the right religion

[Flat Earth Kyle]

saying there is no right religion is saying there is no such thing as truth out there.
So long as there is truth, there is a right religion.

 

[England my lionheart]

saying there is no right religion is saying there is no such thing as truth out there.
So long as there is truth, there is a right religion.

Depends what you call truth,for me it depends on evidence ,for others it really is a matter of faith,not saying theres anything wrong with that but each religion,be it Pagan,Abrahmic or otherwise is only true to its subsribers,personal truth does'nt equal facts IMO

 

[Meow Mix]

saying there is no right religion is saying there is no such thing as truth out there.
So long as there is truth, there is a right religion.

I disagree with this. Typically when someone knows some truth it isn't called religious: for instance, I know that if A > B and B > C that therefore A > C. Is this truth religious? Perhaps some people ascribed religious aspects to it (perhaps some extension of the Pythagoreans, for instance) but the truth in itself lacks any inherent religious value.

It's possible that no religion is right because it's possible that all truths which can be known lack inherent religious value. Perhaps adding religious value to the truths is possible, but that doesn't necessarily means it's "true" or "false" to do so any more than it's "true" or "false" to have an opinion on which color is the prettiest.

That is, unless the religious feelings make ontological claims about what exist. Then they have truth/falsity values. Unfortunately for most religions, most of them make ontological claims that they have repeatedly failed to justify for thousands of years and I doubt they'll make any headway anytime soon -- so the odds of such religions being "right" are looking extremely bleak.

In any case, it seems that when we know something we aren't merely believing it in a religious sense. When we know something, that means we can justify it by the definition of what knowledge is -- and we don't generally call justified knowledge "religious" in any sense. Typically people reserve the "religious" tag for beliefs that they hold to be true without explicit epistemic justification.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Depends what you call truth,for me it depends on evidence ,for others it really is a matter of faith,not saying theres anything wrong with that but each religion,be it Pagan,Abrahmic or otherwise is only true to its subsribers,personal truth does'nt equal facts IMO

Hey, I find the laws of physics just as much a truth as anything.

 

[pwfaith]

I'm not sure if I can agree with that. I know a lot of nonbelievers who are morally excellent, virtuous, righteous, satisfactory in quality, quantity, and degree; right, proper, fit, and well-behaved. In what sense would goodness not exist, then, if there are good people in Hell -- and I daresay that I'd count myself as a good person, too?

I know many good people too However I do not believe an acknowledgment of God or God's existence is dependent on ones "goodness". Whether one believes in God or not, everything they feel, experience or do that is good, is still from God.

Can't you see the dubious unrighteousness of such a system, though? Just because someone reads a book to you and exposes you to a subject, you're forever accountable for having been exposed to it -- even if a good argument wasn't made? God still gets to say "Well, you heard about me, even if a good case wasn't made; and you didn't believe it, so, sorry, you get to go to Hell?"

God has told us the consequences. If we know and we reject, only we are responsible for our choice. He will not force anyone to accept.

Please, think of it like this. Most people end up in the same religion they're born around. How is it fair that God will send people to Hell just for being born in India or Pakistan, for instance -- places where most people do not end up as Christians but rather as another religion? Is that righteous on God's part?

Why do some people who are raised atheist accept Christ? Why are there people in the depths of Africa who have never read a Bible, questioning their "religion" because of nothing more than the world around them? I believe God is a just God and will every individual will be judged according to what truths have been revealed to them.

Look at it from a person's POV who isn't sure what to believe. 50 different people will approach them in their lifetime and tell them about 50 different religions or variations of religions: I'm sure everyone on this forum has been exposed to Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Scientology, Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, and many more -- it appears that you believe God expects people to listen to the Christians that approach them and single them out as the only correct ones, even though they sound exactly like all the other ones.

No, I don't expect people to just listen to Christians and take them at their word.

Here's an analogy. You wake up with a bomb in your hands. It has 50 buttons on it; all of them look the same to you as far as you can tell. You're surrounded by 50 different people, each of them telling you to press a different button. A note by the bomb says that it's going to explode soon, and that only one of the buttons disarms the bomb -- pressing the wrong button just causes it to explode anyway. None of the people telling you to press their choice of button are making a very good case for why their choice of button is the right one.

Is this a fair situation?

The flaw I see in this analogy is that God does not give 50 buttons or an unclear message. The confusion we have with different religions and which one is "right" comes from Satan. Don't look at people to build the 'good case'. That's where people often go wrong, impo. They look at other flawed people for direction, when they should be looking to God for direction. God will never steer us in the wrong direction or deceive us.

Ok, suppose that I asked you whether or not a 300 km square shaped crater existed on the far side of Pluto; but I don't offer you very good evidence either way. I then tell you that if you make the right choice, I'll give you $1,000,000; but if you make the wrong choice something horrific will happen to you.

Why am I depending on you to give me evidence, if it's that life threatening? Am I evaluating the evidence for the crater as well as the evidence against it? Am I avoiding all prejudiced premises or illogical conclusions? Am I giving ALL the evidence complete and total equal and fair evaluation? Am I looking at the evidence with an open mind, without reservations?

A loving God wouldn't play such childish games.

I agree, nor do I believe he does. What is considered "good" evidence? God may be offering all the evidence he can without bending the persons arm, but if they continue to 'explain it away' - who's fault is that? I have seen people ask for God to show himself to them in a very clear way, and when asked 'what that would mean', they honestly just don't know. If one does not even know what kind of evidence would convince them, how do they know God is not already revealing it to them?

I posted earlier about a sermon title our pastor had a while ago "God - Hidden In Plain Sight" Do you think this is possible? That God is right before us but we don't see him b/c he is working with other items or our environment, or because it is not where we are looking and therefore do not expect him to be? Is God therefore not showing himself or are we simply not evaluating the evidence before us correctly?

A loving God -- a just God -- would give people an informed choice,

and I believe he does.

If you have children, try punishing them for some choice they have to make without knowing why they're making it or how they're supposed to know the right choice: see if you feel like a monster or not after punishing them. I bet you would, and for good reason -- it's a horrible thing to do. So why would God do it?

I have children. 5 of them. They are warned of consequences for their choices. If I tell my child to stop, they do not need to know WHY I am telling them to stop in order to obey me. I am their mother, they know that if they do not listen and respect me, there will be a consequence for their disobedience. While I do like to make sure my children understand why I am asking/telling them to do something, they also know there are times when they won't be told and they just need to listen. The right choice is always obeying me, whether they understand why I am telling them to do it or not. They listen b/c they trust me b/c I am trustworthy to them. I am trustworthy to them b/c I have never led them astray and I would only tell them to do something without explaining if it were very important. *I* know, that there are also things they just cannot fully understand yet b/c they still have the mental capacity of a child. We are like that spiritually. There are things we cannot understand without the Holy Spirit. We are immature in our "spiritual intellect" and the Holy Spirit is our teacher/guide.

If my request of my children was to save their life, no I would not feel like a monster for expecting them to just trust me, listen and obey without knowing why. God tells us what will happen if we don't listen to him. The difference is I do not see it as a punishment (I know many do, but I do not). It is equal to my child about to run out into a street and me yelling "No, STOP". They cannot see the car that is coming (let's say they are too short and bushes block their view of the street). But I can. I know the danger they are in. The consequence of them not listening to me is being hit and killed by a car. It is what will naturally just occur if they continue on the path they are going. This is not a complete analogy though b/c God has given us free will and will not force us to listen to him. He wants people to listen to him b/c they want to and not b/c he's controlling them like puppets or robots. He wants them to be with him b/c they want to not b/c he's forcing them to. My child being hit by a car is not a punishment for not listening to me, it's a consequence. God will do everything in his power to stop us and get us to listen but he will not impose on our free will to disobey him. Hell is a consequence. Let's also say my child's friend is across the street yelling at them to come over. I would expect, who they listen to will be the one they trust, which hopefully is me their parent - b/c they know I love them, want the best for them, and can see what's about to happen. My directions to them are clear. God's directions to us are clear - he wants us to acknowledge our sin, need for forgiveness and accept his love and gift.

The point, though, is whether or not you would allow the child to suffer immensely just because they aren't sure whether or not you exist?

And my point is that is not how God works. It is not a game to God. God gives us evidence. The consequence comes from rejecting the evidence we ARE given. Not b/c we just don't think the evidence we are given is "good enough".

Something tells me that you wouldn't. Would you consider a parent who allows their child to suffer horribly just because that child isn't sure the parent exists to be a good person or a bad person?

If they had no other choice, and tried everything they could to save them, I would consider them a good parent. God does not have a choice but to let us face the consequences of failing to accept the gift he sent us.

 

[pwfaith]

Here's an analogy. Ever seen Honey, I Shrunk The Kids? Let's say that for whatever reason some parents get shrunk such that their kids can't see them, and for the sake of argument we'll say that the kids are taken care of somehow. Let's say that the tiny couple tries to leave little signs here and there, which the kids see, but the kids aren't sure how to interpret them: are they coincidence, are they a message, etc.? The kids ultimately decide they don't have enough evidence to come to a conclusion, so they withhold judgment about whether or not their parents are still around.

So they know there is evidence of their parents existence but they choose to ignore it and just believe they don't? What evidence are they looking for? How will they know when they have enough evidence if even the evidence they have been given isn't enough?

See I don't think we're given just little bits of evidence. I believe we are given overwhelming evidence but b/c of our sin we can't see ALL of it. By believing in the little evidence we can see, the other evidence will become more clear. I don't believe there is any such thing as coincidence. Everything has a reason, even if we don't understand.

Do the parents then say, "Aha, they have made their choice, so be it -- I will now leave forever and leave these kids to starve in my absence?"

God doesn't do this either. Scripture says "rain falls on the just and unjust alike". The flaw with this thinking is that there is an end to this world. The opportunity to join God's family ends when we die. We know this. God has made this clear yet we want to be upset with him for not giving longer? How long does one need? They have until their dying breath. If one knows that's the end, why is it God's fault if they put it off until it's too late?

I'm saying is that if God expects people to make blind guesses without good evidence, then that's a totally unreasonable expectation.

If he did, it would be. But He doesn't. This is the problem with having false narratives and misunderstandings about how God works and what God expects. It creates chaos and confusion.

"God is not a God of disorder [or confusion]. He is a God of peace." 1 Cor. 14:33 - If one is feeling confused, then it is not of God. We can go back and forth with human analogies all day and night, but they will always be flawed and not enough b/c we are trying to apply human concepts to God. It can only help with our understanding so much. Human analogies will always be limited b/c God is not confined or defined by our humanity.

 

[England my lionheart]

Hey, I find the laws of physics just as much a truth as anything.

Unlike faith its a truth thats verifiable

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.


I don't see why Science can't be a religion. The main belief would be in the scientific method. Then it would just be a giant pool of information on what people have found to be true, and the entire religion would be a religion of learning.

I already suppose I base my religion off of findings I have found using the scientific method.

1) Ask a Question- Does God exist?
2) Do background research- Study the Bible and other Holy Books
3) Construct an hypotheseis- I think God exists
4) Test my hypothesis and conduct an experiment- Pray ask God if he is there
5) Analyze data- Write about experience in Journal.
6) Communicate your results- Share testimony with others.
I know that God is there and that He loves us. I feel the Holy Ghost tell me my Heavenly Father is there when I serve God and keep His commandments. The Holy Ghost tells me that God lives when I pray, and when God answers my prayers. the Holy Ghost tells me God is there when I read the scriptures,when I go to church, and when I share my testimony with others.
Others may doubt my testimony, but I know it is true through my own experiences and not off of what others have told me.

I don't know why people think that religion and science can not mix. Truth is truth.

 

[England my lionheart]

I look at it like this,using science we can verify many things in our lifetime,with some religious faiths nothing is verified until your death.

 

[Pegg]

I look at it like this,using science we can verify many things in our lifetime,with some religious faiths nothing is verified until your death.

but lets be honest here, you cant verify anything if you're dead.

 

[England my lionheart]

but lets be honest here, you cant verify anything if you're dead.

lol,you sure won't know if your wrong

 

[averageJOE]

I don't know what the "right" religion is. But I know the wrong religion is the religion who thinks they are the only one's who are right.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I don't know what the "right" religion is. But I know the wrong religion is the religion who thinks they are the only one's who are right.

Go read the rest of this thread

 

[crocusj]

I like to think of Hell as a place for anyone who maintains his own slant to define the path to eternal happiness.

As luck would have it, I only think of Hell hypothetically.

 

[bigNavySeal]

re·li·gion   [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.


I don't see why Science can't be a religion. The main belief would be in the scientific method. Then it would just be a giant pool of information on what people have found to be true, and the entire religion would be a religion of learning.

I already suppose I base my religion off of findings I have found using the scientific method.

1) Ask a Question- Does God exist?
2) Do background research- Study the Bible and other Holy Books
3) Construct an hypotheseis- I think God exists
4) Test my hypothesis and conduct an experiment- Pray ask God if he is there
5) Analyze data- Write about experience in Journal.
6) Communicate your results- Share testimony with others.
I know that God is there and that He loves us. I feel the Holy Ghost tell me my Heavenly Father is there when I serve God and keep His commandments. The Holy Ghost tells me that God lives when I pray, and when God answers my prayers. the Holy Ghost tells me God is there when I read the scriptures,when I go to church, and when I share my testimony with others.
Others may doubt my testimony, but I know it is true through my own experiences and not off of what others have told me.

I don't know why people think that religion and science can not mix. Truth is truth.

You're joking right? I really hope you are, because this is laughable. In its basic form a (scientific) hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon and requires independent and depend variables. Your hypothesis "I think God exists" doesn't make any sense; Is "God exists" the independent variable and "I think" the depende variable? lol

You could possibly make a hypothesis about shared testimonials as per your example, or on the effects/results of praying amongst people to their well-being and health, however stating that you know 'things to be true through your own experiences', even though others may doubt your testimony as an argument is entirely opposed to science.

It defeats the whole purpose of science which is to come up with testable explanations and predictions about phenomena in the (material) universe; once the hypotheses are tested, corrected, and are eventually accepted as fact(s) it can be done by anyone on earth with the desired outcome, meaning there's no doubt about its existence/functionality, and e.g. put in use (the lightbulb as an example). That's how scientific civilisation has advanced.

 

[Muffled]

Your reasoning is circular and nonsensical. You assert ...

The Bible is not distorted. God would not allow that.
​

... using your bible-generated God to validate your god-generating Bible.

Your premise is incorrect. God is not Bible generated. This is an unprovable speculation. It comes right out of someones imagination. God is not generated. He always exists. The Bible is a tool of God. It makes sense that He would preserve that which informs people of His ways.

 

[Muffled]

I think I should point out that Mother Kali has been with me even before I knew who She was. :yes: I don't like Shaivism for the same reason that Satanists like their religion. Shaivism does not stroke the ego at all; Hinduism in general is about ultimately getting rid of the ego.

However if you pick your religion because you like it you are doing so because of ego.

I agree but the question becomes, what replaces the ego? I presume that it is God consciousness which would be similar to many religions ie Islam. The latter if there is a desire to obey God as well as having His conscoiusness. I would expect that to be the case if ego was no longer in control. The ego never really goes away or the person would become a zombie.

 

[Muffled]

Why does there only have to be "one" right religion? Religion is is set of beliefs in something. Beliefs can exists independent of fact. Therefore, without facts, religion can be of anything or anyone. That said, people have individual needs that are met by (sometimes at least) specific religions. When a person finds a religion that fits those needs, that's the "right" religion for them. That doesn't mean it's the "right" religion for you or me necessarily.

A religion determines paths. A wrong religion can set a person on the wrong path.

A religion without facts is a wrong religion. It is like believing in the tooth fairy.

That depends on whether the needs are ego generated or God determined. A fulfillment of Ego generated needs is a wrong religion.

 

[Riverwolf]

However if you pick your religion because you like it you are doing so because of ego.

So, though the ego, I pick a religion that is about getting rid of the ego?

I agree but the question becomes, what replaces the ego? I presume that it is God consciousness which would be similar to many religions ie Islam. The latter if there is a desire to obey God as well as having His conscoiusness. I would expect that to be the case if ego was no longer in control. The ego never really goes away or the person would become a zombie.

Hardly.

Nothing replaces the ego, just like nothing replaces the peal of an orange when you take it off. God consciousness is already there, just hidden by several veils, of which the ego is one. If a person becomes a zombie, that's because there's still a few veils. I imagine it's one of the reasons why the final stages shouldn't be attempted without a Guru's guidance.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You're joking right? I really hope you are, because this is laughable. In its basic form a (scientific) hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon and requires independent and depend variables. Your hypothesis "I think God exists" doesn't make any sense; Is "God exists" the independent variable and "I think" the depende variable? lol

You could possibly make a hypothesis about shared testimonials as per your example, or on the effects/results of praying amongst people to their well-being and health, however stating that you know 'things to be true through your own experiences', even though others may doubt your testimony as an argument is entirely opposed to science.

It defeats the whole purpose of science which is to come up with testable explanations and predictions about phenomena in the (material) universe; once the hypotheses are tested, corrected, and are eventually accepted as fact(s) it can be done by anyone on earth with the desired outcome, meaning there's no doubt about its existence/functionality, and e.g. put in use (the lightbulb as an example). That's how scientific civilisation has advanced.

Okay, so maybe in my hypotheisis I should of said "God exists"
and the hard part about testing my hypothesis is one can not command God. The tests are not going to come back exactly the same way every time. God can answer me one way, and then answer someone else in a different way that would be better suited for them. My answer will satisfy me and me alone. My answer will come in one way, for example feeling the very presence of God, and for another hearing the voice of the Lord, and for another seeing a cat, a bird, and a rabbit playing together like friends in the back yard *I've actually heard of that one being evidence for someone that God exists.*