An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam/Hindu/Christian etc

P

param

Guest
An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam/Hindu/Christian etc

If you argue that the human incarnation of your religion alone is correct, you will face the following powerful question:

Your human incarnation appeared in a particular region in a particular time only and gave the correct message to the people of that particular region only. After that, several generations passed before that particular message reaches the other regions of the world. All these generations missed that message and went to hell after death. If your message reached all the regions of the world in the beginning itself, at least some of the passed generations might have benefited. If your God alone created this entire earth and all this humanity is His issue, there should be no partiality in giving the message to one region only and allow other regions to be deprived of such fortune. This concludes that your God is partial to one region without reason or that your God did not create this entire humanity.

You have no answer for this question but we have the answer. Your God is impartial to all humanity and is the creator of this entire humanity. Even though the absolute God gave a particular message to a particular region through a particular human form, the same absolute God gave the same message in different human forms to other regions also. The language of the message may differ but the message is one and the same. The form, culture, dress etc., of the human incarnations in different regions may be different but the absolute God in these human incarnations is one and the same and hence His message is also one and the same delivered to all regions in the same time impartially.

Therefore, all the human beings are the children of the same God and hence there must be brotherly hood between all the human beings.
 
I agree that God created everyone on earth, and is not partial to any one kind of people. I've long believed that the various incarnations in the various religions were all God incarnate, and the same god, the one god. I mean, God created the world knowing that all the religions that have ever been would be. So they're all right in a way, because they all are created by God.

As for people not getting the message, some people haven't gotten the message yet to this day. Even the message of Christianity hasn't been heard by all the ears in the world and it is the most widespread evangelizing religion to date as far as I know. And I have no fear that the people in question will go to hell because they haven't heard. But I view "hell" very differently than most Christians, different than pretty much every religion come to think about it... so there ya go...

Very good contemplations. I'll enjoy hearing more from you. :)
 
immortalitylost said:
I agree that God created everyone on earth, and is not partial to any one kind of people. I've long believed that the various incarnations in the various religions were all God incarnate, and the same god, the one god. I mean, God created the world knowing that all the religions that have ever been would be. So they're all right in a way, because they all are created by God.

As for people not getting the message, some people haven't gotten the message yet to this day. Even the message of Christianity hasn't been heard by all the ears in the world and it is the most widespread evangelizing religion to date as far as I know. And I have no fear that the people in question will go to hell because they haven't heard. But I view "hell" very differently than most Christians, different than pretty much every religion come to think about it... so there ya go...

Very good contemplations. I'll enjoy hearing more from you. :)
Click to expand...
Critizising other Religions


The Lord is universal but the human beings in the universe differ in their attitudes. The same single Lord adopts a different procedure in a different region and such different procedure appears as a different religion. A few criticize the Lord of other religion. You are criticizing your own Lord of your own religion. The external behavior of the Lord differs due to different internal and external behaviors of the human beings in this universe.

The external form, dress, language, food habits and culture of human beings differ from one region to the other. Accordingly the external form, dress, food habits, language and culture of the Lord also differ to suit that particular region. The internal Lord and the internal essence of the same Lord is one and the same in His different human incarnations which have come in different regions or religions.
 
param said:
An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam/Hindu/Christian etc

If you argue that the human incarnation of your religion alone is correct, you will face the following powerful question:

Your human incarnation appeared in a particular region in a particular time only and gave the correct message to the people of that particular region only. After that, several generations passed before that particular message reaches the other regions of the world. All these generations missed that message and went to hell after death. If your message reached all the regions of the world in the beginning itself, at least some of the passed generations might have benefited. If your God alone created this entire earth and all this humanity is His issue, there should be no partiality in giving the message to one region only and allow other regions to be deprived of such fortune. This concludes that your God is partial to one region without reason or that your God did not create this entire humanity.

You have no answer for this question but we have the answer.
Click to expand...


Greetings, Param! Welcome to the InterFaith forums.

I see you have issued a challenge. Actually, speaking from the Christian paradigm, your question actually does have an answer. So right off your assertion that the question can go unanswered shows how little you truly know of Christianity. I do not say this as a slight against you personally, I am merely trying to present a different perspective.

Yes, you do seem to understand that Christianity has a "duty" to spread the word of the Gospel throughout the world. And yes, a lot of Christians operate under the impression that Christianity is the *only* way to heaven. (BTW, I am a Christian, but I do have a bit more tolerance towards other faiths that agrees a lot with what you conclude)

Within Christianity, *knowing* and *not knowing* are important considerations. A person cannot be *damned* unless they know first and reject. A person who honestly and truthfully never knew cannot be damned.

It goes something like this: Christ came into the world to share the light of truth. When he died, he went to "hell" and preached to the people of G-d who died before he did. When he resurrected from the grave, those "saints" rose with him and continued on to heaven. Before Christ, no one was in heaven.

A young child is innocent of any possibility of sin until they reach the age of accountability...they have to *know* what they are doing is sinful / wrong / bad. Same for a mentally challenged person, if they do not have the capacity to understand right from wrong, they get a free ticket through the pearly gates. By extension, a non-Christian who never heard of the saving grace of Christ cannot be damned.

Now, there is a clear teaching that is often glossed over in some denominations of Christianity, in that there is prophesied a thousand year "millenial reign" when Christ will be the king over the whole world, Satan is bound and evil ceases, and all people who did not have the opportunity to know are brought together and taught. At the end of that thousand years these people are then given the chance to choose between life and death, heaven and hell, G-d and Satan. (Which is why the rapture teaching is actually heretical apostacy...another lecture for another day and another audience)

param said:
The external form, dress, language, food habits and culture of human beings differ from one region to the other. Accordingly the external form, dress, food habits, language and culture of the Lord also differ to suit that particular region. The internal Lord and the internal essence of the same Lord is one and the same in His different human incarnations which have come in different regions or religions.
Click to expand...

The apostle Paul actually says something to this effect in the book of Romans, so I am inclined to agree with you.

I know that I do not know very much at all about other faiths; I know a little about Judaism and Paganism, less about Islam, even less about Buddhism and the Hindu faith. I would not dare to utter such a challenge that any other faith *cannot answer* a question, unless I was sufficiently knowledgeable of these particular faiths. From my point of view, it would be very arrogant to make any kind of claim like that without knowing for sure. ;)
 
Ummm, how am I criticizing my own Lord of my own religion? I do not even technically have a religion, at least not one in particular...

Am I completely misunderstanding you?

Btw, I agree that God incarnate would appear differently to different people in different regions. And I believe he has before. Can you explain how you believe that I am criticizing my own beliefs? I'm really trying to understand, not trying to start anything. So if you could help me out with that, twould be appreciated.
 
param said:
An unanswerable question to fanatics of Islam/Hindu/Christian etc

If you argue that the human incarnation of your religion alone is correct, you will face the following powerful question:

Your human incarnation appeared in a particular region in a particular time only and gave the correct message to the people of that particular region only. After that, several generations passed before that particular message reaches the other regions of the world. All these generations missed that message and went to hell after death. If your message reached all the regions of the world in the beginning itself, at least some of the passed generations might have benefited. If your God alone created this entire earth and all this humanity is His issue, there should be no partiality in giving the message to one region only and allow other regions to be deprived of such fortune. This concludes that your God is partial to one region without reason or that your God did not create this entire humanity.

You have no answer for this question but we have the answer. Your God is impartial to all humanity and is the creator of this entire humanity. Even though the absolute God gave a particular message to a particular region through a particular human form, the same absolute God gave the same message in different human forms to other regions also. The language of the message may differ but the message is one and the same. The form, culture, dress etc., of the human incarnations in different regions may be different but the absolute God in these human incarnations is one and the same and hence His message is also one and the same delivered to all regions in the same time impartially.

Therefore, all the human beings are the children of the same God and hence there must be brotherly hood between all the human beings.
Click to expand...
IMO all people are of the same set.
If you are alive, sentient, having consciousness you are part of a great brotherhood and any who would work in any fashion to divide humanity by any means is a traitor to this family, a betrayer of the primal principle of the unity of life.
This is a lofty ideal, I know.
Nevertheless, to me, it is a sound premise.
Therfore I see divisive religions which separate peoples into saved and unsaved, us and them, etc, as being instigators of a huge problem which we would be much better off not having.
This ideal can also be extended into politics in that any political system which divides peoples into diverse groups based on geography, ethnicity or whatever, these same are also traitors to the family of the people.
 
I'd say Param is on the right track: one God for all peoples, one God for all cultures, one God for all.

Amen.
 
Shawn, I like that ideal very much, but I don't think it's within human capability, sadly.

I've posted a link on this in another post I believe, but Google "Dunbar's Number" if you haven't read about it before. I think it explains a lot about the human tendency to form cliques.

Of course this is not a purely human trait, and I believe that it is a survival mechanism that we no longer need really, but cannot get past for purely biological reasons.

Hope you find the subject interesting. :)
 
Perhaps the god(s) didn't create mankind? They were simply another being that already existed out there at the same time as us, and to some groups of peoples some god(s) showed favour, yes, like Greek mythology.

And being what we are.... Their favour, interest died... And the abbandoned us.....
 
You are replying to a machine that has no intention in respecting you enough to actually have a conversation.
How many images of Dattaswami can you cram in to a clip? Oh I do love a personality cult.
[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MfJhFRKlHTE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MfJhFRKlHTE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]
 
juantoo3 said:
Within Christianity, *knowing* and *not knowing* are important considerations. A person cannot be *damned* unless they know first and reject.
Click to expand...
Another possible view: if the person rejects, maybe it was because they didn't know.
 
juantoo3 said:
Within Christianity, *knowing* and *not knowing* are important considerations. A person cannot be *damned* unless they know first and reject. A person who honestly and truthfully never knew cannot be damned.
Click to expand...

Netti-Netti said:
Another possible view: if the person rejects, maybe it was because they didn't know.
Click to expand...

I think Netti raises a very interesting point here. "Knowing" is a very difficult term to define. I'd be quite interested to hear from Juan what he thinks constitutes knowledge.

For instance, if I'd never heard of Jesus, and somebody walked up to me and said, "Jesus is your savior," and I did not become a believer, does that constitute "knowing"?

What about my situation today... I've grown up with Christianity as the dominant religion, vicariously absorbing its dogma for decades, yet I've never felt Jesus in my heart. Is this because I've rejected Him? I think it could be argued that I don't yet know Him, therefore haven't yet rejected Him.

What do we mean by "knowing"?
 
citizenzen:
What about my situation today... I've grown up with Christianity as the dominant religion, vicariously absorbing its dogma for decades, yet I've never felt Jesus in my heart. Is this because I've rejected Him? I think it could be argued that I don't yet know Him, therefore haven't yet rejected Him.

What do we mean by "knowing"?
Click to expand...
Typically, the line of logic I heard concerning that is you need to accept by faith (which is the assurance of things not seen) regardless of what you feel, and people who do this are somehow considered to be more blessed by their doing of this act.

this is like the multilevel marketing techniques where the people who are considered "red apples" are those who just dive right in while the "green apples (who are less desirable as rungs in ones scramble for the top sales positions) are those who ask a lot of questions and demonstrate some kind of skepticism.
 
immortalitylost said:
Shawn, I like that ideal very much, but I don't think it's within human capability, sadly.

I've posted a link on this in another post I believe, but Google "Dunbar's Number" if you haven't read about it before. I think it explains a lot about the human tendency to form cliques.

Of course this is not a purely human trait, and I believe that it is a survival mechanism that we no longer need really, but cannot get past for purely biological reasons.

Hope you find the subject interesting. :)
Click to expand...
I disagree.
It is an ideal that we must all learn and embrace.....if we want a future, that is.
As a team we can all pull together and do something positive for our collective future.
As individuals all we will do is fail.
The problems are too big for individuals to have any effect.
Only as a whole can we do what needs to be done.
So do or die my little primate;).... sink or swim....we all need to do some rapid evolution.
 
I agree. But I also believe that some serious evolution would be required for it to make it happen. I mean, can you really say that you can look at every human being that you see in a day that you do not know, and think of them as actual people with actual lives that they live outside the function that you see them in? Can you really say that you care as much for them as say, your friends, or your family, you know, the people in your social group?

I would absolutely love it if everyone could see each other as one cohesive unit, and not form social cliques, but I'm not gonna hold my breath for it to happen within my lifetime. Someday, who knows? But not humans as they are now. It's just physically impossible in my opinion.
 
immortalitylost said:
I agree. But I also believe that some serious evolution would be required for it to make it happen. I mean, can you really say that you can look at every human being that you see in a day that you do not know, and think of them as actual people with actual lives that they live outside the function that you see them in? Can you really say that you care as much for them as say, your friends, or your family, you know, the people in your social group?

I would absolutely love it if everyone could see each other as one cohesive unit, and not form social cliques, but I'm not gonna hold my breath for it to happen within my lifetime. Someday, who knows? But not humans as they are now. It's just physically impossible in my opinion.
Click to expand...
To answer your first paragraph....yes.
But I am a rare bird I have been told.
I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, but there it is.
I have done many things in my life which netted me no gain, yet profited others and while my selfish side is rather put out by that I still feel that it is a good thing and am not unhappy about it.

As for the 2nd paragraph I am not holding my breath either as I know too many selfish people who would think nothing of stepping on anybody if it would get them ahead, and have witnessed this done even when it caused others serious setbacks.
It disgusts me....frankly.
But I cultivate a hope that we will grow out of this.
Maybe not in the next several decades, but perhaps we must.
Perhaps this is the challenge of our time that we need to succeed in.
All the other advancements of our age...all our technological and scientific marvels are quite useless to us if we are all dead due to rampant selfishness.
And that scenario is more than just plausible....right now.
 
immortalitylost said:
True dat! I hope it'll happen someday. For this generation's grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren's etc...etc... perhaps...

Twould be nice.
Click to expand...
Really, we don't have the luxury of such a timeline IMO.
We either figure it out and soon......................................or..................
 
Ah, kablooey. Well I see your point. We haven't really evolved morally much. We've got smarter, and all that has really done is let us build bigger better weapons.

Well, it won't matter anyways prolly since the supervolcano under yellowstone national park is about to splode and kill us all... ;)

At least the destruction of all life won't be on our hands...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top