the right religion

[1robin]

Your god doesn't. It's one reason why so many of us highly-spiritual people consider Him to be a false God.

That is a fallacy. You must show that if God existed you would necessarily have X and you do not in fact have X. Your claims you want X have no relevance.

 

[1robin]

*

As has been said before -


The only "right" religion/Path to Deity, is the one that resonates with "YOU!"


There isn't a single religion out there that can prove it is from a Deity.



*

That is psycho babble. I mean no offense but I regard metaphysical speculation devoid of any justification as one of the greatest evils possible. Sitting around assuming atoms bouncing around in your melon are giving you the ability to speculate reality into existence are not meaningful and are guaranteed to produce stuff that has no relationship to truth. Faith claims are necessarily impossible to prove and that is not the standard by which any non-biased person would evaluate them. They are only required to be devoid of defeaters. I raise my standards to include the best fit explanations but your are simply inventing criteria to validate preference. Not to mention technically speaking no claim whatever can prove its' self true. Not even mathematic or scientific types of any kind.

If you invent a deity that resonates wit you and get judged guilty by the deity that actually exists in what way is your original claim true? Do you determine scientific and mathematical truth by what resonates with you? What does resonate with you even mean? Tickle your ears.

This rational is woefully flawed and dangerous.

 

[1robin]

This is so true, but still they argue in vain.

That is about the most untrue speculation I can possibly think of. I can't even theoretically invent a worse standard for arriving at truth. Yet you claim you have knowledge it is true so by necessity you have a huge burden of proof which the fulfillment of was not even hinted at or attempted. Where is it?

 

[1robin]

People have a hard time, from fear and/or other reasons, accepting religion is man-made. Once it clicks properly, the true beauty can set in.

Nothing straight was ever created out of the crooked timber of man. You may regard crookedness as beauty but try building a sound structure with it. A great philosopher was once taken to a modern art building. He noticed it had staircases that went no where, it had doors that opened on nothing, it's walls were crooked, there was nothing sound in it. He asked if the foundation was built on the same philosophy and the architect said of course not.

 

[Nakosis]

Nothing straight was ever created out of the crooked timber of man. You may regard crookedness as beauty but try building a sound structure with it. A great philosopher was once taken to a modern art building. He noticed it had staircases that went no where, it had doors that opened on nothing, it's walls were crooked, there was nothing sound in it. He asked if the foundation was built on the same philosophy and the architect said of course not.

While I would agree with this, the difference is that I see the Bible as also the result of the "crooked timber of man."

While I know you have you're arguments to justify it otherwise, first every "true" religions has their arguments to justify the truth of their religion. Second the arguments presented to justify the truth of the Bible doesn't hold the applesauce. For some simple reasons that are just obvious to anyone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt.

Or I suppose like I've heard atheists say, "Christians believe in no others gods and I believe in one less them them."

The justifications you have you are not willing to apply to your own religion.

 

[1robin]

God's revelation has nothing to do with intuitive fairness. John was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable to God, and became a skeptic. Tom, who is an exact clone of John, and essentially is John for all practical purposes, grew up in another country, was also sufficiently evangelized to be accountable to God, and became a Christian because he was raised in different circumstances. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that different circumstances often produce different results. If John, and Tom existed, and no one knew that Tom is an exact clone of John, most conservative Christians who knew John would claim that he will not have eternal life, and most Christians who knew Tom would claim that he would have eternal life. In your opinion, will John have eternal life?

That was the point. It is about sufficiency not your arbitrary idea of fairness. In this case circumstances influence conclusions but do not determine them. That si about what I would expect given God.

I would rather say that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith.

I do not understand this but I do not think that is even possible.

I said:



That conclusively proves that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith, not just a person's willingness to accept the truth as you probably claim.

What does the use of faith mean and why is it relevant? We are talking about belief.

Quite obviously, people who grow up in Iran are far more likely to become Muslims than people who grow up in the U.S. That easily proves that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith. The only difference between what I said about Iran, and my scenario is that the participants in my scenario have all been properly evangelized, so that eliminates any possible problems with my scenario.

Peer pressure often goes along with giving in yet we do not claim our children are excusable. I also gave a n entire list of compensating factors that seem to have been ignored that apply here. Just as a personas descent into ignorance tends to lessen faith so would a societies. I keep saying there are corporate judgments yet this has never been reckoned with.

It would be impossible for me to force myself to believe that a God inspired the Bible since I intuitively know that it would be unfair for John not to have eternal life, and it would also be unfair for any skeptics whose conditions determined the outcome of their faith, and would have become Christians under other circumstances.

That is like saying it is unfair for a person or group that lights them self on fire to be burned. A persons or groups selecting to dwell in darkness decreases access to the light.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since John would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where Tom was raised. Further, you have a problem since Tom would have become a skeptic if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised.

Your John and Tom illustration is confusing to me. I would prefer if you were less analogous.

In all three cases, conditions determined the outcome of the use of faith.

No conditions influence outcomes here they do not create them. Faith is a demanding enterprise yet even the certainty of death does not determine the result as history has demonstrated over and over and over.

My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

However he circumstances would not have dictated that, the hearts in the clones would have. This is at it's core a faith must be easy claim.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Repeat of a repeat of a repeat.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

No he did not. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them 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.

Justification is the determining element in right thing. It is what separates killing from murder. You are right about consequences of creation but not about the necessity of creation and that has been my consistent point.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

Repeat of the repeat above.

After God created humans, if he had not provided anything for their well-being, he would not have been God since part of God's compassionate nature is to sometimes be compassionate.

Agreed.

Since God is perfect, and unchanging regarding his nature, and is omnibenevolent, he is not able to do just any good thing, but he must do particular good things since all good things are obviously not equal.

This is turning out to be a repeat of the repeat above which is a repeat.

Even if God does not have to do particular good things, whenever he does anything, it has to be good. When God does anything, he should not be commended because whenever he does anything, it has to be good.

Repeat.

Without choice, morality has no meaning. Without God offering a sacrifice of his own free will, Christianity has no meaning.

Without meaning is not the correct word but your point is correct. Divine command theory dictates whatever God does as right. It however retains all it's traditional elements for us.

My premise is that the God of the Bible cannot exist because he asks people to love and accept him. That would be a deceptive request for a God who did not have free will to make.

You lost me.

You still do not understand what I meant. If the God of the Bible does not exist, no one has ever heard about the Gospel message unless another human was somehow involved. Do you have evidence of even one person in the world today who learned about the Gospel message, and no other human was involved. I doubt it. Books, articles, any other writings, television, and word of mouth all involve other humans, and human effort. However, human effort alone could never ensure that everyone hear the Gospel message. Millions of people died without ever hearing the Gospel message. They easily could have heard it if God had told them about it, but that could not have happened since he does not exist. That also explains why humans can only get enough food to eat by human effort, at least when they do not starve to death.

Yes I think it has occurred but lets' pretend it was not. What is the problem? Is God restricted form employing any agency? It is one thing saying human effort is involved and another to suggest it is all that is involved or its' limits are the limits. I think every single one of these arguments are voided by the fact God's judgment is calibrated to our access. I cannot use it to end your claims because it is not among my researched areas but Craig certainly could if you would actually read his work on this.

It is much too convenient that the God of the Bible is always available to meet spiritual needs, but is often unavailable to meet physical, or financial needs.

Not given the fact his primary concern is heavily skewed to the spiritual and the nature exists in a state of condemnation and is also used to provoke humility through need in ways so complex we do not even have access to them in totality.

Since the God of the Bible does not exist, it is no accident that the people who often recover the best from hurricanes are rich people, not devout Christians.

Hold the phone. That is about the most unjustified assumption possible.

A God might exist, but not the god of any world religion. Since none of those gods exist, their followers have no choice except to claim that he is invisible, and never made tangible personal appearances. Logically, he is a deistic God.

I take that back. This is an even more unjustifiable assumption.

Please reply to my previous post.

Let me save you some time. I hold my own council on what and when I reply and demands do not affect it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is a fallacy. You must show that if God existed you would necessarily have X and you do not in fact have X. Your claims you want X have no relevance.

What the heck could you possibly be talking about.

I consider your God false since He (supposedly) only provides evidence of Himself to ancient, primitive, superstitious tribesmen.

But no true God would behave like that.

 

[1robin]

It can be inferred from common sense, logic, and reason. Please answer my questions.

Genesis 2:7 says:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

If macro evolution is true, how do you explain that verse?

I have said many times I have no firm fixed position on the interpretation of these verses. So my answers will be propositional. This could be an effort to explain the fact we are composed of common elements found in most other objects and so are not composed of anything majestic physically in a way bronze age men could understand it. In my opinion it was stated in modern language for that reason and because he knew modern man would be able to understand the generalizations. The more about ancient biblical language use the more cryptic, symbolic, and analogous I find it. I regard these earliest verse as rough generalizations. I think this verse also suggests the ultimate source of all life. In any cause and effect chain an ultimate uncaused first cause must by necessity exist but no one 4000 years ago would have understood if stated that way.

Does God approve of divorce?

No but he does allow it because of our rebellion. The same as a parent does not approve of a child's mistakes but allows for them.

Does God approve of the death penalty? If so, for what offenses?

I don't think a question can have a more obvious answer since we are all condemned to physically die. The second part is an epistemological question and would take a long long time to evaluate but a very clear principle can easily be gained from Jewish law.

Not long ago, I made an argument that Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and that it is reasonably possible that it is God who is actually masquerading as an angel of light. You said that God has given Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil supernatural beings. However, that is a very poor, and illogical argument since if God is evil, and omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive, including you, and it would have been easy for him to inspire the Bible. You are not able to provide any reasonable proof that you, a mere fallible, imperfect human, would be able to outsmart an omnipotent, omniscient evil God. No rational person would believe such a thing.

I get the point but it is not that simple because the same book also gives ways to detect a false angels of light. For example a false prophet will not be 100% accurate, etc..... We are certainly no left hopelessly without methodologies to separate the two.

Please reply to my previous two posts.

Please be briefer and do not repeat claims.

 

[Ingledsva]

As has been said before -


The only "right" religion/Path to Deity, is the one that resonates with "YOU!"


There isn't a single religion out there that can prove it is from a Deity.

That is psycho babble. I mean no offense but I regard metaphysical speculation devoid of any justification as one of the greatest evils possible. Sitting around assuming atoms bouncing around in your melon are giving you the ability to speculate reality into existence are not meaningful and are guaranteed to produce stuff that has no relationship to truth. Faith claims are necessarily impossible to prove and that is not the standard by which any non-biased person would evaluate them. They are only required to be devoid of defeaters. I raise my standards to include the best fit explanations but your are simply inventing criteria to validate preference. Not to mention technically speaking no claim whatever can prove its' self true. Not even mathematic or scientific types of any kind.

If you invent a deity that resonates wit you and get judged guilty by the deity that actually exists in what way is your original claim true? Do you determine scientific and mathematical truth by what resonates with you? What does resonate with you even mean? Tickle your ears.

This rational is woefully flawed and dangerous.

That is hilarious - YOU just put up a bunch of "psycho babble" - as what I said, is exactly what YOU and every other religious follower are doing.


NONE of you has any real proof of your Deity.


You are born into a faith, or decide you want to believe a particular one; BUT -You take it on faith - ALWAYS - as there is no real proof.




*

 

[Ingledsva]

That is about the most untrue speculation I can possibly think of. I can't even theoretically invent a worse standard for arriving at truth. Yet you claim you have knowledge it is true so by necessity you have a huge burden of proof which the fulfillment of was not even hinted at or attempted. Where is it?

Again - hilarious - as that is exactly what YOU - and every person in every other religion, are doing -


AND again, - YOU have no proof for anyone else, that your religion is any more true then the next one.


You argue that your religion is true - BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS!


That does NOT make it so.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

Nothing straight was ever created out of the crooked timber of man. You may regard crookedness as beauty but try building a sound structure with it. A great philosopher was once taken to a modern art building. He noticed it had staircases that went no where, it had doors that opened on nothing, it's walls were crooked, there was nothing sound in it. He asked if the foundation was built on the same philosophy and the architect said of course not.

What "IS" may-or-may-not come from a Deity.


However, ALL religion is man made.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

While I would agree with this, the difference is that I see the Bible as also the result of the "crooked timber of man."

While I know you have you're arguments to justify it otherwise, first every "true" religions has their arguments to justify the truth of their religion. Second the arguments presented to justify the truth of the Bible doesn't hold the applesauce. For some simple reasons that are just obvious to anyone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt.

Or I suppose like I've heard atheists say, "Christians believe in no others gods and I believe in one less them them."

The justifications you have you are not willing to apply to your own religion.

So very-very true.


It is amazing that religious fundamentalists can't see and understand this.




*

 

[Nakosis]

That is hilarious - YOU just put up a bunch of "psycho babble" - as what I said, is exactly what YOU and every other religious follower are doing.


NONE of you has any real proof of your Deity.


You are born into a faith, or decide you want to believe a particular one; BUT -You take it on faith - ALWAYS - as there is no real proof.

*

Proof is in the pudding as is said...

Why you trust any particular person or religious belief. You test it then evaluate the results. The results of Christianity seem a bit random, like really random. Being a Christian is no guarantee of seeing any benefit in life.

You get promised a "wonderful" afterlife, but how are you going to test that.

What does it matter if the Christian God is the one true God or not if being a Christian provides tangible benefits? (To clarify, I'm fine with a person following a god or religion of their choosing as long as they see themselves getting some benefit from it. False or not)

I suppose Christianity does have some benefits. A sense of comfort with regard to death and dying. A perception of possessing the "Truth" so you can justify your thinking to others.

Seems an important issue to Robin that he can justify his morals to an outside entity.

I'm not afraid of death, either a final peace or a continuation of some kind. Either is ok for me.

I feel no particular need to justify my morals to anyone. Sorry, really getting off track.

Yes I agree, I've no proof of my beliefs, but there is a benefit that I find in them.

On the other hand I don't see Christianity (in particular) as offering anything that would benefit me.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I don't know what people teach.

I did agree that those who are righteous will be raptured and return to earth. However that is not the only teaching in the Bible. I believe the Bible teaches that the wicked will be sent to Hell in the end. I also believe the Bible teaches that Heaven is a rest from physical life.

 

[Muffled]

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.

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

Do you seriously not read?

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

Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Wikipedia.

I believe that a deistic view constitutes a belief and world view thereby making it a religion.

I do not assume that there is sin but I take as evidence the statements in the Bible that there is sin.

I don't see anything circular. Why don't you try to explain this to me in a way that I may understand it.

I believe this is illogical because it fails to recognize that Christianity is all about taking away sin not just forgiving it.

I believe taking away sin is the ethic that God supports and the morality of the day may or may not follow that ethic. However I believe it is better that sin goes away rather than abounds and if one thinks that is immoral then those morals don't coincide with the ethic of God.

I believe God's ethic to be absolutely true.

I believe I am with the Way, the Truth and the Life. I will grant that there is a definition of myth that implies sacred texts are myths but I do not see the Bible as myth.

I believe there is no truth in these statemnets.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe that a Godly ethic has at least partially been followed but God still says that everyone is a sinner, so be sure that there is sin there somewhere.

I believe that deism as a philosophy does not address the sin problem and that a person who thinks he does not sin is ignoring a problem that does exist and that deism can't solve.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I believe that a Godly ethic has at least partially been followed but God still says that everyone is a sinner, so be sure that there is sin there somewhere.

I believe that deism as a philosophy does not address the sin problem and that a person who thinks he does not sin is ignoring a problem that does exist and that deism can't solve.

That is because technically there is no "sin" per-se in Deism. There are actions, and there are consequences to said actions. You must use reason to determine whether something is wrong or not based on the consequences of your actions.

 

[kjw47]

I don't know what people teach.

I did agree that those who are righteous will be raptured and return to earth. However that is not the only teaching in the Bible. I believe the Bible teaches that the wicked will be sent to Hell in the end. I also believe the Bible teaches that Heaven is a rest from physical life.

Those promised heaven = the little flock = the bride of Christ--to rule as kings and priests alongside of Jesus. they are numbered-rev 14:3--144,000 bought from the earth. No more-no less.

 

[Agnostic75]

God's revelation has nothing to do with intuitive fairness. John was sufficiently evangelized to be accountable to God, and became a skeptic. Tom, who is an exact clone of John, and essentially is John for all practical purposes, grew up in another country, was also sufficiently evangelized to be accountable to God, and became a Christian because he was raised in different circumstances. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that different circumstances often produce different results. If John, and Tom existed, and no one knew that Tom is an exact clone of John, most conservative Christians who knew John would claim that he will not have eternal life, and most Christians who knew Tom would claim that he would have eternal life. In your opinion, will John have eternal life?

That was the point. It is about sufficiency not your arbitrary idea of fairness. In this case circumstances influence conclusions but do not determine them.

Circumstances have to sometimes determine conclusions since Tom, who was an exact clone of John, concluded to become a Christian under different circumstances.

Quite obviously, people who grow up in Iran are far more likely to become Muslims than people who grow up in the U.S. That easily proves that conditions can sometimes determine the outcome of the use of faith. The only difference between what I said about Iran, and my scenario is that the participants in my scenario have all been properly evangelized, so that eliminates any possible problems with my scenario.

Peer pressure often goes along with giving in yet we do not claim our children are excusable.

But John should be excused since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised in the home that Tom has been raised in.

I also gave an entire list of compensating factors that seem to have been ignored that apply here.

That doesn't matter because John should be excused since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised in the home that Tom has been raised in.

Just as a person's descent into ignorance tends to lessen faith so would a society's. I keep saying there are corporate judgments yet this has never been reckoned with.

That doesn't matter because John should be excused since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised in the home that Tom has been raised in.

If you claim that John should not have eternal life, you have a problem since an exact duplicate of him, Tom, became a Christian. In addition, you have another problem since John would have become a Christian if he had been raised under the same conditions where Tom was raised. Further, you have a problem since Tom would have become a skeptic if he had been raised under the same conditions where John was raised.

Your John and Tom illustration is confusing to me. I would prefer if you were less analogous.

No, since you are pretty intelligent, you easily understood my analogy, and so would almost anyone else at these forums. It is just simple, basic logic, and most sixteen year olds would understand it. There is no way that you do not understand what an exact clone is.

In all three cases, conditions determined the outcome of the use of faith.

No conditions influence outcomes here they do not create them.

You first said that conditions do not "determine" outcome, and now you said that conditions do not "create" outcome. Whichever word you wish to use, John can be excused since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised in the home that Tom has been raised in. In addition, Tom would have become a skeptic if he had been raised in the home that John had been raised in.

My hypothetical arguments have to be valid because it is a virtual given that if one million clones were made of a skeptic named John, who was properly evangelized, at least some of the clones would become Christians under certain circumstances.

However the circumstances would not have dictated that, the hearts in the clones would have.

Well of course the hearts of the clones would have made the choices, but many of the choices were different because the circumstances were different.

As I said, "John can be excused since he would have become a Christian if he had been raised in the home that Tom has been raised in."

There are not any doubts whatsoever that John should be excused. That is because Tom, who is an exact duplicate of John, and became a Christian, should be excused. It logically follows that all of the clones of John who became Christians under different circumstances should be excused, as well as all human skeptics who would have become Christians under different circumstances.

I made up my clones examples since you have previously essentially claimed that God is not obligated to give skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized any more evidence than he already has. I have adequately refuted your claim. That is because I have provided reasonable evidence that Tom should have eternal life because he became a Christian, and that since that is the case, John should also have eternal life since it would not be fair for God not to give him eternal life, but give eternal life to Tom, who is an exact duplicate of John.

Are you implying that Tom the clone should not have eternal life?

My arguments intuitively appeal to morality, and fairness.