the right religion

[illykitty]

Yup.

I sought God very, very deeply and intensively. There were times when I spent 10-20 hours praying, consistently. There were times when I studied the Bible for hours and days, and nothing else. I never heard God's voice. Never saw a miracle. Never converted anyone to my faith (even though many needed it in my opinion back then). I just didn't see God or God's actions in anything, anywhere, or at any time.

Goodness me you're a lot more patient than I am!

I have to agree, I tried praying and I've never got a hint. Peaceful feeling is the best I got, but I get this from looking at the night sky and meditation too.

If there is a personal deity, then it picks and chooses.

 

[1robin]

Well then that's on him, because I've tried to communicate with him, and have heard absolutely nothing... ever...not one thing.

This is a whole different claim and the one which I had addressed weeks ago. I have given you scriptures, doctrine, Church teachings and the fact that if any of the hundreds of millions of claims are true then that validates the principle. Which part did you not get or require more information on? What the bible does not state is that:

1. You should read the bible and you will necessarily find Go don page 1250.
2. Go to church and he will show up on the 127th visit.
3. Do either or both while not doing them sincerely or without prejudice and it will make no difference.


It does give several qualifiers on top of simply showing up or reading which are not always reflections of our hearts even if we have convinced ourselves they are. Anyone born again will tell you it required far more than merely effort alone. In fact most will tell of times that God had shown up that they had denied him before they eventually gave up and allowed him to transform them and make them new. Until you have been born again or you die giving up and blaming him would be about the worst possible course of action. That is the one guaranteed way to lose.

 

[1robin]

Goodness me you're a lot more patient than I am!

I have to agree, I tried praying and I've never got a hint. Peaceful feeling is the best I got, but I get this from looking at the night sky and meditation too.

If there is a personal deity, then it picks and chooses.

What about Paul, Mathew, Peter or even myself would have disposed a God who plays favorites to save?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Anyone born again will tell you it required far more than merely effort alone

So if I am still an unbeliever despite my own effort, then that would mean it's a lack of effort on God's part.

 

[1robin]

So if I am still an unbeliever despite my own effort, then that would mean it's a lack of effort on God's part.

That is a deductive train wreck. The kingdom of God cannot be merited only accepted, you can't earn infinite joy, you will never merit heaven. God did not fail, as hundreds of millions of people claim to have been saved and you have no defeater for what they claim. So if it is not your effort, nor God's provision that failed what is left. The attitude of your heart by which your "effort" was executed through, would by my first guess. Men with hardened hearts saw miracles yet refused to believe, men who risked and lost their very lives and had no experience with miracles, but with willing hearts are born again. That would be where I looked, if your story is accurate. Instead your choosing the worst of all possible options. Defeat and blame will profit you nothing.

BTW if your view of what salvation is, is as flawed as what you have communicated I doubt even the effort part of your role has been fulfilled yet. It is like you have no destination and yet blame the map you won't look at to begin with or the cartographer who made it.

 

[Ouroboros]

Goodness me you're a lot more patient than I am!

LOL! Very true. I was determined to get through. I wanted to be faithful and not lose it. It just didn't work out in the end.

I have to agree, I tried praying and I've never got a hint. Peaceful feeling is the best I got, but I get this from looking at the night sky and meditation too.

Oh, yes, Totally. And certain music, or even now, I've come to appreciate good food (started to cook a few years back), and a few times, I've had a meal that was divine. It grabbed me to the core of my being. Amazing feeling.

If there is a personal deity, then it picks and chooses.

Yup.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

That is a deductive train wreck. The kingdom of God cannot be merited only accepted,

But you said it takes more than effort.

So if it is not your effort, nor God's provision that failed what is left. The attitude of your heart by which your "effort" was executed through, would by my first guess.

You guessed wrong. I sincerely sought the Christian god for years without result. That seems to be every Christians cop-out with dealing with unbelievers... "well, you just weren't trying hard enough.":sarcastic

Men with hardened hearts saw miracles yet refused to believe, men who risked and lost their very lives and had no experience with miracles, but with willing hearts are born again. That would be where I looked, if your story is accurate.

Hearts don't control emotions, the brain does. The heart just pumps blood... hardened "brains" is more like it.

Instead your choosing the worst of all possible options. Defeat and blame will profit you nothing.

Apparently neither will sincere prayer, but anyway...

 

[Ouroboros]

So if I am still an unbeliever despite my own effort, then that would mean it's a lack of effort on God's part.

So true.

If our effort isn't enough but there has to be something else... that what is it? I had faith and belief galore. I believed God could do anything if he wanted to. I was willing to die for my faith at one point. I sacrificed life, future, career, family, money, time, interest, everything, because I was 1200% involved and determined in my faith. I wouldn't lie, steal, cheat, ... anything. So if it's not enough to have super-strong faith, belief, hope, love, and dedication. Then what is it? It must be something on the other end. Not my end. God's end. And what would it be? God doesn't want to? God can't? God doesn't exist? God doesn't work that way? Wrong understanding of God? What's the right understanding of God? That God does whatever he wants to, and... like you're saying, it's a lack of effort from God. Not us.

 

[melk]

Think we must not behave as we have the right religion. Otherwise, we kind of justify our opression over other people, either phisically ou psicologically. The best religion we know by its fruits, like Jesus seemed to say.

 

[Estro Felino]

As the great Philosopher Lessing said in Nathan the Wise: Tolerance is better than the truth

 

[Sha'irullah]

You asked so many questions I only have time to supply 1 brief response to some of them.

1. Any benevolent God is far more consistent with one pure revelation that bits of truth scattered throughout piles of man made garbage. Especially since most of these piles are mutually exclusive with one another.

But first you must conclude the existence of a god.

2. Again a systematic interaction in the form of revelation is far more consistent with a personal God that the lack of it.

Why must there be revelation? Why must there be a religion? We are doing fine without it and religion has not done a whole lot as of lately as it is being pushed aside for its danger.

3. Just one of the many arguments for a God existing necessarily is the cosmological one. We have a universe that does not contain the explanation it's own existence. That means the explanation must come from a non-natural source. Using the philosophy of sufficient causation we are left with a supernatural agent that exactly matches the biblical description of God including his being a personal agent. Another would be the apprehension of an objective moral realm. If there exists just one moral issue hat is objectively right or wrong then a transcendent standard must exist requiring a transcendent standard originator.

This is just outright wrong. The universe could be eternal and that is most likely the situation. You do not need to posit a god for it. Using simplistic logic like causation yet alone the kalam argument is useful but not when it comes to physics.

You are obviously not shaving with Occam's Razor and must be using Craig's Clippers. You are positing an eternal entity when the universe is eternal. Why does god have to be eternal and not the universe? There is no time before the universe thus no entity is needed.

Also what you are calling morality is just legality. Moral behavior must be relevant to humans and must not be authoritative and demanded by a singular 3rd party(non-human) entity. Morals and mandates are by no means the same. This is why Christians and especially Muslims can do behavior that is ethical but they have no basis for morality.

In the Bible god kills numerous times and contradicts himself by making murder wrong. Yet after this point he not only kills but authors mandates for genocide. Your morality is not objective in the slightest bit.

4. Theology is not philosophy and does not exist to make you happy with it's efficiency or universality. It exist either as God revealed absolute fact, manmade truth, or man made garbage.

Duh. Theology is just bad philosophy and bad science.

5. As far as being a revelation from God, NO all religions are not pertinent. In fact most of them if not al but one are evil. You also make an assumption about the truth of them al which you could not possibly know even if you were right.

I know a lot about many religions, do not test me

 

[1robin]

But first you must conclude the existence of a god.

Not really in this case. I can no what is most consistent with a concept even if that concept is not known whether to exist for a certainty. Secular philosophy does not grant his existence yet has defined him to great detail anyway. To assume revelation exists (which was required for this discussion) requires a God to exist necessarily. I was not attempting to prove God exists (that requires a whole different type of argumentation) I was arguing about what is consistent with a God if he does exist.

Why must there be revelation? Why must there be a religion? We are doing fine without it and religion has not done a whole lot as of lately as it is being pushed aside for its danger.

1. We have never been without religion. At least as far as recorded history goes.
2. Even your theory is deficient because atheism is only a loss of potential. I have every faculty you do plus God. I cannot be less capable for having a much greater perspective than you.
3. You say we are doing great. I assume you mean we are morally fine. I will explain why that is absurd below but for now I want to explain why that does not even make potential sense. Without God there is not even the slightest possibility that any moral code you have is true. This naturally results in a right by might end result which modern atheism's Stalin's, Mao's, Pol's have shown the moral bankruptcy of. In even a Christian nation like this one. Since we have drifted towards secularism in the 50's almost every single moral statistic has grown worse. Some even on orders of magnitude scale.
4. Are we fine without God. Was Stalin's Russian an example? He only killed 20-50 million of his own people. Is our 5000 year histories' containing only 300of peace fine? Do you know what Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all had in common? They all subscribed to social Darwinism and Nietzsche. Was WW2 fine? You must have a different idea of fine than I do. I do not consider having enough weapons aimed at each other to annihilate all life several times over and the moral insanity to have almost done so twice fine.

This is just outright wrong. The universe could be eternal and that is most likely the situation. You do not need to posit a god for it. Using simplistic logic like causation yet alone the kalam argument is useful but not when it comes to physics.

1. It is not wrong, it is in fact perfectly consistent and virtually demanded by the most accepted cosmological models that exist today. These include both the BBT and the BGVT.
2. Not only is what I stated likely, it's opposite is not even possible. No known natural infinite exists not is there any reason to think it could.
3. If time was infinite then how did the universe cross an infinite past number of hem to arrive at this one. Where did the infinite energy come from required to power a universe that fluctuates for an infinite amount of time? and where has it gone?
4. I have no idea why you applied the Kalam (a philosophical argument) to physics and pronounced a failure to do what it was never intended to. Kalam and it's later versions and it's versions that go back at least to Greece only apply once a universe is known to be finite. This one is such a universe and it is the only one we have evidence for.
5. So we have this one finite universe to account for it's inception. Physics (which was my minor BTW) does not even work for the first moments of this universe much less have anything to say before the universe existed. It is only philosophy that can add anything helpful to the cause. It can't be material no matter existed, it can't be in time because space time did not exist, it can't be as weak as it's parts added by the law of sufficient causation, it must be personal because it chose to act, etc........ physics is done at the singularity.

You are obviously not shaving with Occam's Razor and must be using Craig's Clippers. You are positing an eternal entity when the universe is eternal. Why does god have to be eternal and not the universe? There is no time before the universe thus no entity is needed.

Unlike most who are incorrect in their scientific and philosophic claims you have at least been humorous. That was funny. There is no eternal natural entity even in theoretical study much less reality. Do you know what Einstein said was the biggest professional mistake he ever made was? It was believing in an eternal steady state universe. Before you make any more points that depend on a infinite anything natural please find me one or present me one that can overcome it's obstacles. Though I would suggest looking for the fountain of youth would be time better spent. I get the impression you did not go to college for cosmology in the last few decades. This is typical of where the best cosmology is today.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Also what you are calling morality is just legality. Moral behavior must be relevant to humans and must not be authoritative and demanded by a singular 3rd party(non-human) entity. Morals and mandates are by no means the same. This is why Christians and especially Muslims can do behavior that is ethical but they have no basis for morality.

No that would be what it was on your view not mine. If my view is true then morals are grounded in the nature of God. No where are they untrue, no one is not responsible to their requirements, no one will escape accountability, they are free from any opinion of their subjects. Things do not come any more objective than that, nor any more subjective than on your view. Whether my view is true may be up "theoretically" for debate but what it would mean given it was true or that your was, is kindergarten.

In the Bible god kills numerous times and contradicts himself by making murder wrong. Yet after this point he not only kills but authors mandates for genocide. Your morality is not objective in the slightest bit.

There is no moral requirement not to kill. It says not to murder in the original Hebrew and in most modern bibles. Killing is to take life. This can be acceptable even if regrettable. Murder is taking life without moral justification. Your making platitudes or generalizations so there is no actual event to discuss so to give an example: Was the killing of the Canaanites Genocide or justifiable war? Very little can be studied at this point but a few clues line up with the bible and no contradict it. The Canaanites did worship Marduk just as the bible said. he was a God who demanded constant human sacrifice just as the bible said. Deposits have been found that suggest they even walled up live children in their foundations. They also made them pass through fire for their God. Additionally they raided the Hebrews at harvest time which caused starvation. Yet for all this God did not kill them. He records that he spent years trying to get them to stop yet they refused. He made the Hebrews wait years of suffering until "their cup of iniquity was full". This was perfectly justifiable for many other reasons but their is no suggesting by history of the bible that they were killed because they were merely Canaanites so there was no genocide possible. BTW the Hebrews did not kill them all and they were plagued for centuries by them because of it. Anyway there is more than I can post about this here. No hypocrisy, no breaking of his own rules (that do not even apply to him anyway nor should they, your children have different rules than you), no genocide. Just an unfortunate act caused by their sin and one not obeyed completely anyway.

Duh. Theology is just bad philosophy and bad science.



I know a lot about many religions, do not test me

I can easily see how in the modern immoral society you do not know about the bible but I can't figure out how it is you do not know basic cosmology or the nature of natural entities. I do not think testing is warranted but I did ask a few questions above.

 

[Muffled]

Does this have anything to do with the whole Baptist idea of OSAS? (once saved always saved) if it is, then I'm good anyway, because I was "saved" (accepted the Christian god) around the age of 12, but I grew out of it. Are you saying it is impossible for a Christian to lose salvation because of "sin" after being "saved?"

I believe at age 12 your mind was not sophisticated enough to understand what a commitment is. On the other hand there seems to be a plethora of commitment breaking in the form of divoce these days so maybe that has something to do with it.

I believe, If you really made Jesus your Lord then He will feel free to be your Lord and you might think you are free of the committment but He will not see it that way. So you appear to be a runaway slave but are still a slave. On the other hand He just might just chalk it up to immaturity and let you wander in the desert.

 

[Muffled]

Why must there be a "right religion"? Why must there be even a religion? Why must there be a god? Too many 'why's and not even justifications.
In philosophy there is no "right philosophy" or correct way to apply a philosophy to the world. Why is it religions cannot be like this? All philosophers speak as if what they speak is objective truth yet time and time again their arguments get refuted by other philosophers. Religion negates religion and the cycle goes on. Why not just view religion for what it is? Everything but correct.
Are all religions not pertinent? They are merely formed for the issues at hand.

Who is refuting Archimedes principle of the displacement of water by an object?

By the same measure who can refute that Jesus as Lord keeps a person from sin?

 

[Muffled]

Well then that's on him, because I've tried to communicate with him, and have heard absolutely nothing... ever...not one thing.

I believe you are now hearing. So why are you ignoring what I say?

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I believe you are now hearing. So why are you ignoring what I say?

I wasn't aware that God had a ReligiousForums account. But sure... Have at it.

 

[Muffled]

I wasn't aware that God had a ReligiousForums account. But sure... Have at it.

Like chiken man, He's everywhere.

You are precious in my sight.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I believe you are now hearing. So why are you ignoring what I say?

You're not God. If he really wanted a message passed down to the world, then he is more than capable of doing it himself, rather than using people as a middle-man. Mankind is not really the best way for a deity to get its message across, given our tendency to lie. If he wants to send a message, why doesn't he do it himself? Why does he have to have so called "prophets" speak his message by proxy?

 

[1robin]

You're not God. If he really wanted a message passed down to the world, then he is more than capable of doing it himself, rather than using people as a middle-man. Mankind is not really the best way for a deity to get its message across, given our tendency to lie. If he wants to send a message, why doesn't he do it himself? Why does he have to have so called "prophets" speak his message by proxy?

When policy or matters of great state significance are at hand we shower universities, spend billions in vetting, and demand the greatest credentials possible. However when we must really get serious and deal with life, death, or the greatest of guilt's we select 12 ordinary citizens and give them complete authority. I find it far more than a coincidence Christ did exactly the same. The Bible suffers little lack but is not al that is available. Just using cosmology, philosophy, moral apprehension, history, or any other subject they all seems to irrevocably point to God or something God like.

New International Version
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Nothing, even ungodliness (rightly understood) fails to at least suggest the presence of God.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

The Bible suffers little lack but is not al that is available. Just using cosmology, philosophy, moral apprehension, history, or any other subject they all seems to irrevocably point to God or something God like.

As a Deist, here is where I do agree with you. But none of the evidence in any of these fields seem to imply that it is the Judeo-Christian god, or that it is active in the affairs of the world. It seems to me a bit more than coincidental that accounts of miracles and divine intervention seemed to die down after the ability to potentially document them came about. (I.E. the Camera) (Although, in fairness, the advent of Photoshop has probably caused those numbers to rise slightly.)