both true and false. False because nothing like this has happened. True because Allah sais so.
Thousands of Religious Sects - Which one is right?
- Thread starter nds1
- Start date
both true and false. False because nothing like this has happened. True because Allah sais so.
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
a life.
Both True and False
True because Bible says so. False because there is no such thing as resurrection...once dead...is forever.
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?
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?
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
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
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?
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)
just like theistic conclusions can be determined true/false if one has a theoretical basis, as indicated above
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
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)
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"
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
Last edited:
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Last edited:
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?