• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theists, if a charlatan existed...

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
And I do not have it in me to think that scripture is not important although I have it in me to think that doctrines are not important since I believe they are man-made and false.

I do not want to transcend the scriptures, I want to understand them. As for doctrines, Baha'is do not have any.

We cannot go on together in agreement but hopefully we can go on together in harmony.
Baha'is call that BEAUTY AND HARMONY IN DIVERSITY
:)
You are then telling me that we have mutually exclusive conceptions of what would make a valid religion.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Do you mean their scriptures could be outright forged, exaggerated or distorted?
Some do not wait for history/time to do it, they do it themselves - like the 'Maid of Heaven' appeared before me' or 'I rode the Burraq to heaven' or 'God, my father'.
 

Samantha Rinne

Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

This is another veiled jab at Christians, isn't it?

A false religion would not be so obvious as that. Nowadays people are wary of things packaged like religion. Instead they would disguise themselves as science. Try the latest acupuncture! Our psychic readers are professionally trained! This self-help method will earn you money fast, and you'll have tons of lovers!

Or better yet, don't even bother with pseudoscience, and try to look like actual science!
The purpose of actual science is to learn about the universe, and the how and why of it. In this regard, it has no conflict with people actually pursuing meaning through religion.

The puepose of "science" is to teach orthodoxy, making sure every child believes the Earth is round, climate change is a major problem, and that dinosaurs are proof of evolution.
Actually, none of us need to accept any of these things if we are really committed to science. Because real science is about testing assumptions. Fake "science" tells us that consensus equals truth.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

If it isn't of God it will eventually fail.

"But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men (or this man); you will only find yourselves fighting against God." - Acts 5:39
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The puepose of "science" is to teach orthodoxy, making sure every child believes the Earth is round, climate change is a major problem, and that dinosaurs are proof of evolution.
Actually, none of us need to accept any of these things if we are really committed to science. Because real science is about testing assumptions. Fake "science" tells us that consensus equals truth.
I think you're confusing science with education. True, it are the results of scientific inquiry that are taught and you can't do meaningful science without education but real science is, as you say, testing assumptions. And if you wish, you can start by testing the assumption that have been tested hundreds of times, always with the same outcome. But if you want to add to the common knowledge, you built on the knowledge that is already there.
 

Baroodi

Active Member
Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

Yes, This may apply for false creeds . In real religions supportive evidences are essential, but heart vision blindness hinders from seeing these evidences.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
If it isn't of God it will eventually fail.

"But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men (or this man); you will only find yourselves fighting against God." - Acts 5:39

That could lead to a conundrum. What if Christianity was to disapear, being replaced over the next century by a mix of New Age religion, neopagan traditions and downright atheism, would that make this quote false or would it remain true?

PS: It can take thousands of years for a religion to disappear. That's not a very good method to identify a charlatan or a mad man. Plus, using the words of a religious text potentially written by a charlatan or a delusionnal fool to vet against charlatans and delusionnal fools is a foolish strategy. It would be better to use the same method you used to vet that religion for truth then the scripture of said religion.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
How can we know that such a person is really a messenger or just delusional?
You can't. And so the prudent course is to simply not believe them until they can provide you with adequate evidence. If they cannot, then they can't rationally expect people to simply believe their claims. And to feel wholly justified in your expectations that others believe you without that evidence is to prove oneself irrational. And therefore it makes even less sense to listen to a word they have to say on the subject.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

The usual cultic checklist. The claim that this group has the answer. The leader, who is accountable to nobody, claims to channel God and cannot be questioned. Adherents will be told how to behave and think, pressured to make financial contributions, and exhorted to bring in new members. Outsiders are enemies and are to be avoided, including family and former friends. Apostates are to be shunned or worse.

Think Scientology, or Jonestown, Warren Jeffs, or David Koresh. Here's one I just learned about : Ervil LeBaron - Wikipedia
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
That could lead to a conundrum. What if Christianity was to disapear, being replaced over the next century by a mix of New Age religion, neopagan traditions and downright atheism, would that make this quote false or would it remain true?

PS: It can take thousands of years for a religion to disappear. That's not a very good method to identify a charlatan or a mad man. Plus, using the words of a religious text potentially written by a charlatan or a delusionnal fool to vet against charlatans and delusionnal fools is a foolish strategy. It would be better to use the same method you used to vet that religion for truth then the scripture of said religion.

People have been trying to axe Christianity for two millennia; they die and the truth of the faith lives on.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
The usual cultic checklist. The claim that this group has the answer. The leader, who is accountable to nobody, claims to channel God and cannot be questioned. Adherents will be told how to behave and think, pressured to make financial contributions, and exhorted to bring in new members. Outsiders are enemies and are to be avoided, including family and former friends. Apostates are to be shunned or worse.

Think Scientology, or Jonestown, Warren Jeffs, or David Koresh. Here's one I just learned about : Ervil LeBaron - Wikipedia

These characteristics are also common amongst fundamentalist groups of all major religions, in theocracies or in times where a single religion dominates a culture even if they have no official power over the government.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

It would be much like atheism, with its slavish devotion hate and intolerance of all religions and devout religious persons, while maintaining the cult membership of those who hate God and religion, by disguising itself as a-religious, while it rests on unproven hypotheses and great faith.
 

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Quote: "The usual cultic checklist. The claim that this group has the answer. The leader, who is accountable to nobody, claims to channel God and cannot be questioned. Adherents will be told how to behave and think, pressured to make financial contributions, and exhorted to bring in new members. Outsiders are enemies and are to be avoided, including family and former friends. Apostates are to be shunned or worse."

These characteristics are also common amongst fundamentalist groups of all major religions, in theocracies or in times where a single religion dominates a culture even if they have no official power over the government.

Doesn't fit Biblical Christianity. Jesus came to earth and was thoroughly questioned, scorned, and even murdered by the opposition. So were the leaders of the church, like James and Peter. The remainder of that top quote ("Adherents will be told...") sounds a lot like liberalism.
 

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
Inspired by @Trailblazer 's thread here: Atheists, if God existed….

Say a charlatan wanted to create a false religion that people would follow. What would that religion look like?

A few of my own thoughts:

- the charlatan would put himself in a position where he could control the beliefs of the religion. He would be the "official" conduit between the religion's adherents and God: a prophet, messenger, messiah, something like that.

- he would arrange it so that no proof of God - or of his own appointment as God's messenger or whatnot - could or should be independently confirmed. Since he would fail such a test, he would make sure he wouldn't be subject to a test.

What else would we see in a false religion?

Edit: I should point out that I'm not asking about signs that a religion must be false. Maybe some of the characteristics of a false religion might also be shared by a true religion. For now, I'm only asking what characteristics a false religion would have, regardless of whether these characteristics are exclusive to false religions.

To a Christian, that would be generally any and all and every that lead away from the actual precise instructions from Christ, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself" for example (which He named as the 2nd great commandment, and the 2 great commandments together are the foundation of God's will, as expressed through the law and the prophets of old).

So, for instance, a church where that teaching of the 2nd great commandment is removed or missing.

As a specific example, it could be a church where the mistreatment of immigrants is approved of, for instance. No matter if that church tries to claim it is 'Christian', that would then in that case be a false claim, since the term 'Christian' is generally meaning not only lip service towards Christ, but actual belief in Him and thus in His words.

Or in the specific verses where He addressed precisely this very exact question, He said:

15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit [actual deeds and attitudes] you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."

So, we look to see what those 'fruits', deeds, are -- do they support kindness to refugees, or do they like the president instead support prejudices and exclusion and even slanders against refugees, on our southern border, fleeing violence, trying to come here to the U.S. for safety, such as from drug gangs, for one example.

So, I look to the 'fruits' to know whether a specific church is the real genuine thing, or just a false religion trying to disguise itself as being 'Christian'.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
It would be much like atheism, with its slavish devotion hate and intolerance of all religions and devout religious persons, while maintaining the cult membership of those who hate God and religion, by disguising itself as a-religious, while it rests on unproven hypotheses and great faith.
This is such a purposeful misrepresentation of atheism. Nothing new, of course... so don't think you're being clever or original with any of this... but it is crap. I don't "hate god" or "hate religion" (though I will admit to disliking the modes of thinking that religious people tend to engage in, and the poor arguments they tend to make without even realizing how poor they are) - I simply don't believe any of your claims, and can easily point to the fact that you can't provide compelling evidence for any of them. There's simply no reason to believe you, and yes, I am in the business of not believing things that do not provide adequate reason, explanation nor comport with reality as it can be experienced. I also take it a step further and engage those who do believe and heavily challenge their beliefs to try and get them to understand why it is they needn't be believed by anyone at all. So that maybe, just maybe, someday these believers won't be so surprised when they come across someone who doesn't believe them, and thinks they are full of crap - and it won't be such a big deal for anyone to have their beliefs challenged. Because it shouldn't be, at all, a big deal. Especially if you have the goods (i.e. evidence) to back yourself up.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The charlatan would say the religions we have are false.
Yeah, because he would want us to think he is "the only way."

Jesus said He was the only way:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me
But He never meant that He was the only way for all of eternity, only during His Dispensation....

None of the True Prophets ever said the other religions were false, or that they were "the last prophet." The followers misinterpreted their scriptures to mean that but that is not what they meant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syo
Top