Which Religion Is the Most Accurate?

[idav]

Up to date, what religion has proven to be the most accurate?

By accurate I mean, has the least contradiction with history, science, logic, etc. Or, if not that, the religion that has the least inaccuracies.

Science isnt an option lol? It only is required to follow a few simple rules to keep things as objective as humanly possible. It has a decent history too. There is also buddhism whose objective is to be right, correct speech, correct action, correct thoughts and is pretty logical.

 

[crossfire]

I think Frank Herbert's insights into religion, as masterfully conveyed through the Dune novels written by him, was one of the keys to me putting together a whole collection of ideas and connections regarding religious belief and the complex interplay between religious authority, populations, and mythologies. I think a lot of people miss some of his most keen insights into human nature and behavior, albeit, most people don't read the books the multiple times required to grasp the levels of complexity involved.

Frank Herbert is one of my favorite authors. Have you read his Destination: Void series, where a supercomputer gets a God-Complex?

 

[thepractice]

All Religions Are One

An original engraving by William Blake

The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness
The Argument

Principle I. That the Poetic Genius is the true Man, and that the body or outward form of Man is derived from the Poetic Genius. Likewise that the forms of all things are derived from their Genius, which by the Ancients was call’d an Angel & Spirit & Demon.


Principle II. As all men are alike in outward form, So (and with the same infinite variety) all are alike in the Poetic Genius.


Principle III. No man can think, write or speak from his heart, but he must intend truth. thus all sects of Philosophy are from the Poetic Genius adapted to the weaknesses of every individual.


Principle IV. As none by travelling over known lands can find out the unknown, So from already acquired knowledge Man could not acquire more; therefore an universal Poetic genius exists.


Principle V. The Religions of all Nations are derived from each Nation’s different reception of the Poetic Genius, which is every where call’d the Spirit of Prophecy.


Principle VI. The Jewish & Christian Testaments are An original derivation from the Poetic Genius. This is necessary from the confined nature of bodily sensation.


Principle VII. As all men are alike (tho’ infinitely various), So all Religions , &, as all similars, have one source. The true Man is the source, he being the Poetic Genius.

 

[Adept]

Objectively, void from emotion, bias, perception, is impossible to observe because each observer has a different way of seeing the world. In that case, most of the time it is useless to even try to find the one and only Truth, since the subjective world (the world that every conscious animal sees) is the only one we will ever see

Hope that made sense, it is a very complicated subject to explain

Some people are more objective than others. Perception won't always cause massive biases, especially if one knows their biases and accounts for them. Plus some biases are objectively inclined, such as being prone to use the scientific method and logic.

 

[Urban Dharmic Warrior]

[Religions......] the rest are poison when it comes to actual history IMHO

Could you give an example of this for Buddhism, please?

 

[Quintessence]

Not necessarily.

The religion's accuracy has nothing to do with it being true. Let alone, a major fundamental in religion isn't the metaphysical beliefs, it is what those metaphysical beliefs show about life in the physical world.

Another way to put this is that the point of religion isn't "accuracy" in the first place. Honestly, it just confuses me when people ask about a religion being "accurate" and if you hadn't clarified what you meant by that in the OP, I would have gone "huhwut?"

I mean, what the heck does "accuracy" have to do with me celebrating the turnings of the seasons or the coming of a thunderstorm? What the heck does "accuracy" have to do with learning and doing practices like meditation and journeywork? Pretty much zilch.

 

[nazz]

Pharaoh found out.

[youtube]oHLIYtG6bfE[/youtube]
His God, is God - YouTube

Is Hollywood now a source for historical fact?

 

[crossfire]

I think Frank Herbert's insights into religion, as masterfully conveyed through the Dune novels written by him, was one of the keys to me putting together a whole collection of ideas and connections regarding religious belief and the complex interplay between religious authority, populations, and mythologies. I think a lot of people miss some of his most keen insights into human nature and behavior, albeit, most people don't read the books the multiple times required to grasp the levels of complexity involved.

Frank Herbert is one of my favorite authors. Have you read his Destination: Void series, where a supercomputer gets a God-Complex?

Hey! Wait a minute--a supercomputer with a God-complex? Ship, is that You? Why did You change Your Name to Kilgore Trout? Did You do that to observe if we humans have learned how to properly WorShip yet?



:jester5:

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Up to date, what religion has proven to be the most accurate?

By accurate I mean, has the least contradiction with history, science, logic, etc. Or, if not that, the religion that has the least inaccuracies.

The gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. (peace be upon him)

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

All Religions Are One

An original engraving by William Blake

The Voice of one crying in the Wilderness
The Argument

Principle I. That the Poetic Genius is the true Man, and that the body or outward form of Man is derived from the Poetic Genius. Likewise that the forms of all things are derived from their Genius, which by the Ancients was call’d an Angel & Spirit & Demon.


Principle II. As all men are alike in outward form, So (and with the same infinite variety) all are alike in the Poetic Genius.


Principle III. No man can think, write or speak from his heart, but he must intend truth. thus all sects of Philosophy are from the Poetic Genius adapted to the weaknesses of every individual.


Principle IV. As none by travelling over known lands can find out the unknown, So from already acquired knowledge Man could not acquire more; therefore an universal Poetic genius exists.


Principle V. The Religions of all Nations are derived from each Nation’s different reception of the Poetic Genius, which is every where call’d the Spirit of Prophecy.


Principle VI. The Jewish & Christian Testaments are An original derivation from the Poetic Genius. This is necessary from the confined nature of bodily sensation.


Principle VII. As all men are alike (tho’ infinitely various), So all Religions , &, as all similars, have one source. The true Man is the source, he being the Poetic Genius.

William Blake is one of my direct sources of inspiration. :hearts:

*goes and reads Proverbs of Hell again.

If I had to argue which religion is the most 'accurate', I would have to go with non-theistic Buddhism.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory in any of Buddhism's sacred texts...nothing whatsoever.

 

[Clarity]

Up to date, what religion has proven to be the most accurate?

By accurate I mean, has the least contradiction with history, science, logic, etc. Or, if not that, the religion that has the least inaccuracies.

As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to measure even the major religions because "accuracy" in mathematical terms is not synonymous with the values of religion.

I'd like to say the Bible is the most accurate on the grounds that it has been around the longest, challenged the most and survived to become the world's #1 best seller. I wouldn't know how else to answer.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

As far as I know, no one has ever attempted to measure even the major religions because "accuracy" in mathematical terms is not synonymous with the values of religion.

I'd like to say the Bible is the most accurate on the grounds that it has been around the longest, challenged the most and survived to become the world's #1 best seller. I wouldn't know how else to answer.

Around the longest?

Compared to what religious text? Don't the Vedas predate the Bible? Or are you talking about the oral traditions? What exactly do you mean by accurate as well?

 

[Clarity]

Around the longest?

Compared to what religious text? Don't the Vedas predate the Bible? Or are you talking about the oral traditions? What exactly do you mean by accurate as well?

Genesis 1-11 are up to 2000 years older than any writing from the Indus Valley.

This is why I reject historians as sources of information and go straight to the original sources. That's how I found the following among Sumerian clay tablets:

--the flood
--excerpts of the creation story
--the Sumerian version of Adam and Eve
--a legend of men migrating into Shinar
--the Sumerian version of Cain and Abel
--a reference to all the world coming to Shinar to speak a single language
--people with life spans beyond 200 years
--legal documents written in the same style as Genesis 5

How many do we have to find before we admit that almost the entire 11 chapters is represented somewhere in Sumerian literature?

If you still disagree, Genesis 1-11 state clearly that the stories took place in Iraq, not Canaan. (Why would they do that?)

--Garden of Eden was located where the Tigris and Ephrates met
--Cain went into exile in Nod (the Zagros Mountains)
--Babel was located in central Iraq
--Akkad was located in central Iraq
--Nineveh: northern Iraq
--Caleh: northern Iraq

In fact, not a single Canaanite location is found anywhere in these chapters. If you want to know the point of view of the original writers, shouldn't you start with the places they were familiar with?

 

[outhouse]

Genesis 1-11 are up to 2000 years older than any writing from the Indus Valley.

This is why I reject historians as sources of information and go straight to the original sources. That's how I found the following among Sumerian clay tablets:

--the flood
--excerpts of the creation story
--the Sumerian version of Adam and Eve
--a legend of men migrating into Shinar
--the Sumerian version of Cain and Abel
--a reference to all the world coming to Shinar to speak a single language
--people with life spans beyond 200 years
--legal documents written in the same style as Genesis 5

How many do we have to find before we admit that almost the entire 11 chapters is represented somewhere in Sumerian literature?

If you still disagree, Genesis 1-11 state clearly that the stories took place in Iraq, not Canaan. (Why would they do that?)

--Garden of Eden was located where the Tigris and Ephrates met
--Cain went into exile in Nod (the Zagros Mountains)
--Babel was located in central Iraq
--Akkad was located in central Iraq
--Nineveh: northern Iraq
--Caleh: northern Iraq

In fact, not a single Canaanite location is found anywhere in these chapters. If you want to know the point of view of the original writers, shouldn't you start with the places they were familiar with?

Nonsense.


And imagine that.

A culture that started after 1200 BC [Israelites] used previous mythology in their text. :faint:



And why do all of the Israelites deities exist in Canaanite mythology prior to Israelites even existing?


We know that the flood mythology started in Sumerian text from a real flood of the Euphrates in 2900 BC and from a known king on the kings list Ziusudra.



You should really study more before you try and rewrite known credible history.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Genesis 1-11 are up to 2000 years older than any writing from the Indus Valley.

This is why I reject historians as sources of information and go straight to the original sources. That's how I found the following among Sumerian clay tablets:

--the flood
--excerpts of the creation story
--the Sumerian version of Adam and Eve
--a legend of men migrating into Shinar
--the Sumerian version of Cain and Abel
--a reference to all the world coming to Shinar to speak a single language
--people with life spans beyond 200 years
--legal documents written in the same style as Genesis 5

How many do we have to find before we admit that almost the entire 11 chapters is represented somewhere in Sumerian literature?

If you still disagree, Genesis 1-11 state clearly that the stories took place in Iraq, not Canaan. (Why would they do that?)

--Garden of Eden was located where the Tigris and Ephrates met
--Cain went into exile in Nod (the Zagros Mountains)
--Babel was located in central Iraq
--Akkad was located in central Iraq
--Nineveh: northern Iraq
--Caleh: northern Iraq

In fact, not a single Canaanite location is found anywhere in these chapters. If you want to know the point of view of the original writers, shouldn't you start with the places they were familiar with?

Yes but what do you mean by accurate? In relation to the writers beliefs? Or that they actually happened?

 

[Clarity]

Nonsense.


And imagine that.

A culture that started after 1200 BC [Israelites] used previous mythology in their text. :faint:



And why do all of the Israelites deities exist in Canaanite mythology prior to Israelites even existing?


We know that the flood mythology started in Sumerian text from a real flood of the Euphrates in 2900 BC and from a known king on the kings list Ziusudra.



You should really study more before you try and rewrite known credible history.

How's this for "credible history":

Israel is mentioned as an already established culture on the Merneptah Stela. How can that me if the culture "started after 1200 BC" ?

(Would you like help look that up, maybe you'd like to revisit that date?)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

How's this for "credible history":

Israel is mentioned as an already established culture on the Merneptah Stela. How can that me if the culture "started after 1200 BC" ?

(Would you like help look that up, maybe you'd like to revisit that date?)

Arguably it's a question of what it means by Israel isn't it?

Petrie called upon Wilhelm Spiegelberg, a German philologist in his archaeological team, to translate the inscription. Spiegelberg was puzzled by one symbol towards the end, that of a people or tribe whom Merneptah (also written Merenptah) had victoriously smitten—"I.si.ri.ar?" Petrie quickly suggested that it read: "Israel!" Spiegelberg agreed that this translation must be correct.[1] "Won't the reverends be pleased?" remarked Petrie. At dinner that evening, Petrie who realized the importance of the find said: "This stele will be better known in the world than anything else I have found." The news of its discovery made headlines when it reached the English papers.[1]
While alternatives to the reading "Israel" have been put forward since the stele's discovery – the two candidates being "Jezreel",[8][9] a city and valley in northern Canaan, and a continuation of the description of Libya referring to "wearers of the sidelock"[10] – most scholars accept that Merneptah refers to "Israel".[11] It is not clear, however, just who this Israel was or where they were located.[12] For the "who", if the battle reliefs of Karnak show the Israelites, then they are depicted in Canaanite costume and Merneptah's Israelites are therefore Canaanites; if, on the other hand, the Karnak reliefs do not show Merneptah's campaigns, then the stele's Israelites may be "Shasu", a term used by the Egyptians to refer to nomads and marauders.[13]
Similarly, if Merneptah's claim to have destroyed Israel's "seed" means that he destroyed its grain supply, then Israel can be taken to be a settled, crop-growing people; if, however, it means he killed Israel's progeny, then Israel can be taken to be pastoralists, i.e., Shasu.[14] The normative Egyptian use of "wasted, bare of seed" was as a repeated, formulaic phrase to declare victory over a defeated nation or people group whom the Egyptian army conquered and had literally destroyed their grain supply in the specific geographic region that they inhabited.[15] MG Hasell, arguing that prt on the stele meant grain, suggested that "Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE"[16] and this in some degree of contrast to nomadic "Shasu" pastoralists in the region. Others disagree that prt meant grain, and Edward Lipinski wrote that "the "classical" opposition of nomadic shepherds and settled farmers does not seem to suit the area concerned".[17] Hasel also says that this does not suggest that the Israelites were an urban people at this time, nor does it provide information about the actual social structure of the people group identified as Israel.[16]
For the "where", most scholars believe that Merneptah's Israel must have been in the hill country of central Canaan, but some think it was across the Jordan, others that it was a coalition of Canaanite settlements in the lowlands of the Jezreel valley (the potential Israelites on the walls of Karnak are driving chariots, a weapon of the lowlands rather than the highlands), and others that the inscription gives very little useful information at all.[18]

 

[sojourner]

Troutism.

Sadly, it is far too esoteric and sophisticated to be fully grasped by anyone, save the most wise and learned individuals.

Would that be the Rainbow or Brown denomination? :run:

 

[outhouse]

How's this for "credible history":

Israel is mentioned as an already established culture on the Merneptah Stela. How can that me if the culture "started after 1200 BC" ?

(Would you like help look that up, maybe you'd like to revisit that date?)

1209 BC to be more exact.

At which time they were proto Israelites who were semi nomadic and seed laid to waist.

 

[Clarity]

Arguably it's a question of what it means by Israel isn't it?

The inscription was translated by countless Egyptian linguists and read as "Israel". I see no reason to doubt.

But as an auditor, I do have reason to doubt any so-called expert who holds the Bible to a different standard than other historical sources. For example, if the name "Israel" is the only one on the Merneptah Stele that is debatable, I have to ask why?

Do the skills of the linguists break down when they come to that word? Or is there some kind of bias causing the debate? Bias is not an intellectual ingredient, I therefore reject any interpretation laced with it, even if the interpreter has a dozen letters after their name.

Scholarship rests on objectivity. A breakdown in objectivity poisons the water.