There ensued a discussion on one of my favorite blogs between me and john zande which could be viewed by clicking the following link:
Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
All revealed religions in their origin are/were from one source of the one true God; that is the reason for so many similar teachings in them. The differences in religions reflect that when the message from the one true God got diluted due to corruption; the message was again revealed by Him on another truthful messenger prophet of the one true God.
Would your mind change to know there was never a revelation to anyone at any time? I’m referring here specifically to the Old Testament.
Why should one restrict to Old Testament? Moses did receive revelation from the one true God.
Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Socrates, Jesus, Muhammad and in our own times Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received revelation from the one true God.
Care to explain then why all these gods have different names, attributes, personalities, messages, languages, moral codes, and varying degrees of authored powers. The Abrahamic god is omnipotent and omnipresent, but the Zoroastrian, Ahura Mazda, in not (it is stressed) omnipresent.
Different languages have to have different names of the one true God; it is very natural.
All good names in whatever language are His names; they belong to the one true God.
Sorry, that explanation doesn’t fly. You are alluding to a universal god, and a universal god should have one name recognised by all. By extension such a god should be able to state exactly what it wants to say and do so free of any and all ambiguity. Its word should be unencumbered by cultural idiosyncrasies and remain unmolested by divergences in language, calligraphy, obscure and dead lexicons, future dialects, exotic morphemes, or even illiteracy and deafness. Its word should contain no contradiction, no absurdity, no oversight or declarations that are in conflict with observed facts. Its word should penetrate all tribal, domestic and international legal code and remain morally true in a timeless continuum. Such an entity should be instantly recognisable to all sentient creatures and its actions should exhibit no fault or favour, no bias, prejudice, second-thought or indeed, if omniscient, no mind-set at all.
How do you know that? Please give your evidence
July 15th, 2013 at 11:33 pm
It is a claim bound-up in the proclamation of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god. I didn’t make the claim; theists, like yourself, do.
July 16th, 2013 at 12:27 am
But I did not make any such claim; you will admit; if others do, they are free to answer.
July 16th, 2013 at 1:15 am
Are you insane?
You believe in the Abrahamic god. That god is said to be omni-everything. If you don’t believe in that particular god you’ll have to specifically outline which god you actually believe in… and describe its attributes to me.
So, if its not the Abrahamic god, describe the god you believe in.
July 16th, 2013 at 1:27 am
I believe in the one true God who always existed irrespective whether Abraham believed in Him. I don’t have to contest with Abraham; he was a truthful messenger prophet of the one true God.
In fact time and space, “nothing” and “something”; are all caused by Him, the one true God.
Please don’t define and limit my God; it is my choice to believe in Him as per the attributes mentioned in Quran.
Please don’t lose patience; I think it is a good attribute of a Humanist.
July 16th, 2013 at 1:41 am
“attributes mentioned in Quran…”
so you believe in the Abrahamic god! There’s no two ways around this. You believe in THAT omni-everything god.
July 16th, 2013 at 3:28 am
Prophets like Adam, Buddha, Krishna, Socrates, Moses and Jesus etc; all believed in one true God; Abraham was also one such messenger prophet among so many.
Religion is a personal belief; please don’t attribute or define anything which I did not claim.
I think a good Humanist should be careful about others beliefs