I find God does reply back to us. God replies through the words of His Book aka Holy Bible.
-
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!
God wants different religions
- Thread starter Starlight
- Start date
kjw47
Well-Known Member
God showed--1 single religion in the OT had God. He would never have more than 1. 1Corinthians 1:10 = Unity of thought( all gods truth) no division.
You're probably only looking for opinions from believers, but I'll give you this skeptic's read on it. This is exactly the case - religions evolving and branching like languages and families of languages - we would expect if there were no interventionalist god running the universe or interacting with man, whether that be because gods don't exist, or, like the deist god, aren't involved in the affairs of our world.
What would our world look like if it had been generated by a multiverse that generates countless copies of all possible universes, none made by a god or ruled by one? As best as I can tell, like this one. People would invent gods and religions if they had evolved with certain instincts, such as assigning agency to all unexplained change, and obeying father figures real (clergy: Father O'Brien) and imagined (deities: Our Father). Others would co-opt this, and begin speaking for gods.
Scripture would be very human appearing, as it is. People would not be unwillingly subjected to any deity's will, so we'd hear about free will being God's preference, and be told that God doesn't want robots. There would be what people call evil in the world, because there is no deity to make people better or prevent it.. There'd be no compelling evidence for any deity, so we'd hear that the deity prefers it that way because it wants to be believed by faith. We'd expect that those claiming to know God would not agree with one another about what they claim to know about, unlike things they we know they actually do experience, like the sun, or feel of wetness.
Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation that accounts for all of the relevant evidence is the preferred one. To account for the world we find ourselves inhabiting, we can either invent hundreds of special rules to try to save this God, or simply say that there is no interventionalist God, a much simpler answer that makes all of the same predictions as this complicated, just-so account for why this deity seems to do nothing.
Consider this: We know that the chemical elements exist, we can determine their properties, and we can arrange them in a chart to indicate periodicity. As a result, there is only one periodic table of the elements. Gods, however, well, there have been thousands if not millions - exactly what we would expect in a world where there were no gods, just people inventing them.
I understand that many people just don't want that to be the case, and have dropped it from their candidate list of how reality is. But I haven't, and find this answer reasonable and consistent with the evidence, reasonable enough that I consider it as or more likely than theistic alternatives.
This would be another example of that to which I just referred. It is also logically possible that men wrote those words, and that is the source of those answers, which is what they would have to be in a world lacking divine revelation for whatever reason. Yes, those words could have come from gods, bt maybe not.
Yes, I agree with you that modern technology, when it occupies one's attention (as with smart phones, as opposed to solar panels on your roof, or life-saving vaccines), in my opinion, is often a distraction that likely generates less spiritual people, since it tends to disconnect them from where they are and what is going on around them, and from thinking about worthwhile things as one might find in great books or while hiking or gardening.
I just wouldn't use the term material evolution there, which generally refers to the evolution of the material universe - from the earliest universe, to the appearance of the fundamental forces and particles an instant later, to the eventual formation of stars and galaxies hundreds of thousands of years later as the universe continues expanding, stars forging elements and then disbursing them in their deaths as galaxies merge.
Next comes chemical evolution, wherein the elements and small molecules evolve into a living population (replicators). Then biological evolution ensues, as these cells become more complex, and then come together to form multicellular and then terrestrial life. Then psychological evolution, or the advent and development of mind and consciousness in biological systems. Eventually, mind evolves to the point man has reached, where culture appears, which then evolves as well, beginning with animal skins, fire, stone tools and spears, and culminating in technologically advanced civilization.
This fifth evolution, cultural evolution, which includes technological evolution, is the one to which you refer above.
Why should I have to when they are just opinions. You explain all yours? With suitably chosen evidence of course.a
Ah. Its a forum? Wow. Enlightening. Good come back when you are making empty, baseless, bigoted statements.
Try your best to substantiate your claims in the future. If you try, you can succeed.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Why should I have to when they are just opinions. You explain all yours? With suitably chosen evidence of course.
Nah. You should not think that experts in the field are just posing their opinions based on nothing.
Maybe you should study the literature.
OK Which experts about what?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Ella S.
*temp banned*
That's not empirical; what's "in the heart" is subjective feeling. Could you please give me empirical evidence?
That would depend on what you think "religion" means. If, as many suppose, religion means what you think to be unassailably true and what you must bind yourself (religare), then how is it possible for there to be different ones? How could any "god" suppose that some people need to believe one "truth" -- while a bunch of other people should believe another "truth," and then that they should all get along by pretending to ignore that they think each other completely wrong, stupid and "against God?"
If, on the other hand, religion is just something you think might have some "truth," and "could be helpful," then I would suggest that it's not very important to you, and so of course you wouldn't care what other people think. But I would also say that does not sound like the definition of "religion" that I understand.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Well humans have the ability to be objective about what's often considered subjective. Objective subjectivity. If a person examines their desires, motivations, and intentions objectively they will come across moral facts about values, and virtues. They'll come to know that honesty has moral worth, and deceit is dangerous. They'll come to know that murder is robbing innocent life. They might arrive at the consideration of what's deserved and things that are undeserving. We all make value judgments, and all value judgments bring about outcomes that are either beneficial, neutral, or damaging to those involved, and at large beyond that.
Actions, or inactions both tell a moral story. We have the ability to assess those things if we are objectively about the truth of those things as we deserve to know it.
People come to realize there is a price to pay for acting falsely toward honest motives. Society pays a price.
Actions, and inactions can often reveal character. And the integrity of society depends upon honest dealings. So it becomes necessary to protect the public, and private honesty, and to defend against malicious falsehoods, and bad dealings.
Moral empiricism is about the study of our own motives and actions and the results of those things and how they affect society.
People lose sight of the value of truthfulness, and accountability. People think that they have no accountability to society. They use their moral relativism to cheat, deceive, and lie as it seems to suit themselves without taking into account the larger consequences.
People come to realize there is a common good, and a right to private good through moral empiricism. People come to realize what's a human right, and what is not.
Everyone employs moral empiricism; the study of motives, desires, actions, inactions and the results they give to not only themselves but to society.
So there's a truth about these things that can't be avoided. If society has the wrong values then everybody pays. So moral empiricism is vitally important.
lukethethird
unknown member
God wants different religions
Who decides what God wants?
Who decides what God wants?
Jacob Samuelson
Active Member
Ergo, God wants/wanted conflict - given that this is what we have had since religions originated as to human beliefs and behaviour. Or one might conclude God is not all-knowing and just gambled as to many different religions not being a problem.
But perhaps religions just evolved naturally as part of the human realm without any involvement of God (which entity may or may not exist), and this could provide an equally plausible explanation. And being the right one for me. Sad that it is, we have been doomed to conflict because of such beliefs. And just another to add to the pile that we already have.
Difference does not equal conflict. Religion does not equal separation. God does not equal Chaos. Difference equals Opportunity. Religion equals Unity. God equals Freedom. If you don't see that now we will.
Religion can mean many things as you say but if you want to argue that religious beliefs have never caused conflict and/or deaths and that it is merely down to humans acting wrongly then you might say the same for all other causes of such - like nationality, cultural differences, whatever. But many religious doctrines promote the differences in how they see believers and non-believers or those of different faiths. Religion equals unity - often unified against others.
Too many religious believers seem to think their religion will be the one that will predominate in the future and/or as being 'the truth'. Can't all be so, surely?
Charming - as usual - and expected.
Go back to where you tried to nail me on what I wrote. I said that some beliefs were more likely to be intractable (as to causing conflict) because of how they are viewed by those who hold them. This might apply mostly to those who have very firm and/or strict views as to their religious beliefs, and Islam happens to be one of these it appears - in that it tends to apply to much or all aspects of their lives - unlike many other religious beliefs. Hence such might affect what they tend to believe and/or how they might behave more than most others. As evidence (perhaps not from the best source I'll admit), and you can find more if you want to search:
BBC NEWS | UK | British Muslims poll: Key points
86% of Muslims feel that religion is the most important thing in their life.
36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/review-survey-research-muslims-britain-0
Religion is far more important to Muslims’ sense of identity than it is for others, which is notable given that wider research points to a decline in religion in British life.
Are you going to dispute the fact that Islam is, as a major religion, is the belief system most likely to affect more aspects of one's life than most other major religions - and which might claim to be the highest authority from which a believer might seek answers?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Charming - as usual - and expected.
Go back to where you tried to nail me on what I wrote. I said that some beliefs were more likely to be intractable (as to causing conflict) because of how they are viewed by those who hold them. This might apply mostly to those who have very firm and/or strict views as to their religious beliefs, and Islam happens to be one of these it appears - in that it tends to apply to much or all aspects of their lives - unlike many other religious beliefs. Hence such might affect what they tend to believe and/or how they might behave more than most others. As evidence (perhaps not from the best source I'll admit), and you can find more if you want to search:
BBC NEWS | UK | British Muslims poll: Key points
86% of Muslims feel that religion is the most important thing in their life.
36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s.
https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/review-survey-research-muslims-britain-0
Religion is far more important to Muslims’ sense of identity than it is for others, which is notable given that wider research points to a decline in religion in British life.
Are you going to dispute the fact that Islam is, as a major religion, is the belief system most likely to affect more aspects of one's life than most other major religions - and which might claim to be the highest authority from which a believer might seek answers?
This is absolutely not relevant to where you began here.
Nevermind, you did a Cathy freeman strawman. "Are you saying this that and the other". I never said Islam is not important for Muslims.
Tis so. That is where you seemed to jump in initially. All I said essentially was that if a belief was more important to one then conflicts might be more intractable if such tended to cause conflict or was involved in such. Which is what often happens when conflict arises between those with different religious beliefs. I wasn't disputing that religions are hardly the major cause of conflicts, just that they can be the hardest to solve - because of being such beliefs.
firedragon
Veteran Member
This was your post Mock. ITs just presumption, not based on any studies. Your response was "this is a forum". Of course this is a forum. Its called a forum. Its alright to make such opinion without any grounding I suppose. Many do.
Started a lot earlier though.
Repox
Truth Seeker
If there is only one God, how can there be agreement with many, or even several gods? Oh, yes, who or what created those different gods related to those different religions? Did God create them to have fun, or is it to have a pagan god war?
The Old Testament Lord admonished his chosen people for worshiping pagan gods. I agree "God wants all human to live in peace with each other." However, it seems an impossibility if you consider the real situation in our world where religious are different, and people in those societies are in conflict because of religious differences. Sorry, you may be thinking of a utopian world. However, there is a real situation in the United States with the US Constitution proposing religious freedom. So, if you consider politics, you have a good argument. However, even in the United States there are religious conflicts, but because of the US constitution, those conflicts proceed without harmful consequences. Religious tolerance varies throughout the world depending on politics, or regulatory laws. In Middle East nations, religious conflict has resulted in bloody wars.
Assuming God is eternal, he would be consistent with regard to who he is. Why would a perfect God permit pagan gods, or other gods, into heaven? If God is imperfect, he would allow other gods into heaven to compensate for his imperfection. However, it is unimaginable for God to be imperfect in order to allow for other gods as compensation for his imperfection. So, we would have gods competing for attention. Wouldn't we? If there is no model for perfection, heaven would be a melting pot for multiple gods representing multiple religions, and there would be continual conflict as the many gods compete for the top god position. Oh, maybe they would cooperate to compete. Well, now we have utopia. I got it: heaven is utopian. Since humans have defined utopia, there should be human gods in heaven. Oh, oh, heaven is getting messy!
I think the problem for many religions is it contradicts the one and only God in heaven. Assuming the two Gods in a sphere are perfect, how is it possible to have other gods in heaven? Wouldn't they all be competing for the "perfect God award?" Unless we have no definition of perfection. If there is no perfect God, would we have war in heaven to determine the winner? What would heaven be like without a perfect God? If there is no definition of perfection, vicious snakes may be in heaven. Oh, yes, those snakes can bite and kill adversaries. Then, we would have a snake heaven. Oh, no, I don't want a snake heaven!
Last edited: