If there is one true religion... | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

If there is one true religion...

religion

noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

there won't be one true religion unless it equals freedom.

the gods you praise I might shit on
 
Because that is a well-known fallacy, called the fallacy of composition. Even assuming that book x is right about A, B and C, that still doesn't imply in any way that book x must be right about D. This is simple, elementary logic. If you cannot see this, I'm afraid it is no wonder you could jump to conclusions so quickly about the absolute truth of Islam from a 'logical' point of view.



Do you think it is possible for a Christian to look at Jesus from this other dimension, follow his teachings, and still be a Christian?
If book A is offering facts and their proofs and book B is offering facts with no prove, then what book would you choose to believe ?
In this scenario, book B isn't only offering claims with no evidence but as well offers things which are contradicting to the humans logic as well, it contains words of people, prophets that are displayed as godly words.
The errors in Bible are countless, it's not me who is claiming this, but even the Christians scholars has nothing to say about them when they are asked.
I have already given the talk "The Bible and Quran in the light of science"
if you choose to watch it, you can clearly see the amount of of fallacies you might be supporting with having no idea about.
I don't mean that you are supporting Christians or any other religon, but to take a deeper look at what you call rational will be more helpful.
I don't mean to make anyone feel victimized by my words, I'm only offering my views.
 
We love jesus and we praise him as well we believe in his miracles but we still view him as prophet of god, we believe that he never claimed divinity and asked people to worship him. If Christians agree with that then they are no longer Christians but Muslims.
 
religion

noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"

there won't be one true religion unless it equals freedom.

the gods you praise I might shit on
I don't really think that any religon is against freedom, it's just that the defination of "Freedom" is what differs due to diversity of beliefs. Every religon views Freedom with their own ideas and thoughts, this is what causes us to point fingers at each other and think that we are doing something wrong.

The only wrong thing here is that when we try to unify those different beliefs and give them a universal defination with the expectation that they will become one.
Less than 100years ago we believed it's morally wrong when a woman shows explicit parts of her body to people, today, it's freedom if a woman walks naked on the street, we as well shall clap for her for finding her freedom.

It's the universal defination of freedom that shifts and makes it look like some religions are out-fashioned, so it's clear that universality is not the answer here, the right answer comes only from the right belief.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G4RiiM
Way to misunderstand what I'm saying.

I asked you to name the scientific predictions in the Quran that science later verified.
Oh, you can check the topic above this one(The man who saw into the future) and follow the replays.
 
the problem with religion is religion. institutions based on .based on books . . books are written by men, trying to sway their audience. Personally, I think the gnostic movement in early christianity was probably closer to what Jesus taught, bit it's just my hunch. .I know nothing about Islam. but seeing that it has been used for centuries to oppress others, as christianity has, it has the same flaws. Of course the strict followers of books get outraged at these ideas, but remember, these are just books, not truths. . people scoff at Mormons, and their book, but other faiths are no different, just more mainstream. How about the faith of the natives. . no books, so they are easy to dismiss, but learn a bit about them and there is some powerful stuff to learn about our relationship to mother earth. .the celts and the mythology of the lady of the lake, and the Goddess. . opps, no books, so it too fades away. .books are just that, books. .
Faith is just that, faith, a belief in something..something not seen, no religion is supreme, or the truth, unless you believe it is, therein is the problem with the search
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wildfire and Ren
the problem with religion is religion. institutions based on .based on books . . books are written by men, trying to sway their audience. Personally, I think the gnostic movement in early christianity was probably closer to what Jesus taught, bit it's just my hunch. .I know nothing about Islam. but seeing that it has been used for centuries to oppress others, as christianity has, it has the same flaws. Of course the strict followers of books get outraged at these ideas, but remember, these are just books, not truths. . people scoff at Mormons, and their book, but other faiths are no different, just more mainstream. How about the faith of the natives. . no books, so they are easy to dismiss, but learn a bit about them and there is some powerful stuff to learn about our relationship to mother earth. .the celts and the mythology of the lady of the lake, and the Goddess. . opps, no books, so it too fades away. .books are just that, books. .
Faith is just that, faith, a belief in something..something not seen, no religion is supreme, or the truth, unless you believe it is, therein is the problem with the search
If you have followed what the arguments in this thread from the beginning says you would have found the relation between books and the truth, as well the way to know the ultimate truth you are seeking or denying.
 
I don't really think that any religon is against freedom, it's just that the defination of "Freedom" is what differs due to diversity of beliefs. Every religon views Freedom with their own ideas and thoughts, this is what causes us to point fingers at each other and think that we are doing something wrong.

The only wrong thing here is that when we try to unify those different beliefs and give them a universal defination with the expectation that they will become one.
Less than 100years ago we believed it's morally wrong when a woman shows explicit parts of her body to people, today, it's freedom if a woman walks naked on the street, we as well shall clap for her for finding her freedom.

It's the universal defination of freedom that shifts and makes it look like some religions are out-fashioned, so it's clear that universality is not the answer here, the right answer comes only from the right belief.
lmao, how many people done died cuz of christians or muslims during their holy crusade/war?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustPhil
lmao, how many people done died cuz of christians or muslims during their holy crusade/war?
As for Christians, they shall answer this question themselves.

The way Islamic holywars are described in your books are far more different than what happened in reality.

-We muslims have duty to spread the word of islam everywhere whether people accept it or not, our duty is only limited in transferring it to people.

-Out of 27 times muslims made this struggle in the time of prohpet(holywars in your words) fighting took place in 9, where the leaders opposed muslims to enter their territory and transfer it to people. Muslims fought only those who fought them back and leftout women, children etc.

-In the other 18 times, the leaders welcomed islam when they saw a benefit in believing it.

You may say that no blood would be shed if they didn't decide to go in the first place, if no blood was shed those people wouldn't have the chance of acquiring the truth, they might have gained this life but definitely not the one after it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G4RiiM
As for Christians, they shall answer this question themselves.

The way Islamic holywars are described in your books are far more different than what happened in reality.

-We muslims have duty to spread the word of islam everywhere whether people accept it or not, our duty is only limited in transferring it to people.

-Out of 27 times muslims made this struggle in the time of prohpet(holywars in your words) fighting took place in 9, where the leaders opposed muslims to enter their territory and transfer it to people. Muslims fought only those who fought them back and leftout women, children etc.

-In the other 18 times, the leaders welcomed islam when they saw a benefit in believing it.

You may say that no blood would be shed if they didn't decide to go in the first place, if no blood was shed those people wouldn't have the chance of acquiring the truth, they might have gained this life but definitely not the one after it.
reality is what matters to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: JustPhil and Yusuf
If you have followed what the arguments in this thread from the beginning says you would have found the relation between books and the truth, as well the way to know the ultimate truth you are seeking or denying.

It is a shame that you are already so indoctrinated in religion that you will no longer listen to reason