Difference between revisions of "Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Replaced content with 'Page Corrected by Anon. Anon is legion. Anon does not forgive. Anon does not forget.')
Line 1: Line 1:
−
There is a proliferation of 'revealed texts' within the world's major religions, with many contradictions and inconsistencies between them about the way to worship, how to behave, and the different stances that should be adopted, not to say accounts of how the universe is ordered and was created.
+
Page Corrected by Anon. Anon is legion. Anon does not forgive. Anon does not forget.
−
 
 
−
Either God couldn't make his mind up as to what people should do, OR not all of these accounts can possibly be correct. If it is the latter, then if let us assume that most of them are inferior copies of the 'one true revealed text'. How then, is one supposed to know which that would be, and follow the right path? If we assume that God is not deliberately deceitful, and that he is omniscient, he would not have put mankind in such a position that we had to choose the one true text from amongst all the others, with no clear guidance. Hence, it must be the case that none of these is correct, and we have to make our own mind up.
 
−
 
 
−
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
There are basically only two religions: Grace - (unmerited favor - which is given through Holy Spirit quickening) and Works - which the "carnel" mind and the "natural" man believes) ie, I can find acceptance with God through my good works: Both contrasted in Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau, the Pharasee and Publican.
 
−
All religions, except true Christianity, (encluding the religion of atheistic humanism - the worship of mans wisdom) are works religions. Some people who profess christianity, but rely on their supposed goodness for their salvation (like the Pharasee) are are part of the works group. It's interesting to consider that the Communist atheists used claims such as: we will have a "workers paradise" and a "utopia" - by the strength of mans mind and work. Anyhow, since we know that life exists, isn't it more REASONABLE to assume it always has been? (and that's God) 
 
−
==We are on to you!==
 
−
Hey, Humanist, we all know how much you are down on all of the worlds religions. We've read all of your manifesters. It's funny when keep bashing God even though you really don't believe there is one. Keep telling us of your superior intellect that is able to single handedly make decisions for the common good of us all. Please, keep posting all of those baiting debate questions that show the rest of us foolish religionists who pray to our non-existing God.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Roo, i think that you should actually read what was first posted with an open, interested mind. Make an attempt to understand what is being said, as i am confident that you do in fact have a good intellect, you just need to use it in a more open way. What was said is quite interesting even for an atheist like myself, and raises a few interesting questions for religion. That is not to say that it disproves Gods existence, simply that i think that you would find it a lot more enjoyable if you took it upon yourself to either disprove what has been said in a logical and fair manner, or to supply a different theory, again in a logical manner. Please do attempt this, as i have found it far more entertaining then (in my case) simply insisting that there is no proof of God. Sincerely [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:09, 19 April 2007
 
−
 
 
−
::Gee, I thought I was just being sarcastic. Hint: I believe God exists and isn't being indecisive about it. So you think I don't have an open and interesting mind? Sorry to hear that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Well i've seen a few of your posts in other topics and from what i see, it seems that you are not prepared to listen to what other people have to say in a fair manner. I may be way off the mark here, im just calling it as i see it. That you believe that is fine, its just that i think that you should be open to other ideas and opinions rather then barricading yourself behind a wall of sarcasm and just general lack of manners. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 18:02, 20 April 2007
 
−
 
 
−
::So you went to the effort to profile me? I'm honoured!  Maybe this is a cultural thing but sarcasm isn't wall building. Neither is it malicious. Responding to a post from my own unique viewpoint isn't ill mannered to me. So, yes, way off the mark here. Let's agree to just stay on the topic of debate.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:03, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Well i think sarcasm is wall building as it can make having a serious discussion quite difficult, especially on a web page where it isnt always easy to tell sarcasm. Maybe i am taking your blunt speech to seriously and seeing it as insulting rather then just you. But yes, i agree. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 14:52, 21 April 2007
 
−
 
 
−
==Alternate suggestion==
 
−
God is omnipotent. That is, all things are possible for God. Ergo, it is entirely possible that all religions are correct simultaneously, but we humans, being confined to simple binary-based logic, are not able to perceive this. QED. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:54, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:No, that is a totally different religion based on Theosophy. A belief that all religions are actually just one. A believer of any other religion won't buy into that. Not because they are binary thinkers, but because their beliefs have distinctions that set them apart from other beliefs.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: True; you are following the line of thinking of [[David Deutsch]] and [[David Kellogg Lewis]], whose philosophies claim that if you can create al logically possible world, then logically that world, can in fact exist, and under some definitions of reality, do existe somewhere in the [[Multiverse]].--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Different Point==
 
−
If I have an axe to grind, it is this: Whether or not you choose to believe in God, believing in a  particular religion is a completely separate and independent personal decision. You can believe in god, and not be associate with any religion at all, and many people do in fact follow this path. However, there are many adherents of very different religions who claim that theirs is the only true text, and in following that logic, are prepared to kill & maim people of the opposite persuasion for no reason other than they see them as a threat to their beliefs. I cannot believe (I am sorry to those who say you cannot know the mind of God, but if God is minded to want me to go out and kill and maim other human beings in his name, then he is no god of mine) that any God worthy of the name would actually have created such a situation deliberately, by proliferating contradictory messages. This means that MOST of the world's religions must have invented their texts for their own reasons. How are we then expected to decide between these? On what basis? and how is it that they all attract adherents who are single minded, and so convinced that they are right? There is, to my mind, something fundamentally wrong with the idea of religion, per se, and following my logic above, wouuld lead me to conclude, not that god is indecisive, or that he doesn't exist, but that IF he exists, he would NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, have provided a 'one true text', simply because it is so easy to produce facsimiles which have all the attributes of a true text. but are, in fact false. Following this line of thinking would lead logically to a rejection of all organised religions, and to declare all revealed texts to be a sham.
 
−
--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 15:13, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::I have found it a futile and vain exercise to presume what God will do. In the same manner that one would be able to presume what manner of logic a person would use to accuse the people of the worlds religions of being a sham. Especially when some of those religions have been around for thousands of years. History has taught us that some have used these religions for their wars and aspirations to power over others. It sounds like you prefer nihilism. Every person forms their own beliefs into doctrines that give them faith. This is the very definition of religion. If you hate all other religions it is only because your own demands it. Nihilists have been around for a long, long time. Who knows, maybe someday nihilism will be one of the major religions. But then it couldn't be, could it?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:52, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
There are many different paths to heaven.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::There are indeed. I've gone down many of those paths only to find out they were just cunningly devised fables. Often their version of Heaven is nothingness, oblivion. Sometimes just a fantasy. Many paths leading to many heavens with a god under every rock. Sorry, but I've already rejected all of the pagan religions. Why worship the creatures when their Creator is right there in front of you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
I can't comment on whether or not God is indecisive as I don't think the One who created me is subject to my opinions. I do however believe that most of the world's major religions are not following the Biblical principles and have taught their own traditions in their place. i.e. Most religions keep Sunday as the Sabbath because they suscribe to the authority of the Roman church to change a law made by God Almighty.The powers that be in the Roman church have always admitted that Saturday was the 7th day Sabbath and claim the authority to change God's law by reason that most of the world has followed their lead. That doesn't make it right. The Bible says that the way is narrow and few will find it, meaning that most of the world will be deceived into false doctrines rather than taking the time and effort to discover the Biblical truth with prayer and diligent study. Salvation does require some effort on our part. We need to search for the truth and not be satisfied with what the common opinion appears to be at the time. www.sabbathtruth.com has some excellent information from members of all denominations on t his subject.``InHisImage
 
−
 
 
−
The sabbath commandment and law of Moses was a covenant for the people of ancient Israel which was fulfilled by the life of Jesus. I think to keep Sunday special is the best thing, but is up to your own conscience. Adam
 
−
 
 
−
Sunday has been celebrated because of the resurrection. Saturday is the Sabbath but NT teaches to keep all days Holy because they all belong to God. God also said he would write his law on ours hearts. Interesting to note that durind development of a fetus the first thing to form is the heart. However the first cells formed for the heart are brain cells. So the true word is in your heart, so it is actually being able to listen to it that makes the difference.
 
−
 
 
−
[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]
 

Revision as of 14:16, January 24, 2010

Page Corrected by Anon. Anon is legion. Anon does not forgive. Anon does not forget.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Either_God_is_indecisive_or_the_world%27s_major_religions_have_ALL_got_it_wrong&oldid=748353"