• 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!

If God spoke again...

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
If God spoke again through a new Messenger who had a message for all of humanity, would it “matter” if the adherents to the older religions recognized that Messenger and followed His religion, or would it be acceptable for religious people to continue following the older religions they adhere to?

If you think it matters why do you think so?

If you think it does not matter why don’t you think so?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
If God spoke again through a new Messenger who had a message for all of humanity, would it “matter” if the adherents to the older religions recognized that Messenger and followed His religion, or would it be acceptable for religious people to continue following the older religions they adhere to?

If you think it matters why do you think so?

If you think it does not matter why don’t you think so?
You're the one inventing the God in this scenario; it's really up to you to decide what matters to him.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If God spoke again through a new Messenger who had a message for all of humanity, would it “matter” if the adherents to the older religions recognized that Messenger and followed His religion, or would it be acceptable for religious people to continue following the older religions they adhere to?

If you think it matters why do you think so?

If you think it does not matter why don’t you think so?
What matters, I would think, is the message; not the messenger, or it's age.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What matters, I would think, is the message; not the messenger, or it's age.
That is exactly what I thought when I first saw the message. I did not care who sent it, I just saw the message as what individuals and humanity needed in this age.
Now, 49 years later, I still believe that, although I think that the Messenger is important too.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It's the God of a hypothetical scenario, so ultimately it's up to the author of the hypothetical scenario... i.e. you.
Okay, I'll bite. :D
If God sent a new Messenger I think it would matter if people recognized and followed that Messenger and if that Messenger founded a new religion I think everyone should join that religion. But that is just my personal opinion and it is based upon my logic.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
If God spoke again through a new Messenger who had a message
Your question presumes that there would be a message from a new Messenger or Avatar as I would put it. Wikipedia has this about the Kalki Avatar:

Kalki is an avatara of Vishnu. Avatara means "descent" and refers to a descent of the divine into the material realm of human existence. The Garuda Purana lists ten avatars, with Kalki being the tenth.[8] He is described as the avatar who appears at the end of the Kali Yuga. He ends the darkest, degenerating and chaotic stage of the Kali Yuga (period) to remove adharma and ushers in the Satya Yuga, while riding a white horse with a fiery sword.[2][3] He restarts a new cycle of time.[9
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
If God spoke again through a new Messenger who had a message for all of humanity, would it “matter” if the adherents to the older religions recognized that Messenger and followed His religion, or would it be acceptable for religious people to continue following the older religions they adhere to?

If you think it matters why do you think so?

If you think it does not matter why don’t you think so?

It would be better for inherits to follow their own appropriate (not old) religion. Religion isn't old. Traditions help some find security and look back on what the "old ones" did as a means to help them today. There is nothing outdated to religious whose purpose is to follow traditions from their ancestors and today.

It would matter. Respect to each his own.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Your question presumes that there would be a message from a new Messenger or Avatar as I would put it. Wikipedia has this about the Kalki Avatar:

Kalki is an avatara of Vishnu. Avatara means "descent" and refers to a descent of the divine into the material realm of human existence. The Garuda Purana lists ten avatars, with Kalki being the tenth.[8] He is described as the avatar who appears at the end of the Kali Yuga. He ends the darkest, degenerating and chaotic stage of the Kali Yuga (period) to remove adharma and ushers in the Satya Yuga, while riding a white horse with a fiery sword.[2][3] He restarts a new cycle of time.[9
Yes, my OP is based upon an Abrahamic type of Messenger. I know others have different beliefs. :)
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
If God spoke again through a new Messenger who had a message for all of humanity, would it “matter” if the adherents to the older religions recognized that Messenger and followed His religion, or would it be acceptable for religious people to continue following the older religions they adhere to?

If you think it matters why do you think so?

If you think it does not matter why don’t you think so?
God didn't even speak the first time. All of the 'speaking' came from a bunch of old books based off ancient mythology.

The only thing that matters is with the person's standards of believability.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Christianity has Jesus as the Son of God not a Messenger so you would limit yourself to Islam and perhaps Judaism if you considered Prophet and Messenger to be equivalent.
I do not care what Christianity has Jesus as. I agree that Jesus was the Son of God (although not in a biological sense) but Jesus was also a Prophet. These are just labels. A Messenger of God is the same thing as a Prophet.

Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet, and was so regarded.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
God didn't even speak the first time. All of the 'speaking' came from a bunch of old books based off ancient mythology.

The only thing that matters is with the person's standards of believability.
I do not believe the old books are God speaking but I think God did speak to those Prophets such as Moses and Jesus. Unfortunately they did not write anything down.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
If God spoke again...

What evidence do we have that he spoke the first time?

...through a new Messenger...

Wouldn't people be more convinced is he spoke through an old one? I mean if he resurrected one, I'd be much more convinced that the message was actually coming from God. Wouldn't you?

...who had a message for all of humanity, would it “matter” if the adherents to the older religions recognized that Messenger and followed His religion, or would it be acceptable for religious people to continue following the older religions they adhere to?

Please explain the verification process that would certify that the message for all humanity actually came from God and not some nutcase with a god complex?

If there was no way to validate the message as God's, I see no reason why it would be anything less than acceptable for people to continue following their own religion.

If you think it does not matter why don’t you think so?

Well, because of what I said above.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I do not believe the old books are God speaking but I think God did speak to those Prophets such as Moses and Jesus. Unfortunately they did not write anything down.

Why would God speak to a select few instead of simply speaking to everyone to ensure his message was received accurately? Ever play the game 'telephone?'
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What evidence do we have that he spoke the first time?
There is evidence but no proof.
Wouldn't people be more convinced is he spoke through an old one? I mean if he resurrected one, I'd be much more convinced that the message was actually coming from God. Wouldn't you?
No, I do not believe that bodies rise from graves, and what would be the point? Even if that had happened it would not be the best proof that Jesus was a Messenger of God. The best proof are His deeds and words.
That would not be convincing to me. What is convincing to me is their life, their mission, and their words, and the power they had to transform humankind.
Please explain the verification process that would certify that the message for all humanity actually came from God and not some nutcase with a god complex?
There is no such verification process. Everyone has to look for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
If there was no way to validate the message as God's, I see no reason why it would be anything less than acceptable for people to continue following their own religion.
By that same logic, why would it be acceptable for them to follow a religion established by another Messenger whose message cannot be verified to have come from God?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
There is evidence but no proof.

By all means, then please present it.

No, I do not believe that bodies rise from graves, and what would be the point? Even if that had happened it would not be the best proof that Jesus was a Messenger of God. The best proof are His deeds and words.

Please provide these deeds and words along with evidence they actually came from God.

There is no such verification process.

Of course there isn't.

By that same logic, why would it be acceptable for them to follow a religion established by another Messenger whose message cannot be verified to have come from God?

It would be acceptable because there are religions that require no messenger or message. They are based on one's personal experiences. No third party verification required.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Because God is not trying to ensure that everyone gets the message.
God wants us to make a sincere effort and use our innate intelligence.
Some people will get the message and some won't.

Seems like an odd way to hope to successfully communicate a message.

When I want to see a desired result in my restaurants, I don't talk to one manager and hope that the other 100+ managers that work for me receive it and believe that it came from me. I send an email to every restaurant so the managers can verify it came from me and follow that up with one-on-one discussions or meetings. And sometimes that isn't always 100 percent successful.
 
Top