Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Prophets

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:42:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

1st = Yes. 2nd = Yes. 3rd = No. IMO.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 2:16:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.

Well, who is the latest "prophet" you'd say has had a percentage of the effect that those two had?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 2:45:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:

If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

Sri Satya Sai Baba is a current Indian saint who is considered to be an enlghtened avatar of God, that is to say is is a self-aware avatar (he knows he is god) as opposed for example to Rama who was a god-made-flesh, who thought he was a man.

Sri Satya Sai Baba has gained more devotes in his lifetime than Jesus or Muhamad did in theirs, and the number is still growing. His story is similar to Jesus in several respects, he was born of miraculous conception, he has performed miracles (including ressurecting the dead, etc.) etc. .

India is full of saints, I have met them, I lived there for two years and they are considered to be essentially divine conduits.

In short, yes, the same thing can happen now.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 2:58:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Of course not - because they wouldn't be able to prove that they actually performed miracles lol.
President of DDO
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 2:59:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:45:47 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:

If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

Sri Satya Sai Baba is a current Indian saint who is considered to be an enlghtened avatar of God, that is to say is is a self-aware avatar (he knows he is god) as opposed for example to Rama who was a god-made-flesh, who thought he was a man.

Sri Satya Sai Baba has gained more devotes in his lifetime than Jesus or Muhamad did in theirs, and the number is still growing. His story is similar to Jesus in several respects, he was born of miraculous conception, he has performed miracles (including ressurecting the dead, etc.) etc. .

India is full of saints, I have met them, I lived there for two years and they are considered to be essentially divine conduits.

In short, yes, the same thing can happen now.

Ahh...India.

It's a fascinating culture. You have to understand though, their way of thinking is very different from the western viewpoint.

Everybody is considered as God over there. Elders, teachers, wise men, sports stars, movie actors. It's not hard for a person there to gain a following.

The example you cite is almost similar to that of the Buddha, as in, a wise man gaining Godhood. This is not the first, and certainly not the last case that's going to happen in India.

So I'm not surprised by this. What I'm looking for is the rise of prophets in Western society, which is not that receptive to such ideas currently.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:02:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Depends upon your definition or miracles. What was a miracle then might well just be an unexplained phenomenon, or a lack of critical understanding. What one audience calls a miracle might just be an illusion to another.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:08:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:02:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Depends upon your definition or miracles. What was a miracle then might well just be an unexplained phenomenon, or a lack of critical understanding. What one audience calls a miracle might just be an illusion to another.
Sure. What you call blue might be what I call black. Doesn't negate the existence of the color.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:09:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:58:14 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Of course not - because they wouldn't be able to prove that they actually performed miracles lol.
In relation to the true Prophets, they should be able to if they are indeed true Prophets themselves.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:16:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:08:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:02:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Depends upon your definition or miracles. What was a miracle then might well just be an unexplained phenomenon, or a lack of critical understanding. What one audience calls a miracle might just be an illusion to another.
Sure. What you call blue might be what I call black. Doesn't negate the existence of the color.

But if the entire authenticity of the prophets depend upon their performing miracles, it should be validated that they were indeed miracles.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ogan
Posts: 407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:16:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

There is no such thing as a miracle, only natural Law. Even if these Laws are kept secret from the prying eyes of the merely inquisitive.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:19:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:16:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:08:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:02:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Depends upon your definition or miracles. What was a miracle then might well just be an unexplained phenomenon, or a lack of critical understanding. What one audience calls a miracle might just be an illusion to another.
Sure. What you call blue might be what I call black. Doesn't negate the existence of the color.

But if the entire authenticity of the prophets depend upon their performing miracles, it should be validated that they were indeed miracles.
Yes. But the miracle should be miraculous enough for us to be inspired by it. That is why it is a miracle from a Prophet in the first place. If God sends a Prophet to perform a miracle that does not convince anyone, then why do it in the first place? Well, He does not. And, I agree that miracles can seem to be vague, but still some should be exceptional from true Prophets and be appealing before all others.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:16:45 PM, Ogan wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

There is no such thing as a miracle, only natural Law. Even if these Laws are kept secret from the prying eyes of the merely inquisitive.
A phenomena with 0.0001% possibility and the same amount of probability occurring is a miracle. Doesn't have to break natural law.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:28:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:19:08 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:16:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:08:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:02:05 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

Depends upon your definition or miracles. What was a miracle then might well just be an unexplained phenomenon, or a lack of critical understanding. What one audience calls a miracle might just be an illusion to another.
Sure. What you call blue might be what I call black. Doesn't negate the existence of the color.

But if the entire authenticity of the prophets depend upon their performing miracles, it should be validated that they were indeed miracles.
Yes. But the miracle should be miraculous enough for us to be inspired by it. That is why it is a miracle from a Prophet in the first place. If God sends a Prophet to perform a miracle that does not convince anyone, then why do it in the first place? Well, He does not. And, I agree that miracles can seem to be vague, but still some should be exceptional from true Prophets and be appealing before all others.

How can you deem a miracle to be exceptional and appealing? It seems the only way anything is deemed a miracle is when the person performing that miracle or his followers are "successful" in popularizing said miracle.

So, the miracle is after the fact. In such a condition, anything and everything can be deemed miraculous, if the only criteria was, as you say, the possibility of it happening and the probability of it happening should be low. That seems to me to be more of a definition of some random event than a miracle. Or are all random events miracles?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:32:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:28:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
How can you deem a miracle to be exceptional and appealing? It seems the only way anything is deemed a miracle is when the person performing that miracle or his followers are "successful" in popularizing said miracle.

So, the miracle is after the fact. In such a condition, anything and everything can be deemed miraculous, if the only criteria was, as you say, the possibility of it happening and the probability of it happening should be low. That seems to me to be more of a definition of some random event than a miracle. Or are all random events miracles?
A miracle can be defined as such: phenomena with very low probability, very low possibility, very coincidental, and very unusual phenomena. And, if it happens in such a way that the probability for it occurring in the way and context it did is 0.00000000000001% (which we simply count as zero), then it is a clear cut miracle. That is without going around the laws of nature.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:49:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:16:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.

Well, who is the latest "prophet" you'd say has had a percentage of the effect that those two had?

We dont measure prophets by their effects. And besides, who knows? Maybe in 2000 years, the Mormons will outpopulate every other religion int he world, and if that comes the case, Joseph Smith may be the prophet with the most effect.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:51:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:20:26 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:16:45 PM, Ogan wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:46:32 PM, Mirza wrote:
The Prophets (peace be upon them) did not just preach and get followers. They also performed miracles and did other things that were extremely exceptional. Hypothetically, a Prophet today would have to perform miracles in order to prove his points, just like all the others did. But there will be no more Prophets.

There is no such thing as a miracle, only natural Law. Even if these Laws are kept secret from the prying eyes of the merely inquisitive.
A phenomena with 0.0001% possibility and the same amount of probability occurring is a miracle. Doesn't have to break natural law.

So every time someone wins a lottery, its a miracle?
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:51:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:32:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:28:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
How can you deem a miracle to be exceptional and appealing? It seems the only way anything is deemed a miracle is when the person performing that miracle or his followers are "successful" in popularizing said miracle.

So, the miracle is after the fact. In such a condition, anything and everything can be deemed miraculous, if the only criteria was, as you say, the possibility of it happening and the probability of it happening should be low. That seems to me to be more of a definition of some random event than a miracle. Or are all random events miracles?
A miracle can be defined as such: phenomena with very low probability, very low possibility, very coincidental, and very unusual phenomena. And, if it happens in such a way that the probability for it occurring in the way and context it did is 0.00000000000001% (which we simply count as zero), then it is a clear cut miracle. That is without going around the laws of nature.

That's not a miracle. It's just coincidence. A random event. A meteorite hitting a person.

Take your life till now. At every point in your life, you could've done anything other than what you actually did. If you add up all those probabilities, the way your life is now, is just one possibility out of a gazillion. It's almost 0. But yet, here you are. Is that a miracle?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:53:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:49:13 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:16:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.

Well, who is the latest "prophet" you'd say has had a percentage of the effect that those two had?

We dont measure prophets by their effects. And besides, who knows? Maybe in 2000 years, the Mormons will outpopulate every other religion int he world, and if that comes the case, Joseph Smith may be the prophet with the most effect.

What do we measure prophets by?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 3:55:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:51:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:32:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:28:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
How can you deem a miracle to be exceptional and appealing? It seems the only way anything is deemed a miracle is when the person performing that miracle or his followers are "successful" in popularizing said miracle.

So, the miracle is after the fact. In such a condition, anything and everything can be deemed miraculous, if the only criteria was, as you say, the possibility of it happening and the probability of it happening should be low. That seems to me to be more of a definition of some random event than a miracle. Or are all random events miracles?
A miracle can be defined as such: phenomena with very low probability, very low possibility, very coincidental, and very unusual phenomena. And, if it happens in such a way that the probability for it occurring in the way and context it did is 0.00000000000001% (which we simply count as zero), then it is a clear cut miracle. That is without going around the laws of nature.

That's not a miracle. It's just coincidence. A random event. A meteorite hitting a person.

Take your life till now. At every point in your life, you could've done anything other than what you actually did. If you add up all those probabilities, the way your life is now, is just one possibility out of a gazillion. It's almost 0. But yet, here you are. Is that a miracle?
No. Everything happens that way - things change through various effects. I am no exception. I am unique, like every other human being. But not miraculous.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:08:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:55:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:51:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:32:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:28:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
How can you deem a miracle to be exceptional and appealing? It seems the only way anything is deemed a miracle is when the person performing that miracle or his followers are "successful" in popularizing said miracle.

So, the miracle is after the fact. In such a condition, anything and everything can be deemed miraculous, if the only criteria was, as you say, the possibility of it happening and the probability of it happening should be low. That seems to me to be more of a definition of some random event than a miracle. Or are all random events miracles?
A miracle can be defined as such: phenomena with very low probability, very low possibility, very coincidental, and very unusual phenomena. And, if it happens in such a way that the probability for it occurring in the way and context it did is 0.00000000000001% (which we simply count as zero), then it is a clear cut miracle. That is without going around the laws of nature.

That's not a miracle. It's just coincidence. A random event. A meteorite hitting a person.

Take your life till now. At every point in your life, you could've done anything other than what you actually did. If you add up all those probabilities, the way your life is now, is just one possibility out of a gazillion. It's almost 0. But yet, here you are. Is that a miracle?
No. Everything happens that way - things change through various effects. I am no exception. I am unique, like every other human being. But not miraculous.

But it fits your definition. Not everybody makes the same choice as you.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:13:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 4:08:51 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:55:33 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:51:27 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:32:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:28:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
How can you deem a miracle to be exceptional and appealing? It seems the only way anything is deemed a miracle is when the person performing that miracle or his followers are "successful" in popularizing said miracle.

So, the miracle is after the fact. In such a condition, anything and everything can be deemed miraculous, if the only criteria was, as you say, the possibility of it happening and the probability of it happening should be low. That seems to me to be more of a definition of some random event than a miracle. Or are all random events miracles?
A miracle can be defined as such: phenomena with very low probability, very low possibility, very coincidental, and very unusual phenomena. And, if it happens in such a way that the probability for it occurring in the way and context it did is 0.00000000000001% (which we simply count as zero), then it is a clear cut miracle. That is without going around the laws of nature.

That's not a miracle. It's just coincidence. A random event. A meteorite hitting a person.

Take your life till now. At every point in your life, you could've done anything other than what you actually did. If you add up all those probabilities, the way your life is now, is just one possibility out of a gazillion. It's almost 0. But yet, here you are. Is that a miracle?
No. Everything happens that way - things change through various effects. I am no exception. I am unique, like every other human being. But not miraculous.

But it fits your definition. Not everybody makes the same choice as you.
But life by definition is not static. In fact, biology is a field of science that we have hard times establishing facts for. Why? Because due to coincidences, evolution, etc., the temporary facts eventually face out. As living beings we are determined to change by chances. Nothing is miraculous about that. It is expected that we change. We are not bound by any specific law which states that we are to be so-and-so if this-and-that happens.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:15:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 3:53:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:49:13 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:16:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.

Well, who is the latest "prophet" you'd say has had a percentage of the effect that those two had?

We dont measure prophets by their effects. And besides, who knows? Maybe in 2000 years, the Mormons will outpopulate every other religion int he world, and if that comes the case, Joseph Smith may be the prophet with the most effect.

What do we measure prophets by?

How could we possibly measure prophets at all? To the person who believes the prophet is true, that prophet is the greatest thing to him, no matter how many people the prophet has reaced.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:16:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 4:15:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:53:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:49:13 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:16:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.

Well, who is the latest "prophet" you'd say has had a percentage of the effect that those two had?

We dont measure prophets by their effects. And besides, who knows? Maybe in 2000 years, the Mormons will outpopulate every other religion int he world, and if that comes the case, Joseph Smith may be the prophet with the most effect.

What do we measure prophets by?

How could we possibly measure prophets at all? To the person who believes the prophet is true, that prophet is the greatest thing to him, no matter how many people the prophet has reaced.

We are at cross purposes with the definition of prophet :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:23:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 4:16:57 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 4:15:43 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:53:40 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 3:49:13 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:16:58 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 1:24:11 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/5/2011 11:06:31 AM, Indophile wrote:
Was it probably easier for people to be assigned the title of prophets thousands of years ago, when there was no instant communication? As in, was it easier for people to accept stories heard by themf or the first time, being told by thousands of people, as opposed to actually experiencing it firsthand?

I don't know if I am putting this properly, but just as an example. If Jesus/Mohammed had preached their sermons today, would they have gained a similar following?

More like, every person back in the days, who was preaching about God, was regarded as a prophet. Its why we have the term "False prophet" in the Old testament, which refers to every person who was preaching for a different religion.

Even in todays society, there are people who consider themsevles prophets. And sure, people have no problem reffering to them as prophets, but only because the title has very little meaning and importance.

Well, who is the latest "prophet" you'd say has had a percentage of the effect that those two had?

We dont measure prophets by their effects. And besides, who knows? Maybe in 2000 years, the Mormons will outpopulate every other religion int he world, and if that comes the case, Joseph Smith may be the prophet with the most effect.

What do we measure prophets by?

How could we possibly measure prophets at all? To the person who believes the prophet is true, that prophet is the greatest thing to him, no matter how many people the prophet has reaced.

We are at cross purposes with the definition of prophet :)

Theres a difference between measuring whether or not one prophet is above another, and determining if someone is a prophet or not.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:40:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:59:08 PM, Indophile wrote:

Everybody is considered as God over there. Elders, teacihers, wise men, sports stars, movie actors. It's not hard for a person there to gain a following.

I was not speaking of a general term, and I don't see any serious claim of a movie actor being a God, I was speaking of living saints and one in particular who is claimed to be an avatar. This is not a common thing, saints yes, avatars no. It is very rare for there to be more than one avatar at a given time as the avatars are of a specific purpose, though you can have for example Rama (avatar of Vishnu) meet Hanuman (avatar of Shiva), Rama in his life also met Parashurama, the previous avatar of Vishnu. It also has to be clarified that the Hindu Deva's, while commonly referred to as gods in the West are not actual God's of which there are only three, of which are just aspects of the one - Brahman. In short, the claim of enlightened-avatar as noted in the above is not something India is full of, saints yes, they are fairly common.


The example you cite is almost similar to that of the Buddha, as in, a wise man gaining Godhood. This is not the first, and certainly not the last case that's going to happen in India.

I am speaking of an avatar, that is not something you gain, it is a manifestation of God made flesh. One does not become an avatar, you either are or you are not one. One can become known as an avatar of course by others, but this is generally immediately obvious if the avatar is enlightened (knows it is God). No one for example doubted Krishna was Vishnu, Rama on the other hand was thought to just be a man until he revealed through his deeds he was more and was granted boons by the Gods - but only Hanuman could see his true nature immediately, hence his unconditional love as Hanuman was also a God-made-flesh, being the avatar of Shiva, but like Rama did not know he was a God.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:41:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 2:59:08 PM, Indophile wrote:

What I'm looking for is the rise of prophets in Western society, which is not that receptive to such ideas currently.

David Koresh was the reincarnation of Christ to his disciples.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 4:50:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 4:40:40 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/5/2011 2:59:08 PM, Indophile wrote:

Everybody is considered as God over there. Elders, teacihers, wise men, sports stars, movie actors. It's not hard for a person there to gain a following.

I was not speaking of a general term, and I don't see any serious claim of a movie actor being a God, I was speaking of living saints and one in particular who is claimed to be an avatar. This is not a common thing, saints yes, avatars no. It is very rare for there to be more than one avatar at a given time as the avatars are of a specific purpose, though you can have for example Rama (avatar of Vishnu) meet Hanuman (avatar of Shiva), Rama in his life also met Parashurama, the previous avatar of Vishnu. It also has to be clarified that the Hindu Deva's, while commonly referred to as gods in the West are not actual God's of which there are only three, of which are just aspects of the one - Brahman. In short, the claim of enlightened-avatar as noted in the above is not something India is full of, saints yes, they are fairly common.



The example you cite is almost similar to that of the Buddha, as in, a wise man gaining Godhood. This is not the first, and certainly not the last case that's going to happen in India.

I am speaking of an avatar, that is not something you gain, it is a manifestation of God made flesh. One does not become an avatar, you either are or you are not one. One can become known as an avatar of course by others, but this is generally immediately obvious if the avatar is enlightened (knows it is God). No one for example doubted Krishna was Vishnu, Rama on the other hand was thought to just be a man until he revealed through his deeds he was more and was granted boons by the Gods - but only Hanuman could see his true nature immediately, hence his unconditional love as Hanuman was also a God-made-flesh, being the avatar of Shiva, but like Rama did not know he was a God.
The avatar figures do not claim the exclusivity of their religion. In fact, the very avatar you mentioned tells people to believe in what they already believe in. That doesn't require you to believe in his sorcery. On the other hand, if these people who claim to be god incarnated, then they should, by definition, never contradict the religious scripture they claim is from God.

Do they do that? Yes, over and over again. That is not miraculous. That is erroneous. And I will not believe in their words.