Jiddanand
Active Member
I do understand that.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Essence Of True Religion: A Christian Perspective.
- Thread starter Jiddanand
- Start date
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well, its simple not being controlled by anyone not matter who, and no matter what they believe.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I can start with the first paragraph. Jesus did not use the term true religion. He used the term pure religion.
I believe it is possible for God to decide that purity is not necessary in some cases, so the two are not necessarily equivalent. For instance God ordered Hosea to marry a prostitute. That was an impure relationship.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe in true relgion and that you don't have it. I consider myself healthy and humble in this assertion. I believe God is right and everyone else is wrong.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Jesus says that those who do good but don't know Him as Lord will go to Hell.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well that's your opinion, not mine, and I prefer my own opinion thanks very much.
outhouse
Atheistically
Religion factually is not required to love or be loved.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
No, that's not the essence. These are characteristics of God. He is kind and loving and He wants/expects His followers to be the same, that why it comes out in scripture. But the essence of Christianity is not secular, it's being right with God and being in a relationship with Him. Everything else flows from that.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I don't believe I am stating opinions but the Word of God as He gives it to me to say.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe love is not the essence but is as you say but identifying a disciple requires it:
Joh 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
You mean you are just parroting what you read in a book, a book that cannot be relied on, a book that is just hearsay.
No one dies for his own lies. 10 out of 12 disciples died for what they claimed.
You don't know what you are talking about. That's the situation.
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!
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!
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
That's redundant That's like saying, "a runner is one who runs".
roger1440
I do stuff
Circular reasoning
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
psychoslice
Veteran Member
There not lies, there stories, and why die over a story ?.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I meant what I said.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is only half true. God is a born again Christian. Other Christians are not God.
Muffled
Jesus in me
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.