Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipas
First, while all religions contain some degree of divine truth, all religions are imperfect human expressions. So, in my opinion, each religion will leave the "fundamentalists" of their religion to a rather troubled afterlife. But the "spiritual" in every faith will intuitively sense the divine truths contained in not only their own faith tradition, but also in the faith traditions of others.
Second, how do you know I'm mistaken? Because your interpretation of an ancient "book" says that I'm mistaken? What makes your book, and your interpretation of it, more authoritative over other books? Because it claims to be? What about every other book's claim to be authoritative over your book and your interpretation of said book? And what makes your book authoritative over the personal experiences of countless life changing near death experiences? What makes your book more authoritative over the increasing shift in global consciousness to the oneness of all things?
|
I notice you failed to answer the question. I asked "How do you know?" and you simply repeated your claim.
So then, it is simply your opinion, based upon nothing (that you have explained, anyway).
All we have are opinions, beliefs, conclusions. Some are based upon careful examination of data, others are based upon wishful thinking, emotion, or some variation of group think accepted without critical examination.
Since you have provided no argumentation for your philosophy besides your own personal authority, which itself is unsubstantiated by anything other than your assertions as to what is and what is not true, and since many of your assertions are in fact both irrational and factually untrue, I see no reason whatsoever to give any credence at all to your personal flights of fancy.
I would suggest, though, that you investigate the claim of Christ's resurrection being an historical and documented event. "Why did the earliest Christians testify that He had resurrected and been seen by them? Were they lying? Were they hallucinating? Were they delusional? Mistaken? etc.
But that would of course require a willingness to go where the evidence leads, not lead the evidence where you want it to go - an often arduous task.
Linear Mode
