The Essence Of True Religion: A Christian Perspective.

[Scott C.]

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.

I agree. I feel strongly about what I believe, but I try not to sound like I think I'm the "fountain of all truth" when I talk to people.

 

[psychoslice]

I agree. I feel strongly about what I believe, but I try not to sound like I think I'm the "fountain of all truth" when I talk to people.

Yes I also do that, I think its the ego that clings onto whatever gives it power, and many believe that knowledge is power, no matter where that knowledge comes from.

 

[Scott C.]

Yes I also do that, I think its the ego that clings onto whatever gives it power, and many believe that knowledge is power, no matter where that knowledge comes from.

I'm pretty simple. I want to know the truth and follow it. If I think it will help others and if they're interested, I want to share it. If I were wrong about things I believe, I would want to know it and change course.

 

[Scott C.]

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.

I agree. But a willingness to die for one's beliefs is a strong indicator of one's sincerity and conviction. It suggests the person is not a fraud.

 

[Hawkins]

I agree. But a willingness to die for one's beliefs is a strong indicator of one's sincerity and conviction. It suggests the person is not a fraud.

Gee. Do people notice the difference between dying for a belief and dying for what has been witnessed.

It is usually for, say, me to die for Christianity as my belief. It is against human nature if didn't see the deeds of Jesus but lie to claim so then to die for the claim. It's not about a belief. It's about those who witnesses who Jesus is then chose to die for what they had witnessed. It's not a belief, it's direct eye witnessing!!!

 

[Hawkins]

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.
.

Can you even tell the difference between dying for a belief from dying for a eye witnessing, before we proceed?

It is very common for people for what they belief, they not dying for their own lies. You may say he's dying for someone else's lie though. Dying for one's own lie means that one deliberately lies about an eye witnessing then to die for his own false claim. A belief is not one's own false claim. It can be a mistrust though.

Dying for own lie is different from dying for one's belief. Let me know at the time when you can distinguish between the two. If you can't even tell the simplest difference then there's nothing that you can comprehend correctly.


1) you tell a lie, i.e., that you mother is a male, then decided to die for this lie

2) you pick a religion then die for your belief of this religion


None can help if you can't tell the difference between the 2.

 

[Scott C.]

Gee. Do people notice the difference between dying for a belief and dying for what has been witnessed.

It is usually for, say, me to die for Christianity as my belief. It is against human nature if didn't see the deeds of Jesus but lie to claim so then to die for the claim. It's not about a belief. It's about those who witnesses who Jesus is then chose to die for what they had witnessed. It's not a belief, it's direct eye witnessing!!!

I agree that there are eye witnesses of Jesus, his works, and his resurrection. Some of them have died for their faith and knowledge. Not all believers have the same degree of knowledge, but nevertheless are willing to die for that faith. My point was not that the apostles, for example, only believed. My point was simply that whether or not one accepts a believer's testimony, the fact that that believer gave up his life, should give evidence that he at least believed.

 

[McBell]

Can you even tell the difference between dying for a belief from dying for a eye witnessing, before we proceed?

It is very common for people for what they belief, they not dying for their own lies. You may say he's dying for someone else's lie though. Dying for one's own lie means that one deliberately lies about an eye witnessing then to die for his own false claim. A belief is not one's own false claim. It can be a mistrust though.

Dying for own lie is different from dying for one's belief. Let me know at the time when you can distinguish between the two. If you can't even tell the simplest difference then there's nothing that you can comprehend correctly.


1) you tell a lie, i.e., that you mother is a male, then decided to die for this lie

2) you pick a religion then die for your belief of this religion


None can help if you can't tell the difference between the 2.

There is a big difference between the above and your original people do not die for lies post.

None can help if you can't tell the difference between the two.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe if you have a thesis that opposes God's thesis that yours is false and God's is true.I believe the proof isin the pudding and the proof of what I said is me.

 

[Muffled]

Yes believing and knowing are not the same.

I believe it depends on what it is. In many cases for me it is the same thing.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I don't agree that the NT, Christianity and christian perspectives are the same. I think saying that a religion that seeks truth is a true religion is like saying it is a duck because it quacks or a runner because he runs. One might say it is by definition that a runner runs and a duck quacks but is a religion true simply because it seeks truth? I believe Buddhism is a false religion but it seeks truth.

My believe is a religion is true if it portrays truth. (This is the definition thing again like a runner runs)

 

[metis]

I believe if you have a thesis that opposes God's thesis that yours is false and God's is true.I believe the proof isin the pudding and the proof of what I said is me.

Isn't it rather egotistical to refer to yourself as "proof"?

And how is it that you supposedly know God whereas you can somehow claim to know exactly what He is and wants?

And finally, how is it that you know that my approach is "false"? Can you provide one shred of objective evidence that I'm wrong?

 

[roger1440]

True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.

John Shelby Spong

Read more at: http://www.azquotes.com/quote/891236

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The point is very simple indeed. Without love life is nothing. Even beasts do love. Thus the point is valid.

Generosity is also a great point. It's simple to understand. Give and take. If you don't give then immediately you loose the inherent right to take.

Therefore both are valid.

It is also valid to point out that "even beasts" have love and generosity. Clearly, a particular religion is largely unnecessary.

Truth can only be accessed through the true religion. Truthful persons have truth. How can you say that there is no truth in religions?

Having come from Christianity, I can say there is no such thing as a "true religion". There is Truth and how we react to it. Many religions, including Christianity, have been used for good and evil.

If you love the people of god people love you back. Similarly if you are generous with the people then people will be generous with you. It's like give and take. A kind of reflection of the self.

But the "True Religion" of Christianity was quite clear you are to have NO desire for compensation, physical or spiritual. Even thinking charity will get you into heaven will negate it, since in that blog it is noted, "they already have their reward". Naturally, of course good and evil have consequences and those can't be avoided. You just aren't supposed to want them.

No one dies for his own lies. 10 out of 12 disciples died for what they claimed.

No one dies for lies they have not come to accept as truth.

Plenty of people have died for things that simply aren't the case.

As a matter of fact, humans lost all the documents written first-handedly in ancient scrolls for history older than 2000 years.

What? We have lots of documentation from all over the globe that are waaaaaaay older than 2000 years (I mean, not trying to nitpick, but as it is 2016, that means the BCE era didn't exist either, nor the first 16 years of Jesus' supposed existence, LOL).

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

Not only Judaism predates Christianity but so do many other religions as well. Do they get points for that?

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.

I seem to recall Jesus died because witnesses lied. So, technically, Jesus died for a lie...

I mean, there are many Christians who died for the CSA, believing with all their little Jesus-infused hearts that blacks were beasts (though that didn't stop them from having sex with them) and deserved slavery and death. THEY died for lies...

One of those Bundy terrorists just died in Oregon for a lie.

It happens. *shrugs*

Did she acknowledge her belief was false, a lie?

It sounds like she believed he loved her. If that were true, she wouldn't kill herself. Her despair came from admitting to herself it was not true.

And I am sorry that happened, by the way. I'm surprised I'm an adult, since my childhood was peppered with desires to die.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE="metis, post: 4680589, member: 47735"]Isn't it rather egotistical to refer to yourself as "proof"?

And how is it that you supposedly know God whereas you can somehow claim to know exactly what He is and wants?

And finally, how is it that you know that my approach is "false"? Can you provide one shred of objective evidence that I'm wrong?[/QUOTE]

I believe my ego was not involved. I believe God testifies in me.

I believe He promised it and fulfilled that promise.

I believe I know it by the Word of God and by what He says to me. What is your thesis based upon?

 

[metis]

[QUOTE="metis, post: 4680589, member: 47735"]Isn't it rather egotistical to refer to yourself as "proof"?

And how is it that you supposedly know God whereas you can somehow claim to know exactly what He is and wants?

And finally, how is it that you know that my approach is "false"? Can you provide one shred of objective evidence that I'm wrong?

I believe my ego was not involved. I believe God testifies in me.

I believe He promised it and fulfilled that promise.

I believe I know it by the Word of God and by what He says to me. What is your thesis based upon?[/QUOTE]
So, you regard yourself basically as a prophet. I get it-- just don't believe it.

My "thesis" is to be as objective as possible in this arena and not be so willing to jump to conclusions based on flimsy or even non-existent "evidence". I don't have a problem when a person says something like "I believe God is ...", but I have problems with those who write "God is ...", thus conflating their subjective belief with objective evidence.

 

[Hawkins]

I seem to recall Jesus died because witnesses lied.

Show us logically how you can get to this conclusion. It's rather your own baseless assertion. You may not be able to tell the difference between a logical statement and an assertion though.