Don't you mean your truth?Let's Open Our Minds To The Truth
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Don't you mean your truth?Let's Open Our Minds To The Truth
What I was wondering is how can u have an open mind and acknowledge only one truth?
Living, and I mean truly LIVING, is what the one and only Spiritual Truth allows us to do. Otherwise we merely exist in illusion.
Did Jesus teach his Apostles / disciples to keep quiet and leave everyone alone? Not to criticize or rebuke if they saw error? Why did Jesus rebuke so many and even interfere, violently, with the moneychangers in the Temple?
Seems like Jeremiah's post was in vain.
An open mind realizes that all the Great Prophets speak the same Message. Closed minds invent reasons for us to doubt that.
Don't you mean your truth?
I still added one to my post cout so not all is lost.
Maybe if you saw people as people and not as sheep you would understand.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Indeed, ALL genuine Prophets have always spoken the same ONE Message, concerning the same ONE Truth.
Peace & Love
I gave you some frubals just to make it really worthwhile.
Actually I said all the GREAT Prophets, not "genuine Prophets". I think you are confusing the two. Isaiah was genuine prophet, but a minor one. He did not speak from his own authority, nor did he say he brought a revelation.
Arabic has two words for "Prophet" -- 'nabi--a lesser prophet like Isaiah, or Nehemiah, or Daniel, or Luke, or Ali. They speak with the authority of the Prophet Who transformed them.
THen there are the Rasuli"--a Rasul bears a Revelation direct from God, and speaks with His Own authority. Prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krshna, Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha`u'llah. They come along but rarely at critical points in the development of mankind.
Your living masters may occasionally be Nabi, but they are not Rasuli.
What possible good comes from examining, exposing and eliminating "the many false beliefs and erroneous traditions which have accumulated in all the worlds religions"??
First off, who decides what is false and erroneous? Then, who has the authority to tell religious leaders that they are wrong? Keep in mind that most religious leaders aren't the most flexible of thinkers. Finally, what good comes if you do accomplish the goal?
I think we would be better off just accepting, embracing, and understanding that there are thousands of belief systems out there and no one belief system should rule anyone's life.
Look, I came to RF to explore how people of other faiths think. I've learned a lot from them. But lately, there is a band of people hell bent to ridicule other faiths, but rarely with a purpose, but instead, just mindless babble.
I cannot in good conscious support the idea of being so religiously arrogant that I'd ever be able to decide whose belief is false and erroneous. I'd suggest that you should not, either.
"If this is the case, I don't understand how Abraham and Jesus could be considered to have been Rasuli, for they both bowed down to a human Master, i.e. Abraham to Melchizedek, and Jesus to John the Baptist. Didn't they receive their commission in this way, as all genuine Masters do? "
Actually, according to the Gospels it is John who admits the sovereignty of Jesus.
Melchizedek never claimed a Revelation--Abraham does.
John was a forerunner--a Prophet come to call attention to the Prophet greater than Himself. The Bab had the same station, but the Bab was given a Dispensation of Nineteen years, and a sacred Book. John did not have that quality.
When asked if John was Elias (Elijah) returned, he said "No." Yet when Jesus was asked the same question of John, Jesus said "Yes".
This is because John was Elias in essence, character and mission, but not the same person returned.
why does one singular truth necessitate that conflicting religions are false (or at least partly false)?
the way i see, there is one ultimate God, who is singular. this God created many lesser Deities to interact with us, and we follow them in different ways, and we follow them because we can't identify or understand that ultimate God. so one religion might see homosexuality as a sin and sex is only to be inside of marriage, which is ordained by God. another religion might see sex as being an expression of love, which is freely ordained by God. do they conflict? yes. which one is right? in my opinion, both of them, because that religion is right for the person following it, which stems from and leads to that ultimate God.
obviously people disagree with me, and obviously i have no proof for this - it is simply my belief.