the right religion

[Nakosis]

Yes I find it completely illogical, if you want I will explain why but I require you to tell me what you believe makes a Christian in the first place to do so. I will not label you or require you to label your self only point out the biblical requirements to be a Christian and then explain why I find it illogical.

Please do...

I'm interested in your view. Maybe to disagree later, but I'd like to hear you out.

Sorry jumped the gun I suppose, but I'd still like to hear it.

 

[atanu]

I am again and again saying that my religion is the right religion. Why people are unable to see that proves that my religion is the the right religion, since it has given me a wisdom to pick a the right religion.

You all see the point. Don't you? Well, how could you? You don't have the right religion to help you. See?

 

[Straw Dog]

I am again and again saying that my religion is the right religion. Why people are unable to see that proves that my religion is the the right religion, since it has given me a wisdom to pick a the right religion.

You all see the point. Don't you? Well, how could you? You don't have the right religion to help you. See?

Personally, I prefer to have the wrong religion. It's a lot less pressure trying to prove it to everybody.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

And that is exactly why you can't judge God and even the sarcastic rhetoric that gave birth to your examples relative insuffeciency to judge is insufficient to indicate your relative insuffeciency to judge God.

Then by the same 'logic' you cannot support him, either.

But I can judge God by human morals, and I do. And he fails to be moral.

If you could not ineffectively apply tired Argumentational semantic falacie cliche's your posts would be quite a bit shorter. Being that a true Scotsman is an arbitrary subjective label and A Christian is an objective absolute then those four words weren't worth typing.

As I said in the other thread it must be infuriated to you to have so many lame fallacies littered in your posts, but pointing them out to you isn't somehow a flaw of mine; it's a flaw in your reasoning. If you don't like having it done, improve your skills.

I wish I hadn't read it at all and would have suffered no loss for it. Whose my supporter?

I think his handle is Sojourner or something.

I enjoy a sarcastic discussion and am almost unoffendable but I don't want to continue at the risk of offending you, your avatar, or the moderators. If you aren't offended then we can continue as I don't usually do it and you seem not to be unable to do it and it's fun.

What does the fact that you enjoy sarcastic exchanges, have anything to do with the also-fact that you obviously didn't read about that which you are trying to speak negatively? In other words you're criticizing at length, a subject about which you show/admit no knowledge whatsoever?

 

[9Westy9]

Yes I find it completely illogical, if you want I will explain why but I require you to tell me what you believe makes a Christian in the first place to do so. I will not label you or require you to label your self only point out the biblical requirements to be a Christian and then explain why I find it illogical.

Christian - Some one who has accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. Your turn

 

[1robin]

Then by the same 'logic' you cannot support him, either.

Not a bad point but not exactly accurate either. The only way for your statement to be true is if you conclude that God isn't judgeable after all, thereby defeating your initial point that God is evil. Either way my faith that God is not evil does not come from my ability to Judge God. I take it as the impossibility of him acting in an evil manner based on his revealed self-description. That is a judgment of faith not a proven reality and I no way claim it is a claim to objective knowledge. It is simply the most consistent with his revealed character. This faith is reinforced by the portion of the nature of his decision process that was revealed.

But I can judge God by human morals, and I do. And he fails to be moral

.The inadequacy of the method renders the result less than useless. I really find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to support this assertion.

As I said in the other thread it must be infuriated to you to have so many lame fallacies littered in your posts, but pointing them out to you isn't somehow a flaw of mine; it's a flaw in your reasoning. If you don't like having it done, improve your skills.

A rigid set of highbrow philosophic principles isn't always applicable. Many people use it as a defense mechanism to hide an inability to deal with the argument. I will admit that some of your falicy accusations are probably justified but a simple counterpoint to my claim would have been more useful and just as fast. I usually respond to people who commit a falacy with a counter argument I feel arrogant if I throw out some Latin at them.

I think his handle is Sojourner or something.

Oh, I recognize the name but that is it.

What does the fact that you enjoy sarcastic exchanges; have anything to do with the also-fact that you obviously didn't read about that which you are trying to speak negatively? In other words you're criticizing at length, a subject about which you show/admit no knowledge whatsoever?

Nothing. I didn't say I like sarcastic conversationS, I said I liked this one for some reason. I even said I don't usually get involved with sarcastic posters. Your inadequacy to judge God being that you can only hope to have a vanishingly small amount of the data necessary to do so justifiably, and lack of understanding that reveals who is the least knowledgeable.
1. If the God of the bible exists his knowledge and mind are infinite.
2. To judge any of God's actions would require a complete knowledge of all the details used in that judgment. A virtually/potentially infinite amount of information.
3. You having a finite mind have no way whatsoever of having or even knowing it if you did have all the information needed to justifiably judge God's actions.
These principles are absolute. How can you make a meaningful judgment of anything for which you have a vanishingly small portion of the total. It is you have adopted a rediculous stance on this topic. I can't imagine a much clearer or simple issue. The fact that you just can't comprehend it is fascinating in some weird way.

 

[1robin]

Please do...

I'm interested in your view. Maybe to disagree later, but I'd like to hear you out.

Sorry jumped the gun I suppose, but I'd still like to hear it.

Please see my response to 9westy9 as soon after it is finished. You both wanted me to answer the same point so, two stones with one bird and all that.

 

[1robin]

Christian - Someone who has accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. Your turn

In reply to 9westy9 and Nakosis.
First let me say I will require some categories to illustrate my point. I do not suggest which of them, if any, you are in. I do not want to know where you personally fit. My argument or point is generic, I am far from being God and try to not presume to categorize individuals beyond what they volunteer. The reason I feel that to claim to be a former Christian is illogical is as follows.
Anyone who sincerely claims to be a former Christian must fit into one of two categories according to the most universally accepted view of Christian theology.
1. A sincere Christian as defined by the bible (Christ) is someone who is a born again believer by virtue of a spiritual birth, in the death, resurrection, and sufficiency of his payment for sin. Who from that point has the holy spirit living in their heart or soul forever. This category can also be split after this point into several other categories but for this discussions purpose this is irrelevant.
2. A second class of people who sincerely believe they are or were a Christian is someone who identifies themselves with the religion. They have differing levels of intellectual consent or agreement with the philosophy of Christianity, however their faith has never reached a point where they experienced what Jesus referred to as being born of the spirit, born again, or true conversion. This intellectual or superficial faith can range from wearing a cross around the neck up to continuous church attendance and devotion to the bible and it's morals but short of spiritual birth.

In the first case above. If the person fits in this category then they have had proof or confirmation given as a reward of their high faith in the form of the holy spirit. The bible says that the holy spirit comes to live with the believer from this moment on. This is a supernatural encounter which is a significant experience and is the proof (if you will) that only a born again believer can receive. This experience while spiritual in nature is unmistakable subjective proof for this individual none the less.
For this person to at some point later deny that spiritual proof/experience which made them a Christian in the first place is illogical. This is an unmistakable unforgettable life altering experience I am referring to, the denial of which is to deny your premise that you were once a Christian at all. It is to deny the existence of the necessary facts which makes your (former Christian status) true. The somewhat prevalent protestant interpretation of theology suggests that a true Christian can't become a non-Christian even if they decided to (but that is very debatable and not necessary to this discussion).

For the case of the person in the second category. The claim of a former true Christian or adoption through rebirth of the spirit into the family of God is would necessarily be false. If the claim was true they would be in the first category. The bible makes it clear that we are all born separated from God and are not Christians. It further states what is necessary to become a Christian as stated previously. The people in this category aren't Christians by the biblical standards and so the claim to being a former Christian is false. In my opinion virtually all people who claim to be former Christians are members of this group. The bible also makes it clear that a non-spiritually reborn person cannot understand Christianity or God fully and it is apparent in posts I have read.
This description is perfectly consistent with the most widely accepted interpretations of scripture. I made no attempt to identify any particular individual with any particular group. I simply pointed out the inconsistency’s with the claim of former Christianity regardless of the persons spiritual status. There are theories of possible exceptions to what I have said but these conditions are not universally agreed to any meaningful extent and would only possibly apply to a very few. I will provide scripture to back any position I stated but didn't have room here.

As an analalogy: It's as if a person is sick and accepts the truth that they are sick. For this disease the only cure can come through faith. The person believes and receives the cure is instantly well and healthy for the first time in their life. At a later date the person decides they never were sick, there is no medicine or doctors that exist, they conclude the medical field as a whole is false. While not impossible it sure isn't logical.

 

[A Troubled Man]

The only right religion is the one that offers free Kool Aid.

 

[1robin]

The only right religion is the one that offers free Kool Aid.

I don't know if I would trust a religion based on the availablity of juice powders. It didn't work out to good when Jones tried it.

 

[9Westy9]

What about a person who had a supernatural experience of God and then left the faith? or a person of another faith who had a supernatural experience of their god(s)? Perhaps a better question is how can you tell your 'supernatural experience' is from the God of your religion rather than another

Even if I was in the first category you mentioned, rejecting Christianity wouldn't be illogical. Because Christianity is much more than just a religious experience. It has a holy book, dogma, doctrines etc. If I find problems with the morals, for example, then I can justify turning away from it even if I believed that God was real. Especially when considering that other religious people get similar experiences. It suggests that my experience might have been either a) from the god I'm currently worshipping b) a different god I'm not worshipping or c) none of them, it's just my mind playing tricks on me.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Not a bad point but not exactly accurate either. The only way for your statement to be true is if you conclude that God isn't judgeable after all, thereby defeating your initial point that God is evil. Either way my faith that God is not evil does not come from my ability to Judge God. I take it as the impossibility of him acting in an evil manner based on his revealed self-description. That is a judgment of faith not a proven reality and I no way claim it is a claim to objective knowledge. It is simply the most consistent with his revealed character. This faith is reinforced by the portion of the nature of his decision process that was revealed.
.The inadequacy of the method renders the result less than useless. I really find it hard to believe anyone would be willing to support this assertion.

Well you would be horribly surprised how many do. But appealing to numbers would also be a fallacy. I realize, as I've observed previously, that you are incapable of understanding your God's immorality. You have been programmed to be unable to. You cherry pick what suits you, and turn a blind eye to anything anomalous. You make many references and justifications based on the 'revealed' scriptures but you keep failing to realize that taken as a whole, these revealed scriptures paint a very different picture than they themselves state about themselves. No matter how loudly the man punching the cat cries that he is an animal supporter, it does not change the evidence of his actions; this is what we have with the Bible. Actions speaking louder than it's words. You only hear the shouts, and you believe them without looking; I see the actions.

A rigid set of highbrow philosophic principles isn't always applicable. Many people use it as a defense mechanism to hide an inability to deal with the argument. I will admit that some of your falicy accusations are probably justified but a simple counterpoint to my claim would have been more useful and just as fast.

I am sure this excuse lets you presume that your failed arguments are somehow revitalized, but, pointing out the fallacy of your reasoning, is actually dealing with the argument.

Your inadequacy to judge God being that you can only hope to have a vanishingly small amount of the data necessary to do so justifiably, and lack of understanding that reveals who is the least knowledgeable.

1. If the God of the bible exists his knowledge and mind are infinite.
2. To judge any of God's actions would require a complete knowledge of all the details used in that judgment. A virtually/potentially infinite amount of information.
3. You having a finite mind have no way whatsoever of having or even knowing it if you did have all the information needed to justifiably judge God's actions.
These principles are absolute. How can you make a meaningful judgment of anything for which you have a vanishingly small portion of the total. It is you have adopted a rediculous stance on this topic. I can't imagine a much clearer or simple issue. The fact that you just can't comprehend it is fascinating in some weird way.

OK, it seems I'll have to spell out precisely why this reasoning of yours, is false. However I am sure you will continue to hang heavily on it in the future; Im just advising you now that when I see it in your posts, I'll simply delete that portion in any quotes I use as irrelevant and move on. Because you will be wrong, every single time, no matter how many times you post it.

Dog Whisperer Fallacy

I use this as a way to argue against the oft-repeated phrase: God's reason is not our reason' or 'we can't know the mind of God', or similar, when irrationality is offered as the way in which God supposedly operates.

If you needed to train a dog, you would NOT simply sit it in front of a TV and put in a DVD of the Dog Whisperer; you would communicate with the dog in the way IT understands.

On the show 'the Dog Whisperer', the host shows people how to relate to their dogs to curb behavior problems. With every troubled dog, the host communicates with
them in every way that relates to the social interaction of dogs. He establishes the social hierarchy of the pack, with himself at the top as alpha. He corrects them firmly, but always in gestures that a dog would use; he forces the dog into a physically submissive position, on its back with its belly up and exposed; he will grasp them by the neck [not in a harmful way] with is fingers crooked so that the dog feels as it its got teeth on its neck.

He never yells, he never hits; he never holds long conversations explaining his desires with the dog. In every respect, he is speaking dog to the dog, because that is the
only way it will learn. And his methods are 100% effective.

If you were God, you could not expect to communicate to Man in a way only you as God understand, and expect anything to be learned by Man. The ONLY way you could
communicate to Man would HAVE to be in a rational way as Man understands it. If God's way is not rational, on the level of Man's rationality [because who gave Man rationality in the first place as a method of thought?], then God is merely an irrational, random and capricious danger to Man.

In other words, your God, as the basis for morality [as you claim] MUST create a moral system that is graspable by Man. He's got to be speaking our language. He cannot demand morality of us, and then act immorally, for that shatters the proof that He is good. And we Men recognize that a hypocrite loses any moral authority he tries to take upon himself; his system would immediately lose its credibility. That concept is, in fact, part of our morals [to observe pontificates for hypocrisy to make sure they walk their own talk]. So, if God does not lead by pristine example then he is worthless to us as a moral basis.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

What about a person who had a supernatural experience of God and then left the faith? or a person of another faith who had a supernatural experience of their god(s)? Perhaps a better question is how can you tell your 'supernatural experience' is from the God of your religion rather than another

Even if I was in the first category you mentioned, rejecting Christianity wouldn't be illogical. Because Christianity is much more than just a religious experience. It has a holy book, dogma, doctrines etc. If I find problems with the morals, for example, then I can justify turning away from it even if I believed that God was real. Especially when considering that other religious people get similar experiences. It suggests that my experience might have been either a) from the god I'm currently worshipping b) a different god I'm not worshipping or c) none of them, it's just my mind playing tricks on me.

Hi and agreed! Just wanted to add: d) The god I'm currently worshipping, however not fully understanding/comprehending.

It is my belief that there is one God that is father to all of us. And I believe that he is not so petty and IDK, weird as to only bless and interact with those few of his children who are in one "correct" religion. I wholeheartedly endorse the seeking and obtaining of true doctrines but think it is absurd that he would favor one group over another. I strongly believe that all religious people who are doing their best and seeking to live lives filled with love and service are worshipping God. In a sense, I believe the same of non-religious people too (don't want to offend them by saying they're worshipping God ).

The point is, It makes sense that you could/would have "supernatural experiences" in any religion given that God is a loving God and cares about all of his children.

 

[Muffled]

I do to but I add Chrsitianity as his true revelation, however that is a subjective truth or atleast can only be proven to be a subjective one. Since God is objectively unprovable even though it may very well be an objective truth then I could never claim to be able to prove his existance to anyone else.

This is too general a statement to be true. There is much in Christianity (and JW's have a corner on it) that isn't true or from God.

I would think that God proved Himself to the Egyptians by many miracles but that didn't lead to belief on their part. Elijah put on a contest between God and idols and God proved Himself then as well but it didn't lead to belief by the idol worshipers either. I think what you really mean is that God can't be proven by reason.

 

[Muffled]

I am again and again saying that my religion is the right religion. Why people are unable to see that proves that my religion is the the right religion, since it has given me a wisdom to pick a the right religion.

You all see the point. Don't you? Well, how could you? You don't have the right religion to help you. See?

The proof is in the pudding. There is a religion where a person hs to keep working on being good through many lifetimes (as though time actually gets a person to be good) but never does become good and then there is a relgion that instantly makes a person good. Which one is the right religion? The one that works or the one that doesn't work?

I don't think a person needs a PHD or sit on a hill for hoursin meditation to see this.

 

[Muffled]

Personally, I prefer to have the wrong religion. It's a lot less pressure trying to prove it to everybody.

It isn't necessary to prove it to anybody. You can prefer to stumble around in darkness or have the light turned on for you. Personnally I prefer walking in the light.

 

[1robin]

This is too general a statement to be true. There is much in Christianity (and JW's have a corner on it) that isn't true or from God.

I would think that God proved Himself to the Egyptians by many miracles but that didn't lead to belief on their part. Elijah put on a contest between God and idols and God proved Himself then as well but it didn't lead to belief by the idol worshipers either. I think what you really mean is that God can't be proven by reason.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying here. The generality of a statement has no bearing on it's truth. However I will narrow it a bit for clarity. I believe that the original revelations of God contained absolute truth. Even though the bible may be objective truth it isn't objective proof.

I meant that God's revelations can not be used as objective truth even though they might be. I can not insist that any individual must believe in God based on revelation. I believe he should but there is no compelling reason he must. My belief or experience is only proof to me . Maybe that is clearer but it's doubtful because I don't know exactly what your point was. My original post was to add the scriptures to God's reality as accepted conclusions mentioned by another poster.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

The proof is in the pudding. There is a religion where a person hs to keep working on being good through many lifetimes (as though time actually gets a person to be good) but never does become good and then there is a relgion that instantly makes a person good. Which one is the right religion? The one that works or the one that doesn't work?

I don't think a person needs a PHD or sit on a hill for hoursin meditation to see this.

Hmm... In that case there is a mixture of true and false throughout all religions. Because from what I can see... it works for some and it doesn't for others.

 

[Straw Dog]

It isn't necessary to prove it to anybody. You can prefer to stumble around in darkness or have the light turned on for you. Personnally I prefer walking in the light.

Oh, I was just being humorous to ease the tension.

Too much talk about the "one true faith" tends to encourage uptight thinking and an overly strict in-group/ out-group mentality. Life can be stressful enough as it is without us adding to it.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe that I'm stumbling around in darkness? Perhaps I'm just seeing the same light from a different angle.

 

[A Troubled Man]

It isn't necessary to prove it to anybody. You can prefer to stumble around in darkness or have the light turned on for you. Personnally I prefer walking in the light.

If any given religion had as much credibility as any other, one WOULD be stumbling around in the dark following it.