of the trinity, there are numerous plural potencies running in with defintions of god - for example there is the sunlight (all pervasive homogenous representation), the sun disc in the sky (localized aspect of the sun) and the sun planet (the full potency of the sun) - in other words you can point to a window at the sunlight or the sun the sun in the sky and say "there is the sun", but it doesn't mean that you are indicating a firey ball of heat that can incinerate anything and everything is right outside the window

Answer me this - What exactly is the fundamental understanding on what the singular aspect of God is?
god has many qualities that are not shared by others - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent etc

“
for instance if a religion advocates that god says it is okay to kill all people of a particular cast/colour/creed at all times, then it raises problems such as why would god, the seed giving father of all living entities and absolute controller, give facility for such living entities to exist? (tends to suggest politics or a theological fallacy, namely that god is not all compassionate or all powerful)
”
So you are using human logic to determine what God would or would not allow or disallow. What are you basing your logic on exactly? Morals?

No
I am saying that god has no need to present himself as irrational or illogical, at least on very basic issues such as the relationship between him, the phenomenal world and the conditioned living entity

“
theistic conclusions can be determined true/false if one has a theoretical basis, as indicated above.
”
Where is thoretical basis derived from? Human logic? A vision from God?
from scripture and saintly persons, who are capable of giving explanations acceptable by human logic

Christians say it's accept Jesus AS THE SON OF GOD or go to hell? Are they INCORRECT LG?
if by default, you don't accept anyone sufficient as a substitute to guide you how to approach god, they're probably correct
Muslims say, its Allah or hell? Are they INCORRECT LG?
given that allah is a word for the absolute momotheistic conception of god, they are probably correct

They can't be both correct and incorrect. It is one or the other. What do you think LG?
once again, we can get back to the asprin argument
if one brand says they can cure headaches, and if another brand (which has similar ingredients) also makes the same claims, then they cannot both be correct

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 11:18 PM

no. the reason is in survival of the fittest.

even if you want to accept this argument, since we are not in the habit of eating species to extinction (in fact in most places in the world, there are strict laws against it), its not clear how meat eating qualifies us for surviving as the fittest

I am a biological entity and soul in it. I have two duties to perform. One is to follow the soul demands and the other is to follow biological entity demands. The soul demands are to follow the truth...which I chose as atheism/buddhism. The biological entity demands is to survive no matter what and replicate/pass dna to other life.
given that one can subsist quite happily (in fact with improved economic, environmental and health benefits) its not clear how meat eating helps you in this cause

Now it is important to remember that I am in a specific timeline of human developmental stage. Such timeline when variety of food is available but there is no sure trusted choice of foods that cover the benefits of eating meat, which requires animals to be killed.
what are the unique benefits of eating meat? - many olympic athletes, particularly those innvolved in endurance events, are on vegetarian diets. There are many people in the world who have been vegetarian for at least thousands of years and they don't seem to have too much trouble with passing on their genes

Thus in order to be the top of survival of the fittest I choose the road that gives me advantage based on previous history. Humans in past ate meat and it gave them energy and they were able to go on with life. Same thing applies to me. I eat meat because it satisfies me the most and gives me most energy. I tried other foods...they did not give me enough energy and satisfaction I need to be that top survival of the fittest organism leading a life.
Do you know how to cook vegetarian food?
(or did you drive yourself insane by eating rice and bananas for a week)

Furthermore by humans having animals as their food source and other different choices of food sources...the chances of survival go up...because if one food source fails...the other can reimburse for it.
You can bite the backside off a dog anytime your stockpile of grains goes down, but in the meantime there are distinct advantages in having a vegetarian diet

draqon

01-18-07, 11:21 PM

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 11:25 PM

meat gives me energy and satisfaction...and so to many other humans...those who have energy and satisfaction have higher chance of a more productive life...or higher chance of survival (moderation is the key here too...so moderation with meat is important).

then it seems you use meat in the same way that people use niccotine - there is no essential biological need for it (on the contary one can drum up a few biological pros that come from abstaining from it) but it is used anyway since it gives some mental relief.

Anyway, given the whole recycling thing you brought up earlier, meat eating is not recommended or is at least regulated, since one could wind up being recycles on the other side of the dinner table sometime in the future

draqon

01-18-07, 11:28 PM

then it seems you use meat in the same way that people use niccotine - there is no essential biological need for it (on the contary one can drum up a few biological pros that come from abstaining from it) but it is used anyway since it gives some mental relief.

Anyway, given the whole recycling thing you brought up earlier, meat eating is not recommended or is at least regulated, since one could wind up being recycles on the other side of the dinner table sometime in the future

You think animals have souls? feel compassion towards them? Feel compassion towards intelligent beings...those who demonstrate that they want to live rather than demonstrate the fear of death their body shows.

draqon

01-18-07, 11:30 PM

then it seems you use meat in the same way that people use niccotine - there is no essential biological need for it (on the contary one can drum up a few biological pros that come from abstaining from it) but it is used anyway since it gives some mental relief.

people use nicotine because it gives them pleasure and hype.

people use meat because it gives them energy which allows them to do what they do/to work/play/ live life...and it also gives feeling of satisfaction. None of the vegan diets give enough of energy to go on with the day. Meat is not an addiction...it is a necessity. Humans can do away without meat...but they will not be able to accomplish as much in the life that they lead.

nds1

01-18-07, 11:31 PM

once again, we can get back to the asprin argument
if one brand says they can cure headaches, and if another brand (which has similar ingredients) also makes the same claims, then they cannot both be correct

You're proving my original point. The brands of aspirin represent the different religions. The ingredients in each brand represent the different beliefs, sacraments, and requirements of each religon.

So there must be one brand of aspirin which is the BEST brand possible, right?

The best brand of aspirin would be 100% in speed of relief, and 100% in amount of relief, and 100% in duration of relief.

Here's an example:

The Best, Optimum, or Perfect Aspirin Ingredients:

1) Aspirin
2) Element A
3) Element B
4) Element C

Aspirin A ingredients:

1) Aspirin
2) Element A
3) Element B
4) Element F

Aspirin B Ingredients:

1) Aspirin
2) Element A
3) Element D
4) Element Z

So Aspirin A is 75% correct in it's ingredients. Not bad.
Aspirin B on the other hand is only 50% correct. Not too great.

The same applies with religion. Religion A may be 75% correct in the way it dictates people to live life and its beliefs, and Religion B may be 50% in the way it dictates people to live life and its beliefs.

The point is, there is One Optimum belief, or religion, and one optimum way to live life. Everything else is suboptimal. It may be close, 95% or 90%. But not optimal.

The question is, what religion do we choose?

LG, you stated that we should choose based on:

scripture and saintly persons, who are capable of giving explanations acceptable by human logic

Yet you haven't even looked into the writings of Muhammad, or probably hundreds of other scriptures.

Muslims and Christians have all followed your method for finding a religion, which is to look to "scripture and saintly persons, who are capable of giving explanations acceptable by human logic."

And guess what, they have signifigantly different beliefs than you do. So they used your same method for choosing a religion, and yet over half of the entire world found a different religion than you did LG.

I guess your logic is just better than over half of the world.

if by default, you don't accept anyone sufficient as a substitute to guide you how to approach god, they're probably correct

What does this mean? How about a solid yes or no.

lightgigantic

01-18-07, 11:55 PM

You're proving my original point. The brands of aspirin represent the different religions. The ingredients in each brand represent the different beliefs, sacraments, and requirements of each religon.

and yet it snot uncommon for several or even several hundred brands of asprin to be correct in their claim of curing headaches

So there must be one brand of aspirin which is the BEST brand possible, right?
sure

The best brand of aspirin would be 100% in speed of relief, and 100% in amount of relief, and 100% in duration of relief.
agreed - but still it can be seen that amongst lesser or greater asprins, all can be capable of dealing with headaches to a lesser or greater degree (their claims are not false)

The same applies with religion. Religion A may be 75% correct in the way it dictates people to live life and its beliefs, and Religion B may be 50% in the way it dictates people to live life and its beliefs.

The point is, there is One Optimum belief, or religion, and one optimum way to live life. Everything else is suboptimal. It may be close, 95% or 90%. But not optimal.

The question is, what religion do we choose?
thus there is essentially only one religion - service to god, and religion is successful to a greater or lesser degree according to this

LG, you stated that we should choose based on:

Yet you haven't even looked into the writings of Muhammad, or probably hundreds of other scriptures.
how many different head ache tablets have you sampled? When you have a head ache, and decide to take a tablet, do you go to your medicine cabinet or do you jump in the car and drive 40 minutes to some pharmacy you have never been to just to scope out any new developments?

In other words searching is the preliminary prerequisite for religion, but when one finds what one is searching for, the next issue is practical application

Muslims and Christians have all followed your method for finding a religion, which is to look to "scripture and saintly persons, who are capable of giving explanations acceptable by human logic."

And guess what, they have signifigantly different beliefs than you do.
such as?

So they used your same method for choosing a religion, and yet over half of the entire world found a different religion than you did LG.
Once again, if I drink water out of a clay cup it is not essentially so different from drinking it out of a plastic bottle

I guess your logic is just better than over half of the world.
only if I insisted that drinking out of a clay cup is the one and only way to drink water

What does this mean? How about a solid yes or no.[/QUOTE]

if by not accepting jesus, you do not accept anyone (meaning any other saintly person who is capable of providing guidelines on how to approach god), the answer is yes

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 03:05 AM

people use nicotine because it gives them pleasure and hype.

people use meat because it gives them energy which allows them to do what they do/to work/play/ live life...and it also gives feeling of satisfaction. None of the vegan diets give enough of energy to go on with the day. Meat is not an addiction...it is a necessity. Humans can do away without meat...but they will not be able to accomplish as much in the life that they lead.
perhaps you have some medical evidence for these claims

Medical evidence supporting the superiority of vegetarian diets becomes overwhelming. The American Dietetic Association officially endorses vegetarianism, and books by prominent doctors promote low-fat vegan or mostly-vegan diets (e.g., .The McDougall Program and Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease). The U.S. government finally ditches the antiquated and meat- and dairy-industry-sponsored Four Food Groups and replaces it with a Food Pyramid, showing that most of a person's diet should be based on grains, vegetables, beans, and fruits.
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/history.html

nds1

01-19-07, 09:41 AM

and yet it snot uncommon for several or even several hundred brands of asprin to be correct in their claim of curing headaches

Yes, all religions claim to be the best, or optimum religon. As we all know, "claims" and "reality" usually never go hand in hand.

but still it can be seen that amongst lesser or greater asprins, all can be capable of dealing with headaches to a lesser or greater degree (their claims are not false). thus there is essentially only one religion - service to god, and religion is successful to a greater or lesser degree according to this

Yes, and it is very possible that the BEST headache medicine on the market today is only 25% of the true BEST headach medicine.

how many different head ache tablets have you sampled?

We are talking about the nature of reality and the meaning of life here. I think that's a little more important than headaches.

In other words searching is the preliminary prerequisite for religion, but when one finds what one is searching for, the next issue is practical application

Here is the key to this whole thread:

According to you, all religions are equal because they all are based on blind faith and all involve sacrifice or service to a God.

Great. So if all religions serve this ONE purpose, and someone is open to any religion or any truth, then what religion should that person choose?

And guess what, they have signifigantly different beliefs than you do.

such as?

Well, let's see:

Christians believe Jesus is going to return to earth and rule forever and ever. Earth will become a heaven/earth and we will all live happily ever after. Except of course everyone who didn't except Jesus as the Messiah. They will all be swimming in the luxurious lake of fire for eternity.

Do you believe this LG? Probably not.

"Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through Muhammad ibn Abdullah (c. 570 - July 6, 632) via the angel Gabriel.[15] Muhammad is considered to have been God's final prophet, the "Seal of the Prophets". The revelations Muhammad preached form the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an. The Qur'an is believed to be the flawless final revelation of God to humanity, valid until the day of the Resurrection."

Do believe this LG? Probably not.

"Muslims believe that the verses of the Qur'an were revealed to Muhammad by God through the Angel Gabriel on numerous occasions between the years 610 and his death on July 6, 632."

Do you believe this LG? Probably not.

"The punishments in hell includes adhab, "pain or torment inflicted by way of chastiment; punishment", a very painful punishment (see 29:55, 43:48); khizy, "shame, disgrace, ignominy" (16:27, 11:39).[47] The descriptions in the Qur'an of hell are very descriptive (see 4:56, 47:15 etc)"

Do you believe this LG? Probably not.

"Those who consider performance as an integral part of faith consider anyone who does a grave sin to be out of faith, while the majority of Sunnis who view works as merely the perfecting the faith, hold that a believing sinner will be punished with a temporary stay in hell. "

How about this LG?

There's probably hundreds of other fundamental differences between Hinduism and every other religion.

Once again, if I drink water out of a clay cup it is not essentially so different from drinking it out of a plastic bottle

It is not as simple as drinking water out of any kind of vessel. According to you, any religion is fine. It doesn't matter if it is .01% truthful in terms of it's doctrine and beliefs, according to you everyone still gets the water, or still serves God.

Great, so what steps do we take to figure out what is the best, or most truthful vessel for drinking water.

Translation:

Great, so what steps do we take to figure out what is the best, or most truthful religon for serving God?

What does this mean? How about a solid yes or no.

if by not accepting jesus, you do not accept anyone (meaning any other saintly person who is capable of providing guidelines on how to approach god), the answer is yes

So you are saying that a person can pick any one of the hundreds of supposed saints out there to worship and they're all set.

Great. Which prophet should a person choose?

LG, the Catholic Church used to offer something salled "indulgences" to the church members. People would pay money for these indulgences, and then they could go out and commit a sin as long as they paid for it with money beforehand.

LG, this idea of indulgences is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?

Martin Luther decided that it was bullshit and started his own religion. John Calvin and others took his religion even farther and went against Luther.

My whole point is this:

If anything goes in terms of serving God, then what dictates how we serve him?

According to it you involves two things:

1) Human Logic and Reasoning
2) Whatever the saints in ancient writing say to do. Any saint is acceptable, even though many of the writing of the saints of every religion contradict each other.

LG,

Hinduism, and therefore you, are against eating animals.

So to you, everyone else is incorrect in eating animals. So Christianity is that much lower in percentage truth than Hinduism. How did you come to this conclusion LG? Because one of your saints said so? If so, why is that saint better than a different saint which says you can eat animals?

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 02:31 PM

nds1

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and yet it snot uncommon for several or even several hundred brands of asprin to be correct in their claim of curing headaches
”
Yes, all religions claim to be the best, or optimum religon. As we all know, "claims" and "reality" usually never go hand in hand.
i think I mentioned earlier that if I insist that one can only drink water out of a clay cup I am not correct

“
but still it can be seen that amongst lesser or greater asprins, all can be capable of dealing with headaches to a lesser or greater degree (their claims are not false). thus there is essentially only one religion - service to god, and religion is successful to a greater or lesser degree according to this
”
Yes, and it is very possible that the BEST headache medicine on the market today is only 25% of the true BEST headach medicine.
true, but to determine that would require an examination of quality andnot mere tentative claims

“
how many different head ache tablets have you sampled?
”
We are talking about the nature of reality and the meaning of life here. I think that's a little more important than headaches.
obviously it is an analogy - in this instance illustrating the importance of practical application

“
In other words searching is the preliminary prerequisite for religion, but when one finds what one is searching for, the next issue is practical application
”
Here is the key to this whole thread:

According to you, all religions are equal because they all are based on blind faith and all involve sacrifice or service to a God.
regarding the bit in italics, I never asserted that all religions are equal, just like all headache remedies are not equal - but however amongst all head ache remedies, greater an lesser, all could be correct in their claims that they help deal with the symptoms of headaches

Great. So if all religions serve this ONE purpose, and someone is open to any religion or any truth, then what religion should that person choose?
generally such things are limited by time, place and circumstances and the level of determination of the seeker - quite similar to determining what type of headache remedy a person will take

“
Originally Posted by NDS
And guess what, they have signifigantly different beliefs than you do.
”
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
such as?
”
Well, let's see:

Christians believe Jesus is going to return to earth and rule forever and ever. Earth will become a heaven/earth and we will all live happily ever after. Except of course everyone who didn't except Jesus as the Messiah. They will all be swimming in the luxurious lake of fire for eternity.
regarding the anticipation of the future, there are many difficulties and hardly a unified front (unless of course such concepts are clearly verified by scriptural references - for instance I have encountered christians who acknowledge that there are other saintly persons in different circumstances - but of course they find jesus's compassion more compelling, thus they devote their determination in that field) - reagrdless, the practical application of such an ideology would be remarkably similar to any other theistic ideology (in other words the relationship between the living entity, god and the phenomenal world would dictate a course of action in daily life that is practically identical with other faiths)

"Muslims believe that God revealed his final message to humanity through Muhammad ibn Abdullah (c. 570 - July 6, 632) via the angel Gabriel.[15] Muhammad is considered to have been God's final prophet, the "Seal of the Prophets". The revelations Muhammad preached form the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an. The Qur'an is believed to be the flawless final revelation of God to humanity, valid until the day of the Resurrection."

Do believe this LG? Probably not.
Once again, the practical application is virtually identical

"Muslims believe that the verses of the Qur'an were revealed to Muhammad by God through the Angel Gabriel on numerous occasions between the years 610 and his death on July 6, 632."

Do you believe this LG? Probably not.
I cannot see any reason to disregard it

"The punishments in hell includes adhab, "pain or torment inflicted by way of chastiment; punishment", a very painful punishment (see 29:55, 43:48); khizy, "shame, disgrace, ignominy" (16:27, 11:39).[47] The descriptions in the Qur'an of hell are very descriptive (see 4:56, 47:15 etc)"

Do you believe this LG? Probably not.
descriptions of hell are not famous for their glorious descriptions of the efficiency of the customer service dept

"Those who consider performance as an integral part of faith consider anyone who does a grave sin to be out of faith, while the majority of Sunnis who view works as merely the perfecting the faith, hold that a believing sinner will be punished with a temporary stay in hell. "

How about this LG?
similar concept in the vedas regarding prayas (over endeavour) and niyamagrahah (attachment to rules and regulations as the final word in spiritual perfection)

There's probably hundreds of other fundamental differences between Hinduism and every other religion.
hundreds of peripheral differences actually

“
Once again, if I drink water out of a clay cup it is not essentially so different from drinking it out of a plastic bottle
”
It is not as simple as drinking water out of any kind of vessel. According to you, any religion is fine. It doesn't matter if it is .01% truthful in terms of it's doctrine and beliefs, according to you everyone still gets the water, or still serves God.
Once again, I never said that - i said some things are more effective at containing water than others - if something is .01% truthful, the next step of advancement innvolves coming to 0.2%

Great, so what steps do we take to figure out what is the best, or most truthful vessel for drinking water.
generally sympromized by abating from material desire (name, fame, adoration, wealth, opposite gender etc) - its a big subject in scripture, and represents perhaps greater than 75% of the struggle of spiritual life (ie - proper discrimination)

Translation:

Great, so what steps do we take to figure out what is the best, or most truthful religon for serving God?
start with scripture and venture on to an analysis of the words and actions of a saintly person - that's the first step

“
”
“
if by not accepting jesus, you do not accept anyone (meaning any other saintly person who is capable of providing guidelines on how to approach god), the answer is yes
”
So you are saying that a person can pick any one of the hundreds of supposed saints out there to worship and they're all set.
before one can locate something they must determine the quality - like for instance if you don't know what gold is, you could probably locate 250g of gold at your local hardware store for $5 (gold spray paint)

Great. Which prophet should a person choose?

LG, the Catholic Church used to offer something salled "indulgences" to the church members. People would pay money for these indulgences, and then they could go out and commit a sin as long as they paid for it with money beforehand.

LG, this idea of indulgences is either correct or incorrect. Which one is it?
lol - what do you think?
is such a practice validated by scripture? Or institution?

Martin Luther decided that it was bullshit and started his own religion. John Calvin and others took his religion even farther and went against Luther.
institutions, regardless of what branch of knowledge they advocate, constantly need to be introspective and re-examine their foundations - otherwise external fractures like this will develop

My whole point is this:

If anything goes in terms of serving God, then what dictates how we serve him?
the foundation - scripture

According to it you involves two things:

1) Human Logic and Reasoning
2) Whatever the saints in ancient writing say to do. Any saint is acceptable, even though many of the writing of the saints of every religion contradict each other.
logic applied to scripture - usually religion has some founder that establishes or reforms existing modes of religion - they are often associated with scripture, which aims at capturing their teachings. thus the focus is the words of a teacher

LG,

Hinduism, and therefore you, are against eating animals.

So to you, everyone else is incorrect in eating animals.

the vedas give concessions for meat eating

So Christianity is that much lower in percentage truth than Hinduism. How did you come to this conclusion LG? Because one of your saints said so? If so, why is that saint better than a different saint which says you can eat animals?
there are philosophical reasons for not eating animals - christianity tends to focus more on introspective analysis of material desire and surmounting it by surrender to jesus, thus it tends to lack a clear terminology in some areas - for instance if you ask a group of christians what the word "soul" means you will get an array of answers
There is even the argument that christians were originally vegetarian (the romans described christians as strange because they were vegetarian) - the topic of vegetarianism was one issue that caused the split between the roman and greek orthodoxy
There are even contemporary strains of christianity that advocate vegetarianism on the strength of the bible (7th day adventist)

nds1

01-19-07, 04:08 PM

Okay, I kind of get what your saying LG.

I'm still confused though.

Let's say I am thirsty, and I want water. I look around and see ten vessels of water in front of me. Each vessel is comprised of a different material. Which vessel should I choose?

freestyle

01-19-07, 07:11 PM

i dont think there is only ONE big truth.. there could be lots of small truths... and all the religions could actually have made one religion, based on turning all the small truths into one...? or just collecting all the small truths, bringing them all together, and remembering to add all the new truths that turn up on the way... :D

nds1

01-19-07, 08:03 PM

i dont think there is only ONE big truth..

There isn't just one big truth. There are millions upon millions of them.

When I say there is only one truth, I mean one ultimate set of truths.

Let's assume, for simplifying purposes, that there are 10,000 total truths of reality (there are really millions upon millions of them).

What is a truth? It is a statement that is true.

Here are some of the 10,000 hypothetical truths:

1. The earth is round.
2. Gravity pulls everything down to the surface of the earth.
3. There is less air pressure the higher you go.
4. Water has two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.
5. Two plus two equals 4.
6. etc.
7. etc.
8..........................
10,000. Water can conduct electricty.

There they are. The 10,000 truths of reality. Some of those truths involve God, or whether or not there is one. Others involve what is pleasing or displeasing in the view of this God. Others involve whether Jesus was the Messiah, or not.

Let's say that 2,000 of the 10,000 truths of reality are applicable to religion.
Let's also say that Religion A knows 1,500 of these truths. This means Relgion A knows 75% of the total truth of religion.

Now, every one of the claims of this religion could very well be 100% true. Let's say that Religion A through scripture and other saints makes a grand total of 1,600 claims (1. Jesus is the Messiah 2. Though shall not murder 3.etc).

Let's also say that only 1,500 of those claims are true. This means that 93.75% of the claims are true. However, the total truths that are known only amount to 75% of the total truths of religion (2,000). If Religion A didn't make those 100 false claims, then it woud have been 100% truthful even though it hasn't uncovered every truth there is to know.

Let's assume a child was born on an isolated island and raised by robots. So this child hasn't been exposed to any religion. Then the child is transported to the U.S. after he turns 18.

Then, let's say the child understands the concept of God and believes in it through his logic. He then wants to serve this God, but doesn't know how. Where does he turn? What does he do?

He sees all these new religions which he has never been exposed to, and has to make a decision on which one he wants to follow. So he researches every single religion out there and all the accompanying scriptures. Does he go with the Muslim, ONE God, no Messiah, or the Christian Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) and Jesus the Messiah in which case he would have to get baptized in water. Or do the Veda scriptures appeal to him, and he goes with the Hindu faith. Maybe he chooses the polythestic route and worships Zeus and the rest of them.

What religion should this person choose? The easiest, most convenient one to follow? The hardest, most sacrificing one to follow? Or maybe the one that sounds the most like it could be real, or true logically. Maybe he just becomes an atheist.

The point is, this man wants to live his life a certain way and wants to serve God, but doesn't know exactly how he has to live it since every religion represents a different prescription.

nds1

01-19-07, 08:24 PM

LG,

Let's say I am thirsty, and I want water. I look around and see ten vessels of water in front of me. Each vessel is comprised of a different material. Which vessel should I choose?

draqon

01-19-07, 08:28 PM

LG,

Let's say I am thirsty, and I want water. I look around and see ten vessels of water in front of me. Each vessel is comprised of a different material. Which vessel should I choose?

whichever you can lift to drink the water.

nds1

01-19-07, 08:34 PM

whichever you can lift to drink the water.

Let's assume you can physically lift all ten of them.
Let's also assume that each vessel is a different weight.
Which vessel would be the best vessel to drink out of?

draqon

01-19-07, 08:39 PM

Let's assume you can physically lift all ten of them.
Let's also assume that each vessel is a different weight.
Which vessel would be the best vessel to drink out of?

whichever is the closest...whiever needs less energy to come to it. so no turning required...just simple plain reach for it and drink it.

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 08:42 PM

LG,

Let's say I am thirsty, and I want water. I look around and see ten vessels of water in front of me. Each vessel is comprised of a different material. Which vessel should I choose?

your choice would be immaterial since it would be the same essential experience - it also wouldn't matter which one you took if you insisted on pouring it in your ear (if you mess up on the practical application, even if you make the right 'choice', the result is ineffective)

nds1

01-19-07, 08:46 PM

So any of the ten vessels is acceptable, right? And all ten of them will produce the same exact reward if all the water is drunk through the mouth, right?

draqon

01-19-07, 08:47 PM

So any of the ten vessels is acceptable, right? And all ten of them will procuce the same exact reward if all the water is drunk through the mouth, right?

no...
only one of the vessels will bring the greatest reward...because it takes less energy for person to travel to that vessel or move the body towards that vessel than to any other vessels.

nds1

01-19-07, 08:49 PM

LG, you never answered my question though. Which vessel would you choose?

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 08:50 PM

So any of the ten vessels is acceptable, right? And all ten of them will produce the same exact reward if all the water is drunk through the mouth, right?

sure
if the water is the same, and they are all composed in the same environment at the same time at the same level of quality, obviously the result will be the same

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 08:50 PM

LG, you never answered my question though. Which vessel would you choose?
probably the closest one

nds1

01-19-07, 08:57 PM

probably the closest one

Okay, the closest one.

So you would choose the vessel which takes the least effort to get the water out of then. It does make logical sense.

Onto the next issue:

Do you believe that Jesus is who he is presented as in the Bible? Do you believe Jesus is second to God in power, his ONLY SON, and that the only way to God is through Jesus? Also, do you believe that Jesus saved ALL OF MANKIND from our sins and that without his sacrifice, every man would go hell?

draqon

01-19-07, 09:04 PM

Okay, the closest one.

So you would choose the vessel which takes the least effort to get the water out of then. It does make logical sense.

Onto the next issue:

Do you believe that Jesus is who he is presented as in the Bible? Do you believe Jesus is second to God in power, his ONLY SON, and that the only way to God is through Jesus?

there is no God to begin with. no proof that God exists.

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 09:16 PM

Okay, the closest one.

So you would choose the vessel which takes the least effort to get the water out of then. It does make logical sense.
yes

Onto the next issue:

Do you believe that Jesus is who he is presented as in the Bible? Do you believe Jesus is second to God in power, his ONLY SON, and that the only way to God is through Jesus? Also, do you believe that Jesus saved ALL OF MANKIND from our sins and that without his sacrifice, every man would go hell?

Usually this standpoint is taken by christians on the strength of John 14:6 where Jesus said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
while not a biblical scholar, I have read an essay by someone who was, that the original transcript from which the english is taken is written in the present tense - hence it should read something more like "Right here, right now, I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."
Given the social climate that jesus was preaching in, it sounds like a reasonable claim

nds1

01-19-07, 09:22 PM

So you are saying that these fundamental Christian beliefs are then: INCORRECT.

Beacause as we know, a belief can either be CORRECT or INCORRECT.

So you, LG, view Jesus as just another prophet. I'm not saying you are correct or incorrect because I'm in no position to decide that.

I'm glad though in any case that you and I both agree that beliefs can either be true or false. Correct or Incorrect.

lightgigantic

01-19-07, 09:32 PM

So you are saying that these fundamental Christian beliefs are then: INCORRECT.
I think I raised the issue before that they are not necessarily fundamental

Beacause as we know, a belief can either be CORRECT or INCORRECT.
agreed

So you, LG, view Jesus as just another prophet. I'm not saying you are correct or incorrect because I'm in no position to decide that.
I identified him as a saktya-avesa-avatar, which is to say that they are deserving of the same respect that one would usually muster for god, since they represent god so transparently (like a glass pane gives passage to the sunlight on the merit of its transparency).
I think it is an understatement to declare jesus to be 'just another prophet'

I'm glad though in any case that you and I both agree that beliefs can either be true or false. Correct or Incorrect.
obviosuly a belief can be correct or incorrect - just because something is a belief doesn't automatically place it in either catagory

nds1

01-19-07, 09:50 PM

everneo

01-20-07, 04:56 AM

I identified him as a saktya-avesa-avatar, which is to say that they are deserving of the same respect that one would usually muster for god, since they represent god so transparently (like a glass pane gives passage to the sunlight on the merit of its transparency).

Which God you see through this glass ? Vishnu/Krishna or YEHWEH ? Spell it baby.

I think it is an understatement to declare jesus to be 'just another prophet'

Muslims are more honest in accepting Jesus as a prophet than your 'saktya-avesa-avatar' word jugglery.

nds1

01-20-07, 12:52 PM

probably the closest one

Back to the vessel analogy.

LG, you stated that if you were thirsty and presented with 10 vessels of water all made of different material, you would choose the closest vessel.

So you wouldn't even look at the other vessels. You would simply choose the first vessel that you saw.

Let's say the vessel you choose contained asbestus in the material it was made of. Let's also say that some of this asbestus got into the water and poisoned it. Suddenly, that first vessel isn't looking so good anymore, and you wished you would have looked at all of your options and not just chose the first vessel you saw.

I think you see where I'm going with this LG.

Let's say a human was born on a remote island and never was exposed to any religion. Let's also say that at age 18 this human was concerned with the afterlife and wanted to assure that he would live his life the best possible way which would please God the best and give him the best spot he could possibly have in heaven.

So the human decides to research every scripture and every religion in existence in order to make the best desicion possible as to what religion or system of beliefs he will have.

He looks at the Bible, the Quaran, the Vedas, the Tipikada, the gospels which weren't included in the bible, the works of various other saints, etc., etc., etc.

He studies all of the hundreds of these scriptures which all say different things about the nature of reality, and he wants to choose the most truthful scripture or religion. He wants to choose the religion which is the closest to reality.

He knows that each religion and scripture contradicts the others in many areas, so either ONE or NONE of them are 100% correct. Most likely, they are all suboptimal, or below 100%.

What religion does this man go with? Which is the most true and accurate religion in terms of: Beliefs on the nature of God, beliefs on what God wants from us or requires from us, beliefs on sacraments and baptism, beliefs on eating animals, beliefs on restrictions, beliefs on fasting, beliefs on sin and what it is, beliefs on heaven or karma, beliefs on hell, beliefs on accepting Jesus as second to God, beliefs that Jesus is the King of everything, beliefs that Muhammad's visions were real and Christianity is wrong, etc.

What religion does this man go with?

lightgigantic

01-20-07, 03:09 PM

Which God you see through this glass ? Vishnu/Krishna or YEHWEH ? Spell it baby.
Can you find any descriptions on the nature of YEHWEH?
Or are they qualitative descriptions? (eg - all powerful, the origin of everything etc)

Muslims are more honest in accepting Jesus as a prophet than your 'saktya-avesa-avatar' word jugglery.

The principal empowerments are sevenfold:

(1) empowerment for the personal service of God (sva-sevana-sakti),
(2) empowerment to support the world (bhu-dharana-sakti),
(3) empowerment to create (srsti-sakti),
(4) empowered to distribute transcendental knowledge (jnana-sakti),
(5) empowerment to distribute bhakti (bhakti-sakti),
(6) empowerment to rule and maintain (palana-sakti)
(7) empowerment to deal with the demoniac (dusta-damana-sakti).

Srila Rupa Goswami has explained in Laghu-bhagavatamrta:

jnana-sakty-adi-kala ya yatravisto janardanah/
ta avesa nigadyante jiva eva mahattamah//

"Whenever the Lord is present in someone by portions of his various
potencies (the seven mentioned above), that living entity is invested with
special power and is a great soul."

from this (http://bn.bhagavata.org/avadhuta/files/Devotion%20-%20shastras/Tripurari%20Swami/Sanga%20newsletter/Saktyavesa%20and%20Nitya-siddha.htm)

given that, i would say that jesus is probably coming in at number 4 and 5.
Its not clear what the apparent contradictions are between this analysis and that advocated by muslims or even christians - in fact its not uncommon to encounter even hindus that are agreeable to the concept, which begs the question "What platform are you arguing from?"
(it appears to be closer to personal vendetta rather than anything scriptural)

lightgigantic

01-20-07, 03:32 PM

Back to the vessel analogy.

LG, you stated that if you were thirsty and presented with 10 vessels of water all made of different material, you would choose the closest vessel.

So you wouldn't even look at the other vessels. You would simply choose the first vessel that you saw.

Let's say the vessel you choose contained asbestus in the material it was made of. Let's also say that some of this asbestus got into the water and poisoned it. Suddenly, that first vessel isn't looking so good anymore, and you wished you would have looked at all of your options and not just chose the first vessel you saw.
then the analogy no longer holds because all the water in the vessels is not equal

I think you see where I'm going with this LG.

Let's say a human was born on a remote island and never was exposed to any religion. Let's also say that at age 18 this human was concerned with the afterlife and wanted to assure that he would live his life the best possible way which would please God the best and give him the best spot he could possibly have in heaven.

So the human decides to research every scripture and every religion in existence in order to make the best desicion possible as to what religion or system of beliefs he will have.

He looks at the Bible, the Quaran, the Vedas, the Tipikada, the gospels which weren't included in the bible, the works of various other saints, etc., etc., etc.

He studies all of the hundreds of these scriptures which all say different things about the nature of reality, and he wants to choose the most truthful scripture or religion. He wants to choose the religion which is the closest to reality.

He knows that each religion and scripture contradicts the others in many areas, so either ONE or NONE of them are 100% correct. Most likely, they are all suboptimal, or below 100%.

What religion does this man go with? Which is the most true and accurate religion in terms of: Beliefs on the nature of God, beliefs on what God wants from us or requires from us, beliefs on sacraments and baptism, beliefs on eating animals, beliefs on restrictions, beliefs on fasting, beliefs on sin and what it is, beliefs on heaven or karma, beliefs on hell, beliefs on accepting Jesus as second to God, beliefs that Jesus is the King of everything, beliefs that Muhammad's visions were real and Christianity is wrong, etc.

What religion does this man go with?

Most people do not take to accepting religious principles by books alone (they could to some degree, but it would be a rare soul that would have the intelligence to go the full distance just by reading) - the ability to apply scripture comes about through associating with someone already fixed in knowledge - of course they would see contradictions in the different scriptures (if they didn't they would be off the conditioned platform and firmly fixed in transcendental knowledge).

so in answer to your q, which religion would they choose, they would probably take the one with whom has a practitioner that they come in contact with (alternatively, they could reject all existing practices in their environment and hover on the mental platform, ie speculate about what constitutes religiosity and manufacture a concoction)

nds1

01-20-07, 03:46 PM

the ability to apply scripture comes about through associating with someone already fixed in knowledge

Already fixed in knowledge?

How do you know if someone is "already fixed in knowledge," or if they are just talking BS?

Oh, by the way, there are many Catholics who chose to follow priests who were supposedly "already fixed in knowledge," but then were caught molesting children.

Oh yeah, how about that great Evangalist Reverand who had many followers until it was found out that he had been paying a gay prostitute for services. What was his name... Ted Haggard?

Let's not forget the great religious leaders of the Crusades as well, right?

Or how about those old Catholic leaders who urged the people to pay indulgences for their sins?

I could come up with hundreds of examples of people who are or were supposedly "already fixed in knowledge" who had no clue what the hell they were doing.

Your method doesn't work here.

so in answer to your q, which religion would they choose, they would probably take the one with whom has a practitioner that they come in contact with

What if they decide to contact practioners from every religion and every sect, and not just one practitioner as you have suggested.

Oh, that's right, you would just follow the first practitioner you came in contact with (the first vessel).

draqon

01-20-07, 05:29 PM

So you are saying that these fundamental Christian beliefs are then: INCORRECT.

not all Christian beliefs are incorrect...but fundamental are incorrect. like suffering and existence of God are incorrect.

nds1

01-20-07, 05:58 PM

See below.

nds1

01-20-07, 08:26 PM

then the analogy no longer holds because all the water in the vessels is not equal

actually the water analogy only holds up in regard to examinations of bona fide religion - just as real water can be distinguished, so can real religion. To widen up the analogy you could move into murky grounds such as a can of seven up entering in (it contains water, but also sugar and additives) as a half baked measure and also someone with sand in a water bottle trying to pass it off as the cure for thirst (an outright cheat)

So, using your own words, the analogy DOES in fact hold up because all the water (H20) IS in fact equal in all ten vessels. Each vessel contains a certain percentage of water (H20), but some of them also contain sugar and other additives not visible to the naked eye. So there is no way to know which vessels contain pure H20 and which contain additives because they all look exactly the same.

So I could give you a vessel full of a liquid which I claim is 100% H20, when in fact it is 80% H20 and 20% sugar, and you wouldn't know the difference. You would just take my word for it and hope for the best. ;)

So the question is:

How can we tell which vessel contains the most pure water, or the least contaminents if the liquid in each vessel looks exactly the same (clear, no color)?

lightgigantic

01-21-07, 12:38 AM

nds1

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the ability to apply scripture comes about through associating with someone already fixed in knowledge
”
Already fixed in knowledge?

How do you know if someone is "already fixed in knowledge," or if they are just talking BS?
How can you determine between a qualified doctor and a quack?

Oh, by the way, there are many Catholics who chose to follow priests who were supposedly "already fixed in knowledge," but then were caught molesting children.
many people get fooled by deceptive doctors as well

Oh yeah, how about that great Evangalist Reverand who had many followers until it was found out that he had been paying a gay prostitute for services. What was his name... Ted Haggard?
tends to illustrate how determining the quality of a bona fide religious practitioner is not so prominent at the moment - actually it is a subject thagt makes up more than 75% of the struggle of spiritual life (proper discrimination)

Let's not forget the great religious leaders of the Crusades as well, right?
You can take any position of authority you like (politician, school teacher, parent, lawyer etc) and come up with examples of gross negligence on both individual and institutional levels - the question is whether it is appropriate to judge a genre by its worst stereotype

Or how about those old Catholic leaders who urged the people to pay indulgences for their sins?
at a guess, it tends to indicate that they were attached to wealth, which rates as a notable disqualification for qualifying oneself as a transparent medium to god

I could come up with hundreds of examples of people who are or were supposedly "already fixed in knowledge" who had no clue what the hell they were doing.
and I could come up with quite a few examples of persons who did (admittedly, for everything that actually exists in this world, it is not uncommon for it to be outnumbered by scores more cheap imitations)

Your method doesn't work here.
I would argue that your method of determining the quality of a genre by its worst stereotype doesn't work at all - does that mean we should abandon parents, abandon politics, abandon teachers - in fact abandon everyone and even society itself, since it is not too difficult to find examples of such persons who have misplaced the trust of others (I would hazard that it would be more productive to properly determine what the qualities of a person in authority should possess)

“
so in answer to your q, which religion would they choose, they would probably take the one with whom has a practitioner that they come in contact with
”
What if they decide to contact practitioners from every religion and every sect, and not just one practitioner as you have suggested.
This is getting quite rhetorical.
I mean there could be any of a number of reasons - the most likely ones that come immediately to mind is that they would take to the one that they felt socially comfortable with/they would take to the one that appeals to their material desire (after all, they are not liberated) like for instance they may take to something outre becaus ethey perceive they will be outstanding and different and unique if they take up Sth American sun dried potato worship or something, they would take to the one that they felt they could relate to and communicate easily with (so maybe they wouldn't take to sun dried potato worship after all) etc etc - the possibilities seem endless!!!

Oh, that's right, you would just follow the first practitioner you came in contact with (the first vessel).
only if they perceived that as the easiest and most effective

lightgigantic

01-21-07, 12:50 AM

nds1

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then the analogy no longer holds because all the water in the vessels is not equal
”

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually the water analogy only holds up in regard to examinations of bona fide religion - just as real water can be distinguished, so can real religion. To widen up the analogy you could move into murky grounds such as a can of seven up entering in (it contains water, but also sugar and additives) as a half baked measure and also someone with sand in a water bottle trying to pass it off as the cure for thirst (an outright cheat)
”

So, using your own words, the analogy DOES in fact hold up because all the water (H20) IS in fact equal in all ten vessels. Each vessel contains a certain percentage of water (H20), but some of them also contain sugar and other additives not visible to the naked eye. So there is no way to know which vessels contain pure H20 and which contain additives because they all look exactly the same.

actually the point about introducing the 7up was to illustrate how the original concept (water or religion) can be corrupted yet still functional (7up quenches thirst, although it is not sufficient to replace water)

drinking seven up will serve the same purpose as drinking water in most circumstances, similarly religious principles corrupted by material desire, philosophical deviation etc can still serve the same purpose as religion (offering a degree of purification/transcendental knowledge) but it will not be sufficient to serve the ultimate purpose of religion (attaining the state of transcendence)

So I could give you a vessel full of a liquid which I claim is 100% H20, when in fact it is 80% H20 and 20% sugar, and you wouldn't know the difference. You would just take my word for it and hope for the best.

So the question is:

How can we tell which vessel contains the most pure water, or the least contaminents if the liquid in each vessel looks exactly the same (clear, no color)?

careful examination

Just as there are tests one can do to determine the quality of water there are tests one can do to determine the credibility of a theistic practitioner - however part of that testing process involves the seer coming to a degree of purity themselves (it would not be expect