There is an interesting discussion I'm having on another forum. The OP was stating what would it take you to believe in a Prophet if you lived during his time.

One person answered

If he knew a person was 100% truthful, was of high moral character, showed caring about others, he sacrifices for good of others, and is known to be sane, he would believe he is telling the truth.

A reply I came up with is

1) You can't know everything about a person, they might have some bad hidden motives.
2) Even people of high moral character can drastically change, and truthful people can become liars.

He argued people of good moral character don't change drastically, they only change gradually. As there was no gradual change, this would be a sudden change of character.

He also argued you can know people by their actions. Their actions show their character, and you can know for certain a person is of high character.

He also argued people with bad thoughts would not appear to be selfless, caring, and wonderful people on the outside.

Does anyone know of an example of a person whom was of high character and changed for the worse?

And what are your opinions on this argument.

It's a good question since there is no evidence...beyond the blathering of later believers....that anyone "believed" in any of these so-called prophets during their life time.... if they even had a life time.

Null and void from the get go - what's this guy's version of truth?

His "prophet" could 100% believe whatever he was spouting was the truth - doesn't make it "real".

Ever see the movie "Stone" with De Niro and Ed Norton? Great movie about a fundy forced to face the evil he harbored in his own heart. Seems related to the question.

If you guys are interested in the discussion, it's over here: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?...he-bithat/

A point I also brought up, was about disbelievers...if good actions are not divorced from character...and some disbelievers do many good actions, have good morals, etc...then how is it they still judge them to be evil and deserving of hell...or for those ignoring the tons of verses condemning them...how is they can't judge them deserving paradise because they are good people...

It seems like a double standard.

---

(March 6, 2012 at 6:11 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: His "prophet" could 100% believe whatever he was spouting was the truth - doesn't make it "real".

He added if you knew he was sane.

I've said this before - there are sane people who believe dumb shit.

MysticKnight, I agree with you to some extent. If a person believes in what is good and seeks what is true then they already know God, if not by name, by essence.

(March 6, 2012 at 6:07 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: There is an interesting discussion I'm having on another forum. The OP was stating what would it take you to believe in a Prophet if you lived during his time.

One person answered

If he knew a person was 100% truthful, was of high moral character, showed caring about others, he sacrifices for good of others, and is known to be sane, he would believe he is telling the truth.

A reply I came up with is

1) You can't know everything about a person, they might have some bad hidden motives.
2) Even people of high moral character can drastically change, and truthful people can become liars.

He argued people of good moral character don't change drastically, they only change gradually. As there was no gradual change, this would be a sudden change of character.

He also argued you can know people by their actions. Their actions show their character, and you can know for certain a person is of high character.

He also argued people with bad thoughts would not appear to be selfless, caring, and wonderful people on the outside.

Does anyone know of an example of a person whom was of high character and changed for the worse?

And what are your opinions on this argument.

All he is saying is a person of bad character could be way more devious than he is, and yet he is so stupid he couldn't even conceive of this possibility.

(March 6, 2012 at 7:04 pm)Chuck Wrote: All he is saying is a person of bad character could be way more devious than he is, and yet he is so stupid he couldn't even conceive of this possibility.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you trying to say. I also don't think that person is stupid.

You said "is known to be sane."

John Wayne Gacy was known to be sane, as was Dennis Rader. /story