Does God exist?

[Napalmbrain]

Mormons:

-Think Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.
-Revere the Book of Mormon above the Bible
-Think the Biblical events took place in the USA
-Believe that we'll become gods of our own worlds when we die, just like Jesus managed to become God of this world.

Jehovahs Witnesses believe:

-Jesus is the Son of God but that He isn't God Himself. They believe Jesus is a creation of the Father, that the Son and Father are not on equal and identical footing, although they do believe He died for the sins of mankind.
-Believe Jesus is Archangel Gabriel.
-Believe Jesus has been ruling Earth since 1914.

They're both rather unorthodox.

Unorthodox yes, but still followers of Jesus. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'Christian' is (I would define it as someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus, although admittedly I don't know too much about Christian theology).

Well lots of non Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Muslims do, as do some Hindus and a small section of Jews revere Him as a great teacher.

Good point. I suppose a better definition might be 'someone who believes that Jesus is their one true saviour', which would exclude Muslims, Jews, etc. (although it would include Mormons and JWs).

 

[rukus]

I suppose a better definition might be 'someone who believes that Jesus is their one true saviour

BINGO.
a Christian is someone who believes that Jesus is God's only son, who died on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins; rose again and ascended to heaven.

that is the ultimate definition of a follower of christ.

 

[ARav989]

So here's a good question. I have my own opinion on this, but let's just say for instance: What if, in mankind, religion was never created? There was no understanding of it, there was not even a definition for the word "god". How much different do you think this world would be over the duration of history?

 

[Napalmbrain]

So here's a good question. I have my own opinion on this, but let's just say for instance: What if, in mankind, religion was never created? There was no understanding of it, there was not even a definition for the word "god". How much different do you think this world would be over the duration of history?

It would certainly have been very different, but I don't think if it would have been any better or worse. We'd still have wars, because humans are ultimately quite prone to violence and tribal-like instincts. Even without religion, people still find other ideologies to fight over- Stalin and Mao didn't need any God to motivate them, after all. Science may have been able to progress a little faster without religious dogma to hold it back (e.g. Galileo overturning the Catholic Church's geocentric model), but on the other hand, maybe we'd have had to deal with more social problems like drug abuse and teenage pregnancy, due to the lack of dogma commanding against them. Fact is, it's impossible to say for certain what the world would be like without religion, because it's so deeply ingrained into human history.

 

[alexbel]

So here's a good question. I have my own opinion on this, but let's just say for instance: What if, in mankind, religion was never created? There was no understanding of it, there was not even a definition for the word "god". How much different do you think this world would be over the duration of history?

It would certainly have been very different, but I don't think if it would have been any better or worse. We'd still have wars, because humans are ultimately quite prone to violence and tribal-like instincts. Even without religion, people still find other ideologies to fight over- Stalin and Mao didn't need any God to motivate them, after all. Science may have been able to progress a little faster without religious dogma to hold it back (e.g. Galileo overturning the Catholic Church's geocentric model), but on the other hand, maybe we'd have had to deal with more social problems like drug abuse and teenage pregnancy, due to the lack of dogma commanding against them. Fact is, it's impossible to say for certain what the world would be like without religion, because it's so deeply ingrained into human history.

Some key figures in life would also probably not be so "good" such as people who helped stop racism or violence got the causes to do so from religion.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

Ah okay I get what you're saying now. Dr. Zakir Naik pointed out verses one by one, so why can't you present them to me in the same fashion? Well, Dr. Naik is knowledgeable of the Qur'an altogether, he knows which verses can stand alone, and when the next or one before explains the other, he would use those as well. The single verses he used were understandable in the form they were in--that is, alone. I'll try to eventually look up the verses you presented myself and see what they're trying to say. If I find a contradiction or scientific error, I will turn away from Islam forever (of course, I'm assuming this isn't going to happen but still, in the shocking (to me) event that it does I'm promising leaving Islam altogether.

You'd leave your entire religion just because of a few little mistakes by the writers?

See, this is something I don't get about some religious people. Why does it have to be all or nothing when it comes to the Qur'an and or the Bible or whatever? Inspired by God they may have been, but they were still written by normal, fallible humans. They might not be entirely inerrant, but it doesn't necessarily make their core message wrong.

What you believe to be the truth is different than what others believe to be the truth, which is the very reason we differ in specific matters. While you believe that (for me it would be the Qur'an) the Qur'an was written by man (and indeed no man is perfect), I believe that it is God's word. If it wasn't than it is man's doing and thus not representative of an optimal way of life. If it's not all, then real religion does not exist--it is just there to guide people, made BY the people. People need THE real thing, FROM God himself. Everything else is flawed except for the one. This doesn't go to say that I believe for instance that all Christians should abandon Christianity and that it is better for them (because I believe it's actually worse in most cases).

In the end, a book in which a single letter has not been changed since its revealing is the most trustworthy book. And yes, I'm saying that that fact alone which only applies to the Qur'an is a reason alone to believe that it is correct. It is the only book that has survived as long as it did, and 100% so (not 99.99 but 100). And the true religion also does not rule out every other person who is not that religion by the time they die from going to heaven and would recognize it as an injustice. So yes, I believe the Qur'an to be perfect (as it's THE word of God) and thus free from error. Any mistake will rule it out from being the correct way of life (the lifestyle which has been ordained to us by the Creator Himself).

 

[navarre]

Unorthodox yes, but still followers of Jesus. I guess it depends on what your definition of 'Christian' is (I would define it as someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus, although admittedly I don't know too much about Christian theology).

Well lots of non Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. Muslims do, as do some Hindus and a small section of Jews revere Him as a great teacher.

Good point. I suppose a better definition might be 'someone who believes that Jesus is their one true saviour', which would exclude Muslims, Jews, etc. (although it would include Mormons and JWs).

I would be even more specific than that. It is someone who believes in Jesus as the only Son of God, the Messiah, God Himself in human form, the Saviour, the Lamb, the Lord, the I Am, the Alpha, the Omega, the Creator, the Good Sheperd, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Only five religions fit into that category as of present:

Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Protesantism
Anglicanism
Non denoninational Christians

This exclues Mormons and JW. Actually, I asked my pastor this yesterday when we were driving to Eastbourne for a concert. We drove past a massive site owned by the Mormons, a beautiful building, and he mentioned that our God is the mightiest of mighty, who is big no book can contain Him, a book far bigger than the Mormons and their distorted truth found in their book. He used this verse:

25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

(John 21:25)

The Mormons are on their way to being saved, they're certainly closer than, say, atheists (no offence), but they treat their own text and prophet as more sacred than God.

 

[Napalmbrain]

The Mormons are on their way to being saved, they're certainly closer than, say, atheists (no offence)

Don't worry. If I was worried about being 'saved' then I wouldn't be an atheist.

 

[Skippy]

I would be even more specific than that. It is someone who believes in Jesus as the only Son of God, the Messiah, God Himself in human form, the Saviour, the Lamb, the Lord, the I Am, the Alpha, the Omega, the Creator, the Good Sheperd, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Only five religions fit into that category as of present:

Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Protesantism
Anglicanism
Non denoninational Christians

And the groups that don't fall into those 5 groups would say the same thing, but reversed - that those groups are not Christian because they don't fit their definition as indicated by the Bible.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

I would be even more specific than that. It is someone who believes in Jesus as the only Son of God, the Messiah, God Himself in human form, the Saviour, the Lamb, the Lord, the I Am, the Alpha, the Omega, the Creator, the Good Sheperd, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Only five religions fit into that category as of present:

Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Protesantism
Anglicanism
Non denoninational Christians

And the groups that don't fall into those 5 groups would say the same thing, but reversed - that those groups are not Christian because they don't fit their definition as indicated by the Bible.

That's exactly correct. Christianity is more divided than ever. Different Bibles and books, hundreds of denominations (including non-Denominational), and far too many different versions of those books.

 

[Napalmbrain]

That's exactly correct. Christianity is more divided than ever. Different Bibles and books, hundreds of denominations (including non-Denominational), and far too many different versions of those books.

But Islam doesn't have that problem, of course. :lol:

 

[Skippy]

I would be even more specific than that. It is someone who believes in Jesus as the only Son of God, the Messiah, God Himself in human form, the Saviour, the Lamb, the Lord, the I Am, the Alpha, the Omega, the Creator, the Good Sheperd, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Only five religions fit into that category as of present:

Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Protesantism
Anglicanism
Non denoninational Christians

And the groups that don't fall into those 5 groups would say the same thing, but reversed - that those groups are not Christian because they don't fit their definition as indicated by the Bible.

That's exactly correct. Christianity is more divided than ever. Different Bibles and books, hundreds of denominations (including non-Denominational), and far too many different versions of those books.

Different translations don't necessarily mean the books are different. It's just different ways of saying the same thing. You have the same issues translating the Quran into other languages.

And there are definitely divisions and disagreements in doctrinal beliefs in the Muslim world too that have resulted in wars (similar to different Christian factions fighting throughout history).

 

[navarre]

I would be even more specific than that. It is someone who believes in Jesus as the only Son of God, the Messiah, God Himself in human form, the Saviour, the Lamb, the Lord, the I Am, the Alpha, the Omega, the Creator, the Good Sheperd, the King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Only five religions fit into that category as of present:

Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Protesantism
Anglicanism
Non denoninational Christians

And the groups that don't fall into those 5 groups would say the same thing, but reversed - that those groups are not Christian because they don't fit their definition as indicated by the Bible.

That's exactly correct. Christianity is more divided than ever. Different Bibles and books, hundreds of denominations (including non-Denominational), and far too many different versions of those books.

You will learn by degrees, that divided and diverse are not synonymous terms. Christianity is by far the most diverse group in the world, far more so than any other religion or country can claim to be. I'm proud to be part of such a diverse body, because it shows simply that despite the diversity, we are still united in some form and respect.

And the groups that don't fall into those 5 groups would say the same thing, but reversed - that those groups are not Christian because they don't fit their definition as indicated by the Bible.

OK, so let's see:


Catholicism- 1 billion people
Protestantism- 350 million people
Eastern Orthodoxy- 150 million people
Anglicanism- 80 million people
Non denominational people- unknown, most likely in the millions

You honestly think that these groups care whether the very small minority of people think they're Christian or not?

 

[Skippy]

Catholicism- 1 billion people
Protestantism- 350 million people
Eastern Orthodoxy- 150 million people
Anglicanism- 80 million people
Non denominational people- unknown, most likely in the millions

You honestly think that these groups care whether the very small minority of people think they're Christian or not?

No, not at all. And the smaller groups don't care that those bigger groups don't consider them Christian either.

 

[RPGMasterTurk91]

And the groups that don't fall into those 5 groups would say the same thing, but reversed - that those groups are not Christian because they don't fit their definition as indicated by the Bible.

That's exactly correct. Christianity is more divided than ever. Different Bibles and books, hundreds of denominations (including non-Denominational), and far too many different versions of those books.

Different translations don't necessarily mean the books are different. It's just different ways of saying the same thing. You have the same issues translating the Quran into other languages.

And there are definitely divisions and disagreements in doctrinal beliefs in the Muslim world too that have resulted in wars (similar to different Christian factions fighting throughout history).

I know the problem with translating things--you lose part of the original meaning through translation. However, there are countless different ENGLISH versions alone (and I'm not trying to turn this thread into attacking Christianity), even several modern ones, and versions that claim to be "modified, new, and improved". Sounds like a marketing scheme, to me. And different interpretations of the Qur'an has never directly led to any wars, if you think that the "Sunni-Shiite Conflict"'s roots are in beliefs, then you're severely mistaken. There are disagreements which lead to discussions and debate, but rarely ever actual violence. When it does occur, it happens by and large from outside forces who instigate violence among the people in order that they may be disunited and crippled as a whole. A very dirty but dominant technique that works to this day, many imperialistic regimes still carry out the basic deeds in order to conquer a people through their own pride and those things they consider precious.