• 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!

is the Abrahamic God, the real God?

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Dont cherry pick and create a caricature to attack. Thats a strawman fallacy.
Leaving off the first point was not cherry picking or creating a caricature in my opinion.

Your suggested investigative method was essentially as follows in my opinion.
1 read them (this can be done to any work)
2. Check they go back to their source.
3. Check they are internally consistent

My point was that none of these prove divine authorship, for we can do all 3 things for works that are demonstrably not works of divine authorship.

You then ask me if the things we agree are not scripture are scripture, then proceed to accuse me of attacking a caricature and knocking down strawmen, none of which I have done in my opinion
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If I was just a new adult human and someone said the creator is one I would think about it.

One planet.
The one planet stone.

Stone is named by a human and it has the word one in it.

One heavenly mass.

The one body is inside the heavens.

Self human one self stands on the one planet. Inside one atmosphere.

I can think as one self. The meaning.

Who tells me,?

Rationally. My own one self thinking.

If Abraham was the first man scientist then he would have told himself about one concepts.

If you can prove Abraham was the first man scientist then he was the first one self to impose concepts.

Rationally.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Leaving off the first point was not cherry picking or creating a caricature in my opinion.

Your suggested investigative method was essentially as follows in my opinion.
1 read them (this can be done to any work)
2. Check they go back to their source.
3. Check they are internally consistent

My point was that none of these prove divine authorship, for we can do all 3 things for works that are demonstrably not works of divine authorship.

You then ask me if the things we agree are not scripture are scripture, then proceed to accuse me of attacking a caricature and knocking down strawmen, none of which I have done in my opinion

Nope. Its here. Again. And its not relevant to you. I say that again.

1. Take their respective scriptures, and read them.
2. Find out if the books go back to the source. (Source being the person who is claimed to be the prophet)
3. Find out which book has manuscripts that go to the source or closest to the source (again, the prophet)
4. Understand that these books are supposed to be scripture, thus respect them and analyse them for their internal coherence. Discrepancies would say "no no".
5. Go to the source.

You are writing your own strawman to argue with.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Nope. Its here. Again. And its not relevant to you. I say that again.

1. Take their respective scriptures, and read them.
2. Find out if the books go back to the source. (Source being the person who is claimed to be the prophet)
3. Find out which book has manuscripts that go to the source or closest to the source (again, the prophet)
4. Understand that these books are supposed to be scripture, thus respect them and analyse them for their internal coherence. Discrepancies would say "no no".
5. Go to the source.

You are writing your own strawman to argue with.
It looks to me like you are trying to provide a litmus test for divine authorship, then getting stuck on labels.

But it does not matter whether an apple is labelled an apple or not, the true litmus test for an apple should be able to determine if it is an apple whether we apply it to something which is an apple or something which is not an apple, (such as lets say a banana) in my opinion.

Thus it is not important for the sake of the litmus test whether the item we are testing is labelled scripture or labelled anything else entirely - the litmus test should be able to determine whether any work is divinely authored or not regardless of its label in my opinion.

I think your assertion that I am writing a strawman is not demonstrable in my opinion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It looks to me like you are trying to provide a litmus test for divine authorship, then getting stuck on labels.

But it does not matter whether an apple is labelled an apple or not, the true litmus test for an apple should be able to determine if it is an apple whether we apply it to something which is an apple or something which is not an apple, (such as lets say a banana) in my opinion.

Thus it is not important for the sake of the litmus test whether the item we are testing is labelled scripture or labelled anything else entirely - the litmus test should be able to determine whether any work is divinely authored or not regardless of its label in my opinion.

I think your assertion that I am writing a strawman is not demonstrable in my opinion.

Thanks for your opinion.

Have a great day.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Is the Abrahamic God, the real God?

But if it is true, then which of Abrahams religions is the truth?

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Baha'is all have different laws they believe God wants them to follow.

So since the different abrahamic religions have different rules, how is one to know which rules are correct? How is one to know what rules are God's commandments and not?

I believe God is real for all of those religions but the relationships differ.

I believe Christianity offers the best solution to laws because He is not a written law but a living and current law.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Not in my estimation or my experience, but I think the mystical Jewish and Islamic takes on God are closer to the truth of the matter than the Christian view of God, even the mystical Christian one.

I believe you have no evidence to support that view.

I believe Jesus is the Truth as He said.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
For Abrahamics, absolutely, as that's their belief. Who else could be their 'real'
God?

Outside of the Abrahamic paradigm, no God is real, it's just belief, which is fine.

I believe that believing in a carved piece of wood or stone gets one nowhere and dead gods are just as useless. My God reigns.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
I believe that believing in a carved piece of wood or stone gets one nowhere and dead gods are just as useless. My God reigns.

Maybe you should learn about Hinduism, its practices and beliefs before you disparage and speak on something of which you have no knowledge. Yes?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I believe Christianity offers the best solution to laws because He is not a written law but a living and current law.
I do not believe the laws of Christianity are current or that they have the solutions the world needs in this new age.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
Interesting read. Thanks for sharing.
Can I trouble you with a few questions?

1. You determined that the Christian God is the way you concluded, based on one group! Is that not the same as someone joining Jim Jones' movement, and coming away with the conclusion that believing in and following Jesus is evil?

2. Is it possible that wanting to do the things you like takes president over what someone in authority may require of you... so that you would prefer someone - anyone - who accepts the things you like?
Sort of like... I like to grow my hair long. I like to wear skirts that barely cover my buttocks... So if Jack does not like that, then 'Bye Jack. Go suck a lemon."?

3. I have no doubt that Kali is indeed a real demon, but what makes you believe that Kali has anyone's best interest at heart? Why choose 'her' over the real Christian God Jehovah, who for many - have their best interest at heart?
What's difference do you see between the two?

4. "No one from church helped", is a common expression, among many. however, don't we hear things like that in other organizations?
For example, we may hear a person say, "No one in Business X helped, so I switched to Business Y, and the experience was amazing! Not only were they always looking to help, but they went further!"
The person did not write off all businesses of that particular system. So why do you think the experience at one "Christian church", is good cause to write off all?

Can you give an example of at least three out of "a bunch of arbitrary rules" you refered to... if you don't mind?
Why should I bother with your questions when you call my deities "demons"? Buzz off.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
God reigns, but God does not belong to any one religion. God is the God of all the religions.
Since you stated that as a fact and not according to your opinion Trailblazer, where do I find that?
Would it only be in Bahaullah's writings?
 
Top