Working Backwards + Working Forwards

[LJP07]

If you work backwards and forwards with religion, I believe you can uncover more about "God" and debating about it than simply recognising your beliefs.

I'm not sure about dates, but the first gods even mythical came about thousands of years before Jesus is supposed to come on the planet. So this concept of a God existed seemingly all the time with mostly all the people.

 

Then, for any belief in God, one must acknowledge that Jesus walked on this earth and did what he did. Was there any proof that he did indeed walk on this earth except for the Bible? If one were to acknowledge this with historical fact then one could make an informed decision? This is because it was he who told everyone about this religion.

 

Moving forwards, in around 580AD Mohammad is said to of came preaching about the Islamic religion and how Jesus was a follower of this religion just like other disciples so to speak. So from historical fact and Islamic religion, one is NOT TRUE. This is obvious from what I just said, from history and religion, which one, it can't be both, Jesus can't be both religions as both preach different aspects, Islam speaks of the Quran, Christianity the Bible, which is true in the historical sense, even if there was no God.

 

To come to the simple conclusion that one is not true implies that both can be not true?

 

What I have simply done is work myself forwards from back in time to have an overview of the religion that is upon us now, I have narrowed it down with the religions that I chose and if any of you have any comments, or historical information that either supports or contradicts these statements then please do write, but I think what I wrote here is a very good way of approaching these religions and come to a conclusion what had happened 1500-2000 years ago.

[Boerseun]

I don't quite understand what you mean with the 'forwards/backwards' bits, but coming to the core of your argument:

 

There are hundreds of religions out there, and every one of them has as much claim to the truth as anyone else. When it comes to mutual exclusivity, where your God, and your God only, is the one and only True God, then, yes, all other religions are wrong. From their perspectives, of course, it is equally valid to brand you the infidel.

 

So what are we to make from this plethora of self-proclaimed True Religions?

 

There is only one logical conclusion, however harsh it may seem at first, and that is that all religions are human-made constructs. There is no God, no Allah, no Brahma, no Heaven or Hell or Nirvana or Valhalla. To quote a famous old Greek, 'there is the atom and the void. That is all there is.' Matter and the absence of matter (vacuum). All religions are human constructs and mass delusions.

 

But then again, that's just me.

[LJP07]

 

There are hundreds of religions out there, and every one of them has as much claim to the truth as anyone else. When it comes to mutual exclusivity, where your God, and your God only, is the one and only True God, then, yes, all other religions are wrong. From their perspectives, of course, it is equally valid to brand you the infidel.

 

I just used Islam and Christianity as an example because they both share the medium of Jesus being on Earth. And your above point is correct but I would rather focus on the religion I chose.

 

Regarding the comments I initially constructed, what about the evidence for Jesus being on Earth. For us to believe in any religion, this must be true? Is there hardcore evidence from you Boerseon?

[Boerseun]

Regarding the comments I initially constructed, what about the evidence for Jesus being on Earth. For us to believe in any religion, this must be true? Is there hardcore evidence from you Boerseon?

How would Jesus walking the Earth be a necessity if I'm a Hindu?

 

I have no qualms that he did walk the Earth. In Christianity, he's the Messiah, in Islam he's a prophet. Different strokes for different folks. I don't think his historical existence is in any dispute at all.

[LJP07]

I don't think his historical existence is in any dispute at all.

 

So you acknowledge he walked the earth. So it's from this point you believe Christianity is rubbish. If Islam and Chrisitianity are all strokes from the same person, which do you believe is historically incorrect?

[Boerseun]

So you acknowledge he walked the earth. So it's from this point you believe Christianity is rubbish. If Islam and Chrisitianity are all strokes from the same person, which do you believe is historically incorrect?

Both, as a matter of fact. They both contain lines to the tune of "once there was this guy called Jesus...", and they both fall to historical pieces when they continue beyond this point.

 

Islam, Christianity and Judaism all sprout from the same Abrahamic tradition, and essentially worship the same God. They just have different interpretations of it. As such, any attributes that they would assign to any specific person in their employ, would be based on a false premise. Which means it's all fiction. In my mind, at least.

[Lancaster]

I have no problem with a Christian stating that there was a man name Jesus, who lived in the Middle East around 2000 years ago. This may very well be true. Unfortunately, this Jesus character may not be anything like what modern Christians believe. He may be, essentially, a different person. A Christian can give all the historical proof he wants, it doesn't mean anything unless he can prove that Jesus was the son of God, because that is really the only important thing about him. And since this cannot be proved historically, in an objective sense, any historical reference for the existence of a Jesus character is irrelevant unless proof can be shown for his nonexistence.

 

As for actual, historical evidence of a man named Jesus being crucified in that time period, I think that there was a historian named Josephus who documented him. At least that's what I was told in Catholic school.

[HappytheStripper]

Prolu2007 - If you work backwards and forwards with religion .. I believe you you will find yourself in the middle of no-where with a sprained ankle .. wondering why you chose to debate this topic at all.. :lol:

 

I'm glad you titled this thread under an un-assuming title .. I try not to debate that which is only based on speculation..

 

To come to the simple conclusion that one is not true implies that both can be not true?

 

That doesnt seem at all logical to me.. as both may be true.. having stated this.. it depends on your definition and understanding of truth..

 

All religions are human constructs and mass delusions. But then again, that's just me.

 

Lmao.. I dont know about mass delusions.. you may be right.. :lol:

Definitly of human construction though.. its not really at all difficult to figure that out.. humanity demands a designer who predates his art.. A story demands an author who predates his book.. I call that creativity at its best .. wouldnt you ..??

 

A Christian can give all the historical proof he wants, it doesn't mean anything unless he can prove that Jesus was the son of God, because that is really the only important thing about him. And since this cannot be proved historically, in an objective sense, any historical reference for the existence of a Jesus character is irrelevant unless proof can be shown for his nonexistence.

 

Thank you Lancaster.. I agree.. No human being as so far.. has the answer to those questions... and maybe for a reason that is so.. any human being who claims to know the answers to those questions.. claims so only because of what their mind was programmed to believe.. Think about it.. the proof of knowing those answers falls on to those who think they know the answers.. not on those who claim not to know.

 

Once again this brings me to the conclusion .. religion in itself.. is nothing more than a historically constructed belief.. that manifests itself differently in the many different cultures.. as a mystical connection to the divine being.. which subsequently.. a large majority of people find.. unless raised according to religion..

 

Each religion emphasizes different aspects of this mystical connection with a named god..

 

Eastern religions emphasize consciousness itself and the experience of lightness and oneness with the universe.. having released ego's and desires thorugh certain detachments from the self..

Islamic religion focuses on the unity that comes with sharing group experiences with others and unified action..

Judasim focuses on the importance of tradition.. each person alive is responsible for pushing forward this tradition in the evolution of human spirituality..

And last but not least.. Christianity emphasizes the idea that the spirit of god manifests itself in human beings as a higher power - as though we become an expanded version of who we are.. feeling more complete.. with the inner guidance of wisdom leading us to act in as if looking through the eyes of god..

 

It seems logical to me.. all religions have the same basis.. belief..

 

And that about sums up my thoughts for this evening.. minus a sprained ankle :lol:

 

Ashley

[LJP07]

Working backwards implies working backwards in history while working forwards from historical past like Original Gods that existed before, thus my initial talk was about this.

 

You come to a conclusion that God does not exist. Could I not create an exact opposite argument to yours? Remember yours too is only an opinion that cannot be valified either.

 

The proofof knowing the answers rests on historical fact. We can document historical facts, it's not based on what you said. What determines who's right or wrong, it's only opinion after all?