the right religion

[Ingledsva]

Just like Islam has billions of people who will testify that they have experienced god personally. All religions make that same exact claim.

No they don't, in either case. To become a Muslim you must simply claim an intellectual assertion or two is true. It makes no general offer nor demand of direct access to God. In fact many prominent Muslim scholars and leaders including Muhammad himself expressed doubts as to whether they would even make it to paradise. A very prominent early Muslim (I forget the name but will look it up if necessary) said he would not feel safe from Allah's schemes even with one foot in paradise. Christianity on the other hand demands that each and every convert experience God directly as the entry point to faith. No other major religion even attempts this same thing. ...

Christianity does NOT require an experience of God as an entry point to "faith."

All that is required is a belief (faith) that Jesus died and rose again, etc.

Christians and Muslims do exactly the same thing - make a statement/commitment of FAITH.

 

[Sha'irullah]

BTW did you notice only one offers potential evidence to establish its claims?

Please provide to me the proof . I would love to hear this

 

[4YAH80]

What are the holy scriptures a source of?
Would not God be "The" source?

The scriptures are the inspired word of YAH, who is the source of truth, this what I meant to say.lol

 

[1robin]

Christianity does NOT require an experience of God as an entry point to "faith."

All that is required is a belief (faith) that Jesus died and rose again, etc.
Christians and Muslims do exactly the same thing - make a statement/commitment of FAITH.

This is completely wrong. However I will let God make the case.
3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”[d]
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[e] 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up,[f] 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”[g]
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A1-21&version=NIV

Jesus (no higher authority exists) told Nicodemus that he had to be born again to ENTER the kingdom of God. Nicodemus is a good example for many arguments and is the longest and clearest teaching and about salvation present in one story as far as I know. Nicodemus was a good man and believed everything (historically) that God claimed. Yet he was not even in the kingdom yet. His entrance point was said to be, being born again. I can argue this a thousand different ways but this is so clearly evident here that if this is denied it would not help. Believing Jesus rose is of no use if it does not produce something. If I do not feel the years of sin and guilt disappear how I would know I was a Christian at that point? Jesus said we must be born again. This means the Holy Spirit of God comes to live within us. If you think we could one minute be enemies of God and condemned to Hell and the next be reconciled to God, forgiven, with the Holy Spirit living in our heart without experiencing a radical spiritual event I am unclear why?

 

[1robin]

What proof?

*

Only Christianity promises that God will come to live in your heart the moment you believe and are born again. Others offer it based on merit or qualification. For example I have heard Hindus claim enlighten. However only after certain achievements are met. Islam requires only certain beliefs be declared to become one. However Christ said we must be born again. We do not get that way unless God actually comes to live in our hearts. Are you suggesting this takes place without us noticing it. In my case (as in Martin Luther's and billions more) it was unmistakable for anything earthly and felt like entering paradise. I unclear exactly what it is your contending. What is it you think born of the spirit means? The apostles themselves acted like cowards until (as Jesus promised) the Holy Spirit gave them power. They were not allowed to begin their commissions until that point.

 

[1robin]

Please provide to me the proof . I would love to hear this

When I say proof, it is a subjective proof, not an objective one. It makes little sense to be the other way around. Every single Christian got to be one by being born again. How could God make me new and send the Holy Spirit to live in my heart and that not be proof to the one it happens to. How could I be a Christian unless that took place? No other religion I am aware of even offers this. I not only speak from clear doctrine, and personal experience, but also the claims of billions.

 

[Philomath]

My religion is the right religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

My religion is the right religion.

Mine, too.

 

[1robin]

My religion is the right religion.

Is your avatar a picture of you?

 

[Philomath]

Is your avatar a picture of you?

No, it's a picture of a female Sadhu.

 

[1robin]

No, it's a picture of a female Sadhu.

What is a Sadhu? You said your religion was the right one, but I do not know which one you claim that is exactly.

 

[Philomath]

What is a Sadhu? You said your religion was the right one, but I do not know which one you claim that is exactly.

A Sadhu is An ascetic holy man/woman. It didn't come off clear from my statement but I was joking. Omnism isn't a really a religion but It does describe my belief system.

 

[1robin]

A Sadhu is An ascetic holy man/woman. It didn't come off clear from my statement but I was joking. Omnism isn't a really a religion but It does describe my belief system.

That was one reason I was asking, it sounded like a joke. What is omnism and how is it a belief system? I have been interested in apologetics for years and have never heard of it.

 

[Philomath]

That was one reason I was asking, it sounded like a joke. What is omnism and how is it a belief system? I have been interested in apologetics for years and have never heard of it.

The acceptance of the legitimacy of all religions is the basic tenant of Omnism.

Omnist's realize that although all religions have some powerful spiritual truths and great wisdom in them which can be very inspirational and moving, but they also contain a lot of human opinion, social politics, and outdated viewpoints . Beliefs and rules that made sense at one point in history but don’t apply as well in today’s world. Omnists tend to focus on spirituality more than religion and our general approach is exploratory and open minded rather than dogmatic and rule-based. Omnists tend to be freethinking, non-dogmatic, non-hierarchical, syncretistic and science-friendly.

I respect all beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't espouse harming or being intolerant of those who disagree with them. You can be Christian Omnist, a Buddhist Omnist, a Neo-Pagan Omnist or etc, it's not confined to one belief system.

All beliefs systems such as atheism, agnosticism, non-theism, theism or etc are welcome.

I wouldn't really classify it as a belief system because there isn't much to believe, everything is up to the individual. It matches what I believe.

 

[1robin]

The acceptance of the legitimacy of all religions is the basic tenant of Omnism.

So it is derived from oriental pluralism.

Omnist's realize that although all religions have some powerful spiritual truths and great wisdom in them which can be very inspirational and moving, but they also contain a lot of human opinion, social politics, and outdated viewpoints . Beliefs and rules that made sense at one point in history but don’t apply as well in today’s world. Omnists tend to focus on spirituality more than religion and our general approach is exploratory and open minded rather than dogmatic and rule-based. Omnists tend to be freethinking, non-dogmatic, non-hierarchical, syncretistic and science-friendly.

Is that truth revelation? If so is it more consistent with a benevolent God that he would hide bits of truth in mountains of man made garbage or he would ensure he provided one pure revelation (revelation not transmission). The Bible has approx 5% scribal error even by critical standards but the revelation was originally pure. (Given for context).

I respect all beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't espouse harming or being intolerant of those who disagree with them. You can be Christian Omnist, a Buddhist Omnist, a Neo-Pagan Omnist or etc, it's not confined to one belief system.

That might work for life but what about after death. The potential of eternal consequences of being wrong makes theology the one indispensable issue to get to the bottom of.

All beliefs systems such as atheism, agnosticism, non-theism, theism or etc are welcome.

How can two mutually exclusive claims to absolute truth be equally acceptable? As Christians we can accept people of those philosophies but never the philosophies themselves. This seems to be a more logical approach to this issue anyway.

I wouldn't really classify it as a belief system because there isn't much to believe, everything is up to the individual. It matches what I believe.

Do you believe the stakes involved can potentially be our souls? If so how can you resolve to not resolve the contradictory claims? It is impossible for two contradictory claims to both be true. If not then how can Islam or Christianity be acceptable to your views.

 

[Philomath]

So it is derived from oriental pluralism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "oriental pluralism"

Is that truth revelation? If so is it more consistent with a benevolent God that he would hide bits of truth in mountains of man made garbage or he would ensure he provided one pure revelation (revelation not transmission). The Bible has approx 5% scribal error even by critical standards but the revelation was originally pure. (Given for context).

There's no standard belief in Omnism. One Omnist might believe in revelation another might not. Personally I don't believe in revelation. I believe every sacred or holy book has it's faults.

That might work for life but what about after death. The potential of eternal consequences of being wrong makes theology the one indispensable issue to get to the bottom of.

There's no evidence that anything happens after death though. I focus on the here and now rather than worry about the unknowable.

How can two mutually exclusive claims to absolute truth be equally acceptable? As Christians we can accept people of those philosophies but never the philosophies themselves. This seems to be a more logical approach to this issue anyway.

Which mutually exclusive claims are you talking about?

Do you believe the stakes involved can potentially be our souls? If so how can you resolve to not resolve the contradictory claims? It is impossible for two contradictory claims to both be true. If not then how can Islam or Christianity be acceptable to your views.

I don't believe there are any stakes at all. Which contradictory claims? Islam and Christianity are both acceptable in my view because they do posses knowledge and wisdom which I believe to be true and at least partially "divine".

 

[1robin]

I'm not sure what you mean by "oriental pluralism"

Don't worry about that. It was a unimportant side note.

There's no standard belief in Omnism. One Omnist might believe in revelation another might not. Personally I don't believe in revelation. I believe every sacred or holy book has it's faults.

However many of the major religious texts claim to be revelation. So if there is no revelation of what value are claims falsely attributed to God. My point is that either revelation as we have it is a great evil or a great good. It must be either dismissed or evaluated and some form of it adopted. I think the worst position is to claim it good but not divine. As C.S Lewis said: Christ was either a madman or divine. The claim he was simply a good teacher history has not made available.

There's no evidence that anything happens after death though. I focus on the here and now rather than worry about the unknowable.

I was speaking potentially. There exists much evidence to believe the afterlife is potentially an issue we should recon with now. One thing is for sure if there is one and we have not done so at death there is no further opportunity to do so if any of the major theologies are true. I was a non believer for 27 years but it was the fact that I decide the issue demanded that I ethier determine it true or false. That led me to experience God personally even though I went kicking and screaming most of the way.

Which mutually exclusive claims are you talking about?

Christianity claims Christ died and rose for our sins and there is no other name by which men may be saved. Islam claims he did not die for our sins and is not the messiah. They claim that believing that God is one, Muhammad is his prophet, and if we merit it we get into heaven (which is a logical absurdity). Hinduism claims we are re-incarnated perpetually until we reach enlightenment. One or none of those may be true. The only thing that is obvious as more than one can't be. There are a million other exclusive claims but I do not have he time to list any more.

I don't believe there are any stakes at all. Which contradictory claims? Islam and Christianity are both acceptable in my view because they do possess knowledge and wisdom which I believe to be true and at least partially "divine".

You seem to have lost many of the points and questions I made. Christianity may be true or false but the one thing known for sure is it is exclusive. According to the Bible Muhammad is a false prophet. I think your position is actually based on the lack of a position. If we are discussing what food or author is best there is no need to resolve the issue. The very nature of theology demands we take a stand for something and Christianity makes clear that indecision is disaster. In the immortal words of the rock band Rush. "If you chose not to decide you have still made a choice", "There is no hero in neutrality".

 

[Ingledsva]

When I say proof, it is a subjective proof, not an objective one. It makes little sense to be the other way around. Every single Christian got to be one by being born again. How could God make me new and send the Holy Spirit to live in my heart and that not be proof to the one it happens to. How could I be a Christian unless that took place? No other religion I am aware of even offers this. I not only speak from clear doctrine, and personal experience, but also the claims of billions.

Your feeling is not proof.

 

[Sha'irullah]

When I say proof, it is a subjective proof, not an objective one. It makes little sense to be the other way around. Every single Christian got to be one by being born again. How could God make me new and send the Holy Spirit to live in my heart and that not be proof to the one it happens to. How could I be a Christian unless that took place? No other religion I am aware of even offers this. I not only speak from clear doctrine, and personal experience, but also the claims of billions.

Subjective proof? You said only one offers potential evidence to validate its claims. Hindus have this more then anyone while Christianity does not. It has no proofs and I would enjoy hearing about them.

More religions including my own lack of religion has far more proofs then Christianity. Please provide to me evidence for the existence of Adam, Moses or Eve. Little hard considering Yahweh left out approximately 3 billion years before hand.

You speak of being born again yet no other religion others this because there is no such thing. You claim to be born again like I once was but people steal cheat, lie and indulge in sins like they did before. Your slate is only wiped clean according to you but not your actions. So no such differences occurs.

This concept of proof you have is utterly fallible and entirely nonexistent.

You claim the Holy Spirit as proof yet so do many ministers and Christians int he US do and they are as evil as sin itself. Look at right wing conservatives, perhaps they are not "true Christians" though .

God sent to me the Holy Spirit when I myself was a Christian and the proper word for it is self-delusion. I myself speak from personal experience and I never assigned it to any doctrine. Conformism is your guiding principles along with the plausibility you have experience nothing but yourself as I may possibly have but we will never know. Judging from the Bible I highly doubt any mystical experience gained through hatred, violence and utter depravity endorsed by the Bible. Killing is how Christianity spread followed by political influence.

Hindus for example have an entire religion based from mysticism and is is the sole source of the religion that no such thing as mysticism exists since it is not deemed a separate function. While Christians cower fearing Hell and accepting Yahweh's "grace" other religions experience a true god.

 

[Ingledsva]

Only Christianity promises that God will come to live in your heart the moment you believe and are born again. Others offer it based on merit or qualification. For example I have heard Hindus claim enlighten. However only after certain achievements are met. Islam requires only certain beliefs be declared to become one. However Christ said we must be born again. We do not get that way unless God actually comes to live in our hearts. Are you suggesting this takes place without us noticing it. In my case (as in Martin Luther's and billions more) it was unmistakable for anything earthly and felt like entering paradise. I unclear exactly what it is your contending. What is it you think born of the spirit means? The apostles themselves acted like cowards until (as Jesus promised) the Holy Spirit gave them power. They were not allowed to begin their commissions until that point.

Again - that is not proof.

Many religions claim an inward something connected to the religious experience.

And let me get this right -- you believe an actual part of God is hacked off and living in the heart of every Christian?

I think you need to reread those verses.