What do you think of the idea of there being one truth, but multiple ways of viewing and expressing that truth? For instance one faith worshiping God as a single entity, but another worshiping multiple manifestations of that entity. Are they not both still worshiping a single God?
I have actually put a lot of thought into this during my Reversion/Conversion phase. And I think where it comes down to is that IMO (See people I acknowledge it is my opinion only) there is 1 truth, Deviations such as multiple manifestations, etc. are varying degrees of truth. Is it possible that Hindus and Muslims worship the same overall God, IMO yes, at least to those who believe they are manifestations of a singular God. And those who practice religions where their practice coincides with the true way is where the theology has been mistaken over the generations of other religious development but the practice has remained and they are doing the right thing, with an error of understanding on why they do it only. I am in no place to judge anyone. If a Buddhist does as he has been taught, and has done his best to honor his God(s) then I see no reason why Allah wouldn't correct him on Judgement day and place him in heaven, and which level, I do not know either.
Statistically speaking nothing above remotely justify one belief over another.
Exactly... That is a point I am making... I have never once claimed my way is statistically more perfect than the next.
This is a clear misuse of statistics. The first thing my statistics instructor told us in graduate school is 'Statistics do not lie, but people misuse and manipulate statistics to justify their own lies.'
please provide a point of lie, or incorrectness.... based solely on facts... and in essence the rest of your post where you are disagreeing with me is actually adding to my point. Statistically there are near infinite possibilities, but 1 complete.
Whether anyone follows or knows it or not.
Your injecting a distinctly humanist view into the theological process of reasons people believe, which is out of touch with reality that by far most people justify their own belief based on what they are taught.
by and far this is the most out of touch thing I have read, their belief is Their view of truth. Therefor their justification is that of their justification of the truth.
All views are intrinsically flawed based on the fallible human perspective, especially ancient belief systems based on ancient cultures, and scripture, particularly Judaism, Christianity and Islam. All these belief systems claim their roots of belief in the Pentateuch, which is an evolved and redacted text from older pre-Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarite texts and myths, with no known author. A weak foundation has too many cracks.
I want to address the content of this paragraph separately, as I have already addressed the intent. I do understand you don't believe in the Abrahamics, nor any ancient religion. I also understand that your view doesn't allow for a view to be fully correct (and to a degree I agree, mainly that our capacity isn't large enough for understanding it all...). But that doesn't mean that you are correct about any of you assertions, you do realize that right? You telling me Islam is not correct is simply on par with me telling a Buddhist his beliefs are baseless and useless. It is an opinion, not fact. Your claim is that the Abrahamics are based on
older pre-Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarite texts and myths, with no known author
But what you fail to address is the other way around could equally be true. We all know Judaism was based on verbal sources for generations before text came. In Genesis it talks of the beginning of the earth, meaning that If the original author knew of this and those events, it is possible that the other groups heard the stories and adopted them into their own at some point. The fact that the author is unknown gives a good indication the ideas came from before those civilizations occured. And frankly your perpetual argument of these "facts" is nothing better than the "Christian" gentleman proselytizing in the Jewish threads. All of your posts amount to, "you all are wrong, I am right, think like me". I write a post about how all views are statistically equally possible and you basically claim I don't know how statistics work. I understand (I think) ACOT's argument, although I don't know if I can explain that what I'm saying even includes what he is claiming it excludes.
