the right religion

[Muffled]

The purpose of a religion is not to produce the most cultural harmony. The purpose of mine is to get me to heaven. In fact truth being an exclusive category should have more wrong guesses almost to an infinite level that correct conclusions. I would advise Muesse to pursue another theological criteria and quit mixing mutually exclusive revelations. The least resistance is almost always the wrong path.

That is not what Jesus says. He says His purpose was to give you eternal life.

 

[metis]

i believe if the person isn't 100% Christian then he isn't a Christian.

My guess is that he was figuring whether his beliefs sourced from Christianity or from other sources. In that case he could consider what % of his beliefs were from which religion. For instance on relgious tests I will often come out with a % of Muslinm and Hinduism but I am 100% Christian.

What's "100% Christian", especially since there's roughly 300 major denominations and thousands of independent congregations almost all saying they're the "true church"?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Sha'irullah]

No religion is objectively right, it is only the right religion on a personal bias. The notion that a "true religion" exist is a concept that emits from a personal bias in itself.

So there cannot be an objectively true religion considering that the statement itself is subjective on relation to it's source of conception. Religions makes us feel good or bad, that is it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No religion is objectively right, it is only the right religion on a personal bias.

What if I'm a prophet of God, and God has told me that my religion is objectively right?

 

[Sha'irullah]

What if I'm a prophet of God, and God has told me that my religion is objectively right?

What if I told you that your god is false and the only true god messaged me and told me that my religion is objectively right and any future claims about god after this message are false?

 

[Agnostic75]

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Tell that to the 3 out of every four people in history that have thought he made perfect sense.

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Even if 99% of the people in the world were Christians, my arguments would still be valid.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things, and not only good things, but specific good things. The God as presumed by comments by William Lane Craig, his esteemed colleague J.P. Moreland, and Thomas Aquinas could not possibly do just any good thing out of a great number of good things, but must always do the very best things.

The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

Another excellent reason why the God of the Bible cannot exist is that a loving, fair, worthy, and just God would not set up a system where he would deny eternal life to some people based upon where they lived. For example, South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world, and has the largest single Christian church in the world by far. Education and media are advanced. Surely many non-Christians who live in South Korea could not claim ignorance of the Bible, and it would be illogical for anyone to claim that all of them, or even the majority of them have not been properly evangelized. Surely many non-Christian South Koreans have Christian family members, or friends, who have discussed the Bible at length with them many times. From a conservative Christian perspective, those non-Christians would not have eternal life if they died today. Logically, it is a given that at least some of those South Korean non-Christians who have been properly evangelized would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

It is also a given that although a much higher percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians than in South Korea, at least some skeptics in the U.S. would have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea. That is partly true because everyone has different abilities to persuade other people, and some South Korean Christians would be able to persuade American skeptics better than American Christians could. Surely all of the best persuaders in the world do not live in the U.S.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What if I told you that your god is false and the only true god messaged me and told me that my religion is objectively right and any future claims about god after this message are false?

It wouldn't matter what you say, my religion being objectively right and all.

 

[Sees]

Once you try to discuss your god, you kill it in a sense.

 

[1robin]

That is not what Jesus says. He says His purpose was to give you eternal life.

They are pretty much synonymous. Try getting eternal life outside of heaven. My point was a metaphysical philosophy is of no practical use. Only a religion that produces a desired effect is relevant. That was a difference without distinction (don't get to say that often enough).

 

[1robin]

1. As a mathematician you don't really seem to get the basics of skewed statistics. Or that their religion has little to nothing to do with their scientific discoveries. Or that even if they weren't christian its more than likely that they would still take the title as a form of social convention. You can't simply lay claim their discoveries to Christianity in the same way that I can't lay claim any discovery to atheism.

Hold the phone there. I am no mathematician. Your claims are far too general to be practical. Let me instead offer some facts that may apply.

1. Many of the break through's and actual fields of science themselves are of Christian origin. The primary reason was the Christians belief that a rational God would make a rational universe. Much of science is the result of simply looking for the rationality and lawfulness in the universe that is best explained by a rational and lawful creator.
2. My point was not necessarily that Christians make the best scientists. It was a refutation of this absurd notion that Christians buy into things without extensive fact checking, evidence checking, or logical deduction. Many of the most rigorous and meticulous humans in history have been Christians.
3. It is a logical obscurity to suggest those that believe the words in the most scrutinized book in human history are not demanding of evidence.
4. I do not remember anything I claimed that would be affected by any statistical error.

2. Anecdotal evidence that is actually stark contrast to my own. As someone who has been highly involved with several religious organizations and people I find they have a wall that they keep in themselves. They constantly have doubts but the Christian religion (as well as others) have failsafes that keep them from going past it. The fact they have constant doubts is not really evidence of the strength of their faith.

Christianity is the only one of the world's major religions that offers every believer proof. Any belief system or even claim of science has the possibility to be wrong. The Bible among religions bears every mark of authenticity possible. It contains no compulsion, it's authors took on empirical burdens they had no necessity to have done if false (ask me about this if you want, it is very important), it has convinced the most hostile critics possible. many of Christianity's greatest devotees began reading the Bible in a committed effort to undue it for good. They gave up the effort and converted. Christianity like every other claim every made has the possibility of being incorrect. The fact it convinces the most critical even to the point where all will be risked on it's being true is about the highest standard possible.

And you keep claiming that the bible is some kind of perfect book. However many many many scholars have found that its no different than the koran, or the tora, or any other sacred text. In fact much of the bible has been found to be bullcrap. No historical evidence of Jesus exists. None that is particularly convincing and the vast majority of historians DO accept there is no smoking gun historical evidence of Jesus as a real person. The ones that are still christian are christian on faith rather than reason.

I have never once claimed the Bible is perfect. I do a great deal of debating where I demonstrate inexhaustibly how it is not perfect. If you will review the Chicago statement of faith you will understand what orthodox Christians think about Biblical accuracy. That being said several facts are a simple matter of reality.

1. It is by far the most accurate text of any type by orders of magnitude in ancient history. It eats them all.
2. It textual tradition is so rich virtually all it's errors are known and indicated in all major Bible's. This renderers even it's slight scribal errors null and void.
3. It has been extraordinarily historically reliable. It is a primary archeological resource even for secular scholars. It has 25,000 historical corroborations, and no known historical inaccuracy outside scribal error.
4. It's most popular critic (Ehrman) also agrees it has less than 5% scribal error and that no known error exists in central doctrine.
5. No it is not perfect and no I have never suggested it was. It however exceeds every expectation any similar work can meet or even come close.
6. Any arbitrary criteria that would render the Bible unreliable would render every other book in ancient history a thousand times more so.
7. The majority of scholars of the NT (regardless of what side they are on) agree on three primary things. Jesus was a historical figure, he was crucified, and his tomb found empty.
8. You said the Bible is no different from other texts, above. Prove that is true using either textual tradition, textual proliferation, textual independence, or textual accuracy. You need all of them to make that claim, but I am only requiring one. There is not even a close second. Good luck.

 

[1robin]

No religion is objectively right, it is only the right religion on a personal bias. The notion that a "true religion" exist is a concept that emits from a personal bias in itself.

So there cannot be an objectively true religion considering that the statement itself is subjective on relation to it's source of conception. Religions makes us feel good or bad, that is it.

There is no reason whatever a religion can't be objectively right. Your talking about our ability to "know it". Christians actually can know but that is not exactly what I am claimed here.

It could very well be that every Christian doctrine is an exact objective fact, you have no way to claim what you did above.

 

[1robin]

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. Even if 99% of the people in the world were Christians, my arguments would still be valid.

This is a repeat.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

God did not have to create humans and creating humans was not mandated by his nature. If God had not created us he would have violated nothing about himself nor been any less God. You have a hard time distinguishing between a capacity, quality, and essence.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

God did not have to do the optimal thing. If he did he would have been limited to only creating other and redundant identical God's. We have already been over and over this. Creating humans is not a best thing. In what way is creating you or me the optimal thing possible to an omnipotent God? Your assumptions are not arguments.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things, and not only good things, but specific good things. The God as presumed by comments by William Lane Craig, his esteemed colleague J.P. Moreland, and Thomas Aquinas could not possibly do just any good thing out of a great number of good things, but must always do the very best things.

So far you have assumed a false optimality and a false necessity for things that are neither then drawn a conclusion based on two errors in a two part premise. What you ascribed to Aquinas does not make any sense? Is a world full of beings who have enough weaponry pointed at each other a logical maximum good?

The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

This is a repeat. God is no less deserving of love than anything else that can't help but be what it is. I and YOU love all manner of things that have no choice at all. God does have a choice. This is also a repeat of a repeat.

Another excellent reason why the God of the Bible cannot exist is that a loving, fair, worthy, and just God would not set up a system where he would deny eternal life to some people based upon where they lived. For example, South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world, and has the largest single Christian church in the world by far. Education and media are advanced. Surely many non-Christians who live in South Korea could not claim ignorance of the Bible, and it would be illogical for anyone to claim that all of them, or even the majority of them have not been properly evangelized. Surely many non-Christian South Koreans have Christian family members, or friends, who have discussed the Bible at length with them many times. From a conservative Christian perspective, those non-Christians would not have eternal life if they died today. Logically, it is a given that at least some of those South Korean non-Christians who have been properly evangelized would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

Repeat. Why do you constantly repeat things I have exhaustively explained? They are like canned responses. Why would I ever spend hours explaining things only to have the exact same question asked a few days later, and then again a few days later.

It is also a given that although a much higher percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians than in South Korea, at least some skeptics in the U.S. would have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea. That is partly true because everyone has different abilities to persuade other people, and some South Korean Christians would be able to persuade American skeptics better than American Christians could. Surely all of the best persuaders in the world do not live in the U.S.

[/QUOTE]There is not the slightest way anyone can know what you claimed above. I was born into a Christian family and was at one time dead set against God. The people with the worst reputation for rebellion are the kids of Christians. Many of those with the most access to miraculous events have been the most skeptical. As I have said over and over again, it is the heart not a miracle that makes the difference. We have already beat this same subject to death for apparently no reason.

 

[1robin]

Once you try to discuss your god, you kill it in a sense.

Where does this metaphysical speculative non0sense come from? Is my dog less objectively real if I discuss him?

 

[Sees]

Where does this metaphysical speculative non0sense come from? Is my dog less objectively real if I discuss him?

Your dog is tangible...your god lives as a vast, individualized concept or - vague idea. Every descriptive word limits and theoretically destroys it.

This is why the Bible (and to others various symbols, legends) is so important to many - because they believe in its ability to give them possibility of sharing the unimaginable, the impossible to describe.

 

[1robin]

Your dog is tangible...your god lives as a vast, individualized concept or - vague idea. Every descriptive word limits and theoretically destroys it.

This is why the Bible (and to others various symbols, legends) is so important to many - because they believe in its ability to give them possibility of sharing the unimaginable, the impossible to describe.

My God is about the most specific being ever described but that is not the point anyway. Vague, vast, specific, microscopic, omnimax, optimality do not matter. Whatever God is does not become any less real by discussing him. The exact opposite is true, at least epistemologically. My words have no effect on what God is. The worst description ever given of God did not alter one thing about him. Your confusing our epistemological perception with an ontological being. I would agree our language can't encapsulate God but it does not effect him either.

 

[Sees]

I agree in a sense. If we settle on a distinction and agree on the existence of the Eternal, the One, the Source for communication's sake...but also settle on each persons reality of this being a limited, personal concept. When you discuss your own concept, God that can work within your understanding, you limit it - even more so that is - and kill it by increasingly removing it from the actual divine, indescribable One being alluded to.

Not so much whether we are believers in GOD, God, gods, divine energy, materialism, etc. but that we are always pointing at something nobody can see and taking about things we could never describe. As though each and every other man and woman was
speaking a foreign language.

Kind of like silence is the best description and any word is just additional confusion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

There is no reason whatever a religion can't be objectively right.

There is, it is called reason. Religions cannot be objectively right or wrong if they emanate from a specific set of circumstance which Christianity like all others did.

No one can say Hinduism is objectively right because Hinduism started in India and is not known to anyone. Politics, religion and social organizations are all alike and neither can be objectively right nor wrong.

Your talking about our ability to "know it". Christians actually can know but that is not exactly what I am claimed here.

Psychotic people claim to know that a demonic bunny is chasing them. People can "know" anything they wish.

It could very well be that every Christian doctrine is an exact objective fact, you have no way to claim what you did above.

I can claim what I said above because you just said "every Christian". You are stating that Christianity's truth is subjective to the already indoctrinated believer.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Christianity is only objectively true when confirmed by the Christian community. Christianity to many is objectively false and wrong amongst the other half of the opposing community.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Once you try to discuss your god, you kill it in a sense.

Sadly this is true for many people.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It wouldn't matter what you say, my religion being objectively right and all.

My lack of religion is the only correct way to understand god though, so I am afraid god will torture you for eternity for following a religion.