the right religion

[Ingledsva]

Rev 13 has been going on for quite some time.

And I'll repeat -


Do you realize how many people have said the same thing over the years - and every one of them has been wrong? As will you be.



*

 

[kjw47]

And I'll repeat -


Do you realize how many people have said the same thing over the years - and every one of them has been wrong? As will you be.



*

I wont be--My teachers have got it right. Because Jesus is with them.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I wont be--My teachers have got it right. Because Jesus is with them.

No one is any more expert on God than you and I are.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I wont be--My teachers have got it right. Because Jesus is with them.

Yeah, what's what they all say. And you're all equally wrong.

 

[kjw47]

Yeah, what's what they all say. And you're all equally wrong.

33,000 religions claiming to be Christian, but only one is real--this is a dilemma for mankind. Few choose right Jesus taught, because few bother to learn Jesus truths. Like this ultra important one.

Therefore keep on seeking FIRST the kingdom and his (YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added. ( sustenance, covering, spirituality)

Most seek-$-pleasure.

One needs to live for entrance into Gods kingdom now in this lifetime.
Gods kingdom is a cure all-everlasting life. knowing only good.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

33,000 religions claiming to be Christian, but only one is real--this is a dilemma for mankind. Few choose right Jesus taught, because few bother to learn Jesus truths. Like this ultra important one.

Therefore keep on seeking FIRST the kingdom and his (YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added. ( sustenance, covering, spirituality)

Most seek-$-pleasure.

One needs to live for entrance into Gods kingdom now in this lifetime.
Gods kingdom is a cure all-everlasting life. knowing only good.

Blah, blah, blah. All of you think you have the truth. You're no different.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I wont be my teachers are correct.--this world is in for a huge shock---as in the days of Noah.

Yeah yeah yeah. They've been saying that for more than 2,000 years now, and they'll still be saying that 2,000 years from now.

 

[Ingledsva]

I wont be--My teachers have got it right. Because Jesus is with them.

As all of the Christian, "The End is Nigh" criers, have predicted - also!


They all failed - and you know what it says about false prophets!



*

 

[Muffled]

The right religion would best be replaced by the right philosophy as no religion is useful until the proper philosophical map sheet is placed over it.

Deism is theophilosophy that helps me interpret and find use of any religion no matter it's message or principles. Literalism is just one of the theological outlooks one can have that is destructive but in the eyes of a mythologist the same religion can be harmless.

The better question asked is what is the philosophy that motivates your religious affiliation.

I don't believe deism as a philosophy is right religion, since it leaves a person to rid themselves of their own sin and most people are incapable of doing so.

I also believe that literalism can be harmful since it can give an innacurate result. However I believe a philosophy of symbolism has the same dangers. I believe guidance by Jesus is always best to decide what should be understood litrally and what should be understood figuratively. I don't know anyone who has a philosophy of mythologism but I believe it is possibly an innacurate way of looking at things since a lack of verifiability does not necessarily mean a lack of truth.

I don't see why this would be a better question. I believe I came to Jesus because I wanted my life to be better. So I suppose my philosophy is that God is good and can change things. I suppose if a person loves evil and wants things to be bad all the time or at lest some of the time then Christianity would not be the right religion for him.

 

[Muffled]

The right religion is my own religion, not a second-hand religion, yukky poo.

I believe that supposes that you are always right and have the authority and power to maintain your position. I believe you are wrong about having the right religion because you are wrong about your own capabilities and that someone else will hold power over you.

 

[Muffled]

You seem confused-- every real Christian knows for sure--144,000( little flock) are bought from the earth--no more--no less. rev 14:3) You have been fed the crap by the great apostasy it seems--like most are.
Jesus taught this truth---- Blessed are the meek, ( great crowd)for they will inherit the earth)---not heaven--earth---Jesus teachers teach this truth.

I believe this is only a JW interpretation and a false one.

I believe this is not what the text says. It says that 144,000 are Jews who are the first fruit to be raptured and they don't go to Heaven but only to the skies and return to earth with the rest of us.

I believe I am quite capable of reading the Bible on my own and understanding it but JW's have to adhere to a teaching whether it jives with the Bible or not.

It isn't the only one He teaches. I believe Heaven is available to anyone at anytime. Just because it isn't the desired destiny at the end of the world does not mean that it doesn't have its place in God's system of things.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[kjw47]

I believe this is only a JW interpretation and a false one.

I believe this is not what the text says. It says that 144,000 are Jews who are the first fruit to be raptured and they don't go to Heaven but only to the skies and return to earth with the rest of us.

I believe I am quite capable of reading the Bible on my own and understanding it but JW's have to adhere to a teaching whether it jives with the Bible or not.

It isn't the only one He teaches. I believe Heaven is available to anyone at anytime. Just because it isn't the desired destiny at the end of the world does not mean that it doesn't have its place in God's system of things.

I guess the psalmist must have lied as well he said--- The righteous will possess the earth and reside forever upon it. Jesus said the same thing--the JW, s teach the same thing--- but muffled and 32,999 religions teach--heaven or hell as the end am I right. one side is assuredly wrong.

 

[Agnostic75]

Another excellent reason why the God of the Bible cannot exist is that a loving, fair, worthy, and just God would not set up a system where he would deny eternal life to some people based upon where they lived. For example, South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world, and has the largest Christian church in the world by far. Education and media are advanced. Surely many non-Christians who live in South Korea could not claim ignorance of the Bible, and it would be illogical for anyone to claim that all of them, or even the majority of them have not been properly evangelized. Surely many non-Christian South Koreans have Christian family members, or friends, who have discussed the Bible at length with them many times. From a Christian perspective, those non-Christians would not have eternal life if they died today. Logically, it is a given that at least some of those South Korean non-Christians would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

These are not reasons they are complaints. I used to be an atheist for personal preference. My mom died and she was a Christian. I thought either God did not exist, or he did and did not help and I hated him. After I arrived at my conclusion I then set about looking for intelligent sounding justifications. I made a fool out of myself and cost myself more than many men ever have, by those efforts.

None of that even remotely refutes what I said.

I have already suggested you read Craig's: "the problem of the unevangelised" many times. If you will not do so, do not expect me to credit your efforts of posting this same objection over and over again. If you do not desire answers because they upset the narrative then debate is meaningless.

There is quite obviously not any need for me to read what Craig says about that since surely many South Korean skeptics have been properly evangelized, and would have become Christians if they had lived elsewhere in Korea, or in the U.S.

It is also a given that although a much higher percentage of people in the U.S. are Christians than in South Korea, at least some skeptics in the U.S. would have become Christians if they had been raised in South Korea. That is partly true because everyone has different abilities to persuade other people, and some South Korean Christians would be able to persuade American skeptics better than American Christians could. Surely all of the best persuaders in the world do not live in the U.S.

This sounds like a victim mentality that has become a liberal core doctrine. If you fail it is not your fault it is societies', you could not succeed, and the world owes you. Tell that to all those people that over came more obstacles than most of us even realize exist. Scientists said the human body was unable to run a 4 min mile physically. That deterred the entire sport until one guy did it, and then all kinds or people did it. Christianity exploded on the scene in an area where they were persecuted by the most powerful empire on earth and rejected by their own countrymen. It is not the opposition or even opportunity that is the determining factor it is the desire to proceed in spite of these things. I did not bother with whether you are technically right or not because others like Craig would be a much better source. I only attempted to show that it is the human heart that allows others to deny us. Our own nation was oppressed by the greatest institutionalized Church, army, and Navy the world had ever seen. Yet they chose to risk everything they had on over coming it. I imagine that if a few determined people in N Korea decided to risk it all on faith that God would destroy the North Korean regime just as he did he did the British and as he converted the Roman empire.

There is not an original claim in here. Every one of these has been addressed many times.

All of that is refuted by my primary premise, which is that "surely many South Korean skeptics have been properly evangelized, and would have become Christians if they had lived elsewhere in Korea, or in the U.S."

In addition, even though the U.S. has far more Christian influences than Japan does, it is surely reasonable to assume that at least some U.S. skeptics who live in the Bible Belt, and grew up in Christian homes, would have become Christians if they had grown up in Japan. No qualified sociologist, or psychologist, would have any trouble at all believing that. Since some skeptics become Christians in supposedly very unlikely places, and circumstances, the same is certainly true regarding some U.S. skeptics becoming Christians in Japan, which has very few Christians.

Similarly, many people easily know enough about nutrition not to eat lots of greasy foods, but do so anyway. Eventually, some of those people give up that practice because they come into contact with someone who presents the evidence in a way that they find to be more convincing. Regarding adult skeptics who grew up in conservative Christian homes, had good parents, attended church regularly, and know the Bible very well, surely those skeptics qualify as being properly evangelized, and surely under certain circumstances, some of them would have become Christians. It would not be fair for God to send any skeptic to hell merely because of geography. Even growing up just a mile away can sometimes make a big difference regarding people's worldviews.

 

[Agnostic75]

Oh come on. You have been gone for months and you come back saying the same thing as when you left. We have already seen humans can love anything, inanimate objects, ideas, or even things that are evil whether they had any choice in what they did or not.

You are not making any sense at all, and I have come to question your ability to comprehend what you read. Surely the main issue it not even remotely whether or not some people are able to, and do love inanimate things, and evil things, but whether or not my main argument makes sense, which is that morality has no meaning without choice, and surely my argument is valid. God has no choice to be immoral, and therefore should not be loved for being moral since he has no choice except to be moral. The fact that some people are able to love a rock, or a God who has no choice except to be moral, does not mean that it is logical to do so.

In a world where the majority of things are lacking on love or are altogether not acting in our favor I think loving God is justifiable. You have never shown that any objective criteria exists for what may be loved or not. You're simply telling me how you feel.

Not at all, that is what you are doing. Surely morality has no meaning without choice.

It is also not necessary God create us, and especially that he save us after we have betrayed him. Yet he freely chose to do these things without being compelled. He would have remained just as much God without doing either.

Been there, done that. I said:

God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the supposed fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. Otherwise, he would not have done it. After God created humans, he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

Just as compassion compels some humans to do some specific good things, compassion also compels God to do some specific good things. If God did not sometimes act with compassion, he would not be God. Thus, God does not have the choice not to feel compassion, and does not have the choice to never be compassionate.

That is what is true of the philosophers God. It is very close to the Christian theological God but has a slightly different context. It is also very complicated in that it indicates only great making properties are maximized. Regardless it is of no help to your claims.

I do not have any idea what you are talking about.

It was not in God's nature to create me. It was in his capacity and he is a creator being but his creation of me was a choice or anything at all. The exact same way and artist is not compelled to paint or compose. They freely chose to do so as an expression of their nature not as something they are compelled to do. Humans constantly go against the "better angels of our nature" and constantly refuse the "lesser angels of our nature". Neither matters in your context.

I already adequately refuted that with the following:

Just as compassion compels some humans to do some specific good things, compassion also compels God to do some specific good things. If God did not sometimes act with compassion, he would not be God. Thus, God does not have the choice not to feel compassion, and does not have the choice to never be compassionate.

Also, surely God has no choice but to keep his promises, so it is illogical to love him for keeping his promises.

So, you are wrong, but even if you were right, you would still lose the debate since you would have to agree that whenever God does something, it has to be good. It would be illogical for anyone to love any being whose only thoughts and actions always had to be good.

Then what is the fact we kill human lives in the womb on an industrial scale by denying the very right to the fetus we demand for our selves.......

But you have not reasonably established that abortion is wrong. Even if it is wrong, that would not have anything to do with any of my preceding arguments, and your argument is ridiculous since 1) God has killed millions of babies, and adults, by various means, and 2) the Bible implies that aborted babies will still go to heaven, and will obtain all of the eternal benefits that they would have obtained in this very short life.

You are a very illogical debater. You have wasted many months, probably years of your time, and will probably continue to do so. You rant about all kinds of things, none of which guarantees salvation even when people agree with you. For example, opposing atheism, homosexuality, abortion, and liberalism does not guarantee that anyone will have eternal life. Regarding morality, and order in society, Christian Scientists are easily just as moral as the majority of Christians are, and probably more moral based upon my decades of experience as being one before I attended other churches. You leave many millions of people out of practically every main argument that you make.

.......demand society tolerate a sexual practice of 4% of us that causes 60% of the AIDS cases and costs billions without any justification, have had 300 years of peace in the last 5000, have never made a form of government that has not failed, and have enough weapons pointed at each other to wipe out all known life and almost have twice, if not evidence. We have obviously adopted a widespread moral insanity and I think the Bible's explanation for it is the only viable candidate.

I copied and pasted what you said to a thread on homosexuality at the Religious Debates forum at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-have-relationship-other-208.html#post3672452, and replied to it there. Please reply to that post at that thread. It is a wonder that you continue to discuss homosexuality since so many of your arguments about it have been adequately refuted in various threads.

The Bible does not explain anything since a God did not inspire it. You can't even come up with a reasonable beginning since there is not any reliable evidence that anything in the book of Genesis is historical. If you wish, I will start a new thread on the book of Genesis at the Religious Debates forum, and you can answer lots of questions about the book of Genesis.

After that, I can start a new thread on the book of Daniel, and you can try to provide reasonable proof that one man wrote all of it. Such debates will take months.

You cannot provide reasonable evidence that God needs to injure and kill humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and disease in order to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals.

You cannot provide reasonable evidence that the Bible is not needlessly confusing, some examples being much of the book of Genesis, and divorce. You once refused to discuss divorce because you said that it is controversial. Well of course it is controversial since it is confusing. How do you explain the flood story? What was the writer's intent? Did the writer intend that his readers believe that the flood literally happened? If so, did he intend that his readers that his readers believe that the flood was global, or regional?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I don't believe deism as a philosophy is right religion, since it leaves a person to rid themselves of their own sin and most people are incapable of doing so.

I really recommend you to read more frequently and avoid logical fallacies. I never said Deism is the right religion because it is not even a religion. You are making a self answering statement here.


You have already assumed that sin exist and that god has an interest in such things. You have not used an ounce yet alone a millimeter of common sense as you are applying circular logic here. Circular reasoning is a joke by the way and the actual term for it is circular fallacies.

I also believe that literalism can be harmful since it can give an innacurate result. However I believe a philosophy of symbolism has the same dangers. I believe guidance by Jesus is always best to decide what should be understood litrally and what should be understood figuratively. I don't know anyone who has a philosophy of mythologism but I believe it is possibly an innacurate way of looking at things since a lack of verifiability does not necessarily mean a lack of truth.

Myth does not mean a lack of truth and you just supported by Deistic proposition.

Do you seriously not read?

I don't see why this would be a better question. I believe I came to Jesus because I wanted my life to be better. So I suppose my philosophy is that God is good and can change things. I suppose if a person loves evil and wants things to be bad all the time or at lest some of the time then Christianity would not be the right religion for him.

Incorrect, if a person wishes to do evil it is best he become a Christian. The concept of being born again comes from the theological idea that Jesus forgives all sins. General Butt Naked became a Christian and is now excused for the ritual murders of young boys he did in his previous heathenish life.

Christianity as you propose is founded upon the concept of immorality which is not unique to religions who profess absolute truth. Truth is something you cannot even understand as it seems you already do not understand what myth means as well.

As a Christian you are by default immoral and capable of concerning right for wrong as your morality is based upon lying. The Bible glorifies rape, murder, slavery and genocide yet you will profess those things are wrong and henceforth your morality is based upon the fact that you are intellectually dishonest as you will not negate your own book in the context of absolute truth.

Intellectual dishonesty is a form of lying or auto-lying so by this definition I can determine that your morality is based upon lying and deceit and because you do not abide by your objective standards of morality you are a liar and henceforth immoral.

I cannot describe to you how fallacy ridden your statements are as they are centered upon intellectual deceit and immoral basis. Without reasoning you cannot determine right from wrong and since you profess the removal of reasoning should be replaced with lying makes me incapable of trusting you as you are an immoral person and can abide by the actuality of your book and kill at any time.

You are henceforth a very evil person.

I question your logic or lack there of because it is disturbing

 

[greatthinker]

Be a good human being..
First the religion you follow is not true religion but a cult.the world is facing big problem because of that religion.(sorry ,i dont mean to hurt you.)..
So be good human being.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I don't believe deism as a philosophy is right religion, since it leaves a person to rid themselves of their own sin and most people are incapable of doing so.

I'm Deist, and I have never killed anyone or taken anything that isn't mine... so I must be doing pretty well for myself.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.