• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the right religion

littleoldme

Member
there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path? :)
hello.
WOW...this is a long running thread...impressive...
:)

Since I don't have all day to go through it, I'm sure someone already put forth this idea so I'll jump right in with this:

how about there are no right religions...

considering the fact there can be no way anyone can connect the presumable first uncaused cause to their deity...it's been an on going challenge since the inception of the idea of "God" came to our ignorant ancestors heads...

P.S.
I hope no one confuses "ignorant" with "unintelligent".
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
I would have others supply me with their best efforts at unvarnished truth and reason. That it be justified and backed up by evidence and in this context, scripture. That is exactly what I am doing.

What is the truth? It is a message free from falsehood.

It is Christ not me who made the most exclusive claims possible. I am simply supplying them. It is also extremely intellectually dishonest to claim that a Christian supplying Christ's words about exclusivity in a discussion about exclusivity is not interested in the more generalized ideas of justice, love, peace, citizenship, etc.... That is a liberal tactic not an argument. Traditional orthodox Christians have been exclusive for 2000 years, they have also been one of if not the most generous demographics on earth. Let's quit the tactics and concentrate on doctrine and evidence if you will.
The truth is Christ is not here to speak for himself. The truth is we have nothing written by Jesus. You are relying, wrt scripture, what others have reported.

You are willing to rely on testimony of an unknown source, other them Paul maybe, which is fine. personally I've no compelling reason to do so. So what that means is it is just you here defending your position. Based on your understanding and experience. No one else. That is what is true.

My claims have all been directly from God. I did not claim that Jesus is the only name under heaven by which men may be saved, or that only he is the way the truth in the life. I got this directly from God. I have left it completely in his hands and have only reflected what he claimed.
You are the one here claiming this is the position of God. People have to decide for themselves how reliable is your word.

So you can merit heaven by being perfect but we are arrogantly wrong. Weird idea. Please exactly what criteria it is you meet that makes it so you deserve heaven.
Heaven is available at all times to anyone. The only thing necessary is that they let go of all that is false. In this regard I think much of what "Jesus" said is correct.

This was too incoherent to comment on.
Isn't your position that Jesus suffered the penalty for sin in your place?

Your the one who has decided you can get to heaven on your on. I am the one who is dependent on Christ, I am the one who admits that his words are correct and I am a sinner and God is perfect, I am the one who makes Christ an absolute necessity and requires him to be living in my heart by virtue of a born again experience. Your view is the one the renders him a accessory to your great accomplishment. I think it is my view and that of orthodox Christianity that knows and correctly judges Christ.
There are events that happen which bring us to where we are. The life of Jesus was one such event. There are two main parts to the story. The bread and the wine. The teaching and the life. The teaching is for your benefit. Christianity claims authority over this teaching which I suppose is as good as anyone else's claim on that authority.

However the life of Jesus has it's own authority. That is something Christianity has no say in.

Don't know what this is.
Yes, why should I feel saddened. The blind must lead the blind.
 
Last edited:

Amechania

Daimona of the Helpless
hello.
WOW...this is a long running thread...impressive...
:)

Since I don't have all day to go through it, I'm sure someone already put forth this idea so I'll jump right in with this:

how about there are no right religions...

considering the fact there can be no way anyone can connect the presumable first uncaused cause to their deity...it's been an on going challenge since the inception of the idea of "God" came to our ignorant ancestors heads...

P.S.
I hope no one confuses "ignorant" with "unintelligent".

Or perhaps all religions are "right" in that they provide their adherents with the sense of purpose and direction they feel is missing from their lives. Our ancestors were only ignorant by our standards, not by theirs. The challenge for us is not to use their uninformed prejudices to influence our understanding of right and wrong belief.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
There's simply so much nonsense, distortions, and at least one out-and-out lie (the macro-evolution part that we discussed several weeks ago of which you claimed there was no evidence for-- people can check the archives of your posts on evolution if they feel I may be lying), and it would take me way too long a time to respond to the above. You continually fabricate proofs and expect everyone to just swallow them. Your "science" is at least somewhat of a joke, as so many here have noticed and commented on, and some aspects of your theology just simply don't add up.
First find the statement where I said macro-evolution had no evidence for it. I do not believe that, I do not claim that, I doubt I posted it. You can't use a lie to condemn the truth. Not to mention that your lie was an assumption even if the statement you think was one, exists. The claim of lie which you make requires you have access to my motivation, you do not. I have no more use for the rest of your personal commentary and will await an actual argument to respond to. I can tolerate claims I am mistaken all day long. I do not long endure claims I am lying which even if true you can't possibly know.

For a very different and sensible Christian approach, imo, take a look at much of the fine scholarship that one can find with many of the Anglican and Catholic theologians for starters. Their general approach is not to interpret scripture from a predetermined paradigm, but instead to deal with it objectively, which sometimes gets them into trouble with their own church.
However what I find with you and most Protestant fundamentalists is to use a literalistic approach and then cherry-pick the scriptures to cite support. That's not biblical "scholarship".
My doctrines agree with doctrines that have been the mainstream of Christianity for 2000 years. If you are saying that you know of some that are better than that time substantiated conclusion then fine, but it will take more than your generally referring to them to persuade anyone. You have yet to even hint one of your "approved" scholars disagrees with any belief I hold. I don't know what your saying here or more importantly why.

As an anthropologist, now retired, we well know that one must study any group within the context of time, experiences, and culture. To not do so can very easily lead to false conclusions. Nor is it proper to try and distort theology or science whereas things are presented as "proof" when in reality they're not. "Opinion" is not synonymous with "fact", and yet you continually elevate your opinions as if they were facts. Any theologian or scientist worth their salt well knows that this simply cannot be done and still remain credible.
I made no claim that would require an anthologists expertise. My central claim was about the exclusivity of truth and Christ's message. No anthropologists needed. You then launch into a speech on opinion versus truth, however you apply them to nothing. I know what the words mean and do not require an anthropologist to supply an etymology lesson. You did not state a single thing I said specifically was wrong. You gave no evidence. No reasons. No logic. Just a denial and some strange advice. Let me know when an argument will be available.

If you are the person who sent me a message about a mistaken understanding of my statement please note I did not link you with it. Regardless maybe you want to take a breath, re-calibrate, and again present your response to my claims.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
After reviewing what you had written above, along with my inappropriate response, I apologize for misinterpreting what you had said. I read the above as having you saying that "macro-evolution" could not have happened. However, instead you had stated in previous discussions that you believed there was insufficient evidence to accept "macro-evolution" as a scientific fact or axiom. Even though I disagree with that conclusion, nevertheless you didn't close the door on its possibility, therefore I was wrong in stating you had.

I'm very sorry I misread it and reacted the way I did, so please accept my apology. After this post, I will edit out my inappropriate remarks as I was quite angry, which I shouldn't have been because I was the one who was in error.

shalom


Oops, I just realized I can't edit the message I sent Friday. Sorry.
I see you are the one that sent me that message. I apologize that I did not reflect that in my response. I can take claims I am wrong all day long but the claim that I lied just won't long be endured. Anyway I was more direct in my response above than I would have been had I realized you were the one that realized you had misunderstood so please look over my bluntness. Regardless you can get the discussion back on track with your recalibrated response. Selah,
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
What is the truth? It is a message free from falsehood.
That is true. It is my responsibility to supply messages that to the best of my ability reflect your description. I admittedly fail but the goal is valid.

The truth is Christ is not here to speak for himself. The truth is we have nothing written by Jesus. You are relying, wrt scripture, what others have reported.
That is kind of necessary for every single historical claim ever made by anybody about anything. You may think that time travel is necessary to know anything about the past but the rest of us do the best we can with what we have and the bible supplies more than necessary.

You are willing to rely on testimony of an unknown source, other them Paul maybe, which is fine. personally I've no compelling reason to do so. So what that means is it is just you here defending your position. Based on your understanding and experience. No one else. That is what is true.
Hold the phone. Are you conceding the authorship of Paul but not the others. I usually get the opposite from your side. Regardless the truth is that the traditional authors even after 2000 years are still by far the best candidates and are forgone conclusions to many NT scholars. Only Hebrews is seriously contended.

You are the one here claiming this is the position of God. People have to decide for themselves how reliable is your word.
No this is a discussion about the exclusive claims of Christ. I presented what they are.

Heaven is available at all times to anyone. The only thing necessary is that they let go of all that is false. In this regard I think much of what "Jesus" said is correct.
Holly heck you condemn far more justifiable claims about what Christ said, then you validate your unjustifiable guess work about God without a single revelation, verse, or rationality to claim you know exactly what heaven's qualifications are. You need to take your own medicine, at least I have scripture in my corner.

Isn't your position that Jesus suffered the penalty for sin in your place?
That is a crucial component of my position. I do not need clarity concerning what I believe. I need clarity concerning what you said.

There are events that happen which bring us to where we are. The life of Jesus was one such event. There are two main parts to the story. The bread and the wine. The teaching and the life. The teaching is for your benefit. Christianity claims authority over this teaching which I suppose is as good as anyone else's claim on that authority.
No dogma, central doctrine, or affirmation claims that either the wine or the bread are the central message of Christ. They are details or commentary and not in any way essential messages. Essential doctrines are what I must believe or what without them my faith would falter upon. If neither of those were mentioned I would still be as born again as I am. They are elements that tie together themes and are not themes themselves. In fact they are not even literals. They are analogies. They are also never ever translated or equated as teachings and his life. The wine is his blood and the bread his body. They symbolize our solidarity with his crucifixion and do not mean even remotely what you claim. Where did you even get this? Gnostics nor even cults teach that to my knowledge.

However the life of Jesus has it's own authority. That is something Christianity has no say in.
What authority in the history of mankind would have a better position to know the story, truth, and teachings of Christ than his hand picked apostles? I am using their claims not mine nor any church fathers. They lived the exact type of lives that would lend them all credibility and no church authority has significantly changed or altered their words. That is what I live by.

Yes, why should I feel saddened. The blind must lead the blind.
I did not know what you originally said and have no idea what this is either. Me and you are two opposing sides of an issue. Your blindness is obviously not leading me anywhere.

Is there any hope we can get back to discussing the exclusivity of truth and Christ's clear statements?
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I believe they are Jews to but there culture or race is not the determining factor but I do not want to contend a firm position on the interpretation as I have none beyond the fact these are not the only people in heaven but a sub group and the number is in revelations.

I believe it is a sub-group in that they are called "firstfruits" in verse 4.

I believe these and the following multitude are not going to Heaven but are caught up in the clouds to the New Jerusalem.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I use this verse to prove my point. There is only one door and all others who attempt to enter by another will be considered as unworthy and rejected. Christ is constantly referred to as this door. If not those who attempt to take what Jesus freely offers and will not be entitled to it, what could that verse mean? Were you agreeing with me or contending with me?

I am rethinking this. I believe this is about entering the New Jerusalem which has a door (gates) but Heaven has no door.

There is certainly scripture to support that notion that those not authorized to enter will be cast out in relation to the New Jerusalem. Heaven is a different proposition since anyone could get there if they figured out how to do it but would they be welcome there? I believe man proposes but God disposes and nobody will be long where God doesn't want them to be.

I believe I am working my way through an understanding of scripture and perhaps that sometimes does not follow a traditional approach.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I just noticed theres over 4500 posts in this thread. I assume after all that, consensus must have been reached regarding the right religion.

So, what is it?

I believe that you are laboring under a misapprehension that people listen to reason and come into agreement with that which is most logical. I don't believe Ihave ever seen that happen on here.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I made no claim that would require an anthologists expertise. My central claim was about the exclusivity of truth and Christ's message. No anthropologists needed. You then launch into a speech on opinion versus truth, however you apply them to nothing. I know what the words mean and do not require an anthropologist to supply an etymology lesson. You did not state a single thing I said specifically was wrong. You gave no evidence. No reasons. No logic. Just a denial and some strange advice. Let me know when an argument will be available.

First of all, if we travel to another country, wouldn't it be advisable to know something about the culture of the society before we go? To not study the cultural and historical context of Jesus' time period in eretz Isreal is likely to lead to many errors.

As far as the reasons and logic are concerned, check post #4515.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I believe it is a sub-group in that they are called "firstfruits" in verse 4.

I believe these and the following multitude are not going to Heaven but are caught up in the clouds to the New Jerusalem.
As I have no fixed position about the 144,000 I am open to your interpretations. I however do not believe anyone knows anything for certain. I did notice you seem to consider some middle area as separate from heaven. Can you elaborate on this?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I am rethinking this. I believe this is about entering the New Jerusalem which has a door (gates) but Heaven has no door.

There is certainly scripture to support that notion that those not authorized to enter will be cast out in relation to the New Jerusalem. Heaven is a different proposition since anyone could get there if they figured out how to do it but would they be welcome there? I believe man proposes but God disposes and nobody will be long where God doesn't want them to be.

I believe I am working my way through an understanding of scripture and perhaps that sometimes does not follow a traditional approach.
In my understanding the new Jerusalem is the eventual capital of the permanent earth centered realm of heaven. To go to the new Jerusalem is to go to heaven. Men have no capacity what ever to get themselves into heaven. The doors are analogies. The correct "door" is the God supplied method that will actually work. All other efforts to enter heaven by another "door" are futile and attempt to steal what God has provided. I do not believe that verse is suggesting anyone can actually get to heaven by any other method but for analogies sake does not make that emphatically clear. In my understanding no human effort can get any one to heaven. It is only by our accepting what Christ did that anyone will ever see heaven. All other efforts will be futile and end the individual's destiny being resigned to hell. IMO hell will eventually be annihilation, but that is controversial. You seem to have a far more complex and rare view about salvation and heaven than I have found in mainstream Christianity. Can you lay out your views in a post? Your views seem so unorthodox that I hesitate to debate them until they are known in detail to me.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
First of all, if we travel to another country, wouldn't it be advisable to know something about the culture of the society before we go? To not study the cultural and historical context of Jesus' time period in eretz Isreal is likely to lead to many errors.

As far as the reasons and logic are concerned, check post #4515.
I agree that context and culture are important. However the issue at hand is the exclusivity of truth in general and the emphatically exclusive claims made by Christ. The most compatible conclusion given a single benevolent God is a single clear revelation, not nuggets of truth buried in mountains of mutually exclusive man made garbage. This would necessarily be exclusive, as truth is. It would not make any difference if a rebellious species rejected that wide open methodology God supplied 100% of the necessities to actualize and instead invented a thousand untrue ways to salvation. God would not be unfair to simply disavow these human contrivances formed in complete rebellion. He is not bound and if fact would not be God if he was beholden to recognize a false human contrived method of approval. God is required to stick by 2 + 2 = 4 even if every human on earth rejected that equality and constructed their own false equality. Do you disagree with that?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
That is true. It is my responsibility to supply messages that to the best of my ability reflect your description. I admittedly fail but the goal is valid.

Not really so hard to say the truth of what you know, so not sure why you would fail.
Mostly put there as a bar to judge what is said.

That is kind of necessary for every single historical claim ever made by anybody about anything. You may think that time travel is necessary to know anything about the past but the rest of us do the best we can with what we have and the bible supplies more than necessary.

So you know the truth is that we are guessing at history. Perhaps educated guessing but still guessing. Hopefully from reliable evidence. Granted some guesses can be more persuasive supported by what you accept as evidence.

Hold the phone. Are you conceding the authorship of Paul but not the others. I usually get the opposite from your side. Regardless the truth is that the traditional authors even after 2000 years are still by far the best candidates and are forgone conclusions to many NT scholars. Only Hebrews is seriously contended.

Everyone likes Jesus, no body likes Paul. (not a true statement)
Jesus sat with and forgave sinners, healed the sick. Championed the meek.

Paul seems homophobic and a misogynist. Understandable that some would want to discredit his letters.

Thing is that with Paul the author identifies himself. If you're willing to identify yourself maybe gives your statements a little more credibility. Not really but maybe a plus mark with people.

Vs the gospels... Though one can understand why one might not want to identify themselves but since we don't know who they are we can only guess at why they didn't.

No this is a discussion about the exclusive claims of Christ. I presented what they are.

Too bad Jesus didn't make any. Others made these claims for him. Which really means one is left to judge the truth of the words by the truth they themselves know.

Holly heck you condemn far more justifiable claims about what Christ said, then you validate your unjustifiable guess work about God without a single revelation, verse, or rationality to claim you know exactly what heaven's qualifications are. You need to take your own medicine, at least I have scripture in my corner.

Which is to say you have nothing but the truth of your own word in your corner. You are left with whatever truth you can bring to the table. And of course guessing... When two or more come together of common belief it becomes easier to what we guess at as the truth. Experts of historical guesswork. Not to dismiss it without consideration but this is reality. To accept any of this as truth is not realistic.

To accept as a probability perhaps,

The probability that Christianity is true.
The probability that Jesus existed.
The probability that all these other beliefs are wrong.

All guesswork.

...
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
However the issue at hand is the exclusivity of truth in general and the emphatically exclusive claims made by Christ. The most compatible conclusion given a single benevolent God is a single clear revelation, not nuggets of truth buried in mountains of mutually exclusive man made garbage. This would necessarily be exclusive, as truth is.

This would only hypothetically true if we knew with certainty that Jesus spoke for God and that God only wanted a "narrow-path" approach, but these simply cannot be established beyond any reasonable doubt.

It would not make any difference if a rebellious species rejected that wide open methodology God supplied 100% of the necessities to actualize and instead invented a thousand untrue ways to salvation.

Well, there are some who say that all religions as we know them are a human invention, and there's at least a chance they could be correct. Also, as the likes of Spinoza and Einstein stated, who's to say that God meant for us to act in any kind of moral fashion, as they tended to believe that God not only created the basic framework of our universe, He actually is part and parcel of this universe and maybe even a multiverse?

Also, just because you accept the Christian version, which sounds logical to you, that doesn't mean that others are so ignorant whereas they cannot defend their own faith. Each of the major religions have been around for thousands of years, and they not only have developed rather elaborate theologies, they also developed rather elaborate defense mechanisms to defend themselves from attacks by "outsiders".

God would not be unfair to simply disavow these human contrivances formed in complete rebellion. He is not bound and if fact would not be God if he was beholden to recognize a false human contrived method of approval. God is required to stick by 2 + 2 = 4 even if every human on earth rejected that equality and constructed their own false equality. Do you disagree with that?

What makes you think you can supposedly know God so well that you can determine exactly what He may consider fair v unfair? Yes, you accept what's found in your version of the Bible, but that's only one general approach out of many.

Ever read the Bhagavad Gita? If one accepts some of the main premises found within Hinduism, they're likely to think much like you do about the Bible in regards to the Gita. So, which book more captures the truth? There's really no way of telling because it largely is going to depend on which paradigm you mostly relate to.

Now, what I could do but am going to avoid, is to compare Christianity with Judaism because that's really not a debate I have an interest in getting into, at least on a thread like this.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Not really so hard to say the truth of what you know, so not sure why you would fail.
Mostly put there as a bar to judge what is said.
I am a human. Humans undertake nothing of this complexity that is free from error. I at times get my facts mixed up, am ignorant of counter claims from time to time, and misunderstand context on occasion. My goal is perfect, my execution is not.



So you know the truth is that we are guessing at history. Perhaps educated guessing but still guessing. Hopefully from reliable evidence. Granted some guesses can be more persuasive supported by what you accept as evidence.
There is no other option that to make educated guesses at history. That is the what the historical method produces. My claim is that my guesses or conclusions are the best possible.



Everyone likes Jesus, no body likes Paul. (not a true statement)
Jesus sat with and forgave sinners, healed the sick. Championed the meek.
I do not understand the purpose here.

Paul seems homophobic and a misogynist. Understandable that some would want to discredit his letters.
We were discussing authorship not character. I asked if you (as it seemed you were) conceded Paul's authorship but denied the other NT writers. I usually get the exact opposite. I have no idea why Paul's character is on trial.

Thing is that with Paul the author identifies himself. If you're willing to identify yourself maybe gives your statements a little more credibility. Not really but maybe a plus mark with people.
Other authors identified their selves. How is that the test for authorship. The most influential piece of data concerning authorship is that no contenders beyond the tradition authors exist for almost all the NT books. Mathew, Mark, etc... may not be free from any contention but they are by far the most evidenced authors. There are no contemporary claims by anyone else to authorship.

Vs the gospels... Though one can understand why one might not want to identify themselves but since we don't know who they are we can only guess at why they didn't.
I believe one or more of the Gospels did mention authorship. If you find a declaration convincing then why are you not convinced for example by the extensive claims to a careful and extensive examination of all relevant material like eye witnesses, and earlier records.



Too bad Jesus didn't make any. Others made these claims for him. Which really means one is left to judge the truth of the words by the truth they themselves know.
You can't possibly know that and reason is firmly against you. A mute teacher of mankind is about the worst possible conclusion there could be. The most rational conclusion is that he made countless declarations and that they were for the most part faithfully and emphatically recorded and even the holy spirit assisted in the accurate transmission of his message. Not to mention the confirmation of consistency and internal coherence with even people who had taught a thousand years earlier. What other book can boast a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years?



Which is to say you have nothing but the truth of your own word in your corner. You are left with whatever truth you can bring to the table. And of course guessing... When two or more come together of common belief it becomes easier to what we guess at as the truth. Experts of historical guesswork. Not to dismiss it without consideration but this is reality. To accept any of this as truth is not realistic.
1. Not a single word in any core doctrine I hold to is derived from my own words.
2. I in a complete vacuum arrived at the identical conclusion on all basic doctrine as scholars have consistently done for over a thousand years of protestant history. It also has over 90% agreement with all the great Catholic scholars for the past 2000 years.
3. None of it is even based on a single authors words.
4. It is also based on the words of the men who in all of histories years had the greatest access to the facts.

However none of this was the point. The point was you cannot seriously believe you can contend with the most scrutinized book in human history by using your speculative musings about the very issues they and not you were in a position to know the truth of. You might as well have brought a knife to a gun fight with a Abram's tank.

I cannot consider your position because it at least did not come with anything to consider. You did not reference any texts, no reasons why you would know a single thing you claimed, no philosophy, etc.... in short nothing to evaluate.
To accept as a probability perhaps,

The probability that Christianity is true.
The probability that Jesus existed.
The probability that all these other beliefs are wrong.

All guesswork.
Al evidence based reasoning. This is what is called the argument from uncertainty inflation. It involves pointing out or inventing uncertainties with a view and then amplifying what amounts to exactly what is to be expected and is overcome through scrutiny into what cannot be overcome by any method whatever. IOW you equate a lack of complete certainty with the inability to make reliable conclusions in order to justify a false plausible denial. In addition to what I stated there are an additional two terrible problems with doing this. The first is my most resented pet peeve.

1. You employ a criteria to return the desired level of uncertainty that you will immediately abandon for just about any other event or concept you evaluate. You do not throw your hands up at the car dealership because you can't know for certain you are picking the right care and give up. No you resolve the slight uncertainties and make the best conclusion possible. My biggest complaint in debates is the non-theists employment on an industrial scale of double standards. If you cannot determine the historicity of the claims in the most textually attested events in all on ancient history then all of ancient history is unresolvable.
2. The particular conclusion that the gospels are correct in all central claims to events is confirmed by the born again experience. There are hundreds of millions of claims to this confirmation and they are numbers no other religion can even fractionally compete with. Unlike most other claims I can know the truth of what I believed by it's unmistakable spiritual confirmation through an event that cannot be described fully in human language but must be experienced to be understood.

So again what do you have to back up your speculation that can even get in a discussion with just the slight portion of what I have to back up my beliefs?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
This would only hypothetically true if we knew with certainty that Jesus spoke for God and that God only wanted a "narrow-path" approach, but these simply cannot be established beyond any reasonable doubt.
I and a host of scholars I can and routinely supply, claim that we have far more than enough to justify the belief that we do have a reliable record of what Christ taught. However the issue is what he taught. I have all the evidence in my corner. No matter how vast or how this you claim it is it all agrees with my claims. There are no competing texts of what he claimed to even evaluate.



Well, there are some who say that all religions as we know them are a human invention, and there's at least a chance they could be correct. Also, as the likes of Spinoza and Einstein stated, who's to say that God meant for us to act in any kind of moral fashion, as they tended to believe that God not only created the basic framework of our universe, He actually is part and parcel of this universe and maybe even a multiverse?
I believe that all religions save Christianity and Judaism are man made. They all contain some truth and mountains of crap. The issue is, given a benevolent God, what would be the most consistent with that. You claimed that he would make ambiguous standards and bury them in countless mutually exclusive religions. My claim is that is not consistent with reason. I have more reasons to believe Christianity is divinely inspired than we can ever get to but that is not the immediate question. What a God would do is.

Also, just because you accept the Christian version, which sounds logical to you, that doesn't mean that others are so ignorant whereas they cannot defend their own faith. Each of the major religions have been around for thousands of years, and they not only have developed rather elaborate theologies, they also developed rather elaborate defense mechanisms to defend themselves from attacks by "outsiders".
I claim Christianity is the most comprehensive, detailed, sophisticated, and all encompassing salvation model known on an objective standard. I claim it is also true for other reasons. That also is not the issue. The debate is about whether God is exclusive or inclusive.



What makes you think you can supposedly know God so well that you can determine exactly what He may consider fair v unfair? Yes, you accept what's found in your version of the Bible, but that's only one general approach out of many.
I can give you many arguments but let me give you maybe the most powerful one and one of the lest mentioned. Christianity alone promises to every believer instant confirmation of his beliefs concerning Christ. No other faith even offers this blanket type of confirmation. If they even contain any confirmation at all it is only offered to a select few that reach some special criteria. IOW every single actually Christian has experienced God as a direct result of arriving at the same faith position concerning Christ. While you may reasonably deny the persuasiveness when only my experience is the issue, no one can reasonably deny all of the hundreds of millions of claims to this experience. Not even some desperate appeal to an natural or cultural for example explanation will meaningfully dent that many claims of direct confirmation. Keep in mind that is only one of thousands of reasons why we can have confidence in our beliefs. Your views require that every single one of those people be mistaken.

Ever read the Bhagavad Gita? If one accepts some of the main premises found within Hinduism, they're likely to think much like you do about the Bible in regards to the Gita. So, which book more captures the truth? There's really no way of telling because it largely is going to depend on which paradigm you mostly relate to.
I have read passages from it. I need to spend more time on it but it is not something I run across on an average day. First the Gita does not offer what I mentioned above. In Hinduism your lucky to even find a Hindu that will claim that anyone has had divine experience. In my experience it is always some guy they heard of in a cave or the top of a tree who is "enlightened" and is of course unavailable to scrutiny. A born again Christian can be found on the average bus ride. I am available for any test you can devise for my born again claims. Beyond this there are inexhaustible evidence, philosophical, historical, etc... categories in which the bible excels every other religion. If you want to discuss any one of them then narrow it down to manageable target and we can compare the two.

Now, what I could do but am going to avoid, is to compare Christianity with Judaism because that's really not a debate I have an interest in getting into, at least on a thread like this.
I would avoid it as well as Christianity confirms Judaism in the classic sense. Christianity is not a replacement for Judaism it is an extension of it.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I and a host of scholars I can and routinely supply, claim that we have far more than enough to justify the belief that we do have a reliable record of what Christ taught. However the issue is what he taught. I have all the evidence in my corner. No matter how vast or how this you claim it is it all agrees with my claims. There are no competing texts of what he claimed to even evaluate.

OK, then please present all or at least some of this evidence, but I'm going to limit you to only peer-reviewed science publications. As one who has been in science for over 50 years, I have yet to see a single scientific article of the nature you propose above. Plus, common sense should have it that if what you say is true, then there not only would be general agreement on the concept there is a God, but that even the vast majority of scientists would be not only i n one religion but also one denomination in one religion.

I believe that all religions save Christianity and Judaism are man made. They all contain some truth and mountains of crap.

Oh really?

I claim Christianity is the most comprehensive, detailed, sophisticated, and all encompassing salvation model known on an objective standard. I claim it is also true for other reasons. That also is not the issue. The debate is about whether God is exclusive or inclusive.

Then why did you bring this up?

I can give you many arguments but let me give you maybe the most powerful one and one of the lest mentioned. Christianity alone promises to every believer instant confirmation of his beliefs concerning Christ. No other faith even offers this blanket type of confirmation.

So, this proves exactly what?

Your views require that every single one of those people be mistaken.

And your view has it that the vast majority of the world's people in all other religions are mistaken. Secondly, I didn't say nor imply that Christians are "mistaken", so you've invented quite a straw-man.

I have read passages from it. I need to spend more time on it but it is not something I run across on an average day. First the Gita does not offer what I mentioned above.

So what? This makes no difference unless one can actually substantiate one's claims.

In Hinduism your lucky to even find a Hindu that will claim that anyone has had divine experience.

Sorry, but you are so wrong about that, especially since Hindus typically believe that God is within all. You might check out some Hindu sources, such as this: 9 Beliefs - Hinduism Today Magazine
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I claim Christianity is the most comprehensive, detailed, sophisticated, and all encompassing salvation model known on an objective standard.

Salvation from what? Where did you learn that people are in need of some kind of salvation... and that God would be involved in that?
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
Salvation from what? Where did you learn that people are in need of some kind of salvation... and that God would be involved in that?

Shh, shh! That's their big selling point! They have to keep people convinced that we need salvation in the first place1 Don't want the masses to realize that we don't need salvation! :D
 
Top