Which religion is correct?

[bob]

All or none. If only one was right then the others should be clearly wrong and not followed. The beleivers of the correct religion should have a major advantage because they are connected with the true god.

I am tempted to say none. It is a position that still allows the possibility but does not require it.

[StuartW]

There are many paths to the true God, none are better than the others. Thus a Christian's God will be the same as a Muslim's. The difference,of course, is in how the 'handbook',or the Holy Bible,Koran etc. is written.Fundamentally,the message in almost all religions is the same - an exhortation to lead a 'good' life; which many people do without the need for religion.

[drisley]

I agree. Most religions have the same basic purpose, only differing in how they see things. In that light, I'd say there is no "correct" one. People invent their own realities. If someone thinks something is true, then it is. Everyone in religion KNOWS they are right, so they are. I think any religion that provides guidance to people and who makes lives happier for those in it is a good one.

[M. A. Dockter]

My religion is the best :)

I worship my sprit to overcome the most adverse conditions. If I believe in myself, I shall never fail. If I fail to believe, I shall fail to live.

[bob]

I take it Doc you would not want to risk death defending your correct religion in this forum. ;)

[M. A. Dockter]

I'll do a little fighting:

It's what I believe. If you believe in something else, fell free to tell me. The minute you try to push it on me, I'll hunt you down and kill you. I don't push mine on yours, I expect you to do the same.

For me, it's correct, and I'll fight for that. For you, it might not be. It's your call, as it's your life.

[bob]

Since I do not beleive in a supreme force or God I may have a slight advantage.

[M. A. Dockter]

I don't believe in one either bob...I believe in myself and only myself.

[bob]

Does that mean I must try to prove you are not God.
If not, I await someone so rightious that they know the true God.
Will go against that God must exist. That would be a fair debate.
As far as I can tell the world would function the same as it does now without a God.
The argument that God exists because people beleive - therefor creating God (The spounge concept) is accepted.

[drisley]

I won't get into the God exists vs. not exist arguement. Thats for each person to decide on his/her own.

But, how would you think the universe got here? You don't believe in the idiotic big bang theory do you? The universe didn't just happen by itself. The earth didn't just start on its own by a bunch of gasses deciding to bump into each other. Life did not just start in a sea of ammonia. Without some belief in something, how would you explain these things?

Life is the only thing that can change things or create/destroy. Matter cannot change itself. It is inanimate. Energy is not just created from nothing by physical means (Law of Conservation of Energy). So, without some life force having created the universe, how can one reasonbly argue that it just all came out of nowhere.

Thats one thing I find interesting about science. Its all wonderful until they get into these areas: how life started, why a human being can imagine or create art at will. The scientists have an aversion to acknowledging anything that isn't phsyical. and when they avoid that, their theories go absolutely haywire.

[StuartW]

Doc. Your posts demonstrate the difference between those with a faith (or religion), and atheists or agnostics. The later believe only in themselves and their needs and wants, whilst most religions encourage people to take heed of the needs of other people.Me - I just call atheists selfish.

[M. A. Dockter]

Just because I believe in myself I'm selfish. Because I believe in my spirit doesn't mean I'm a selfish ass!! I give to charity just as much to the other guy. I open doors...and do all the other things a normal person does. I'm personally offended at your jump to conclusions.

[bob]

StuartW, comparing all agnostics and athesists to Doc is unfair too. ;)

DRisley, how would you think the universe got here? I really don't know - all we have are theories. Beleif is not my method. Where did God come from - that is just as unanswerable.

Matter cannot change itself? Sure it does it happens in our sun and all the other stars. Novas create all the elements from hydrogen to the most complex elements.

As I watch the new technologies and the mapping of the genome I remain amazed that people think the secert of the beggining of the universe was already known thousands of years ago.

[jessho]

There are too many questions that haven't been answered with most religions. One of the biggest is why anything.

A religious answer includes the want and will of a supreme being or beings.

Science currenty theorizes that the universe, as we know it, started with a big bang.

Either way, were did it all come from? Why is there anything? If the entire universe is energy that has evolved into what we observe, where did the energy come from? If there is a supreme being, where did it come from?

[drisley]

You can take this or leave it, but don't rip on it:

I think the physical universe was created by spiritual beings: us, more or less. A spirit is a static: no mass, no time, no space, nothing. It just is. I think this universe is here simply because we all collectively agree that it is. I think we, as spiritual beings, are much more capable than we know and that, for a variety of reasons, we have handicapped ourselves.

I think most people realize this. Most people know they are spiritual beings, separate from the body. Even if they deny it, they know. Many deny it so that the rest of the world will make sense, for people hate confusion and things they don't know.

Before Western religions hit the scene, what i just said was pretty much common knowledge. Eastern religions thrive on this and it serves as a basis. Buddhism strives for a state called Bohdi which is a state of having broken out of the cycle and able to exist as a spirit alone.

I'm not a Buddhist, but I do find this subject pretty fascinating.

[bob]

I see no reason why that after death I will return to the state I was in before I was born - non existance.

The universe may do the same or last forever in some changing state or repeating loop.

Enjoy the ride.

[River~]

for the sake of arguement, lets say you were one of hundreds, thousands during a period in our existence when man was struggling to understand all that there was around him.

man needed direction, a purpose in life, and many different attempts at creating a civilization that could exist for the long haul failed along the way. many different "thinkers" of the period attempted various forms of religion to try to unite the multitudes. many were successful and are still with us to this day.

did you know that the person they call Jesus also had four brothers, two of which were a part of the 12 apostles and these two brothers created the mythical image of Jesus rising from the dead to help promote their new religion, Christianity, which was suppose to be an off shot of the Jewish religion, which Jesus felt was too strict.

if you were of high intelligence, born several thousand years ago and did not like the paganistic rituals you saw taking place around you, and wanted a better life for you, your wife and your children, would you find others who felt like you and try to establish good common sense rules that we should all live by, in order to have a more unified and safe community?

would you call that book the bible? now this book couldn't just list the rules, it would have to have some substance to it, some fire and brim stone.

take a look at the other writings from that era, or not long after, by Homer, Pluto, Socrates and the other great literary geniuses of that period. most of what they write about is based on metaphors, unbelieveable gods and creatures and natural calamities.

just thoughts, opinions....but believe that some day soon through DNA and genome research they will soon be able to confirm that Darwin was right with his theory (they probably can now but are affraid of the world wide calamity it might cause if all the religious people found out where we really came from!?)

River~

[mairving]

I saw a t-shirt once. On the front it said"
<b>God is dead - Nietczhe</b>
On the back was:
<b>Nietczhe is dead - God</b>

You know River, your theory doesn't hold up to a major test. That test was out of the 12 apostles, eleven died a violent death because they refused to deny Christ. If they knew that it was a lie that Christ really didn't die, why would they die for this lie. There was a lawyer once who decided to write a book debunking the existance of Jesus Christ. He gathered all the evidence that he could find. Then a funny thing happened. He became a believer. The first chapter of his book was called "the book that refused to be written.

It is bad enough to debate Politics in a public forum like this one. Religion is even worse. It is difficult to keep emotions out of it. I think after this post, I will sit this one out.

[troysvihl]

I've yet to see any proof that any one religion is correct. They all pretty much boil down to the same thing though, that being the golden rule. I think if you live your life according to the golden rule, you'll be OK when you die.

I'm not sure if I'm an atheist. I definitely believe that there is an afterlife and that there is probably a supreme power. So, I'm not an athiest in that respect, but i don't think there is anything "magical" or "miraculous" about it. I think that eventually such stuff will be explained by science. (Perhaps god is really the unified theory of physics?) I guess in that sense, I am an athiest, since I'm sure most athiests believe that everything can be explained by science.

[drisley]

I believe we are all spiritual beings living in a body but being separate from it (haven;t you ever had the experience of lookig down on yourself?). When you die, its just your body dying, not you. I don't think we, as spirits, have any choice but to survive. My own personal belief (well, to me, knowledge) is that we all have lived many lives and that you'll probably live another one after this one. My dad, for example, remembered the fact that he died in the Korean War in his last life. I don't like to call it re-incarnation, though, because a lot of people put some strange twists on that, like coming back as a dog and shit, and I don't believe that.

Anyway, just my view.

BTW, Troy, I agree, there is nothing "miraculous" about it. Its just the way it is.
and mairving, thats why this forum is here, to be a free place to discuss things like this. Believe me, if someone was gonna come on here and start openly bashing another's religious view, I would not tolerate it.

[bob]

Korean war was in the eairly 1950's. If you are 20+..... Well he got right back on that horse real fast. ;)

I will not bash a religion but if someone want's to defend theirs can I still debate? Others may be reading and I DO NOT want to disrespect their beleifs but I DO want to enjoy a good exchange of ideas.

mairving, the idea is to learn how others think. I was amazed so many conserative people could actually be close (and open) on the issue of a supernatural power/god. It is not necessary to defend your beleifs just because other people have different views. Your beleifs are yours and as beleifs nothing said here should change that.

[drisley]

My dad was born in 1952, so yeah, you're right.

[River~]

that's not a major test, not really when you consider that the jews and anyone else who didn't believe that Caeser was their god, were being persecuted right and left.

this was a period of persecussion and execution for fun and for scare tactics by Caesar, which he dictated to Pontius Pilot (sp?) telling him he had better get that Jesus guy in line or else.

the world at this time was also full of martyrs, willing to die for any cause, most of which really pissed Caesar and the rest of the false idol worshipers off.

I just find it hard to believe in God, Jesus and his miracles when there is no proof, other than words handed down from thousands of years ago. Give me some hard facts and then I am receptive to listening.

DNA, genome research, Darwin, and even today the Discovery Channel, OPBS and several others support this theory evolution, why else would they run the types of documentarys they run?

Honestly, can you just imagine the world wide hysteria if a reputable organization or world leaders came out and said there was no God, that Jesus was just the son of poor shepherd and his wife, and that man did in fact evolve as Darwin believes? Can you imagine the hysteria amongst the true believers?????

I don't know the answers, but I tend to lean towards that which facts and logical theory support.

River~

[bob]

River~ , Don't think mairving wants to debate faith. It is not a fair thing to ask someone that has faith to give it up and argue with "facts" that are actually based on hearsay. The specific theories of what society was doing at that time thousands of years ago are sketchy.
You may want to wait for someone that is a historian if you want a challenge.

On "world wide hysteria" I discount that completely. If that happened people would use their power of disbelief. Some can even believe we did not land on the moon.

Never the less people would reinterpret and all would be fine.

There are more people than you may think that go to church and have their own theories of what god really is - some may even doubt but they do get the social benefits.

[River~]

Bob,

found it interesting to be able to discuss through the post my thoughts on this subject. I must also say that I tend to lean in favor of evolution as to how we got here.

as to religion, I never said there was not a religion(s) or religious people, for I at one time was a faithful believer in all that I read or that was read and explained to me when I was young. the older I became the more I wondered how all of this could be true? what facts were there to support this? I found it hard to believe that this religion as are most all religions, based on some mystical son of the almighty creator.

Now faith, that is something different.

One must have faith. A person should strive to insure a good life for him and those he is responsible for in a way that is conducive to the society he lives in. The accepted norm of this civilization. This person I feel would find that he is at peace with himself, pleased in knowing that he has done the best that he could do without violating any of the laws of nature, as well as those of the society he lives in.

If you don't have faith in yourself and in the society you live in, you will find yourself running afoul of the laws of man and nature. That "good vs bad" (angel vs devil) thought process that we all have from time to time, those inner thoughts where we "hear" ourselves rationalizing why we should do this, or say that.

If you have faith in yourself and live a life that is well balanced with basic human values that are accepted by society, you will not hear that "bad" voice too often, and maybe not at all.

To me this is my version of what the difference between heaven and hell is.

I only state my thoughts here because this is how I feel at this point in time. I hope that I have not offended anyone, that is not my intentions. Rather, only to give you a possible alternative way of thinking, or at least opening your eyes and ears, and your mind :)

River~

[mairving]

So, Bob, I am giving up all reason because of my faith. I really don't think so. I have studied quite a bit. I double majored in college in Organic Chemistry and math with a minor in History. It does take some faith for me to believe in Jesus but I really don't have to check my brain. In my previous post, I just wanted to make the point that I felt that a debate in this area would not benefit anyone. I can tell you that there have been several times in my life where my faith has supported me. My mother died of cancer when I was twenty. I was left with the responsibility of raising my brother and sister. My dad killed himself and his wife and my half-sister two years ago. It was not anything but faith that got me through that. I personally think that this world that we live in is only a "training ground" for our future. It was at times like that in my life that I have irrefutable proof (at least to me) of my faith. Just my 2&cent worth.

[bob]

river, I am a hard core agnostic. I understand and agree.

Marv, my post was to river and possibly you did not see rivers reply before you replied.

Marv, in no way was my intention to imply that faith and reason are exclusive.

[troysvihl]

>>DNA, genome research, Darwin, and even today the Discovery Channel, OPBS and several others support this theory evolution, why else would they run the types of documentarys they run?<<


Oh, it's beyond question that evolution exists. I know of two expriments that documented changes in physiology due to changes in environment. There is even a species of moth in England that has changed it's dominant coloring from dark to white back to dark again over the course of a few centuries. Evolution exists, there is no question about it.

I don't know why people automatically assume that they have to make a choice between creationism and evolution. They dont' have to be mutually exclusive. Did you ever stop to think that maybe God created life using the tools of evolution?

[River~]

sort of on subject, but in a different way....

Someone mentioned God, and that he might have played a part in the evolution process??? well, I can't agree with that because it goes against everything the bible(s) say, "that God created Adam, and then Eve" and no where does it say that this started from a single cell in some dank pond.

and another thing while I am on this particular subject that has always bothered me, and no one has ever been able to give me a answer that really makes any sense, and that is this:

after Adam and Eve had children, where did the next generation of children come from? It had to be incest, regardless of who the mother or father was? that goes against every conceiveable law of God and man.

You hear people on tv, after winning a baseball championship, or the superbowl talk about how God gave them this victory. I find it very hard to believe that God is a Yankee fan, and that he would spend his time cheering them on.

I saw a news program several weeks ago where they were talking about one of the airplane crashes off the California coast several years ago. how the families of the survivors went out on boats to lay flowers in the water, light candles and say their prayers to the deceased. One lady said that porpoises came and and swam and jumped out of the water alongside the boat they were on, and it was God telling them that their deceased loved ones were o.k. now.

I would think that if there was a God and if he was that powerful to make the porpoises give them that sign, that he is powerful enough to have stopped the damn plane from crashing in the first place. And besides, being an old Navy man I know that porpoises follow the boats because they stur up food for them, as well as porpoises being playful and like to swim with the boats/ships.

I also find it disturbing that if there is a God and he is all powerful, why in the world would he let saddistic rapists do what they do to our young children who are without sin?????

and the list of these unexplained just keeps growing.

So many unanswered questions?

River~

[troysvihl]

there is a lot of historical accuracy in the bible river, but not everything in it is true. the creation story in particular is more than likely just a myth. also, there is no possible way that the flood could ever have occured. (not enough water in the world)


>>after Adam and Eve had children, where did the next generation of children come from?<<

this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. By the time Adam and Eve had children, there were cities and communities already. The bible talks about how Cain went eastward after killing Abel and he settled in some villiage. So according to the bible, there was already a decent population of humans. The bible didn't say that the only people god made was Adam and Eve. In fact the only way that the Biblical book of Genesis could be right, is if God made many more people besides Adam and Eve. First off, you can't create a stable population with just two people. The inbreeding would cause the gene pool to be to narrow. Secondly, if Eve was the only woman that God created, then we would all have the same Mitocondrial DNA, since we would all have the same ancestrial grandmother. But as DNA tests have shown, we do not all share the same acestrial grandmother.


>>It had to be incest, regardless of who the mother or father was? that goes against every conceiveable law of God and man.<<

Why do you think that it goes against every conceivable law of God and man? Not that I'm defending incest in anyway, but I don't think there is anything in the bible saying incest is bad. There are a few bad guys that partake of incest and they get their just desserts in the end, but I don't think the bible comes right out and says it's a no-no. You are asuming our modern-day sociatle rules are the same ones that existed in the past.

[mairving]

Well a couple of replies to all this are in order.
<OL>
<li>River's comment about sporting events. I certainly agree that the winning teams have no right to claim God for their side. But to me it is perfectly acceptable to give praise to your Creator that you played well and that no one got hurt. I don't think God is partial to the Yankees although sometimes it appears that way.
<LI>As far as the incest issue and how could all be descended from Adam & Eve. There was no prohibition against brothers and sisters marrying until Levitical law. Abraham married his own half sister. If God made Adam and Eve in his own likeness, ie perfect then there would have been no degradation of the gene pool until after "the original sin" of Adam & Eve. This would match up with the biblical account of men living to be hundreds of years old.
<li>Jewish tradition says that Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters. More than enough to populate a whole town.
</OL>
One of the most basic flaws of evolution is that things go from a state of chaos to a state of order. This is really the opposite of the way things work. The second law of thermodynamics affirms this.

[troysvihl]

yes, but the original sin supposedly occured before adam and eve had any children, so there wouldn't be any "perfect" gene pool. It also doesn't explain why there were whole other communities for Cain to settle in.


Another point I didn't mention is that there are different races of humans, so god must have created others besides adam and eve

[River~]

yes, there were three races of what we shall call humans.

from Asia came the homoerectus.

from Europe came the neandrethal.

from Africa came the homesapien.

these three clashed, joined together and through breeding established the homosapien as the only race that survived.

have to remember that back then the world was more land mass and continents were connected so that the people roamed throughout the world. also remember that at that time much of the land was frozen tundra, especially all of Europe and North America.

short thoughts here, busy else where today....
River~

[bob]

The second law of thermodynamics affirms this?

What about the growth of crystals?
Then minerals. The creation of the elements in stars?

[drisley]

I think those are two different things. the physcial universe, without involvement from a consiciousness, does tend to fall apart, not come to order. Simply watch a house fall apart after years of no human upkeep. But, when you're dealing with thermodynamics, where you have small minute atoms and molecules, all racing at high speed, bumping to each other, etc, of course reactions take place.

But, this is where you get into the whole creation of the universe arguement, because I could argue that it DID take spiritual involvement (ie God) to create this universe in the present form so that these reactions take place.

Another thing, though, to think about with evolution theory is that there are huge gaps in the eras. Scientists love to draw pictures showing the progression of man's development from a monkey to man. But, in reality, there is no solid biological link between any of these species. The idea that these different creatures led up to mankind is a huge assumption. Their "stages" are separated by many thousands of years, and thats a lot of time to just assume is a link between different species.

[bob]

Think about this possibility.
Take chimp dna and if we had the technology rearrange its genes the same as human dna. Put in an egg and let it devolop. Would you get a human?

[troysvihl]

>>The second law of thermodynamics affirms this?

What about the growth of crystals?
Then minerals. The creation of the elements in stars?<<


The second law of thermodynamics is not violated by the growth of crystals. The organization of crystals comes at a price of more dissorder somewhere else in the universe, so that you get a net decrease in the order of the universe. The second law states that the dissorder (entropy) of the universe must allways increase, but that doesn't mean that you can get more order in a small area in exchange for less order elsewhere.

BTW, I believe only one element is created in stars. Stars have a fusion reaction, so hydrogen is created, but higher level elements are not created.




>>Another thing, though, to think about with evolution theory is that there are huge gaps in the eras. Scientists love to draw pictures showing the progression of man's development from a monkey to man. But, in reality, there is no solid biological link between any of these species. The idea that these different creatures led up to mankind is a huge assumption. Their "stages" are separated by many thousands of years, and thats a lot of time to just assume is a link between different species.<<


I'm acctually reading a book on this very subject at the moment. It's written by a biochemist that argues that evolution isn't possible, since there are just too many giant leaps to get from a single celled organism to a human. He differentiates evolution into two different types: micro and macro. Micro evolution is very real and has been documented enough times to prove it. It involves small changes, like the color of moths and the size of fish in an average population, etc. Macro evolution would be when a species all of a sudden develops an eye, or wings, or something else that's completely out of sync with the physical features. He argues that macroevolution can't occur, b/c the biochemistry involved is just too complex to develop randomly over such a relatively short time that the Earth has been here. (BTW, he also discount creationism, so he's not some religious nut that refuses to look at proven scientific discoveries.)




>>Take chimp dna and if we had the technology rearrange its genes the same as human dna. Put in an egg and let it devolop. Would you get a human?<<


Of course you'd get a human. If you didn't get a human, the rearrangement was messed up somewhere.

[bob]

Elements:

http://www.sdsc.edu/GatherScatter/GSwinter97/hauschildt.html


Second law....
http://www.cchem.berkeley.edu/~chem130a/sauer/outline/secondlaw.html

[troysvihl]

Whoops, mistakenly wrote hydrogen when I meant helium. That webpage on the supernovas contradicts everything I was ever taugh obout fusion. According to my physics classes, fusion is the process of two hyrogens combining to make a helium.

as for the web-page on entropy, boiling all the math down, it backs up what i said.

[drisley]

So, Troy, that scientist who wrote the book, he doesn't offer another theory?

I find it interesting that whenever science gets close to anything that only spiritual forces can explain, they go haywire. They just refuse to agree that it exists. They will also make up some physical way to explain it, no matter how stupid it might sound.

Its almost like science is like a religion in itself - the religion of materialism and aethieism. Just as a priest can explain things in religious terms, a "scientist" can explain things in "scientific" terms. This does not mean that science is all bad. Of course not, for science has propelled mankind to new heights. But, when it comes to certain areas, it falls short. And the theories they come up with are only results of their blind faith in the physical world and refusal to admit that anything non-physical could have anything to do with it.

[mairving]

Well in response to everything
<UL>
<LI>The 2nd law - according to this law, things go from a state of order to a state of disorder unless acted upon by some outside force. My room attests to this. It quickly goes to a state of disorder. Even without me in it. If left long enough, it would eventually become a pile of dust not a new house.
<LI>There are no missing links in evolution. Bob is the exception, possibly (just kidding, Bob, don't call me snark).
<LI>No mutations have ever been beneficial. Nor or they passed on from generation to generation.
<LI>One creationist theory holds that there was a water canopy covering the earth. This water canopy kept out destructive UV light. Who knows about that one.
<LI>After 'orginal sin' entered into the world, the degradation of the perfect gene was gradual.
<LI>Several evolutionists have begun to discount their own theory but they present no other theory.
</UL>
Check <a href="http://www.icr.org/" target="_blank" style="text-decoration:none"><font color="red"><b>this site</b></font></a> for more info.

[troysvihl]

>>So, Troy, that scientist who wrote the book, he doesn't offer another theory?<<

Not so far, and I don't think he will. (I'm not done with the book yet) At the start of the book, he just states the purpose of the book is to show the biochemical flaws in the theory of macro-evolution. Perhaps he will give some alternatives in the end, but I haven't gotten there yet.



>>This does not mean that science is all bad.<<


I've yet to come across any part of science is bad.

[drisley]

Well, Troy, you took that statement out of context majorly. I'm saying that when it comes to certain areas of science, there are many holes and that it is simply scientists' "faith" in the physical that leads to the conclusions. The theories regarding the beginning of life is one of many such examples.

[bob]

"things go from a state of order to a state of disorder unless acted upon by some outside force"

The sun supplies the outside energy. No sun no life. Geothermal would support some forms of life. Without technology almost no human life could survive.


The holes in science are really just a lack of understanding.


We can break up these many issues in this thread. Anyone disagree on a specific point start another thread. I may need to revisit the chimp/dna thought experiment.

[troysvihl]

after all these posts, I think we can all argree that the only true and correct religion is the Hari Krishna.

[River~]

the only true religion is "belief in self" nothing can dispute this, no other religion proves it's self beyond a shadow of doubt, yet I have no doubt as to who I am and the type of person I am.

this is based on my values, which in turn dictates my behavior. because of this I live each day with a smile and share this with those close to me, and that my dear friend is heavenly.

a person with no values, or diminished values is living their hell right here on earth.


ps..if you get a few spare hours or a day, see what you can find about "beliefs, attitudes, and behavior"..not sure but try search words such as "cognitive self change" or something similar. you might be surprised as to who you think you are, and who you really are.

River~

[M. A. Dockter]

I'm fairly certain the force acted upon to form crystals is the electric force. Electrons are either shared between positive nuclei or the overall electrical charge of the nuclei and their surrounding atoms hold them in place. This force is related to the weak nuclear force, which is related to the strong nuclear force, which is related to gravity, which falls under Einstein's Relativity laws, which governs that pretty much everything is relative.

That's why I have chosen to stay out of this one. You see it your way and I'll see it mine. You wanna argue with me, that's perfectly fine, but the minute you say one bad thing about me just because I think what I think or am who I am I get pissed :)


Men that say God told them what to write wrote the Jewish Bible

…and the Christian New Testament

…and the Muslim Qu'ran

…and any other book you wanna throw at me.

Arguing points between them, or of them is futile. The men that have translated them through history may have warped them. That’s the reason I believe in the person of my self. If I believe in myself, I can achieve godliness without ever leaving earth (in a “down to earth” sense).

[bob]

The universe exists…. It’s the self that is the illusion.

[M. A. Dockter]

If self is illusion than Jesus, and all the other great religious prophets were illusions as well, for I'm sure they had a sense of self just as any other man alive. I person that doesn't have a sense of self is everything but alive, for they are dead to the world.

[bob]

Bump for new members to see

[Pavelow]

I am one who subscribes to the theory of judgment.
That all of the bloodshed may exist for a purpose.
Look at the world and how the technology has been
used for its evil purposes, bringing us closer to a final judgement, as the soldiers of the world converge towards the final battle. Why is it wrong to pray in school if there is freedom of religion? Are they doing any one harm or infringing on others? Absolutely not!

[troysvihl]

Why is it wrong to pray in school if there is freedom of religion? Are they doing any one harm or infringing on others? Absolutely not!

It isn't wrong. Students can pray all they want. It's just that school officials can't lead the prayer or in any way make other students feel as if they have to participate.

[ultimatesoul]

drisley, wot you wrote was a belief of Hindus. Being a HIndu myself, I may be seen as biast, but I truly believe that a religion such as Hinduism is more correct than others. I think that this is so because of the morals and beliefs that go behind it, and the freedom of choice is present in Hinduism. I am sorry to offend anyone here, but although there may be God in his simple form and we choose to worship him in different forms, some ways sound more plausible than others. Mass conversion supposedly due to 'sacred texts' cannot be correct at all.
I am not trying to make propaganda out of this topic, but truly the most peaceful religions must be the most correct.

[bailey]

its all very interesting, in a way your all correct, its just a matter of how you interpret the things you read and how you understand what you read, think, and believe.

as I understand it all things were created spiritually first.

man is not able to understand God, nor able to know the things he knows, and does .

man must believe in something, and must have faith in the things he does not understand, but believes to be true.

faith is believing in something you cannot prove.

yes we are all spirits, but who or what created the spirits ?

I don't believe that there is any one correct religion on this earth.
is something that is in your heart, your thoughts and feelings to help you make the choice between good and evil in your life here on this earth.

and as long as we agree that we are a spirit living in the physical body, and it is the spirit that is as and part of the spirit of God, where all ok, and there is really no reason for debating this

[Kuch]

Holy necro-thread. Close this already.

[bob]

Holy necro-thread. Close this already.


You bumped the thread.

To bad (if you read it) you did not get it.

[Kuch]

You bumped the thread.

To bad (if you read it) you did not get it.
I didn't bump it, you retard. Go back to the weed bob. Maybe you should have read the date on the post above mine.

[David M]

Which religion is correct? Using basic reasoning, one religion or none of them is the correct answer.

[themistocles]

The fact that there are so many different beliefs and creeds is a persuasive evidence for arguing that religion is man made. After that, it's obvious that god is incapable of convincing everyone to agree on how to behave or think, so the strength of god is puny from a theistic standpoint. A deist simply has to fill the holes with laziness when no god is necessary to explain anything.

[bob]

I believe in one less god than other people. I don’t disbelieve yet the world would be as it is if there were no gods. (Or is it god’s)