Link
For today's post, I've decided to publish my answer to an "Anonymous" comment made on the article below: "A Difference Between Humans and Ants." I'm printing this as its own entry simply because I think it's a good way to call attention to the article and to the comment!
First, though, thank you, Anonymous, for pointing out the gross error I made by misprinting Hitchens’ name in the article. I’ve corrected it, which means future readers will not see the error you mention, but that doesn’t matter, compared to the need to correct it.
Of course, as you suggest, Anonymous, all of our beliefs about God can be seen as "manmade." (BTW, “manmade” is a dictionary approved word, though you think it must be two words.) But, to countless believers, there IS a difference between the beliefs derived from the Prophets — who tell us God instructed them — and the beliefs taught by religious clerics who INTERPRET the Prophets’ messages. To be sure, you may not believe that God sent messages to the Prophets, so, to your mind, their teachings are as "manmade" as any other religious beliefs decreed by the organized religions, but billions of "believers" have accepted at least one of the Sacred Books as “God’s Word.” I am urging people to learn about God and the promised Messiah from all three Sacred Books. Those teachings can settle the arguments about Jesus that have caused "believers" to hate and kill each other for thousands of years. And I contend that the only way we can avoid the Religious War that has already begun and could end with a nuclear winter is by learning from ALL the Prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. If you are interested in hearing my arguments in more detail, so you can agree with or dispute them, I suggest you visit my website: www.ofpromisesandpreviews.com
3 comments:
I learned more than I can describe by reading Jane's book, but I don't think it will "catch on," in time to spare us a war. That's our sad reality!
If the entirety of your post was to argue the toss between dictionary definitions (dictionaries record usage of words, they don't define them) of a compound word, and rather than addressing any other part of my observation, then I wasted (and am continuing to waste) my time.
For some reason, you seem to think that an argumentum ad populum is a viable form of evidence and argument. Who am I to disabuse you of such a notion, when clearly you've already decided that your god (or gods -- you're very wishy-washy on this and it's difficult to pin down what on earth you actually believe) exist, and then you're trying to create some sort of ratified super-religion based on the mystical scriblings of the big three mutually exclusive (at least on the big bullet points) catch-all religions.
I would posit that a mutual understanding between them in spite of, rather than because of, their supposed care for humanity would be a better cause for action against this nuclear winter (you really are a child of the atomic age, aren't you?) that you seem to think is the ultimate finality of human existence.
You seem to take the idea that all of the supposed prophets of these religions are right. Without evidence, why should any one believer in any of these camps take your word over that of their scripture, which I'm sure has a lot more influence?
Why not teach them to abandon these bronze-age and mediaeval superstitions, and start again from a position of mutual understanding? That's certainly more likely that trying to get them all to believe 3 impossible things before breakfast.
Thank you Estelle for your kind words. But now I must answer Anonymous--whose "words" dramatically differ from yours.
First, Anonymous, I do not, for a moment, think that extinction is the "utlimate finality of human existence." I am a "believer" in Abraham's Lord God and the Messiah He promised to send us. Consequently, I believe the Messiah will lead us into the mature, peaceful, productive existence that we--obviously--cannot achieve on our own.
Second, I do not believe that we must suffer the "gross darkness" precisely foretold by the Prophet Isaiah. But, to avoid it, we would have to "turn our hearts to each other," as the Prophet Malachi plainly told us. The way to accomplish that is to embrace the teachings of ALL the Prophets.
Third, and last, you obviously have paid no attention to, or failed to comprehend, what I've written in this blog or on my website or in my book. Yet, you draw such far-fetched conclusions about me that it is almost humorous. Nor do you appear to have any comprehension of what the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christian New Testament and the Koran say about the Lord God and the Messiah. The Books do NOT contradict each other--on the contrary, together they reveal the same God and the same Messiah, each Book enlarging on the previous revelations. The Koran, however, does correct the INTERPRETATIONS of the Prophets' teachings devised by the Jewish and Christian CLERGIES.
Since you appear to be an atheist or an agnostic, I can understand your preoccupation with "proof." If you will take the time to read Isaiah and Malachi's prophecies (Isa. 60:2;Mal. 3:24/4:6), and view them in light of the very real current threat of nuclear war, you could "get a taste" of the "proof" of their warnings--which I doubt that you want to experience for yourself.
Post a Comment