the right religion

[metis]

I believe this is ego based.

So much of what I've run across, I tend to think you're so often right with this. What I continually see is the strutting around by some claiming to be of the right belief while telling others that they're wrong. To me, it's simply a variation of the "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" argument that we see with little kids. This is not to say, however, that this is the m.o. of all or even most, but it is very common with those who take the "my way or the highway" approach to religion.

 

[Ingledsva]

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.

BUT - do you understand that others believe just as strongly in their particular religion, - and think of YOU - as you are calling them - on the wrong path?


And as you have no proof? Whom are the rest of us to believe?


Christianity has no better argument then any other religion.


*

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

God? What God??

 

[1robin]

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.

I have spent so much time explaining the almost infinite gulf of inequality in numbers and access between the tiny fraction of other faiths claims to experience and Christianity massive numbers and accessibility that I just can't do it again. If you review a bit I must have types 50,000 words recently explaining why no equality, no similarity, not even a hint of either exists between what is claimed with Christianity and other faiths. In fact I would bet Christian claims to experience outnumber 10 - 1 all other claims to experience, all combined, at least. I also explained why the numbers matter. I not only have a good cross sectional knowledge of the percentage of Christians who claim personal experience but I also supported it with data. I just cannot do that over and over and over. I have answered every question you asked above and explained the relevance. Please review a bit, I just cannot type them in perpetuity.

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.

No it means that the proportion that have them in other religions is so small that even for a person who is diligently seeking them out and debates and reads on the subject daily and has for years still has not managed to find more than 2 that made the claim personally. Go into just about any protestant or Catholic church on earth and you will have from dozens to thousands that will claim to have experienced God. However let's pretend that we could not do this or that I had not done that very thing, or even that statistical data is unavailable. You can compare doctrines and see that no other major faith makes any offers even remotely similar to what the Bible does concerning access to God.

Just for fun I types in:
1. Christian miracles - 21 million hits.
2. Islamic miracles - 4 million hits.
3. Hindu miracles - 2 million hits.
4. Buddhist miracles - 2 million hits.

Now that was quite silly but even that shows that between Christianity and number 2 there exists a 5 to 1 ration. Again that was only for fun.

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.

That is not what you said, This is:

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.

You point blank called Paul and all forces the believe the bible evil. I gave a rational methodology that indicates by any standard we have they are not evil yet those who oppose them would be.

You also are woefully misunderstanding the miracles roll in revelation.

God send signs and wonders to confirm his message.
Mark 16:17, 18: "And these signs shall follow them that believe"
There are many verses that confirm this.

Satan is always described as attempting to copy God. Deuteronomy is a verse designed to distinguish between signs and wonders, not to deny them. The bible says Satan has power and will do wonders but for example his predictions are not always true. IOW some signs are from God and are 100% consistent and true, some are from Satan and hit or miss. Biblical verses but mainly the Holy spirit is employed to distinguish between them.

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.

So Satan copies God and you copy my statements. Ironic. You linked believing the Bible and evil, not me.

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?

So even when Christians do what is almost universally considered the highest good they must be doing wrong and be evil. That is some logic you got going on, not biased at all.

1. Every Christian charity I know of has separated helping and evangelism. For example we feed everyone and then "offer" not "demand" as a condition for food the truth.
2. If Christianity is true the message is more needed than the food. You first have to prove that all charity comes only when payment is made in the form of accepting a message. You can't. Then you would have to prove the message was false. You can't.
3. Most charities (especially ones for foreign aid) at most have a message availability methodology. They feed, dig wells, and treat the sick. The idea is that the help will spawn credibility and if asked a message will be given but it has never been forced in any charity I have been involved in.
4. Most people in a charity are not even seen by the beneficiary. When a child I went to ware house every year and stuffed donated presents in stockings for kids. They got the presents without them ever hearing any message at all and never seeing any of us.

Continued:

 

[1robin]

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

I have no idea what a base rate fallacy is. I thought I had heard every mangled fallacy used as a crutch possible. Please explain.

It is a fallacy to say achievement PROVES motivation. IT IS NOT a fallacy to say achievement strongly indicates motivation. A tree is known by it's fruit.

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".

Every single Christian I know would tell you it is because in spite of their aversion to it in most cases it was the undeniable truth that sold them on it. However by all means tell me what is "really" going on and I will ruin it in totality because I have studied this quite a bit, though I will certainly grant that many Christians are in it for some gain that God did not intend, but that would be the exception not the rule.

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.

That is completely and utterly false. Since you chose the census we can use it to resolve this. The census is perfectly attested by history, in ways far exceeding anything that could be reasonably hoped for. Do you wish to use it to resolve this?

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

That is completely wrong as well. One of the most challenged is the TYRE prophecy. It is certainly not a known fact when it was written, however every piece of evidence that exists places it previous to the initial actions by years and hundreds of years before the final actions. Care to use it to resolve this absurd claim? In fact some prophecies were not fulfilled until after the bible was in its final canonistic state. So you can't possibly be right.

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?

Long ago I had to check into what proportion were Christians and it was not what you think. I do not remember the ration but it I not heavily weighted to either side. I would look it up again but it dies not matter. Are we to dismiss evolution because most of the biologists believe in it? Are we to reject the BBT because most of the cosmologists accept it? In what way are the conclusions of those convinced by the evidence the only ones we can't use? This is one of the most common and absurd ways to reject what you convenient. You have used it several times so far.

1. Yes, Christians do more than just about any similar group for good, yet we know it must be for evil reasons.
2. Ye every historical method shows that Ezekiel's predictions about Tyre to be among the most easily established, yet we know that every prophecy ever written was written after the fact even if we have copies of the prediction prior to the fulfillment.
3. Yes, most of those that are in the best position to know the Gospels accuracy conclude it is accurate, yet we know they are actually risking their professional standing and 8 years of school by claiming what they know is a lie as being true and even giving undeniable reasons to believe it is true. Shame of them.
4. Of course using those who best would know is done in every court room, statistical study, and scientific debate ever held but if used for God we must only use those who do not believe and those least in a position to know even if those in the best position of all to know literally risked their lives and died for the truth of what they knew the truth of without any world gains.
5. Then insert fallacy where it does not belong and dismiss the whole thing.

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.

I think the moment God is mentioned you think you detect all sorts of ways to neglect valid claims. One the primary ways comparative theology is preformed uses logical consistency (like the law of non-contradiction) to evaluate and compare. You can literally reject most religions based on philosophic incoherence alone. The Bible has no philosophic weakness at all. Just because your hounds wonder of the path of truth constantly does not prove any fish were dragged across the path.

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.

So the only group of people that can't be trusted are those that believed a claim inconvenient to your views. Both of those men are among the world's most accomplished and professional legal experts. Greenleaf founded Harvard law and wrote textbooks on evidence that are used in fed court rooms today. Lyndhurst is the only human in history to have held every high court office in the greatest empire in human history. Both gave LEGAL reasons to take the Gospels as reliable accounts not theological ones. Both risked careers and professional integrity to valid the most controversial issue in history. That subjected theological documents to purely SECULAR methodology and found they passed them all. They both have massive company among those who best know the Gospels reliability.

I proved you have no reason whatever to conclude the Gospels are insincere, unreliable, or fictional. You may think they are, you may even be right, what you do not have is the slightest justification for thinking you are right. They passed every test thrown at them.

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

That was not my claim. He wrote histories of a secular nature. Stalin almost became a priest, Nietzsche's father was a priest, Darwin was trained in the ministry. Does that make the evolution of species, the communist manifesto, and the Ubermenshe theological texts.

Says a Christian minister.

If I used a genetic claim would I not use a geneticist, if I used a cosmological claim would a cosmologist be valid, if I need an expert witness for a trial concerning Caesar would I use one that believed he never existed.

Usually when someone believe sin something they adopt that thing. Your bizarre standard leaves only those that deny X as a source for X. Appalling.

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

Again this is about the worst excuse to dismiss a claim in a long list of terrible excuses to do the same.

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.

1. Why in the world would what Christians say be inadmissible. Christianity is a evidenced based belief.
2. How many non-Christian claims to agreements with something would be enough. I can supply quite a few. For instance Ehrman's conclusion that the bible is the most textually accurate text of any kind in ancient history, with at most 5% error, and not a single error in core doctrine. Would his lack of faith make that conclusion any more valid? How many Ehrman's would it take for you to accept that conclusion?
3. I use primarily Islamic sources to condemn Islam, I use atheist sources to condemn atheism. I use secular philosophy, science, and logic to both defend the bible and condemn it's detractors. Why are you demanding what never crossed my mind to demand of other views? What justification do you have to suggest any of my sources are invalid.
4. I notice you did not produce a single reason to counter their claims themselves. You simply wrote them off because they believed them. Wow.

 

[1robin]

God? What God??

The one who's inclusion makes reality coherent and the one who's exclusion makes reality incoherent.

 

[1robin]

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

I have covered this in exhaustive detail. There are no equal or even slightly similar claims made by any other faith compared with Christianity. Not personally or in core doctrine. I must have written 50,000 words on that point alone, recently. Please review a bit and you will find there exist no comparable claims what so ever to the ones I made. I can't retype that for every new bible skeptic.

 

[1robin]

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?

This had nothing what so ever to do with the claim you responded to. This stuff is partially wrong and partially true, but my claims apply whether a single word of the bible is accurate or not. My claims are concerning experience. I have no problem debating the biblical textual tradition in detail and it will not in any way prove most of what you copied and pasted here is accurate. I can even supply atheist sources (extremely well credentialed) that destroy most of these claims. However we have been talking about experience, not doctrine or textual accuracy.

Christians claims to personally experiencing God outnumber and other faith and probably outnumber all other faiths combined. I have stated in detail why numbers matter and gave examples to illustrate it. You have no way to counter my claims as they are, which probably explains why you instead copied and posted a bunch of stuff about a different topic all together. Now if you are done trying to deny the undeniable we can get into textual traditions and criticism but that was not the original subject.

BTW I am not a biblical inerrancy believer. I believe what the evidence proves. It is between 95% and 99.5% accurate with virtually all errors known and none in core doctrine. It is by far (and I mean far) the most textually reliable work of any kind in ancient history. There is no close second.

 

[1robin]

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 it makes sense. For two major reasons among a great many.

1. If a God existed who valued communicating to humans it makes far more sense he would provide one pure revelation form. He would not hid bits and pieces of truth in mountains of man-made garbage in a 100 different religions making mutually exclusive claims to truth. One accurate revelation makes sense, a bunch of self contradictory claims to truth makes no sense what so ever.
2. The very nature of truth is generally exclusionary. Truth almost always (not always most almost) excludes more that it includes. My house excludes all other houses. Earth excludes all other planet. Up excludes all other directions.

The way to heaven is X excludes all other ways. X is true excludes all non Xs from being true. All major religions make mutually exclusive claims to truth. It is absolutely impossible for more that one of those claims to be true.

There are quite a lot of good reasons to think we would have exactly what we have if the bible is true. God gives man pure truth and man rejects it and invents counter truths more convenient for him in the short run. God's truth is philosophically valid on every level and man's truth contradicts its self and other attempts at the same.

It is no more arrogant or irrational to think one revelation is true and all others false than to think 2 + 2 = 4 and only 4 and all other results false.

 

[SoulDaemon]

I don't belive any religion to own "the truth", they're just different paths to it.

 

[metis]

Because it makes sense. For two major reasons among a great many.

1. If a God existed who valued communicating to humans it makes far more sense he would provide one pure revelation form. He would not hid bits and pieces of truth in mountains of man-made garbage in a 100 different religions making mutually exclusive claims to truth. One accurate revelation makes sense, a bunch of self contradictory claims to truth makes no sense what so ever.
2. The very nature of truth is generally exclusionary. Truth almost always (not always most almost) excludes more that it includes. My house excludes all other houses. Earth excludes all other planet. Up excludes all other directions.

The way to heaven is X excludes all other ways. X is true excludes all non Xs from being true. All major religions make mutually exclusive claims to truth. It is absolutely impossible for more that one of those claims to be true.

There are quite a lot of good reasons to think we would have exactly what we have if the bible is true. God gives man pure truth and man rejects it and invents counter truths more convenient for him in the short run. God's truth is philosophically valid on every level and man's truth contradicts its self and other attempts at the same.

It is no more arrogant or irrational to think one revelation is true and all others false than to think 2 + 2 = 4 and only 4 and all other results false.

You're not even getting close to answering the questions in any kind of rational manner. All you are continuing to do is to portray your beliefs as if they were slam-dunk facts, and that's just a completely nonsensical approach that demeans what so many others believe. Beliefs are beliefs-- not intrinsically facts. Even if there is such a "narrow path", what's to say that only those who are of your religion are on it?

 

[Ouroboros]

Just for fun I types in:
1. Christian miracles - 21 million hits.
2. Islamic miracles - 4 million hits.
3. Hindu miracles - 2 million hits.
4. Buddhist miracles - 2 million hits.

Now that was quite silly but even that shows that between Christianity and number 2 there exists a 5 to 1 ration. Again that was only for fun.

That's a very cool experiment!

I typed it Catholic Miracles and got 9 million hits. Then I did the same for Protestant Miracles and only got 2 million. Evangelical Miracles only one million. That's a huge difference too. So I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism now...

 

[1robin]

You're not even getting close to answering the questions in any kind of rational manner. All you are continuing to do is to portray your beliefs as if they were slam-dunk facts, and that's just a completely nonsensical approach that demeans what so many others believe. Beliefs are beliefs-- not intrinsically facts. Even if there is such a "narrow path", what's to say that only those who are of your religion are on it?

Beliefs may or may not be as factual as anything else. You are making an ontological claim about an epistemological uncertainty concerning apprehension not a beliefs truth.

I have never tried, never though about trying, and never hinted at claiming my beliefs are slam dunk facts. Of course I do think my core faith is factual because it has been personally proven to me. I however have debated for a long time and in a discussion I never claim my beliefs are facts that are objectively proven. I do not even think that way. I always make best fit, most explanatory, and most comprehensive claims concerning faith. I do not even have that burden but assume it because I think I can justify it. The only burden a faith claim has is the absence of a defeater.

Now since as has become far too common hear lately, you only made assertions, and not even an attempt to provide evidence or reason were provided I cannot contend with what you merely declared was true. If I said you suck (something I of course would not do) you would have no way to counter my declaration because you have no idea what it was based on. That is why I try and not make claims like you did above, they are not conducive to resolution.

BTW I never said which path was correct. I did give a few reasons to think mine was but never made a core claim about it. My point was that truth is and so revelation would (according to everything known) more likely be exclusive and certainly would not be mutually exclusive as what religions actually are. I think Islam is complete fabrication but the defense of it as the one true path is far more logical than claiming as the Baha'i do that all faiths are true. This is illustrated by the fact the Baha'i MUST mangle every other faiths scriptures into unrecognizable distortions to get any possible harmonization from them. It can't be possible that Jesus both died on the cross as Christianity says and also did not die on the cross as Islam emphatically insists despite none of them having been there to know. However as CS Lewis so eloquently put it the worst claim possible is that he was merely a good Razul respected by all faiths. Regardless of which on is true it is a certain fact that most religions contradict most other religions and so can't possibly be all correct.

 

[1robin]

That's a very cool experiment!

I typed it Catholic Miracles and got 9 million hits. Then I did the same for Protestant Miracles and only got 2 million. Evangelical Miracles only one million. That's a huge difference too. So I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism now...

I must have said it was for fun three times. Of course it was a sloppy thing to do. However let me point out a flaw in your use of these very ambiguous methods.

1. Every single protestant miracle is claimed to be from exactly the same source as every Catholic miracle, so that is a distinction without a difference.
2. Catholicism is quite a bit older than Protestantism and especially evangelicalism (which is quite ambiguous anyway).
3. Over history Catholicism is far larger in numbers than Protestantism.
4. Catholic authority is centralized (or at least has been much of the time) records of this type would be far more easily tallied and preserved.
5. While I disagree with much of Catholic tradition their work in miracles and spiritual warfare has no parallel. If a miracle is reported there is no Baptist commission sent to investigate and officially record it anywhere. There are no 1800 year old Vatican archives to be poured over and studied under any Methodist facility.

I would think you infinitely better off if you converted to Catholicism than retain a lack of faith. Especially these days where the distinction is not significant.

However do not take (and as I did no take) hits as reliable evidence.

 

[metis]

Beliefs may or may not be as factual as anything else. You are making an ontological claim about an epistemological uncertainty concerning apprehension not a beliefs truth.

I have never tried, never though about trying, and never hinted at claiming my beliefs are slam dunk facts. Of course I do think my core faith is factual because it has been personally proven to me. I however have debated for a long time and in a discussion I never claim my beliefs are facts that are objectively proven. I do not even think that way. I always make best fit, most explanatory, and most comprehensive claims concerning faith. I do not even have that burden but assume it because I think I can justify it. The only burden a faith claim has is the absence of a defeater.

Now since as has become far too common hear lately, you only made assertions, and not even an attempt to provide evidence or reason were provided I cannot contend with what you merely declared was true. If I said you suck (something I of course would not do) you would have no way to counter my declaration because you have no idea what it was based on. That is why I try and not make claims like you did above, they are not conducive to resolution.

BTW I never said which path was correct. I did give a few reasons to think mine was but never made a core claim about it. My point was that truth is and so revelation would (according to everything known) more likely be exclusive and certainly would not be mutually exclusive as what religions actually are. I think Islam is complete fabrication but the defense of it as the one true path is far more logical than claiming as the Baha'i do that all faiths are true. This is illustrated by the fact the Baha'i MUST mangle every other faiths scriptures into unrecognizable distortions to get any possible harmonization from them. It can't be possible that Jesus both died on the cross as Christianity says and also did not die on the cross as Islam emphatically insists despite none of them having been there to know. However as CS Lewis so eloquently put it the worst claim possible is that he was merely a good Razul respected by all faiths. Regardless of which on is true it is a certain fact that most religions contradict most other religions and so can't possibly be all correct.

Lots of words, but pretty disingenuous overall since on most occasions you actually do present your beliefs as if they were slam-dunk facts.

Secondly, have you ever heard the common Hindu phrase "There are many paths to God"? Now, I certainly don't know if that's correct or not, but the point should be taken seriously in that, assuming there is a God, that maybe having politically-correct beliefs is not as important as maybe some other approaches? At least with the Hindus, there is the hypothetical recognition that one could be a very honorable person in the sight of God even if they don't have p.c. beliefs, especially since our knowledge in this area is so limited.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Confucius, and it goes like this (paraphrased): The more you know, the more you know you really don't know. For any one of us to sit back and somehow assert that we know "the answers" in such an area is arrogance on steroids. For any one of us to trash the scriptural texts of others while elevating our own is equally nonsensical.

It's important for each of us, imo, to recognize that there are pretty much no "gimmes" when it comes to religious or philosophical beliefs, and a large part of being intelligent is to recognize just how little we actually know. I'm certainly no Confucius, but one phrase I use to demonstrate this is as such: To a child, a tree is so simple; but to a botanist, a tree is very complex.

Or maybe Micah said it best:
6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

 

[Ouroboros]

I would think you infinitely better off if you converted to Catholicism than retain a lack of faith.

Well, I'm not lacking faith. I believe in Nature. I believe in Reality. I believe in the World. All this is God. So I'm good.

And the funny thing is that I experience this God all the time. Every moment I'm awake, that's where I experience God.

 

[1robin]

Lots of words, but pretty disingenuous overall since on most occasions you actually do present your beliefs as if they were slam-dunk facts.

Disingenuous implies motivation, not results. Even if I was wrong, you would have to know that I intended to lie or not be genuine in my claims. You do not and cannot. I on the other hand a the world's greatest expert on me. I genuinely meant what I stated. In order to dispense with this person sidebar let me restate this to include any error I made (if any actually exist).


I officially claim that a personal belief can be known (in many cases) as surely as any fact can be to an individual. That evidence or confirmation is not available to others so it may be a fact yet not universally apprehended as a fact. I know this very well and allow for it. I "officially" claim only best explanations or best fit claims, among claims concerning evidence and quality of evidence. Whether I mistakenly stated something as a fact, you mistakenly believed I did, or you made it up altogether I now and forever more do not claim the factual nature of faith claims is open to universal apprehension. Views my claims in that light.

Fair enough?

Secondly, have you ever heard the common Hindu phrase "There are many paths to God"? Now, I certainly don't know if that's correct or not, but the point should be taken seriously in that, assuming there is a God, that maybe having politically-correct beliefs is not as important as maybe some other approaches? At least with the Hindus, there is the hypothetical recognition that one could be a very honorable person in the sight of God even if they don't have p.c. beliefs, especially since our knowledge in this area is so limited.

Of course I have heard it, and philosophers would and do state that it is one of the most unjustifiable conclusions in a long list of them contained in (the almost defunct) oriental either hand pluralistic philosophies. I will not get into the purely philosophical secular self contradictions and problems with it. I will illustrate FACTUAL problems with it, at least within the major faiths.

1. Christianity - Claims Christ and only Christ is the path to God in no uncertain terms. It emphatically and constantly claims this as absolute.

The source of this claim and the source for the Hindus claim cannot possibly be the same and the claims are mutually exclusive.

2. Islam - They claim that faith in Muhammad as prophet, and Allah as the one and only God plus a few ceremonial practices are the one and only path to God. A single path may have several lags to it and still be only a single path.

The source of this claim and the source for the Hindus claim cannot possibly be the same and the claims are mutually exclusive.

3. Judaism - They claim obedience to a single set of laws is the path to God.

The source of this claim and the source for the Hindus claim cannot possibly be the same and the claims are mutually exclusive.

Now we can see that at least 1/2 of all people with faith have not only views that contradict pluralistic claims like what you made here, but also each other. You can keep doing this for different claims and different faiths until almost none are compatible with any other. If you then eliminate self contradictory faiths, faiths that make incorrect verifiable claims, or that make incoherent claims you can rule out almost all faiths except Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Though Islam is a stretch.

One faith may or may not be true, it is possible that none are true, but the by far worst theory is that many of them are true.

One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Confucius, and it goes like this (paraphrased): The more you know, the more you know you really don't know. For any one of us to sit back and somehow assert that we know "the answers" in such an area is arrogance on steroids. For any one of us to trash the scriptural texts of others while elevating our own is equally nonsensical.

Let me be clear about a few things. I in no way claim that all faiths do not have truth within them. I claim they can't all possibly be from God or true in their core theological doctrines.

1. Confucius was right about a great many things especially coming from his context. However it is very plausible that one faith is more or less right and the other wrong. Let's say for instance Christianity was right. I would expect exactly what I see. Those that know through experience it is would insist it is. The rest who have no way to know and found others knowing inconvenient would insist it can't be known.
2. I have experienced God as a direct result of revelation contained in the bible. The exact same revelation that insists only it is true. What would be arrogant about my faith if my claims are true. It is no more arrogant than the poor scientists who was right about inflation even when Einstein said the steady state was true.
3. Is it not the height of arrogance to suggest that because you do not know that no one can know.

I myself have experienced God and know revelation is true. I having the Holy spirit also believe I know other faiths are not from God. I however do not claim you should know any of that. I argue that a single and true faith is far more logical and consistent with (at least) a benevolent God that any counter claim using logic and reason not my personal revelation.

It's important for each of us, imo, to recognize that there are pretty much no "gimmes" when it comes to religious or philosophical beliefs, and a large part of being intelligent is to recognize just how little we actually know. I'm certainly no Confucius, but one phrase I use to demonstrate this is as such: To a child, a tree is so simple; but to a botanist, a tree is very complex.

However a trees complexity is absolute. It has a certain level of complexity and the one who accurately identifies and believes in that level of complexity is not wrong or arrogant. Those that sit around without doing what is necessary to know the complexity of a tree see all claims to such as equally unknowable yet they are wrong. If a contest exists about how many marbles are in a fish tank. Do we insist no one knows, that there is no right answer, that all answers are equally valid, or that an actually amount of balls exist in it even if only a few people know how many there are. Imagine how arrogant a contestant would be to get the wrong answer and suggest any of those or to claim the contest operator was arrogant. That was such a good analogy I will bold it.

Or maybe Micah said it best:
6[8] He has showed you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

Well Micah was only a minor prophet. That only means we have little written by him to investigate what is meant by him. He also lived in a different covenant from the later and far superior covenant we live under. Paul on the other said quite a bit so it is easier to understand how he uses language.

1. Fault was found in the old covenant. That is why the new replaced it permanently. This is very complex, so please do not counter it unless you want a long discussion.
2. The old covenant had a different purpose. It was to maintain the integrity of the conduit to be used for revelation by God (Israel). That is why almost every law that applied to it was done away with on the cross. Again this is very complex stuff here.
3. Micah was not saying that only those things are demanded (he was not attempting to illustrate salvation requirements at all) he was only summarizing the general nature of God's requirements. Some where a church father was challenged that if he could state God's doctrinal demands while on one foot the man would believe. He stood on one foot and said love God with all your heart and your neighbor as your self --- the rest my son is commentary. Micah and this man were summarizing the nature of God's commands.
4. God has demands for us that he will temporally hold us accountable for and eternal demands that our ultimate destiny is decided by. Our duties are varied and complex and no one besides Christ has ever met them all nor could. Some are goals not destinations, like perfection for example. These are independent from what is necessary to be saved. Since no one can possibly merit heaven besides Christ is only by faith in Christ we will get to heaven by substitutionary atonement. IOW I have thousands of things I should do but will fail at. I have only one demand for heaven, faith in Christ which results in being born again.


If you do not agree with this, try me. If you like so many that drift in proximity to faith believe being good will merit heaven. Then please state exactly how that works and I will show you how it is impossible a merit system is compatible with a just, loving, and benevolent God. I am competent in math, some science, military history, theology and not much else. However I have studied salvation models more than anything else because I had to make sure.

 

[1robin]

Well, I'm not lacking faith. I believe in Nature. I believe in Reality. I believe in the World. All this is God. So I'm good.

And the funny thing is that I experience this God all the time. Every moment I'm awake, that's where I experience God.

It is not faith to believe in my brother or a rock. It is not faith to believe that gravity exists. It would be faith to believe Christ is the messiah. It would be pure speculation to believe multiverse existed.

Claims to casually experiencing God may be true and meaningless in a debate at the same time. For example I could claim that it is reasonable to believe the fact that nature does not contain an explanation for it's own existence so that every atom is an experience with God, but it would not be persuasive. The claims I was referring to are to events where the only known explanation or by farther best is that God did X. It is also a common axiom that anything that explains everything actually explains nothing. It comes form the military claim that to defend everything is to defend nothing. To apply it here, claims that everything is an experience of God is to render the claim impotent. Again whatever your referring to has no application or equality to what I was.

 

[yoda89]

There are many paths that lead to ones self enlightenment and achieving inner peace.

 

[Ouroboros]

It is not faith to believe in my brother or a rock. It is not faith to believe that gravity exists. It would be faith to believe Christ is the messiah. It would be pure speculation to believe multiverse existed.

Ah. So faith is when you believe in things you can't see or have evidence for. Good to know that you just have faith by blind belief.

Claims to casually experiencing God may be true and meaningless in a debate at the same time. For example I could claim that it is reasonable to believe the fact that nature does not contain an explanation for it's own existence so that every atom is an experience with God, but it would not be persuasive.

To you it isn't.

Thanks for being so understanding and accepting of other people's views and insights.

The claims I was referring to are to events where the only known explanation or by farther best is that God did X. It is also a common axiom that anything that explains everything actually explains nothing. It comes form the military claim that to defend everything is to defend nothing. To apply it here, claims that everything is an experience of God is to render the claim impotent. Again whatever your referring to has no application or equality to what I was.

Word salad.