• 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!

The Problem of "Belief"

9-18-1

Active Member
I should preface by stating I understand the religions of Christianity and Islam to be idol worship: both utilize a (dead; non-existent) male central figure that serves as a model for the citizens of an empire. In both cases each utilize a book(s) which outlines the nature/behavior of such a central figure to be imitated, emulated, regarded as the perfect "pattern of conduct" etc.

The Syriac-speaking Christians (who resided in and around the Arabian Peninsula pre-Islam) had many hymnal texts which:

i. Would later serve as the basis for the early Qur'an, and
ii. Referred to Jesus as "the praised one" and/or "mercy upon mankind"

Over time such titles in ii. gradually "migrated" and began describing the characteristics of an Arabian prophet who would only surface by the late 7th century.

To add more to the mix, such religious institutions invariably rely on Judaism as having served as the soil bed from whence to arise. Similarly, Judaism utilizes a (series of) male central figure(s) who serve(d) as role models.

And herein we arrive at the problem of "belief".

Both Judaism and Islam uniquely "believe" that they are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. In the case of the former, some orthodox Jews believe that if ever a Torah were copied containing an error, the universe would collapse because G-d made the universe with the 22 Hebrew letters and Torah. In the case of the latter, the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Highest authority on the planet which over-rides all non-Muslim nations' laws which they claim to be "man-made". In reality, both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made.

Invariably such "beliefs" still centrally reside as the thousands-year-old human conflict(s) based in the Middle East. Jews "believe" they were delivered by a Jewish Moses under guidance from the creator of the universe as they await their Messiah (rejecting Jesus), and Muslims "believe" similar of their prophet Muhammad who is similarly rejected by the Jews (and rightly so as with Jesus).

However we know that the Torah has at least 3 authors, and at least in its current form (and script) does not resemble anything that can not be explained by the handiwork of man. Similar is true for the Qur'an: it is compiled from numerous sources, many of which were in a different language (Syriac) entirely. It is certain that neither the Torah nor the Qur'an are the perfect word of god, but the Jews and Muslims "believe" such things to be true - it is the basis of their entire way of being.

Similarly, Christians "believe" in Jesus and the Gospel accounts of him. They also seem to "believe" that he was either god or in some way in perfect union with god, and sacrificed himself for the sins of all of mankind - hence derived "mercy upon mankind" which Muhammad would later seemingly usurp. The problem, simply then, is if such an event as the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually occur, Christianity is similarly false and loosely based in "belief".

It is nothing short of curious that the life and death of Jesus should imitate the behavior of the sun: being "dead" for three days beginning Dec. 21 only to rise on Dec. 25 - a special day for the Christian world if only they actually watched it happen in the sky. I still weep at the souls who don't see the connection and thus derive that Jesus is a model / idol of the sun, as were countless solar deities and/or crucified messianic missionaries that preceded him from an array of cultures.

Given all of this, and re-striking the bell of the understanding that Christianity and Islam (as well as Judaism to a certain extent) are essentially idol worshiping institutions which rely on "belief" of things that are not actually true, I derive the following:

"Belief is not a virtue."

much to the detriment of the Muhammadans who overtly call themselves "believers". The entire basis of Islam (and much of the Abrahamic world) can be dismissed based on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue, if not for the fact that both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. One can therefrom surmise naturally that remainder of the Bible the same is true.

"Belief" has no substance: it is essentially a projection. This is how numerous denominations of idolatrous schemes can arise: each denomination projects his/her own unique "imagination" of who, for example, Jesus or who Muhammad is/was (this occurring already after "believing" they existed, which is a problem in and of itself). For example many different denominations of Christianity exist on the basis of what Jesus did and/or did not allow/accept, including things like drinking coffee/alcohol. Islam has similar problems: who was the most rightful heir after Muhammad's fall? Here we have Sunni vs. Shia, a 1400-year-old war within Islam itself. The idol worshipers fight over such things, and the many hundreds of millions are fallen.

Ultimately this "belief" and "idol worship" have been the most prime sources of human suffering and death on this planet. I predict that the greatest obstacle facing humanity is outright flatly rejecting "belief" as a basis of existence (or anything *thing* for that matter) - for it is actually the opposite; namely, illusion and without a basis in reality. "Belief" is therefor the principle conduit for outright insanity: a charge I do not withhold from institutions such as Islam (in agreement with China's recent declaration that Islam is a mental illness). Christianity is similar: though at least humanity had the decency not to make Jesus into a sexually degenerated pedophile war lord that preyed on the weak and vulnerable (women/children) as is the case with Muhammad and Islam. There are certainly varying degrees of insanity - "belief" is common throughout.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
I should preface by stating I understand the religions of Christianity and Islam to be idol worship: both utilize a (dead; non-existent) male central figure that serves as a model for the citizens of an empire. In both cases each utilize a book(s) which outlines the nature/behavior of such a central figure to be imitated, emulated, regarded as the perfect "pattern of conduct" etc.

The Syriac-speaking Christians (who resided in and around the Arabian Peninsula pre-Islam) had many hymnal texts which:

i. Would later serve as the basis for the early Qur'an, and
ii. Referred to Jesus as "the praised one" and/or "mercy upon mankind"

Over time such titles in ii. gradually "migrated" and began describing the characteristics of an Arabian prophet who would only surface by the late 7th century.

To add more to the mix, such religious institutions invariably rely on Judaism as having served as the soil bed from whence to arise. Similarly, Judaism utilizes a (series of) male central figure(s) who serve(d) as role models.

And herein we arrive at the problem of "belief".

Both Judaism and Islam uniquely "believe" that they are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. In the case of the former, some orthodox Jews believe that if ever a Torah were copied containing an error, the universe would collapse because G-d made the universe with the 22 Hebrew letters and Torah. In the case of the latter, the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Highest authority on the planet which over-rides all non-Muslim nations' laws which they claim to be "man-made". In reality, both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made.

Invariably such "beliefs" still centrally reside as the thousands-year-old human conflict(s) based in the Middle East. Jews "believe" they were delivered by a Jewish Moses under guidance from the creator of the universe as they await their Messiah (rejecting Jesus), and Muslims "believe" similar of their prophet Muhammad who is similarly rejected by the Jews (and rightly so as with Jesus).

However we know that the Torah has at least 3 authors, and at least in its current form (and script) does not resemble anything that can not be explained by the handiwork of man. Similar is true for the Qur'an: it is compiled from numerous sources, many of which were in a different language (Syriac) entirely. It is certain that neither the Torah nor the Qur'an are the perfect word of god, but the Jews and Muslims "believe" such things to be true - it is the basis of their entire way of being.

Similarly, Christians "believe" in Jesus and the Gospel accounts of him. They also seem to "believe" that he was either god or in some way in perfect union with god, and sacrificed himself for the sins of all of mankind - hence derived "mercy upon mankind" which Muhammad would later seemingly usurp. The problem, simply then, is if such an event as the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually occur, Christianity is similarly false and loosely based in "belief".

It is nothing short of curious that the life and death of Jesus should imitate the behavior of the sun: being "dead" for three days beginning Dec. 21 only to rise on Dec. 25 - a special day for the Christian world if only they actually watched it happen in the sky. I still weep at the souls who don't see the connection and thus derive that Jesus is a model / idol of the sun, as were countless solar deities and/or crucified messianic missionaries that preceded him from an array of cultures.

Given all of this, and re-striking the bell of the understanding that Christianity and Islam (as well as Judaism to a certain extent) are essentially idol worshiping institutions which rely on "belief" of things that are not actually true, I derive the following:

"Belief is not a virtue."

much to the detriment of the Muhammadans who overtly call themselves "believers". The entire basis of Islam (and much of the Abrahamic world) can be dismissed based on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue, if not for the fact that both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. One can therefrom surmise naturally that remainder of the Bible the same is true.

"Belief" has no substance: it is essentially a projection. This is how numerous denominations of idolatrous schemes can arise: each denomination projects his/her own unique "imagination" of who, for example, Jesus or who Muhammad is/was (this occurring already after "believing" they existed, which is a problem in and of itself). For example many different denominations of Christianity exist on the basis of what Jesus did and/or did not allow/accept, including things like drinking coffee/alcohol. Islam has similar problems: who was the most rightful heir after Muhammad's fall? Here we have Sunni vs. Shia, a 1400-year-old war within Islam itself. The idol worshipers fight over such things, and the many hundreds of millions are fallen.

Ultimately this "belief" and "idol worship" have been the most prime sources of human suffering and death on this planet. I predict that the greatest obstacle facing humanity is outright flatly rejecting "belief" as a basis of existence (or anything *thing* for that matter) - for it is actually the opposite; namely, illusion and without a basis in reality. "Belief" is therefor the principle conduit for outright insanity: a charge I do not withhold from institutions such as Islam (in agreement with China's recent declaration that Islam is a mental illness). Christianity is similar: though at least humanity had the decency not to make Jesus into a sexually degenerated pedophile war lord that preyed on the weak and vulnerable (women/children) as is the case with Muhammad and Islam. There are certainly varying degrees of insanity - "belief" is common throughout.

Does this view of yours only apply to belief in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Does it hold true also for all other beliefs/belief systems?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I should preface by stating I understand the religions of Christianity and Islam to be idol worship: both utilize a (dead; non-existent) male central figure that serves as a model for the citizens of an empire. In both cases each utilize a book(s) which outlines the nature/behavior of such a central figure to be imitated, emulated, regarded as the perfect "pattern of conduct" etc.

The Syriac-speaking Christians (who resided in and around the Arabian Peninsula pre-Islam) had many hymnal texts which:

i. Would later serve as the basis for the early Qur'an, and
ii. Referred to Jesus as "the praised one" and/or "mercy upon mankind"

Over time such titles in ii. gradually "migrated" and began describing the characteristics of an Arabian prophet who would only surface by the late 7th century.

To add more to the mix, such religious institutions invariably rely on Judaism as having served as the soil bed from whence to arise. Similarly, Judaism utilizes a (series of) male central figure(s) who serve(d) as role models.

And herein we arrive at the problem of "belief".

Both Judaism and Islam uniquely "believe" that they are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. In the case of the former, some orthodox Jews believe that if ever a Torah were copied containing an error, the universe would collapse because G-d made the universe with the 22 Hebrew letters and Torah. In the case of the latter, the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Highest authority on the planet which over-rides all non-Muslim nations' laws which they claim to be "man-made". In reality, both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made.

Invariably such "beliefs" still centrally reside as the thousands-year-old human conflict(s) based in the Middle East. Jews "believe" they were delivered by a Jewish Moses under guidance from the creator of the universe as they await their Messiah (rejecting Jesus), and Muslims "believe" similar of their prophet Muhammad who is similarly rejected by the Jews (and rightly so as with Jesus).

However we know that the Torah has at least 3 authors, and at least in its current form (and script) does not resemble anything that can not be explained by the handiwork of man. Similar is true for the Qur'an: it is compiled from numerous sources, many of which were in a different language (Syriac) entirely. It is certain that neither the Torah nor the Qur'an are the perfect word of god, but the Jews and Muslims "believe" such things to be true - it is the basis of their entire way of being.

Similarly, Christians "believe" in Jesus and the Gospel accounts of him. They also seem to "believe" that he was either god or in some way in perfect union with god, and sacrificed himself for the sins of all of mankind - hence derived "mercy upon mankind" which Muhammad would later seemingly usurp. The problem, simply then, is if such an event as the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually occur, Christianity is similarly false and loosely based in "belief".

It is nothing short of curious that the life and death of Jesus should imitate the behavior of the sun: being "dead" for three days beginning Dec. 21 only to rise on Dec. 25 - a special day for the Christian world if only they actually watched it happen in the sky. I still weep at the souls who don't see the connection and thus derive that Jesus is a model / idol of the sun, as were countless solar deities and/or crucified messianic missionaries that preceded him from an array of cultures.

Given all of this, and re-striking the bell of the understanding that Christianity and Islam (as well as Judaism to a certain extent) are essentially idol worshiping institutions which rely on "belief" of things that are not actually true, I derive the following:

"Belief is not a virtue."

much to the detriment of the Muhammadans who overtly call themselves "believers". The entire basis of Islam (and much of the Abrahamic world) can be dismissed based on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue, if not for the fact that both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. One can therefrom surmise naturally that remainder of the Bible the same is true.

"Belief" has no substance: it is essentially a projection. This is how numerous denominations of idolatrous schemes can arise: each denomination projects his/her own unique "imagination" of who, for example, Jesus or who Muhammad is/was (this occurring already after "believing" they existed, which is a problem in and of itself). For example many different denominations of Christianity exist on the basis of what Jesus did and/or did not allow/accept, including things like drinking coffee/alcohol. Islam has similar problems: who was the most rightful heir after Muhammad's fall? Here we have Sunni vs. Shia, a 1400-year-old war within Islam itself. The idol worshipers fight over such things, and the many hundreds of millions are fallen.

Ultimately this "belief" and "idol worship" have been the most prime sources of human suffering and death on this planet. I predict that the greatest obstacle facing humanity is outright flatly rejecting "belief" as a basis of existence (or anything *thing* for that matter) - for it is actually the opposite; namely, illusion and without a basis in reality. "Belief" is therefor the principle conduit for outright insanity: a charge I do not withhold from institutions such as Islam (in agreement with China's recent declaration that Islam is a mental illness). Christianity is similar: though at least humanity had the decency not to make Jesus into a sexually degenerated pedophile war lord that preyed on the weak and vulnerable (women/children) as is the case with Muhammad and Islam. There are certainly varying degrees of insanity - "belief" is common throughout.
I don't think you understand Christianity at all. Christians believe Jesus is not dead, but alive and according to the scriptures the One who created heaven and earth and holds all things together. So no Christian considers loving Jesus as idol worship. Also, the scriptures never require blind, baseless belief, but a faith which is founded on God's revelation to humanity set in the context of real history, real geographical locations, and in the lives of real nations, and people.

Besides that, your post has way too much to respond to.
 
Last edited:

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I should preface by stating I understand the religions of Christianity and Islam to be idol worship: both utilize a (dead; non-existent) male central figure that serves as a model for the citizens of an empire. In both cases each utilize a book(s) which outlines the nature/behavior of such a central figure to be imitated, emulated, regarded as the perfect "pattern of conduct" etc.

The Syriac-speaking Christians (who resided in and around the Arabian Peninsula pre-Islam) had many hymnal texts which:

i. Would later serve as the basis for the early Qur'an, and
ii. Referred to Jesus as "the praised one" and/or "mercy upon mankind"

Over time such titles in ii. gradually "migrated" and began describing the characteristics of an Arabian prophet who would only surface by the late 7th century.

To add more to the mix, such religious institutions invariably rely on Judaism as having served as the soil bed from whence to arise. Similarly, Judaism utilizes a (series of) male central figure(s) who serve(d) as role models.

And herein we arrive at the problem of "belief".

Both Judaism and Islam uniquely "believe" that they are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. In the case of the former, some orthodox Jews believe that if ever a Torah were copied containing an error, the universe would collapse because G-d made the universe with the 22 Hebrew letters and Torah. In the case of the latter, the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Highest authority on the planet which over-rides all non-Muslim nations' laws which they claim to be "man-made". In reality, both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made.

Invariably such "beliefs" still centrally reside as the thousands-year-old human conflict(s) based in the Middle East. Jews "believe" they were delivered by a Jewish Moses under guidance from the creator of the universe as they await their Messiah (rejecting Jesus), and Muslims "believe" similar of their prophet Muhammad who is similarly rejected by the Jews (and rightly so as with Jesus).

However we know that the Torah has at least 3 authors, and at least in its current form (and script) does not resemble anything that can not be explained by the handiwork of man. Similar is true for the Qur'an: it is compiled from numerous sources, many of which were in a different language (Syriac) entirely. It is certain that neither the Torah nor the Qur'an are the perfect word of god, but the Jews and Muslims "believe" such things to be true - it is the basis of their entire way of being.

Similarly, Christians "believe" in Jesus and the Gospel accounts of him. They also seem to "believe" that he was either god or in some way in perfect union with god, and sacrificed himself for the sins of all of mankind - hence derived "mercy upon mankind" which Muhammad would later seemingly usurp. The problem, simply then, is if such an event as the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually occur, Christianity is similarly false and loosely based in "belief".

It is nothing short of curious that the life and death of Jesus should imitate the behavior of the sun: being "dead" for three days beginning Dec. 21 only to rise on Dec. 25 - a special day for the Christian world if only they actually watched it happen in the sky. I still weep at the souls who don't see the connection and thus derive that Jesus is a model / idol of the sun, as were countless solar deities and/or crucified messianic missionaries that preceded him from an array of cultures.

Given all of this, and re-striking the bell of the understanding that Christianity and Islam (as well as Judaism to a certain extent) are essentially idol worshiping institutions which rely on "belief" of things that are not actually true, I derive the following:

"Belief is not a virtue."

much to the detriment of the Muhammadans who overtly call themselves "believers". The entire basis of Islam (and much of the Abrahamic world) can be dismissed based on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue, if not for the fact that both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. One can therefrom surmise naturally that remainder of the Bible the same is true.

"Belief" has no substance: it is essentially a projection. This is how numerous denominations of idolatrous schemes can arise: each denomination projects his/her own unique "imagination" of who, for example, Jesus or who Muhammad is/was (this occurring already after "believing" they existed, which is a problem in and of itself). For example many different denominations of Christianity exist on the basis of what Jesus did and/or did not allow/accept, including things like drinking coffee/alcohol. Islam has similar problems: who was the most rightful heir after Muhammad's fall? Here we have Sunni vs. Shia, a 1400-year-old war within Islam itself. The idol worshipers fight over such things, and the many hundreds of millions are fallen.

Ultimately this "belief" and "idol worship" have been the most prime sources of human suffering and death on this planet. I predict that the greatest obstacle facing humanity is outright flatly rejecting "belief" as a basis of existence (or anything *thing* for that matter) - for it is actually the opposite; namely, illusion and without a basis in reality. "Belief" is therefor the principle conduit for outright insanity: a charge I do not withhold from institutions such as Islam (in agreement with China's recent declaration that Islam is a mental illness). Christianity is similar: though at least humanity had the decency not to make Jesus into a sexually degenerated pedophile war lord that preyed on the weak and vulnerable (women/children) as is the case with Muhammad and Islam. There are certainly varying degrees of insanity - "belief" is common throughout.

Belief is often a truth we run with when time and/or personal or cultural resources dont provide any better. My claim is that we use belief (subjective or unproven truths) continually on a daily basis with no exceptions.

The question then becomes how consciously and responsibly does a person use their beliefs?
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Does this view of yours only apply to belief in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? Does it hold true also for all other beliefs/belief systems?

Good question - fundamentally any system which uses/requires "belief" as its support.

Once again "belief" is not a virtue - it is actually a (if not the) vice that binds humanity to bondage and slavery.

POOP!! Expressed in the nicest possible way.

It's okay no offense taken - for some applications poop is useful.

I don't think you understand Christianity at all. Christians believe...

There's your problem.

Jesus is not dead, but alive and according to the scriptures the One who created heaven and earth and holds all things together. So no Christian considers loving Jesus is not idol worship. Also, the scriptures never require blind, baseless belief, but a faith which is founded on God's revelation to humanity set in the context of real history, real geographical locations,a and in the lives of real nations, and people.

Besides that, your post has way too much to respond to.

Here is why it is a problem: according to the "scriptures" Elohim created the heavens and the earth, not Jesus. Jesus is not even a Jewish name - it is a Greek one because Jesus is a Greek idol based on the notion of there being a Jewish Messiah (which I argue is a projection by Jews given they always managed to find themselves in slavery/bondage). Whatever one is deprived of, that is what their god becomes. You ever hear people calling god "love"? You know what that person is deprived of.

Elohim is a composite word that is comprised of (the formerly Canaanite) 'el' which is the general term for "god" and/or "towardness" and 'im' which is a sea/expanse: essentially sperm and ovum. Jesus is all sperm, no ovum (I hope for the sake of Christians) and as such is not the creator of anything unless he has a womb to work in. This is why Elohim have an image and likeness that is both masculine and feminine. Jesus is a patriarchal idol. Why don't they ever focus on his wife? Because patriarchal institutions are ashamed of women. Look at Islam in order to understand this.

This is how idol worship works: erect a central figure (such as Jesus or Muhammad) and imbue that central figure with fantastical qualities which are held in high regard by the adherents. For Christians, Jesus is essentially god and infallible. For Muslims, Muhammad is the most exemplary pattern of conduct to emulate and equally infallible. Both are a "mercy upon mankind".

However this need not necessarily indicate that what is written in the Gospels is "wrong" - pretty much everything Jesus is alleged to have taught does ring true to some capacity I have found - but Most Christians don't even know what Jesus actually taught - like how chastity is a requirement to enter what he called the "kingdom of heaven". Try explaining to a Muslim that Jesus practiced and taught chastity, whereas their "prophet" is about as far away as you can get from being chaste. I therefor find it hilarious whenever a Muslim even talks about Jesus being a prophet - Islam is about as far away from the teachings of Jesus as is possible. I won't tell anyone that it was the Muhammadans who "switched out" Jesus at the last minute and "replaced" him by trying to give *their* prophet the status of "mercy upon mankind". See how projection works? The Muslims are essentially admitting that they are using Jesus' characteristics to paint their Muhammad in the same light - mercy upon mankind.

I like to test claims, so when I read Jesus' teaching about how chastity is a requirement, I actually became chaste to test it. I can report that the teaching is accurate: sexual degeneracy is what "kills" the brain and turns people into animals. This is where you get things like rape and abuse of women and is more or less spelled out in the Edenic account of Eve giving the fruit to Adam. When sex(ual degeneracy) commands the brain, degeneration is soon to follow. This is exactly what Islam represents: sexual degeneracy and why the Muhammadan mind has not evolved out of the 7th century. Muhammadans are still abusing and/or hiding behind women/children: using staged massacres to politically promote things like the hijab, which essentially enslave women to Men. Very bad times - and all based in "belief".

Islam will conquer Christianity - not to be taken as demonstrating the superiority of Islam (as it is actually an inferior a system filled with sexual degenerates) but rather as a result of the falsity of Christianity: false assertions, false hopes, and false promises of a "second" coming (that is if granting there was ever a first). I'm sorry Christians, but there is no Jesus that is going to save you - you are essentially in the same "boat" as the delusional Jews who imagined a savior to deliver them out of their own self-induced misery.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Belief is often a truth we run with when time and/or personal or cultural resources dont provide any better. My claim is that we use belief (subjective or unproven truths) continually on a daily basis with no exceptions.

The question then becomes how consciously and responsibly does a person use their beliefs?

I understand people use belief as a crutch - but obviously as the person heals, the crutch should eventually be discarded for lack of need. This is essentially what the conscience is: it should eliminate the need for any kind of "belief".

What is science? It is simple: inquiry. Science naturally "happens" when one starts asking questions and seeking their resolve.

What is conscience? Just add 'con' which is the self.

So a conscience is then ones own (in)ability to inquire and/or ask questions.

Question: does "belief" require a conscience?
My answer is no: it is actually the opposite of conscience.
It is when you *do not* question: you just "believe".

This is why "believers" such as Muhammadans (who openly call themselves "believers") are people without (use of) conscience. They may have a conscience, but "belief" effectually disengages it. This is exactly what religion is designed to do: prevent people from using their conscience. It is because the quality of ones conscience "consciousness" determines how well they are able to govern their own lives without need for appeal to outside authority.

This is again why I arrived at "belief is not a virtue".
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I understand people use belief as a crutch - but obviously as the person heals, the crutch should eventually be discarded for lack of need. This is essentially what the conscience is: it should eliminate the need for any kind of "belief".

What is science? It is simple: inquiry. Science naturally "happens" when one starts asking questions and seeking their resolve.

What is conscience? Just add 'con' which is the self.

So a conscience is then ones own (in)ability to inquire and/or ask questions.

Question: does "belief" require a conscience?
My answer is no: it is actually the opposite of conscience.
It is when you *do not* question: you just "believe".

This is why "believers" such as Muhammadans (who openly call themselves "believers") are people without (use of) conscience. They may have a conscience, but "belief" effectually disengages it. This is exactly what religion is designed to do: prevent people from using their conscience. It is because the quality of ones conscience "consciousness" determines how well they are able to govern their own lives without need for appeal to outside authority.

This is again why I arrived at "belief is not a virtue".

Do you claim that every chosen action or personal perception of truth that you have is sourced in a peer-reviewed community of scientists who have adequately defined terms and demonstrated predictable outcomes related to your personal chosen action or personal perception of truth?

Has science determined all truths that an individual might need to know for their own sense of truth or to use to determine the best course of action?

You claim that all belief is wrong. My claim is that there is no fully complete science. Since science still has work to do this seems evident. Since we might need to make a personal decision that depends on uncompleted science then on what basis in those circumstances should a person make a decision?

We all live in a reality with a significant amount of relevant "data" that might be relevant to the thought or task at hand but for which we lack the mental capacity, time and/or personal resources to collate and analyze. This is not a trivial consideration.
  • Do you have a subjective developmental preference to write with one hand or the other?
  • Do you take all precautions against potential mishaps that might occur when you undertake any action?
  • Do you believe in free will, consciousness, interpersonal love, individual human rights, the exclusive supremacy of reason as a way of knowing truth?
Let's take religion out of the discussion for a moment and get down to the basics of where the reason and motivation of human action actually comes from.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Do you claim that every chosen action or personal perception of truth that you have is sourced in a peer-reviewed community of scientists who have adequately defined terms and demonstrated predictable outcomes related to your personal chosen action or personal perception of truth?

There are two things here.

First I do not grant that actions/perceptions need be supported by any peer-reviewed community of "scientists" in all cases. In relation to certain claims, it is necessary to employ such faculties but not in all cases that do not deal with direct objects. For example, "belief" is not an object, and due to its immaterial nature which requires the human psyche (as both potential problem and solution) any/every potential body to weigh in on a subject are themselves subject to scrutiny - especially if "belief"-based.

Second adequately defined terms is subjective: language is a very difficult thing to objectify and I don't grant that any one person or group on this planet has more or less adequate use of the English language to communicate more so or less so than myself. I therefor treat definitions of terms and what constitutes "predictable outcomes" as wholly subjective until two or more parties have mutually agreed as to their usage(s).

In essence therefor: the answer is no given the above.

Has science determined all truths that an individual might need to know for their own sense of truth or to use to determine the best course of action

I'm not on your terms in your usage of "science". I understand science as simply: mode of inquiry. Therefor everyone has a personal "mode of inquiry" which relates to his/her own 'con'science. EditTreating science as some sort of institution that can be objectified or compared to anything else is terribly problematic.

You claim that all belief is wrong. My claim is that there is no fully complete science. Since science still has work to do this seems evident. Since we might need to make a personal decision that depends on uncompleted science then on what basis in those circumstances should a person make a decision?

I did not claim all belief to be "wrong". I did say "belief is not a virtue". I would add that it is a bind: a vice, a barrier, a source of suffering and misery, a source of ignorance, disengages conscious activity etc. But I do not state it is "wrong" - sometimes someone has to "believe" something, face a life event, understand how/why that "belief" was itself wrong, and learn from it. In this way "belief" is not "wrong" - it is, however, not a virtue.

We all live in a reality with a significant amount of relevant "data" that might be relevant to the thought or task at hand but for which we lack the mental capacity, time and/or personal resources to collate and analyze. This is not a trivial consideration.
  • Do you have a subjective developmental preference to write with one hand or the other?
  • Do you take all precautions against potential mishaps that might occur when you undertake any action?
  • Do you believe in free will, consciousness, interpersonal love, individual human rights, the exclusive supremacy of reason as a way of knowing truth?
Let's take religion out of the discussion for a moment and get down to the basics of where the reason and motivation of human action actually comes from.

You can't separate motivation from religion, because religion acts as a motivating factor for many, many people. I know the common tactic of apologists is attempting to remove religion entirely from the discussion, but to do so is incredibly dishonest and not rooted in the reality that hundreds of millions are dead as a result of religious fanaticism. Besides, this thread is about "belief" and many (Abrahamic) religions are based on it.

In other words, if not for "belief", Islam would not exist. That is why you can not separate religion from motivation: one is motivated by his/her beliefs.

As to the questions:

Yes - I write with my right hand. However, unlike right-handed people, I swing a club/bat as if I were left-handed because I have more control. When I play the piano I coordinate both because they both contribute to one overall sound. Generally speaking it is whatever the task calls for that produces the best result.

Yes - this is natural.

To your last question, I don't "believe" anything, because "belief" is not a virtue. There are things I understand about will (one would have to define 'free will' here), things I understand about love, human rights, the uses and limitations of reason, and what is (or is not) "truth". I don't "believe" anything when it comes to these things. What I know, I know. What I do not know, I do not know. The rest is left to the conscience to explore and continue to 'know' about, and it is what motivates my will in learning and understanding more: conscious will and desire to 'know' by recognizing what I do not know, but wish/work to eventually know.

In order for one to solve a problem, one must understand the problem.
If one can not understand the problem, one will never discover the solution.
If no solutions are ever discovered, how are problems solved?

What problem(s) does humanity have?

Believers believe that "belief" is a virtue, which has led to the worshiping of books and idols.
Jews: Torah and Moses
Christians: Bible and Jesus
Islam: Qur'an and Muhammad

The same pathology of book/idol worship recapitulated many times over.

Whereas people like myself call for the cessation of war (which would require people stop worshiping their books and idols) it is the war mongers that label such as bigots, racists, supremacists, antisemitic / Islamophobic etc. when in reality these are all projections (qualities) of the very war mongers themselves. This is how they behave: blame everyone else for what they are themselves guilty of. This is the same as the mark of Cain: one who grows enmity and desire to spill blood begins projecting his/her own nature outward.

This is how others can be read: and it increases with chastity as Jesus allegedly taught (I can confirm it is true). This is one of the things I discovered after becoming chaste - sexual degeneracy leads to the mark of Cain wherein people begin projecting their own (animal) nature outward and smearing those who they wish to take down out of enmity. This is Cain luring Abel to the field. It is all very interesting - though I know the Torah is man-made, it carries in it some great knowledge that invariably came from the Egyptian schools.
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
Here is why it is a problem: according to the "scriptures" Elohim created the heavens and the earth, not Jesus. Jesus is not even a Jewish name - it is a Greek one because Jesus is a Greek idol based on the notion of there being a Jewish Messiah (which I argue is a projection by Jews given they always managed to find themselves in slavery/bondage). Whatever one is deprived of, that is what their god becomes. You ever hear people calling god "love"? You know what that person is deprived of.


I see the scriptures reveal that Jesus and Elohim are One and it is Jesus, the Son, who created heaven and earth and in whom all things hold together...

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17


Yes, people call God love and the scriptures state that God is Love, but greatest need of humanity is to be saved from sin: redemption and reconciliation with God the Creator. That was the theme of the OT and the prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah

"The name Jesus actually means, "Yahweh delivers" or "Yahweh saves." Jesus is the English translation of the Greek Iesous (Ἰησοῦς) or the Hebrew Yeshua (or Joshua). Jesus probably was originally called Yeshua (or Joshua) in the Aramaic speaking culture in which he was born. Interestingly, Yeshua was a common name in first century Palestine where Jesus lived." Is the name Jesus a pagan name? | CARM.org


Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. Isaiah 45:21
 

9-18-1

Active Member
I see the scriptures reveal that Jesus and Elohim are One and it is Jesus, the Son, who created heaven and earth and in whom all things hold together...

Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Colossians 1:15-17


Yes, people call God love and the scriptures state that God is Love, but greatest need of humanity is to be saved from sin: redemption and reconciliation with God the Creator. That was the theme of the OT and the prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah

"The name Jesus actually means, "Yahweh delivers" or "Yahweh saves." Jesus is the English translation of the Greek Iesous (Ἰησοῦς) or the Hebrew Yeshua (or Joshua). Jesus probably was originally called Yeshua (or Joshua) in the Aramaic speaking culture in which he was born. Interestingly, Yeshua was a common name in first century Palestine where Jesus lived." Is the name Jesus a pagan name? | CARM.org


Tell and bring forth your case; Yes, let them take counsel together. Who has declared this from ancient time? Who has told it from that time? Have not I, the Lord? And there is no other God besides Me, A just God and a Savior; There is none besides Me. Isaiah 45:21

I know that is what you see - the difference between subjective reasoning and objective reasoning is whereas a subjective reasoner will only allow their already-arrived-at "truth" as the only object that calls for reasoning, an objective reasoner begins with no such already-arrived-at notions and rather duly arrives wherever one is lead naturally.

Your reference to the scriptures adds no credence to the notion that the universe was created through Jesus. In fact, it rather vehemently denies it: the heavens and the earth are created by Elohim according to the original Hebrew, which is itself a plural word capturing the masculine and feminine nature(s) of creation itself. This is not anything like Jesus.

However the Hebrew name for Jesus (I'd pronounce it Yahushua) implies the shin (fire) emerging inside of the Tetragrammaton: the three vavs of which are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who, together, are also the basis of the name of Moses (Moshe). When you add these three into the name of god, you are essentially pointing at the spirit, divine soul and human soul as it is understood in kabbalah. This is not a person (Jesus) as Jesus is a Greek idol, and Christianity is essentially Jewish mysticism (kabbalah) watered down for dummies:

Father (Keser) is Crowned
Son (Chokmah) is Wisdom
H/S (Binah) is Understanding

This is why I stated earlier that understanding is a requirement to solve any problem. When you understand a problem, you can then derive wisdom from it. When the source of wisdom of discovered (it is the same as knowledge of good and evil, which is to become "like" god) one follows only that: which, I would argue, is essentially the collapse of all idolatrous religious institutions such as Christianity/Islam which use male patriarchal figures to enslave adherents to "being like" whatever they think these men/idols were/are.

Creation happens through a Triunity:

Shared Will
Will to Bestow (masculine)
Will to Receive (feminine)

When ones will to receive something *becomes* the others will to bestow it, this is creation:

And Elohim said (shared will)
'Let be light,' (will to bestow)
and there was light. (will to receive)

Apply this to a man and a woman (Adam and Eve) whatever the desire of one, that becomes the will to bestow of the other. So where is the problem in all of this?

When the will is *not* shared: when the man *forces* the woman to do things she does not want to do (and vice versa). This is essentially rape, abuse etc.

So here we have the same phenomena serving as a basis for both creation and destruction. This is the yang and the yin and the secret to the tree of knowledge of good and evil: man in relation to woman. That is the whole point of the story.

Now in this context, look at Christianity and Islam, and tell me they are not Patriarchal institutions of Male idol worship and degrading women. How many wives did Muhammad have? How many sex slaves?

How many people now see the relation infidelity / sexual degeneracy has to "evil"? When the sex (Eve) commands the brain (Adam) and degeneracy rooted in the sex takes hold, here you have the fall of humans back into animal nature that manifests in the form of abusing women.

the pathetic thing is this has all been written down for (apparently) thousands of years and humanity still hasn't figured it out - it seems humanity hasn't even figured out the two genders they started with before inventing more due to shame and wanting to disassociate with either of them. This is what religions such as Islam do to people who shame women for just being women - gender dysphoria.
 

9-18-1

Active Member
Given this, could you apply your thinking to a selection of non-Abrahamic religions?

This can be applied to *any* system which utilizes / relies on "belief" as its basis.

However there is presently no greater danger to humanity that the variety of "belief" that is present in Islam. When one understands what Islam is, it is on a non-stop course to subdue the entire planet (which they are very close to) and enforce Sharia-based governance. This includes the hijab: New Zealand was a political stunt to get the women used to wearing the hijab.

Tip: whenever Islam invades a non-Muslim nation, the first thing it will target is the women because this is how Muhammad raised funds for jihad: human trafficking of women (often in the form of sex slaves).
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
This is the same as the mark of Cain: one who grows enmity and desire to spill blood begins projecting his/her own nature outward.
This is how others can be read: and it increases with chastity as Jesus allegedly taught (I can confirm it is true). This is one of the things I discovered after becoming chaste - sexual degeneracy leads to the mark of Cain wherein people begin projecting their own (animal) nature outward and smearing those who they wish to take down out of enmity. This is Cain luring Abel to the field. It is all very interesting - though I know the Torah is man-made, it carries in it some great knowledge that invariably came from the Egyptian schools.

Here's an alternative view: the Creator of the material world - who does not have our interests at heart - demanded of Cain and Abel a sacrifice, an animal sacrifice, because the Creator loves bloody sacrifices (as borne out by later demands of e.g. Abraham and Jesus). Abel obeyed, Cain did not. For Abel was a servant of the lower Creator god, but Cain a servant of the Highest God, Who does not demand such things. And it came to a fight between the two, which Cain won.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
This can be applied to *any* system which utilizes / relies on "belief" as its basis.

However there is presently no greater danger to humanity that the variety of "belief" that is present in Islam. When one understands what Islam is, it is on a non-stop course to subdue the entire planet (which they are very close to) and enforce Sharia-based governance. This includes the hijab: New Zealand was a political stunt to get the women used to wearing the hijab.

Tip: whenever Islam invades a non-Muslim nation, the first thing it will target is the women because this is how Muhammad raised funds for jihad: human trafficking of women (often in the form of sex slaves).

This sounds a bit like an anti-Muslim rant to me. I'm more interested in how your ideas apply to a range of other belief systems/religions.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I know that is what you see - the difference between subjective reasoning and objective reasoning is whereas a subjective reasoner will only allow their already-arrived-at "truth" as the only object that calls for reasoning, an objective reasoner begins with no such already-arrived-at notions and rather duly arrives wherever one is lead naturally.

Your reference to the scriptures adds no credence to the notion that the universe was created through Jesus. In fact, it rather vehemently denies it: the heavens and the earth are created by Elohim according to the original Hebrew, which is itself a plural word capturing the masculine and feminine nature(s) of creation itself. This is not anything like Jesus.

However the Hebrew name for Jesus (I'd pronounce it Yahushua) implies the shin (fire) emerging inside of the Tetragrammaton: the three vavs of which are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who, together, are also the basis of the name of Moses (Moshe). When you add these three into the name of god, you are essentially pointing at the spirit, divine soul and human soul as it is understood in kabbalah. This is not a person (Jesus) as Jesus is a Greek idol, and Christianity is essentially Jewish mysticism (kabbalah) watered down for dummies:

Father (Keser) is Crowned
Son (Chokmah) is Wisdom
H/S (Binah) is Understanding

This is why I stated earlier that understanding is a requirement to solve any problem. When you understand a problem, you can then derive wisdom from it. When the source of wisdom of discovered (it is the same as knowledge of good and evil, which is to become "like" god) one follows only that: which, I would argue, is essentially the collapse of all idolatrous religious institutions such as Christianity/Islam which use male patriarchal figures to enslave adherents to "being like" whatever they think these men/idols were/are.

Creation happens through a Triunity:

Shared Will
Will to Bestow (masculine)
Will to Receive (feminine)

When ones will to receive something *becomes* the others will to bestow it, this is creation:

And Elohim said (shared will)
'Let be light,' (will to bestow)
and there was light. (will to receive)

Apply this to a man and a woman (Adam and Eve) whatever the desire of one, that becomes the will to bestow of the other. So where is the problem in all of this?

When the will is *not* shared: when the man *forces* the woman to do things she does not want to do (and vice versa). This is essentially rape, abuse etc.

So here we have the same phenomena serving as a basis for both creation and destruction. This is the yang and the yin and the secret to the tree of knowledge of good and evil: man in relation to woman. That is the whole point of the story.

Now in this context, look at Christianity and Islam, and tell me they are not Patriarchal institutions of Male idol worship and degrading women. How many wives did Muhammad have? How many sex slaves?

How many people now see the relation infidelity / sexual degeneracy has to "evil"? When the sex (Eve) commands the brain (Adam) and degeneracy rooted in the sex takes hold, here you have the fall of humans back into animal nature that manifests in the form of abusing women.

the pathetic thing is this has all been written down for (apparently) thousands of years and humanity still hasn't figured it out - it seems humanity hasn't even figured out the two genders they started with before inventing more due to shame and wanting to disassociate with either of them. This is what religions such as Islam do to people who shame women for just being women - gender dysphoria.

Islam shames women, but Biblical Christianity is not about, nor does Christianity endorse patriarchal institutions. On the contrary, the Bible exposes the sinful practices of wicked men in history. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with the living Creator.

I don't know where you access you ideas, but I don't see and objective evidence that the so-called knowledge you are espousing other than you imagination.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I should preface by stating I understand the religions of Christianity and Islam to be idol worship: both utilize a (dead; non-existent) male central figure that serves as a model for the citizens of an empire. In both cases each utilize a book(s) which outlines the nature/behavior of such a central figure to be imitated, emulated, regarded as the perfect "pattern of conduct" etc.

The Syriac-speaking Christians (who resided in and around the Arabian Peninsula pre-Islam) had many hymnal texts which:

i. Would later serve as the basis for the early Qur'an, and
ii. Referred to Jesus as "the praised one" and/or "mercy upon mankind"

Over time such titles in ii. gradually "migrated" and began describing the characteristics of an Arabian prophet who would only surface by the late 7th century.

To add more to the mix, such religious institutions invariably rely on Judaism as having served as the soil bed from whence to arise. Similarly, Judaism utilizes a (series of) male central figure(s) who serve(d) as role models.

And herein we arrive at the problem of "belief".

Both Judaism and Islam uniquely "believe" that they are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. In the case of the former, some orthodox Jews believe that if ever a Torah were copied containing an error, the universe would collapse because G-d made the universe with the 22 Hebrew letters and Torah. In the case of the latter, the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Highest authority on the planet which over-rides all non-Muslim nations' laws which they claim to be "man-made". In reality, both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made.

Invariably such "beliefs" still centrally reside as the thousands-year-old human conflict(s) based in the Middle East. Jews "believe" they were delivered by a Jewish Moses under guidance from the creator of the universe as they await their Messiah (rejecting Jesus), and Muslims "believe" similar of their prophet Muhammad who is similarly rejected by the Jews (and rightly so as with Jesus).

However we know that the Torah has at least 3 authors, and at least in its current form (and script) does not resemble anything that can not be explained by the handiwork of man. Similar is true for the Qur'an: it is compiled from numerous sources, many of which were in a different language (Syriac) entirely. It is certain that neither the Torah nor the Qur'an are the perfect word of god, but the Jews and Muslims "believe" such things to be true - it is the basis of their entire way of being.

Similarly, Christians "believe" in Jesus and the Gospel accounts of him. They also seem to "believe" that he was either god or in some way in perfect union with god, and sacrificed himself for the sins of all of mankind - hence derived "mercy upon mankind" which Muhammad would later seemingly usurp. The problem, simply then, is if such an event as the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually occur, Christianity is similarly false and loosely based in "belief".

It is nothing short of curious that the life and death of Jesus should imitate the behavior of the sun: being "dead" for three days beginning Dec. 21 only to rise on Dec. 25 - a special day for the Christian world if only they actually watched it happen in the sky. I still weep at the souls who don't see the connection and thus derive that Jesus is a model / idol of the sun, as were countless solar deities and/or crucified messianic missionaries that preceded him from an array of cultures.

Given all of this, and re-striking the bell of the understanding that Christianity and Islam (as well as Judaism to a certain extent) are essentially idol worshiping institutions which rely on "belief" of things that are not actually true, I derive the following:

"Belief is not a virtue."

much to the detriment of the Muhammadans who overtly call themselves "believers". The entire basis of Islam (and much of the Abrahamic world) can be dismissed based on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue, if not for the fact that both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. One can therefrom surmise naturally that remainder of the Bible the same is true.

"Belief" has no substance: it is essentially a projection. This is how numerous denominations of idolatrous schemes can arise: each denomination projects his/her own unique "imagination" of who, for example, Jesus or who Muhammad is/was (this occurring already after "believing" they existed, which is a problem in and of itself). For example many different denominations of Christianity exist on the basis of what Jesus did and/or did not allow/accept, including things like drinking coffee/alcohol. Islam has similar problems: who was the most rightful heir after Muhammad's fall? Here we have Sunni vs. Shia, a 1400-year-old war within Islam itself. The idol worshipers fight over such things, and the many hundreds of millions are fallen.

Ultimately this "belief" and "idol worship" have been the most prime sources of human suffering and death on this planet. I predict that the greatest obstacle facing humanity is outright flatly rejecting "belief" as a basis of existence (or anything *thing* for that matter) - for it is actually the opposite; namely, illusion and without a basis in reality. "Belief" is therefor the principle conduit for outright insanity: a charge I do not withhold from institutions such as Islam (in agreement with China's recent declaration that Islam is a mental illness). Christianity is similar: though at least humanity had the decency not to make Jesus into a sexually degenerated pedophile war lord that preyed on the weak and vulnerable (women/children) as is the case with Muhammad and Islam. There are certainly varying degrees of insanity - "belief" is common throughout.

God argument if the religions are considered like blocks of stone, and stand alone. The world is like different blocks of stone banging into each other until they are dust.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
For example, Jesus would be, a form of a pre'existing deity, not about a "man nature" as a deity. Can even be a representation, a description, so forth.

Disagree? Why? Broad label, christianity, part of the problem with your premise.

Otherwise, just generally not correlating a problem to belief. Presuming your "theories" aren't belief, is interesting, also.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I should preface by stating I understand the religions of Christianity and Islam to be idol worship: both utilize a (dead; non-existent) male central figure that serves as a model for the citizens of an empire. In both cases each utilize a book(s) which outlines the nature/behavior of such a central figure to be imitated, emulated, regarded as the perfect "pattern of conduct" etc.

The Syriac-speaking Christians (who resided in and around the Arabian Peninsula pre-Islam) had many hymnal texts which:

i. Would later serve as the basis for the early Qur'an, and
ii. Referred to Jesus as "the praised one" and/or "mercy upon mankind"

Over time such titles in ii. gradually "migrated" and began describing the characteristics of an Arabian prophet who would only surface by the late 7th century.

To add more to the mix, such religious institutions invariably rely on Judaism as having served as the soil bed from whence to arise. Similarly, Judaism utilizes a (series of) male central figure(s) who serve(d) as role models.

And herein we arrive at the problem of "belief".

Both Judaism and Islam uniquely "believe" that they are in possession of the perfect, inimitable, unaltered, inerrant word of god. In the case of the former, some orthodox Jews believe that if ever a Torah were copied containing an error, the universe would collapse because G-d made the universe with the 22 Hebrew letters and Torah. In the case of the latter, the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Highest authority on the planet which over-rides all non-Muslim nations' laws which they claim to be "man-made". In reality, both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made.

Invariably such "beliefs" still centrally reside as the thousands-year-old human conflict(s) based in the Middle East. Jews "believe" they were delivered by a Jewish Moses under guidance from the creator of the universe as they await their Messiah (rejecting Jesus), and Muslims "believe" similar of their prophet Muhammad who is similarly rejected by the Jews (and rightly so as with Jesus).

However we know that the Torah has at least 3 authors, and at least in its current form (and script) does not resemble anything that can not be explained by the handiwork of man. Similar is true for the Qur'an: it is compiled from numerous sources, many of which were in a different language (Syriac) entirely. It is certain that neither the Torah nor the Qur'an are the perfect word of god, but the Jews and Muslims "believe" such things to be true - it is the basis of their entire way of being.

Similarly, Christians "believe" in Jesus and the Gospel accounts of him. They also seem to "believe" that he was either god or in some way in perfect union with god, and sacrificed himself for the sins of all of mankind - hence derived "mercy upon mankind" which Muhammad would later seemingly usurp. The problem, simply then, is if such an event as the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually occur, Christianity is similarly false and loosely based in "belief".

It is nothing short of curious that the life and death of Jesus should imitate the behavior of the sun: being "dead" for three days beginning Dec. 21 only to rise on Dec. 25 - a special day for the Christian world if only they actually watched it happen in the sky. I still weep at the souls who don't see the connection and thus derive that Jesus is a model / idol of the sun, as were countless solar deities and/or crucified messianic missionaries that preceded him from an array of cultures.

Given all of this, and re-striking the bell of the understanding that Christianity and Islam (as well as Judaism to a certain extent) are essentially idol worshiping institutions which rely on "belief" of things that are not actually true, I derive the following:

"Belief is not a virtue."

much to the detriment of the Muhammadans who overtly call themselves "believers". The entire basis of Islam (and much of the Abrahamic world) can be dismissed based on the premise that "belief" is not a virtue, if not for the fact that both the Torah and Qur'an are man-made. One can therefrom surmise naturally that remainder of the Bible the same is true.

"Belief" has no substance: it is essentially a projection. This is how numerous denominations of idolatrous schemes can arise: each denomination projects his/her own unique "imagination" of who, for example, Jesus or who Muhammad is/was (this occurring already after "believing" they existed, which is a problem in and of itself). For example many different denominations of Christianity exist on the basis of what Jesus did and/or did not allow/accept, including things like drinking coffee/alcohol. Islam has similar problems: who was the most rightful heir after Muhammad's fall? Here we have Sunni vs. Shia, a 1400-year-old war within Islam itself. The idol worshipers fight over such things, and the many hundreds of millions are fallen.

Ultimately this "belief" and "idol worship" have been the most prime sources of human suffering and death on this planet. I predict that the greatest obstacle facing humanity is outright flatly rejecting "belief" as a basis of existence (or anything *thing* for that matter) - for it is actually the opposite; namely, illusion and without a basis in reality. "Belief" is therefor the principle conduit for outright insanity: a charge I do not withhold from institutions such as Islam (in agreement with China's recent declaration that Islam is a mental illness). Christianity is similar: though at least humanity had the decency not to make Jesus into a sexually degenerated pedophile war lord that preyed on the weak and vulnerable (women/children) as is the case with Muhammad and Islam. There are certainly varying degrees of insanity - "belief" is common throughout.
Many of the problems you cite regarding the religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam go away if you realize that what we see of these religions today is nothing more than what humans have done to these religions over the course of time to change them and corrupt them. Thus they are no longer the religions of God, but rather the religions of man. The Manifestation of God for the present age is Baha’u’llah.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172

All religions go through stages which can be likened to seasons of the year. The first stage is spring... That can be likened to a spiritual springtime which begins after a religion is originally revealed by God to a messenger. God is real to man and it is a living Faith. As time goes on religion goes into its summer season, the peak of its influence; but then it goes into a season of late summer and early fall. During these seasons, theology takes over and there is an intellectual acceptance rather than an inner conviction of God’s truth.

Finally, religion goes into a late fall and winter season in which material power becomes the determining factor, and faith in God does not dominate any longer. Only the outward form of the religion remains because the original spirit is gone. People are believers in name only. Religion falls behind the times and it cannot understand nor interpret what is happening in the present world. This is where the older religions such as Judaism and Christianity are at today, in the winter season.

The Baha’i Faith is new so it is in its spring season. Baha’is who are involved are passionate about their Faith just as in the early days of Christianity. But of course it does not have much influence yet, it is much too new, as it takes a long time to establish a religion and gain many adherents. I believe that will change over time, but it will take a long time, particularly because most religious people are attached to their older religions, thus not even open to looking at a new religion, let alone investigating it seriously.
 
Top