The Absolute Truth

[sojourner]

Can you honestly deny that Christians believe Christianity is the True Religion and religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Bahai are False Religions?

Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are you sure? Aren’t “physical world” and “reality” different things?

To begin specific falsifiable relationships in the physical world, which is as I described based on the objective verifiable evidence.

If you propose such a relationship involving spiritual worlds and humanity you are proposing another argument with anecdotal, subjective claims and evidence, if any, and often contradictory claims'

I believe in spiritual worlds beyond ours, but I find no evidence to support a relationship where humans influence the spiritual worlds to any degree. If God exists, I do not believe humans have any influence on God. It is also unrealistic to propose that spiritual worlds exist, because we exist.

 

[shunyadragon]

Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

Disagree, the predominant belief in Christianity is 'salvation only' through Christianity in one form or another with of course some provisos for conditional salvation out side the church or Christianity.

 

[sojourner]

To begin specific falsifiable relationships in the physical world, which is as I described based on the objective verifiable evidence.

If you propose such a relationship involving spiritual worlds and humanity you are proposing another argument with anecdotal, subjective claims and evidence, if any, and often contradictory claims'

I believe in spiritual worlds beyond ours, but I find no evidence to support a relationship where humans influence the spiritual worlds to any degree. If God exists, I do not believe humans have any influence on God. It is also unrealistic to propose that spiritual worlds exist, because we exist.

I don't think that's how I understand "reality." Yes, there are verifiable facts. But, to me, "reality" is something different. To me, reality isn't just "the sum of verifiable fact." For me, reality is more how we understand what comes through our senses.

I suppose it depends on how one identifies "spiritual worlds." For me, "spiritual world" and "physical world" are the same thing. I don't see any contradictory claims in my understanding. I know they exist in the understanding of others, based on how they understand spiritual/physical reality.

 

[sojourner]

Disagree, the predominant belief in Christianity is 'salvation only' through Christianity in one form or another with of course some provisos for conditional salvation out side the church or Christianity.

I disagree, because most mainstream authorities will say that it depends on one's belief system. For the Christian, Christ is the only way. But most stop short there. Most don't insist that Xy is the ONLY world view. They claim that all spiritual systems that promote wellness and wholeness are valid.

 

[ecco]

Can you honestly deny that Christians believe Christianity is the True Religion and religions such as Islam, Hinduism, and even Bahai are False Religions?

Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

Then it should be easy to list prominent Christians who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God.

Then it should be easy to list prominent Muslims who believe Shiva is the True God.

 

[sojourner]

Then it should be easy to list prominent Christians who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God.

Then it should be easy to list prominent Muslims who believe Shiva is the True God.

I can't speak to Islam or Hinduism, but most Christian leaders I know would say that Muhammed is a true messenger for Islam, and most would say that "Allah" is Arabic for "God," just as "YHVH" is Hebrew for "God."

 

[Hawkins]

The reality of our physical existence as a whole, ie everything that physically exists, is not dependent on human existence.

Hmm.. that makes common sense but not necessarily true. In quantum mechanics, a reality somehow is observer dependent in a sense. That is the particles behave differently depending on whether the behavior is to be observed.

Here's an analogy. You throw a 6-faced dice, you are expected to see one of the 6 faces. That's at the moment when you take a look at the thrown dice. But before you watch, the dice doesn't show any face, but rather it's a number from 1 to 6 at the same time. That is the dice shows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all at the same time. It shows a fixed number only when you watch it. Before you take a look at it, it's in a form of all possible faces. That's the reality described by quantum mechanics.

 

[ecco]

Then it should be easy to list prominent Christians who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God.

Then it should be easy to list prominent Muslims who believe Shiva is the True God.

I can't speak to Islam or Hinduism, but most Christian leaders I know would say that Muhammed is a true messenger for Islam, and most would say that "Allah" is Arabic for "God," just as "YHVH" is Hebrew for "God."

Yet you cannot name any Christian leaders "who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God."

Do you think either of these people "believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God."

1. Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham is a Christian evangelist and president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. He often speaks to Christians about moral and societal issues and encourages them to help people who have been through crises, according to the BGEA’s website.

2. Joel Osteen

Osteen is a preacher and televangelist who leads Lakewood Church, the largest Protestant church in the United States.
​

If so, I'm sure you can show where they said something to that effect.

 

[shunyadragon]

Hmm.. that makes common sense but not necessarily true. In quantum mechanics, a reality somehow is observer dependent in a sense. That is the particles behave differently depending on whether the behavior is to be observed.

The problem is in reality the limited ability from the human perspective of quantum behavior of particles. Actually this has been for the most part resolved by recent research imaging of particles, I believe I actually posted a thread on this recent research, and I may repost the reference. None the less careful 'arguing from ignorance,' because advances in science often explains unknowns.

Here's an analogy. You throw a 6-faced dice, you are expected to see one of the 6 faces. That's at the moment when you take a look at the thrown dice. But before you watch, the dice doesn't show any face, but rather it's a number from 1 to 6 at the same time. That is the dice shows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 all at the same time. It shows a fixed number only when you watch it. Before you take a look at it, it's in a form of all possible faces. That's the reality described by quantum mechanics.

I do not believe this analogy is adequate. If you simple film and slow down the roll of the dice as it is being thrown.

 

[shunyadragon]

I disagree, because most mainstream authorities will say that it depends on one's belief system. For the Christian, Christ is the only way. But most stop short there.

You answered your question: For the Christian, Christ is the only way.

Most don't insist that Xy is the ONLY world view.

Most?!?!?! is a questionable qualification for arguing from popularity. It is not a question of being the ONLY world view with good qualities and virtues, but it is question of Salvation, the bottom line in Christianity.

They claim that all spiritual systems that promote wellness and wholeness are valid.

. . . . not in terms of salvation, which is the bottom line in Christianity.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't think that's how I understand "reality." Yes, there are verifiable facts. But, to me, "reality" is something different. To me, reality isn't just "the sum of verifiable fact." For me, reality is more how we understand what comes through our senses.

What comes through our senses concerns objective knowledge of the world around us, Now if you are including subjective, anecdotal, or perceptions of the mind other than what we recieve from our senses that is anothe story.

I suppose it depends on how one identifies "spiritual worlds." For me, "spiritual world" and "physical world" are the same thing. I don't see any contradictory claims in my understanding. I know they exist in the understanding of others, based on how they understand spiritual/physical reality.

The contradictions in volve what can be objectively verified through observation of the real physical world and that which cannot be verified. That which cannot be verified , ie subjective experiences of other worlds, different people come up with diverse conflicting interpretations byond the objective physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

I screwed this up, so Iried to repost

"One individual without knowledge of the Bahai"?

First off, it doesn't matter who the Bahai is. I wasn't judging him, I was judging the writings of Ballulah. Do you suppose those writings take on different meaning depending on who is posting them.

It is a fact you described you were citing the individuals and their citations, and not in the context of the Baha;i Faith, Direct citations by you it was based on the post of the individuals and their interpretations,

Second, are you absolutely certain that my original conversations with a Bahai were not with you?

Could be, bit that would not justify you arrogant hostile bias toward the Baha'i Faith without knowledge of the context of how the Baha'i Faith considers the writings and guidance in the writings. You may of course disagree with the Baha'i writings, but the bottomline if the Baha'i Baha'i Faith

I will admit that prior to my first "conversation" with a Bahai, I was ignorant of your religion - I had never heard of it. However, it quickly became obvious that Bahai was just another Johnny-come-lately religion with nothing much to differentiate it from other religions.
Regardless, conversations with one or more Baha'is is not what the Baha'i Faith teaches, nor what the scriptures of the Baha'i read.

You are still hostile and ignorant of the Baha'i Faith based on yur priori extreme bias and the hostile nature of post without a genuine knowledge of the Baha'i Faith.

I guess you could consider my pointing out that your religion is pretty much the same as all other religions, "rabid vicious condemnation". I consider it pointing out indisputable facts.

I guess you could consider my pointing out that your belief that your religion is the only True religion is "rabid vicious condemnation". I consider it pointing out indisputable facts.

. . . because it is NOT true. Point all you want, but your hostile biased view makes your pointing irrelevant

You have posted noth that represents indisputable facts.

This simply represents your rabid, biased, vindictive any religious shotgun approach to religions, and not reality of what the religions believe.

It's nice to see that you admit that things that God's Messenger, Ballulah, wrote are filled with errors. However, I do question your motives. You and other Bahai's in this forum have defended the accuracy of not only Ballulah's writings but those of Shoghi Effendi as well.

How arrogant rabid unethical dishonest and condescending. I did not admit anything of the sort.

So what you call "my ignorance" is perhaps better explained as my confusion caused by getting different messages from different Bahais or even the same Baha'is at different times.

Again, again, and again . . . getting messages (?) as the personal views of the believer does not represent the religion.

 

[sojourner]

Yet you cannot name any Christian leaders "who believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God."

Do you think either of these people "believe Muhammad is a true Messenger and Allah is the True God."

1. Franklin Graham

Franklin Graham is a Christian evangelist and president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. He often speaks to Christians about moral and societal issues and encourages them to help people who have been through crises, according to the BGEA’s website.

2. Joel Osteen

Osteen is a preacher and televangelist who leads Lakewood Church, the largest Protestant church in the United States.
​

If so, I'm sure you can show where they said something to that effect.

First of all, I didn’t say that they would say “Allah is the true God.” I said that they would acknowledge Allah as valid for Muslims.

Second, who says that either of those clowns are either mainstream or authorities? Talk to Francis, or to Justin Welby, or to Kenneth Carter, or to Elizabeth Eaton.

 

[sojourner]

You answered your question: For the Christian, Christ is the only way.



Most?!?!?! is a questionable qualification for arguing from popularity. It is not a question of being the ONLY world view with good qualities and virtues, but it is question of Salvation, the bottom line in Christianity.




. . . . not in terms of salvation, which is the bottom line in Christianity.

I think you’re splitting hairs. Most authorities would say that Islam is as valid a spiritual system as Xy. They would say that the faithful of that religion are living in the favor of God.

Salvation isn’t the “bottom line” where the validity of other faith systems is concerned.

 

[sojourner]

What comes through our senses concerns objective knowledge of the world around us, Now if you are including subjective, anecdotal, or perceptions of the mind other than what we recieve from our senses that is anothe story.



The contradictions in volve what can be objectively verified through observation of the real physical world and that which cannot be verified. That which cannot be verified , ie subjective experiences of other worlds, different people come up with diverse conflicting interpretations byond the objective physical existence.

Yes, and that sensory input must be understood in some way. The way in which it is understood is reality, not the data, itself.

What “other worlds” do you refer to? There is the world (cosmos, universe). I understand that as both spiritual and physical, because for me, physical and spiritual are the same thing. That’s how I understand it; that’s reality for me.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and that sensory input must be understood in some way. The way in which it is understood is reality, not the data, itself.

No. you have to the data (objective verifiable evidence) which is independent of our 'understanding first. This where scientific methods investigates the physical existence, and humans use logic to understand science, with each individual's relationship with the objective evidence. Over time understanding via science and consistent logic our understanding of our physical existence becomes more uniform.

The data, objective verifiable evidence, comes first ,and does not change. Human views and opinions may change over time. There can be no objective understanding without objective evidence.

What “other worlds” do you refer to? There is the world (cosmos, universe). I understand that as both spiritual and physical, because for me, physical and spiritual are the same thing. That’s how I understand it; that’s reality for me.

Again, again and again . . . The physical existence is the world of objective verifiable evidence. If your an atheist, naturalist agnostic or other materialist views the Spiritual worlds do not exist. The spiritual worlds are those realms of the anecdotal subjective world of the mind only, and this where there are many diverse, conflicting , and contradictory beliefs beyond the nature of our physical existence.

If you consider them the same, OK, but you have no evidence to justify this, but faith and belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you’re splitting hairs. Most authorities would say that Islam is as valid a spiritual system as Xy. They would say that the faithful of that religion are living in the favor of God.

This would be closer to the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith, or maybe the humanist view of the Unitarian Universalists, not Christianity. You would have to provide references to justify your claim that any church proposed this view.

Salvation isn’t the “bottom line” where the validity of other faith systems is concerned.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is concerning Christianity;

 

[shunyadragon]

Some Christians certainly do. But the preponderance of the religion — including those with spiritual authority — don’t make that kind of judgment about other religions.

From: Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven?
Is Jesus the Only Way to Heaven?

Related Content

Many people have criticized Christianity and believers in Jesus Christ as being too narrow-minded because we preach that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. They point to the numerous other religions of the world and say, "How can your way be the only way?"

One of the answers to this question is that Jesus himself declared that He was, in fact, God in the flesh.

I and the Father are one. (John 10:30, NASB)

He who has seen Me has seen the Father… (John 14:9b, NASB)

Jesus did not give Christians any other option but to preach that it is only through faith in His sacrificial death on Calvary that we can receive salvation from our sins.

Jesus told him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." (John 14: 6, NLT)

 

[shunyadragon]

I think you’re splitting hairs. Most authorities would say that Islam is as valid a spiritual system as Xy. They would say that the faithful of that religion are living in the favor of God.

Salvation isn’t the “bottom line” where the validity of other faith systems is concerned.

From: Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Wikipedia

The Latin phrase extra Ecclesiam nulla salus means "outside the Church there is no salvation".[1][2] The 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is His Body."[3]

This expression comes from the writings of Saint Cyprian of Carthage, a bishop of the 3rd century. The axiom is often used as shorthand for the doctrine that the Church is necessary for salvation. It is a dogma in the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches in reference to their own communions. It is also held by many historic Protestant Churches. However, Protestants, Catholics and the Orthodox each have a unique ecclesiological understanding of what constitutes the Church. The theological basis for this doctrine is founded on the beliefs that (1) Jesus Christ personally established the one Church; and (2) the Church serves as the means by which the graces won by Christ are communicated to believers.

Kallistos Ware, a Greek Orthodox bishop, has expressed this doctrine as follows:

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.[4]

The Catholic Church also teaches that the doctrine does not mean that everyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned in case of inculpable ignorance.

Some of the most pertinent Catholic expressions of this doctrine are: the profession of faith of Pope Innocent III (1208), the profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the bull Unam sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII (1302), and the profession of faith of the Council of Florence (1442). The axiom "No salvation outside the Church" has been frequently repeated over the centuries in different terms by the ordinary magisterium.