the right religion

[SoulDaemon]

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?

I believe the right path is what you make of it. It will be full of ups and downs, mistakes and right decisions. I don't believe in one absolute religion. I pick up what I see fit and what I believe I can use to be a good person.

Everyone has their own paths and beliefs. It is your life, no one else.

 

[metis]

I believe the right path is what you make of it. It will be full of ups and downs, mistakes and right decisions. I don't believe in one absolute religion. I pick up what I see fit and what I believe I can use to be a good person.

Everyone has their own paths and beliefs. It is your life, no one else.

Nice post.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My point was that as Christians who claim to have experienced God more than any other faith in history by orders of magnitude we would be in the best position to know whether he exists.

Atheists that claim to have never experienced God are in by far the worst position to make a claim.

The Muslims and the Hindus also have experienced God, not just the Christians.

Further, before adopting atheism, people generally are theists, and become atheists when they find the food not good enough.

 

[1robin]

The Muslims and the Hindus also have experienced God, not just the Christians.

Further, before adopting atheism, people generally are theists, and become atheists when they find the food not good enough.

They most certainly have not experienced God as have Christians. I know for one because I have spent years asking Muslims and Hindus about his. This would include hundreds by now. So far I have had one Muslim claim he had experienced God, and I have been given references to a few Hindu Gurus (living in trees, holes, caves, or wherever) that are supposed to have been enlightened but which I can not talk to.

1. Christianity unlike any other major faith both demands and offers to every believer a verifiable and unmistakable experience with a risen Christ. No one claiming to be a Christian is one without this experience. Islam, Hinduism, nor even Judaism make that same claim. So in addition to actual experience there is no equality of doctrines concerning supernatural experience between these faiths. Normally if offered at all it is only available to a select few that reach some arbitrarily level of commitment and you can almost never find one of these people. Christianity offers it to every single believer and no one is truly a believer according to Christ without it.

2. The numbers of claims to experience are not even remotely similar. You become a Muslim by agreeing with a few intellectual proposition about the name of God, how many God's there are, and Muhammad being his prophet. There is not even a mention of a supernatural experience in becoming a Muslim. IMO there is not an experiential guarantee in any part of the Quran but there is certainly no similar promise as the Gospels contain. MY own experience and what data I have seen puts the number of Muslims who claimed to have been in Allah's direct presence at negligible levels and no where near Christian claims. Hinduism makes promises of enlightenment but reserves them to only a select few. That necessarily places extreme limits on the amount of people who would claim supernatural experience. Given that Hinduism is less than half the size of Christianity and while Christianity contains mostly those who claim to have been born again and that Hinduism restricts this similar event to a relative handful there is no comparison. Buddhism would be similar since they were derived from the same root sources.

If you have taken any stats classes you will know that extremely small data sets are normally dismissed as meaningless. There is no claim so outrageous of false that some tiny group will not claim it is true. So very small groups claiming extraordinary things are not convincing in the least. However you start getting hundreds of millions or even billons making similar claims to exactly what the Bible promises then you have data in amounts that cannot be ignored.

In summary: While some level of claims to experience probably exist in many faiths none are even in the same realm (data set amount) as Christianity. You may try and convince me the numbers are greater (for whatever you wish) if you wish but I have enough experience to warrant my claims. There is also no comparison between the doctrinal claims or promises to experience between Christianity and any other major faith. In short there simply is no comparison at any level.

You last statement defies Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam in totality. No one is born according to these major faiths a theist. WE are all born spiritually separated from God and the purpose of life is to discover and establish a relationship with God. We are all spiritual atheists at birth.

 

[metis]

Why is it that there's always some in every religion who think that their scriptures are the only one's that are valid and make sense? Why is it that some don't seem to understand that there are intelligent and firm believers found in every religion? Why is it that some persistently cannot seemingly understand that religious and philosophical beliefs are very highly subjective?

 

[Ouroboros]

Why is it that there's always some in every religion who think that their scriptures are the only one's that are valid and make sense? Why is it that some don't seem to understand that there are intelligent and firm believers found in every religion? Why is it that some persistently cannot seemingly understand that religious and philosophical beliefs are very highly subjective?

Because they have an immature belief. They're the ones Paul talked about as babies in faith drinking milk only and not being able to eat meat. It's basically arrested spiritual growth.

 

[Tumah]

They most certainly have not experienced God as have Christians. I know for one because I have spent years asking Muslims and Hindus about his. This would include hundreds by now. So far I have had one Muslim claim he had experienced God, and I have been given references to a few Hindu Gurus (living in trees, holes, caves, or wherever) that are supposed to have been enlightened but which I can not talk to.

1. Christianity unlike any other major faith both demands and offers to every believer a verifiable and unmistakable experience with a risen Christ. No one claiming to be a Christian is one without this experience. Islam, Hinduism, nor even Judaism make that same claim. So in addition to actual experience there is no equality of doctrines concerning supernatural experience between these faiths. Normally if offered at all it is only available to a select few that reach some arbitrarily level of commitment and you can almost never find one of these people. Christianity offers it to every single believer and no one is truly a believer according to Christ without it.

2. The numbers of claims to experience are not even remotely similar. You become a Muslim by agreeing with a few intellectual proposition about the name of God, how many God's there are, and Muhammad being his prophet. There is not even a mention of a supernatural experience in becoming a Muslim. IMO there is not an experiential guarantee in any part of the Quran but there is certainly no similar promise as the Gospels contain. MY own experience and what data I have seen puts the number of Muslims who claimed to have been in Allah's direct presence at negligible levels and no where near Christian claims. Hinduism makes promises of enlightenment but reserves them to only a select few. That necessarily places extreme limits on the amount of people who would claim supernatural experience. Given that Hinduism is less than half the size of Christianity and while Christianity contains mostly those who claim to have been born again and that Hinduism restricts this similar event to a relative handful there is no comparison. Buddhism would be similar since they were derived from the same root sources.

If you have taken any stats classes you will know that extremely small data sets are normally dismissed as meaningless. There is no claim so outrageous of false that some tiny group will not claim it is true. So very small groups claiming extraordinary things are not convincing in the least. However you start getting hundreds of millions or even billons making similar claims to exactly what the Bible promises then you have data in amounts that cannot be ignored.

In summary: While some level of claims to experience probably exist in many faiths none are even in the same realm (data set amount) as Christianity. You may try and convince me the numbers are greater (for whatever you wish) if you wish but I have enough experience to warrant my claims. There is also no comparison between the doctrinal claims or promises to experience between Christianity and any other major faith. In short there simply is no comparison at any level.

You last statement defies Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam in totality. No one is born according to these major faiths a theist. WE are all born spiritually separated from God and the purpose of life is to discover and establish a relationship with God. We are all spiritual atheists at birth.

The problem with your claim:
Let's say for the sake of argument, Paul and friends, at the behest of Satan writes the NT to turn people from G-d. Now the evil forces of the world want to reinforce Paul's evil, so everyone that comes to believe in him as you have are given a "free" mystical experience of him. Since it flows perfectly with your NT as the evil forces want it to, you have no idea that you're actually going down the wrong road. For all you know, invoking Jesus is actually a form of black magic and the experience that you are receiving is actually demonic.
Only because you've been indoctrinated to a certain mindset of what "demonic" means, you're not able to recognize it in what you are experiencing.

That is why it says in Deut. 13 says that signs and wonders are not the basis for belief. And I am saying this as one who did experience signs within my religion. That is not the basis for religious belief, because you can't tell if you're religions is truly "G-dly" and not just "Satan" tricking you with "godly feelings" as he is wont to do.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because they have an immature belief. They're the ones Paul talked about as babies in faith drinking milk only and not being able to eat meat. It's basically arrested spiritual growth.

Yeah, that's sure how I see it. It's why I advise always dancing with Truth but never taking it to bed afterwards. The only thing that can breed is undue familiarity.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The problem with your claim:
Let's say for the sake of argument, Paul and friends, at the behest of Satan writes the NT to turn people from G-d. Now the evil forces of the world want to reinforce Paul's evil, so everyone that comes to believe in him as you have are given a "free" mystical experience of him. Since it flows perfectly with your NT as the evil forces want it to, you have no idea that you're actually going down the wrong road. For all you know, invoking Jesus is actually a form of black magic and the experience that you are receiving is actually demonic.
Only because you've been indoctrinated to a certain mindset of what "demonic" means, you're not able to recognize it in what you are experiencing.

That is why it says in Deut. 13 says that signs and wonders are not the basis for belief. And I am saying this as one who did experience signs within my religion. That is not the basis for religious belief, because you can't tell if you're religions is truly "G-dly" and not just "Satan" tricking you with "godly feelings" as he is wont to do.

Good message. But let's say that Moses and friends, at the behest of Satan, wrote Deuteronony, to turn people from God....

 

[1robin]

Because they have an immature belief. They're the ones Paul talked about as babies in faith drinking milk only and not being able to eat meat. It's basically arrested spiritual growth.

That is not in any way shape of form what Paul was talking about.
1. Paul not only denied all other claims to revelation he even negated his own peoples claims to it as interpreted by Judaism.
2. Paul was talking about CHRISTIAN maturity concerning Biblical teaching. He was not talking about the teaching of any other faith.
3. For goodness sakes it was contained in a letter to the Corinthian church not to Christians who refused to adopt Hinduism's teaching or Islam's teaching.
4. He traveled around between Church's in rotation. He expected to see more CHRISTIAN growth at Corinth but found they were still floundering around in basic doctrine and had not advanced.
5. He even indicates they should be teaching others about Christ instead of mangling Christ's simple teachings. He did not say anything about being disappointed because they were not mature enough to know mutually exclusive claims are all true. That is absurd.

I think you would be wrong to doubt the bible but I could understand it. I cannot for the life of me find out why a person would use what he doubts in a way directly the absolute opposite of the way it was intended. It wrong on top of wrong on top of wrong. When I was a non-theists I never did this kind of thing. My position was completely wrong but no self contradiction or inconsistency like this was present in my argumentation as an atheist.

 

[1robin]

The problem with your claim:
Let's say for the sake of argument, Paul and friends, at the behest of Satan writes the NT to turn people from G-d. Now the evil forces of the world want to reinforce Paul's evil, so everyone that comes to believe in him as you have are given a "free" mystical experience of him. Since it flows perfectly with your NT as the evil forces want it to, you have no idea that you're actually going down the wrong road. For all you know, invoking Jesus is actually a form of black magic and the experience that you are receiving is actually demonic.
Only because you've been indoctrinated to a certain mindset of what "demonic" means, you're not able to recognize it in what you are experiencing.

That is why it says in Deut. 13 says that signs and wonders are not the basis for belief. And I am saying this as one who did experience signs within my religion. That is not the basis for religious belief, because you can't tell if you're religions is truly "G-dly" and not just "Satan" tricking you with "godly feelings" as he is wont to do.

This is a very ridiculous argument of the type called an argument from silence. It comes in many forms but one is that anything not proven impossible for certain that agrees with you counters even what the evidence suggests is likely true concerning my position.

For example If every piece of evidence we have suggests the universe began to exist and that was inconvenient for you would using this argumentation say well multiverse could exist. That is theoretically possible. However a possibility does not counter a likelihood backed up with mountains of evidence.

I can pick your argument apart piece by piece but I do not think it worth it. Before you distort that into some kind od claim that was bluffing I will pick a few claims apart as examples.

For some reason that I doubt you even know you seem to suggest that people who agree with the Bible are the evil ones trying to hide truth and those that throw futile arguments against it are the good guys trying to get the actual truth out. Let us see if your claim or mine is the best explanation for what exists.

First are believers or non-believers on the "good" side.
1. Humans share a common core intuitive belief in what is good. In general charity, self sacrifice, freedom, moral codes or laws that reflect these, and unconditional love are considered good things by most people.
2. Since Christians have built more hospitals than any other non-government group, are the most generous demographic in history, constantly sacrifice their time and money for others, have created the freest nations in history, have texts and foundations more universally associated with moral truth and used to develop moral codes than any other, who are associated as a group with unconditional love more than many other, and since Christian organizations routinely take in people every other help group has denied and have higher success rates in almost every category of misfortune and chemical dependence, then the evidence for their being on the good side of moral truth is greater than any other demographic. Similar groups that oppose the bible cannot compare with Christianity in any category of the types I mentioned. So the evidence is that Christians are of the two more consistently on the right side of moral truth as humans perceive it.

Second which group is defending truth by denying the Bible or supporting it.
1. The bible has 25,000 historical corroborations, over 2000 predictions that have been fulfilled in every detail, and is the most textually accurate work of any kind in ancient history by many orders of magnitude over any other. To deny any of those is to deny established historically reliable evidence.
2. It has been concluded by the majority of NT scholars (no matter what side they are on) that: Jesus was a historical figure with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, he was crucified on a cross, his tomb was found empty, even his enemies claimed to have witnessed him after death. Of al the explanations for those reliable historical details the Gospel explanation is by far the best. So to deny it is to deny truth(as best as evidence can indicate truth) it's self.
3. The bible is perfectly philosophically valid. Some of my favorite debaters are pure philosophers and subject it to extreme philosophical tests. It more than science or secular philosophy gives a more exhaustive, comprehensive, and academically valid explanation of reality. To oppose it is to oppose established philosophical and logical methodology.
4. The greatest experts on testimony and evidence, including Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst claim the testimony given by the apostles meets every standard of modern legal testimony. The same is true with the historical method. To oppose it is to oppose modern legal procedure and long established historical methods.


Anyway, I can do this for quite some time, but it is clear even from these few examples which group is on the side of truth and moral goodness. Here is a bonus:

Morality:
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

Evidence:
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Plenty more of the same here:
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

 

[1robin]

Yeah, that's sure how I see it. It's why I advise always dancing with Truth but never taking it to bed afterwards. The only thing that can breed is undue familiarity.

I can agree that you do not desire too much familiarity with the truth. You might get some of it on you and ruin the whole narrative. Actually you are one of the few that have no narrative. There is nothing to ruin.

Now that is quality and appropriate sarcasm.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can agree that you do not desire too much familiarity with the truth.

Thanks, bud. Not to brag, but I also have very little familiarity with murder, theft and rape.

I avoid most of the carnal sins, most of the time.

You might get some of it on you and ruin the whole narrative. Actually you are one of the few that have no narrative. There is nothing to ruin.

Um... what's a narrative? You make them sound like good things, so I might want to go out and get me one!

Now that is quality and appropriate sarcasm.

You say the strangest things. It's one reason I love you so much. Most people just can't confuse me the way you can. They can't seem to pry themselves off of conventional language use and clear thought... the bores.

 

[1robin]

Thanks, bud. Not to brag, but I also have very little familiarity with murder, theft and rape.

I avoid most of the carnal sins, most of the time.

I can also agree that you (and only you) would equate rape, and murder with truth. Explains quite a lot.

Um... what's a narrative? You make them sound like good things, so I might want to go out and get me one!

They are not. So I am sure you will get one. It is a story line or world view constructed mainly from preference to which evidence is forced to fit into and all contrary evidence is denied at all costs.

You say the strangest things. It's one reason I love you so much. Most people just can't confuse me the way you can. They can't seem to pry themselves off of conventional language use and clear thought... the bores.

Are you suggesting this statement was a mystery to you?

Now that is quality and appropriate sarcasm.

It is fine as is but would have been better like this, I guess.

Now that was appropriate and quality sarcasm.

Has a better flow and cadence that way.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can also agree that you (and only you) would equate rape, and murder with truth. Explains quite a lot.

I am definitely God's Prophet for these modern days. Thanks for noticing.

They are not. So I am sure you will get one. It is a story line or world view constructed mainly from preference to which evidence is forced to fit into and all contrary evidence is denied at all costs.

Ah. Like conservative Christianity. OK, I guess I really don't want one after all.

 

[Tumah]

Good message. But let's say that Moses and friends, at the behest of Satan, wrote Deuteronony, to turn people from God....

Then there is still all the other religions that also claim to have adherents that experience the supernatural/supernatural adherents.

 

[Tumah]

This is a very ridiculous argument of the type called an argument from silence. It comes in many forms but one is that anything not proven impossible for certain that agrees with you counters even what the evidence suggests is likely true concerning my position.

For example If every piece of evidence we have suggests the universe began to exist and that was inconvenient for you would using this argumentation say well multiverse could exist. That is theoretically possible. However a possibility does not counter a likelihood backed up with mountains of evidence.

I can pick your argument apart piece by piece but I do not think it worth it. Before you distort that into some kind od claim that was bluffing I will pick a few claims apart as examples.

Actually, no. You chose to disregard the fact that many other religions also have claimants that have experienced the divine. Yes, you (supposedly) interviewed some few hundred people. What percentage is that of the populations of people of religion? And how many Christians have had your experience among all the Christians of the world? Conversely how many Christians have tried to, yet have not.

So because you haven't met them yet, means there's no other religions that have such things? That is an argument of the type called an argument from ignorance.

For some reason that I doubt you even know you seem to suggest that people who agree with the Bible are the evil ones trying to hide truth and those that throw futile arguments against it are the good guys trying to get the actual truth out. Let us see if your claim or mine is the best explanation for what exists.

This is called a deflection. It's a defense mechanism to avoid dealing with the real issue.
This is not a question of who is a good person and who is a bad person. This is a question of whether a sign or wonder can be used to verify the truth of something a la Deut. 13. And indeed, whether a sign should be used as evidence.

For some reason, I doubt you even know, you needed to change the question in order to put it into a context you are comfortable with. Since you already had these wonderful ideas already written out for you somewhere else, it was in your best interest to re-frame the question to fit some of that information.

First are believers or non-believers on the "good" side.
1. Humans share a common core intuitive belief in what is good. In general charity, self sacrifice, freedom, moral codes or laws that reflect these, and unconditional love are considered good things by most people.
2. Since Christians have built more hospitals than any other non-government group, are the most generous demographic in history, constantly sacrifice their time and money for others, have created the freest nations in history, have texts and foundations more universally associated with moral truth and used to develop moral codes than any other, who are associated as a group with unconditional love more than many other, and since Christian organizations routinely take in people every other help group has denied and have higher success rates in almost every category of misfortune and chemical dependence, then the evidence for their being on the good side of moral truth is greater than any other demographic. Similar groups that oppose the bible cannot compare with Christianity in any category of the types I mentioned. So the evidence is that Christians are of the two more consistently on the right side of moral truth as humans perceive it.

You see, I would have said, since Christianity represent 1/3 of the world population, they would likewise have a similarly large amount of charitable organizations. But let's try ironing out the wrinkles. Statistically speaking, how many Christian charity organization that are not simultaneously trying to make a convert (ie. completely altruistic per your explanation of "good" above) in comparison to the world population of Christians? What are the statistics of other world religions in comparison to their populations?

This is called a base-rate fallacy.
Also, appeal to accomplishment.

And let's not kid ourselves. WE both know why Christianity is such a big religion today. And it has nothing to do with being "good".

Second which group is defending truth by denying the Bible or supporting it.
1. The bible has 25,000 historical corroborations, over 2000 predictions that have been fulfilled in every detail, and is the most textually accurate work of any kind in ancient history by many orders of magnitude over any other. To deny any of those is to deny established historically reliable evidence.

This is a fabrication or at best purposely misleading. There is historical corroboration to the time period described in the NT (well almost, that census keeps getting in the way). Not to the events that took place with certain persons.

Similarly, there are no predictions that were not written after the fact. And by extension therefor, suspect.

2. It has been concluded by the majority of NT scholars (no matter what side they are on) that: Jesus was a historical figure with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, he was crucified on a cross, his tomb was found empty, even his enemies claimed to have witnessed him after death. Of al the explanations for those reliable historical details the Gospel explanation is by far the best. So to deny it is to deny truth(as best as evidence can indicate truth) it's self.

This is a fabrication. Let's try to break this down. Among NT scholars, what proportion of them are Christian (ie. have no vested interest, are not biased, etc.) and what number are secular? Among secular NT scholars, what proportion of them agree with everything you've said here?

3. The bible is perfectly philosophically valid. Some of my favorite debaters are pure philosophers and subject it to extreme philosophical tests. It more than science or secular philosophy gives a more exhaustive, comprehensive, and academically valid explanation of reality. To oppose it is to oppose established philosophical and logical methodology.

This is a red herring. I mean technically everything after "For some reason..." is a red herring. But this red herring is the herring of the herring.

Also, I detect some straw-manning.

4. The greatest experts on testimony and evidence, including Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst claim the testimony given by the apostles meets every standard of modern legal testimony. The same is true with the historical method. To oppose it is to oppose modern legal procedure and long established historical methods.

Aside from the fact that Mr. Greenleaf and Lyndhurst were both Christian - which already makes their arguments biased. All that you've established here is that the person who wrote the NT did a good job describing a fictional account.

Anyway, I can do this for quite some time, but it is clear even from these few examples which group is on the side of truth and moral goodness. Here is a bonus:

Morality:
"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

I'm not sure what you mean by secular, he almost became a priest.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God...The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

Says a Christian minister.

Evidence:
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

I'm going to take a guess at Mr. Selwyn's religion.

Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey:
"As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Plenty more of the same here:
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

So basically, your entire argument to the authenticity of the events of the NT are based entirely on what other Christians say. I would like to see the same number of arguments and quotes here from non-Christian sources and authorities.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They most certainly have not experienced God as have Christians .. We are all spiritual atheists at birth.

LYING FOR THE CHURCH

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told them.

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it."

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?
Did Jesus exist?

 

[Muffled]

I believe the right path is what you make of it. It will be full of ups and downs, mistakes and right decisions. I don't believe in one absolute religion. I pick up what I see fit and what I believe I can use to be a good person.

Everyone has their own paths and beliefs. It is your life, no one else.

Welcome to RF.

I believe a person will follow his own path but it may not be the right path. There is a road to hell and many are on it.

I believe the right path is what one allows God to make of it.

I believe this isn't a religous path at all but an ego path.

 

[Muffled]

Why is it that there's always some in every religion who think that their scriptures are the only one's that are valid and make sense? Why is it that some don't seem to understand that there are intelligent and firm believers found in every religion? Why is it that some persistently cannot seemingly understand that religious and philosophical beliefs are very highly subjective?

I believe this is ego based.

I don't have any trouble believing that but intelligence and belief don't indicate a right religion.

I believe it and consider it possible for the person to see the light as long as ego doesn't get in the way.