only one correct religion with the truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ggarcia19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
tonyfish,

all religions are based on their founders and the founders’ followers understanding of reality.

it does not make sense to me to think that all of the founders had the same vision of reality.

it does make sense to me to think that reality is reasonable and understandable in its every aspect.

human beings have the ability to reason and understand although this ability varies in degree for each and all human beings.

based on the above, it does not make sense to me to think that all religions express an equally reasonable understanding of reality.

ergo, it makes more sense to me to believe that some religions have a better understanding of reality than other religions; and, that only one religion best understands reality.
 
eddie_too said:
tonyfish,

all religions are based on their founders and the founders’ followers understanding of reality.

it does not make sense to me to think that all of the founders had the same vision of reality.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all conveying God’s message for humanity, progressively revealed through these founders.

I think that their messages were compatible, and all based on God’s will for the human race at the time of their ministry.

I don’t feel that their messages were in conflict with one another. Indeed Jesus alluded clearly to this numerous times as recorded in the Gospels.

I don’t think their human understanding is at issue, as their messages were from God, not from a human, fallible perspective.

Would you agree with what I just wrote?
 
tonyfish writes,
"i would suggest that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all conveying God’s message for humanity, progressively revealed through these founders.

I think that their messages were compatible, and all based on God’s will for the human race at the time of their ministry.

I don’t feel that their messages were in conflict with one another. Indeed Jesus alluded clearly to this numerous times as recorded in the Gospels.

I don’t think their human understanding is at issue, as their messages were from God, not from a human, fallible perspective.

Would you agree with what I just wrote?"

i disagree with your first assertion in its entirety.

i agree with the part of your second assertion where you write that their messages were not in conflict. but, most certainly what abraham and moses conveyed were directed to their faith communities not to all of humanity.

i agree with your third assertion in its entirety.

i disagree with your fourth assertion because they did not all possess the same understanding of reality.
 
Eddie,

I’m still not entirely sure what I wrote in my last post that you disagree with? Can you clarify what and why you disagree with it? Thank you!
 
matthew light

i think i explained my disagreement with two of your assertions.

as to the third, which is "“i would suggest that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all conveying God’s message for humanity, progressively revealed through these founders.”

i think what noah received from God was mostly meant specifically for Noah and his immediate family. mankind can draw knowledge and wisdom from it, but God interacted with Noah primarily to save Noah and his family, not all mankind.

what God revealed to Abraham was directed toward Abraham and his descendants. again, many of the people living at the time of Abraham and until the time of Christ were not the targets of God’s revelations to Abraham. the same is true of God’s revelations to Moses. all mankind could benefit from them but they were directed toward the descendants of Abraham. Jesus however did direct His revelations toward all human beings.

also, while the old testament contains many prophecies that foretell the coming of the Incarnate Savior, i do not see a progressive revelation in the sense that God’s revelations to Noah build in any significant sense on God’s revelations to Adam. the same is true for God’s revelations to Abraham not building in any material sense on God’s revelations to Noah.

on the other hand, God’s revelations to Moses do build, in the sense of both being related to the Chosen People, somewhat on God’s revelations to Abraham.

Jesus’ revelations to mankind most certainly do not contradict previous Divine interventions in to human history and they do represent the culmination of all previous revelations, but i think they stand alone and Jesus was in no way dependent upon the earlier revelations in His Incarnate salvation.
 
mattehw light,

you must realize that no human being can comprehend the fullness of reveleation that is the Incarnate Word without first believing in Jesus Christ as the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the sole Savior of the World and the Fullness of God’s interactions in human history.

so, while i am happy to provide you with what the RCC teaches about Jesus Christ and salvation History. i do not wish to get in to a exchange in which you try to dissuade me from the nature and completeness of my faith.

until you receive the gift of faith in Jesus Christ and His salvific life, you cannot understand it beyond a grasping of intellectual issues. such as, history tells us that Jesus was a real human being who walked the earth. the metaphyscial consequences of that simple fact can only be grasped by those who accept that Jesus is unique among all human beings who have ever and will ever live on this earth.

so, feel free to ask any questions about what i believe, but asking me why i believe that is simply not going to be productive because the whys involve faith and you do not have it.

faith precedes both knowledge and understanding.
 
eddie_too said:
matthew light

i think i explained my disagreement with two of your assertions.

as to the third, which is "“i would suggest that Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all conveying God’s message for humanity, progressively revealed through these founders.”

i think what noah received from God was mostly meant specifically for Noah and his immediate family. mankind can draw knowledge and wisdom from it, but God interacted with Noah primarily to save Noah and his family, not all mankind.
Click to expand...
I would not argue against that. The circle started small and at the time of Noah I agree it was only a family / tribe.
what God revealed to Abraham was directed toward Abraham and his descendants. again, many of the people living at the time of Abraham and until the time of Christ were not the targets of God’s revelations to Abraham. the same is true of God’s revelations to Moses.
Click to expand...
I think you can see the circle getting larger though through Abraham and (even more) through Moses until we reach Christ when the circle becomes truly universal in scope, encompassing with no reservations all human beings who received His message.
all mankind could benefit from them but they were directed toward the descendants of Abraham. Jesus however did direct His revelations toward all human beings.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you are saying so far.

also, while the old testament contains many prophecies that foretell the coming of the Incarnate Savior, i do not see a progressive revelation in the sense that God’s revelations to Noah build in any significant sense on God’s revelations to Adam. the same is true for God’s revelations to Abraham not building in any material sense on God’s revelations to Noah.

on the other hand, God’s revelations to Moses do build, in the sense of both being related to the Chosen People, somewhat on God’s revelations to Abraham.

Pretty much agree with you on everything you wrote again, except I see the Noahide circle a bit larger than the Adamic circle was.
Jesus’ revelations to mankind most certainly do not contradict previous Divine interventions in to human history and they do represent the culmination of all previous revelations, but i think they stand alone and Jesus was in no way dependent upon the earlier revelations in His Incarnate salvation.
Click to expand...
I agree, Christ’s Revelation was sufficient in and of Himself, and indeed he reached the gentiles who were not part of the Mosaic covenant and brought them to God’s truth and offered up the first really universal message out of the Abrahamic lineage.

So I can’t see any disagreements between us about anything you wrote in this post - which is why I asked the question earlier.
 
eddie_too said:
so, feel free to ask any questions about what i believe, but asking me why i believe that is simply not going to be productive because the whys involve faith and you do not have it.

faith precedes both knowledge and understanding.
Click to expand...
Christ is my Lord, I have much more faith in Him than I do in myself.
 
matthew i know little about what you believe.

what i can say is that the faith i speak of is the theological virtue of faith that affirms that Jesus is the Second Person of the most Holy Trinity become fully human. and, to eliminate any mistaken notions, that He is the only human being who can make that claim.

after one receives that gift of faith, knowledge and understanding naturally flows in to the mind and heart.

however, even this great gift of the theological virtue of faith (in RC teaching there are three and only three theological virtues. they are faith, hope and charity) can be lost.

there are other virtues, such as the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude, but only three theological virtues.
 
eddie_too said:
matthew i know little about what you believe.

what i can say is that the faith i speak of is the theological virtue of faith that affirms that Jesus is the Second Person of the most Holy Trinity become fully human. and, to eliminate any mistaken notions, that He is the only human being who can make that claim.

after one receives that gift of faith, knowledge and understanding naturally flows in to the mind and heart.

however, even this great gift of the theological virtue of faith (in RC teaching there are three and only three theological virtues. they are faith, hope and charity) can be lost.

there are other virtues, such as the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, justice and fortitude, but only three theological virtues.
Click to expand...
Eddie, I would venture to say that the theological virtue of faith is strengthened by Matthews faith in Baha’u’llah and the Divine reality that He shares with Jesus.

The Second Person of the Trinity is not of this world. It pre-existed before Jesus and it pre-existed before Baha’u’llah. It only becomes flesh on a very small number of occasions, but when it does, civilisations are born characterised by the fresh vibrances of the Holy Spirit.

"When righteousness is weak and faints, and unrighteousness exalts in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, and destruction of evil in men, I come to this world from age to age"

Do you know who said this verse?

.
 
So to answer the OP’s question, I would say that there is only one Book of God, with several chapters.

There is only one Religion of God, with several Human Identities given the responsibility to teach it to mankind…

🙂
 
Servant19 said:
Eddie, I would venture to say that the theological virtue of faith is strengthened by Matthews faith in Baha’u’llah and the Divine reality that He shares with Jesus.

The Second Person of the Trinity is not of this world. It pre-existed before Jesus and it pre-existed before Baha’u’llah. It only becomes flesh on a very small number of occasions, but when it does, civilisations are born characterised by the fresh vibrances of the Holy Spirit.

"When righteousness is weak and faints, and unrighteousness exalts in pride, then my Spirit arises on earth. For the salvation of those who are good, and destruction of evil in men, I come to this world from age to age"

Do you know who said this verse?

.
Click to expand...
Very well said indeed, Mr Servant.

Only thing you need to realize is that it is always the Second Person of the Trinity that incarnates as human, the First Person does not.

And this Second Person does so, approximately every 2160 years, according to the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Jesus was not the first incarnation of the Son and He will not be the last.
 
openmind77 said:
Very well said indeed, Mr Servant.

Only thing you need to realize is that it is always the Second Person of the Trinity that incarnates as human, the First Person does not.

And this Second Person does so, approximately every 2160 years, according to the Precession of the Equinoxes.

Jesus was not the first incarnation of the Son and He will not be the last.
Click to expand...
Thank you brother openmind.

Have you read somewhere that the First Person of the Trinity will not, or can not incarnate as human? What is your source please? 🙂

.
 
For what it’s worth, even if bahaullah is false, he claims to have been the first person of the trinity - without having incarnated… (?!)

Now if I can only get my mind around the idea of the coming of the first person of the trinity without incarnating, I will let you know!! If you have any ideas please help me…
 
Bahaitruth said:
For what it’s worth, even if bahaullah is false, he claims to have been the first person of the trinity - without having incarnated… (?!)

Now if I can only get my mind around the idea of the coming of the first person of the trinity without incarnating, I will let you know!! If you have any ideas please help me…
Click to expand...
Yes He is incarnation of the Second Person and the non-incarnation of the First Person of the Trinity. As seen in the Fire Tablet.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/BP/bp-174.html

Is that what you’re referring to Bahaitruth?

.
 
Well He’s both voices of the Fire Tablet… This itself is striking… He depicts the Pen praying to God for help and then He depicts the Tongue answering in response…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top