What is the one true faith (or lack thereof)?

[mr_projects]

Faith is like eyewhitness testimony with no evidence whatsoever.

 

u put it wrong, faith is what makes us believe in something when there is no scientific evidence in that thing, like for example the creation of man, the universe ..etc (one way to look at faith)

 

most of the faiths that are listed in the poll have a base, and that could be a book, a way ..etc, regardless of thier validity

 

The one true faith is Islam, because its base is the most correct in my opinion

 

 

Seriously....not science

 

DrJägermeister mentioned the exact same thing, as if taken from the same source i suppose?, and i replied to him one month ago, u can check it here

 

Dude seriously, those phrases can mean anything

 

im not going to repost what i mentioned earlier, but here is the link,

 

do U think ALL of them are just coincedences ? do u think ALL of them meant something else ?

[gwprod12]

Perhaps a rephrase is in order: Your One True Faith is Islam.

 

EDIT: People can believe whatever they like. People's beliefs arent right or wrong, or less or more valid. People arent incorrect or correct to be Muslims. Or Satanists for that matter.

[killbot1000]

Good ol' weak atheism (I dont believe in god, but Im not stupid enough to say there IS NO god because I havent died yet, and I am not aware of anybody who has died and come back) has never steered me wrong

 

u put it wrong, faith is what makes us believe in something when there is no scientific evidence in that thing, like for example the creation of man, the universe ..etc (one way to look at faith)

 

 

Ok, well, I believe my analogy was "eyewhitness testimony with NO evidence whatsoever, the whitness just asks that you believe them"

 

That is an appropriate analogy I think.

 

Also, I have to agree with gwprod, its safe to say that ISLAM is YOUR true faith.

 

In my opinion faith gets in the way of us being human beings and actually crawling out of our hole. Morals NEED to change with the times, its just a fact of life. Im sorry that alot of people consider that "bad" but whatever. People need to change, we need to update our rulebook to something more current, instead of using a book thats 1700 years old, or 2000 years old, its just...stupid, in my opinion.

[mr_projects]

dudes chill out, people can believe in whatever they like

 

"in my opinion" should be at the beg, i rushed when i wrote that

 

REPHRASE: In my opinion the one true faith is Islam, because its base is the most correct to me

 

i hope that's clear now

 

 

 

Link to previous post

 

do you think ALL of them are just coincedences ? do you think ALL of them meant something else ?

 

i would like to know your opinions/thoughts

 

especially killbot1000 and gwprod12

[gwprod12]

coincidences? What do you mean?

[Mebster]

coincidences? What do you mean?

[keith]

I vote "Agnosticism" because no matter what a religion has to say its always too good to be true in my opinion.

[quixos]

if these religious books are the only source of a true faith, there isn't one.

 

a god who created the universe, with all its exacting complexity could surely inspire the writers of these holy books to higher level of communication.

 

a holy book authored by god would be as clear as the air he designed us to see through. no interpretations would be necessary, no confusion or doubt would be possible for any man or woman who was exposed to its word.

 

because a God had it be written, it would be perfect and awesome, and undeniable by anyone who read it. no muddy numerological puzzles, no conflicting chapters and verses, no confusing mixed moral imperatives or messages.

 

because a God had it be written, it would be a the model of clarity, logic and consistency, that all else would derive from.

 

either the holy books were authored by God for the enlightenment of men of all times and nations, or they were written by many men at many times, with the varied and usual intentions of men.

 

below are some quotes from the christian bible, the koran, and the torah that lead me to believe that men...

 

------------------------------------------------

 

2 Kings 2:23-24

 

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

 

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

 

------------------------------------------------

Deuteronomy 7:1-5

 

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girga{censored}es, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

 

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

Sura IX, 5-6

 

Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.

 

--------------------------------------------------

 

don't bother to bring up the "out of context" argument. it's just page after page

of the same. so it's the word of God, or man writing God in after the fact to justify all the slavery, casual murder, race hatred, incest and xenophobia.

 

in each of these books you also have the rare unsociopathic verse. there are also historical sagas, pretty explicit love poetry, stylish creation myths, and holiday menus. reasonable people have cherry-picked from these and downplayed the dross at the cost of their lives for centuries.

 

anyways, the whole inspired by God and full of miraculous insights thing just doesn't cut it. too much of the behavior in these books is criminal, if not insane. any science hidden so deeply in mysterious language it has to be interpreted, might not be coincidental, but definitely coincidently included. these books are badly edited, contradictions abound in all of them. just doesn't make sense. the creator of a seamless universe would have inspired a better product.

[gwprod12]

I agree 100%

[quixos]

just wanted to add something.

 

despite my skeptisism regarding holy books being the word of God, i don't hold those who do believe that they are, in contempt. i don't think faithful believers are unintelligent, or un-resourceful or fools.

 

most of the people following these religions believe they are religions of Peace and Inclusion. that is proof to me, that no matter what a particular Book says, people are intelligent and independant minded enough to ignore or interpret the bad into good,

and to have expanded the good, into the interfaith worldwide ideals of moral and social progress and respect, that despite our glorious leaders best efforts at maintaining their profitable divisions, and religious diversions, progresses and grows stronger every day.

 

so to all of you people who've quoted the good words from those books, and who live by them. good for you.

[gwprod12]

agreed. However: It's one thing to believe you're practicing peace and inclusion, it's quite another to actually behave in a peaceful and inclusive manner. Not to single out Islam, but it's the most recent example. Demonstrating the peacefulness of one's religion through violence is something most religious people seem to find no contradiction in.

[killbot1000]

Seems like peace for people who belong to that religion and nobody else, thats always the way Ive thought of it. I think thats why some people find no contradiction in that.

 

But to be fair, the majority of religious people arent fanatical and violent, only a small sliver that speaks much much louder than the majority. However it seems like the majority kind of goes along with it..I dunno hehe.

[Gatot]

if these religious books are the only source of a true faith, there isn't one.

........................................

don't bother to bring up the "out of context" argument. it's just page after page

of the same.

........................................

Well, sometimes it is necessary to really listen to others, not only residing on our presumptuous thought

.......................................

But to be fair, the majority of religious people arent fanatical and violent, only a small sliver that speaks much much louder than the majority. However it seems like the majority kind of goes along with it..I dunno hehe.

Thank you .. May I declare that I'm part of the majority?

(which may not be the "kind of goes along with it" thing)

but still I steal OSX

[Mebster]

all i have to day is that Jesus is the son of God and the Bible is the truth

I can argue against that from a hundred different ways but I don't have a lot of time so I’ll stick to three.

1. Contradictions, Contradictions, Contradictions.
   
2. Exactly which version of the bible are you referring to?
   
3. "Jesus is the son of God". You sure it's not God himself? Isn't that a Christian belief too? So which is it?
   

[wildcat69410]

t of time so I’ll stick to three.

 

1. Contradictions, Contradictions, Contradictions.

2. Exactly which version of the bible are you referring to?

3. "Jesus is the son of God". You sure it's not God himself? Isn't that a Christian belief too? So which is it?

 

I'm assuming for one, that he is referring to the standard NIV Bible, and not one specifically altered towards a specific denomination. The deal with your third point is very interesting indeed, especially when analyzed from a theological point of view, which I am again assuming you are. Basically, he declares himself as the Son of God, and is referred to as so throughout the Old Testament, and into the New. Jesus isn't a Son of God that will come to supplant himself as a New God, nor is he a second God. He is the Son of God.

 

In many ways, he carries the same characterisics of God himself, which can create some confusion. But throughout the Bible, he is generally referred to as the Son of God.

 

As for the contradictions, no offense, but the Qur'an has just as many if not more.

[Mebster]

I'm assuming for one, that he is referring to the standard NIV Bible, and not one specifically altered towards a specific denomination.

Just my point. Every bible is different. Some miss segments out completely simply because it doesn't suit their view or because something doesn't make enough sense for them to be able to explain it. For this reason there is no BIBLE. Just a large number of edited books which at one time possibly had a true source. I'm just going to wait for the ULTRA CONDENSED LIGHT EDITION. ONLY 10 PAGES. BUY NOW.

 

The deal with your third point is very interesting indeed, especially when analyzed from a theological point of view, which I am again assuming you are. Basically, he declares himself as the Son of God, and is referred to as so throughout the Old Testament, and into the New. Jesus isn't a Son of God that will come to supplant himself as a New God, nor is he a second God. He is the Son of God.

 

In many ways, he carries the same characterisics of God himself, which can create some confusion. But throughout the Bible, he is generally referred to as the Son of God.

Different passages of the bible state Jesus is God and others state he is son of God. This shows 1. to be true and at the same time makes a point of 3. There are endless passages which show contradictions on the Old and New Testament.

 

As for the contradictions, no offense, but the Qur'an has just as many if not more.

The Quran doesn't have contradictions as far as I know. It's basically a complex book and different situations require different solutions. The Quran mentions these solutions in different chapters and so makes it look like its contradicting. This then brings debate among the Muslims as to what is a general interpretation which can be a lengthy process and one the average person (myself included) is unable to always understand. That’s why when Muslims do not understand something they go to a more knowledgeable person in the Quran. Even at the time of the prophet people when to people to ask for assistance as to what something meant. And they knew. But generally most opinions are leaning towards one side and not in complete opposite. Like Muslim woman having to cover up. Different scholars will say as to how much is required in covering but the majority agree covering is required in Islam.

 

It's quite different from a verse let’s say where it says there were 100 men at so and so and in another chapter it says there were 50 men instead in the same location at the same time.

 

So please understand the difference between contradictions and different ways to do things in different situations as the Quran is full of them and doesn't explain all maybe clearly enough for me and you to understand. That's why Muslims need to educate themselves in the Quran.

[killbot1000]

Every religion has its obvious holes, the only reason why members of that religion dont see that is because whenever a logical fallacy opens up they make up an excuse to make it work, without actually rationally thinking it out. As for christianity's view on jesus, I always liked Arius's view (there was a god before jesus, therefore jesus is subbordinate to god and not just god in a different incantation) his view, which made more logical sense than the holy trinity {censored} was seen as heresy after it was voted on...I just find it funny.

 

Also, most christians seem to forget that there were hundreds of different forms of christianity before it was made the legal religion of rome, and when it finally was, rome abolished all the forms that it didnt like, and eventually there was only one form.

 

I think of all religion like this...yknow how when you hear that somebody is mormon, and you think its just kind of made up and kinda {censored} (joseph smith, golden plates, jews in north america). Well, im sure that for a hundred years or so after christianity popped up, thats how the romans saw christians, in that same wierd light that most people look at mormons today. Islam is no acception, any religion that tries to predict what happens after you die is pretty much just feeding you a sack of lies, because honestly, nobody has died and come back, not you, not me, and certainly not jesus.

 

There are so many historical contradictions in the bible its not even funny. Also, there are the gnostic gospels (the ones that didnt make it into the bible), which I found throughoughly interesting, because they seems more metaphoracle instead of literal, which just gets me going . Like for example, in one of those gospels (forget which one, think its thomas) Somebody asks jesus "where is heaven" and jesus says "Heaven is right here on earth you just have to see it" (or something to that effect). Now this is an interesting view on heaven mostly because it kind of has buddhist overtones and brings out a new side to christianity ive never thought of before, kinda cool. anyway....if it works for you, use it, but dont for a minute think that youre being rational, because youre not, and you dont have to be, thats what faith is all about right? Believing something even if its completely false.

[gwprod12]

In Matthew (26:64), Jesus says:

 

Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven

 

In Matthew, Jesus never calls himself the Son of God.

 

Most non-muslims consider the Qur'an a big sack of horse puckey. Just as most non-christians consider the new testament to be a big sack of horse puckey. For the same reason, most Muslims see the Qur'an as being the only thing in the corporeal world that is perfect, and without flaw. Same goes for the Christians and the Bible.

 

If you want to believe that, be my guest. Rationalize away.

 

[wildcat69410]

In Matthew (26:64), Jesus says:

 

Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven

 

In Matthew, Jesus never calls himself the Son of God.

 

He doesn't refer to himself directly as the Son of God, but that term is used in association with him 47 times in the New Testament Alone. John 3:16, one of the most famous Bible Verses, is where Jesus says in reference to himself, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Later in John, Chapter 19 Verse 7, where Jesus is brought before Pilate, the Jews said, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

 

The Bible does refer to him as the Son of God, multiple times.

[killbot1000]

A testament written 50 years after jesus's death hardly qualifies as proof

[wildcat69410]

A testament written 50 years after jesus's death hardly qualifies as proof

 

Wouldn't you remember if the freaking Son of God talked to you? Hell, there are people today who remember everything they did the day of Pearl Harbor.

[killbot1000]

uh...right, but people didnt live to be 80 in the year 76 AD or so. They were lucky to live to the age of 40, and if there was anybody alive when the testaments were written from jesus's time then they would have been an infant when jesus was "doing his thing". Also, I like how you referred to him as the son of god, as if it was completely natural to all the people of the time to call him the son of god. But really there are no records of jesus besides the new testament, he actually wasnt very important for the time at all. In fact I throw the new testament into question because it says jesus was buried in a tomb, but jesus being as poor as he was would have actually been buried in a mass grave, by the romans, end of story. Christianity was more or less seen as a cult until constantine made christianity an accepted religion of the empire. Most people in the early days of christianity saw it as a strange, unknown religion, the legend had to be made up in order to make the story more exciting, if one looks back at the mythological themes in the bible, those themes have been used over and over again in middle eastern history, the virgin birth, the battle of good and evil, etc.

 

Im sorry, but the more I learn of history, the harder it is for me to swallow this stuff...because...alot of it is made up as far as I can tell, which to me makes it no more valuable than somebody just spouting off their views, it therefore has no universal grounds on which to implement policy.

[gwprod12]

A point.

 

Josephus records the crucifixion. While it is true that he was not there, and gave the crucifixion of Jesus less importance than the campaign against Masada, he nevertheless wrote it down.

 

In Antiquities, Josephus wrote:

 

 

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.

 

Also. While it is true that the average lifespan of a first century judean would be around 40, people did (rarely) live quite a bit longer. Lifespan has more to do with mischance than with an inherent frailty in the human form. Two thousand years ago, there were more things that were likely to off you, such as disease, bad water, snakes, venomous insects, etc.

 

So, it's possible that the first scripture was written by someone who was actually there. Though I seriously doubt that. Anyone could have written any of the scriptures. There's no way of knowing.

[Mebster]

So much to write but so little time.

 

Actually I need to go bed.

[wildcat69410]

uh...right, but people didnt live to be 80 in the year 76 AD or so. They were lucky to live to the age of 40, and if there was anybody alive when the testaments were written from jesus's time then they would have been an infant when jesus was "doing his thing". Also, I like how you referred to him as the son of god, as if it was completely natural to all the people of the time to call him the son of god. But really there are no records of jesus besides the new testament, he actually wasnt very important for the time at all.

 

There are historical records of Jesus, mentioning at times his works and deeds, but to say that he wasn't important isn't true. At the very least, whether considered the Son of God or not, he was considered to be a prophet to both Jews and Gentiles. As Great Prophets come along fairly rarely, one would again remember the conversations with the prophets.

 

Even with the age difference considered, there's nothing to say that these stories weren't passed along anyway. Unlike today, the primary mode of communication and record keeping temporarily dealt by word of mouth. There were trained people then who could remember great details of things, and to simply assume that the entire New Testament is skewed simply because it wasn't written while it was happening isn't smart.

 

It was fairly natural for people to refer to him as the Son of God. Remember, that's what he was crucified for, so it wasn't like it was an unheard of accusation.

 

n fact I throw the new testament into question because it says jesus was buried in a tomb, but jesus being as poor as he was would have actually been buried in a mass grave, by the romans, end of story.

 

Usually, that would indeed be the case. However, I believe the Bible says that Jewish Leaders talked to Pilate, and requested that Jesus be buried in a Tomb with Guards to prevent Jesus's disciples from stealing his body and creating a fake resurection. Pilate complied, and therefore he was buried in a Tomb. He was resurected anyway. End of story.

 

Christianity was more or less seen as a cult until constantine made christianity an accepted religion of the empire. Most people in the early days of christianity saw it as a strange, unknown religion, the legend had to be made up in order to make the story more exciting, if one looks back at the mythological themes in the bible, those themes have been used over and over again in middle eastern history, the virgin birth, the battle of good and evil, etc.

 

To say that Christianity was strange and unknown isn't true. Christianity is based primarily upon the Old Jewish Testament, and therefore a large majority of it would be recognizable to any Jew who saw it. No legend was made up to make Christianity more "interesting". Sure, similar concepts can be noticed through religions, but that doesn't make them all mythological lore.

 

Im sorry, but the more I learn of history, the harder it is for me to swallow this stuff...because...alot of it is made up as far as I can tell, which to me makes it no more valuable than somebody just spouting off their views, it therefore has no universal grounds on which to implement policy.

 

First off, good luck implementing policy on any Religion. Religion wasn't made, and isn't followed due to its uncanny ablity to draw and implement policy from it. The farther back you go in time, the harder it is to justify something as proof. The more and more word of mouth is used as communication, the more difficult it is to measure proof of a statement. However, there are many facts that even historians have admitted to a degree.

 

Obviously Jesus of Nazareth existed, and there are historical records of him performing great deeds. His crucifiction is recorded, as well as a few small records of his resurrection (as a claim). What part of history, may I ask, directly contradicts the New Testament?