How to deal with "Every religion thinks it's the right one"

[Peter_Plato]

Regardless, you cannot be human and God at the same time, you cannot be immortal and mortal at the same time, you cannot be complete and need food at the same time,…

And you would know this, how?

You speak as if you personally know everything - what is possible, what is not; what is good, what is not; what is ultimately real, what is not.

The problem is that you have to invent your own first principles to proceed with your “pure reason.” That puts into question all of your claimed logical prowess

The way logic (reasoning) works is that premises (axiomatic or self-evident, universally observed or revealed) are the foundations for logical reasoning.

What you are doing is concocting premises because you cannot accept or understand those that have been revealed. Logic (to which you give the fancy title “pure reason”) is a formal discipline, it does not provide content. Pure reason has to be provided with initial content to work its magic. You seem to think pure reason can create its own content magically. That, fundamentally, is your mistake.

In order to get off the ground, any rational pursuit must begin with one of three types of foundational assumptions:

1. Self-evident or indisputable premises.
2. Universally observable propositions that have been scientifically established by impeccable method.
3. Revelations from God that are taken to be infallibly certain.

Notice, there is no

1. Bahman’s imagined certainty.

 

[Bahman]

And you would know this, how?
You speak as if you personally know everything - what is possible, what is not; what is good, what is not; what is ultimately real, what is not.

Lets pick up two cases in Jesus case so we will see if they are logically consistent within your framework rather than mines. To do so we have to agree on some points first.

First the cases, which are namely God death and God human nature. Here are the question: If God died on cross who resurrected him? Second question is about the fact that human being is capable of committing sin hence God in current state can either perform sin or cannot which means that God fully consume human nature in first case and didn’t in the second case. I think we can agree upon the fact that Jesus can in fact commit sin so everything is matter of time and once the sin is done Jesus is not God anymore. How do you resolve this conflict?

The problem is that you have to invent your own first principles to proceed with your “pure reason.” That puts into question all of your claimed logical prowess

That is the reason that need some axioms, the pure reason does not. I am not claiming that I reached to the point that I can make statement on pure reason so. But I can put myself in shoes of people, considering their axiom and show whether it leads to an new anomaly more that what were accepted as axiom.

The way logic (reasoning) works is that premises (axiomatic or self-evident, universally observed or revealed) are the foundations for logical reasoning.

That is true and I accept. I have my own reasoning framework with the ultimate goal to achieve reasoning based on no axiom. This can be shown that a philosophical framework with one axiom which is complete is not anomaly free. With two proper axioms you could explain anything. Hence to know the absolute truth, you have to question axioms to end up with framework with no axiom which the absolute truth when it comes to a subject matter.

What you are doing is concocting premises because you cannot accept or understand those that have been revealed. Logic (to which you give the fancy title “pure reason”) is a formal discipline, it does not provide content. Pure reason has to be provided with initial content to work its magic. You seem to think pure reason can create its own content magically. That, fundamentally, is your mistake.

Yes it can if you question the axioms. As it is stated a framework with two axioms can fit anything so to understand the truth one has to question axioms.

In order to get off the ground, any rational pursuit must begin with one of three types of foundational assumptions:

1. Self-evident or indisputable premises.
2. Universally observable propositions that have been scientifically established by impeccable method.
3. Revelations from God that are taken to be infallibly certain.

That I agree upon to some extent. I however have problem with 2) and 3) since any observable proposition or God given claims play the role of an axiom in a framework that you based your reasoning upon hence it is neither anomaly free nor meaningful.

 

[Servant19]

No, actually, God, the Father, is eternal.

Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father. He was not created, he is eternally as an aspect of the nature of God.

The Father is not God either

Jesus is a Manifestation of the Word of God. I would humbly suggest you might peruse or study Julio Savi’s “The Eternal Quest for God”

Here are a couple of extracts related to this theme:

"The first emanation from God is the bounty of the Kingdom', says Abdu’l-Bahá; and elsewhere He explains in Plotinian terms:[26] The first thing which emanated from God is that universal reality, which the ancient philosophers termed the "First Mind", and which the people of Baha call the "First Will"... '.[27] The station of this first emanation, where the whole process of existence has its beginning, is alluded to by Bahá'u'lláh in one of His famous aphorisms: Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee… ‘:[28] God, unattainable in His unfathomable Essence, is conscious (He is, indeed, the All-Knowing) of Himself and of His own essential names and attributes, one of which is Love. This Love, on the one hand, implies – just as any other of God’s attributes and names which are actually... existing and not potential'[29] -- the existence of a recipient upon which it may be bestowed; on the other -- being perfect -- it implies also that God is willing to bestow it. Bahá'u'lláh alludes to such spiritual reality with His words “I did wish to make Myself known”’…[30]

In these words Bahá’u’lláh is, apparently, alluding to a station of existence, more than describing a reality in time and space. Next to the station of Absolute Divine Unity, a station is described in which the essential attributes of God express them-selves as active attributes: Love, as the act of loving; Knowledge, as the act of knowing; Will, as the act of willing. In this station the primal unity splits into a couple, a subject and an object, which in reality are identical: it is God Who knows and loves Himself. In fact, His essential attributes are identical with His Essence and His active attributes are but His essential attributes in their active expression.

Whereas the ancient philosophers called this station First Mind', thus emphasizing the attribute of Knowledge, the Bahá'í texts prefer the term Primal Will or First Will’:[31] God is Love (essential attribute), He loves Himself (active attribute), therefore He wants to bestow His Love (First Will). In this regard, Bahá’u’lláh writes: The Cause of creation of all contingent beings has been love, as it is mentioned in the famous tradition: "I was a hidden treasure, and I loved to be known. Therefore I created the creation in order to be known"',[32] and Abdu’l-Bahá says that every love existing in the whole universe comes from the love of God towards the Self or Identity of God', a love He describes as the reality of Love, the Ancient Love, the Eternal Love’…[33] Elsewhere He says that love is the source of all the bestowals of God', the cause of the creation of the phenomenal world’, the axis round which life revolves', the eternal sovereignty… the divine power’, the first effulgence of divinity and the greatest splendour of God', the greatest bestowal of God’ and the conscious bestowal of God',[34] …the transfiguration of His beauty, the reflection of Himself in the mirror of His creation’…[35]"

 

[Servant19]

"Explaining the station of the world of the Kingdom, Abdu'l-Bahá says: This emanation, in that which concerns its action in the world of God, is not limited by time or place; it is without beginning or end – beginning and end in relation to God are one.’ Then He adds: `Though the “First Mind” is without beginning, it does not become a sharer in the preexistence of God, for the preexistence of the universal reality in relation to the existence of God is nothing-ness, and it has not the power to become an associate of God and like unto Him in preexistence… '…[36]

He describes the world of the Kingdom as an intermediate spiritual reality, which, on the one hand, cannot be identified with God, Who is unfathomable in His Essence, and, on the other, is eternal and infinite, because it emanates directly from Him. This reality is not essential preexistence, because it is preceded by a Cause that is God Himself; but it is temporal preexistence, because it has no beginning. For even as the essential attributes of God are coexistent, coeternal' with God, so also the world of the Kingdom -- which is the expression of these essential attributes as active attributes -- is coeternal with God. In fact the divine attributes are actually and forever existent and not potential’,[37] or else God would be imperfect. Bahá’u’lláh writes: His name, the Creator, presupposes a creation'; and moreover: The one true God hath everlastingly existed, and will everlastingly continue to exist. His creation, likewise, has no beginning, and will have no end.‘38 And Abdu'l-Bahá explains: …just as the reality of Divinity never had a beginning – that is, God hath ever been a Creator… – so there hath never been a time when the attributes of God have not had an expression’…[39] Therefore God is both preexistent and uncreated, whereas the world of the Kingdom is preexistent, but created."

bahai-library.org/books/quest/quest.03.html



.

 

[epan]

You could ask them are they on this List., and if so where have they been for 1800/or whatever years before it was founded ?

How Old is Your Church?
AUTHOR UNKNOWN

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1608.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628.

If you are a member of the Churches of Christ your church began near the beginning of the 19th century in New England. Abner Jones, Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell were some of the most well known originators of your religion.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as “Church of the Nazarene,” “Pentecostal Gospel,” “Holiness Church,” “Pilgrim Holiness Church,” “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century.

If you are Roman Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.

But you would be required to concede that Buddhism predates Christianity by hundreds of years, and Hinduism predates Christianity by thousands of years. The logical line of your argument would lead to the claim that Christianity is too young to be a true religion. So, I would only advice this line of argument with those who profess Christianity.

 

[epan]

In order to get off the ground, any rational pursuit must begin with one of three types of foundational assumptions:

1. Self-evident or indisputable premises.

An axiom need not be based on anything self evident, nor need it be indisputable. If this were a requirement, then a logical pursuit of the validity of Christianity would be problematic. An axiom need merely be based on an agreed upon premise. For example, Christian polemics often rely on the unprovable (and often disputed) premise that the world, as we know it, must have a creator. This premise is neither self-evident to many, nor is it indisputable.

1. Universally observable propositions that have been scientifically established by impeccable method.

Every method is faulty, as a function of time. As we know in scientific inquiry, theories are revised and rejected continually, even if the methods originally used were considered impeccable contemporaneously.

1. Revelations from God that are taken to be infallibly certain.

This is a matter of faith, and only a requirement to such discussions as a measure of an individual’s bias, or perspective. Faith is not a requirement for philosophical or religious discussions. Statements of faith often serve as a foil to logical discourse.

 

[Slaney]

-]/-]

The Bahai Faith considers itself a chapter in the Book of the eternal Faith of God.

In answer to your question therefore, this religion does not have a beginning, since God is eternal.

“***This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.” ***- Baha’u’llah



.

I’ll stick with Jesus who said He would destroy the Temple and raise it in 3 days ! There is no other Name by which we can gain the Kingdom of Heaven Bahai or otherwise !

 

[Slaney]

Well Jesus too had several conversations with the Devil, but alas the Spirit took over. Or did it?

Why would you question Muhammad’s similar predicament?

This clearly indicates the human and Divine aspects of these Prophets.

Did your meditations on this subject consider this possibility?** If so, why did you conclude that Muhammad was deceived and Jesus was not?**



.

Jesus arose from the dead and appeared to many witnesses ,Mohammed died, Jesus is True God and true Man +++

 

[Slaney]

God does not get tempted as God is complete hence it is meaningless to temp God hence Jesus was not God.

Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus said " how can you ask me to show you the Father ? have I been with you all this time and you do not recognize me, Philip He who has seen me has seen the Father, The Father and I are one " that’s all us as followers of Christ need to know, all will become clearer when we depart this life !

 

[Slaney]

.

Can you give me a reference please?



.

John: 14:8 Philip said to him: Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.

9 Jesus said to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that sees me, sees the Father also. How say thou, Show us the Father?

10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

11 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

 

[Slaney]

Well Jesus too had several conversations with the Devil, but alas the Spirit took over. Or did it?

Why would you question Muhammad’s similar predicament?

This clearly indicates the human and Divine aspects of these Prophets.

Did your meditations on this subject consider this possibility? If so, why did you conclude that Muhammad was deceived and Jesus was not?



.

Jesus healed the blind, cured the lame, made the dumb speak, cured 10 lepers,raised the dead, calmed the raging storm, what miracles did Mohammed do ? Jesus died and arose from the dead 3 days later, Mohammed cured no-one, Mohammed is dead, Jesus is very much alive +++

 

[Servant19]

John: 14:8 Philip said to him: Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.

9 Jesus said to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that sees me, sees the Father also. How say thou, Show us the Father?

10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

11 Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

Hello dear Slaney.

I do not see the words “I am God” or even " I am the Father" in this passage.

This quote from St. Basil is exactly what the Baha’i Faith teaches on the relationship between God, and His mediator (1 Tim 2:5) Jesus Christ:

"8. Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son “the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15 and again “image of His goodness;” not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person. For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases."

newadvent.org/fathers/3202038.htm



.

 

[Servant19]

Jesus healed the blind, cured the lame, made the dumb speak, cured 10 lepers,raised the dead, calmed the raging storm, what miracles did Mohammed do ? Jesus died and arose from the dead 3 days later, Mohammed cured no-one, Mohammed is dead, Jesus is very much alive +++

Not sure what Muhammad did (the history is not very reliable), but I know Baha’u’llah and the Bab (who’s historical accounts are undeniable) did all of these things. Baha’u’llah and the Bab proclaimed Muhammad a true Prophet, so I believe them.



.

 

[Peter_Plato]

An axiom need not be based on anything self evident, nor need it be indisputable. If this were a requirement, then a logical pursuit of the validity of Christianity would be problematic. An axiom need merely be based on an agreed upon premise. For example, Christian polemics often rely on the unprovable (and often disputed) premise that the world, as we know it, must have a creator. This premise is neither self-evident to many, nor is it indisputable.

This is a statement of faith.

It doesn’t matter whether premises are unprovable or disputed, it only matters whether they are true.

Agreed upon premises are no more true, necessarily, than self-evident ones so it is not clear why you would want to reduce the burden of proof to mere agreement. Agreement is not difficult to obtain. And the fact that there exist individuals who dispute indisputable or self-evident premises does not make such premises less true.

Every method is faulty, as a function of time. As we know in scientific inquiry, theories are revised and rejected continually, even if the methods originally used were considered impeccable contemporaneously.

This is a statement of faith.

If true, then you have undermined your own reason for claiming every method is faulty. If every method is, indeed, necessarily faulty then so is your method at arriving at the claim that every method is faulty. Congratulations for undermining your own claim by making it self-refuting.

This is a matter of faith, and only a requirement to such discussions as a measure of an individual’s bias, or perspective. Faith is not a requirement for philosophical or religious discussions. Statements of faith often serve as a foil to logical discourse.

This is a statement of faith.

Statements of faith have no necessary disconnection with logical discourse. Faith is a level of commitment to a belief or set of beliefs.

Those beliefs may have been arrived at by a variety of means: rational, emotional or delusional. Faith, per se, has absolutely nothing against logical discourse. However, a person who has arrived at their level of commitment to a belief by delusion may construct barriers to logical discourse. On the other hand, an individual who has arrived at their level of commitment (faith) by impeccable logic has no qualms about engaging in logical discourse.

I am not sure how you arrived at the three statements of faith above, but clearly your logic is flawed if you are claiming impeccable reasoning exclusive of faith was the means.

Now you may want to puts things into perspective…

youtu.be/qndkC-vGLBw

 

[Bahman]

Philip asked Jesus to show him the Father, Jesus said " how can you ask me to show you the Father ? have I been with you all this time and you do not recognize me, Philip He who has seen me has seen the Father, The Father and I are one " that’s all us as followers of Christ need to know, all will become clearer when we depart this life !

So he was simply God. So why devil should bother with God? And how a being could be human with the possibility to do sin and God at the same time which means that he cannot do sin. A thing cannot be possible and impossible at the same time.

 

[Bahman]

Jesus arose from the dead and appeared to many witnesses ,Mohammed died, Jesus is True God and true Man +++

So if Jesus was God and human at the same time, did he finally died? God cannot die and human can, it is logically impossible that a being dies and doesn’t die. And if God died who resurrected him? That couldn’t be himself unless we are misunderstanding the definition of death.

 

[Bahman]

This is a statement of faith.

That is not true as that is the basic element of an intellect survival. How then a predator should attack a pray if it was not self-evident that pray does exit.

It doesn’t matter whether premises are unprovable or disputed, it only matters whether they are true.

And how you could believe in a premise trueness if you could not justify it? A premise is only true if it justifiable.

This is a statement of faith.

That is not true. It is what we learn from history of science.

If true, then you have undermined your own reason for claiming every method is faulty. If every method is, indeed, necessarily faulty then so is your method at arriving at the claim that every method is faulty. Congratulations for undermining your own claim by making it self-refuting.

No, each method has its own range of applicability.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is not true. It is what we learn from history of science.

If you recall from epan’s post, he claimed, “Every method is faulty.”

This is not learned from the history of science, it is a logical generalization about all methods that exceeds what we have learned from the history of science.

If taken to be true, as stated, then scientists ought to pack in their lab coats and pursue some other occupation.

Methods may have been found inadequate or applicable only to a limited sphere, but clearly EVERY method has not been faulty. The experimental method itself is continually used and if properly applied is far from faulty. Conclusions drawn from experimentation are often faulty, but that is an issue with the application of logic to reach conclusions. Again, not a fault with logic, but with practitioners in using it badly.

Which takes me back to your post. This is another case of you purchasing an erroneous conclusion from the “history of science” without warrant. We can add this one to the litany of faux pas you have posted. Your alleged universal skepticism has failed you again. You should have been more skeptical about drawing a conclusion about the history of science without due attention to what was claimed.

 

[Slaney]

Hello dear Slaney.

I do not see the words “I am God” or even " I am the Father" in this passage

.

How would you interpret this line by Jesus ?

John :14:6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

7 If you had known me, you would surely have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him.

 

[Slaney]

So if Jesus was God and human at the same time, did he finally died? God cannot die and human can, it is logically impossible that a being dies and doesn’t die. And if God died who resurrected him? That couldn’t be himself unless we are misunderstanding the definition of death.

Nothing is impossible for God, The Holy Trinity is hard to grasp, it’s called a mystery.

John 1:1 1*** In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.***

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

Christians believe Jesus was the word became flesh, the Word was always there, the Word hadn’t been manifested in the flesh, there probably was no need for this to happen but for the fall of man.

Theologians wrestle with it, it will only by the power of the Holy Spirit that we can understand this, and that is up to God if He wants to reveal it. Do our children know everything ? is it good for them to know everything ? apparently not for their own good, which only a God of supreme wisdom could understand. We may never know all in this world, what we will know in the next world is up to God.