the right religion

[Muffled]

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.

I don't believe in paliatives. If it hurts, then there is a good chance there is an open wound that needs to be healed. However if the person is honest about having made Jesus Lord and Savior then that is most probably the reality even if the person thinks otherwise. It would be interesting to explore if the person could manage to be a little less sensitive.

 

[metis]

What are you talking about. God's general characteristics (omniscience, timeless, omnipresent, omnipotent, personal, moral, etc...) are agreed to by a quorum of Christians.

That doesn't make one iota of difference. If a large group of atheists say that a belief in god is stupid, does that mean they must be correct?

What you have continually done is to give all sorts of characteristics of God that is virtually impossible to substantiate, plus you must know, I would at least hope, that beliefs are not necessarily facts.

That question is precisely why I said what was true of a concept. I do not know the Christian God is omnipresent but it is certainly true of the concept. I go way out of my way to head off commonly confused misconceptions. Why does it never work?

Because you continually misrepresent yourself. When it's convenient to be positive, you're positive; but when it's convenient to be flexible, you're flexible. You simply cannot state things as being facts and then turn around and say it's only a concept. You're acting like the apostle Peter with your willingness to deny what you believe when you're pushed into a corner. You know and I know that you believe with certainty that there's one God and that you know some of God's characteristics.

So, let me recommend you actually do what Peter ended up doing-- take a stand and then defend that stand.

 

[metis]

Of course I believe actions count but their importance is less than faith.

I believe most people think of actions as physical. Thoughts are not considered actions.

I believe a person is not a good and faithful servant unless that peson has made Jesus Lord. I believe this vese shows that: Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

So actions may be good but not the will of God and therefore not acceptable.

I believe beliefs are not actions but they may foreshadow actions. So I believe it is helpful to have correct beliefs in order to be following the will of God. Say if God says go and marry a prostitute. If I believed God would never say that, then I would be likely to disobey. (Sometimes like Peter I will raise an objection as he did when told to eat unclean things.)

Please notice the part I underlined.

Faith is more important in one respect-- it's the starting point. But over and over again the scriptures point out that doing God's will is also fundamentally important-- faith without good works is like cymbals clashing.

 

[1robin]

Chess scorings are not relevant.

They are when chess metaphors are used. BTW that is not a score it is a rating.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They are when chess metaphors are used.

Nah. Actually it's an example of what clearly seems to be a dysfunction in your rationality.

You see, Metis was not claiming to have beat you in an actual game of chess. Therefore, your boast of a high chess ranking was an irrational attempt to refute him.

If I claimed that you debate like a clown, would you answer that you don't even own a clown costume and have never dressed up as a clown?

That's how irrational was your boast of a high chess ranking.

It's why I claimed one point higher than you -- just to show you the silliness of your claim.

 

[1robin]

That doesn't make one iota of difference. If a large group of atheists say that a belief in god is stupid, does that mean they must be correct?

What you have continually done is to give all sorts of characteristics of God that is virtually impossible to substantiate, plus you must know, I would at least hope, that beliefs are not necessarily facts. [/quote[ I did not apply that to mean anything. I did not say that because we all have generally the same characteristics for God that it means anything. I was simply trying to get reality to be included as the basis for any further debate. It was simply a statement of what is and not what that means. You can actually evaluate those characteristics in a few ways. None of them are ever going to produce anything for a certainty but are still worth the effort. For example using only philosophy and cosmology you get a universe in need of a cause. That cause by using only their methodology must be independent of time, independent of space, independent of matter, more powerful than anything know, more intelligent than can be comprehended, and able to act. I can take what academia puts for as what that cause must be, plus what cause and effect says about the necessity of an uncaused first cause. I can take that and compare it to what the Bible said about God a long time before any academic would have known what to fake or what questions he needed to answer. When I do I find identical beings or forces claim to be necessary by 21st century academics and bronze age men. I can put that in the positive column of faith in God but what strength it has is a matter of debate.



Because you continually misrepresent yourself. When it's convenient to be positive, you're positive; but when it's convenient to be flexible, you're flexible. You simply cannot state things as being facts and then turn around and say it's only a concept. You're acting like the apostle Peter with your willingness to deny what you believe when you're pushed into a corner. You know and I know that you believe with certainty that there's one God and that you know some of God's characteristics.

You most certainly can. I can say that it is a fact that the common concept agreed to concerning bigfoot is that he is a rather large primate type of animal and is mostly claimed to live in the American north west. That is true whether his existence is true or not. These exact same types of claims are made every day in every subject. I have no fear what so ever admitting hat I believe here in a forum. Why in the heck would I? You nor anyone can do anything about it except complain. To prove this I will state exactly what I claim and will not back off it.


1. The Christian God is a being with very specific qualities.
2. In philosophy he is a maximal being and that is very similar to the Christian claims.
3. God is also a very simple concept which can produce very complex effects. A disembodied mind according to philosophy is a very simplistic being that can produce extremely sophisticated effects.
4. The singularity cannot be known in detail but generalized things concerning it can be reliably stated. I can't know how hot it was but I can know it does not contain the explanation for it's existence within it. I can not know what the initial expansion rate was but I can know what it was at the end of it's microsecond of life.


I think you are confusing what I said about the unknowable details about a singularity with what I claim about the known characteristics of the Christian concept of God. There are three subjects here that have three independent level of sophistication and ability to know the details of. 1. God (whatever he may turn out to be). 2. The Christian concept of God. 3. The singularity.

I think you are getting comments about one mixed up with all the others.

So, let me recommend you actually do what Peter ended up doing-- take a stand and then defend that stand.

I have not been inconsistent. Only your mistaken understanding has generated inconsistency. I have already stated for the record what I claim and will not waver.

Please keep your personal condemnations out of the discussion.


If you review all 7000 of my posts I do not think you will find any claim that contradicts any of the above claims.

 

[metis]

You most certainly can. I can say that it is a fact that the common concept agreed to concerning bigfoot is that he is a rather large primate type of animal and is mostly claimed to live in the American north west. That is true whether his existence is true or not. These exact same types of claims are made every day in every subject. I have no fear what so ever admitting hat I believe here in a forum. Why in the heck would I? You nor anyone can do anything about it except complain. To prove this I will state exactly what I claim and will not back off it.


1. The Christian God is a being with very specific qualities.
2. In philosophy he is a maximal being and that is very similar to the Christian claims.
3. God is also a very simple concept which can produce very complex effects. A disembodied mind according to philosophy is a very simplistic being that can produce extremely sophisticated effects.
4. The singularity cannot be known in detail but generalized things concerning it can be reliably stated. I can't know how hot it was but I can know it does not contain the explanation for it's existence within it. I can not know what the initial expansion rate was but I can know what it was at the end of it's microsecond of life.


I think you are confusing what I said about the unknowable details about a singularity with what I claim about the known characteristics of the Christian concept of God. There are three subjects here that have three independent level of sophistication and ability to know the details of. 1. God (whatever he may turn out to be). 2. The Christian concept of God. 3. The singularity.

I think you are getting comments about one mixed up with all the others.






I have not been inconsistent. Only your mistaken understanding has generated inconsistency. I have already stated for the record what I claim and will not waver.

Please keep your personal condemnations out of the discussion.


If you review all 7000 of my posts I do not think you will find any claim that contradicts any of the above claims.

I did not get involved with "personal condemnations" of you any more that what you said about me above, which I also do view as a "condemnation" But I do state and continue to state that you are being inconsistent as you have perpetually stated there must be a God, and you generally do not in any way imply that this is only a "concept".

Anyhow, take care, and if I don't see you before mid-next week, have yourself a Very Merry Christmas.

 

[1robin]

I did not get involved with "personal condemnations" of you any more that what you said about me above, which I also do view as a "condemnation" But I do state and continue to state that you are being inconsistent as you have perpetually stated there must be a God, and you generally do not in any way imply that this is only a "concept".

I was not offended by them, they are just a waste of time. You compared me to the human being who admitted the greatest wrongs theoretically possible to commit. Peter before the upper room thought as a man thinks and considered the greatest example of love in human history something to be prevented and was called Satan by Christ himself. If you compared me to him you are condemning me by association. I do not care, I just do not want anything to distract from substantive debate. I have no idea what you are referring to but I condemn ideas, not people. If I mistakenly violated that rule I apologize but doubt I did so.

There is no inconsistency. I did not state there must be a God. I stated as I have for years that God is the best explanation for reality as it is. He is by far the best candidate for explaining how certain things are.

I made completely separate and independent claims about what is true of a concept. They are actually true whether God exists or not. They are two separate and distinct claims so no inconsistency can have occurred.

I have even numerated those claims and why which is which and how they are distinct from one another and why my claims about each are true. I can't clear up a perceived inconsistency if the perceived existence of the non-existent inconsistency is so valuable that it prevents any explanation from clearing them up.

Anyhow, take care, and if I don't see you before mid-next week, have yourself a Very Merry Christmas.

You too.

 

[kjw47]

I don't think there is such a thing as "ony one right religion",the religion you choose to follow is based on faith and not fact,it cannot be tested so how could you know its the right religion.

Learn Jesus' truths, apply Jesus' truths and its easy to see which one single religion actually teaches Jesus' truths.

 

[1robin]

That doesn't make one iota of difference. If a large group of atheists say that a belief in god is stupid, does that mean they must be correct? {/quote] I no longer have any idea what your talking about. We were discussing what Christians think about concerning the Biblical concept of God. They agree 90% of the time on 90% of his characteristics. What an atheist thinks is irrelevant.

What you have continually done is to give all sorts of characteristics of God that is virtually impossible to substantiate, plus you must know, I would at least hope, that beliefs are not necessarily facts.

Nope, I have told you in specific terms what almost all Christians agree is true about the Biblical concept of God. That is the God almost all of us believe in. That has nothing to do with having access to the God that concept is believed to describe. This conversation has been about the consistency of what Christians think God is. It has not been about methodologies to detect whether that belief is true. That is a another subject all together.

Because you continually misrepresent yourself. When it's convenient to be positive, you're positive; but when it's convenient to be flexible, you're flexible. You simply cannot state things as being facts and then turn around and say it's only a concept. You're acting like the apostle Peter with your willingness to deny what you believe when you're pushed into a corner. You know and I know that you believe with certainty that there's one God and that you know some of God's characteristics.

I am flexible where flexibility is applicable, firm where it is applicable or justified by the evidence, etc..... There is no misrepresentation. I most certainly can say what is factual about a concept, what is thought or believed to be true about a being, and what can still be known or deduced to a high probability even if one microsecond of the universes history is unknown. That is exactly what should be done and what I have done.

So, let me recommend you actually do what Peter ended up doing-- take a stand and then defend that stand.

It is a very common tactic when a person gets frustrated to say the most offensive thing possible to sooth your wounded emotions. In my case you probably think comparing me with a guy called Satan by Christ would be the most infuriating thing you could say. However you fail to understand my approval or condemnation comes from a infinitely higher source than you and on top of that I just do not care. So waste your time trying to offend another person if you wish but it will have no other effect than to lessen credibility.


I have at least twice listed exactly what I claim and have never waivered. I have no idea what your talking about and I doubt you do either.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my post #3931.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Learn Jesus' truths, apply Jesus' truths and its easy to see which one single religion actually teaches Jesus' truths.

I know the truth very well. Why do I need to learn anyone else's truth?

 

[Muffled]

Please notice the part I underlined.

Faith is more important in one respect-- it's the starting point. But over and over again the scriptures point out that doing God's will is also fundamentally important-- faith without good works is like cymbals clashing.

I believe the difference is in outlook. I see actions and works as something I do but my obeidience to God as something God does. If I do something, it is because I think it is reasonable but when I rely on faith in God, it is because I believe He knows what is good.

 

[Muffled]

I know the truth very well. Why do I need to learn anyone else's truth?

I believe if you believe there is another truth then you don't have the truth.

 

[1robin]

Nah. Actually it's an example of what clearly seems to be a dysfunction in your rationality.

You see, Metis was not claiming to have beat you in an actual game of chess. Therefore, your boast of a high chess ranking was an irrational attempt to refute him.

If I claimed that you debate like a clown, would you answer that you don't even own a clown costume and have never dressed up as a clown?

That's how irrational was your boast of a high chess ranking.

It's why I claimed one point higher than you -- just to show you the silliness of your claim.

It was not my analogy. Someone else made a chess analogy and I only used it. You have nothing to do with it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It was not my analogy. Someone else made a chess analogy and I only used it. You have nothing to do with it.

Yeah. It's impossible that you just made a logical misstep. Therefore it must be that I 'have nothing to do with it.'

 

[1robin]

Yeah. It's impossible that you just made a logical misstep. Therefore it must be that I 'have nothing to do with it.'

No, what I said applies perfectly. Not this contrivance. It was another person's analogy that I simply continued and which you jumped into the middle of. This is juvenile. I am not interested in your evaluations of analogies. Do you have anything of substance to add about religion?

 

[hexler]

One of the things which shows the value of a religion is <what has this community done for peace>. Because religions are for peace. If a religion causes war, it is not a religion.

 

[1robin]

One of the things which shows the value of a religion is <what has this community done for peace>. Because religions are for peace. If a religion causes war, it is not a religion.

So if any Baha'i ever defended his family or nation against aggression then it is a false religion. Peace is not the test for truth. It is an admirable goal and what Christianity teaches but it is not a test for theological truth. Jesus said he brought a sword (not literal but still not peaceful) and that because of him families would even split. Light and darkness do not coexist. The darks railing against the light is evidence of the light and the darkness's disdain for it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, what I said applies perfectly.

It was illogical, missing the nature of his metaphor.

If someone claims to have metaphorically checkmated you, it is illogical to proclaim that you are a high-ranked chess player.

Trust me on this one. Unlike you, I've read thousands of novels and other fiction. I know all about metaphorical speech.