Thousands of Religious Sects - Which one is right?

[nds1]

Adstar,

Thank you for your response.

Let me explain where I am at in regards to this thread and why I continue to post what I am posting.

The central theme and question of this thread is:

If I am open to God, and want to serve him as "best" as I can, then what exactly do I do.

According to Lightgigantic, I should start by "analyzing scripture." The next question which inevitably follows is, "what scripture or scriptures should I analyze?" There are many scriptures out there. Do I analyze every one of them and choose what I think is the best one out of the ones which I analyzed? This seems like the most logical approach.

So in order to serve God the best way possible and live a life most pleasing to God, I should analyze all the scriptures out there which were written by men who are allegedly saints, and were divinely inspired when they wrote the scriptures which they wrote. I must consult scriptures because I myself am not as spiritually enlightened as the saints were.

Okay, fine. So I look at the major religions of the world and their accompanying scriptures in order to analyze them and choose what I find to be the best one.


Here are the applicable scriptures and their accompanying religions:

Ásatrú:
The Poetic Edda, including especially the Hávamál
The Younger Edda

Ayyavazhi:
The Akilattirattu Ammanai
The Arul Nool

Bahá'í Faith:
The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
Kitáb-i-Íqán
and many other writings including ones from other faiths

Buddhism:
The Tipitaka or Pali canon
and other Buddhist texts

Christianity:
The Bible
In some forms of Christianity, the Apocrypha
In the Latter-Day Saints movement:
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrine and Covenants

Discordianism:
The Principia Discordia

Etruscan religion:
Pyrgi Tablets
Tabula Cortonensis
Liber Linteus
Cippus Perusinus

Falun Gong:
The Zhuan Falun

Hinduism:
Sruti
Vedas - Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda
Brahmanas
Aranyakas
Upanishads
Smriti
Itihasas
Mahabharata
Bhagavad Gita
Ramayana
Puranas (List)
Tantras
Sutras (List)
Stotras
Ashtavakra Gita
Gherand Samhita
Gita Govinda
Hatha Yoga Pradipika

Islam:
Al-Qur'an (Islamic Scripture, Al-Kitab, 'the Book') The very words of God sent to Muhammad by Divine Revelation through Gabriel, just like Moses and Jesus recieved Divine Revelation before him. The Quran is not the saying and acts of the Prophet, rather what God said to him and to humanity.
Al-Hadith (sayings and doings of Prophet Muhammad) Hadith are not divine, and are not considered scripture. They are historical recordings collected some 200 to 250 years after Prophet Muhammad died, are admitted to be prone to error, corruption or misinterpretation.
Nahj al Balagha (saying and doing of Ali) are regarded as history and wisdom rather than divine text and used mainly by Shia Muslims.

Jainism:
Tattvartha Sutra

Judaism:
The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible)
Torah
Nevi'im
Ketuvim
Talmud
Mishnah
Gemara

Mandaeanism:
The Ginza Rba

Manichaeism:
The Arzhang

New Age religions:
Various New Age religions may regard any of the following texts as inspired:
Course in Miracles
Conversations with God
Oahspe
The Bible
The Gnostic Gospels
The Urantia Book

Rastafari movement:
The Bible
the Holy Piby
the Kebra Negast
The speeches of Haile Selassie I
Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy

Samaritanism:
The Samaritan Pentateuch

Satanism:
The Satanic Bible

Sikhism:
The Guru Granth Sahib
The Dasam Granth Sahib

Shinto:
The Kojiki
The Nihon Shoki or Nihingi

Spiritism:
The Spirits Book
The Book of Mediums
The Gospel According to Spiritism
Heaven and Hell
The Genesis According to Spiritism

SubGenius:
The Book of the SubGenius

Swedenborgianism:
The Bible
The writings of Emanuel Swedenborg
Some also consider a number of posthumously published manuscripts of Swedenborg to also be sacred.

Taoism:
Daozang
The Tao-te-ching
The Chuang Tzu
The I Ching

Thelema:
The Holy Books of Thelema especially Liber Al vel Legis

Unification Church:
Divine Principle
Wolli Hesul (Explanation of the Divine Principle)
Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle)

Zoroastrianism:
The Katha (The Gathas of Zarathushtra)
Primary:
The Avesta collection of texts:
The Yasna, the primary liturgical collection, includes the Gathas.
The Visparad, a collection of supplements to the Yasna.
The Yashts, hymns in honor of the divinities.
The Vendidad, describes the various forms of evil spirits and ways to confound them.
shorter texts and prayers, the five Nyaishes ("worship, praise"), the Sirozeh and the Afringans (blessings).
Secondary:
The Denkard (middle Persian, 'Acts of Religion'),
The Bundahishn, (middle Persian, 'Original Creation')
The Mainog-i-Khirad (middle Persian, 'Spirit of Wisdom')
The Arda Viraf Namak (middle Persian, 'The Book of Arda Viraf')
The Zartushtnamah (modern Persian, 'Book of Zoroaster')
The Sad-dar (modern Persian, 'Hundred Doors', or 'Hundred Chapters')
The Rivayats (modern Persian, traditional treatises).
For general use by the laity:
The Zend (lit. commentaries), various commentaries on and translations of the Avesta.
The Khordeh Avesta, a collection of everyday prayers from the Avesta.



So these are the scriptures which are available to us to analyze and follow.

According to LG, the first step to transendence is scripture.

Great. Now I'm all set. I simply analyze all of the current scriptures out there which all claim to be the truth, and which call claim to be divinely inspired, and then I just pick whatever one I'm comfortable with. Right?

Then, if I get through the tedious task of choosing a scripture that I like, my next task is to choose a teacher from the billions of different practioners of that religion/scripture, who all have a different opinion or interpretation of that scripture and who all believe they are correct. According to LG, I need to test out these guys to see if they are the real deal.

Adstar, do you see my point now?

There are contradicitons in how different religions view reality/God, how they determine life should be lived, what restrictions they put on certain actions, etc.

With millions of scriptures and practioners of those scriptures out there, which one is the most truthful, or the optimum one to follow.

 

[Adstar]

If you follow this approach then i doubt you have enough years to accomplish the reading of all those "scriptures" Actually i would say that it would be imposable for anyone (maybe the rain man might be an exception) to study all the scriptures contained in the religions you have listed.

So what can one do? If one believes that God exists and believes that He has revealed His will on earth in written form?

Well the best advice i have for you is to actually ask God to lead you in your seeking to cut short the time period between the start of your search and the finding of His written will.

See, if God exists, and He is interested in having you as a family member in His eternal home, then He will direct you on the path that will lead you to His will. Now if you are meek you will see the truth when he shows it to you and you will accept His will on what is right and good rather than you selecting the religion or blend of religions (as others have done) that are in alignment with what you consider the will of God would be.

Now you might think that is very simplistic or naive advice. But think about it. Is your proposal of studying all the texts of the world’s religions better if it is unachievable?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[nds1]

Well the best advice i have for you is to actually ask God to lead you in your seeking to cut short the time period between the start of your search and the finding of His written will.

Now this seems like a truly logical approach. Adstar, I think in Hinduism and other religions God is not a "personal" God who deals with people on a person-to-person basis. God is simply a force which exists and we are a result of that force.

These are two highly contradicting views. If God is impersonal, then praying wouldn't do me much good (which is why LG hasn't mentioned asking God what religion to turn to). On the other hand, if God is personal, then if I asked God and was sincerely open to serve him and give up my personal ambitions, then I'm sure God would somehow point me in the right direction. It's only logical.

So LG's method of serving God and finding the right religon:

1) Analyze scripture
2) Find a good practioner
3) Follow the scripture in terms of what the practioner says
4) Service

Alternate method which has just been presented:

1) Genuinely decide to give up anything in this life
2) Be open to anything
3) Ask God where to turn, be aware, and turn there
5) Service

One of these ways may be better than the other. Whichever way that it, is up to people personally to decide.

Both ways rely on a specific belief which may be true or false:

1) God is impersonal.
2) God is personal.

 

[VitalOne]

Now this seems like a truly logical approach. Adstar, I think in Hinduism and other religions God is not a "personal" God who deals with people on a person-to-person basis. God is simply a force which exists and we are a result of that force.

This is incorrect, since in the Bhagavad Gita, Upanishinads, Srimad Bhagavatam, and other scriptures it specifically says God is "nara" or personal, yet with impersonal attributes, like eternal, unchanging, absolute, beyond cause and effect, origin of all, etc....you obviously haven't really read any Hindu scripture....maybe secondary sources that say God is impersonal in Hinduism...

These are two highly contradicting views. If God is impersonal, then praying wouldn't do me much good (which is why LG hasn't mentioned asking God what religion to turn to). On the other hand, if God is personal, then if I asked God and was sincerely open to serve him and give up my personal ambitions, then I'm sure God would somehow point me in the right direction. It's only logical.

Actually what you seem to be describing is bhakti yoga in Hinduism, clearly described in the Bhagavad Gita, almost exactly as you described, service to God, giving up all personal ambitions, etc...

check http://www.vedabase.net/bg/12/en

One of these ways may be better than the other. Whichever way that it, is up to people personally to decide.

Both ways rely on a specific belief which may be true or false:

1) God is impersonal.
2) God is personal.

Where are you drawing your information from.....

 

[nds1]

Okay VitalOne, so why haven't you recomended asking God what religion is the best one?

All I've been hearing from you is, "choose the religion you're most comfortable with, choose the most that's most logically sound, etc." Not once did you suggest asking God himself. Interesting...

 

[VitalOne]

Okay VitalOne, so why haven't you recomended asking God what religion is the best one?

All I've been hearing from you is, "choose the religion you're most comfortable with, choose the most that's most logically sound, etc." Not once did you suggest asking God himself. Interesting...

Well there's a good reason I haven't recommended asking God what religion is best, it will have no effect, or a minimal insignificant effect. This is why millions of people who pray to God have their desires unfulfilled.

When seeking to fulfill any desire, I recommend instead to imagine the feeling of your desire (whatever it is) already being fulfilled, feel it as if it already happened (this is similar to how Jesus describes to fulfill any desire).

 

[lightgigantic]

Okay VitalOne, so why haven't you recomended asking God what religion is the best one?

All I've been hearing from you is, "choose the religion you're most comfortable with, choose the most that's most logically sound, etc." Not once did you suggest asking God himself. Interesting...

If one is sincere it works

BG 10.10: To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

And regarding whether god is personal or impersonal, he is both ....

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman (impersonal), Paramātmā (localized) or Bhagavān (personal).

.... but the impersonal aspect is contingent on the personal aspect (just like the sunshine - the homogeneous impersonal aspect of light, is contingent on the sun planet)

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

[nds1]

If one is sincere it works

BG 10.10: To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

And regarding whether god is personal or impersonal, he is both ....

SB 1.2.11: Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman (impersonal), Paramātmā (localized) or Bhagavān (personal).

.... but the impersonal aspect is contingent on the personal aspect (just like the sunshine - the homogeneous impersonal aspect of light, is contingent on the sun planet)

BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

Hmmmm, that's funny. I don't see anything remotely close to that description of God in the Bible. The Bible says that God is one:

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
NKJV

So LG, according the scriptures you choose to believe in, then God has three aspects. In other scriptures, his nature is different.

Either way, if God can be personal like you just admitted, then why didn't you ever recommend praying to him for answers instead of using our own human logic?

 

[SnakeLord]

is contingent on the sun planet

What's the "sun planet"?

 

[lightgigantic]

Hmmmm, that's funny. I don't see anything remotely close to that description of God in the Bible. The Bible says that God is one:

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
NKJV

then where does the trinity come into it?
(in other words its obvious that one given article can have many different potencies, just like fire - a singular phenomena - is commonly associated with heat, smoke and light ; or a particular man may be known according to different relationships - by occupation he may be a "public servant" (impersonal) - by workplace relationships between colleagues and clients he may be known as a chief justice of America(localized) - and by familial relationships he may be known as John Glover Roberts

just imagine how many different relationships this guy would have

what to speak of god

So LG, according the scriptures you choose to believe in, then God has three aspects. In other scriptures, his nature is different.

If in all three instances we are talking about qualities of John Glover Roberts, why must all discussion of god (on whom all variety is contingent) be exclusively singular?

Either way, if God can be personal like you just admitted, then why didn't you ever recommend praying to him for answers instead of using our own human logic?

because religiosity without philosophy is fanaticism

What's the "sun planet"?

what you would run into (provided you didn't get incinerated before you arrived) if you traveled in the direction of what appears to be merely a sun disc in the sky

 

[nds1]

then where does the trinity come into it?

You tell me. Many Christians believe that the concept of the trinity was created by the early church fathers (for whatever reason). See how many times you find the word "trinity" in the bible. Z-E-R-O.

The Trinity is a made up concept by people trying to use human logic to figure out God. Just ask Mohammad or any Muslim about the trinity.

God must be ONE CONSCIOUS, THINKING ENTITY.

a particular man may be known according to different relationships - by occupation he may be a "public servant" (impersonal) - by workplace relationships between colleagues and clients he may be known as a chief justice of America(localized) - and by familial relationships he may be known as John Glover Roberts

Yeah, and in all three cases he is John Glover Roberts. They don't call him Pete when he's working as a public servant and Chris when he's at home with his family.

In all three cases, he has the same brain, and the same singular identity. he can act different in different situations, but he is still ONE SINGULAR CONSCIOUS ENTITY WITH ONE SINGULAR BRAIN. Unless he has schizophrenia.

If in all three instances we are talking about qualities of John Glover Roberts, why must all discussion of god (on whom all variety is contingent) be exclusively singular?

Because John Glover Roberts is ONE PERSON, with ONE MIND. He is ONE ENTITY. Not three, as you describe God to be. Unless he has Schizophrenia.

what you would run into (provided you didn't get incinerated before you arrived) if you traveled in the direction of what appears to be merely a sun disc in the sky

I don't like the sun analogy. Everyone knows the ultimate truth about what the sun is. It is a big round ball of fire. We know this through scientific observation. There isn't anyone who says that the sun is both hot and cold, or that the Sun is both yellow and green. There is ONE TRUTH about the sun. Just as there is one truth about God.

 

[SnakeLord]

what you would run into (provided you didn't get incinerated before you arrived) if you traveled in the direction of what appears to be merely a sun disc in the sky

Oh, you mean 'the sun'. You threw me a little bit by adding planet. For future reference please note that the sun is not a planet.

 

[everneo]

You forgot to add that sun is a star.

 

[rjr6]

God must be ONE CONSCIOUS, THINKING ENTITY.

There is ONE TRUTH about the sun. Just as there is one truth about God.

Hey nds1,


A baseball bat is solid, right? But on an atomic level, it is mostly comprised of space, so technically a bat is mostly empty space. It is solid, yet mostly comprised of space. Could God have some of the same qualities?


Good fortune on your search. Sorry if your question has been answered, I did not read all the posts in this thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

nds1

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then where does the trinity come into it?
”
You tell me. Many Christians believe that the concept of the trinity was created by the early church fathers (for whatever reason). See how many times you find the word "trinity" in the bible. Z-E-R-O.

but still there are copious examples of distinctions between god and his potencies
like for instance there are references that describe jesus (the only way to god is through jesus) as non different from god and also references that describe both as distinct (father son)

The Trinity is a made up concept by people trying to use human logic to figure out God. Just ask Mohammad or any Muslim about the trinity.

its an attempt to understand the ontological basis of god through philosophy - even the term "godhead" reflects this

God must be ONE CONSCIOUS, THINKING ENTITY.

yet still we can see that even one conscious entity int his world has multifarious potencies (the same person may be "father", "son", "uncle", "brother" or even "grandfather" in different contexts without being 5 distinct persons)

“
a particular man may be known according to different relationships - by occupation he may be a "public servant" (impersonal) - by workplace relationships between colleagues and clients he may be known as a chief justice of America(localized) - and by familial relationships he may be known as John Glover Roberts
”
Yeah, and in all three cases he is John Glover Roberts. They don't call him Pete when he's working as a public servant and Chris when he's at home with his family.

instead they would be more likely to call him a "white collar worker" impersonally, "sir" when localized and "John" or "Mr. Roberts" personally

In all three cases, he has the same brain, and the same singular identity. he can act different in different situations, but he is still ONE SINGULAR CONSCIOUS ENTITY WITH ONE SINGULAR BRAIN. Unless he has schizophrenia.

the same understanding is required to comprehend the significance of god being brahman, paramatma and bhagavan, particularly in light of the BG quote which you seem to have missed


BG 14.27: And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

“
If in all three instances we are talking about qualities of John Glover Roberts, why must all discussion of god (on whom all variety is contingent) be exclusively singular?
”
Because John Glover Roberts is ONE PERSON, with ONE MIND. He is ONE ENTITY. Not three, as you describe God to be. Unless he has Schizophrenia.

still you can talk about John Glover Roberts in three different contexts - in the same way you can speak about god , who is ultimately one person (however he is an exceptional person)

“
what you would run into (provided you didn't get incinerated before you arrived) if you traveled in the direction of what appears to be merely a sun disc in the sky
”
I don't like the sun analogy. Everyone knows the ultimate truth about what the sun is. It is a big round ball of fire. We know this through scientific observation. There isn't anyone who says that the sun is both hot and cold, or that the Sun is both yellow and green. There is ONE TRUTH about the sun. Just as there is one truth about God.

they do talk about the sun being impersonal (sunlight) localized (the anticipation of sun rise and sun set) and personal (the universal body uniformly situated in space) - they also talk of heat and light in connection to the sun
In other words it should be clear how one thing can determine many other things by examining relationships of full, partial and/or incomplete contingency.

 

[lightgigantic]

You forgot to add that sun is a star.

Oh, you mean 'the sun'. You threw me a little bit by adding planet. For future reference please note that the sun is not a planet.

I promise to behave from now on

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p42/lightgigantic/spank.gif

 

[lightgigantic]

You forgot to add that sun is a star.

Oh, you mean 'the sun'. You threw me a little bit by adding planet. For future reference please note that the sun is not a planet.

I promise to behave from now on

 

[Mosheh Thezion]

if your looking for a religious sect.... i would suggest this one.

http://theempiricalchurch.blogspot.com/

-MT

 

[SnakeLord]

I promise to behave from now on

A simple thank you would have sufficed. I wouldn't want you to fail at school/pub quiz or whatever merely because you thought the sun was a planet. Imagine the embarrasment. I realise it might be like explaining an electron to a high school dropout, (funnily enough even dropouts generally know the sun is not a planet), but I hope it has sunk in and will have some use later in life..

Enjoy.

 

[VitalOne]

Hmmmm, that's funny. I don't see anything remotely close to that description of God in the Bible. The Bible says that God is one:

Deut 6:4-5
4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.
NKJV

So LG, according the scriptures you choose to believe in, then God has three aspects. In other scriptures, his nature is different.

Either way, if God can be personal like you just admitted, then why didn't you ever recommend praying to him for answers instead of using our own human logic?

Actually the Bhagavad Gita and other scriptures constantly say God is one without a second, I think before choosing a religion you should really read the actual scripture and not rely on secondary sources, they are very unreliable when it comes to religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, etc....

Also what can't you understand about there be many ways to describe one samething? Why do you insist upon separating things saying this is this and that is that, it is like The Buddhist story of the blind men who each touched an elephant and described the elephant differently (some touched the tusk, some the feet, etc...) and they all foolishly argued over which description of the elephant was true...