Could all Religions Come Together?

[Blues Man]

Physical death may qualify as "mortal danger" to us, but scripture points out there is a greater danger, that of the soul. The soul is what is in our own purview.

That has nothing to do with the testing bit you brought up

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Physical death may qualify as "mortal danger" to us, but scripture points out there is a greater danger, that of the soul. The soul is what is in our own purview.

The stark immorality of bizarre religions, in a nutshell.

 

[Meriweather]

That has nothing to do with the testing bit you brought up

Why not?

 

[Blues Man]

Why not? Because any test that puts any student in any jeopardy is a valid test.

So if your god wants to test his children and that the result of failure is injurious then he is not a god that loves hie creations

 

[there4eyeM]

What if there were some ultimate truth known only to "God" and everything conforms to that despite what limited human reasoning could comprehend? We are only now learning that what the universe appeared to be is only an illusion. Could it not be the same with "God"? Remember, "illusion" does not mean something is not real, just that it is not what it appears to be. It is quite evident that most people do, in fact, have illusory concepts of divinity.

 

[Meriweather]

So if your god wants to test his children and that the result of failure is injurious

What do you mean by "injurious"?

 

[irosie91]

A lot of people are enemies of Islam, sometimes non-Muslims are called enemies of Islam, in general. I'm not sure what you're pretending to be so upset about.

"You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allāh; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant." Quran 5:82

PREACHING HATRED to children in the USA
should be a SERIOUS FELONY

 

[norwegen]

yes---"RELIABLY" by someone who was actually THERE and not a
Roman shill.

your comprehension of the biblical verse in question is HIGHLY
QUESTIONABLE----as is your concept of human RESSURECTION as
a specific PHARISEE concept vs the really questionable "corpse angels
getting wings" The NT says virtually NOTHING about the pharisees
other than the fact that the Romans hated them

You should try reading the NT.

 

[surada]

Cornbread, post: 29466533, member: 85835"]
You sound like you have met God. You seem to know everything there is about Him. Tell us when you met with Him and he explained all this to you.
Your post to Uranus.

 

[surada]

As well you might. The question applies much pore broadly, just the same.

It was her question.

 

[Blues Man]

What do you mean by "injurious"?

You should know by know that all the words I use are defined in any English dictionary and that I don't make up any personal definitions

 

[Meriweather]

You should know by know that all the words I use are defined in any English dictionary and that I don't make up any personal definitions

Sigh. I meant, give an example where God injured someone. It can be Biblical if you wish, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[Blues Man]

Sigh. I meant, give an example where God injured someone. It can be Biblical if you wish, but it doesn't have to be.

The bible clearly states that your god killed countless people

 

[Meriweather]

The bible clearly states that your god killed countless people

Bodies or souls?

 

[surada]

Bodies or souls?

Lots of Bible stories begin with the slaughter of children.

 

[there4eyeM]

It was her question.

It is interesting to see how people "know" "God". It would probably become clear to them and us that they do not.

 

[Blues Man]

Bodies or souls?

There is no difference.

Even if souls existed are you telling me that if a person killed by your god did something so egregious to warrant death that this person's soul would still be cared for by the god that killed him?

That seems contradictory like many things in the bible

 

[hobelim]

Perhaps I should have asked, Despite differing beliefs, how can we make worshiping together happen?

Let's start with the three Abrahamic faiths. How might we come together?

By Christians admitting that Jews and Muslims were always right to reject the professed belief in an edible triune mangod even though they were always right to put their faith in Jesus. Muslims must admit that Jews and Christians were always right to reject Mohammed and they were always wrong to believe in Mohammed just as Christians must admit they were always wrong to believe in a triune God that became an edible man and Jews must admit they were wrong to believe in a God gave a crap about diet. Then Jews and Muslims must admit that they were always wrong to believe that kosher laws are about food and admit that Jesus was always right to reveal that the hidden subject of the law is about teaching and not food, something that all Christians seem strangely unaware of and must accept to receive the promised blessings peace and eternal life for doing it.

If they all profess a desire to learn and understand the will of God they can only find peace and common ground by complying with the Law in the way that Moses intended as revealed by Jesus.

 

[Meriweather]

That seems contradictory like many things in the bible

There is a difference between body and soul.

There are at least two ways to internalize scripture. Some take a narrow position that every word is literal. You are an agnostic that takes this narrow position of the Bible.

Others of us study science, archaeology, and literature with all its various forms and take on a broader position of Biblical writings.

For example, particularly in Islam, the position on how God works is very detailed. For example, one cannot raise the little finger without it being the will of God. A single raindrop cannot fall without it being God's will. The Twin Towers fell because it was the will of God. The plane heading towards DC crashed because it was the will of God.

Others put free choice, weather, and geological events into play. Sure, since freedom of choice was granted to us by God, we understand why some have a strong take that ALL is therefore the will of God. Since creation is God's work, then the geological events and weather is ultimately the will of God.

No one from the flood era is still alive. Therefore, it is the will of God that they all died--if not in the flood, then within a hundred years of the flood. Will of God. All bodies dead.

Those of us who love scripture (or at least most of us) are not bothered by people who have the opposite take on the Bible than we have. If people want to believe that the entire planet was covered with water, including Everest; if they want to believe polar bears and penguins were on the ark, what is the harm? If they choose to believe God sent the flood with the intent to kill bodies, also not a problem, because they believe that those who were good or innocent were taken to a better place--and the evil was punished.
You, an agnostic, believe that God killed humans, but do not seem to believe in an afterlife for either the good or the evil.

Basically, Bluesman, you read the Bible and take the position of the thirty percent that the Bible is literal. You argue with me the narrow view when I am one of the seventy percent who has always taken the broader view (result of Catholic grandmother and Catholic schooling)--not to mention the broader position taken by the non-Catholic members in my extended family. Somehow, my family missed out on being part of the thirty percent who accept the narrow view.

However, I do have friends/acquaintances who do take the narrow view. They are lovely people, and their lives have not changed one whit by believing the planet was under water, just as my life has not changed one whit by believing it was a localized flood. What brings us together is our belief in God and that He has the world's best interests at heart--both in this life and what comes after.

So you go ahead with your own beliefs that there are at least three Gods and that the Bible is a literal work, but we don't know if One God, let alone three actually exist. Go ahead with your own belief that any believer has a God who is out to get them, if that is the conclusion that satisfies you.

 

[Blues Man]

There is a difference between body and soul.

There are at least two ways to internalize scripture. Some take a narrow position that every word is literal. You are an agnostic that takes this narrow position of the Bible.

Others of us study science, archaeology, and literature with all its various forms and take on a broader position of Biblical writings.

For example, particularly in Islam, the position on how God works is very detailed. For example, one cannot raise the little finger without it being the will of God. A single raindrop cannot fall without it being God's will. The Twin Towers fell because it was the will of God. The plane heading towards DC crashed because it was the will of God.

Others put free choice, weather, and geological events into play. Sure, since freedom of choice was granted to us by God, we understand why some have a strong take that ALL is therefore the will of God. Since creation is God's work, then the geological events and weather is ultimately the will of God.

No one from the flood era is still alive. Therefore, it is the will of God that they all died--if not in the flood, then within a hundred years of the flood. Will of God. All bodies dead.

Those of us who love scripture (or at least most of us) are not bothered by people who have the opposite take on the Bible than we have. If people want to believe that the entire planet was covered with water, including Everest; if they want to believe polar bears and penguins were on the ark, what is the harm? If they choose to believe God sent the flood with the intent to kill bodies, also not a problem, because they believe that those who were good or innocent were taken to a better place--and the evil was punished.
You, an agnostic, believe that God killed humans, but do not seem to believe in an afterlife for either the good or the evil.

Basically, Bluesman, you read the Bible and take the position of the thirty percent that the Bible is literal. You argue with me the narrow view when I am one of the seventy percent who has always taken the broader view (result of Catholic grandmother and Catholic schooling)--not to mention the broader position taken by the non-Catholic members in my extended family. Somehow, my family missed out on being part of the thirty percent who accept the narrow view.

However, I do have friends/acquaintances who do take the narrow view. They are lovely people, and their lives have not changed one whit by believing the planet was under water, just as my life has not changed one whit by believing it was a localized flood. What brings us together is our belief in God and that He has the world's best interests at heart--both in this life and what comes after.

So you go ahead with your own beliefs that there are at least three Gods and that the Bible is a literal work, but we don't know if One God, let alone three actually exist. Go ahead with your own belief that any believer has a God who is out to get them, if that is the conclusion that satisfies you.

I'm not going to rehash our differing beliefs in whether souls exist or not