The Essence Of True Religion: A Christian Perspective.

[McBell]

In a nutshell, religion is a reliable vessel for a message of truth to be conveyed throughout a history of more than 2000~3000 years. You won't be able to find another mean for such a message to be conveyed more reliably.

Humans on the other hand, rely almost exclusively on human witnessing to reach a truth of any kind. Humans themselves may not realize this though. So in order to be a god, one must know clearly how a truth can be conveyed through human witnessing and with a history of more than 2000 years.
He also need to know that humans won't be able to keep first hand documents longer than 2000 years that a religion is the only way for such a truth to be conveyed. As a matter of fact, humans lost all the documents written first-handedly in ancient scrolls for history older than 2000 years.
He then also need to specify strongly that "you shall not do false witnessing" such that humans are educated by the dogma of such a religion to realize that they shouldn't add anything by their own will to the Bible of the religion.
He then also need to build a human authority to enforce the passing on of the Bible in a way to keep it as intact as possible (i.e., the Jews won't add anything to the Bible lightly as they have the temple court as the only authority, similarly the Catholic and Protestant Church are doing the same).

Only then a message of truth can be passed along reliably for more than 2000 years.

Only the Christianity God does the above which makes Him the only possibility if a God does exists!

In the end, the essence of a true religion is to serve the purpose of conveying the message of salvation among humans throughout a history of more than 2000 years that no other means shall work!

The vast number of denominations reveals this to be at best wishful thinking and at worse a bold faced lie.

 

[McBell]

No one dies for his own lies.

Flat out wrong.

10 out of 12 disciples died for what they claimed.

And?
There are numerous cases where people die for what they believe.
It in no way indicates that what they believe is true.
ONLY that they were willing to die for their beliefs.

You don't know what you are talking about. That's the situation.

Oh the irony...

 

[roger1440]

I believe starting with the conclusion is begging the question. Circular logic means the premises are dependent on the conclusion to be true..

I believe I don't know why this would be called circular. It is always true that the truth of the premise will determine the truth of the conclusion. A false premise can't produce a true conclusion. An unproven premise is not necessarily false unless one can prove it is.

He pretty much wrote that the essence of true religion according to a Christian perspective points to the New Testament which is Christianity or back to a Christian perspective.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe I meant what I said.

Yes believing and knowing are not the same.

 

[metis]

I believe that is only half true. God is a born again Christian. Other Christians are not God.

Well, that the above makes it quite clear why we don't agree on much of anything in the theistic arena. The idea that God is a Christian, or is of any other religion, is totally antithetical to me.

 

[Hawkins]

Flat out wrong.


And?
There are numerous cases where people die for what they believe.
It in no way indicates that what they believe is true.
ONLY that they were willing to die for their beliefs.


Oh the irony...

You can't even name an example in human history that who is willing to die for a lie made up by himself. Enough said.

Name one! seriously.

On the other hand, it remains a willful stupidity to choose to ignore a message brought by those who martyred themselves for what is witnessed.

 

[McBell]

You can't even name an example in human history that who is willing to die for a lie made up by himself. Enough said.

Name one! seriously.

If you say so.

On the other hand, it remains a willful stupidity to choose to ignore a message brought by those who martyred themselves for what is witnessed.

Appeal to numbers fallacy only works with the choir.
Thus the reason you are not getting any where with it.

 

[McBell]

That remains your own stupid speculation that someone will have to die for a story made up by himself.

That is your strawman.
Which is another fallacy.

At least you are consistent

 

[Hawkins]

That is your strawman.
Which is another fallacy.

At least you are consistent

You are dodging by such an assertion without any argument.

Again, name one human in history who died for his own made up lies. And don't dodge!

As a human nature, no one is willing to die for a lie made up by himself. So you need to pay attention if someone is willing to die for what is witnessed. As simple as that!

 

[McBell]

You are dodging by such an assertion without any argument.

Again, name one human in history who died for his own made up lies. And don't dodge!

As a human nature, no one is willing to die for a lie made up by himself. So you need to pay attention if someone is willing to die for what is witnessed. As simple as that!

Six years ago my niece committed suicide over a guy because according to her her loved her, was her soul mate, etc.
Even after him telling her numerous times he did not like her.
She lied herself into suicide.

Now, are you done moving the goal posts, which is yet another fallacy?

 

[Hawkins]

Six years ago my niece committed suicide over a guy because according to her her loved her, was her soul mate, etc.
Even after him telling her numerous times he did not like her.
She lied herself into suicide.

Now, are you done moving the goal posts, which is yet another fallacy?

That's not because she lied, that's more because she's in blind love with someone else. In nature, that has nothing to do with the true or false of human witnessing.

In a nutshell, it's against human nature to claim to have witnessed something then to die for it if it's a lie.

 

[McBell]

That's not because she lied, that's more because she's in blind love with someone else. In nature, that has nothing to do with the true or false of human witnessing.

In a nutshell, it's against human nature to claim to have witnessed something then to die for it if it's a lie.

Moving the goal posts does not help you.

 

[Scott C.]

For me there is no such thing as a true religion, that is a truly sick idea, true religion is only found within each one of us, anything more is nothing more than the egocentric belief that you are right and the rest are wrong.

I agree that people can be arrogant with a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. But there are concepts which are either true or false. And if they're true for one person, they're true for all people. Is there life after death? Did we live before we were born? Is there a God? Is God, the God of Abraham? Is Jesus Christ the Savior of the world? Is there reincarnation? Did God or god(s) create the earth? Does Poseidon have dominion over the oceans? People may ignore these questions or not care or they may come to their own conclusions. Once you come to your conclusions, then you must believe you are right. And that makes others wrong. One might say "I think I'm right, and if I'm right, you must be wrong", which may sound more humble. I don't think the issue of being egocentric lies in whether or not one thinks he knows the truth. Rather it lies in personal attitudes towards oneself and towards others.

 

[Shad]

Moving the goal posts does not help you.

That's not because she lied, that's more because she's in blind love with someone else. In nature, that has nothing to do with the true or false of human witnessing.

In a nutshell, it's against human nature to claim to have witnessed something then to die for it if it's a lie.

You both are looking at the lie and the belief in it differently. The key parameter is that the person in question knows there is a lie, they are speaking a lie, defending a lie. This is different than believing in a lie as a truth as the person in question does not know about or does not acknowledge the lie. The niece example is that of a delusion in which a lie is still seen as a truth. All information with shows the "truth" is a lie is discarded for one reason or another.

 

[McBell]

You both are looking at the lie and the belief in it differently. The key parameter is that the person in question knows there is a lie, they are speaking a lie, defending a lie. This is different than believing in a lie as a truth as the person in question does not know about or does not acknowledge the lie. The niece example is that of a delusion in which a lie is still sense as a truth.

The whole point being she killed herself over her own lies.
Something which was declared never happens.
Well, before all the goal post moving anyway.

 

[Shad]

The whole point being she killed herself over her own lies.
Something which was declared never happens.
Well, before all the goal post moving anyway.

Did she acknowledge her belief was false, a lie? This is the only parameter which makes or breaks your argument. After all it is her perspective which matters not the objective evaluation from an outside entity.

If dying for a falsehood, but not an acknowledged one by the individual, then history is full of people dying for causes that were nothing better than petty ambitions of Kings and other leaders. Every pagan killed for refusing to convert died for a lie.

 

[McBell]

Did she acknowledge her belief was false, a lie? This is the only parameter which makes or breaks your argument. After all it is her perspective which matters not the objective evaluation from an outside entity.

Not admitting to a lie does not make a lie suddenly not a lie.
Ignoring a lie does not make a lie suddenly not a lie.
otherwise politicians never lie.

 

[Shad]

Not admitting to a lie does not make a lie suddenly not a lie.
Ignoring a lie does not make a lie suddenly not a lie.
otherwise politicians never lie.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but the two arguments are based on two different perspectives in which what is considered a truth and a lie differ along with acknowledgement of the lie by the individual. Hence delusions which cause people unable to recognize reality from the imagination.

Like I asked. Did she acknowledge her belief was a lie or did she die for something she thought of as true. This key difference matters in regards to one's acts.

 

[psychoslice]

That remains your own stupid speculation that someone will have to die for a story made up by himself.

Yes and that is all it is, a story, a story that so many are condtioned to believe in, and even to die for.

 

[psychoslice]

I agree that people can be arrogant with a "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. But there are concepts which are either true or false. And if they're true for one person, they're true for all people. Is there life after death? Did we live before we were born? Is there a God? Is God, the God of Abraham? Is Jesus Christ the Savior of the world? Is there reincarnation? Did God or god(s) create the earth? Does Poseidon have dominion over the oceans? People may ignore these questions or not care or they may come to their own conclusions. Once you come to your conclusions, then you must believe you are right. And that makes others wrong. One might say "I think I'm right, and if I'm right, you must be wrong", which may sound more humble. I don't think the issue of being egocentric lies in whether or not one thinks he knows the truth. Rather it lies in personal attitudes towards oneself and towards others.

Yes but believing your right doesn't make it right, no matter how much you believe your right, its best to say you feel it is right, that leaves it open just in case you wrong, which there is a good chance that you are wrong.