Different beliefs. What sets one above, better, more acceptable/believable than the other

[InChrist]

How?

And if that was true, what do you need missionaries for? A little help?.

ciao

- viole

Any number of ways.
God uses missionaries to share the news and information to those who are interested and may be seeking to know about God, that’s what they are for.
I have read numerous accounts of people in remote areas who had no exposure to Christ, yet they said they were wondering who God was or where God was and a missionary came along, they were led to a Christian, somehow got a Bible in their language, or at times had a vision of Christ Himself. When a person sincerely seeks God responds and meets someone uniquely where they are.

The scriptures indicate that God knows the motives and intentions of each person’s heart and mind. God knows whether or not someone would accept or reject the truth given the opportunity and will judge rightly and fairly.

...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves theirthoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Romans 2:14-16

 

[1213]

How do you know that they have not taken care that you know what they want to say of you have never listened to them?

I think, if they would have something to say and they would want me to hear, I would not have any other choice.

Do you believe that the Bible God is the only God that has anything worthwhile to say?

It seems to be so. If you disagree, please show one example of God that has something worthwhile to say and to what it is based?

 

[Trailblazer]

I think, if they would have something to say and they would want me to hear, I would not have any other choice.

What wouldn't you have any other choice? Do you think God would force you to listen? What about free will?

It seems to be so. If you disagree, please show one example of God that has something worthwhile to say and to what it is based?

God had plenty to say to Baha'u'llah, and He wrote all that down in His Own Pen.

The Works of Bahá'u'lláh

 

[viole]

Any number of ways.
God uses missionaries to share the news and information to those who are interested and may be seeking to know about God, that’s what they are for.
I have read numerous accounts of people in remote areas who had no exposure to Christ, yet they said they were wondering who God was or where God was and a missionary came along, they were led to a Christian, somehow got a Bible in their language, or at times had a vision of Christ Himself. When a person sincerely seeks God responds and meets someone uniquely where they are.

The scriptures indicate that God knows the motives and intentions of each person’s heart and mind. God knows whether or not someone would accept or reject the truth given the opportunity and will judge rightly and fairly.

...for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves theirthoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
Romans 2:14-16

Well, I still do not know how people who never heard of the Bible can come to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord and all that stuff. In other words: how can they be saved?

You seem to provide two versions now:

1) God can read minds, and therefore knows who would accept the message in case of exposure to it. The one who would, are saved, even if they will never be exposed to it in their life
2) Anybody is responsible to find the message since that can be achieved even without missionaries, so there is no excuse. Like Paul would say

So, what is it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Left Coast]

As you note we are discussing completely different things, I did try to point that out earlier

As I clarified, the point you replied to was about belief systems as that what the OP was about.

"I was really focusing on the term 'better' in the context of belief systems.

I do not believe 'factual accuracy' [of the narratives underpinning the belief system] is a robust metric for deciding what belief systems are 'better' than others. A belief system that was based on being as factually accurate as possible certainly wouldn't resemble liberal humanism.

Factual accuracy matters sometimes (building a plane, is it safe to cross the road, etc.) but worldviews as a whole are not really about factual reality but making meaning via mythos in a world which has no intrinsic meaning."

In terms of being reasonable (based on reason), what you say is basically tautological.

100 years ago, and without the benefit of hindsight, it was more reasonable for an educated European Rationalist to be a racialist eugenicist or social Darwinist than a someone who opposed such beliefs based on religious mythology. They could point to widely accepted science in support of their views, and the other was relying on myth.

Most people today would agree that, of the 2, the Christian opponent held the better belief in this regard though (and it's not a 'false dichotomy', it is a comparison of 2 common positions that factually existed).

The science may have been wrong, but when a mainstream scientific belief is proved wrong, we don't consider everyone who ever held it to be irrational. It wasn't irrational to believe in geocentrism in the 15th C.

There was also nothing factually wrong with Trotsky pointing out that human life has no intrinsic value. And, accepting this, it was not unreasonable to consider it an acceptable trade of if millions die to benefit all of humanity in perpetuity. It was simple utilitarianism.

To me, that doesn't make them good beliefs though.



It wouldn't be in the context my conversation

that was how the factual accuracy of the mythos is not the best metric for measuring the value of belief systems. It was not about facts never having any value

The myths that underpin the belief system don't really matter, it is the behaviours they produce and the consequences of these that matter (and yes, of course you can use facts and evidence to work this out. I didn't 'avoid' the question I just pointed out it had nothing to do with what I had actually said).

It sounds like we're in agreement that:

1) Facts matter. We shouldn't embrace falsehoods.

2) You need more than facts to have a worldview; worldviews involve values.

3) Religion/Religious folks aren't universally irrational simply because some ideas they advocate are.

That's a good place to leave it, for me. I'll start up the other thread re: political philosophy soon.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I still do not know how people who never heard of the Bible can come to the conclusion that Jesus is Lord and all that stuff.

I don't think they would be held accountable for not knowing about Jesus if they had never heard of Him, if there was such a thing as "saved."

However, by the mid-19th century the Bible had been preached to every nation and about 95% of the people in the world had received the gospel message, and I imagine it is even more that have heard it by now.
So nobody would have an excuse except some natives in the jungles of Africa, if they needed an excuse.

Saved from what?

 

[1213]

What wouldn't you have any other choice? Do you think God would force you to listen? What about free will?

I don’t think it is necessary to force anyone to listen, but if you don’t speak at all, then I don’t have even the chance to choose to listen or not listen.

What I meant was more about that there should be even a chance to listen. Not necessary that God/god forces person to listen.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don’t think it is necessary to force anyone to listen, but if you don’t speak at all, then I don’t have even the chance to choose to listen or not listen.

That's true, but how do you know if God spoke unless you are listening?
I said something to my husband before he went to bed and I don't think he was listening, yet I know I said it.
Later when he wakes up he will tell me he never heard it.

What I meant was more about that there should be even a chance to listen. Not necessary that God/god forces person to listen.

If God said something then there is a chance to listen, bearing in mind that God only speaks through His Messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

I do not believe my religion is set apart from other religions in the sense of being better. I do not believe that any religion is better than any other religion, they are all just different.

What makes the Baha'i Faith different is that it is newer and more current, addressing the problems that humanity faces in this age. Thus I believe it is the religion that is suited for this age and the religion God wants everyone to adhere to, but it is not the best or the last religion, as God will reveal more religions in the future that will supersede it.

The very idea that any religion is the best or better than any other religion is extremely offensive to me. I see no reason for holding such a belief because no Messenger of God/Prophet ever taught any such a thing. It was the followers of the religions that taught that after they misinterpreted the scriptures. This applies specifically to Judaism and Christianity, as they both believe that they alone have the only true religion that is superior to all the other religions.

Hey Trailblazer, I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't believe, that if the Baha'i Faith is true, that what you say is correct. There were ancient religions that most all of us would say were false... one I usually mention that wasn't all that ancient was the religion of the Aztecs. Who believes that God needed people to be sacrificed? So it was probably better that the Spanish "converted" the people to be Catholic Christians. But, was what Catholics taught at that time the Truth? Is God a Trinity? Baha'is would say "no". So they, and any other Christian Church that believes Jesus is God, for a Baha'i, would be believing something that isn't true.

As I've asked Baha'is several times, this applies to all the other religions too, not just Christianity. Which one, if any, would Baha'is say believe and teach the exact, real truth about God? If you can name one, I'd be glad to hear it. And I'm not talking about a non-existent religion that taught the "original" truth from God before the followers messed it up. I'm talking about today. Is there a religion that has the truth about God? I'd don't think a Baha'is can honestly say any of them teach the truth. So, for a Baha'i, no matter how nice they try and word it and down play it, they believe all the other religions are wrong. Which makes them, the Baha'is, better. And, since Baha'is reject superstitious beliefs that can't be backed by science, they should be more believable also.

So do you really think all the other religions are no better than yours, just different?

 

[Trailblazer]

Hey Trailblazer, I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't believe, that if the Baha'i Faith is true, that what you say is correct. There were ancient religions that most all of us would say were false... one I usually mention that wasn't all that ancient was the religion of the Aztecs. Who believes that God needed people to be sacrificed? So it was probably better that the Spanish "converted" the people to be Catholic Christians. But, was what Catholics taught at that time the Truth? Is God a Trinity? Baha'is would say "no". So they, and any other Christian Church that believes Jesus is God, for a Baha'i, would be believing something that isn't true.

The issue as I see it is that you are not differentiating revealed religions from man-made religions, which I do noit consider true religions of God. When I said that I do not believe that any religion is better than any other religion, they are all just different, I was referring only to the true religions of God, the religions that were revealed by Messengers of God.

As I've asked Baha'is several times, this applies to all the other religions too, not just Christianity. Which one, if any, would Baha'is say believe and teach the exact, real truth about God? If you can name one, I'd be glad to hear it.

All of the true religions teach the real truth about God, but the older religions have been encrusted with many falsehoods over time, so not everything they teach is true. I have posted this passage many times.

“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.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

And I'm not talking about a non-existent religion that taught the "original" truth from God before the followers messed it up. I'm talking about today. Is there a religion that has the truth about God?

All of the great world religions have some of the truth about God, but they are so encrusted with false beliefs that the truth is hard to find.

I'd don't think a Baha'is can honestly say any of them teach the truth. So, for a Baha'i, no matter how nice they try and word it and down play it, they believe all the other religions are wrong. Which makes them, the Baha'is, better. And, since Baha'is reject superstitious beliefs that can't be backed by science, they should be more believable also.

No, that is not true, that is not what we believe. Those superstitious beliefs are the result of misinterpretations of the scriptures, literal understandings, they are not part of the religion as it was revealed by God. The fact that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha clarified many of the meanings of scriptures so we can better understand what God intended does not mean the Baha'i Faith is better. We simply have new information. Every new religion revealed new information we did not have before, as there would be no need for a new religion if it did not reveal anything new.

So do you really think all the other religions are no better than yours, just different?

Yes.

 

[1213]

That's true, but how do you know if God spoke unless you are listening?...

I think it is possible that person has shut his ears even before God would say anything, if for example the person for some reason hates God. And obviously that person would not hear or know.

...If God said something then there is a chance to listen, bearing in mind that God only speaks through His Messengers.

In Bible Holy Spirit is promised for disciples of Jesus. Those who have the Holy Spirit, could hear the message without human messenger.

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it is possible that person has shut his ears even before God would say anything, if for example the person for some reason hates God. And obviously that person would not hear or know.

Yes, that's possible, if someone hates God, but I don't think you hate God.

In Bible Holy Spirit is promised for disciples of Jesus. Those who have the Holy Spirit, could hear the message without human messenger.

However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

I agree that the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples of Jesus: 24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

And they could hear the message of Jesus, but I do not believe that the Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit that descended upon the disciples at Pentecost because the Holy Spirit did not do any of the following:

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you

I believe that the Spirit of truth was a man who brought the Holy Spirit and He did all of those things. His name was Baha'u'llah.

 

[alypius]

No rational reason to believe one, and not the other.

If the claims of two religions are mutually exclusive how could both be accepted?

 

[viole]

If the claims of two religions are mutually exclusive how could both be accepted?

They can't. But that was no point. My point is: since Christianity has the same evidential support as, say, Hinduism, why are you a Christian?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

Whether your belief is....
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Etc

It all goes back and starts from one person. What sets your belief apart from the others? Was it just a personal choice, understanding, etc. or something else.

I am not aware of Hinduism starting from one person.
My choices come from my spiritual experiences as well from internal reflection on what I know and understand.

 

[1213]

...I believe that the Spirit of truth was a man who brought the Holy Spirit and He did all of those things. His name was Baha'u'llah.

In Bible Holy Spirit is something that is in people and therefore not a man. So, what is the reason why you believe Holy Spirit is a man? And why not call him just a holy man, if he is not actually a spirit?

 

[Trailblazer]

In Bible Holy Spirit is something that is in people and therefore not a man. So, what is the reason why you believe Holy Spirit is a man? And why not call him just a holy man, if he is not actually a spirit?

That is not in the Bible, the indwelt Holy Spirit is a Christian belief that came about as a result of an interpretation of the Bible wherein Christians assigned a meaning to the words in certain verses.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit lives inside of human bodies because the Holy Spirit cannot dwell within a man.
The Holy Spirit reflects upon humans and is associated with their minds but it does not descend into their bodies. Entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits. The Holy Spirit do not enter the body, but rather it has a direct connection to the body through the soul, which is associated with the mind while we are alive in the physical body.

I do not believe that the Holy Spirit is a man, but rather the Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God that emanates from God. God spoke to men such as Jesus through the Holy Spirit.... In other words, the Holy Spirit was a medium through which God communicated to Jesus...

The Holy Spirit cannot proceed from anyone but God. The Holy Spirit was sent by God to Jesus and Baha'u'llah and they brought the Holy Spirit to humanity.
The Comforter is just a title for the man who brings the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was a Comforter and Baha'u'llah was another Comforter who taught all things and testified of Jesus.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Baha'u'llah was also called the Spirit of truth because he guided us into all truth and He glorified Jesus.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

 

[Sand Dancer]

No, not that ancient, but the worship of Greek mythological gods continued into the time of Christ. Many turned from their idol worship to Jesus Christ.

And what about those who left Christianity for other religions?

 

[InChrist]

And what about those who left Christianity for other religions?

I think it’s understandable if all they had was a religious practice and transferred from one to another. I can’t imagine anyone who is in a living relationship with Jesus Christ leaving the One who gives true love and peace.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Whether your belief is....
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Buddhism
Islam
Etc

It all goes back and starts from one person. What sets your belief apart from the others? Was it just a personal choice, understanding, etc. or something else.

My opinion.

When you see your belief over another, you're seeing that the belief you have conforms to what you now of reality. Other beliefs that conflict with it would not align therefore, by default, would be false. So, in that respect putting your belief over others is saying what one belief is true and others is not (the contradicting beliefs). So, if one religious believe a creator exist and another religious do not, their views are valid to the person who believes in it. It is how they experience the world. They put their view over the other because one is true and the other, by default, is false.

A person's belief, by default, is apart from another when they contradict each other. So, a Hindu belief of god and a Christian belief in god would contradict each other, therefore they are, by default, separate. Since both parties see their own views as correct, whatever view that contradicts there view by default (whether they express it or not) would be false. So, in that respects, we put (or see) our view of reality over others insofar that what contradicts our view of reality would not be on the same level as it.

Maybe "over" and "apart" symbols disunity, but in my opinion, it just means there are differences based on the level of one's preference and reality not whether one is better than the other.