All Scripture is inspired by God ?

[wil]

if this is true does that mean the Bagavad Gita is inspired by God ?

While I'll say yes again, I'll do so with a caveat.

Marsh, Faithful Servant, please accept my apology. While Glory to God started this thread in Christianity with a piece of scripture his question lead me off on a path which my liberal mystical metaphysical understandings of the teachings of Jesus tread beyond the bounds of your acceptablity... and your slaps upside my head did me absolutely no good to understand this until andrew posted the same question in another part of the forum and dawn broke over marble head shall we say.

So anyway, me and G!d hand in metaphorical hand will dance over there and play for a while....but we'll be back, hopefully with a tad more tact.

 

[shawn]

It is very possible that all the "gods" who gave scripture to mankind (inspired or handed to them)were indeed, extraterrestrials, who actually run the earth and humanity as their plantation, or test tube, if you will.
So, we are involved in an elaborate social engineering program and this is guided by the religions of the world which are shaped by the dictates of the words of God (or gods) who is(are) the chief scientist(s) in this whole program. (according to this speculation)

Now, I am not saying that this is the way it is, or that I even believe this to be true.

But it is just as plausible as any of the other beliefs (religious or otherwise) I have encountered in my life and I am familiar with most of them.
Certainly it is just as plausible as any of the beliefs available to peruse on this board.

 

[wil]

It is very possible that all the "gods" who gave scripture to mankind (inspired or handed to them)were indeed, extraterrestrials, who actually run the earth and humanity as their plantation, or test tube, if you will.

Namaste Shawn,

Dang you, I couldn't stay away for day!


Isn't G!d by most definitions extraterrestrial?

 

[Marsh]

Marsh, Faithfulservant, anyone else ... feel free to weigh in where a true discussion of this question can place. As I posted originally, it's a valuable contribution to say that you find inspiration in X religious teachings, that such'n'such has never particularly impressed you, and that you do, or do not see certain similarities amongst the faiths.

Intellectually-frustrated, he walks away rather than ever actually discussing the issue.

THIS IS THE NEW FUNDAMENTALISM. Who are the real bigots? It's the arrogant clowns who claim to be tolerant and open-minded, yet are every ounce as set in their beliefs as Pat Robertson. People who on the one hand say all paths are valid, and on the other hand say anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is a fool who deserves to be satirized. People who never actually listen to what you say, but rather just point the finger and say, "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK BECAUSE YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN; ONLY THE ENLIGHTENED MAY SPEAK."

Nobody ever had the intent to actually discuss this topic; the answer was already decided on.

 

[Marsh]

Honestly, I didn't take kindly to being told that my post was "completely off-topic."

BTW, my comment on the "thread heretic" was supposed to be a joke.

Dude, you replied to my post but your reply didn't actually address what I said. The point you rebutted was not my premise; it was a reply to a rebuttal. That huge reply made it sound like my premise was that other religions were invalid because they were not like Christianity, which is 100% not what I said, and 100% not what I meant. In this way, your reply was off-topic because it argued against something that was not my premise, while implying that it was my premise. That's off-topic, isn't it?

BTW, a little nettiquette: When one puts the or the or the or the emoticons after a statement, it comes across as a joke. When one puts a after a statement, it does not. The word "heretic" seems to have been carefully chosen as an allusion to my supposed intolerance to the ideas of others. If it wasn't intended as a cheap shot, then my apologies, but in the context of the three posts I read yesterday, it certainly seemed not to have been made in jest.

 

[Marsh]

Let's think here. In Christianity man is made in G!ds image? So is it possible that there is a divine connection that is the similarity between human beings, and the common denominator is G!d? So all religions are man made except which one?? Do I really have to guess?

I was under the impression that we were discussing scriptures, not religions.

 

[wil]

I was under the impression that we were discussing scriptures, not religions.

Ok, so help me out, aren't we referring to scripture as the text that supports a religion?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I may have misused a phrase it may be semantics but I don't see the difference.

Are you saying scripture is man made and has similarities because of that but religions are divinely inspired?

 

[Marsh]

Ok, so help me out, aren't we referring to scripture as the text that supports a religion?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I may have misused a phrase it may be semantics but I don't see the difference.

Are you saying scripture is man made and has similarities because of that but religions are divinely inspired?

I am saying that every religion is man-made, and that scriptures are at least to an extent man-made (insofar as they are recorded by humans), and that perhaps one or more of the scriptures out there were inspired by God, but that it's not necessarily the case that they all come from the same source, despite the basic similarities that they share which may be attributed to innate human decency.

 

[wil]

Namaste Marsh,

There we go some common ground (or marsh??). I'll agree all religions are man made, and all scripture is written by man, I still feel all scripture is inspired by G!d despite its potential misinterpretation by man...but we've got some common ground.

G!d is all there is and all comes from G!d....but that is only me.

 

[Saltmeister]

Dude, you replied to my post but your reply didn't actually address what I said. The point you rebutted was not my premise; it was a reply to a rebuttal. That huge reply made it sound like my premise was that other religions were invalid because they were not like Christianity, which is 100% not what I said, and 100% not what I meant. In this way, your reply was off-topic because it argued against something that was not my premise, while implying that it was my premise. That's off-topic, isn't it?

Ok . . . I think I get it now . . .

It wasn't supposed to be an extension of your discussion with wil. I was aware of what was going on, but thought that I could comment on one of your posts in isolation. I realise now that with you deeply engaged in a discussion with wil, that wasn't going to be so easy. I think I may have the unhealthy habit of fishing around for posts I can reply to so that I can make rants. Maybe the reason why it backfired this time was that you were locked into a debate and I was trying to hijack the discussion for my own pleasure.

I thought I might say . . . this is the first time I've been told off for doing that.

Despite what has happened, I don't think off-topic discussions are necessarily a waste of time. I might be able to get credit for extracting some background information. A lot of important stuff could happen behind the scenes.

BTW, a little nettiquette: When one puts the or the or the or the emoticons after a statement, it comes across as a joke. When one puts a after a statement, it does not. If it wasn't intended as a cheap shot, then my apologies, but in the context of the three posts I read yesterday, it certainly seemed not to have been made in jest.

The word "heretic" seems to have been carefully chosen as an allusion to my supposed intolerance to the ideas of others.

I don't recall anyone ever telling me they didn't want to reply/respond to my post. Nobody has ever shut down a discussion with me. It was a shock when you did this to me. I did take offence and did take it personally, because apart from saying my first post to you was off-topic, you also said something about me making a "pent-up rant." I felt like I was being censored. It had something to do with my style of discussion, my personality.

"Intolerance" isn't the word I tend to use when I want to criticise people for being nasty, but I will have to play along. Yes, "heretic" did mean "intolerance," but that first paragraph wasn't supposed to be accusing you of it. It was a question, not a statement. I have seen people ask questions "in jest" before. I was trying to ask if you were censoring me, not that you were being intolerant. You usually don't ask if someone is intolerant. You accuse them of it.

The last three posts weren't supposed to be malicious. "Cheap shot" implies that I'm being malicious. Maybe some of what I said were "cheap shots" by their nature, but I was quite confused at that point, thinking you were "censoring" me. I wasn't sure what to think. Those "cheap shots" were part of that confused response. I was trying to guess what you were thinking.

It's not my policy when posting to criticise someone's behaviour or style of discussion. I know where that leads. People spend whole pages blaming each other over "cheap shots."

I've been registered here for four years. It's just a surprise that I started doing it with you. I don't think I've ever done it before. I was caught completely off guard. I normally only criticise ideas. But quite recently I've found myself criticising fellow users/members. I thought I had seen everything. I thought I knew myself.