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!
I was listening to an interview with a minister who wrote a book and he was talking about one's God, meaning that a person needs to understand his God. The minister believed in Jesus. So it made me think that the jews and Christians basically had one particular God, the nations around them worshipped other gods. What do you think about that?
How about the possibility that the word day could be used to encompass light and darkness or a set period of time with a beginning and an end?
It may be that God used similar elements to form the type of living beings there are. We have no proof that all things just "happened" without divine guidance. (Remember-- I said there is no proof that "all things" just happened to happen.) For instance, God allows many things to happen. It does not mean He programs every step either of natural course, or biologically. DNA or similar looking life forms are not proof that evolution happened to happen. It is proof that DNA can be similar. Or that chimpanzees have arms and legs and possibly facial characteristics that remind one of themselves. But chimps usually recognize chimps, humans, generally speaking, do not recognize chimpanzees as humans.
I can't say that God ever was a baby. The Bible does not lead me to conclude that. It does lead me to conclude that Jesus was in heaven WITH God before he left heaven and lived as a man, completely as a man untill he died. Not God in human form.
Again, for a person to know God does not mean that every depiction, vision, dream that someone has necessarily comes from God, even if the person says it does. Let's take, for instance, the Egyptians during Moses' time. They had their gods. Notice Exodus 12:12: - "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."
Every vision, prophecy, dream, thought needs to be tested by Scripture to see if it’s from God or another source. If it contradicts Scripture or Gods character it’s not from God. This is written in Scripture on how to tell true from false prophets.
You didn't answer my question in regards to the Bhagavad Gita and why that is or is not "inspired by God".
Sorry to say, but that's illogical. How could one know X is perfect unless they had perfect judgement?
IMO, that's a better answer, as this approach admits our limitations, which we all have. Plus, there's a bug difference between "I believe X is perfect" versus "X is perfect".
I suppose it could be possible.... My point is we really don't know how much a day was when God was creating before the sun and the moon existed by which we determine our time,
Again -- there was a particular God for the Israelites. The God of Israel was not the god of the nations. But there were (are) other gods besides the one True God. John 17:3 - "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." So there is only (according to Jesus), an ONLY TRUE GOD. The Egyptians had their gods, they were not the God of Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Although of course, this ONLY TRUE GOD could reach whomever He wants to, as in Pharaoh's case. But Egypt at that time had other gods.
And I tend to agree with that. On the other hand, I doubt that God needs light to see things.
It is possible that insertions have been made to clarify some things. And, there are things that scholars have been pressed to explain. But the basic message and frankly, the details (check out the wandering for 40 years -- very, very clear and descriptive) can be so clear that there is little doubt in my mind that the book(s) is accurate and true.
If you read Paul's words, also Jesus, they kind of make it clear that there is only one TRUE God. Remember? Hey, look, I can't help it, that's what the Bible says they said. Jesus: John 17:3 - (English Standard Version) "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.)
?
I am not that familiar with Hinduism and its traditions. You, as the teacher, may well be more familiar, so I am interested in your opinion. I think that generally Hindus do not believe in violence towards humans and animals, although cultures within may differ in application or revelation.
when you say it's illogic, the onus is on you to prove your point. A question is by no means a substancitation of a claim.
you say you cannot say the Bible is perfect, since you are too imperfect.
This is an illogical statement as it is virtually impossible to check the veracity of such supposed events today. Just because something is "descriptive" does not automatically mean that it must be correct.
Again, you haven't answered the question I asked dealing with the Bhagavad Gita, thus citing what's in the Christian Bible doesn't deal with that.If you read Paul's words, also Jesus, they kind of make it clear that there is only one TRUE God. Remember? Hey, look, I can't help it, that's what the Bible says they said. Jesus: John 17:3 - (English Standard Version) "And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.)
Let's go back to the account of the Israelites in the wilderness. It wasn't like they weren't passing through territory where the non-Israelities were worshipping other gods. Also, there are false inspired messages, aren't there? You should know because you read the Bible a lot. I'm not a betting person, I don't go to the racetrack or casinos and put money down. But I wonder if you think the account about Jesus is a myth too?
There are so many variations of Hinduism it's darn near impossible to provide any precise "definition". Not all Hindus buy into non-violence Gandhi-style, nor are all of them vegetarian.
One cannot "prove" one's point when dealing the issue of "logic" since it is a historical issue that took place thousands of years ago that we simply cannot in any way verify one way or the other. Basically, it's largely what is called "hearsay evidence", which almost always is at least somewhat conjectural.
If it has what theologians call "variations" [on many narratives], then logically it cannot be perfect. Thus, it is actually your position, not mine, that is biased because you are making assumptions that you simply cannot in any way substantiate, thus being of what's commonly called "blind faith". However, that does not mean that it is automatically wrong.
And I fully support your right to have an opinion.