A True Religion? A religion that has scientific facts in its scriptures

[truefusion 3]

Yep. Facts could be biased either way (try asking a devout follower and a strict unbeliever). Easy solution: Ask more than one professor seeing that they have different backgrounds, etc. But someone that is well educated in English literature will not dispute the claim that the Bible has stories in it that have existed before in other religions and remember that Christianity is not the only religion that includes stories from other religions... of course, what do you expect - humans wrote it.

I already know about this; seen and read plenty of stuff on it—and, if memory serves me right, it was all from those who (seem to) wish that there was no such thing as religion; although some did only strike Christianity the most out of all religions, if not only Christianity. However, such statements do not change much. Let me inform you of a pagan religion known as "Gnosticism." The way they worked was they went around involving themselves in other religions, taking the basics of that religion (sometimes even further detail) and applied it to their own religion. They would make up their own stories based on the information retrieved from these religions, forming contradictions to these other religions all for the sake of gaining "wisdom." Gnosticism, if i'm not mistaken, has been around before Judaism.

 

There's another thing i would like to point out: If one sees two things which they can place together to form a logical statement, people will believe it. For example: We have two stories and two religions. One religion is older than the other. The two stories are about the same, just certain differences. One can claim, since one religion is older, that the older religion was the one that made/wrote the story first, however without knowing who actually did write it first, and since the statement is logical enough to believe, people will believe it. However, the older religion could have lasted long enough to come across this story in the other religion and could have modified it after this newer religion has written it. To put it short: What is logical does not mean it is true.

[Smack 0]

I already know about this; seen and read plenty of stuff on it—and, if memory serves me right, it was all from those who (seem to) wish that there was no such thing as religion; although some did only strike Christianity the most out of all religions, if not only Christianity. However, such statements do not change much. Let me inform you of a pagan religion known as "Gnosticism." The way they worked was they went around involving themselves in other religions, taking the basics of that religion (sometimes even further detail) and applied it to their own religion. They would make up their own stories based on the information retrieved from these religions, forming contradictions to these other religions all for the sake of gaining "wisdom." Gnosticism, if i'm not mistaken, has been around before Judaism.

I assume you heard this after the Gospel of Judas resurfaced which many gnostics see as something that really isn't a big deal. But it taught the lesson that anyone can receive gnosis (knowledge/wisdom) - even your enemies can find their way. The point of the gospel wasn't to try to show that the church was hiding anything or whatever (DaVinci Code) - as several television shows tried to make gnostics out to be the bad people - that they are rebels or something. I know much about gnosticism and have friends who were born and raised gnostics.

 

What I was talking about when I said the Bible took stuff - is how there are stories in the Egyptian religion that was made way before Christianity and Judaism that describe and tell stories of someone that resembles the same person that we call Jesus Christ. And also the story of "Noah and the ark" that is really a rewrite of an old story that is basically the same thing... I can't remember the name of the story but I read it junior year in high school while I was taking sophomore college english... It's driving me nuts! I read it at the same time I read the epic of Gilgamesh and that one story with the lake of fire... My professor was a real religious Christian (duh - I live in Texas) who made us read many many stories that had religious elements and stuff that she said the Bible took from and then some that the Bible inspired. She is definitely not what right wings call 'one of those liberal nuts.' She might of been the one doing the name calling! But then I had another english professor that was the head of the department who was liberal and she agreed with everything the other said about the stories the Bible took from and stuff... Good teachers the two were as they would give us different views of different subjects. I need to call one of them so they can re explain this stuff to me... But it is unlikely.

 

And the whole point of saying the Bible took stories was to say that all religions take stories and that they all hold truths and fairy tales. And your second paragraph doesn't make too much sense - it's just something that runs into circles upon circles. Most of the gospels in the Bible were not written down in original form and were just spoken for many many years and so were the stories of old but if we can find something that was written we can find out how old it was and prove it's age using carbon but this only shows how old it was when it was written, not when it was spoken.

 

ANYWAYS, I agree with OpaQue.

Edited April 29, 2007 by Smack (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

[1]I assume you heard this after the Gospel of Judas resurfaced which many gnostics see as something that really isn't a big deal. [. . .]

 

[2:1]What I was talking about when I said the Bible took stuff - is how there are stories in the Egyptian religion that was made way before Christianity and Judaism [2:2]that describe and tell stories of someone that resembles the same person that we call Jesus Christ. [2:3And also the story of "Noah and the ark" that is really a rewrite of an old story that is basically the same thing...] I can't remember the name of the story but I read it junior year in high school while I was taking sophomore college english... It's driving me nuts! I read it at the same time I read the epic of Gilgamesh and that one story with the lake of fire... [2:4My professor was a real religious Christian (duh - I live in Texas) who made us read many many stories that had religious elements and stuff that she said the Bible took from and then some that the Bible inspired.] She is definitely not what right wings call 'one of those liberal nuts.' She might of been the one doing the name calling! But then I had another english professor that was the head of the department who was liberal and she agreed with everything the other said about the stories the Bible took from and stuff... [. . .]

 

[3]And the whole point of saying the Bible took stories was to say that all religions take stories and that they all hold truths and fairy tales. [4]And your second paragraph doesn't make too much sense - it's just something that runs into circles upon circles. [5]Most of the gospels in the Bible were not written down in original form and were just spoken for many many years and so were the stories of old [5:2]but if we can find something that was written we can find out how old it was and prove it's age using carbon but this only shows how old it was when it was written, not when it was spoken.

 

[6]ANYWAYS, I agree with OpaQue.

[1]No, i did my own research—i've read plenty of Gnostic texts; the Gospel of Judas being one of them, of course—it claims more than one god: contradiction to a monotheistic religion. There are other Gnostic texts that take Names that are known to be attributed to God (Jehovah, YahWeh, etc) and claim that each name is a different god—all created gods, however, because in these stories they (all those gods) just "came to be," basically, through some background force.

 

I do realise many Gnostics can be good people and have good morals; but the texts still exist.

 

[2:1]I know exactly what you're talking about; you're basically repeating everything i heard and seen in videos and read.

[2:2]You mean "shepard"? "One who gathers 'sheep' or 'lambs'"? I know what you're talking, but that doesn't change anything. I don't recall, however, this "shepard" being the first of all creation of whom all things were made through and being the ultimate atonement for sin.

[2:3]It's not "basically the same thing," the other one is a bit illogical. They both also happened for different reasons. The event is still possible; however, only one can be accurate in the telling of the event.

[2:4]Define: "religious."

 

All the events could have happened, it's just the one that holds the most facts and the one that is logical and coincides with the facts that is the accurate one in the telling of the event.

 

[3]I know.

 

[4]What part doesn't make sense? I see no circles in my statement that could cause confusion. Please be more specific and i will try to explain it better, if possible.

 

[5]Define: "original form."

[5:2]Didn't we find "something that was written"? Would we be able to claim that they are the Gospels if we didn't?

 

[6]I only agree with him somewhat. Some religions preach personal peace through self-indulgence, whether or not it is at the expense of others—this is not the proper way to promote personal "peace." Another thing, however, is if the religion makes statements claiming them to be true but don't coincide with reality and certain known facts (i.e. facts that don't have a possibility of a logical contradiction that coincide with other facts), you'll lose believers or have "followers" that are not devout, therefore any personal peace may not be attained (properly {and may make things worse for the human population}).

[Smack 0]

[1]No, i did my own researchi've read plenty of Gnostic texts; the Gospel of Judas being one of them, of courseit claims more than one god: contradiction to a monotheistic religion. There are other Gnostic texts that take Names that are known to be attributed to God (Jehovah, YahWeh, etc) and claim that each name is a different godall created gods, however, because in these stories they (all those gods) just "came to be," basically, through some background force.

 

I do realise many Gnostics can be good people and have good morals; but the texts still exist.

 

[2:1]I know exactly what you're talking about; you're basically repeating everything i heard and seen in videos and read.

[2:2]You mean "shepard"? "One who gathers 'sheep' or 'lambs'"? I know what you're talking, but that doesn't change anything. I don't recall, however, this "shepard" being the first of all creation of whom all things were made through and being the ultimate atonement for sin.

[2:3]It's not "basically the same thing," the other one is a bit illogical. They both also happened for different reasons. The event is still possible; however, only one can be accurate in the telling of the event.

[2:4]Define: "religious."

 

All the events could have happened, it's just the one that holds the most facts and the one that is logical and coincides with the facts that is the accurate one in the telling of the event.

 

[3]I know.

 

[4]What part doesn't make sense? I see no circles in my statement that could cause confusion. Please be more specific and i will try to explain it better, if possible.

 

[5]Define: "original form."

[5:2]Didn't we find "something that was written"? Would we be able to claim that they are the Gospels if we didn't?

 

[6]I only agree with him somewhat. Some religions preach personal peace through self-indulgence, whether or not it is at the expense of othersthis is not the proper way to promote personal "peace." Another thing, however, is if the religion makes statements claiming them to be true but don't coincide with reality and certain known facts (i.e. facts that don't have a possibility of a logical contradiction that coincide with other facts), you'll lose believers or have "followers" that are not devout, therefore any personal peace may not be attained (properly {and may make things worse for the human population}).

1. yes i know these things

2. okay

3. no i'm talking about a sect that once occurred during the times of the pharoahs, the 'light skinned' god prince dude.. but I can't back this up with anything because I cannot remember the name

4. the old story of the great flood when he traveled far and wide to meet an oracle that told him to build an arc and he would be saved from the great flood (..that sounds almost little bit right of the story) seems to be the same to me

5. religious - going to church every sunday monday wednesday and friday nights. running several christian organizations throughout the school and etc.

6. original form meaning what was said the first time. remember that activity in grade school where the sentence was told at one end of the line and by the time it got to the other it was different. thats how story telling works, each person adds their own style to it.

7. yes because a gospel is just 'good word' which can be anything

8. yes not all religions are perfect social institutions.

[Evolke 0]

Interesting. Ive got no religion and Im kinda happy with that, only because if you've got no religion you dont debate which is the 'True' religion. and you will accept and listen to other religions. I know this happens with Buddaism {Is that how its spelt} but you get the picture. Ill check to site out becuase Ive alway been interested in learning other religions. Thanks for the Post

[omarsdali 0]

QUOTE(sweet_princess @ Apr 25 2007, 01:34 PM) *God promised us that one word of the Qur'an will never change until the last day of the world (and even after that), and that promise has surly been fulfilled.

Which one word is that? wink.gif

I think she what she meant to say was that God promised us that NOT one word of the Qur'an will ever change until the last day of the world

I am agnostic, and as such I cannot say that any religion is true.

You can't say any religion is false either.

and was founded by the prophet Muhammad

I wouldn't use the word 'founded' because the prophet didn't make the religion himself, he was just a messenger delivering a message.

[xistars 0]

I think she what she meant to say was that God promised us that NOT one word of the Qur'an will ever change until the last day of the world You can't say any religion is false either.
I wouldn't use the word 'founded' because the prophet didn't make the religion himself, he was just a messenger delivering a message.

you got all the answers omar. I myself a muslim, and I found that:
1. Quran lead the way to science, just take a look to http://www.harunyahya.com/
2. Islam is a rational religion,not filled by doctrins
3. It has a very - very special place for women, they are exclusive and protected in Islam.
etc.. these things were just several reasons why I decide to BE A MUSLIM.