3 Abrahamic Religions

[Brownman18]

[. . .] what do you guys think? where do you fall and why do you believe what you believe? [. . .]

I'm a devout Catholic - or at least I try to be devout, though I oftentimes fall short.

I don't believe one's search for God should resemble shopping for your next purchase. While possible conversion and discernment require a great deal of research, it does not make much sense to base one's choice of religion on one's likes or dislikes (e.g., "I don't have time to pray five times a day, so I have to rule out Islam," sort of thing). If you accept that religion is man's conformity to God's will, then choosing the "right" one rests clear outside our preferences. Instead, we have to discern our calling: Where is God calling you? This approach, I believe, acknowledges the primacy of God's will in your search, and places subservient to that, your will, which may not necessary like where it lands.

Inasmuch as many religions celebrate the same virtues and aspire towards similar ends, each is different from the next. Each contradicts another in some way. It should be clear that it would be unreasonable to believe that God has instructed us through more than one religion, foremost because religions conflict. One religion must be right, or all must be wrong. That's the necessary conclusion; the dogmatism of most religions do not allow for their relative/partial acceptance.

Discerning which religion we're called to should respect these two brute realities: we should follow God's will; and that someone's got it right, or no one has it. . .

Do you pray on the original sabbath saturday? or sunday the post Roman empire?

just curious and why?

also if you could point out the flaws in John's bible it'd be appreciated (i want someone religious to disect his arguments)

i dont mean any disrespect by the above q.

Video & see site for references:
http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

[judgeposer]

Do you pray on the original sabbath saturday? or sunday the post Roman empire?

just curious and why?

also if you could point out the flaws in John's bible it'd be appreciated (i want someone religious to disect his arguments)

i dont mean any disrespect by the above q.

Video & see site for references:
http://www.john1429.org/video/antichrist/Antichrist-128.html

Catholics, like most of the Christian world, celebrate their sabbath on Sunday, the first day of the week. We can trace this practice to the first Christians, even those receiving direct instructions from the Epistles: Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Colossians 2:16-17; and Revelation 1:10.

Of course, my citation to the Scriptural record belies the Catholic presumption that Scripture should not be a matter of "private" interpretation, something which the video clip you linked seemed to pay lip service to.

Moreover, many Church Fathers, those alive and preaching Christianity (and whose preachings and teachings concerning the first few centuries of Christian practice were recorded) during the first few centuries of the Christian Church's existence vindicate the practice of celebrating the sabbath on Sunday: Ignatius of Antioch (who distinguished between the prior-practiced "Sabbath" and the Lord's Day); and Justin Martyr (who specified Sunday as the Christian day for Communion). One initial Church council, Council of Laodicea (~360 AD), also declared that Christians should celebrate the Lord's day.

So, for the "Why Sunday?" answer - because that's what the first Christians did, and in part, because they respected the authority of Scripture and the Church's initial hierarchy of teachers, who taught this practice from the Church's inception.

I'm not sure what, if anything, the Roman Empire has to do with Christian worship, or specifically Catholic worship. We need to know too that until around 500 AD (the Great Schism) the Christian Church was united, and even remained largely intact until 1500 AD (the Reformation). The Roman Empire existed during Jesus' time. To be sure, it eve pre-existed the Incarnation of Jesus by nearly 30 years. Jesus' after all was a Roman fugitive and prisoner. So to say the Sabbath "post Roman Empire" is hard for me to understand.

I'm also not sure what you mean by John's Bible? - Revelations, perhaps? If so, then I don't have an answer for you. The Catholic Church has taught that that book of Scripture that it represents a story about Mary's escape from Jerusalem and eventual heavenly coronation - certainly not a prophesy of future import.

Oh...needn't worry about offense - none taken. Edited August 15, 2008 by judgeposer

[Giant Ninja Robot]

I'd just like to add though canon. you really didn't grasp True Christianity. most of the denominations you've listed are... in a nice way... out of reach from the true core of christianity.

"True" Christianity is boasted as such by every sect of Christianity out there in my experience, a major part of why I have been very turned off/away from my Christian roots. Sucks that a supposedly inclusive religion is the total opposite of such because of denomination and ignorance. This is coming from someone who was raised in a Synagogue, a Methodist church, then a few different non-denominational Christian churches and house churches that I was very heavily involved in so I'm not just blindly trying to offend, actually not trying to offend at all. So essentially you could call me bitter, sick of hypocrisy, and searching I guess, though I have had undeniably spiritual and supernatural (I believe) experiences that leave me without doubt that there is more out there, I just don't think I have the balls to claim I know what that is (yet at least). My roots are still Judeo-Christian but where on that map I fall I just don't know. I don't think I believe in Jesus as a deity anymore though, as I've recently discovered. Edited August 16, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[judgeposer]

"True" Christianity is boasted as such by every sect of Christianity out there in my experience, a major part of why I have been very turned off/away from my Christian roots. Sucks that a supposedly inclusive religion is the total opposite of such because of denomination and ignorance. This is coming from someone who was raised in a Synagogue, a Methodist church, then a few different non-denominational Christian churches and house churches that I was very heavily involved in so I'm not just blindly trying to offend, actually not trying to offend at all. So essentially you could call me bitter, sick of hypocrisy, and searching I guess, though I have had undeniably spiritual and supernatural (I believe) experiences that leave me without doubt that there is more out there, I just don't think I have the balls to claim I know what that is (yet at least). My roots are still Judeo-Christian but where on that map I fall I just don't know. I don't think I believe in Jesus as a deity anymore though, as I've recently discovered.

Interesting...

I should point out that the only Christian church to claim a divine foundation is the Catholic Church (there's also the Orthodox Church, but I will treat it as one for now). While all other Christian denominations might claim founding by Christ, each began at a time far removed from Christ's life/death. None claims to have an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles to present-day. Also, while each my claim to follow Christ's true word, none other than the two I mentioned claim that Christ, in a tangible sense, founded their denomination. Now, more than a curious historical point, that may not be worth much to anyone, but I thought I'd point it out.

Also, Giant. . . I can respect where you are in your religious "struggle," if you'll allow me to call it that. I experienced quite a struggly myself, and for years.

We need to watch for making the excuse about others' hypocricy - because what really does this have to do with what we believe. If we exacerbate or overapply hypocricy we run the risk of committing what's called the genetic fallacy - which says that we cannot confuse the message for the messenger. The 'argument' stands on its own; whoever delivers it, while possibly a hypocrite, can still offer a reasonable argument. Some of the best philosophic proofs for God's non-existence come from theistic philosophers. Surely this doesn't mean that their arguments are hollow. Likewise, a father who's done his share of drugs can most reasonably caution his children away from them - even if he's still an addict. I don't enjoy in the sins of others, but I have no worry or it causes no effect on my worship to sit beside a sinner, even if he doesn't admit his sin.

[clibinarius]

Actually, that's not true. Both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church claim to have the direct laying of the hands from the apostles. Its symbolic to everyone who witnesses it, obviously, but to the Catholic Churches its also literal.

"True" Christianity is boasted as such by every sect of Christianity out there in my experience, a major part of why I have been very turned off/away from my Christian roots. Sucks that a supposedly inclusive religion is the total opposite of such because of denomination and ignorance. This is coming from someone who was raised in a Synagogue, a Methodist church, then a few different non-denominational Christian churches and house churches that I was very heavily involved in so I'm not just blindly trying to offend, actually not trying to offend at all. So essentially you could call me bitter, sick of hypocrisy, and searching I guess, though I have had undeniably spiritual and supernatural (I believe) experiences that leave me without doubt that there is more out there, I just don't think I have the balls to claim I know what that is (yet at least). My roots are still Judeo-Christian but where on that map I fall I just don't know. I don't think I believe in Jesus as a deity anymore though, as I've recently discovered.

Interesting...

I should point out that the only Christian church to claim a divine foundation is the Catholic Church (there's also the Orthodox Church, but I will treat it as one for now). While all other Christian denominations might claim founding by Christ, each began at a time far removed from Christ's life/death. None claims to have an unbroken line of succession from the Apostles to present-day. Also, while each my claim to follow Christ's true word, none other than the two I mentioned claim that Christ, in a tangible sense, founded their denomination. Now, more than a curious historical point, that may not be worth much to anyone, but I thought I'd point it out.

Also, Giant. . . I can respect where you are in your religious "struggle," if you'll allow me to call it that. I experienced quite a struggly myself, and for years.

We need to watch for making the excuse about others' hypocricy - because what really does this have to do with what we believe. If we exacerbate or overapply hypocricy we run the risk of committing what's called the genetic fallacy - which says that we cannot confuse the message for the messenger. The 'argument' stands on its own; whoever delivers it, while possibly a hypocrite, can still offer a reasonable argument. Some of the best philosophic proofs for God's non-existence come from theistic philosophers. Surely this doesn't mean that their arguments are hollow. Likewise, a father who's done his share of drugs can most reasonably caution his children away from them - even if he's still an addict. I don't enjoy in the sins of others, but I have no worry or it causes no effect on my worship to sit beside a sinner, even if he doesn't admit his sin.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

I'm a firm believer that the representatives of a religion are an important thing to take into account when making the all important decision of how to live one's life, especially since human minds decipher what a religion/religeous text portrays. So I don't think it's too far of a stretch, or a copout, to take hypocrisy into account. I've lived deep in the "pat the person on the head and say, yeah but you can't make generalizations about Christianity by what Christians do" way of life and thought...and I'm glad I'm out of that mindset. I'm glad that I can now see people for who they are regardless of religion and not under the filter of "saved" or "sinner", as much as I thought I already was unbias. I pretty much still belive in God, but not the Christian church, if that's understandable. I've been through some serious shit in the churches I've been a part of and what I've come out seeing is that politics and hypocrisy and business trump the human experience and a relationship with God in every Church I've ever seen. From the strictly devout to the hippy hey lets have a drum circle smoke hookah and hug type. How many people claim to be Christians and then go home to forget all about the way they are supposedly following on their path in this life? How many get stuck believing that THEY are greater than others simply because the God they are supposed to represent is? How many actually treat eachother as family and lift eachother up on a regular basis, not just the "hey brother how are you this fine Sunday nice suitchya got there?" type of dealings? And when that is attained how many actually stick with you through the thick and thin and are prepared to deal with anything other than what they are tought by there Pastor i.e. real life shit?

I REALLY don't mean to offend or start anything nor claim that anyone here falls under the above statements, I'm just very angry and passionate about what I feel Christians SHOULD stand for as opposed to what they commonly do represent. So yeah, sick of hypocrisy, my own included. This thread IS also about what we personally believe right, not just how we feel about a certain religion? So if they tie together that's okay right?

Agnosticism is sounding really good right about now "ahh, ignorance is bliss"....*chewin the steak*

I feel the most connected to Christianity lets just say I far from believe everything in the Bible and don't naively take anything at face value anymore.

Searching, searching, searching....a transitionary phase is not less valuable than the point at which we reach our destination.


Honestly, it's all love people, just some unresolved anger mixed in there. Edited August 17, 2008 by giant ninja robot

[Scoop]

100% atheist here. i believe in the spirit of humanity...being good to people because its the right thing to do as a human, not because ive been told its the right thing to do.

[judgeposer]

100% atheist here. i believe in the spirit of humanity...being good to people because its the right thing to do as a human, not because ive been told its the right thing to do.

Nicely said. I think that any theist, as myself, should agree with you on the second part of your post that we should be moral simply because it is the right thing to do; choosing good, over evil, remains eminently rational.

[Brownman18]

100% atheist here. i believe in the spirit of humanity...being good to people because its the right thing to do as a human, not because ive been told its the right thing to do.

Nicely said. I think that any theist, as myself, should agree with you on the second part of your post that we should be moral simply because it is the right thing to do; choosing good, over evil, remains eminently rational.

You would then also tie into many religions seems like a good plan!

I also strongly believe that man was not intended to bend over and take it just because another man said that is the way it goes or you'll burn blah blah blah, often why i find myself very conflicted with many of todays clergy and financial elites

and that last statement applies to almost all religions as it seems everyone is a bit off lately... oh well more death and destruction to look forward too on monday.... wonder who the bad guys will be this time! Hopefully one of the prophets from any religions shows up so he can bitch slap those that are morally flawed even in the name of religion flawed is flawed

Edited September 7, 2008 by Brownman18

[judgeposer]

100% atheist here. i believe in the spirit of humanity...being good to people because its the right thing to do as a human, not because ive been told its the right thing to do.

Nicely said. I think that any theist, as myself, should agree with you on the second part of your post that we should be moral simply because it is the right thing to do; choosing good, over evil, remains eminently rational.

You would then also tie into many religions seems like a good plan!

I also strongly believe that man was not intended to bend over and take it just because another man said that is the way it goes or you'll burn blah blah blah, often why i find myself very conflicted with many of todays clergy and financial elites

and that last statement applies to almost all religions as it seems everyone is a bit off lately... oh well more death and destruction to look forward too on monday.... wonder who the bad guys will be this time!

What do you mean by "tie into many other religions"? - Catholics submit their consciences to instruction from their Church's teachings on morality. This stems foremost from the belief that Christ, God in human form, founded the Church, that Christ had promised to protect her, and that however the Church defines sin, He will so too. I don't know on what or how other Christians form their consciences, but for Catholics, in other words, conscience takes its guidance from Church teaching because we attribute supreme jurisdiction to them. We can always recognize similarity, and truthful teachings of other religions insofar as they resemble our Catholic ones, but our adherence to a moral code remains with whatever our Church defines. We can use our natural reason and practical judgment in discerning these teachings, but as fallen creatures, we possess damaged faculties that need to be repaired, retooled, and refined.

In the case of Catholics--and while this may not be a shared impression--that the Church says do X and not Y does not equate so simply in some man "tak[ing] it just because another man said that is the way it goes or you'll burn blah blah blah" because we believe our Church is of divine foundation. The lived reality may still be said to be some man, say some pontiff, saying to do X and not Y, but instruction contains more than a mere earthly component, for it contains a metaphysical one of divine inspiration and enforecement. So, to continue, a Catholic who disagrees with her Church's teachings on matter Z disagrees with much more than the specific teaching. She has a foundational misunderstanding of ecclesiology--the study of the Church proper--and how her conscience must submit to it because, while that teaching may disseminate from an earthly man, say a pontiff, that teaching on Z comes from a man who occupies an office that affords him the jurisdiction/power to make definitive teachings that God himself said he'd honor. I should add that the Church cannot teach on any subject, however, as that subject must have to deal with faith (as in the Church should be able to define for itself its own parameters) and morals (acts/behavior) - since those are the two components on which a person will be judged.

[Brownman18]

100% atheist here. i believe in the spirit of humanity...being good to people because its the right thing to do as a human, not because ive been told its the right thing to do.

Nicely said. I think that any theist, as myself, should agree with you on the second part of your post that we should be moral simply because it is the right thing to do; choosing good, over evil, remains eminently rational.

You would then also tie into many religions seems like a good plan!

I also strongly believe that man was not intended to bend over and take it just because another man said that is the way it goes or you'll burn blah blah blah, often why i find myself very conflicted with many of todays clergy and financial elites

and that last statement applies to almost all religions as it seems everyone is a bit off lately... oh well more death and destruction to look forward too on monday.... wonder who the bad guys will be this time!

What do you mean by "tie into many other religions"? - Catholics submit their consciences to instruction from their Church's teachings on morality. This stems foremost from the belief that Christ, God in human form, founded the Church, that Christ had promised to protect her, and that however the Church defines sin, He will so too. I don't know on what or how other Christians form their consciences, but for Catholics, in other words, conscience takes its guidance from Church teaching because we attribute supreme jurisdiction to them. We can always recognize similarity, and truthful teachings of other religions insofar as they resemble our Catholic ones, but our adherence to a moral code remains with whatever our Church defines. We can use our natural reason and practical judgment in discerning these teachings, but as fallen creatures, we possess damaged faculties that need to be repaired, retooled, and refined.

In the case of Catholics--and while this may not be a shared impression--that the Church says do X and not Y does not equate so simply in some man "tak[ing] it just because another man said that is the way it goes or you'll burn blah blah blah" because we believe our Church is of divine foundation. The lived reality may still be said to be some man, say some pontiff, saying to do X and not Y, but instruction contains more than a mere earthly component, for it contains a metaphysical one of divine inspiration and enforecement. So, to continue, a Catholic who disagrees with her Church's teachings on matter Z disagrees with much more than the specific teaching. She has a foundational misunderstanding of ecclesiology--the study of the Church proper--and how her conscience must submit to it because, while that teaching may disseminate from an earthly man, say a pontiff, that teaching on Z comes from a man who occupies an office that affords him the jurisdiction/power to make definitive teachings that God himself said he'd honor. I should add that the Church cannot teach on any subject, however, as that subject must have to deal with faith (as in the Church should be able to define for itself its own parameters) and morals (acts/behavior) - since those are the two components on which a person will be judged.

1) CHRIST WAS NOT GOD IN HUMAN FORM period, he was the son of god (kind of like every other HUMAN on this planet, praying to christ is fine and dandy, but one should also pray to HIS FATHER on a regular basis, and probably hold him in HIGHER reguard)
2) Look up the roman catholic church's actualy history, they by your own definition of christianity have a very very shitty moral code, i will include a visual for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71O8LzOWaWo

3) every single man on this planet and woman is born with a conscience

4) Christ opposed the christian church so by your own basis he was a sinner then because he went against the status quo and said pretty much "hey you assholes that is not the path to god he also had a great deal of divine intervention aiding him from his FATHER"

5) All the abrahmic religions are very similar, Muslims, Christians and Jews at their core of moral principles

6) All the hindu religions and buddhist religions along with many others such as mine Sikhism also have a conscience, they also have tales of Jesus Christ visiting them (google jesus in japan/india etc)

7) God by definition allowed all religions to exist, and they all have prophets for you to say Jesus was greater then mohammed or buddah would be flawed, also saying it in any other way with mohammed or buddah in front would also be flawed as they all had wonderful teachings and were deemed required (all 3 having had much divine intervention)

8) Women are actually meant to be fully equal to that of a man in all 3 abrahmic religions this however has never happened because of backwards social stigmatism which was always inforced into each culture many times aided by kings and clergy alike in order to maintain their positions and a certain status quo


9) My religions does not pray to brah it prays to brah's daddy which would be the omnipotent positive aspect of our spirtual awareness or the source of your conscience along with everybody elses (J/M/B/Hindu Deities/All other apostles and deciples who have had divine intervention)

i also didn't mean any disrespect and i didnt capitalize to convey yelling just to point out areas of interest in my writing which i was too lazy to put into bold due to having a hangover.

My main point i am trying to convey, more then likely by allowing all to exist if one were to take a bit from each they would be perfect in essence morally as they chose to learn from all of them rather then play the blame game and my prophet is bigger then your prophet.


Also a verbal situation which may enlighten many of you and it also conveys a great deal of common sense


If i were to die having had killed 7 men based on me believing that they were inferior and their religion was evil and mine said that i must get rid of them.

Now lets say hypothetically i enter the gates of heaven and get my judgement if i were to say that one of my prophets told me to do it, i probably would get a great deal of ass kicking from that prophet because no were in any scripture did they specifically say GO AND KILL THEM (them being the religion in question being attacked)

I also would expect to find myself much worse off then i was in this life because i clearly made a bad decision which i would then have to live with, that is the essence of reincarnation which is in many eastern religions (non abrahmic) i can clarify further if required, i also am not singling anyone out or attacking anyone just trying to get my point across with some very basic analogies


Edited September 7, 2008 by Brownman18

[TizaNabi]

We are Hasidim of the Chabad-Lubavitch group which is the largest Hasidic group . The main point of our belief is of course the literal written and oral Torah .In Torah G-D said when giving the Torah two words at the exact same time. "Guard" & "Remember". We are to Guard and follow all the laws and comandments and fulfill them, but also was said "Remember" which is the spiritual, mystical soulful understanding behind the law and doing it with joy

That's interesting, I've have encountered Baal Shem Tov's name few times when reading about Judaism. Are the Lubavich still in inner "crisis" about the messiah issue? I'm referring to Schneerson's status of course.

btw, hope you got my PM reply, it didn't show in my outbox so was little worried...

Hi,
Some were for awhile some not.

[aleemkahn]

Canon, all I gotta say is that if you're really curious about religion, its a good sign. Maybe you've got loads of questions about religion that you need answering. But normal people like me can't answer them like converts can. By converts, I mean people who have changed religion or even reverted back into what they once believed. You are more likely to get better answers from a person who has taken up a religion as they will have all those answers that you are looking for. I am muslim myself, and one thing I would like to state is that the US has the fastest growing muslim population in the world, so there are loads of people talk to. Being a Muslim, it is obligatory for me to point you in the right direction, so pm me if you want anymore advice. Peace p.s. I hope I havent offended anyone in my post. If i accidently have, Please PM me and I will take my reply off

[Brownman18]

Canon, all I gotta say is that if you're really curious about religion, its a good sign. Maybe you've got loads of questions about religion that you need answering. But normal people like me can't answer them like converts can. By converts, I mean people who have changed religion or even reverted back into what they once believed. You are more likely to get better answers from a person who has taken up a religion as they will have all those answers that you are looking for. I am muslim myself, and one thing I would like to state is that the US has the fastest growing muslim population in the world, so there are loads of people talk to. Being a Muslim, it is obligatory for me to point you in the right direction, so pm me if you want anymore advice. Peace p.s. I hope I havent offended anyone in my post. If i accidently have, Please PM me and I will take my reply off

And as a Sikh i would like to point out the following

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...04110430AAX5d3K



POint 1 they made this change after the first Sikh Guru snuck into mecca to make a pilgrimage and to point out how fucked up the Monarchs were because they horde all the wealth while many muslims are poor and will have their hands chopped off should they try to steal


The first Sikh Guru now is also mistakenly viewed by some muslims as a muslim diety which contradicts actual events.

Also Aleem Kahn maybe you should point out the racist names for a Bengali Muslim.. or for a Pakistani Muslim, or how about a black muslim ? well you get my point, quite the theocracy cooked right into each arabic region as well.. lol

Mohammed did cleanse it of idolatry though, its just such a shame that anyone could make the argument the way that money and wealth is displayed while people starve on the street is also a sense of idolatry except now their idol is their beloved dollars which helps them by the fancy lifestyles they find themselves so requiring.



Feel free to add anything to this, i don't mean to cause any offence just trying to point a counter - opinion from another point of view.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Brownman18

[aleemkahn]

First Of All, I would like to point out that True Jews and True Christians are not Idolators, as they worship one God and do not worship Idols. Idolators worship objects that are visible and that are tangible.
Secondly, I would like to point out that the person asking the question would like to 'bow to Mecca' in the place of the Great Prophet. So he/she obviously has great respect for the Prophet, so why does he/she not follow the Prophets religion? Also, the Sikh did not seak into Mecca, he was invited there.
Thirdly, Many sikhs follow the 'Panjtan'. The Panjtan are a group of people, who included the Holy Prophet (SAW) and 4 members of His household, his daughter, his son in law, and his two grandsons. I am pointing this out as I am aware that Sikhism has a bit of Islamic aspects embedded in it.
Fourthly, There are many hadith (quotations from the Prophet (SAW) that will tell you that a rich man will never enter Paradise and a poor man will enter the highest levels of Paradise. Rich people may not even be considered believers in most cases. Corruption and Poverty have existed over thousands of years, in every community, even Sikhism. And they will exist until the end of the world. Extreme Corruption and poverty are signs of Judgement day becoming nearer.
Fifthly, I don't even want to discuss racist names, as i'm sure that its a pointless and futile topic. They don't exist between believers. The first caller to prayer was called Hazrat Bilal (a great companion of the Holy Prophet), who was a black slave and who was bought by the Prophet to become a free man. So there is no racism in Islam, all believers are equal.
So theres my response, and all i wanted to post up on this topic was some help for Canon, not to point out bad things about someones religion. Thankyou. Edited September 8, 2008 by aleemkahn

[judgeposer]

I've interpolated my reply...

1) CHRIST WAS NOT GOD IN HUMAN FORM period, he was the son of god (kind of like every other HUMAN on this planet, praying to christ is fine and dandy, but one should also pray to HIS FATHER on a regular basis, and probably hold him in HIGHER reguard)

This is obviously an intractable debate then. Christians believe in a triune God, specifically in the Trinity, composed of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit/Ghost. This Trinity means that God is three persons of one being. Specifically, we call Christ's dual nature (Divine and Human natures) the hypostatic union. We refer to God taking human form in Christ as the Incarnation.

Since God is one being, a Christian cannot possible hold any one of the three "persons" higher than another. This is Christian theology 101.

2) Look up the roman catholic church's actualy history, they by your own definition of christianity have a very very shitty moral code, i will include a visual for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71O8LzOWaWo

Thanks for the visual, though I'm not sure what I'm supposed to take from it. If you wanted to posit Christianty's poor moral code, surely you could have done better than a video that features more than some guy whose uncle, who happens to be a priest, doesn't come over anymore because his nephew converted to Hinduism.

What do you mean by "your own definition of christianity [sic]"?

Also, don't confuse the behavior of Christians for Christian ethics/morals. All of the 9/11 hijackers were self-professed Muslims, but it doesn't follow necessarily that Islam encourages hijacking or suicide. Even if Islam did (which we know it really does not), we could not conclude that it did merely from the behavior of some self-professed Muslims.

3) every single man on this planet and woman is born with a conscience

Agreed.

4) Christ opposed the christian church so by your own basis he was a sinner then because he went against the status quo and said pretty much "hey you assholes that is not the path to god he also had a great deal of divine intervention aiding him from his FATHER"

What do you mean "opposed the christian church"?

5) All the abrahmic religions are very similar, Muslims, Christians and Jews at their core of moral principles

If by this statement you mean that the three Abrahamic religions have similar moral codes, then: Agreed.

6) All the hindu religions and buddhist religions along with many others such as mine Sikhism also have a conscience, they also have tales of Jesus Christ visiting them (google jesus in japan/india etc)

What? - Religions don't have consciences, people do. As for whether Christ visited places (not religions, per se) other an Palestine - perhaps.

7) God by definition allowed all religions to exist, and they all have prophets for you to say Jesus was greater then mohammed or buddah would be flawed, also saying it in any other way with mohammed or buddah in front would also be flawed as they all had wonderful teachings and were deemed required (all 3 having had much divine intervention)

I don't know what you mean by "God by definition allowed all religions to exist," though perhaps you mean to suggest that God allows numerous religions to exist? True, but from that does not follow that God approves or sanctions all (or any) of them. God allows evil to exist in this world, so Christians believe, but it does not follow from his tolerance of evil that he encourages its existence. That our world comprises a diversity of belief systems, some theistic, some not, does not mean that God, assuming He exists, welcomes or delights in that diversity.

8) Women are actually meant to be fully equal to that of a man in all 3 abrahmic religions this however has never happened because of backwards social stigmatism which was always inforced into each culture many times aided by kings and clergy alike in order to maintain their positions and a certain status quo

Hmm...human persons all possess inviolable dignity, yes. Does culture sometimes impede our fulfulment of recognizing that, yea, sometimes, sure.

[...]
My main point i am trying to convey, more then likely by allowing all to exist if one were to take a bit from each they would be perfect in essence morally as they chose to learn from all of them rather then play the blame game and my prophet is bigger then your prophet.

I understand the conclusion that you're trying to reach, but it unfortunately does not follow from your premises. I will save myself the trouble of outlining it syllogistically, but it simply does not follow that moral perfection can come by incorporating the moral codes of existing religions because God allows numerous religions to exist. More simply, we cannot say that because God allows numerous religions to exist that moral perfection can come by incorporating the moral codes of existing religions; it does not follow. First, God's mere allowence for something to exist does not mean anything sigificant for our purposes. God allows evil to exist - does that mean he approves of that evil? Second, even if we assume that God does approve of all existing religions, why does it follow that moral excellence requires the synthesis of the moral codes of those existing religions? Moreoever, how might we even attempt that synthesis? Who and what would determine a synthesis worthy portion of the moral code?

[TizaNabi]

I'm so glad that we all came to a concrete conclusion ??? There is a whole book written by Rabi Yehudah HaLevi born in the year 1075 and lived in Egypt and Spain. He was forced by the Moslem ruler to debate a Christian scholar,Moslem and Karaite. He wrote the results in Arabic which has been translated to Hebrew.True story.The results are not necessary to write here as it says in the Torah "Each person in his/her own belief will live".

[Brownman18]

First Of All, I would like to point out that True Jews and True Christians are not Idolators, as they worship one God and do not worship Idols. Idolators worship objects that are visible and that are tangible.
Secondly, I would like to point out that the person asking the question would like to 'bow to Mecca' in the place of the Great Prophet. So he/she obviously has great respect for the Prophet, so why does he/she not follow the Prophets religion? Also, the Sikh did not seak into Mecca, he was invited there.
Thirdly, Many sikhs follow the 'Panjtan'. The Panjtan are a group of people, who included the Holy Prophet (SAW) and 4 members of His household, his daughter, his son in law, and his two grandsons. I am pointing this out as I am aware that Sikhism has a bit of Islamic aspects embedded in it.
Fourthly, There are many hadith (quotations from the Prophet (SAW) that will tell you that a rich man will never enter Paradise and a poor man will enter the highest levels of Paradise. Rich people may not even be considered believers in most cases. Corruption and Poverty have existed over thousands of years, in every community, even Sikhism. And they will exist until the end of the world. Extreme Corruption and poverty are signs of Judgement day becoming nearer.
Fifthly, I don't even want to discuss racist names, as i'm sure that its a pointless and futile topic. They don't exist between believers. The first caller to prayer was called Hazrat Bilal (a great companion of the Holy Prophet), who was a black slave and who was bought by the Prophet to become a free man. So there is no racism in Islam, all believers are equal.
So theres my response, and all i wanted to post up on this topic was some help for Canon, not to point out bad things about someones religion. Thankyou.

TY for the history lesson.


My only point of confusion was that, that guru already had a name, so why was he renamed ?


And my point of view was that he was a Human Guru much like the others.

Also if you could answer the above it would be appreciated. as for the corruption thing well yea i agree with you on that one.



Edited September 8, 2008 by Brownman18

[Brownman18]

judge poser

I don't need to write a whole lot to debate what you said, my only point was that the common things between all those prophets/holymen/gurus whatever you wanna call them was that they were all in a sense humans, and all of them generally pushed for the well being of the common man in each respective region.


It also wasn't taking pot shots at christians moral code, as i was also looking for some answers, which didn't come from my own background because it was a different geographic religion.

And i just read your last paragraph so it has me perplexed, i'd prefer a systological answer but i don't think i will get one lol send it via U2U if you can.

I understand the conclusion that you're trying to reach, but it unfortunately does not follow from your premises.

I'll also agree with that 1, but unfortunately my premises or geographic region generally has not had someone with your moral ability to answer questions more clearly, but if you look back through my postings generally in each topic, i didn't really come up with bad solutions, good ones that work, and would work today but still can't. And in each of those posts i was looking out for everyone in my geographic region not just myself....... aka i hate seeing dumb asses being lead off a cliff.

Also i wrote it like that Judgeposer because when i have a tendancy to write it or say it the nice way in my geographic region i often get a very stupid response.

But when i write this way at least i get an honest response from each region or table.
Edited September 8, 2008 by Brownman18

[aleemkahn]

Ok, I do not know why he was renamed or what his name was or anything. All I know is that he was invited there, as he was a respected person.

[Brownman18]

Ok, I do not know why he was renamed or what his name was or anything. All I know is that he was invited there, as he was a respected person.

Renaming him has pros and cons from my point of view

pros
rebrands him as a muslim
hides a path by causing confusion through rebranding him


cons
well oddly enough they are the same.

[judgeposer]

[...]It also wasn't taking pot shots at christians moral code, as i was also looking for some answers, which didn't come from my own background because it was a different geographic religion.

No worries. If I can add context to that answer, we've been speaking about a "Christian moral code," or "Islamic moral code," which reflects perhaps the areas where faith intersect morality for religions, but morality or knowing what is right does not depend on a religious affiliation. I just wanted to clarify. I believe in Natural Law, a theory which posits the existence of law, whose content nature sets, which applies universally--to everyone, at every time. Some reduce this theory to say that a natural law is written on each person's heart (i.e., their "natural" conscience). I would only add that I also believe that our fallen natures create great difficulty in ascertaining the fullness of that natural law, which is why we must seek to instruct our consciences from some morally superior source.

And i just read your last paragraph so it has me perplexed, i'd prefer a systological answer but i don't think i will get one lol send it via U2U if you can.

I perhaps would if I knew what "systological" was.

What precisely perplexed you about my last paragraph? I'm apologize if this will sound pedantic or condescending, as that's not what I intend. Your argument, if I understood it correctly, went something like:

P.1 God allows numerous religions to exist
P.2 Religions have "moral codes"
C.1 Moral perfection comes from taking from the numerous religions' "moral codes"

I was simply saying that your argument doesn't make sense. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. In a deductive argument, one's conclusion must be inferred from one's premises. In other words, one's conclusion must be contained within one's premises.

From wiki:
Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

I was simply saying that your conclusion did not follow from your premises. What you offered as premises, even if assumed true, do not allow for the conclusion you made. It does not follow from God's allowance of numerous religions to exist that moral perfection (knowing what to do all of the time and doing it) can come from combining every religion's moral code. I offered as a refutation of your first premise that God allows a lot of things to happen - his allowance does not mean that he wants it to happen. So, just because we have numerous religions in the world does not mean God delights about that.

Also i wrote it like that Judgeposer because when i have a tendancy to write it or say it the nice way in my geographic region i often get a very stupid response.

But when i write this way at least i get an honest response from each region or table.

No worries. Edited September 8, 2008 by judgeposer

[Brownman18]

P.1 God allows numerous religions to exist
P.2 Religions have "moral codes"
C.1 Moral perfection comes from taking from the numerous religions' "moral codes"

C1. If Morally i have done good things thanks to having a good system in place i could go into any temple i choose and read any of the texts (maybe even copies rather then hiding them in cellars and only allowing the 'prestige d' in to read them), even if i read some bad things that some people had done at least i could learn from them and do only good things because i had a good conscience.


Now if religion X sends missionaries to regions all over the world and those missionaries are trying to do good things but are really actually hurting those they are trying to help, maybe they should just try to help them rather then tie that help into some form of "join our team" type of vibe which that visual was trying to point out, [b]i don't believe that you viewed it entirely. And i think we both aught to know by now that going around saying join our team isn't really what christianity was all about anyways, now was it ?

Also, don't confuse the behavior of Christians for Christian ethics/morals. All of the 9/11 hijackers were self-professed Muslims, but it doesn't follow necessarily that Islam encourages hijacking or suicide. Even if Islam did (which we know it really does not), we could not conclude that it did merely from the behavior of some self-professed Muslims.

Now lets take my C1 and draw a parallel to your quote from above.

I think those missionaries did some very bad things in the name of their religion which is causing alot of anger and confusion from their fellow man whom they have injured unnecessarily, i also think they are very poor at learning from history as, actions such as those ultimately lead to more death and destruction something none of the prophets wanted.. And there is alot of history to support my claims, too much of it in fact which is not very comforting considering everybody has kids and wants them to live in a better world do they not ? I don't think the above is spreading the message of Jesus, and i am perfectly right in that reguard. (this would apply naturally to all religions)



Perhaps ?

it seems to make common sense.....

Major premise: All humans are mortal.
Minor premise: Socrates is a human.
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

Yes but Socrates Soul was not mortal, neither is a humans. Edited September 8, 2008 by Brownman18

[Giant Ninja Robot]

I've come to determine - religion can be very good

Talking about religion can be mindnumbing and nervracking

[Johnny_D]

I've come to determine - religion can be very good

Talking about religion can be mindnumbing and nervracking

Agreed. It also apparently encourages people to use big word that require a dictionary... How curious

JD