Thousands of Religious Sects - Which one is right?

[lightgigantic]

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 expected that a grossly sinful person would be capable of nousing the spiritual mettle of a practitioner)
once again, this is a large topic of discussion in scripture, and one a spiritual practitioner will spend a great deal of their time wrestling with

 

[nds1]

LG,

Do you believe that everything in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John literally is true and literally happened exactly as it is written?

 

[Oniw17]

LG,

Do you believe that everything in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John literally is true and literally happened exactly as it is written?

I think it would be better to ask about the Vedas.

 

[nds1]

But LG is searching for the truth, and must have "carefully examined" the four gospels of Jesus (or that vessel). So I'm hoping LG could enlighten me from his careful examination of the Bible as to whether the gospels are literally true or not.

 

[everneo]

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.

Can you find any descriptions on the nature of YEHWEH?
Or are they qualitative descriptions? (eg - all powerful, the origin of everything etc)

Have you read Deuteronomy 5:6-21 or Exodus 20:2-17 - the 10 commandments, issued by the god himself as per Judaism and Christianity ? That is pretty descriptive on the nature of YEHWEH. Jesus, ofcourse, refers YEHWEH as god/father.

Now enlighten us, who do mean by god in your post ? Krishna/Vishnu or YEHWEH ?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

Do you believe that everything in the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John literally is true and literally happened exactly as it is written?

because of the italics, its better you ask a Christian practitioner

I mentioned earlier that he comprehension of such things is not so much dependent on reading but on coming in contact with a person established in knowledge by dint of practice

 

[lightgigantic]

Have you read Deuteronomy 5:6-21 or Exodus 20:2-17 - the 10 commandments, issued by the god himself as per Judaism and Christianity ? That is pretty descriptive on the nature of YEHWEH. Jesus, ofcourse, refers YEHWEH as god/father.

Now enlighten us, who do mean by god in your post ? Krishna/Vishnu or YEHWEH ?

Suppose we were describing an apple
here is an example that would describe its nature (maybe nature is not quite the right word) - found on apple trees
here is somethings that would describe its qualities - red, crunchy, sweet
(notice how descriptions of nature are more specific than descriptions of qualities, after all a red iceblock is also red, crunchy and sweet)

Its not clear how your references to scripture and god being a 'father' are supposed to help your argument (after all, 'father' is a qualitative and not a singular term"

In other words if krishna is described as having all the qualities you mention belonging to YEHWEH, and if YEHWEH has no personal descriptions, its not clear on what grounds you are raising a contention

 

[lightgigantic]

But LG is searching for the truth, and must have "carefully examined" the four gospels of Jesus (or that vessel). So I'm hoping LG could enlighten me from his careful examination of the Bible as to whether the gospels are literally true or not.

Actually once your search is over (ie when you come to the point of being convinced) the only unanswered question is that of practical application

 

[nds1]

because of the italics, its better you ask a Christian practitioner

Why couldn't I ask a Hindu practitioner if Hindus believe all 4 gospels are literally true?

 

[Adstar]

Because a hindu who believed that the 4 gospels where literally true would not longer be a hindu. You cannot ask such a question because such a person does not exist.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Oniw17]

Because a hindu who believed that the 4 gospels where literally true would not longer be a hindu. You cannot ask such a question because such a person does not exist.

Why? As far as I know, Hindus believe that people can have supernatural abilities...I think.

 

[nds1]

Thank you Adstar.

So you've proved my point that different religions have different contradicting beliefs, and only ONE or NONE of them can be right.

One or both of the religions must have false beliefs.

The Hindus do not believe Jesus is second to God and is the MOST IMPORTANT figure in the history of God.

The Christians believe Jesus IS in fact second to God and is the MOST IMPORTANT figure in the history of God.

There are an array of other contradicting beliefs, but this one is the most prevalent.


Jesus either IS or IS NOT second to God. It is one or the other.

So one of these religions must have a greater percentage of truth in their claims.

 

[lightgigantic]

Why couldn't I ask a Hindu practitioner if Hindus believe all 4 gospels are literally true?

It would be more productive if you could present the conclusions (or rather your interpretations of the conclusions, which could be slightly - or vastly - different from the conclusions of a christian practioner) of the gospels and see how they relate to that presented in the vedas.

generally such comparisons lead to a similar essence and a few peripheral differences

 

[everneo]

Suppose we were describing an apple
here is an example that would describe its nature (maybe nature is not quite the right word) - found on apple trees
here is somethings that would describe its qualities - red, crunchy, sweet
(notice how descriptions of nature are more specific than descriptions of qualities, after all a red iceblock is also red, crunchy and sweet)

Apple and red iceblock don't describe themselves in any scripture. But YEHWEH and Krshna are quite descriptive about themselves , in scriptures.

Its not clear how your references to scripture and god being a 'father' are supposed to help your argument (after all, 'father' is a qualitative and not a singular term"

My argument? Nonsense. I have a question not argument. All I need is a direct answer from you. You asked the description on the nature of YEHWEH, i gave the descrption of him, from scriptures, whom Jesus represents.

In other words if krishna is described as having all the qualities you mention belonging to YEHWEH, and if YEHWEH has no personal descriptions, its not clear on what grounds you are raising a contention

The descriptions do not tally, that is why the question. They are tallying for you ?

 

[everneo]

Because a hindu who believed that the 4 gospels where literally true would not longer be a hindu. You cannot ask such a question because such a person does not exist.

A hindu can go beyond the scriptural descriptions (both hindu and christian) of God. But there are certain hindus and christians who stick to their respective scriptures and try to bend the "god of the other" as per their understanding and interest.

 

[lightgigantic]

Apple and red iceblock don't describe themselves in any scripture. But YEHWEH and Krshna are quite descriptive about themselves , in scriptures.



My argument? Nonsense. I have a question not argument. All I need is a direct answer from you. You asked the description on the nature of YEHWEH, i gave the descrption of him, from scriptures, whom Jesus represents.



The descriptions do not tally, that is why the question. They are tallying for you ?

perhaps you could give some references to the qualities or nature of YEHWEH because its not clear what is being discussed.

 

[lightgigantic]

A hindu can go beyond the scriptural descriptions (both hindu and christian) of God. But there are certain hindus and christians who stick to their respective scriptures and try to bend the "god of the other" as per their understanding and interest.

needless to say, this is wrong - if you don't define a hindu, or any religious practioner, by the related scriptures, it begs the question how do you define them

http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/091.htm

Anyone born in India is automatically a Hindu (the ethnicity fallacy);

if your parents are Hindu, then you are Hindu (the familial argument);

if you are born into a certain caste, then you are Hindu (the genetic inheritance model);

if you believe in reincarnation, then you are Hindu (forgetting that many non-Hindu religions share at least some of the beliefs of Hinduism);

if you practice any religion originating from India, then you are a Hindu (the national origin fallacy).

The real answer to this question has already been conclusively answered by the ancient sages of Hinduism, and is actually much simpler to ascertain than we would guess.

The two primary factors that distinguish the individual uniqueness of the great world religious traditions are

(a) the scriptural authority upon which the tradition is based, and
(b) the fundamental religious tenet(s) that it espouses.

If we ask the question what is a Jew?, for example, the answer is: someone who accepts the Torah as their scriptural guide and believes in the monotheistic concept of God espoused in these scriptures.

What is a Christian?: a person who accepts the Gospels as their scriptural guide and believes that Jesus is the incarnate God who died for their sins.

What is a Muslim?: someone who accepts the Qur’an as their scriptural guide, and believes that there is no God but Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet.

In general, what determines whether a person is a follower of any particular religion is whether or not they accept, and attempt to live by, the scriptural authority of that religion. This is no less true of Hinduism than it is of any other religion on earth. Thus, the question of what is a Hindu is similarly very easily answered.

By definition, a Hindu is an individual who accepts as authoritative the religious guidance of the Vedic scriptures, and who strives to live in accordance with Dharma, God’s divine laws as revealed in the Vedic scriptures.

 

[Adstar]

Thank you Adstar.

So you've proved my point that different religions have different contradicting beliefs, and only ONE or NONE of them can be right.

Well i have proven nothing, But as a believer in the Gospels i do believe there is only one way to God and that is via Jesus.

One or both of the religions must have false beliefs.

Well if a God exists and If He wants us to know His will then one teaching must be right. Its up to each person who believes in God to seek that truth out. What people agree with and what they reject will be what either saves them or condemns them. It's up to us.

The Hindus do not believe Jesus is second to God and is the MOST IMPORTANT figure in the history of God.

Well there is some wishy washy people who do their best to mix all teachings on God out of a sense of trying to bring about unity. But there can be no unity between truth and lies. Those that seek to mix the two out of a misguided desire for unity are only engaged in deception, a great delusion. Its not only that, but it is also complete waste of time.

The Christians believe Jesus IS in fact second to God and is the MOST IMPORTANT figure in the history of God.

Jesus either IS or IS NOT second to God. It is one or the other.

The nature of Jesus God and the Holy Spirit is not as clear cut as that nds 1.

John 14
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7 “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him.”
8 Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[everneo]

needless to say, this is wrong - if you don't define a hindu, or any religious practioner, by the related scriptures, it begs the question how do you define them

If you are worshipping any one of the hindu gods or
just even born to hindu parents and don't bother to worship any of the hindu gods or any other god, still you are a hindu by default. That is the beauty of hinduism. No one can force down a scripture or criteria on you to get qualified as a hindu.

 

[everneo]

perhaps you could give some references to the qualities or nature of YEHWEH because its not clear what is being discussed.

It is already given. Go back and read the references. Hard to answer a simple question ? That is the problem with being dubious.