The debate "Is there a true religion If so which one is it" was started by
February 23, 2017, 5:25 pm.
27 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
makson posted 1 argument, Peak_Points posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 4 arguments, PeaceSafe posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
keeliAnna, Ematio, makson, Cjselfie01, FaithofExaltism, jrardin12, Peak_Points and 20 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, skeletonbones, ProfDoke, The13yearoldconservative, LucyTheDebatorQueen, Khairon, Rashia and 13 visitors disagree.
the question is then, do you believe the true religion can, and should be changed by man, and still be the true religion?
There are many religions that have true aspects to them. However, you shouldn't think of religion as a function of truth, but as a form of art meant to interpret the world.
But, if there was to be a religion that doesn't come into contact with truth or reality in any way, it's Christianity. The hypocrisy of that mass cult is insane.
the best attitude teaching is peace
if u said Terror and peace is same so..u are fake human ;)
yes,this world is test for us...not only me, so watch out your attitude!
it wasa test
bro allah was married with a 6 years old
this is a fact, the three "joint religions" are cristianity, jews and muslims, they apparently have a lot in common, jews and christians is obvious, they have the same god, but jews dont belive in jesus, and muslims belive that there is a god whom was destined to a sacraficial son or what not, but I prsonly dot belive in stuff I cant prove, that means god, but its up to you.
I'm sorry. I assumed you sounded pretentious because you were quoting something. Now I see that you were sounding pretentious because you thought it made you seem smart. I apologize for giving you enough credit to think that you would do some research to support your beliefs. I will try to lower my expectations of you further.
Not understand the scripture i was quoting? please tell me which scripture that quote is from. You know why? because its not a quote from amy scripture at all. Dumbass, that just about shows your level of knowledge on religion. You try to sound smart but just shoot yourself in the foot. Stay in the basement where you belong, cuck.
Instead of responding to the argument, you babbled about listening to jesters over the laws of prophets. That is attacking the source rather than the argument. Do I have to explain how debating works after all this time? Or did you simply not understand the scripture you were quoting?
Not once did i even mention that he cant state an opinion. The fact that i have to feed everything to you with a spoon is just despicable. Your parents shouldve raised as a child, i should not have to raise you as an adult.
So his occupation as an entertainer means he is not allowed to express an opinion?
The point was to discuss religion, not dismiss opposing views because they come from a celebrity. If you disagree with the statement, feel free to explain why. If you simply want to avoid addressing it, you would be better served remaining silent.
And so came the day in this time of "enlightenment" that fools among the masses adhered to and abided by the statements of jesters above the laws of the prophets
I think a quote from ricky gervais can answer this..
"if you took all the religious books from every religion and made them disappear and then took all the science books and made them disappear. in a thousand years time all the science books would be back, exactly the same. But the religious books would either not exist or be completely different"
therefore no religion is true, they are stories made up in a time when we didn't understand science. and your religion depends on where you brought up, how you were brought up and who brought you up.
You dont know what youre talking about. You could easily get the answers to the questions you asked if you read my previous comment.
the number of God's is not the message. it is information. there is no guidance, no instruction in it.
as you said, the Jewish prophets brought law and instructions on how to live, micromanaging daily life to provide order and stability.
jesus did not bring that, he may have reaffirmed it, but the people already had order and stability. what they now needed to learn was tolerance. of course he reaffirmed the one God and the laws... but what did he bring that was new?
if all he did was repeat what previous prophets said, then who even needed him to come?!
The overall message of Moses was to lead the Jews to live like civilised human beings, to set the foundation for a moral, developed society. Teach them that there is ONE God, that is not like those the Egyptians believe in. Teach them to live a simple life that is centered around the one and only monetheistic God almighty himself.
The overall message of Jesus was to affirm the teachings of the Old Testament and the previous Jewish prophets, that there is only one God who all must obey and so on.
The overall message of Muhammad was, once again, that there is only one God who all must obey and he was the last and final prophet of the Abrahamic faiths. New laws were added on to perfect the "guide to life and after". The difference is that he was sent down to the Arabs, who were living like the Jews used to before Moses and the OT. However, Muhammad wasnt sent down just for the Arabs, he was sent down for the whole of humanity. On the other hand, Jesus clearly states that he was sent down to the Israelites only but for some reason some white folk thought they were middle eastern Hebrews and thus decided to adopt the religion via the Roman Empire.
Anyway, the common message among the 3 religions is that there is only one God with no form or figure etc who is all powerful and all knowledgeable and created everything.
I never said he negated the old laws. I'm referring to what he brought that was new. and the new thing that he brought was an emphasis on tolerance and love.
if my repeating is bothering you, try responding to what I post instead of assuming hidden meanings. maybe then I wouldn't need to repeat myself.
"Think not that i have come to abolish the laws of the prophets, I have come not to abolish but to fulfill", here Jesus (Not that dickhead Paul) makes it clear that he is here, on this planet breathing, for the purpose of affirming the Old Testament which the Jews were straying from.
You dont seem familiar with any of the Abrahamic faiths, let alone Islam. All you've done is repeat the claims you made in your first post on this debate which ive already neutralised in my first post on this debate.
forget the whole testaments neither of which were written by neither God nor profit. except for 10 short commandments.
the overall message of all the Jewish prophets was: this how you live, this is the law, follow my word, even to sacrifice your only son.
the overall message of jesus love, forgive, turn the other cheek.
the overall message of Muhammad, I'm not familiar with honestly, but I've heard it was unity.
tribal religions relied on their connections to the natural world. and Greek, hindu, and other polytheistic cultures are renown for their artistic and philosophical innovations.
Nemiroff, well actually thats wrong because even though the 10 commandments were given to Moses, that was only ONE of the things that they got. The OT has many passages talking about love etc.
Also in terms of Jesus, he taught patience and kindness but very clearly stated that the laws of the OT such as not eating pork and homosexuality being a sin etc still stand.
He even said, "Think not that i came to bring peace, i came not to bring peace but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). I dont think that matches your interpretation of tolerance.
In terms of Muhammad, he was also given many new laws (even more than Moses in fact) and he made the Arab people civilised, whereas previously they were morally corrupt like Americans are today. The arabs used to be tribes, he made them a nation. Not only that, but he is also known for showing many acts of kindness and so on. He was not a feared leader, he was a loved and respected one.
The point im trying to make here is that the B'hai claims about the different religions are wrong to the point that it looks like a 4 year old made them because "law was given to jews, tolerance was given to Jesus and unity was given to Muhammed" is like the most extreme generalisation anyone could make about the Abrahamic faiths.
I'll defend my favorite religion as the most sensible explanation assuming a god. the b'hai faith.
the reason God gives such contradictory instructions, stories, and messages is because he is not telling us truth or facts, but guiding us.
people who needed law and order got moses. people who needed tolerance got jesus. people who needed unity got muhammed. and the same goes to the polytheistic religions, or even tribal faiths that needed to learn to live with nature.
the message is tailored not to absolute truth, but the priority that the particular people are in need of.
So I'm noticing that no one is stepping forward to defend their faith. Could it be that everyone afraid they will be proven wrong?
I'll be interested to see this as well.....i don't really think I'll have much input, but I'd love to read the arguments that come from this.
Thereal said in a philosophical debate that which religion is the true religion was a dig debate unto itself, and he is right. I wanted to create a topic for this debate to give him an opportunity to explain why his is, and I suspect najam will have arguments from his perspective as well.