The Neverending Thread (was SATAN DECEIVES YOU)

[Beth]

Hey Timeless!

Thanks for your kind words.[]

It is my hope that things will calm down eventually.  We will see how it goes!![]

Beth

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by timeless

He will mow all down in his path

pfft, hardly, I haven't seen Ben come up with one solid response to the many many of his posts that I've delightfully refuted. He really is quite fun to observe and respond to though.

[timeless]

Dear Beth,

When we stand as stone someone can feel like they are chipping away at us.  When we become like wind they can take swings but eventually realize they cannot defeat something that gives no resistance.  

Often people who feel the need to convert, change or control others are people who are out of control inside.  When they find an anchor they feel everyone must have 'this anchor'.  They also feel that by controlling others and all that is external to them they will somehow calm what is inside.  This almost never happens and they become locked in endless wars, real or imaginary, all outside.  Perhaps so they never have to look where they do not want to look, inside.  


Dear Tab,

In a place of no sight or sound we mow down what we think we mow down.

Regards,
timeless

[Makaveli]

All of this fanatical preaching from Narrow Path just seems like he is reverting to this in order to "explain away" a scary experience.  This is just like what I saw in a critique of Susan Blackmores book, it was mentioned that her trying to debunk the afterlife and soul from near death experiences was probably just her way of explaining away a scary drug induced OBE but with Narrow Path instead of becoming a fanatical materialist he starts this fanatical bible thumping.  

With his large ego he also seems incapable of any kind of intelligent debate and only uses negativity, fear, and demonizing outside views to try and force his beliefs on others.  I also have yet to see Narrow Path come up with one half-way decent responce to the many thourough rebuttles to his statements which takes away from the point of debate and discussion there is just no reasoning with this type of person.  It's funny how he almost never responds to any questions or points put to him yet he still asks all kinds of questions which are just setups for more preaching.

[Mustardseed]

(First You said)
Besides, written "History" is NEVER the WHOLE TRUTH. "History" is always decided upon by the one that is speaking/writing at the time.

(now you say)
What I offer  ........is the history of the Christian religion.

Forgive me if am confused. I do find it problematic that you play both sides so to speak. However seeing the way the thread is going and seeing you seemingly will not adress my points .....I can do nothing, but wait and see.

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed:

This IS the history of the Church, because this is the history that the founders of the Church WROTE, and the history that the Church PRESERVED.  I am sure there are many different "histories" that went on during this time.  But, this is the history as recorded by Christianity.

I am not playing both sides of anything.  The "histories" that I am sharing here I learned about through studying Christianity.  There is a GREAT deal that the church does not teach in Sunday School, or Sunday Worship Services.

Check out the website of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

www.newadvent.org/

This is the history of the Catholic Church.  The search engine is great, and the site contains A TON of information -- put in keywords, Constantine, the Council of Nicaea, Augustine, etc.  See what you come up with.

Also, put in keyword: Hades, Sheol, aeons, etc.  I have not studied these things specifically, and I have been a bit behind catching up on other questions.  I am trying to help everyone here, but when a few compromise my time, it is very easy to get behind.

I am researching a lot of this as the questions are posted.  You can help me if you like, by looking into this yourself, and then if you have any specific things that confuse you further, then I will be glad to help if I can.

[Mustardseed]

Point taken. So the history you qoute is Christianity's view, possibly flawed and not absolute becaurse of the human factor. If that is the case then might it not be a possibility as well that the documents they used to translate the Bible could be copies of other documents that were real accounts of real happenings? This seems to be a matter of belief since there is no hard fact on either side and historical evidense is flawed.
Thanks for the link I will see what I come up with.
Regards Mustardseed

[exothen]

Beth,

quote:Narrowpath, I believe that God can do what ever God wants to do. And if God is in charge of all things, then God is in charge of all things--if God created all things, then God created all things--including the Gnostics, the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Wiccans, etc., etc

This isn't true.  As I stated previously in this thread, all major religions are fundamentally different to a point at which they cannot be reconciled or considered on even ground, that is, they cannot all be paths to God, it is impossible.   God did not create all religions, this is a logical impossiblity based on my previous statement.  What God did was create the possiblity for man to create these religions, it is a logical result of free will.

As an example, did God create darkness?  Not really.  He created light and darkness is the absence of light.  Did God create evil?  No, it is the absence of good.

God created the people who believe in all religions, but he certainly didn't create all religions.

[Mustardseed]

Good point Ex. I might add that the only thing God is not in control of is MAN. Free will is the "red thread" through out at least Christian belief. We are in charge of us. I used to say to my kids when they had gripes about the way others had treated them unfairly. That is their choice you can do nothing about that you are only in control of how you react towards them.
PS our preachings sure have a way of coming back and bite us in the butt dont they[]

[Beth]

exothen,

quote:This isn't true. As I stated previously in this thread, all major religions are fundamentally different to a point at which they cannot be reconciled or considered on even ground, that is, they cannot all be paths to God, it is impossible. God did not create all religions, this is a logical impossiblity based on my previous statement.

This is a logic problem exothen--and you have arrived at a conclusion based upon conjectural premises--not truth.  

I will try to explain how this works:

You have started out with an apparently true statement

1) "all major religions are fundamentally different"

You then followed that with two conjectural (your opinion) premises:

2) "they cannot be reconciled or considered on even ground" (not necessarily...)
3) "they cannot all be paths to God, it is impossible" (your conjecture/opinion)

ERGO, "God did not create all religions."  This is a conclusion based "solely" on all three of your premises, but especially the third being assumed as Truth. In other words, you can perhaps make the first claim, but not the second and especially not the third.

I could just as easily come up with a totally different conclusion using the first two of your premises as you state them, and only slightly changing the third:

1) "all major religions are fundamentally different"
2)  they cannot be reconciled or considered on even ground" (not necessarily...)
3) it is possible that all paths lead to God. (My conjecture)

then it LOGICALLY follows that: God must have created all religions.

Do you understand the error of your logical premises??  The same formula can be "plugged in" with any data and it seems to be a correct conclusion, but it is the premises that need to be examined much more closely. Even your first premise is only "apparent" and not necessarily true, as is the second, but the third one is obviously conjecture.

So, to find the conclusion that you seek, the premise "can all paths lead to God?" must now be the starting premise of a new logical problem. If that problem can be solved, then you may have your answer validated.  But first--you must show where your third premise is TRUE.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth
This is where you loose me. Lets start with the first all religions are different.

Well are they not?. Are 2 religions not different if one states .There is only one way to God, and the other say there are many ways to God.

In a way I am a bit embarressed to admit my mind often overloads when I read your posts(this is my problem not yours[]) I take it that you do understand yourself. I also cannot follow Einstein or any other great thinkers, so I have to have everything on the bottomshelf.

How about this

Question : Can all forms of beliefs be pleasing to God

1.If all forms of worship are pleasing to God then God has no specific standard relating to the way he is worshipped.

2.Any Religion that states that God accepts certain forms of worship and rejects others is either a lie or the truth


3.If it is the the truth the first statement  must be a lie, and the new statement will be

4.the notion that all forms of beliefs are pleasing to God is a lie.

So all we need is a religion that states that its particular form of worship is the only way to God.

Regards Mustardseed

[exothen]

Beth,

What you consider to be my third premise, I consider to be the logical conclusion.  I suppose my post wasn't exactly clear.  I basically equate "God did not make all religions" with "all paths cannot/do not lead to God."  Really, what you have labelled my 2nd and 3rd premises, are not really premises but conclusions that do follow from the 1st premise that "all religions are fundamentally different."

Before we get too far, I would like to change the argument and perhaps make things more clear:

P1) All religions are fundamentally contradictory to each other.
P2) God is a rational Being.
P3) Contradictory beliefs cannot all be true.
Therefore,
C1) God did not create all religions.

Seems too simple somehow and I am sure I am overlooking something or other, but I haven't taken a philosophy course as of yet.  So, following this through, we can also conclude that all paths do not, and cannot, lead to God since they are contradictory.

How's that?

[Makaveli]

Does anyone really believe that all religions are true?  It is better to say that all religions have some truth in them but even if it's only hints of it but not the whole thing and they are different paths to God all leading to the same place.  It's obvious that if they were to all be considered true then that would just be one huge contradiction.  Even if there was one right religion who is someone to say that it's thiers with all the different beliefs out there where people feel just as strongly about thier personal views?

[exothen]

Makaveli,

I believe there is only one religion that is true and that God has revealed himself through the teachings and literature of this religion.  If you want, we can get into the nature of God and why such a being would be sure to reveal himself to his creation.  We (meaning Beth;))could also post on what exactly are the fundamentals of each major religion and then see which is the most logically and existentially coherent option of the bunch.  But this may get us off topic, even though I'm not too sure if there is any one topic in here anymore.

Having said that, I do believe that all other religions may have truth in them, but this does not make them the one true religion, nor does it mean that their beliefs will lead to God.  Some options to be considered are the nature of "God," man's purpose and relation to this "God," and what, if indeed anything, is necessary for salvation and what this process entails.

[Makaveli]

exothen,

I would like to get into the nature of God but I don't think that there is one right religion.  If there was why are so many claiming to be "the right way"?  There is no way to objectively come to a conclusion on this because religions go by faith and belief which is fallible and all comes down to personal opinion.  If there was one religion that got people into heaven I don't think that is a characteristic of a fair and loving God because religion seems to be a product of environment.  If your raised in a Christian family you are most likely going to be a Christian and in a Buddhist family your probably going to grow up as a Buddhist.  If there is one right religion then it's just a gamble because with all the belief systems out there people of each faith can feel just as strongly about their faith as people of other beliefs do so it can't be decided that way.

[exothen]

makaveli,

quote:There is no way to objectively come to a conclusion on this because religions go by faith and belief which is fallible and all comes down to personal opinion.

This is why I proposed using logic and reasoning.  There are some things in some religions that are contradictory.  Some religions are not at all logically coherent and should therefore be discarded.  Religion should engage and satisfy the mind as well as the heart.

quote:If your raised in a Christian family you are most likely going to be a Christian and in a Buddhist family your probably going to grow up as a Buddhist.

That may appear to be true, but isn't necessarily.  People all around the world, especially in these times, are being exposed to all sorts of different religions and choose to change.  I would be interested to see in here just how many people abandoned the religion they grew up with.

quote:If there is one right religion then it's just a gamble because with all the belief systems out there people of each faith can feel just as strongly about their faith as people of other beliefs do so it can't be decided that way.

But it isn't really a gamble and this would come out through rationally thinking about a supreme Being's nature?  What aspects best describe a "supreme Being?"  Omniscience?  Omnipotence?  Omnipresence?  Etc.  Then one could compare religions and see which best fits this idea of a supreme Being.

For me, I would rather believe some religion than none; a kind of Pascal's Wager.  But, as new religious ideas come across my path, I evaluate them and check them against what I believe to be true.  If it is a less rational belief, out the window it goes.  If it is a more rational belief...well, I honestly have not found a more rational belief yet, but I am open to it.

We have to remember that truth is absolute and as such, I believe that there is religious belief that is absolute.  From that anchor, one is free to compare beliefs and change them when necessary.  Other than that, one just floats around not knowing what to believe, and that is the real gamble.

[Makaveli]

exothen,

quote:This is why I proposed using logic and reasoning.  There are some things in some religions that are contradictory.  Some religions are not at all logically coherent and should therefore be discarded.  Religion should engage and satisfy the mind as well as the heart.

I agree that religion should be looked at with logic and reasoning but even that can come down to opinion.  You could probably find contradictions and inconsistencies in all religions.  If we are talking about Christianity here or at least Allanon's views I find many inconsistencies and areas that just don't seem logical.  I could go into more detail about these but to me these are some of the things that don't make any logical sense like hell for eternity, Satan, original sin, literal interpretation of the bible, infalible bible, one true religion, babtism, worship, and jealous & vengefull & violent God just to name a few areas.  

Brue Moen makes some good points about Christianity here: http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/chris.html

This is a good chapter about religion from Robert Peterson:
http://www.robertpeterson.org/chap04.html

quote:That may appear to be true, but isn't necessarily.  People all around the world, especially in these times, are being exposed to all sorts of different religions and choose to change.  I would be interested to see in here just how many people abandoned the religion they grew up with.

It certainly does not apply to all situations and there are many exeptions.  If you grew happened to grow up in a Muslim area you will most likely be Muslim and if not most of the people around you will be.  If it happened that the Mormons were the only ones who get into heaven would that be fair given the situation?  

quote:But it isn't really a gamble and this would come out through rationally thinking about a supreme Being's nature?  What aspects best describe a "supreme Being?"  Omniscience?  Omnipotence?  Omnipresence?  Etc.  Then one could compare religions and see which best fits this idea of a supreme Being.

Just applying rational thinking won't lead to one religion and there are so many groups who are convinced that they have it figured out and that won't change if you ask them to think logically because with people of any religion who have deep belief it all seems to make sense to them.  Exactly what religion does rational thinking lead to?    

quote:For me, I would rather believe some religion than none; a kind of Pascal's Wager.  But, as new religious ideas come across my path, I evaluate them and check them against what I believe to be true.  If it is a less rational belief, out the window it goes.  If it is a more rational belief...well, I honestly have not found a more rational belief yet, but I am open to it.

There is nothing wrong with that I would rather be open-minded to other possibilities and take parts of different religions that I agree with because I don't see one as being the way.  Religion is man made so it's not something I would get dogmatic about since there is no way of comprehending the whole truth at our level.  

quote:We have to remember that truth is absolute and as such, I believe that there is religious belief that is absolute.  From that anchor, one is free to compare beliefs and change them when necessary.  Other than that, one just floats around not knowing what to believe, and that is the real gamble.

Religion is from man so I doubt any religion could contain the truth but probably parts of it.  We should get more into logically analyzing areas of a particular religion but if someone is so certain about what the truth is then it's just belief.

[shadowdancer]

Namaste,
    OH MY GOD OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!!!  HELLLLLOOOOOO!!!! OUT THERE!!!!!  HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE CONCEPT OF THE PARADOX???  THIS IS WHEN TWO CONTRADICTORY THINGS ARE, I REPEAT, ARE TRUE.  THIS IS THE NATURE OF NATURE.  NETI, NETI......GET IT!!!  GOD IS ALL AND NOTHING.  YOU AND NOT YOU.  INSIDE YOU AND OUTSIDE YOU.  CHRISTIANITY IS THE, YES THE ONLY WAY TO GOD!!!  AND SO IS FRIGGIN CONTEMPLATING YOUR DAMN NAVEL!!  GOD IS NOT LOGICAL.  LOGIC IS ONLY A TOOL OF THE MIND.  TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND GOD, PUT GOD, THIS "THING" THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS OR TRUELY UNDERSTANDS...IS [word edited out by moderator] ARROGANT.  DIDN'T SOMEONE GET KICKED OUT OF THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VERSION OF "HEAVEN" FOR THAT VERY SIN?  i sincerely apologize for the ridiculous flaming....[xx(]

[shadowdancer]

i was a bit flustered....my sincerity carried me away and my previous post should read, and i quote, Chapter 1 Verse 7: "TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN PUT GOD, THIS "THING" THAT NOBODY KNOWS OR TRUELY UNDERSTANDS, IN A BOX, LABEL IT AND BUILD UP A RIDICULOUS FRAMEWORK OF RITUAL, MAGICK, PIETY AND WHATEVER OTHER JUNK AROUND AND ON TOP OF IT, AND THEN CLAIM NOBODY ELSE WILL FIND IT UNLESS THE DIG THROUGH YOU OWN SPECIAL S**T PILE...IS.."  thanks again for bearing with the whole flaming thing, i just felt the Holy Ghost, Batman!  HEEHEE i am having a difficult time stopping this barrage of sarcasm aimed at the judeo-christian dogma and religion in general....bye

[Makaveli]

Logical thinking is a good way of evaluating beliefs but you won't find the truth through it.  I completely agree with this quote:

"Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world. All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it." (Albert Einstein)

[Tab]

Christians using logic, that's great.
It would take innumerable amounts of time to go through all the inherent and obvious contradictions and logical flaws with Christian dogma.
First of all, God cannot possibly be omnipotent, all powerful, and still give us free will. That is, if you assume as the Christians do, that god is a seperate being from yourself. Our having free will takes power from God and gives it to us. You cannot believe in both the omipotence and perfection of God while still believing in free will of humans.
I'll take the time to point out another large and very logically obvious problem with God. Let's assume he is, indeed, a rational being. This rational being makes life and the afterlife meaningless. He does not support progress in any way. He has some sort of almighty cutoff, in which one set of people are going to a place of eternal punishment to suffer - but without purpose (no result comes from this suffering, as it is eternal), whereas the other group are to be accepted into his heaven of perfection, where they shall remain in perfection forever - but without purpose (no progress, no nothing. Just perpetual perfection). In a simplistic mind this seems reasonable and even favorable, but contemplated on with just an average amount of rationale shows that god's afterlife makes no sense. And not in an awe inspiring, cosmic, too large to grasp non-sense way, in a 'wow, that's so pointless it's stupid' non-sense.

At any rate.

quote:all major religions are fundamentally different to a point at which they cannot be reconciled or considered on even ground

1. How can they possibly be unrelated when it is quite historically and factually obvious that they have all borrowed and copied from one another to varying extents? This is like saying because human skin color is different their genetics are impossibly unrelated.
2. How do you know that they cannot be reconciled? What research have you done into the many different religions, past and present form? What are you basing this on?

quote:God did not create all religions, this is a logical impossiblity based on my previous statement. What God did was create the possiblity for man to create these religions, it is a logical result of free will.

that is the illogical stripping of God from his seat as creator and ruler of all. I won't even mention how illogical it is to conclude that all of the innumerable religions of the ages were constructed by man while one just happened to be constructed by the true God.
You simply can not stand to christian dogma and argue logic, at least without making use of extreme rationalizations, distortions of dogmas, and assumptions.

quote:As an example, did God create darkness? Not really. He created light and darkness is the absence of light. Did God create evil? No, it is the absence of good.

Interesting. What does God creating light imply? Does it imply that darkness existed BEFORE God created light? This indicates darkness as being more eternal and higher than light and god. Or, does it imply that nothing existed before god created light, but that as a result of God's creation, darkness came into existance? This raises the question of responsibility. As God caused darkness to be created, is he not the creator of darkness? Or is the responsibility shirked to some natural phenomenon? Either way, he is the creator of darkness, indirectly or directly. In a universe created by God, nothing can simply 'come to be' outside of God's will. Or, again, he is neither omnipotent, nor the creator.

Be careful when throwing around things like logic.


[edit]
In addition, there is another logical problem with "evil is the absence of good". This is true, but at the same time the converse is also true. Good is the absence of evil. With that remark, you might argue that Satan (if such a thing existed []) created the universe. On the other hand, indifference is the absence, and at the same time combination, of both. That last thing is something to ponder.

[exothen]

Whatever.

quote:HAS ANYONE EVER HEARD OF THE CONCEPT OF THE PARADOX??? THIS IS WHEN TWO CONTRADICTORY THINGS ARE, I REPEAT, ARE TRUE.

No.  This is when two contradictory things appear to be true.  It comes from two Greek words that mean "to seem" and "contrary to expectation." Look it up in the dictionary, it will tell you.

quote:AND SO IS FRIGGIN CONTEMPLATING YOUR DAMN NAVEL!!

I suppose so.  It would get one thinking of how they came to be...the idea of origins...genesis...

quote:GOD IS NOT LOGICAL.

But yet you said, "TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND GOD, PUT GOD, THIS "THING" THAT NOBODY REALLY KNOWS OR TRUELY UNDERSTANDS...IS F***KING ARROGANT" and "THIS "THING" THAT NOBODY KNOWS OR TRUELY UNDERSTANDS"

Apparently you are the only one than who understands and knows God since you seem to know that he is not logical, which would make you the one who is arrogant.  Not only that, it self-destructs your idea that we cannot know God.

quote: LOGIC IS ONLY A TOOL OF THE MIND.

Only some minds apparently.

quote:Chapter 1 Verse 7: "TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN PUT GOD, THIS "THING" THAT NOBODY KNOWS OR TRUELY UNDERSTANDS, IN A BOX, LABEL IT AND BUILD UP A RIDICULOUS FRAMEWORK OF RITUAL, MAGICK, PIETY AND WHATEVER OTHER JUNK AROUND AND ON TOP OF IT, AND THEN CLAIM NOBODY ELSE WILL FIND IT UNLESS THE DIG THROUGH YOU OWN SPECIAL S**T PILE...IS.."

Well that would all depend on whether or not God has revealed himself, which is kind of the whole point of the last few posts.  You are making it much more difficult than it really is.  

If you have anything of value to add to the discussion, feel free.

[exothen]

Makaveli,

quote:I could go into more detail about these but to me these are some of the things that don't make any logical sense like hell for eternity, Satan, original sin, literal interpretation of the bible, infalible bible, one true religion, babtism, worship, and jealous & vengefull & violent God just to name a few areas.

But within the framework of Christianity these things are all coherent, there is no contradiction  between them.

quote:If you grew happened to grow up in a Muslim area you will most likely be Muslim and if not most of the people around you will be.

I do agree, but at the same time we have to remember that people will make the choice to change their beliefs if they have good reason to do so.  All I want to point out is that it is not necessarily so.

quote:If it happened that the Mormons were the only ones who get into heaven would that be fair given the situation?

Of course not, but good thing we don't have to worry.

quote:Just applying rational thinking won't lead to one religion and there are so many groups who are convinced that they have it figured out and that won't change if you ask them to think logically because with people of any religion who have deep belief it all seems to make sense to them. Exactly what religion does rational thinking lead to?

And you are close to hitting the nail on the head as to why most people do reject Christianity and any religious belief altogether - they simply don't want to.  It is a matter of the will, not the mind or the heart.

Of course, being a Christian, you already know how I would answer your question.  I have found that Christianity is the most intellectually coherent and rational religion that makes the most sense for the state of the world and those who live in it.

quote:There is nothing wrong with that I would rather be open-minded to other possibilities and take parts of different religions that I agree with because I don't see one as being the way. Religion is man made so it's not something I would get dogmatic about since there is no way of comprehending the whole truth at our level.

No, there is nothing wrong with being open-minded, but when it comes down to it, being open-minded for too long can have eternal consequences.  And this is why I have stated earlier that Christianity's claims must be investigated most earnestly with an open heart and mind as the consequences effect both life and death, for eternity.

This is why I say, start somewhere, get grounded in something, and then start comparing different religious beliefs to see which is closest to the truth - the truth being that which corresponds to reality.

Also, one must be careful of becoming complacent, for lack of a better term, about searching or believing that one can find the truth by believing that we cannot understand the whole truth anyway.  I do agree that the finite cannot comprehend the infinite, however, I believe that, being made in the image of the Creator, we have the capacity to comprehend most truth and to rationally determine if it is indeed something that is true.  There will always be an element of faith involved, but it need not be all faith or blind faith.

quote:Religion is from man so I doubt any religion could contain the truth but probably parts of it

I would agree that all religious institutions are man-made and that if there is only one true religion, then the rest must be man-made.  However, I do believe that God has created man for a purpose and as such, has revealed himself to show us this purpose in such a way that one might say he founded the religion.  From there, man made it into something else, maybe even something it was not meant to be.

[exothen]

Tab,

quote:First of all, God cannot possibly be omnipotent, all powerful, and still give us free will. That is, if you assume as the Christians do, that god is a seperate being from yourself. Our having free will takes power from God and gives it to us. You cannot believe in both the omipotence and perfection of God while still believing in free will of humans.

Why not?  How are they incompatible?  Free will in no way contradicts the the idea of omnipotence.  God has sovereignly given man free will, but this free will is limited in that we cannot become God ourselves.  I really don't see how having free will takes power from God.

quote:Let's assume he is, indeed, a rational being. This rational being makes life and the afterlife meaningless. He does not support progress in any way. He has some sort of almighty cutoff, in which one set of people are going to a place of eternal punishment to suffer - but without purpose (no result comes from this suffering, as it is eternal), whereas the other group are to be accepted into his heaven of perfection, where they shall remain in perfection forever - but without purpose (no progress, no nothing. Just perpetual perfection).

By being perfect forever does not mean that an afterlife in heaven will be meaningless.  It means that there will be an eternity to explore and learn and just to be in the presence of God.  I suspect your idea comes from cartoons that show that people in heaven just sit around and play harps all day/eternity. The Bible says that there will be a new heaven and a new earth (kind of like how science has found that the universe is winding down and will crash someday), so one can only speculate at the infinite possbilities at life in heaven.

Does eternal punishment have to have some sort of final purpose?  Maybe that will be what hell is like - an eternal "life" with absolutely no purpose, just meaningless existence. Eternal torment - torment comes from within, not from without (torture), at what could have been but what now is. What could be worse than that?

quote:. How can they possibly be unrelated when it is quite historically and factually obvious that they have all borrowed and copied from one another to varying extents?

Similarities do not mean that all religions borrowed from one another.  That conclusion simply does not follow.  It would first have to be proven that they all did borrow from one another and that hasn't been done.  I would argue that some similarities may reflect God's revelation to man, but from there, man takes them and makes something out of them that was never intended.

quote:This is like saying because human skin color is different their genetics are impossibly unrelated.

No, it is more like saying because my skin is white, that I am a sheet of paper.  You are saying that religions are the fundamentally the same, just different on the outside, but most similiarites are on the outside, while fundamentally they are worlds apart.

quote:2. How do you know that they cannot be reconciled? What research have you done into the many different religions, past and present form? What are you basing this on?

I haven't done nearly as much studying as I would like, but I have read a bit on Hinduism and some of its branches, Buddhism, Islam and Judaism.  I will be taking religious studies courses, so no worries.  But even at the level I have done them (I usually go straight to the heart), I can see that they are vastly different.  I did give some of the main areas where they are different.

What is interesting to note is that those who are outside of these religions seem to have some special revelation that those inside of them don't, namely, that they are all essentially the same.  Whereas if you asked adherents of these religions (and not just Christians), they would agree that they are very different.

quote:that is the illogical stripping of God from his seat as creator and ruler of all. I won't even mention how illogical it is to conclude that all of the innumerable religions of the ages were constructed by man while one just happened to be constructed by the true God.

And just how is that "the illogical stripping of God from his seat as creator and ruler of all?"  To say that God did create them all is to say that either he didn't know what he was doing, that he didn't care, or that he is not a rational being.  Each of those options undermines God to the point that he is no longer God, in the sense of being omnipotent and omniscient.

quote:Interesting. What does God creating light imply? Does it imply that darkness existed BEFORE God created light? This indicates darkness as being more eternal and higher than light and god. Or, does it imply that nothing existed before god created light, but that as a result of God's creation, darkness came into existance?

This is interesting.  From a Christian standpoint, the Bible says that God is Light and that there is no darkness in him.  It is very likely that God exists in a dimension outside of our own universe and that the creation of light was only in regards to the 4 dimensions that we live in.  So perhaps it is an intermingling of your second question with my initial point.  Darkness did come into existence at creation, but only because it was in the absence of the light of God.  I'll have to ponder that one a little more. [?]

quote:In addition, there is another logical problem with "evil is the absence of good". This is true, but at the same time the converse is also true. Good is the absence of evil. With that remark, you might argue that Satan (if such a thing existed ) created the universe. On the other hand, indifference is the absence, and at the same time combination, of both.

Hmm....From a Christian standpoint, God is perfectly good and as such he cannot be evil. Since he has always existed, good has always existed. But God created beings with free will which gave them the capacity to choose to do good, or go against that good. Satan (yes, such a thing exists []) chose to do wrong thereby rejecting the good and creating, or introducing, evil. But Satan is still a created being which means he is not omnipotent or omniscient.  Still pondering...just some thinking outloud...

(edited due to formatting error)

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by exothen

Why not?  How are they incompatible?  Free will in no way contradicts the the idea of omnipotence.  God has sovereignly given man free will, but this free will is limited in that we cannot become God ourselves.  I really don't see how having free will takes power from God.

Of course it does. Giving humans the ability to make choices ultimately restricts God's power over his creation. Power is control. By giving the created control of their own, his control is naturally subtracted from. The pot may very well be nothing but the creation of the potter, as the analogy goes, but the pot has no power and no will of it's own, unlike us.

You say that you believe the finite cannot comprehend the infinite. By what standpoint, then, do you assume that the infinite can comprehend the finite? You can't logically make that conclusion. Infinity is not a superset of finity, it is the total absence of finity. Yet you still apply finite traits to your infinite God. The only way to reconcile this would be to say that God is both finity and infinity. But by THAT logic, you lead yourself into another intrinsic flaw, because then it could be said that God is both good and evil, light and dark, so on and so forth.

quote:By being perfect forever does not mean that an afterlife in heaven will be meaningless. It means that there will be an eternity to explore and learn and just to be in the presence of God. I suspect your idea comes from cartoons that show that people in heaven just sit around and play harps all day/eternity. The Bible says that there will be a new heaven and a new earth (kind of like how science has found that the universe is winding down and will crash someday), so one can only speculate at the infinite possbilities at life in heaven.

Does eternal punishment have to have some sort of final purpose? Maybe that will be what hell is like - an eternal "life" with absolutely no purpose, just meaningless existence. Eternal torment - torment comes from within, not from without (torture), at what could have been but what now is. What could be worse than that?

You're thinking on too basic a level here and opening new very basic contradictions. First of all, there is nothing you could *do* in heaven except exist. Anything that can be done, learning, exploring, would eventually become moot, there would eventually be nothing more to learn, nothing more to do. The only way to prevent this, would be to introduce change, and with that, it is no longer infinite. By introducing change, you may as well have just re-created the physical universe, because that is what it is. A place of finity and constant change, allowing for "doing".
Second, you're missing the point about hell. I do not mean it is meaningless to the sufferer, but meaningless in general, to God, to the sufferer, to any logical observer. Even an eternal existance of meaningless existance is still, above the one suffering, meaningless. There is no reason for God to create a set of beings, and then filter them systematically into a world of infinite good and a world of infinite bad. Ultimately, it serves no logical purpose.

quote:Similarities do not mean that all religions borrowed from one another. That conclusion simply does not follow. It would first have to be proven that they all did borrow from one another and that hasn't been done. I would argue that some similarities may reflect God's revelation to man, but from there, man takes them and makes something out of them that was never intended.

Of course there is proof. Sumerian tales are identical with those of the early Hebrews. The creations of Zoroaster are proven to have assimilated into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity. Mithraism and other forms of Paganism are proven to have been included into the practices and beliefs of Christianity.
And again, how can you possibly believe that all but one group of men distorted the same godly revelation?

quote:No, it is more like saying because my skin is white, that I am a sheet of paper. You are saying that religions are the fundamentally the same, just different on the outside, but most similiarites are on the outside, while fundamentally they are worlds apart.

O contraire. The analogy of because skin is white, skin is paper is not at all compatible with what I am saying. My point is they were all inhereted from the same origin, and you cannot refute this yourself, saying that divine revelation was presented to all and merely misinterpreted by most.
They APPEAR to be different, but when you dig out the DNA, it is similar, in some cases the same.

quote:And just how is that "the illogical stripping of God from his seat as creator and ruler of all?" To say that God did create them all is to say that either he didn't know what he was doing, that he didn't care, or that he is not a rational being. Each of those options undermines God to the point that he is no longer God, in the sense of being omnipotent and omniscient.

No, to say that humans could create other religions arbitrarily takes away God's power. To say that he created them all is in no way irrational. It is to say that he was the origin of all, as the only divine truth, and that the many faceted spinoffs are corruptions of man. At the same time, they are all yet facets, and in some way, however painted over, reflect and constitute his true nature. Nothing is outside of God. That is omnipotence. That is more logical than the chances of one odd spinoff being the only one to be true and uncorrupted, especially when it intermixed with others as much as it did.

quote:What is interesting to note is that those who are outside of these religions seem to have some special revelation that those inside of them don't, namely, that they are all essentially the same. Whereas if you asked adherents of these religions (and not just Christians), they would agree that they are very different

That's logically obvious. The reason those 'outside of these religions' are the only ones that see the similarities, are because those who have realized them have thusly made themselves so. Those inside one religion, do not fully understand the religion of their own and that of the others.

quote:Hmm....From a Christian standpoint, God is perfectly good and as such he cannot be evil. Since he has always existed, good has always existed. But God created beings with free will which gave them the capacity to choose to do good, or go against that good. Satan (yes, such a thing exists ) chose to do wrong thereby rejecting the good and creating, or introducing, evil.

You just caught yourself on a huge technicality. If the creation of light facilitated the creation of darkness, than the creation, or existance of good, must (both logically and by your example) accompany evil. That's simple law of polarities. If evil does not exist to distinguish good, good is nothing, it is undefined as such.
Thus, by your reasoning, good must have always existed, AND evil must have always existed! This again insinuates that evil is at least as eternal as good.
As for god creating creatures and in that allowing them to choose to go against good. They cannot choose something that does not exist. So, evil would have had to have existed before creation, unless god created it.