One God, Many Paths

Yahweh kid said:
"The scientific process is inherently fallible. While it strives for objectivity and seeks to minimize errors, it's a human endeavor and therefore susceptible to mistakes, biases, and limitations."
Why would anyone want to place their trust in the scientific process... :rolleyes: I guess if you do not believe in a god you don't have many options to choose from to explain the creation we observe.😊
Click to expand...
In my story, whatever anyone means by “the scientific method” or “the scientific process,” that is not what they are trusting in public discussions, any more than Christians are trusting the Bible.
 
Yahweh kid said:
What is the definition of a Christian? Are mormons Christians? Many call themselves Christian, but Jesus says in Matt. 7 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven"
Even some universalists calls themselves Christians... 😁
Click to expand...
In my story it doesn’t matter what the definition of a Christian is, because Jesus doesn’t care if anyone is a Christian or not. What He wants for us is to be learning to be the kind of servant that He can teach and empower us to be.
 
Longfellow said:
In my story, whatever anyone means by “the scientific method” or “the scientific process,” that is not what they are trusting in public discussions, any more than Christians are trusting the Bible.
Click to expand...
I trust the Bible, because I choose too.... 😌 Jesus is the Word....I trust Him with my life.
 
Longfellow said:
In my story, Hindu sources of guidance are grounded in wisdom from the source that the Bible calls “God,” as much as Christian and Muslim sources are..
Click to expand...
That could well be true .. but there would be no need for G-d to have sent Jesus and Muhammad to
clarify His guidance, if ancient texts were representative .. that they hadn't been compromised
in some way.
 
muhammad_isa said:
That could well be true .. but there would be no need for G-d to have sent Jesus and Muhammad to
clarify His guidance, if ancient texts were representative .. that they hadn't been compromised
in some way.
Click to expand...
In my story, it's always best to recognize all of the messengers, including the most recent ones. To be honest, in my story, there are two who came after Muhammad.
 
muhammad_isa said:
Changing circumstances? What changes are necessary to turn away from the laws of G-d?
Click to expand...
What is the evidence that they are from any God?
They are supposed to have been communicated to people like Mose and Muhammad (Christians do not believe that Jesus was given any law. They consider him to be God, he gave the law, your view may differ. As for Muhammad, Allah was very partial to him and created laws to suit Muhammad. Muhammad went beyond his own laws - four marriages. Of course, apologists can defend anything they want).
But what is the evidence for that supposition? None, just that many people believe so.
The laws belonged to Middle-Eastern societies of their time. Even Muslim nations have changed the laws given in Islam..
 
Aupmanyav said:
What is guidance? Best way to respond to a situation. Situations change..
Click to expand...
Mmm .. so we can all "make it up" as we go along..

Those who judge by what G-d has revealed, judge by something other than their own devising.
..but it may be that some people dislike what He has revealed, so turn away.
 
Aupmanyav said:
What is the evidence that they are from any God?
They are supposed to have been communicated to people like Mose and Muhammad (Christians do not believe that Jesus was given any law. They consider him to be God, he gave the law, your view may differ. As for Muhammad, Allah was very partial to him and created laws to suit Muhammad. Muhammad went beyond his own laws - four marriages. Of course, apologists can defend anything they want).
But what is the evidence for that supposition? None, just that many people believe so.
The laws belonged to Middle-Eastern societies of their time. Even Muslim nations have changed the laws given in Islam..
Click to expand...
One day you’re saying that an advantage of Hinduism is that the guidance can change with the times, and the next day you’re saying that the guidance that Jews and Muslims follow changes with the times. :p
 
muhammad_isa said:
Those who judge by what G-d has revealed ...
Click to expand...
Do you do that? Do you read the Quran itself, to see for yourself what God is saying in it, other than to search for proof texts for what you think you already know, or to look up verses from what other people are saying that it says? Does reading the Quran ever change your mind about anything, other than to agree with whoever was quoting the verses that you were searching for?

(later) On another topic, I said that in my story, Hindu sources of guidance are grounded in wisdom from the God of Abraham as much as the sources that Christians and Muslims trust, which are mostly *not* the Bible itself or the Quran itself but what some other people are telling them that they say. Wherever people are getting their ideas for how to serve, what matters is that they're doing it for God, and they can be doing it for God even if they don't know how it came from God, or even if they don't believe that He exists.
 
Last edited:
Yahweh kid said:
"The scientific process is inherently fallible. While it strives for objectivity and seeks to minimize errors, it's a human endeavor and therefore susceptible to mistakes, biases, and limitations."
Why would anyone want to place their trust in the scientific process... :rolleyes: I guess if you do not believe in a god you don't have many options to choose from to explain the creation we observe.😊
Click to expand...
That is very ungrateful of you. You are using what science has provided to you every moment of your life, and you say do not believe in science. At lest science minimizes errors all the time.
OT description of creation is the funniest document, has umpteen errors in its six lines, and no one has ever tried to correct it. It is not for any intelligent person.
Longfellow said:
One day you’re saying that an advantage of Hinduism is that the guidance can change with the times, and the next day you’re saying that the guidance that Jews and Muslims follow changes with the times. :p
Click to expand...
When did I say that? I am saying that the rules supposed to have been given by God centuries ago, do not suit times and even Christian and Muslim countries had to change them.
 
Aupmanyav said:
When did I say that? I am saying that the rules supposed to have been given by God centuries ago, do not suit times and even Christian and Muslim countries had to change them.
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't know that the guidance that Christians and Muslims follow is mostly not the Bible or the Quran. It's the latest wisdom popular thinking from some part of society, sprinkled with quotes from the Bible or from the Quran to sell it in books, articles and talks.
 
Last edited:
Longfellow said:
On another topic, I said that in my story, Hindu sources of guidance are grounded in wisdom ..
Click to expand...
Hindus have nothing to do with God of Abraham. Our elders made the rules and we follow it, change them when necessary. In this age of democracy, the government and judiciary also have a role to play in the process. That has proved sufficient for us. No God involved.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Hindus have nothing to do with God of Abraham. Our elders made the rules and we follow it, change them when necessary. In this age of democracy, the government and judiciary also have a role to play in the process. That has proved sufficient for us. No God involved.
Click to expand...
That's what I said. :p

(later) There is no God involved, but for most Hindus, there are gods involved, as much as there is a God involved for people who think that their ideas are coming from the Abrahamic line.
 
Last edited:
Longfellow said:
That's what I said. :p

(later) There is no God involved, but for most Hindus, there are gods involved, as much as there is a God involved for people who think that their ideas are coming from the Abrahamic line.
Click to expand...
Hindus do not think that way. The rules (dharma) are eternal - Sanatana.(Hindu religion is also known as Sanatana Dharma).
It is supposed that 'dharma' does not change even when an old universe folds up and a new universe comes into being. :D
Even Gods and Goddesses have to go by their 'dharma'.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Hindus do not think that way. The rules (dharma) are eternal - Sanatana.(Hindu religion is also known as Sanatana Dharma).
It is supposed that 'dharma' does not change even when an old universe folds up and a new universe comes into being. :D
Even Gods and Goddesses have to go by their 'dharma'.
Click to expand...
Okay, I didn't make that clear. Hindu gods are not involved in the same ways that the God of Abraham is, but they are involved.
 
Yahweh kid said:
You said that Christians added the Trinity.... it almost seem as if you are suggesting that Christians added to the Word. The word Trinity might not be mentioned in the Bible, but the triune God existed from the beginning. Yahweh has a Son Yahshua, does the Jewish God also called Yahweh have a Son? I don't think so, so we have a Yahweh who has a Son and a Yahweh who does not....so which Yahweh is the correct one?
Click to expand...
The claim that the triune G-d existed from the beginning is a Christian theological claim and not a factual claim. Other Abrahamic religions have a different view of G-d. If you ask someone which they think is "correct" it is going to be based on their theological bent and not on an assessment of facts, as it is not really possible to get "facts" about G-d. Although I am not Jewish I tend to agree with Jewish theology and the unitary indivisable nature of G-d. This does not involve a lot of speculation about the nature of who Jesus/Yeshua was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top