• 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 only difference between religions.

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
One way to understand how and why different religions can all claim they have the answer for all, can be explained with a simple mathematical/geometrical analogy.

Picture a 3-D sphere, like a tennis ball. It occupies space in 3-D; (x,y,z). One way to approximate this 3-D sphere with only 2-D, is to use a large number of 2-D circles, each with a common center with all at a slightly different angles.

The various religions of the world are trying to describe a 3-D concept which is not easy to do with language and logic. It requires feeling created by faith. Logic is based on cause and affect or is 2-D. Each religion is a circle that is part of the truth. This partial truth can be felt by the common center that gives the same feeling to all the circles, even though each approaches this from a different angle; family of man.

The two sides of the brain process data differently. The right brain is more spatial and integral or 3-D, while the left brain is more differential and analytical or 2-D. At one time ego consciousness was more 3-D or right brained. The symbols of various religion indirectly imply it migrated more to the left brain and in doing so became more analytical and differential and less instinctive and integrated. More detail can be seen but the integration affects of instinct were lost. Science currently has the problem of generating data to differentiate reality faster than it can integrate the data. This is an artifact of the ego and the left brain migration.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is 2-D, with good the x-axis and evil the y-axis, with that symbolism telling something about the era of ego migration fro intinction integration; paradise, to differential; unique ego.

The 3-D type of thinking uses a faster and denser language that is not easy to present in words. It is typically done as a human team affect, with a wide range of 2-D system; circles, at different angles, all coming together to define the 3-D truth. The conviction; center, is the same for all the circles, so each retains its share, so the total can remain for all to see.

There is also something that can be described as 4-D thought processing within the brain. These are integrated 3-D affects than move in time such as consciousness.

Picture the 3-D tennis ball, which is being approximated by a wide range of 2-D circles, being hit by God with a large tennis racket. The deformation, in 3-D, will move many of the 2-D planes out of their place and also thrown then off the new center of gravity. Some are displaced into other planes that were once different and separate. This periodically happens in religion, such as the shift from ancient mythology religions to the more modern monotheistic. When the 3-D ball flexes back to 3-D, there is a change in the air.

In Revelation, there is symbolism of a great earthquake, where mountains; natural systems built to the heavens, are moved out of place. This anticipates such a tennis ball serve by God. When things settle, new 2-D circles reassemble the new 3-D ball, with new wisdom in place.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
lead inevitablylead inevitably

Oka, here is mine: a course of action that seems to lead inevitably from one action or result to another with unintended consequences.
Could: used to indicate possibility

I don't view to indicate possibility as lead inevitably to. But that is just me. So I will now bow to you as the God of understanding because that is your stick. Or not. ;);)

Thats the slippery slope fallacy mate. You can argue for the sake of arguing till the clouds fall on our heads. ;)
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
You'd think that the wrong guys would all get together and change (joke).

Both the Christian religion and the Muslim religion spun off of the parent Jewish religion.

But I have noticed a lot of preachers bad-mouthing ("thou shalt not bear false witness"...."do unto others") the Jewish faith. I think that there would be a lot of Christians who would like to attend Jewish temples and discuss the Christian faith with those who could speak the language that their bible was originally writen in. I think that they would like to understand the concepts of the Jewish religion before it was altered.

Jews used to be polytheists. Wouldn't it be interesting for Christians to find out a little about the other Gods that were abandoned? Why were they abandoned? I suppose the most powerful God was jealous, and didn't want them worshipped. But shouldn't we know that other Gods are there (or were there)?

Jews have a concept of many heavens, not just one. I heard a lecture by the assistant pastor of a local Greek Orthodox church proclaiming that in the Jewish faith there is just one heaven. But, he didn't really understand the faith, so he didn't understand how the faith was changed by his own faith.

What would happen if many Christians returned to their roots? They would leave the church and convert back to Jews. Or they might find that the reforms of the Lutheran religion are closer to God? They might change denominations of Christianity.

So, to keep the members of their own church, they must bad mouth (bear false witness) against other churches.

This is why some people post that Jews are not human but they are lizard people. Good grief, what kind of idiot would spread that nonsense?

That's why some people pick on Jews as cheap. Yet, in reality, they donate generously (like City of Hope, the cancer hospital, was largely from donations of Jews, and that is where manmade insulin was invented). They are trying to find some difference that they can pick on.

That is why some people say that a bris is bad (merely because it is a practice of the Jewish people, and they don't care if it keeps men (and their partners) safe from germs.

That is why some people say that Jews slaughter animals cruelly. Actually, Jewish law is designed to slaughter meat as quickly and humanely as possible.

All these gripes (and bigotry) just to keep their own congregations. Yet, are their religions so weak that they cannot stand on their own merits? If so, why believe at all?

Must a people suffer at the hands of Nazis just because others want to pick on them?
I disagree with the bad rep that Jews got.

You always bring up Jews, WW2, Hitler, Trump in your postings, i wonder why you do this?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God can't be empirically proven because God is a spiritual being.
Otherwise God can't be disproven philosophically, so the burden of proof is on atheists rather than theists.
No, that doesn't follow. You could say the same thing about lizard men from Sirius 3 or garden færies: not disproven, ergo....?

The burden is never on disproof. Absent evidence, non-existence is logically assumed, it's the epistemic default. The burden is on the one making a positive claim.
My first ingredient for formula for which religion is true is to look at which one is older, which is again not empirical proof.
So the older is true, or the most recent? I'm not sure how either would follow.
What does time of origin have to do with truth?
I think one does it by looking at works of other faiths, but there may be other subjective factors as well.
The works of other faiths? Which works would indicate truth -- the ones that seem right to you?

Nazism worked wonderfully for the German economy, infrastructure and public spirit -- for a while. Was that an indication it was true or desirable?
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God can't be empirically proven because God is a spiritual being.
Otherwise God can't be disproven philosophically, so the burden of proof is on atheists rather than theists.
No, that doesn't follow. You could say the same thing about lizard men from Sirius 3 or garden færies -- not disproven, ergo....?

The burden is never on disproof. Absent evidence, non-existence is logically assumed, it's the epistemic default. The burden is on the one making a positive claim.
My first ingredient for formula for which religion is true is to look at which one is older, which is again not empirical proof.
So the older is true, or the most recent? I'm not sure how either would follow.
What does time of origin have to do with truth?
I think one does it by looking at works of other faiths, but there may be other subjective factors as well.
The works of other faiths? Which works would indicate truth -- the ones that seem right to you? Nazism worked wonderfully for the German economy, infrastructure and public sentiment -- for a while. Was that an indication it was true or desirable?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It is logically possible that all scriptures are wrong.
However that all are true is impossible.

In either case faith is required.

This is why paradox, arguing on possibilities is useless. A famous example taken in logic to showcase possibilities in logic is an elephant playing piano behind the moon. Its logically possible.

Thus, speaking of possibilities and using vague terms like true and false, if you take two scriptures, and analyse them both, they could contradict in many things, but lets say ultimately they come to the exact, same conclusion, they are both right or they are both wrong. That is why it is not impossible that both are true. But if you specify your case saying it is impossible for both scriptures to be absolutely true from cover to cover, that's a valid truth bearer.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is logically possible that all scriptures are wrong.
However that all are true is impossible.

In either case faith is required.
No, faith is required for poorly evidenced claims, but 'all being true' can factually be shown to be untrue, so no faith required.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Except that Trump is not God.
Since Trump is not God he is not omnibenevolent.
Since he is not omnibenevolent some of it's assertions may be false.
Omnibenevolence = truth? How does that follow?
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
This is why paradox, arguing on possibilities is useless. A famous example taken in logic to showcase possibilities in logic is an elephant playing piano behind the moon. Its logically possible.
No! It may be physically impossible -- or, at least, improbable -- but I don't see how logic (algebra) applies.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
No, that doesn't follow. You could say the same thing about lizard men from Sirius 3 or garden færies: not disproven, ergo....?
Sorry you can't say same for lizard men from Sirius 3 because definition of God (ontological argument) says that God is superior to other beings.
If there is a being that is superior to God then God is not God, rather a being that is superior to God is God, which brings us back to God.

So the older is true, or the most recent? I'm not sure how either would follow.
What does time of origin have to do with truth?
I said one of ingredients not the ultimate proof.

Any religion and it's dogma is subject to copying, therefore the source is what matters.

The works of other faiths? Which works would indicate truth -- the ones that seem right to you?
God is by definition omnibenevolent, therefore it's not God's will to kill members of other religions.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is why paradox, arguing on possibilities is useless. A famous example taken in logic to showcase possibilities in logic is an elephant playing piano behind the moon. Its logically possible.

Thus, speaking of possibilities and using vague terms like true and false, if you take two scriptures, and analyse them both, they could contradict in many things, but lets say ultimately they come to the exact, same conclusion, they are both right or they are both wrong. That is why it is not impossible that both are true. But if you specify your case saying it is impossible for both scriptures to be absolutely true from cover to cover, that's a valid truth bearer.

Um ... how is it logically possible for an elephant to play a piano behind the moon? Do you mean on the actual surface of the moon opposite the side facing earth? I would be interested in seeing how such a phenomenon would be logically possible given the properties of elephants, a piano, and the moon.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Um ... how is it logically possible for an elephant to play a piano behind the moon? Do you mean on the actual surface of the moon opposite the side facing earth? I would be interested in seeing how such a phenomenon would be logically possible given the properties of elephants, a piano, and the moon.

Yeah. Its not physically possible, but logically possible.
 

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
This is why paradox, arguing on possibilities is useless. A famous example taken in logic to showcase possibilities in logic is an elephant playing piano behind the moon. Its logically possible.

Thus, speaking of possibilities and using vague terms like true and false, if you take two scriptures, and analyse them both, they could contradict in many things, but lets say ultimately they come to the exact, same conclusion, they are both right or they are both wrong. That is why it is not impossible that both are true. But if you specify your case saying it is impossible for both scriptures to be absolutely true from cover to cover, that's a valid truth bearer.
I kind of agree with your Elephant example, but scriptures are beasts on their own.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Sorry you can't say same for lizard men from Sirius 3 because definition of God (ontological argument) says that God is superior to other beings.
If there is a being that is superior to God then God is not God, rather a being that is superior to God is God, which brings us back to God.
But aren't the lizard men known for their arrogance and air of superiority? :rolleyes:
Any religion and it's dogma is subject to copying, therefore the source is what matters.
Historically, maybe, but not ontologically.
God is by definition omnibenevolent, therefore it's not God's will to kill members of other religions.
No, the Christian God is considered benevolent, but this isn't a common trait among Gods.
The God of Abraham reveled in war, conquest and and killing. In some Abrahamic interpretations, non-believers should not be allowed to live.

Kali isn't benevolent. Mars isn't benevolent. Odin isn't benevolent, Huitzilopochtli isn't benevolent.
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Um ... how is it logically possible for an elephant to play a piano behind the moon? Do you mean on the actual surface of the moon opposite the side facing earth? I would be interested in seeing how such a phenomenon would be logically possible given the properties of elephants, a piano, and the moon.
Logic has nothing to do with practical possibilities. It has to do with mathematics. It's a subset of algebra.
 
Top