the right religion

[AmbiguousGuy]

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[m] the world's greatest expert on me.

Do you think there's any person in the world who knows less about his own motivations than you know about his motivation?

 

[metis]

...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.

First of all, I have no idea whether there's a heaven, hell, God, Gods, and a great many other things. But, for just a short response as I'm going to try and keep this, let's assume there's one God.

We see in the Torah that Abraham selects a belief in one God, and the general feeling amongst historians is that what eventually became "Judaism" probably started out as being polytheistic, which one can pretty much pick up by reading between the lines in Genesis. Either way, Abraham is given the credit for first believing in the one God "Eloheim" (other names are obviously used as well). Even though we cannot be rest assured that Abraham actually existed, nevertheless let's assume he did, and theologians estimate that he probably lived around 1800 b.c.e. OK, I'm slipping into a different gear now, so let's more on.

Humans have lived as "humans" for how long? We know with certainty at least 4 & 1/2 million years ago, but both the fossil record and genome testing indicates that the human ape split was likely around 7 million or so years ago.
Jesus, otoh, lived in eretz Israel only roughly 2000 years ago.

Now, with this scenario, is it even slightly logical that only those humans who have your politically-correct beliefs about Jesus are the only ones going to heaven? Under 1% of the time we've been on Earth, Abraham and Jesus existed. OTOT, they only existed in one very small part of the world. Even today, probably a huge part of the human population have little to no clue who Jesus was.

So, you actually believe that God only came to one very small group of people in one very small area of the world and only that minute fraction of the total human population is the only one going to "heaven"? The rest of the world's population ain't important to God, so he just ignored and continues to ignore them because they don't have the politically-correct belief that you have? Even those who know about Jesus but feel he's a man like other men aren't going to "heaven" because they don't have your politically-correct belief either? How in any way does that make sense?

To me, in order for there to be any claim of logic and fairness here, there must be another "path" than a politically-correct belief and, to me, the only one that could possibly fill that bill would be a basic teaching of compassion and justice for others, which indeed is taught in most religions. Plus there seems to have a genetic connection within us along this line even though there are some who seem to disregard that impulse. Young children do not have to be taught that compassion towards them feels "good", and they eventually learn because of our societal impulse that compassion and justice (fairness) is needed to have a harmoneous society, although not all follow those teachings and logic because it doesn't exist minus other impulses.

If you chose to respond, please try to keep your words at a minimum because the minute I see a very lengthy response, I tend to either ignore it or only skim it, such as with your preceding post to me on this thread.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Does a father not love all his children despite the crimes that they may have committed? Would a father throw away child painting simply because it is not on the skills of Piccaso? Would a father not listen to a child playing piano because they are not like Mozart who at 6 was already composing his own music?
Does a father not let a child make their own decisions (respect those decisions) in the end and still love them anyway?

I have seen humans do all these things...I would find it odd for a Omni-benevolent God to not do the same.

 

[metis]

Does a father not love all his children despite the crimes that they may have committed? Would a father throw away child painting simply because it is not on the skills of Piccaso? Would a father not listen to a child playing piano because they are not like Mozart who at 6 was already composing his own music?
Does a father not let a child make their own decisions (respect those decisions) in the end and still love them anyway?

I have seen humans do all these things...I would find it odd for a Omni-benevolent God to not do the same.

I really have to agree in that this makes more sense to me, although I'm certainly not going as far as to claim we must be correct.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I really have to agree in that this makes more sense to me, although I'm certainly not going as far as to claim we must be correct.

Well it's not the idea that we are correct. But we are also quite fallible. I cannot see into my childs heart, I do not understand the psychological, sociological, biological, and genetic makeup of my child. I am not always with my child. So I am only privy to just a facet of what makes them them.

God does not have that limitation. Not only that God as the surveyor and creator of all things also created such a path for a person to take, "before you were in your mothers womb I knew you".

 

[Sha'irullah]

The right religion is the one that is free and requires no monthly fees nor subscribed payments. God does not need your money yet alone your worthless currency, he created the stuff to begin with.

The most proper way to determine the right religion is the same manner in which one would determine the murderer in a CSI plot.
You must determine truth from falsehood, whether it be social or scientific implications. You must interrogate the pious leaders and do so harshly. You must find the witnesses of a religions claim, whether it be scripture or people and you must dissect through the fallacies of their claims.
But as with any investigation one must not be quick to pick an accuser or have bias towards who is right or wrong.

Essentially keen observation, scientific methods and factual foundations must be established to find the "right" religion. Although this leaves very few

 

[1robin]

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

Even if that were true it won't save you from God's judgment. I can have the peace of the blissful ignorant die and be separated from God for eternity. I would gladly trade that kind of peace (of which I see little evidence anyway) for the truth that will allow me to live with God in heaven. By the way are you one of those that have achieved this, I can never actually talk to one. It always turns out that only some Guru living in a cave or the top of a tree has this "enlightenment" never the person to whom I am speaking.

 

[1robin]

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.

No, fait is to believe in something without enough evidence to make it a certainty. For example:

1. I believe my brother exists. This is an example of I know something.
2. I believe Christ exists. This is an example of faith based on evidence but not proven for a certainty by the evidence.
3. The belief in multiple universes. Now this is evidences speculation.

I also imagine there are many shades in between. It is not an either / or situation. If faith does not fit in the known category that does not allow you to place it in the no evidence category.

To you it isn't.

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

This sounds like the ever popular and relied upon (but personally disgusting) tactic of liberals. I regard it as the greatest evil in modern times. It involves selecting a morally inferior position based on preference, then to do what ever is necessary to label your opponents morally superior position into becoming a false moral failure of some kind. For example if I oppose a sexual practice that 4% of us practice that causes 60% of aids cases then I am a homophobe, if I oppose liberals buying votes by throwing away our grandchildren's money and destroying the greatest country in history by over spending then I am pushing grandmother over a cliff. And the most diabolical of all if I am for human life's existence in the womb then I am against women's rights. I do not compromise with wrong. It is too costly. It is also exactly the opposite of what the task I have been charged with is. The bible tells me to give reasons for my faith and oppose unsound doctrines of men. The being who tasked me with that assignment is a slightly higher standard that PC garbage.

The greatest good possible is correct theological truth.
The greatest evil possible is incorrect theological claims masquerading as truth.

I have spent many years doing my best to determine which is which and why that is. I will always stand on the side of what I have determined is true and against what I believe to be false. I would help you even if I have to disagree with you that hurt you by agreeing with you. That does not mean I am always right but it does mean I am justified and sincere. That is all anyone can ask.

Word salad.

Well that is convenient. You can literally reject anything by virtue of the ability to compose a euphemism. Quite handy. Unlike what you compared it to my claim was consistent with the way all of philosophy, science, and history works. You posit the best explanation for the data whether anyone who does not like the explanation calls it a salad or not.

 

[Quirkybird]

Even if that were true it won't save you from God's judgment. I can have the peace of the blissful ignorant die and be separated from God for eternity. I would gladly trade that kind of peace (of which I see little evidence anyway) for the truth that will allow me to live with God in heaven. By the way are you one of those that have achieved this, I can never actually talk to one. It always turns out that only some Guru living in a cave or the top of a tree has this "enlightenment" never the person to whom I am speaking.

There is not the slightest shred of evidence you runpleasant deity exists. Goodness knows why anyone would wish to spend eternity with that ghastly entity!

 

[1robin]

Do you think there's any person in the world who knows less about his own motivations than you know about his motivation?

Yes but I think it would only be a very small group composed of crazy, pathological, or extremely dishonest people.

I sometimes make comments about motivation. I try hard to always say the evidence from my point of view adds up to your motivation being X. I try not to say the only reason you did Y is X. It is an apprehension versus nature issue. If you accuse me of lying you are saying you know for a fact what my intent was and you most certainly do not. If you claim I am disingenuous you would have to know that I was purposefully misleading you and you mostly certainly do not. Quit claiming to know what you can't possibly know. Instead tell me why it looks that way to you, that is if honor is important to you.

 

[1robin]

But, for just a short response as I'm going to try and keep this, let's assume there's one God.

One omni-max being is certainly much more philosophically justifiable that a pantheon of redundant God's.

We see in the Torah that Abraham selects a belief in one God, and the general feeling amongst historians is that what eventually became "Judaism" probably started out as being polytheistic,

1. I do not think that is the quorum view among biblical scholars but let me just ignore that and explain why they may mistakenly think that if they do.
2. Abraham's people were polytheistic. That is why Abraham's decision to accept one God was so extraordinary.
3. Israel was surrounded by polytheistic cultures. So culturally we see much pagan influence but the Bible is certainly not consistent with polytheism. It in fact denies it and punishes it's practice.

I thought this was to be about merit based salvation so I will leave this here.

Humans have lived as "humans" for how long? We know with certainty at least 4 & 1/2 million years ago, but both the fossil record and genome testing indicates that the human ape split was likely around 7 million or so years ago.
Jesus, otoh, lived in eretz Israel only roughly 2000 years ago.

That is completely ridiculous. The most extreme and optimistic dates I have ever heard for the most wild eyed atheist was 250,000 years. I do not grant this at all. Hitchens used what I would believe to be fair as every year back we go adds to our uncertainty. I would be happy as most atheists are with 100,000 years for human history. However since I have no idea what this will be used for yet I will remain flexible.

Now, with this scenario, is it even slightly logical that only those humans who have your politically-correct beliefs about Jesus

I thought this was where you were headed. This is actually a very easy one.

1. If you averaged all realistic population curves for humanities past. You would find that between 90% and 95% of us have lived since Christ came. That is because we increase exponentially and have done so at the increasing rate farming and other advances have allowed.
2. So you "problem" at best concerns 10% of us. I will shortly get to that 10% but first:
3. Christ also came the exact moment an empire existed to perpetuate the message faster, farther, and to the most people in history. These events occurred right in the geographic heart of the world. They also took place at the hub of the silk road. There seems to be quite a bit of providence associated with when Christ came.
4. Now back to the 10%. The bible says we are only judged on the revelation we have received. Now I am not an expert on what that means. However it must mean that we are not responsible for knowing what has not been supplied. If you want to read a scholarly work on this issue look for Craig's "the problem of the unevangelised". God holds us responsible for what he has supplied. For much of your 10% it would have been drawn from nature conclusions about nature.

(Rom 1:20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:20 - They are without excuse (who are they?)

Those who have only been given nature are only responsible for their conclusions drawn from it.

Add to this the confirmation power of the Holy Spirit available from day one. This is a big one. One of the Holy spirits rolls is to assist faith by confirming truth and denying falsities. So even that 5% is not without sufficient help.

The last 5% would have either been responsible only for what nature has revealed or for their faith in the promised Messiah. The bulls and Oxen in the OT are said to have no power to save. That gets very complex so let me sum it up. It was faith in a future messiah the same as we have of a past messiah that produced salvation for those with revelation.

Again please see an expert on the subject like Craig and others as I am not one. However I did supply what I have understood concerning this tiny fraction of the human population. They are all faith based.

So, you actually believe that God only came to one very small group of people in one very small area of the world and only that minute fraction of the total human population is the only one going to "heaven"? The rest of the world's population ain't important to God, so he just ignored and continues to ignore them because they don't have the politically-correct belief that you have? Even those who know about Jesus but feel he's a man like other men aren't going to "heaven" because they don't have your politically-correct belief either? How in any way does that make sense?

I think God used a tiny fraction of the 10% that existed before Christ as the conduit for the message that was intended for the majority of the 90% that existed since then. Some apostles like Peter tried to keep the message strictly for Jews and God emphatically said they were wrong. The message was meant for all people of the earth. BTW my faith is anything but politically correct. Jesus was the ultimate rebel and Christians have been burned, systematically slaughtered, hung on crosses and burned by the thousands, persecuted by massive empires, beheaded, and as is currently going on ostracized from politically correct groups. It is the ultimate rebellion against the norm. Another factor in this is that God judges both individually and corporately. An example of this is that any society who why rejects God is bound by spiritual darkness. If a family teaches their kids that God is evil or non-existent their kids will suffer because God must allow freewill to operate almost unhindered. This concept would take a lot of time to explain. Let me however illustrate what God actually did as opposed to what you characterize him doing.

1. God transmitted a revelation so powerful that even though it took place over only three years in a minor Roman backwater it has influenced mankind more than any other concept in history.
2. God provided that revelation in a book more textually accurate by far than any book of any type in ancient history. He sent the most widely recognized person in human history who is also the most textually attested person in ancient history by a huge margin.
3. He sent the most scrutinized and cherished text in human history.
4. His message is the only message in human history to significantly exist in every nation on earth.
5. He supplied the universal influence of the Holy Spirit.
6. He gave us the universal concept on our moral conscience.
7. He judges only our response to the revelation we have received or is available.

Where exactly is the foul in only that short list?

Your objection is called a false optimization fallacy. Basically your saying that whatever God did your standard is that plus one. Carrying that concept to it's conclusion unless God performed enough miracles to convince the hardest heart (which by the way would be a violation of freewill) he has failed. This is hardly justifiable. God supplies sufficiency concerning what he judges by.

To me, in order for there to be any claim of logic and fairness here, there must be another "path" than a politically-correct belief and, to me, the only one that could possibly fill that bill would be a basic teaching of compassion and justice for others, which indeed is taught in most religions. Plus there seems to have a genetic connection within us along this line even though there are some who seem to disregard that impulse. Young children do not have to be taught that compassion towards them feels "good", and they eventually learn because of our societal impulse that compassion and justice (fairness) is needed to have a harmoneous society, although not all follow those teachings and logic because it doesn't exist minus other impulses.

There is no claim of fairness here. There is a claim of sufficiency. God will judge based on only what you had a sufficient amount of to be judged for. God's goal for this current world is not fairness, harmony, nor happiness. He said he sent a sword into the world (meaning his word or revelation) that would separate mother from daughter and son from father. Now before you indict God that separation is our fault not his. We have chosen wrong and those that choose right will be alienated from us as oil and water illustrate. God said he wished all to come to faith but he also says because we are rebellious and have hard hearts we will not do so and this will produce division and strife. I normally do not make apprehension claims about the bible. Thou shall not murder is not a unique mandate. However it is only a truth full mandate if God exists. IOW regardless of how morals came, they are not even true without God. For example there is no such thing as human equality if evolution without God is true. No two equal things have ever evolved. Only with God can man be equal. The same is true for inherent rights, the sanctity of life, dignity of man, ultimate purpose, ultimate meaning, and a comprehensive explanation of reality in total.

If you chose to respond, please try to keep your words at a minimum because the minute I see a very lengthy response, I tend to either ignore it or only skim it, such as with your preceding post to me on this thread.

Too late. That is as bad as saying describe God in three sentences or less. Either do not ask the question of accept that the answers are involved. If you are this unwilling to listen you may be in the wrong place. There are no short answers.

 

[1robin]

Does a father not love all his children despite the crimes that they may have committed? Would a father throw away child painting simply because it is not on the skills of Piccaso? Would a father not listen to a child playing piano because they are not like Mozart who at 6 was already composing his own music?
Does a father not let a child make their own decisions (respect those decisions) in the end and still love them anyway?

I have seen humans do all these things...I would find it odd for a Omni-benevolent God to not do the same.

Both God and most fathers would love their children regardless. However:

1. Is a person who has always resisted any relationship with God be God's child.
2. Would God allow a rebellious child who had always hated him into a heaven (he denied even wanting) to continue this sad circus into eternity?

The bible makes it clear that God loves us so much he will not force us to choose him. Love only exists where freewill does. He loves us no less when we deny him but if we choose to stay separated from God we CANNOT dwell with him and probably would not want to anyway. Love or not we get what we chose. Life with God and the things of God or the opposite.

 

[metis]

That is completely ridiculous. The most extreme and optimistic dates I have ever heard for the most wild eyed atheist was 250,000 years. I do not grant this at all. Hitchens used what I would believe to be fair as every year back we go adds to our uncertainty. I would be happy as most atheists are with 100,000 years for human history. However since I have no idea what this will be used for yet I will remain flexible.

You make up your own "history", and even though Wikipedia is not an anthropological nor a science site, it does contain links: Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the rest of your post, all you have done is to continue what you constantly do, and that is to take your beliefs and elevate them to the fact stage. What I'll do since it was so long winded is to just deal with a couple of items in follow-up posts.

 

[metis]

1. I do not think that is the quorum view among biblical scholars but let me just ignore that and explain why they may mistakenly think that if they do.
2. Abraham's people were polytheistic. That is why Abraham's decision to accept one God was so extraordinary.
3. Israel was surrounded by polytheistic cultures. So culturally we see much pagan influence but the Bible is certainly not consistent with polytheism. It in fact denies it and punishes it's practice.

Why did you write the above? You basically rewrote what I posted as if it's your own, which tells me either you have difficulty with reading comprehension or that you just like trying to sound as if you really are so intellectual.

 

[metis]

1. If you averaged all realistic population curves for humanities past. You would find that between 90% and 95% of us have lived since Christ came. That is because we increase exponentially and have done so at the increasing rate farming and other advances have allowed...

Another pathetic distortion of what I wrote, namely that only a small percentage of people in one small area of the world at a very late date were exposed to the teachings found in Judaism and Christianity. BTW, I read a remark of a Christian theologian who's familiar with China who said that probably 2/3 of the Chinese population couldn't give you a simple definition of who Jesus was.

Therefore, the point I made is very much valid, namely that most of the world's population historically probably had no clue who Jesus was, plus there's undoubtedly so many others today who probably know little to nothing about him.

 

[metis]

Let me however illustrate what God actually did as opposed to what you characterize him doing.

1. God transmitted a revelation so powerful that even though it took place over only three years in a minor Roman backwater it has influenced mankind more than any other concept in history.
2. God provided that revelation in a book more textually accurate by far than any book of any type in ancient history. He sent the most widely recognized person in human history who is also the most textually attested person in ancient history by a huge margin.
3. He sent the most scrutinized and cherished text in human history.
4. His message is the only message in human history to significantly exist in every nation on earth.
5. He supplied the universal influence of the Holy Spirit.
6. He gave us the universal concept on our moral conscience.
7. He judges only our response to the revelation we have received or is available.

Where exactly is the foul in only that short list?

The above is simply one assumption on top of another on top of another, and you simply show no ability whatsoever to differentiate belief from fact as they simply are not necessarily one and the same. A devout Muslem could pretty much run a list such as the above as could people in some other faiths.

 

[metis]

One omni-max being is certainly much more philosophically justifiable that a pantheon of redundant God's.

And exactly why is that, especially in light of the concept called "collaboration"?

 

[metis]

O
Too late. That is as bad as saying describe God in three sentences or less. Either do not ask the question of accept that the answers are involved. If you are this unwilling to listen you may be in the wrong place. There are no short answers.

To me, instead of dealing with the main points, all you do is ramble and ramble some more. Even if a one-word answer would suffice, you write essays that are so unnecessarily long. IOW, please get to the main point(s) that are involved.

Also, you actually might consider introductory statements such as "I believe..." instead of posting opinions as if they're facts. As a scientist (an anthropologist, now retired), if I did such a thing on a scientific paper, I would be drawn, quartered, and skinned by the scientific community. Even serious theologians have to be very careful to not go too far overboard and begin to cite opinions as facts because by doing so they undercut their credibility, which you continuously do to yourself.

 

[1robin]

You make up your own "history", and even though Wikipedia is not an anthropological nor a science site, it does contain links: Human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the rest of your post, all you have done is to continue what you constantly do, and that is to take your beliefs and elevate them to the fact stage. What I'll do since it was so long winded is to just deal with a couple of items in follow-up posts.

IF we evaluate what X is then we discuss what is true of the concept X. What I said is true if Christianity is true. That is how these things are supposed to work. Only your side starts by claiming to know Christianity can't be true and then sets in to evaluating it. If it is true then what I said was true of it. If it is not true then we are have nothing to discuss.

As for your numbers. I had watched every debate on evolution versus theology that either Utube or google video had available. I have transcripts to many. I have read quite a number of books on the issues. Every single person from your side who has had to answer the question of how long Humans (us) have lived uses the same numbers. These: The emergence of modern humans

Fossil evidence suggests that modern humans evolved in East Africa around 200,000 years ago, since fossils more than 150,000 years old are known from Ethiopia and Kenya. However, genetic data from recent African populations suggests that other regions may also have been important.
How long have we been here? | Natural History Museum


However I can see a point you may have. The Bible is talking about Nephish creatures when it speaks of judgment. That means a human with a soul. I do not know what evolutionary category this corresponds to nor is there a way to find out. I thought, the atheists thought, and almost everyone thinks the best approximation is the "modern human". Here it will not matter because the population curves are almost flat until cultivation occurred. In other words going back even a few million years ago would not add that many people at all.

Type in human population curve in Google image. They all show pretty much exactly what I have claimed. Population numbers were almost negligible in comparison with modern times. Not that even if they were large would my claims be in trouble, so use whatever numbers makes you happy. They change nothing.

 

[1robin]

Why did you write the above? You basically rewrote what I posted as if it's your own, which tells me either you have difficulty with reading comprehension or that you just like trying to sound as if you really are so intellectual.

It was an attempt to separate two things you threw together.

You threw what was true of Israel's and/or Abraham's people at times into what was true about God's revelation in the OT. Israel being made up of fallible people, were often corrupted by pluralistic theological systems of either their ancestors or their neighbors. God's revelation had neither pluralistic influence nor grew out of it. It flat denies it. It was the common tactic of condemning a faith for the actions of the adherents of it who do not practice it. You cannot blame a book the prohibits murder for murders done by the crusaders for example and you cannot suggest a book that emphatically condemns polytheism grew out of it even if some its followers periodically were influenced by polytheism. You judge a teacher by those that show up and practice the lessons not by those who do neither.