the right religion

[Ingledsva]

No there are not 2 billion people that have experienced God. These are mostly people born into Christian families, and proselytized poor converts. The majority have no actual experience with a God. And of the ones that do say they have a personal relationship, or actual experience, with God, most mean in their heart - not a God actually speaking to them etc.

What is worse than the fact you are completely wrong is the fact you have no way of knowing yet claim you do anyway. Christ said we must be born from above (experience God) to even entre the kingdom of God. Not one Christian who ever lived got that way without experiencing God personally. Statements like your here just ruins credibility.

John 3:3 ESV / 21 helpful votes
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
John 3:3 ESV / 21 helpful votes
Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
1 Peter 1:23 ESV / 11 helpful votes
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV / 10 helpful votes
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

That is probably why I did not mention those people. I mentioned people who would tell you to your face and have gone on record as saying they received power to quit from God when they were saved concerning habit that not even drunken wrecks, broken families, and arrest records had any effect on. I myself was not a drunk but could not sleep without a few beers and drank almost daily. I had lost a few people very close to me and used chemicals to fight the depression for 17 years straight. I had tried to stop for years and years. When I was saved I not only lost all the depression instantly and had no desire for those same drugs at all. No fight, no struggle, no related tragedy just gone. The internet and almost every effective treatment program are full of the greatest experts on their own history in history and they claim by the million to have been miraculously cured of addictions by God. You can dismiss them if you think that convenient but it is less than meaningless to me as I have experienced it. You also have absolutely no access to a single one of them greater then they themselves so your comments are not only wrong but dishonest. You can not possibly know the truth about which I speak and I can.

Neither politics or power were involved at the inception of the conversion. They can't even balance a budget, but were successfully killing off Christians until God showed up. God did not write laws of pass legislation he put a cross in the sky and converted a very pagan emperor. BTW this is another event where those that could know agree with me and you again have no access to at all.

No one, not even the apostles had any expectation of a rising messiah. Not one of them believed Christ was the messiah until he appeared to them. The nation in general, politically, and militarily tried to wipe out that belief. To believe meant death for many. It was mainly outside Israel where no expectation of any messiah where it grew the fastest. Not one single circumstance besides truth existed to further Christianity in those early years, Every factor was against them yet they flourished in spite of the armies and legal institutions of a nation and the greatest empire on earth.

My comment was tied to the earlier one. In early Christianity there were no armies, no safe havens, no institutions, just hostility to them yet the grew exponentially everywhere the message was preached. Islam began in peace and converted less than 250 people in the first dozen years. Only after Muhammad had loot, power, and authority to distribute did it grow. Over 100,000 in its following 12 violent years. Yes Christianity has fought wars and I condemn almost al of them but it grew as fast or even faster when contended by rival faiths and entire military empires without anything but a message of hope to contend with them.

That is not a qualification concerning even one aspect of being a Christian and not one I agree with anyway but it is another subject all together. The Bible has 25,000 historical corroborations and no errors I am aware of outside scribal mistakes. It is a primary archeological resource of even secular scholars. You will gain no traction on that issue either but it is a separate one.

Sheeesh! All that typing for nothing. Back to the first sentence.

No there are not 2 billion people that have experienced God. These are mostly people born into Christian families, and proselytized poor converts. The majority have no actual experience with a God. And of the ones that do say they have a personal relationship, or actual experience, with God, most mean in their heart - not a God actually speaking to them etc.

That paragraph is correct.

*

 

[kjw47]

Most of what I hear or read in this arena is typically something like this: "What I believe is the truth, but what you believe is just religion"-- the latter said with a sneer.

One religion, one faith, one truth = reality

Applying Jesus' truths is the only way to determine which is correct.

 

[metis]

For me personally I don't have a belief in truth, I have experience truth but I cannot tell you what that experience points to, I can point you to it but I cannot make a religion and call that truth, you have to go within and experience it for yourself, there is no other way.

The main issue with "truth", imo, is attempting to determine what is the "truth". "Truth" is not something I think we should believe in but, instead, that which we should understand.

Therefore, I tend to agree with what you wrote above, although I must also include that which careful and objective study by others can possibly help us.

 

[metis]

One religion, one faith, one truth = reality

Applying Jesus' truths is the only way to determine which is correct.

I don't believe any one religion or any one person has a monopoly on the truth, whatever that might be. Nor do I accept the idea that there must be only one religious approach, especially since attaining objectively-derived evidence is very tough in this arena.

 

[1robin]

Sheeesh! All that typing for nothing. Back to the first sentence.



That paragraph is correct.

*

I can't justify explaining things that are ignored and dismissed based on preference. What I typed countered everything you said. The best you could have done is say you do not believe it. Claiming it did not render your claims moot is silly. That was very disappointing.

 

[Ingledsva]

I can't justify explaining things that are ignored and dismissed based on preference. What I typed countered everything you said. The best you could have done is say you do not believe it. Claiming it did not render your claims moot is silly. That was very disappointing.

LOL! No you did not.

You continue to spout your religious ideas regardless of the logical arguments people suggest to you.

You so want your religion to be right - that you dismiss normal logic, and even normal morals and ethics - such as saying your God has the right to kill the innocent - because he supposedly made them.

*


*

 

[1robin]

LOL! No you did not.

Christ said a Christian becomes a Christian by a power not within humanity. A few possibilities exist.

1. There are actual Christians and not one of them became that way through any power of Earthly origin. Your claim is refuted.
2. There is no God, no divine Christ, and there fore no actual Christians as described by Christ (and therefor no actual Christians). Your claims are irrelevant and meaningless.

Either way what you claimed was not worth typing. No one has ever been born a Christian.

You continue to spout your religious ideas regardless of the logical arguments people suggest to you.

What is the purpose of statement like this? Did you hope you can assert reality into being or that I would believe you had.

You so want your religion to be right - that you dismiss normal logic, and even normal morals and ethics - such as saying your God has the right to kill the innocent - because he supposedly made them.

I was once a more rapid atheist than you appear to be. I did not will Christianity to be true. I found it true and eventually gave up throwing pebbles at the mountain. We kill the innocent without having created them in the first place. If the former was wrong (which no argument ever made can possibly show) then how much more diabolical the latter and how much less the latter can judge the former. You do not have any justification for claiming what can't be shown to begin with. You must first attempt a foundation before you can build a monstrosity of a claim based on it. You have yet to break ground on a plan for a foundation.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Satanism is the right religion for me, but certainly not the right religion for everyone. There's no "one true" religion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There's no "one true" religion.

Indeed- there is no religion that can be said to be true, on the whole (although perhaps some come close, like certain forms of Buddhism).

Atheism is the correct or true view towards religion (more accurately, towards the existence of God/gods), but it is not itself a religion, any more than bald is a hair color.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Atheism is the correct or true view towards religion (more accurately, towards the existence of God/gods), but it is not itself a religion, any more than bald is a hair color.

I don't agree. I believe in gods, but I wouldn't say they have to be true for you.

 

[1robin]

Satanism is the right religion for me, but certainly not the right religion for everyone. There's no "one true" religion.

On what basis is Satanism right?

 

[1robin]

Indeed- there is no religion that can be said to be true, on the whole (although perhaps some come close, like certain forms of Buddhism).

Atheism is the correct or true view towards religion (more accurately, towards the existence of God/gods), but it is not itself a religion, any more than bald is a hair color.

How do you know a single claim you made here?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

On what basis is Satanism right?

How do you mean? I said it's right for me, but not for everybody. Basically, I study mythology, philosophy and ethics and it is what makes the most sense to me.

 

[1robin]

How do you mean? I said it's right for me, but not for everybody. Basically, I study mythology, philosophy and ethics and it is what makes the most sense to me.

Is what is right what you like and/or agree with or what is true? I hate broccoli but would never claim it is not "right" for me. I love Pizza but my liking it does not make it "right". If you had said Satanism is what you prefer I would not have asked anything. I did not pick Christianity because it worked for me, I did not like it nor wish it to be true. I found it true and so acknowledged it was right.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Is what is right what you like and/or agree with or what is true? I hate broccoli but would never claim it is not "right" for me. I love Pizza but my liking it does not make it "right". If you had said Satanism is what you prefer I would not have asked anything. I did not pick Christianity because it worked for me, I did not like it nor wish it to be true. I found it true and so acknowledged it was right.

It is true for me. Why would I follow something that I don't believe is true? That's a strange question to ask.

 

[1robin]

It is true for me. Why would I follow something that I don't believe is true? That's a strange question to ask.

If you mean objectively true then how do you know? If you mean subjectively true then how do you know it is actually true? I am not asking what you think is true. I am asking that if you believe it is true then based on what?

 

[Ingledsva]

Is what is right what you like and/or agree with or what is true? I hate broccoli but would never claim it is not "right" for me. I love Pizza but my liking it does not make it "right". If you had said Satanism is what you prefer I would not have asked anything. I did not pick Christianity because it worked for me, I did not like it nor wish it to be true. I found it true and so acknowledged it was right.

Since there is no proof of your religion, and YHVH didn't appear to you, you are in reality just making a choice, as he did with Satanism.

*

 

[1robin]

Since there is no proof of your religion, and YHVH didn't appear to you, you are in reality just making a choice, as he did with Satanism.

*

So what? I have not objected to anything (nor would that be invalid if I did). Do you object to my asking a question? In fact why did you type this at all?

 

[Ingledsva]

Since there is no proof of your religion, and YHVH didn't appear to you, you are in reality just making a choice, as he did with Satanism.

So what? I have not objected to anything (nor would that be invalid if I did). Do you object to my asking a question? In fact why did you type this at all?

Because He said Satanism was right for him. And you answered this to his reason for choosing Satanism - when your reasons are obviously no different then his.

Is what is right what you like and/or agree with or what is true? I hate broccoli but would never claim it is not "right" for me. I love Pizza but my liking it does not make it "right". If you had said Satanism is what you prefer I would not have asked anything. I did not pick Christianity because it worked for me, I did not like it nor wish it to be true. I found it true and so acknowledged it was right.

*

 

[1robin]

Because He said Satanism was right for him. And you answered this to his reason for choosing Satanism - when your reasons are obviously no different then his.
*

Arguing about an argument is not something I spend much time doing so this will last I intend defending something you have no basis for contending. I did not ask him why he choose Satanism. I asked him why it was right. The basis for adopting a religion is almost always that it is true. It is not ice cream or a car that is selected based on taste. The thread is what is the right religion not what religion tastes good. In your world view what is convenient or preferred is a basis for claiming what is true but not in reality. However even if theology was a matter of taste my question was just and your questioning of my question just as invalid as was your telling me why someone else selected a theology in the first place. IMO the emotional basis for your views is betraying your own discussions as of late. Most of everything you have claimed lately is unknowable to you even if true.