Are religions self-contradictory?

one_raven

one_raven

God is a Chinese Whisper
Valued Senior Member
I am just talking about the big three here.
The Abrahamic religions; Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

This thought came to me when I was poting on a different thread the other day.

All three Abrahamic religions state that God is unkowable.
He is not fathomable.
He works in mysterious ways.
We can not comprehend him.
He is not containable.
He can not be seen or heard by humans.
Hell, the Bible even says we can not say his name.

If all of that is true, then how could they talk about who He is?

They speak of:
His intentions.
His beliefs.
His desires.
How he wants you to act.
etc.

Isn't writing a book about Him and speaking about him in any way containing him?
If he can not be understood, how can he be explained?

How can you know he is Omniscient, Onipotent and Omnipresent if our puny human minds can't even fathom Him and His reasoning?

By saying that he can not be understood by humans, isn't that sound reasoning for an Agnostic stance?

Even the statement "God can not be understood" is self contradictory, isn't it?
In order to know that he can't be understood, you have to understand him.

I know I am not explaining myself as eloquently as I would like to about this.
Sorry about that.
Hopefully my point makes it across.

Any thoughts?
 
Originally posted by valentino
yes, I see the fallacies is this reasoning, but that's where blind faith comes in
Click to expand...

Faith that man, who has no clue who or what God is, somehow got it right?

If you accept on faith that the men who wrote the bible happened to get it right (even though the religion itself states that no one CAN get it right) how could you reconcile arguing against someone that poses a more plausible theory?

Or ANY other theory (no matter HOW likely or unlikely) for that matter?

Think about that...

"You are right. It makes no sense. It doesn't stand againt reason or even my OWN critical thinking or questioning. I can see how it can't be supported. But I know my religion is right."

Why?
 
That's why I said "blind faith", if I had it, I wouldn't be calling it that. There are too many things a person will just have to take for granted if they believe every single thing in the bible. I know there is some truth in the teachings of the bible, but not because "God said so", but rather because I feel they are right.
 
Originally posted by valentino
That's why I said "blind faith", if I had it, I wouldn't be calling it that.
Click to expand...

But there are SO MANY people that are actually PROUD of having "blind faith" as if it is a positive attribute.

I can't understand that at all.
 
One-raven,

When people attempt to speak on God's behalf, you can be sure they have an agenda.
I inagine, that claiming to see right through God and act in his name is a blasphemy, however there is no better way to gain moral authority over the gullible and get rid of the uncomfortable opposition at the same time.
 
So do you suggest that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohamed were people with agendas....They claimed that they were on a mission from god. ALl of them died poor and never sought wealth or fame.....What agenda did the Prophets have? To be hung on the cross to bleed to death kindda of agenda?
 
No heflores, when I am talking about people with agendas I am referring to those who hijacked and perverted the teachings of Jesus, Mohamed etc.
 
Originally posted by Circe
[B..., when I am talking about people with agendas I am referring to those who hijacked and perverted the teachings of Jesus, Mohamed etc. [/B]
Click to expand...
How do you determine that teachings have been "hijacked and perverted" when those teachings are little more than than the entrails of stories and apologetics sculpted by those very hijackers and perverters?
 
heflores
Oh yeah, all preachers these days in all 3 religions are prefessional career men with quite nice agendas.
Click to expand...

Not only in these days , in all the days after the days of the prophets (although there is a difference with Judaism)

Secularity gives more answers than ever , Secularity implies the need for religiousless states , in the sense that religion doesnt run the state , and that was the function of religion in the first place . This must give u at least a hint on where religion comes from .......now I am not very familliar with the Hadith , but I believe had enough to do when it came to power and states , did he not create the Islamic state , from whitch the Caliphats followed ? There might be a link ........ but im just speculating and I do not wish to bring the name of Muhammad in discredit without knowing what the fuck Im talking about . I do know Jesus didnt do shit state related , and neither did he create Christianity .

Are religions self-contradictory?
Click to expand...

Concerning the epistemologic arguments as presented here for sure . If u cannot know A , u cannot know what A believes .
Now ofcourse the deal is that Muhammad and Mussa and Issa all are supposed to have known God , they are the contradictors , but hey......they're not the ones bringing in religion either (although as I mentioned Muhammad might be totally different) .

Another great logical contradiction is religion assuming something that is omniscient omnipotent etc.....but in the same time it feels this and believes that and has all these human not so omniscient and omnipotient aspects .

Sure one could say , he can do alkl , he chooses to believe .
Id say the that G-d must be an idiot for acting far far below his level.....perhaps he just wants to fit in like the rest of us ?

Allah is seen and heard MILLIONS of times .
 
CA, the problem is- I and will concentrate here on Christianity - that nobody alive today was around when Jesus was spreading his message, therefore it's really hard to conclusively determine what this message was. I am not a religious person but If I had to choose those that, in my opinion, got the closest to the essence of God, I would go with the gnostics. Getting acquainted with some of their writings (mostly Nag Hammadi) lead me to conclude that today's christianity doesn't necessarily represents what Jesus, If he ever existed, stood and died for. This is where I'm coming from when I refer to perverted religion. Christianity today would have been much different had the gnostics not been suppressed and eradicated from history.
 
Originally posted by Circe
Getting acquainted with some of their writings (mostly Nag Hammadi) lead me to conclude that today's christianity doesn't necessarily represents what Jesus, If he ever existed, stood and died for.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that sentence is, at best, underwhelming. Rather than wasting bandwidth by telling us what "today's christianity doesn't necessarily represents", why not tell us if you have any basis in fact for saying anything substantive about some purported Jewish cult leader nemed Yeshua?
 
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
I'm sorry, but that sentence is, at best, underwhelming. Rather than wasting bandwidth by telling us what "today's christianity doesn't necessarily represents", why not tell us if you have any basis in fact for saying anything substantive about some purported Jewish cult leader nemed Yeshua?
Click to expand...

He can say a whole lot more than he can ever say about a stinkin Consequent Atheist....Don't you agree? Is this substantive enough for you.

And don't go crying boo hoo, heflores is insulting me. You've started this by insulting a great man that you have no knowledge of, that billions of people believe to be a prophet of god.

Now, come back fast and say loud
"THANK YOU MAM....CAN I HAVE SOME MORE"
 
Last edited:
LOL CA, - I am not here to make a believer out of you. You are an atheist, you negate the existence of God and that is perfectly fine with me. Just one thing though; even If you believe that Jesus never existed, there still is, whether you recognize it or not, a powerful message hidden in Jesus stories.

Out of curiosity - are you even familiar with Nag Hammadi and the gnostic movement?

Heflores, I am a she;)
 
Originally posted by heflores
He can say a whole lot more than he can ever say about a stinkin Consequent Atheist.
Click to expand...
Oh, my. :D
Originally posted by heflores
... Don't you agree? Is this substantive enough for you.
Click to expand...
Not really, but it's clearly the best that you can manage.
Originally posted by heflores
And don't go crying boo hoo, heflores is insulting me.
Click to expand...
Best I can tell, heflores is simply behaving childishly.
Originally posted by heflores
You've started this by insulting a great man that you have no knowledge of ...
Click to expand...
What have I said that could be construed as an insult?
Originally posted by heflores
... , that billions of people believe to be a prophet of god.
Click to expand...
How sad for them.
 
heflores:
that billions of people believe to be a prophet of god.
Click to expand...

and another billion believe HE is God.

Consequent Atheist:
why not tell us if you have any basis in fact for saying anything substantive about some purported Jewish cult leader nemed Yeshua?
Click to expand...

In my humble estimation someone is spending way too much time soaking up that drivel at infidels.org

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

I suppose we could say the same for nearly everyone that lived in the first century, they are all purportive, with only a tiny fraction of anything substantive surviving until today. The question one has to ask is this. Why Jesus. Why not question the existence of the first century church. Do you doubt Moses existed? Plato? Alexander the Great?


"An incontrovertible reference to Jesus would first of all have to be from an eyewitness. But outside of Christian testimony, no surviving historical literature could even be expected to contain eyewitness references to Him. So the modern historian must seek non-Christian evidence for Jesus the same way he does for every other person of antiquity who was considered insignificant by the authorities of his day. He must analyze the credibility of secondhand reports.

Combine secondhand reports of Jesus (both non-Christian and Christian) with the eyewitness accounts recorded in the Gospels, and you will find that Jesus compares extremely favorably with other people in history whose historicity is not doubted. Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Liberty University, Gary Habermas, states concerning Jesus:

We can perceive all the more how groundless the speculations are which deny His existence or which postulate only a minimal amount of facts concerning Him. Much of ancient history is based on many fewer sources which are much later than the events which they record.... While some believe that we know almost nothing about Jesus from ancient, non-New Testament sources, this plainly is not the case. Not only are there many such sources, but Jesus is one of the persons of ancient history concerning whom we have a significant amount of quality data. His is one of the most-mentioned and most-substantiated lives in ancient times.

Blaiklock adds:

"Historians would be glad to have authentic, multiple, congruent evidence on more personalities and events of ancient history."

From :
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch18/default.htm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top