1robin
Christian/Baptist
If you end your statement by saying you don't know anything about what you stated then why state it?
-
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 right religion
- Thread starter islam abduallah
- Start date
If you end your statement by saying you don't know anything about what you stated then why state it?
waitasec
Veteran Member
to make a point....one that is over your head apparently
You seem to be equivocating here between contact between God and man and a religion offering supernatural experiences. God is the one who offers Himself in relationship with man; religion, imo, is just a man-made system insinuating itself between God and man as though one couldnt possibly have a relationship with God without it. Whether its classified as a trippy supernatural experience or just a day-to-day mellow peace that passes all understanding doesnt really matter. What matters is having that one-on-one relationship with the Lord.
In your opinion. And of course, truth is defined differently by different people, depending on what their religion has indoctrinated them to believe.
I think this sort of unease might be due to something akin to lack of faith in what Jesus was advertised as having done to save every soul. I know -- I was there once myself. As long as the person believes theres this eternal torture chamber awaiting the unwashed/unsaved masses upon death, theyll behave as though Jesuss sacrifice never happened, behaving as though their audience's salvation depends instead on how effective their approach to apologetics is.
I dont see that as being the case at all. If anything, its Christianity which offers salvation only to the privileged few and eternal hell to the majority.
And in any case, while institutionalized religion might insist on being the Dispenser of God and/or religious experiences (both of which are for God -- not the religion -- to dispense) to only the qualified few, I have had no problem bypassing such authoritarianism and having a relationship with God independently. It has worked out quite well, sometimes to the consternation of the 'proper' orthodox types who thought they had to jump through the ritualistic hoops enforced on them by their religious leaders.
When it comes to institutionalized religion, I think it's all about controlling the masses, not facilitating an intimate relationship with the Divine.
Again, though I agree may be the case in some instances, Christianity (with the exception of Christian Universalism) makes up for this by offering heaven to only some people who meet their criteria for salvation. At least there are some religions which dont doom people to an eternity in a fiery hell for basically not coloring inside their preferred lines.
In my opinion, religion has no business offering anything in the name of God. God Himself is perfectly capable of doing that. Otherwise, adherents can end up looking to religion rather than to God.
Oh I realize it quite well, having seen this with Christianity.
Im sure there are some from both camps who would strongly disagree that theyre the same.
The Hinduism DIR has people who are far more qualified than I to enlighten you on that subject. I found out relatively early on that I would be as much of a heretic in that religion as I ended up being in Christianity.
Please bear in mind, however, that its a DIR, and as such, you will not be able to debate there, only gather information. :yes:
Muffled
Jesus in me
Guesses are like wishes. They aren't necessarily a reflection of reality.
There is Paul who prayed several times to have a thorn in the flesh removed to no avail. However Paul fulfilled what God did provide for him and Paul considered it worth it.
Fulfillment is most likely an unrealistic expectation. Personally I did not receive Jesus as Savior to get fulfilled. I received exactly what I was looking for, a higher power to save me from sin.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Christianity is the only one of the three in which God continues to make commands.
waitasec
Veteran Member
:spit:
the irony
then paul was an idiot.
the fact that you were looking for something
was fulfilled once it was received
fail.
waitasec
Veteran Member
what truth...
what goes up must come down?
for every action there is a reaction?
laws of motion?
Gui10
Active Member
I still answered the question by giving my opinion, unlike you.
And the question is wrong to begin with, there is no ''right'' religion.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Is it worth while to say you don't know anything unless you actually want answers. It is correct you do no not know but that didn't stop you from saying there is no right religion. Two contradictory statements. Even if you choose not to decide you have still made a choice - Rush, There is no hero in neutrality - Rush.
Whether or not that is true is not something you do or can't know. The fact you claim it to be the case anyway is intellectually dishonest. It makes perfect thologic and philosophic sence that there only be one true religion. It violates philosophy and reason to think they are all the same. When the greatest mind in human history (Simon Greenleaf) on the subject of evidence says the bible meets every standard of modern law then to wager your soul on a non choice is an unwise act.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Not exactly, As I said I was comparing or contrasting two different types of promises or concepts. In Christianity the promise is for everyone who believes, In Hinduism it seems to be only available to a select few who must earn it or attain some rare state of enlightenment. In Christianity it is the introduction to the faith, In Hinduism you must believe and then work your way to God. In Christianity the character of the experience is very well understood, In hinduism it seems vague. In Christianity the road map to that experience is described in detail, In hiduism it is couched in a strange flowery philisophic prose that isn't very clear. In Christianity the effects and cause of the experience make theological sence and have suffecient justification, In Hinduism the cause is vague and the effects strain even theological reason. ETC....... I do not say this to offend but Hinduism has the hall marks of false religion and false prophets like Nastradamus or Zoraster. Vagueness, insuffecient justification, works based aquisition, very selective criteria. Christianity bears the hallmarks of authenticity. Adequate justification, explanitory power, availability to all without works or merit, specificity, and a detailed and consistent description.
I do not like man made religion either, which is why I spend so much time separateing it from true religion.
The purposes of the experience dictate that it be undeniably supernatural. If it can be mistaken for what the world offers then it does not perform it's function. Much of my faith is derived from the unmistakable character of my born again experience.
Truth exists independant of our belief in it. I usually don't say the bibles supernatural claims are verifiable fact but they get closer than any other religion in every meaningfull category. The disciplines of science and philosophy are built around the idea that truth is absolute and can be known in many cases.
So if anyone defends their religion then they must be insecure about it. Strange conclusion. The bible says to be ready to give the REASONS for our faith at all times.
I think you forgot a word or two here somewhere. Your conclusion is not implied by your premise. The fact that you do not like something does not mean it isn't true. However there is a well supported and believed interpretation of hell that states it is ultimate anihilation not perpetual torture.
It is offered to every single person who ever lived. It is our hearts and minds that make the ones who get to heaven a minority. The bible says many times that God wishes that not a single person be lost.
That is as inclusive as it gets.
There is no such thing as being qualified for God or heaven in Christianity. Salvation is not a reward it is a gift available to all.
I hate man made tradition and ritual and it played no part in my salvation nor any one elses. I wasn't even in a church. Christ's promise is offered equally to the pygmy in the African bush as it is for the pope. In fact IMO Christianity has done more to bring divine truth to the pygmys, eskimos, and even Godless natives etc... around the world than any other religion by far.
There definately has been too much of that but there is also much of the exact opposite. The fact that someone abused X does not mean that X is wrong or bad.
The bible states that you are not deprived of Heaven because you did not follow a bunch of rules, but because you denied the truth and trampled underfoot the God who died on a cross for you. Hell as I have said is probably not what the Catholic's turned it into to scare everyone into churches. I do not know where you got your theology but there is no criteria for salvation other than belief in the qualification God provided himself. I think you are confusing church imperfection with Christ and our relationship to him. The catholics didn't do this to you did they?
You seem to put all "religion" in one bag and throw it away with the good parts as well. There is quite a bit of true and authentic religion that should be evaluated seperate from man made religous posturing. For example organised religion has generated billions to help the poor and unfortunate, has built countless hospitals, and people like Billy Graham have preached the Gospel where no man without an organisation could have.
In a system where every actual follower has had the experience I am discussing, to claim that you have found Christians who only know someone who had the experience but haven't themselves is impossible. That is like saying you know swimmers who have never been wet. Either they are not swimmers or they have been wet, there is no other possability.Oh I realize it quite well, having seen this with Christianity.
They are not identicle they are from the same God. Whether a person believes something or not has no connection to whether it is true. The bible says let every man be found a liar yet the truth of God remains.Im sure there are some from both camps who would strongly disagree that theyre the same.
I never learn or almost never learn from anyone who is not subject to real time scrutiny, that is why I like debates so well.
No offense taken; its totally natural that you, as a Christian, would feel the way you do about other religions. Its human nature -- people generally dont adopt a belief system that they think isnt somehow valid. Meanwhile, Im sure similar things are said about Christianity. Go figure.
Lets put my statement about lack of faith in its original context:
You had said,
In a wager that involves the soul every effort must be made to arrive at pure uncontaminated truth (or as close as posible) and eliminate things that masqerade as truth.
To which I responded,
I think this sort of unease might be due to something akin to lack of faith in what Jesus was advertised as having done to save every soul. I know -- I was there once myself. As long as the person believes theres this eternal torture chamber awaiting the unwashed/unsaved masses upon death, theyll behave as though Jesuss sacrifice never happened, behaving as though their audience's salvation depends instead on how effective their approach to apologetics is.
This wager for souls you mention is what makes it sound as though Jesuss sacrifice never happened, and shows a lack of faith that his sacrifice has done the saving work already, so souls would not be in any danger.
Not if ones god is Omnipotent, it isnt.
Christianity makes God look like Hes passively gazing out the window, helplessly wishing everyone could be saved like one would wish the rain would stop so the sun can come out. Your bible says that God will have all be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Your bible also says that God will do all His desire. This isnt passive wishing on a star this is proactive willing unto accomplishing mankinds redemption (assuming it was ever even needed in the first place).
And by the way, youre doing the very thing that you say other religions do by saying the above. You said that in Hinduism the promise is only available to a select few who must earn it or attain some rare state of enlightenment. How is this different from Christianity? You yourself said its peoples hearts and minds that make the ones who get to heaven a minority. Whatever the cause, in the end only special few get in, based on something they have to do/believe.
On top of that, Christians seem to insult what Jesus went through on the cross by saying its just an offer of salvation. I would think that after all God put Jesus through on mankinds behalf, He would not settle for even one soul being left behind. People generally expect to get what they pay for, especially if the price they pay is high. I would think that God is no different, especially given the price He allegedly paid!
All who believe first. Thats not a gift, thats an ultimatum. Believe or else.
Of course you believe that, youre a Christian!
In my view, theres no such thing as a Godless anyone. God permeates everyone and everything (omnipresence). What Christianity does is bring their perspective on divine truth to the pygmies, Eskimos, natives, etc.
Still, theres something you either have to do, or have to avoid doing in order to obtain salvation. Ultimately, the savior is oneself, based on ones own response (works). Again, this is no different from what you say other religions do.
Catholics, Protestants, non-denominationals, you name it. God is so much bigger and better than anything Christianity has been able to present to me. At least the Catholics have purgatory as an alternative for those who dont quite qualify for heaven; non-catholic Christianity tosses em straight into hell.
Charity can be accomplished apart from religion. The two dont necessarily have to go hand in hand. Religion has done good things and not so good things. If the good is reason enough to submit to a religion, the bad is reason enough to avoid it.
Just like you said with Hinduism, the promise is only available to a select few who must earn it or attain some rare state of enlightenment in other words, actual followers. In Christianitys case, the experience granted to actual followers is salvation itself.
There is a segment of Christianity that puts a lot of weight on other experiences (Charismatic Christianity), like being slain in the Spirit, speaking in tongues, holy laughter, etc., but then it becomes experience-driven. Believe it or not, some even say that if one doesnt speak in tongues, theyre not saved.
Kind of like what I said regarding the Gita and the Bible being similar, but not identical.
Technically, everything is from the same God. Nothing exists apart from Him.
Very true. Good to keep in mind, eh?
I know it can be a real challenge to simply listen and not argue against things with which one doesnt agree. I dont hang out in the DIRs much myself, unless Im genuinely curious to learn something new. This is also why I dont join a religion too much real time scrutiny gets one labeled a heretic, or worse.
Gui10
Active Member
If you would learn to read between the lines, you would notice that my first answer is identical to my second.
Secondly, IF A CREATING GOD DOES EXIST, then you are right, it is completely logical that there is ONE true religion. However, that claim has yet to be demonstrated truthful.
EDIT: Actually, after further thoughts, even if there IS a god, that god might of never ever sent anybody on earth, maybe he just created us and hasn't been implicated in ANY affairs ever, so it could also be true that there is absolutely no true religion even if there is a god.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
You are quite right bias is a very powerful force that is why I have spent so much time separating truth from stuff that looks like truth. I have never been able to completely rid myself of bias but most people do not even try or are even aware of it. I am more loyal to truth than God. It just so happens they are the same thing.No offense taken; it’s totally natural that you, as a Christian, would feel the way you do about other religions. It’s human nature -- people generally don’t adopt a belief system that they think isn’t somehow valid. Meanwhile, I’m sure similar things are said about Christianity. Go figure.
I do not quite follow. You seem to have the impression that because the work is done every one is good to go. That is not the case. The work Christ did is not applied to your account and life until you believe in Christ's payment on your behalf and become born again. That event is based on recognition of truth and so if truth can't be recognized then salvation will not be effected. Hence truth must been found and the path to it laid out. It is not what Christ did that is the fretful issue it is whether someone can recognize that diamond of truth in a field of lies.
This is a claim made many times and deals with things beyond the ability of humans to meaningfully understand. Knowing something in advance does not effect the use of free will. However this is something that is not completely understandable. I keep getting the impression you believe in some kind of every one is saved universal Christianity. Is that what you believe?
Hinduism requires someone to struggle up to some vague ephemeral level of enlightenment (whatever that means) on their own and then God will deem him worthy to associate with. The only condition in Christianity is to believe the truth. There is no other qualification possible that is less rigorous than this. It is the minimum. Since we are born separated from God Christ did all the necessary work to re-establish that relationship all we have to do is believe that. It doesn't get any more minimal. However as our hearts are so corrupt and resist accountability to such an extent that we usually are not willing to even do that minimal task. It is pointless to add more and more demands on top of one that causes most to stumble.
Are you familiar with the philosopher Ravi Zacharias? He was born into Hinduism and his parents were Hindu priests. At that time the porteguese Catholic missionaries were in India. They were admittedly far too forcefull but the Hindu - Indian caste system was so hated that the lower classes were very open minded and hungry for change. His parents both converted and that shocked him so bad he tried to commit suicide. As he lay on his bed dieing his mother said she heard a voice that told here to read John. He said from the first word his condition reversed its self and eventually he was well. He then came to the U.S. got about 4 degrees in philosophy and divinity and comforted the troops in Vietnam. He since then has gotten like 6 honorary doctorates and has councelled Russian generals behind the iron curtain, presidents of many countries, the U.N. several times, and speaks at the greatest universities in the world. He is known as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He is a good source on Hinduism and oriental philosophy and very competently explains the contradictions and impossabilities involved with the texts. I would recommend him above any other as he is the kindest man I have ever seen. Virtually no one doubts his sincerety and knowledge.
This will have to be split into two posts.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Ok I guess it's official you believe in universalism. That is not biblical (that doesn't make it false alone). There are simply countless verses that show this idea is wishfull thinking. "Any man who knocks - implies not all knock". "Any one who diligently seeks me - implies that all do so". The fact the bible warns over and over again against going to hell (whatever hell may be), the fact that Jesus said specifically to even a good priest like Nicodemus that he had to believe in order to receive, as well as the parables of Lazarus being in hell and clear claims in revelations that many will be in outer darkness, plus a thousand others all make universalism an unbiblical concept. I wish it were true but I do not decide what is true by choosing what I like.
Or else you get exactly what you wanted - no God. Hell is said to be many things. The one that is most consistent is that it is eternal separation from God and eventual annihilation of the soul. That is exactly what non believers chose and I do not see giving them what they chose as qualifying as an ultimatum. Do what is right or get what you want is not much of a threat. I will admit that other more terrible versions of hell are widely expounded in but I can't defend what I do not believe in.
Your inclusive position is inconsistent with just about every religion I know of. Why did Christ go through all that trouble if everyone was good to go to begin with. Why is hell and other forms of negative consequences warned of in all major religions? I just do not agree with universalism and believe it has very little justification. I don't believe things because I am a Christian. I am a Christian because I believed them.
You have gone from universalism to Gnosticism. A faulty creature has nothing to offer to assuage guilt that is why a perfect sacrifice was necessary. Any God that would just dismiss someone who committed terrible acts like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot without some measure of recognition of guilt and payment for those acts is immoral and unjust besides being incoherent. You no doubt will reply that Christianity does offers a get out of hell free card but that is not actually the case. A person must recognize his sins in all their terror and admit he has betrayed God and is as responsible for killing Christ as the Romans. If done he will be born again with a new heart and the old person no longer exists in God's eyes. The payment has been made, justice satisfied, retribution taken and God says he is a new man and the old man is destroyed. You will probably not like this solution but like it or not it is the only one that sufficiently satisfies perfect justice and perfect love.
The Catholics have many things they made up to attract people to fill the coffers. You seem to be insinuating that I as a Christian determine what will happen. I do not decide that and I believe whatever I determine the truth is whether I like it or not. If there was a button I could push by which the absolute truth would be revealed and I was told that it would reveal Christianity to be wrong I would still push it. Even if Islam or Satanism was the truth I would acknowledge it as such. However I would not follow them, but I would not claim it to be false to justify my not following it.What you wish was true seems to creep into all of your statements.
Of course it can, I never said otherwise. However Western Christian societies give far more to aid other people than any of the Eastern non-Christian countries. In fact the most Christian country (The U. S.) is usually the first on the scene to help those Eastern countries. Charity can be done by anyone but it can't be sufficiently justified or promoted without God. There is standard that makes giving good in atheistic society beyond an opinion. To make charity have actual meaning and purpose some objective standard must be assumed. In fact evolution would make charity and keeping people who are not beneficial to society alive un desirable.
That is incorrect. Being saved is what makes you a follower. In other words a Christians works are done in gratitude for salvation not to earn it. We don't adopt Christianity then go find God. I believe you are starting to see the difference between the two faiths and to avoid the implications you are seeking to make them similar. Christ did all the work because we could not. That is why no action other than to believe (which is not an action as we think of the term) will get us any closer to heaven. If it could then when we got there we should not be thankful but proud as to what we have done. Christianity's system removes pride, position, or merit from the equation. Hinduism makes very stark claims that concern position, in fact that has led to one of the most extreme and unjust caste systems in the world. There is no comparison.
There is no issue here. These things are promised in the bible and are very conditional. These issues or gifts are secondary and have nothing to do with getting to heaven. Your last statement is a very minor belief based on the misinterpretation of one verse taken out of context and is spawned by elitism that can't be found in the bible. Peoples pride causes them to think they have earned something they didn't. It is also so contrary to the way the world works that thinking we are justified by the acts of another is counterintuitive it must be resisted with discipline. No matter what extreme minority you find that does this or that, unless the bible makes the practice clear then it has no effect on the evaluation of the religion. As bad as Islam is I do not fault it too much for 911. You would not accept responsibility for a Hindu that killed a bunch of people in the name of one of the 130 million Gods that India worships.
Jesus taught that there are many mansions in the house of His Father. My understanding is there are various rooms within the Father's house that are more appropriate for some than for others. So, this question really would be difficult to address because not everyone is well suited for every room in the Father's mansion. There is only so much soul development we can accomplish in a lifetime under typical conditions. We all have an eternity of eternities to explore the many mansions and the many rooms within the mansions of the Father. So, how about you open up the question with a bit more context so that more precise and qualified answers can be given?there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Not even close to the same. In fact we accept the Hebrew OT as a whole and believe in all parts not known to have scribal errors. They are so interconnected that the OT predicts thousands of things that are fulfilled in the NT. They according to Christians are equally valid and true and really just part of a larger whole that has seamless consistency. If you try and combine the bible and the Gita it would be necessary to chunk large parts of both in order to arrive at a consistent whole. They make opposite and exclusive claims. Jesus said he is the only way to the father "there is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved" and the bible says there is only one God. Hinduism's Gods are hard to even keep up with. Hinduism and Christianity are either from two different sources or that common source was a schizophrenic self contradictory God who didn't care enough to give consistent revelation. Oriental pluralism is not possible given the religious texts that exist..
That is a very simple explanation for a very complicated subject. God may have created the poppy plant but it was not his will that thousands shot heroine in the arms until they die. God may have made men but he did not intend them to reject him and make up false religions as a substitute. There is another player here who makes what we see every day come into focus. Satan copies, perverts, and blinds in order to distract men from God and Godly purposes. Does Hinduism have an equivalent source for the evil that exists?
Right O
It is not the purpose to argue but I have seen so many things given as truth that turned out to be garbage if actually cross examined by a competent person. I do listen to one sided arguments from time to time but I profit from them far less than the ones where there is debate and cross examination. Any one very committed to separating truth from false claims would feel similar or understand the concept. There have been far more Heretics who should have been identified as such than non-heretics that were wrongfully labeled. The distortion of truth is about the most evil action possible. That is why Christ called Satan the father of lies. Mark Twain said a lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can get it's pants on. Satan lied to Eve in the garden by telling here "Did God really say????". That is the question when the bible is read, "Did God really say all that stuff in there" Everything rides on the answer.
Sorry this was so long I lost control of it there for a bit.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
What does this mean?
You are correct the Bible's supernatural claims are not known facts however let's see what the great experts on evidence have to say about it:
Greenleaf produced a famous work entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence which "is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure."
The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling errors that can be represented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths, their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Saviour and REdeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."
Armand Nicholi, of Harvard Medical School, speaks of J. N. D. Anderson as "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London." This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
There are a thousand plus more statements at that site and others, made by not just competant but supurbe scholars on the subject of evidence that leave little doubt that there is no suffecient reason by which the Bible may be dismissed or viewed as anything but reliable. There is in addition 25,000 historical corroberations, 2000 plus detailed prophecies that were fulfilled, philisophic consistency, explanitory power and scope, as well as correct sceintific claims made before they could have been known that testify to the reliability of the bible.
Well you have described a schizophrenic and contradictory God who does not deserve a religion. Why would any God balance the values of the universe on a knife's edge to permit life, go through all the trouble of creating the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe (the human brain) just to ignore us for eternity? The premise does not support the conclusion. Non evidence based speculation and guessing is hardly a worth while pursuit. It is far more productive to deal with what we have and can evaluate meaningfully. A good start would be the big three Abrahamic religions. If you are like me and find that the Bible leads you to a point where you have an experience with God then it will not be necessary to continue stumbling around in the dark guessing at things.
Last edited:
waitasec
Veteran Member
when someone says they don't know...they know they don't know
i don't expect you to understand since you know everything as you know a god that is supposed to be everyones god
1robin
Christian/Baptist
There is no rational basis for this interpretation. The bible where these verses are certainly does not teach this. In fact Jesus said he was the only way to the father. He said any one who tried to get in another way (a false religion) would be a robber and a thief and suffer as such. Christianity right or wrong as with most other religions are mutually exclusive and any claim that they are all valid is philisophically impossible. Unless you think God is malevolent enough to hide bits of contradictory truths in many different mountains of garbage then reason dictates that one religion would be true and all others false.