the right religion

[metis]

If we don't know, Goddidit, is the foundation of argument for majority of traditional theists. I'm waiting for the cool cat who can present a remarkably fresh and different argument...and I don't even see myself as atheist to begin with lol

The best argument that I have seen has been put forth by the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard, who was a former French scientist. Essentially the gist of his approach is based on a few basic principles (I've had to be a bit free with his expressions in order to try and tie it altogether):

-everything we observe appears to be within a cosmic web of cause and effect that could even hypothetically extend beyond our universe (multiverse).

-there is no evidence for a stand-alone and uncreated "creator", nor does it seem logical based on what we know about cause and effect.

-if a supposed "creator" actually creates, how can this "creator" do so without changing in at least some way, which logically necessitates there being another cause.

-if the "creator" does not change in at least some way, then it logically cannot create.

-if such a "creator" supposedly defies what we observe as far as cause and effect are concerned, then how could we possibly know this is at all true unless we were actually there at "creation" to observe it ourselves?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

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?

Which ever one allows you to use reason, which is none of the organized and revealed religions IMHO.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There is no such thing as a "right" religion . For every person the right religion is the one that makes him happy and content and is closer to his beliefs.

So are we promoting-
-double truth (one thing is true for me, a different thing is true for you)
-ignoring the conflicting truth-claims of various religions, perhaps defining the "essence" of religion as ethical doctrines, something like this?

Put simply, the problem is this: different religions make conflicting claims about what is the case. In other words, their truth-claims cannot all be true. So, in what sense is a religion "right", if their truth-claims are false? (and saying different religions can all be right, despite conflicting truth-claims, would either need to be holding 1. that these different truth-claims are true "for" different people, or that 2. the truth-claims of religion are non-essential, and that a religion can be "right", despite being wrong, i.e. its truth-claims being false).

 

[Muffled]

Let me test this out: if a person who identifies themselves as a Christian says that they don't believe that Jesus was a literal "only son of God", are they still a Christian in your book? Or what if they say "I really don't believe that Jesus literally 'died for our sins' because I believe it's just symbolic", are they still a Christian in your book? Or what if they say they are Christian but treat people like dung, are they still a Christian in your book?

Seems to me that "the devil's in the details".

I believe it does not depend on whether a person identifies himself as a Christian but whether He actually asked Jesus to be his Lord and Savior.

I believe if a person actually were a Christian that belief would not change the fact but it would reveal that the person isn't guided by the Holy Spirit.

I believe it is as stated above in purple.

I don't believe it is possible for a Christian to act that way.

 

[Muffled]

I already have eternal life because I have Jesus as Lord and Savior.

quote]

And that can never change?

I believe that can neveer change.

 

[Muffled]

And for 30 years I was convinced that I was a Christian. I believe it all to be true. I believed Jesus existed and was the son of God. I believe all the things a Christian should believe. Now I don't. Was I believing wrong? Some Christians actually claim that I was deceived by the devil to believe wrong. How is that possible? God allowing me to be wrong about my beliefs about Jesus and the Christian tenets for 30 years? That would put a lot of blame on God and not me. I wanted it and tried with all my strength and heart to follow the right faith, but God let Satan deceive me? What a horrible thought.

I also learned recently that some Christians suggests that speaking in tongues is from the devil. I can speak in tongues, unrecognizable and a language not of this world, but that somehow isn't a sign of God now but rather a sign of demon possession?

I believe self evaluation doesn't count. Did you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior or not?

I believe that you were trying to be a Christian. I didn't have to try; I simply became one.

 

[metis]

I believe it does not depend on whether a person identifies himself as a Christian but whether He actually asked Jesus to be his Lord and Savior.

I believe if a person actually were a Christian that belief would not change the fact but it would reveal that the person isn't guided by the Holy Spirit.

I believe it is as stated above in purple.

I don't believe it is possible for a Christian to act that way.

So, you agree that one way or another, actions do count? After all, if they "asked Jesus to be his lord and savior" to begin with, that is an action.

My next point, therefore, why does that action count but not other actions, such as what we see being alluded to in Matthew 25? To me, it's a commitment to believe in what Jesus is teaching, which by and large is also found coming from the prophets, and not just believing about Jesus. Agree?

 

[Ouroboros]

I believe self evaluation doesn't count. Did you receive Jesus as Lord and Savior or not?

Back then I was sure that I did.

I got "born-again" when I was 7. I decided to give my life to Jesus at home, in the kitchen, when I was alone eating breakfast. Sunday school had convinced me that Jesus was real.

For 30 years I was a Christian. I went on mission trips. I knocked on doors every Saturday for a year. I went to "Bible School", a form of seminary, 7 days a week, education about Bible, faith, history etc. All my siblings were Christian. Not all of them are anymore. My parents, my cousins, my grandparents, you name it. All Christian. Now, many of cousins, nephews, nieces are not. Some are thought, and very hardcore. Some belong to Word of Faith. Some pentecostal. I remember at times when I and some of my friends decided to pray for our city, to bring revival. We prayed for 4-5 hours I think. Nothing happened. But I can tell you this, after praying for an hour or more, you get dizzy and start feeling "things". After de-conversion, I've experienced similar things without prayer. Mediation or listening to certain music can bring same feelings and experiences. I can still speak in tongues, but I recently heard that some Christians believe it's the devil. So I guess I was possessed by Satan all those years when I prayed and believed Jesus would do miracles. Oh, and I prayed for years to get a chance to convert someone, just one, anyone, to Jesus. I tried hard. It never happened. I guess Jesus didn't want me to convert anyone to my "false" belief in him.

I believe that you were trying to be a Christian. I didn't have to try; I simply became one.

Silly, and very judgmental. And very hurtful too. I hope you'll get it back 30, 60, 100 fold. You will reap what you sow.

FYI, I'm putting you on ignore simply because I'm putting people like you behind me.

 

[Ouroboros]

So, you agree that one way or another, actions do count? After all, if they "asked Jesus to be his lord and savior" to begin with, that is an action.

People like him are very hurtful. If anyone wonders where de-converted people are so angry, there's the reason. The arrogance and judgmental attitude some of the display. Very hurtful.

 

[kjw47]

I believe that can neveer change.

In light of Matt 7:21-23----- one should double check to see if they are being taught--Jesus' truths.

 

[metis]

People like him are very hurtful. If anyone wonders where de-converted people are so angry, there's the reason. The arrogance and judgmental attitude some of the display. Very hurtful.

There's an old saying that goes " you can attract more flies with sugar than with vinegar". I do think most people can see through the "look at me, I'm saved; look at you, you're going to hell" approach. Jesus said, "Judge ye not...", but all too many have ignored his words in this and some other areas.

 

[Ouroboros]

There's an old saying that goes " you can attract more flies with sugar than with vinegar". I do think most people can see through the "look at me, I'm saved; look at you, you're going to hell" approach. Jesus said, "Judge ye not...", but all too many have ignored his words in this and some other areas.

Exactly. It frustrates me that they do. And even worse when I see some believers lie about facts in science. Invented crap that's been disproved in research, and the research is just overlooked or lied about. It's like that 10 commandments and the fruits of the spirit don't apply to some believers, but at the same time, the same person can spout endlessly about morals. What a shame.

 

[1robin]

Thanks. I appreciate that. You'd be surprised how many folks just can't seem to appreciate my motivation to spread the Truth!

What your doing is not as noble as what you claim. You are doing what man has been doing since the fall. Thumbing your nose at truth. You prefer the ambiguous because you do not like truth. You constantly try and claim that knowable things are not knowable. Truth is an exclusive category. It 99.9% of the time excludes far more than it includes. Anyone who loved truth would hate ambiguity. You love it and produce it even where it does not exist.

 

[1robin]

You have just checkmated yourself because then there simply is no reason for anyone to assume that Goddidit. If we don't know, then we don't know, and jumping to conclusions, such as you have done over and over again, makes not one iota of sense. Remember, I'm the one who says "I don't know", but you have continually insisted you do know, but then you write the above and apparently can't see your own inconsistency.

You need to read up on chess terminology. Check mate occurs when you place the king in check and no move exists for it that is not in check. You basically yelled "hey look over there" then threw the pieces across the room and yelled check mate.

If we find a book that has sophisticated writing in it that no one can decipher is it more rational to claim that it arose on it's own or that an unknown intelligent force created it. I need to know nothing about or understand anything about information to know it only comes from intelligence.

Lets go back to the claim.

1. A thing that begins to exist has a cause or an explanation for it's existence even if we do not understand the thing that exists.
2. A singularity began to exist.
3. Nature (including singularities) does not have a cause for it's existence within it.
4. Whatever caused a singularity we do not understand was created by something it did not contain.
5. Nature contains everything but things that are supernatural.
6. A supernatural force created the universe.

I did not say I know. I said my deductive argument (which has been around for over 3000 years) has no known flaw. A sound argument can still be wrong. It is possible my proposition is wrong. It is not possible my proposition is not valid and the best hypothesis by far for the facts.

 

[1robin]

If we don't know, Goddidit, is the foundation of argument for majority of traditional theists. I'm waiting for the cool cat who can present a remarkably fresh and different argument...and I don't even see myself as atheist to begin with lol

NO argument was based on what we do not know about or cannot be extrapolated from what we know. My argument (as it has existed for 3000 years, in histories greatest minds) is a deduction from what is known (or claimed to be known) to it's best explanation. There are not many new arguments for God. Most have been around since the Greeks, and most have no effective counter to them even after 3000 years.

Let me present one that I have never heard until recently.

The apostles did not expect a dyeing and rising messiah. If their purpose was to create a false religion why in the world did they take on board empirical claims that they had no expectation of nor need. They and Jewish population believed in spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection (until the end of everything). The apostles could have far easily claimed Jesus rose spiritually. It would have been far more palatable to their audience. It would also have necessitated no missing body, no resurrection experiences that occurred to even hostile witnesses, it required no empty tomb, no guards to be circumvented. It was easy. Yet they despite all preconceptions posited an empty tomb, a missing body, resurrection experiences, a physical resurrection they had no need of if lying. Then they all gave up everything for this lie they had no need of and some even gave their lives for it. They also had no need (as most other religions) to suggest everyone who has faith in Christ will experience Christ directly. If not true a body and no promised experiences would have killed the faith in the cradle. Give me a better explanation for these unnecessary burdens than that they are actually true.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What your doing is not as noble as what you claim.

Well, but it's certainly way nobler than whatever shenanigans you are up to here in this place.

You are doing what man has been doing since the fall. Thumbing your nose at truth.

There was no fall. So when I thumb my nose at the fall, I'm thumbing my nose at falsity.

Which is a very noble thing to do.

You prefer the ambiguous because you do not like truth.

Wise folk don't believe in truth. That's for the masses who don't seek God but only swallow what they've been told.

You constantly try and claim that knowable things are not knowable.

Things like creationism? Things like Biblical prophecy?

In the fullness of time, truth like that will fall further and further from favor, thank God.

Truth is an exclusive category. It 99.9% of the time excludes far more than it includes.

I have no idea what that means, and I doubt that you do either.

Only the foolish and unthoughtful embrace truth wholly, with no doubt.

Anyone who loved truth would hate ambiguity. You love it and produce it even where it does not exist.

Anyone who fears ambiguity is afraid of life.

 

[Sees]

NO argument was based on what we do not know about or cannot be extrapolated from what we know. My argument (as it has existed for 3000 years, in histories greatest minds) is a deduction from what is known (or claimed to be known) to it's best explanation. There are not many new arguments for God. Most have been around since the Greeks, and most have no effective counter to them even after 3000 years.

Let me present one that I have never heard until recently.

The apostles did not expect a dyeing and rising messiah. If their purpose was to create a false religion why in the world did they take on board empirical claims that they had no expectation of nor need. They and Jewish population believed in spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection (until the end of everything). The apostles could have far easily claimed Jesus rose spiritually. It would have been far more palatable to their audience. It would also have necessitated no missing body, no resurrection experiences that occurred to even hostile witnesses, it required no empty tomb, no guards to be circumvented. It was easy. Yet they despite all preconceptions posited an empty tomb, a missing body, resurrection experiences, a physical resurrection they had no need of if lying. Then they all gave up everything for this lie they had no need of and some even gave their lives for it. They also had no need (as most other religions) to suggest everyone who has faith in Christ will experience Christ directly. If not true a body and no promised experiences would have killed the faith in the cradle. Give me a better explanation for these unnecessary burdens than that they are actually true.

It was a cult based on bodily sacrifice and the people who believe in it thought it was an honor to give up their lives and bodies to their deity. We don't know which ones are mythical heroes or real folks who walked around the region.

 

[1robin]

There is no such thing as a "right" religion . For every person the right religion is the one that makes him happy and content and is closer to his beliefs.

These claims bother more than any other type.


1. Even if you were right you would have no way to know it. If every faith on earth was wrong and not one was right how would you know it?
2. You say the right thing is what produces comfort, happiness, and makes us closer to our beliefs (whatever that means it is certainly circular logic).
3. If I believe in Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.... and am happy for 80 years. I then die, find out the Bible was the right religion and am eternally separated from God in Hell. How was that the right decision?

Truth is be it's nature exclusive. There are usually far more wrongs than rights. If you have some collective mentality you will inevitably be including far more wrong things that right things. Oriental pluralistic philosophy is simply wrong.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The apostles did not expect a dyeing and rising messiah. If their purpose was to create a false religion why in the world did they take on board empirical claims that they had no expectation of nor need. They and Jewish population believed in spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection (until the end of everything). The apostles could have far easily claimed Jesus rose spiritually. It would have been far more palatable to their audience. It would also have necessitated no missing body, no resurrection experiences that occurred to even hostile witnesses, it required no empty tomb, no guards to be circumvented. It was easy. Yet they despite all preconceptions posited an empty tomb, a missing body, resurrection experiences, a physical resurrection they had no need of if lying. Then they all gave up everything for this lie they had no need of and some even gave their lives for it. They also had no need (as most other religions) to suggest everyone who has faith in Christ will experience Christ directly. If not true a body and no promised experiences would have killed the faith in the cradle. Give me a better explanation for these unnecessary burdens than that they are actually true.

They never happened. Mark was written as fiction. Matthew and Luke are revisions of Mark. John is no more historical than the Book of Mormon.

Do you believe the Jesus as recorded in the Book of Mormon or The Urantia Book?

 

[Sees]

Side note... Isn't this basically the gist of Evidence that demands a Verdict? I used to have a signed copy of that book lol

NO argument was based on what we do not know about or cannot be extrapolated from what we know. My argument (as it has existed for 3000 years, in histories greatest minds) is a deduction from what is known (or claimed to be known) to it's best explanation. There are not many new arguments for God. Most have been around since the Greeks, and most have no effective counter to them even after 3000 years.

Let me present one that I have never heard until recently.

The apostles did not expect a dyeing and rising messiah. If their purpose was to create a false religion why in the world did they take on board empirical claims that they had no expectation of nor need. They and Jewish population believed in spiritual resurrection, not physical resurrection (until the end of everything). The apostles could have far easily claimed Jesus rose spiritually. It would have been far more palatable to their audience. It would also have necessitated no missing body, no resurrection experiences that occurred to even hostile witnesses, it required no empty tomb, no guards to be circumvented. It was easy. Yet they despite all preconceptions posited an empty tomb, a missing body, resurrection experiences, a physical resurrection they had no need of if lying. Then they all gave up everything for this lie they had no need of and some even gave their lives for it. They also had no need (as most other religions) to suggest everyone who has faith in Christ will experience Christ directly. If not true a body and no promised experiences would have killed the faith in the cradle. Give me a better explanation for these unnecessary burdens than that they are actually true.