The reason I can't get down with one religion ? is..
Options
KLICHE
Members Posts: 5,061 ✭✭✭✭✭
No matter what religious group it is, and I have mingled with people from nearly all religious followings.. I have found the majority are extremely strange..
Some were insulting about others beliefs. Some were non stop speaking about ? and nothing else. Or some came across almost like they were and little too sure of themselves that they were already saved and heaven bound, as they were right and were not open to anyone or anythi ng else...
AND only TINY amount of people, were actually regular people, that loved ? and went about business like you wouldn't know they loved ? ? .. which to me is the best way to be..
So I have my faith. And as I stated some time ago here I lean towards Islam, BUT am extremely open to all religions and learning more as life goes on.. I think there is just too much beauty in all of them... which reminds of this quote I read 2 nights back:
"Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams - they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do - they all contain truths." - Muhammad Ali
I dunno, just some random thoughts off the dome.
Some were insulting about others beliefs. Some were non stop speaking about ? and nothing else. Or some came across almost like they were and little too sure of themselves that they were already saved and heaven bound, as they were right and were not open to anyone or anythi ng else...
AND only TINY amount of people, were actually regular people, that loved ? and went about business like you wouldn't know they loved ? ? .. which to me is the best way to be..
So I have my faith. And as I stated some time ago here I lean towards Islam, BUT am extremely open to all religions and learning more as life goes on.. I think there is just too much beauty in all of them... which reminds of this quote I read 2 nights back:
"Rivers, ponds, lakes and streams - they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do - they all contain truths." - Muhammad Ali
I dunno, just some random thoughts off the dome.
Comments
-
convert to all of them.... just incase
-
However you don't want to don't treat an ocean like it is a glass of water. There is an exclusiveness that all religions have and to deny those things shows that we would rather not know what is different.
-
Religion doesnt speak on seperate entities in the sky. They are all speaking of the same Gods. I dont like agreein with AndStep, but if you learn to read the original texts, and learn the different meanings of words the further back they are, the clearer all the books become.
-
Ok, so u have belief in ? . That's a start.
In regards to which religion to follow, I have a question. Who's desire are you trying to fulfill? What's more important, ? 's desire, your own, or the desires of men?
Something to think about. -
solid analysis wrote: »Ok, so u have belief in ? . That's a start.
In regards to which religion to follow, I have a question. Who's desire are you trying to fulfill? What's more important, ? 's desire, your own, or the desires of men?
Something to think about.
whose desires?? Wouldn't it be ? 's? Seriously not sure how to answer this.. I would say ? 's but does it mean one has to follow one religion, or be open to all and not have to label themselves with one practice and teachings? -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Religion doesnt speak on seperate entities in the sky. They are all speaking of the same Gods. I dont like agreein with AndStep, but if you learn to read the original texts, and learn the different meanings of words the further back they are, the clearer all the books become.
If you are talking about the terminology, then you might have a case. As far as the belief system goes, religions are very different. -
whose desires?? Wouldn't it be ? 's? Seriously not sure how to answer this.. I would say ? 's but does it mean one has to follow one religion, or be open to all and not have to label themselves with one practice and teachings?
ok... now chose your specific ? ... theres tons -
whose desires?? Wouldn't it be ? 's? Seriously not sure how to answer this.. I would say ? 's but does it mean one has to follow one religion, or be open to all and not have to label themselves with one practice and teachings?
Exactly. ? goes first. And since religion is based on the concept that ? (ie something greater than us) must exist, part of understanding that involves realizing that our own view point alone isn't capable of perceiving everything that we might need in order to get where we trying to get. Thus, we should probably listen to what the greater being says on the matter.
In contrast, if a person come at religion from the same angle they come at a restaurant menu, they really can choose just about anything they have a taste for. There's religion that say man is ? ; Religions that say there are multiple Gods; Religions that say there is no ? ; and the list goes on and on. I mean there is all KINDS of religion a person can choose from which provide no means of getting a person into heaven.
Now, it says in the Bible ? desires all men to be saved and calls all men to be saints. When the time comes, who will you choose to follow? -
I would say ? 's but does it mean one has to follow one religion, or be open to all and not have to label themselves with one practice and teachings?
Yes, it means you have to choose. Standing by remaining open will make a person no more good than a witness standing by watching his brother plot as he kills his other brother.
The good person who just stands by and does nothing is just as guilty in ? 's eyes. Good men need to take a stand for what is right.
? will give you time to make up your mind, but sooner or later you will have to make a decision. And He has already outlined in His word the one way by which men are called to be saved.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) -
Beware the man of one book. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas
One book cannot contain all the wisdom of ? . One religion cannot contain all the understanding of ? .
What good is it to understand many religious philosophies? It better guides us to what ? is by what ? is not. -
solid analysis wrote: »Yes, it means you have to choose. Standing by remaining open will make a person no more good than a witness standing by watching his brother plot as he kills his other brother.
The good person who just stands by and does nothing is just as guilty in ? 's eyes. Good men need to take a stand for what is right.
? will give you time to make up your mind, but sooner or later you will have to make a decision. And He has already outlined in His word the one way by which men are called to be saved.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)
So your faith lies with Christianity.. correct? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Beware the man of one book. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas
One book cannot contain all the wisdom of ? . One religion cannot contain all the understanding of ? .
What good is it to understand many religious philosophies? It better guides us to what ? is by what ? is not.
People tend to want to simplify ? .
Who is ? ?
What (who) is ? 's wisdom?
After that's answered, then we can talk about in what teachings is the wisdom of ? found. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Beware the man of one book. ~ St. Thomas Aquinas
One book cannot contain all the wisdom of ? . One religion cannot contain all the understanding of ? .
What good is it to understand many religious philosophies? It better guides us to what ? is by what ? is not.
I would beware the man...period. If ? has revealed Himself through one book, what rights does man have to say that we can know "all" that it has to say? The problem is that we pride ourselves in what we know and think that we can say "? " and it won't be in vain. -
So your faith lies with Christianity.. correct?
It gets more complicated.
My faith lies in Christ. Christ only gave one faith, as is taught in the scriptures.
Men took that one faith, twisted, turned and came up with several different versions of their own, calling it Christianity. None of which have Christ authorization to do so. All of which ? will judge for doing so. -
solid analysis wrote: »People tend to want to simplify ? .
Who is ? ?
What (who) is ? 's wisdom?
After that's answered, then we can talk about in what teachings is the wisdom of ? found.
Have you made a choice?alissowack wrote: »I would beware the man...period. If ? has revealed Himself through one book, what rights does man have to say that we can know "all" that it has to say? The problem is that we pride ourselves in what we know and think that we can say "? " and it won't be in vain.
If ? is any kind of ? , why would ? limit itself to one book? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Have you made a choice?
If ? is any kind of ? , why would ? limit itself to one book?
I imagine you've seen enough of my posts to know that by now, no?
Oh and surely u know the Holy Bible is composed of 66 books contributed by one auther, through over 40 writers. -
solid analysis wrote: »It gets more complicated.
My faith lies in Christ. Christ only gave one faith, as is taught in the scriptures.
Men took that one faith, twisted, turned and came up with several different versions of their own, calling it Christianity. None of which have Christ authorization to do so. All of which ? will judge for doing so.
The Ebionites were the only real followers of Yeshua at that time.And they didnt call him Christ. Thats a title, not a proper name. And the title would have been culturally and spiritually offensive to a King of Israel. -
solid analysis wrote: »I imagine you've seen enough of my posts to know that by now, no?
Oh and surely u know the Holy Bible is composed of 66 books contributed by one auther, through over 40 writers.
Why did you choose that book solely over any other? -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »
If ? is any kind of ? , why would ? limit itself to one book?
You are doing what we "Christians" are more guilty of. If ? says He is such and such, then He is suppose to comply with such and such. We are suggesting that we know what ? should or shouldn't be doing. Why not ? limit Himself to one book? Who knows? -
alissowack wrote: »You are doing what we "Christians" are more guilty of. If ? says He is such and such, then He is suppose to comply with such and such. We are suggesting that we know what ? should or shouldn't be doing. Why not ? limit Himself to one book? Who knows?
I don't presume ? is bound such and such. If ? is any kind of ? , ? is limitless and boundless, no? It is just rather suspicious that a ? would limit itself, if it could, to one book. -
The Ebionites were the only real followers of Yeshua at that time.And they didnt call him Christ. Thats a title, not a proper name. And the title would have been culturally and spiritually offensive to a King of Israel.
Well, I see no argument. Christ is just a designated english word for the Greek term Kristos which is a translation of the Hebrew term for Messiah. which I also understand as being a title, not regarded as a name per se. -
Several reasons.BiblicalAtheist wrote: »Why did you choose that book solely over any other?
A few of the main being - one, I've found it to be completely accurate in what it teaches in all areas of life, history, and morality. Even down to where all of the nationalities come from. Two, no other text has the support the bible has under it, with the message being backed up by fulfillment of prophecies and or miraculous events. Three, no other text claims to contain the direct words of ? . Four, The Bible tells us of the good and the bad, not just the good like most men's writings tend do do. The vast majority of the Bible deals with the failures of men. Such a book would have to have come from ? not men. -
solid analysis wrote: »Several reasons.
A few of the main being - one, I've found it to be completely accurate in what it teaches in all areas of life, history, and morality. Even down to where all of the nationalities come from. Two, no other text has the support the bible has under it, with the message being backed up by fulfillment of prophecies and or miraculous events. Three, no other text claims to contain the direct words of ? . Four, The Bible tells us of the good and the bad, not just the good like most men's writings tend do do. The vast majority of the Bible deals with the failures of men. Such a book would have to have come from ? not men.
So the movies based off of mans inability to do things, mans failures, the bad side of man, etc... were all from ? as well being that only ? would speak about mans failures as you say. -
solid analysis wrote: »Several reasons.
A few of the main being - one, I've found it to be completely accurate in what it teaches in all areas of life, history, and morality. Even down to where all of the nationalities come from. Two, no other text has the support the bible has under it, with the message being backed up by fulfillment of prophecies and or miraculous events. Three, no other text claims to contain the direct words of ? . Four, The Bible tells us of the good and the bad, not just the good like most men's writings tend do do. The vast majority of the Bible deals with the failures of men. Such a book would have to have come from ? not men.
What other religious texts have you so thoroughly engulfed yourself in and then turned away from? -
Religion is nothing more than a cult.It's all false beliefs.
