Please click the following link to get the context of the discussion.
MAR 25, 2014 @ 23:05:55
@unkleE :MAR 21, 2014 @ 03:22:18
Quote : “Hi paarsurrey, how are you going?
You have built this comment around the statement that to know God, we need a revealed book. What you say raises three questions in my mind:
1. Must God reveal himself through a book? Could he ever do it some other way?
2. How do we know which book is the truest revelation of God?
3. How would you propose to discuss these things? If, for example, you simply quoted the Koran and I quoted the Bible, we would get nowhere. So how else can we discuss?
I am fine.
“The statement that to know God, we need a revealed book”
I think I did not literally make that statement. Well, I don’t object if one has got that understanding from the post.
unkleE : “to know God, we need a revealed book”
Paarsurrey: To know God and as to how his attributes work; His Word is most useful for that purpose.
I think you also agree with me on this point.
I try to answer to your other questions below:
1. unkleE :“Must God reveal himself through a book?
Paarsurrey: I think you agree that God revealed Himself on Moses and Jesus; and a Jew or Christian cannot deny that.
Perhaps you want to know from me as to why He did manifest in this way.
Since the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara Eshawara) is only attributive; He is not a physical or spiritual being that we could see Him with our physical eyes; though we can see his attributes working behind everything in Nature, in silence.
Yet it has always been primarily His communication or Converse through which He had manifested to human beings. Hence the importance of the spoken Word of Revelation which is verbal when revealed and also secured in writing, in the book form, is the most important source of guidance that leads to Him; it can never be over-emphasized.
Nature manifests Him silently but the Word speaks of Him loudly.
unkleE : “Could he ever do it some other way?”
Paarsurrey: Yes; He could manifest Himself in diverse ways; and nobody could limit the ways of his manifestations; yet He cannot be limited by anybody or forced by anybody to change His ways:
[35:44] …………………………….. But thou wilt never find any change in the way of Allah; nor wilt thou ever find any alteration in the way of Allah.
For one; all truthful revelation from the One-True-God is to be believed; be it of the past, present and or future; be it on Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad etc; all is to be believed; being from the same source of one God.
2. unkleE: How do we know which book is the truest revelation of God?
a. By comparative study
b. And the reasonable inner-evidence of the Word Revealed according to the attributes of the One-True-God. We could do that; not at all difficult to discern.
3. unkleE: How would you propose to discuss these things? If, for example, you simply quoted the Koran and I quoted the Bible, we would get nowhere.
Paarsurrey: I think you have observed me quoting from the revelations of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad in this connection; I don’t think it will pose a problem even now.
These quotes should not depict simply the authority of God; but the reason/wisdom content in the same must reflect the attribute of God being All-Wise. The quotes must therefore be full of evident reason and wisdom. The gist of the reason must exist there.
It is not a perfect Book if it needs external reasons to be provided; that portion which is devoid of reason must not be from Him.
Nobody is entitled to put words into God’s mouth; He is all-knowing.
Does it help?
What is your thinking on your three questions?
MAR 26, 2014 @ 11:53:30
@unkleE: MAR 26, 2014 @ 06:54:25
“if we discuss the revelations we each believe in, how can we draw any conclusions? ”
I think I said that I believe all truthful Word revealed from the One-True-God on His prophets messengers; I even mentioned names of some of them.
I don’t see any problem.
“unless we already have some truth outside the books by which to judge their truth”
If the revelation is truthful; it would have inner truthful evidences also.
“We would need some criteria by which to make our comparisons”
I mentioned reasonable criteria.
“I was using historical and scientific learning”
People write history differently; it is not 100% correct. There was a period when there existed no written history; Truth existed even then.
Science is only a child of the yesterday and works in the things physical and material; Religion guides in ethical, moral and spiritual realms; both work in different spheres. Science cannot prove or disprove important subjects of religion like existence of God.
This is what I think; others could think differently