the right religion

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

It is possible, though, that the Egyptians were not convinced because, in the main, God's miracles which they witnessed were actually attacks upon the Egyptians themselves. So, it is not surprising that they did not embrace him with happy hearts. Moses' staff magic in front of Pharaoh, the plagues, the death of the firstborns, the defeat of the army... all of these were harmful, both physically and to the egos of the Egyptians; all God's miracles, toward them, were attacks. Is it really a surprise they did not spontaneously cheer and become Hebrews?

 

[1robin]

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.

I never said a person could not leave the faith I said that that is an irrational decision. It would require the denial of the fact which they have to affirm to make their claim of being a former Christian. The possition is self refuting. A person claiming to have had an experience with a different God and or religion has nothing to do with someone claiming to be a former Christian. It would only address the exclusivity claimed by Christianity which is a different issue. It is improbable (virtually impossible) that you would have the exact same experience that the bible defines at the exact moment you are accepting Christ as savior from any other source but the God of the bible. But even if you did this is no argument against my position. If it was from another God then they are not a Christian. If I had an experience with Zeus, that surly does not make me a Christian and so the claim to be a former one is invalid and my points still stand.

Your second paragraph is confusing. If a person has a born again experience that correlates to the biblical description and was gained by following biblical guidlines and occured as an immediate answer to your request for Christ to save you, then suggest that maybe it was another God is more illogical than the original point. I am often appalled at the lengths people will go to create other irrational and unattested explanations to counter the most obvious one in order to avoid the implications of the most universally accepted explanations. To at a later point disagree with some secondary paripheral claims of the bible is very common and in no way makes you a non Christian. I have already stated that people have the freewill to reject God after they have claim to have believed, I just said it makes no sense. I find your last few counter assertions probability of occuring so small as to be virtually non-existant. Even if they were true I have already mentioned why that is not a valid argument to the specific claim I made. And no other religion offers and even demands a spiritual experience similar to the bible. Think about this. If the bible was written by men who knew it to be false (and they surely would have) why would they offer and demand a spiritual experience that they knew would not happen. They would be setting it up to fail. That religion would not have lasted very long.

 

[1robin]

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.

Hi DaveyCrocket (cool name)
I respect your freewill and you have the right to worship a soup can if you want. In my opinion though I don't think your philosophy has enough justification or evidence to warrant a wager in which my soul depends. What do you use to justify your faith in your position? Who is this God you worship and why do you believe he exists? If you will read my response to 9westy9 you will find some of your points addressed indirectly.

God Bless

 

[waitasec]

the right religion is any religion that fits ones core beliefs
or the one that one is indoctrinated into thinking theirs is the right religion

and to me, that speaks volumes about religion...there is no one right religion.

 

[Nakosis]

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).

There is the reality of the Holy Spirit which is something you personally experience. It supports what Jesus taught.

However I don't think this experience is unique to "Christians". You call them Christians, which is ok but not everyone who has experienced these things call themselves Christians. And such an experience is a start, a stepping stone to further enlightenment.

The term Christian is just a label. It doesn't change the truth of what you have personally experienced. Early disciples of Jesus called themselves simply saints.

One doesn't need to be a Christian in any sense to encounter the Holy Spirit. One may or may not consider themselves a Christian afterwards. However if they take the time to read what Jesus taught, I believe they'll come to understand the source of his teaching.

 

[9Westy9]

I never said a person could not leave the faith I said that that is an irrational decision. It would require the denial of the fact which they have to affirm to make their claim of being a former Christian. The possition is self refuting. A person claiming to have had an experience with a different God and or religion has nothing to do with someone claiming to be a former Christian. It would only address the exclusivity claimed by Christianity which is a different issue. It is improbable (virtually impossible) that you would have the exact same experience that the bible defines at the exact moment you are accepting Christ as savior from any other source but the God of the bible. But even if you did this is no argument against my position. If it was from another God then they are not a Christian. If I had an experience with Zeus, that surly does not make me a Christian and so the claim to be a former one is invalid and my points still stand.

Because other people have similar 'religious experiences' all you need to do is know this fact and and can rationally leave the faith no matter what 'supernatural experience' you've had.

Your second paragraph is confusing. If a person has a born again experience that correlates to the biblical description and was gained by following biblical guidlines and occured as an immediate answer to your request for Christ to save you, then suggest that maybe it was another God is more illogical than the original point.

IF the experience is that specific. But I don't remember you being too specific about the 'supernatural experience'

I am often appalled at the lengths people will go to create other irrational and unattested explanations to counter the most obvious one in order to avoid the implications of the most universally accepted explanations.

If you had been more specific about the 'supernatural encounter' then I wouldn't have made point b at all.

To at a later point disagree with some secondary paripheral claims of the bible is very common and in no way makes you a non Christian. I have already stated that people have the freewill to reject God after they have claim to have believed, I just said it makes no sense.

I disagree. To disagree with the bible is in many eyes a turning away. Besides, isn't the bible God's perfect holy book? and I'm offering arguments as to why someone would do so. What makes no sense to you might make perfect sense to someone else.

I find your last few counter assertions probability of occuring so small as to be virtually non-existant.

lol. I can't wait to see you back them up

Even if they were true I have already mentioned why that is not a valid argument to the specific claim I made.

If your experience is your mind playing tricks on you i.e. a hallucination then it would destroy the argument. That 'experience' would be nothing more than a fairy tale or a dream

And no other religion offers and even demands a spiritual experience similar to the bible. Think about this. If the bible was written by men who knew it to be false (and they surely would have) why would they offer and demand a spiritual experience that they knew would not happen. They would be setting it up to fail. That religion would not have lasted very long.

Back up the first sentence?

 

[1robin]

There is the reality of the Holy Spirit which is something you personally experience. It supports what Jesus taught.

However I don't think this experience is unique to "Christians". You call them Christians, which is ok but not everyone who has experienced these things call themselves Christians. And such an experience is a start, a stepping stone to further enlightenment.

The term Christian is just a label. It doesn't change the truth of what you have personally experienced. Early disciples of Jesus called themselves simply saints.

One doesn't need to be a Christian in any sense to encounter the Holy Spirit. One may or may not consider themselves a Christian afterwards. However if they take the time to read what Jesus taught, I believe they'll come to understand the source of his teaching.

This doesn't address or effect the reason for my statement. I strongly disagree with your opinions here. Christianity right or wrong claims exclusivity. You made some claims to knowledge what do you use to justify your assertions? My statement was made to address a specific topic it was not written to address the claims you make here, they are different subjects requiring a different line of reasoning. If you will clarify what your are claiming here then I will attempt to address them specifically. Christianity is not simply a title it is a relationship that has far more to it than I think you know.

 

[A Troubled Man]

There is the reality of the Holy Spirit which is something you personally experience.

Actually, reality is something everyone shares and usually agrees with, things like apples, gravity and bowling. And, while bowling may not necessarily be readily available for everyone, the action of throwing a heavy ball down a narrow wooden alley to knock down a bunch of upright pins can be personally experienced, unlike Holy Spirits.

 

[Nakosis]

This doesn't address or effect the reason for my statement. I strongly disagree with your opinions here. Christianity right or wrong claims exclusivity. You made some claims to knowledge what do you use to justify your assertions? My statement was made to address a specific topic it was not written to address the claims you make here, they are different subjects requiring a different line of reasoning. If you will clarify what your are claiming here then I will attempt to address them specifically. Christianity is not simply a title it is a relationship that has far more to it than I think you know.

The relationship has far more to it then I think you know.
Christians claim the exclusivity of their experience. It's a result of what they are taught and the limitation/extent of their experience.

You should if you find yourself willing explore other belief so you'll understand the extent of what you reject if nothing else.

Spiritual experience are what they are. They are not so uncommon. However it seems people need to make it into a competition of who's religion is right. People who call themselves Christian are not unique nor do they have exclusivity to the Holy Spirit.

You categorized a type of former Christian. Some have simply progressed beyond the need to identify with a specific religious ideology. If you don't understand that, that is fine. If the Holy Spirit guides you, you'll find out when you are ready for it. Everyone progresses at their own pace.

 

[Nakosis]

Actually, reality is something everyone shares and usually agrees with, things like apples, gravity and bowling. And, while bowling may not necessarily be readily available for everyone, the action of throwing a heavy ball down a narrow wooden alley to knock down a bunch of upright pins can be personally experienced, unlike Holy Spirits.

If one has a heavy ball available.

The Holy Spirit has to be there available for you. It seems to happen when it happens. Not much anybody can do to cause it. However like the reality of throwing a heavy ball. You'll know the reality of it when it happens.

No guessing, no pretending something is true that you haven't experienced for yourself.

 

[1robin]

If one has a heavy ball available.

The Holy Spirit has to be there available for you. It seems to happen when it happens. Not much anybody can do to cause it. However like the reality of throwing a heavy ball. You'll know the reality of it when it happens.

No guessing, no pretending something is true that you haven't experienced for yourself.

I am having trouble just figureing out what you are claiming. You use language in a strange vague sort of way. I think you are claiming that the Holy spirit is present in other religions. First of all this subject is irrelevant to the topic I was addressing unless you are able to provide a reasonable justification for your claims. Just because you don't like the idea of exclusivity and like the idea of plarailty which can't be at least universally true is not a claim to take seriously. I have studied other religions mainly the montheistic abrahamic religions that dominate the world. I found the others so illogical and unreliable and based on such nonesense inconsistent with any veriable reference point that I don't feel they are worthy of further research.

While Islam is based on Judaism and Christianity and claims to have the same God. If you had actually done any research you would have realised that two God's which make claims of truth which are mutually exclusive both can't be right (or devine). Only Judaism contains any reasonable claims of a holy spirit consistent with the new testament. Any orthedox Jew will tell you point blank that a born again experience is not provided in the old testament however. Your plurality claim will not and has not survived even a basic philisophical evaluation. Even eastern philosophers are beginning to aknowledge the weakness of the "and" position. However even if both Christianity and Islam were true, the bible is the only one who offers and demands a supernatural experience like the one that is being discussed. The required condition necessary for this experience is only found in Christianity. So even if contained in another religion it could not be accessed outside Christianity. Even the necessary action that made the requirement an available action can not be found outside of Christianity.
If you desire I will supply a discussion held between two of the world's greatest living philosophers discussing plurality. The wester philosopher made a case against the idea of plurality in religion so absolute that the eastern philosopher conceeded the point. You plurality argument while being unable to refute the original point of my posts is also almost certainly incorrect. I would advise you to research the implications of plurality before stating it, and have something to back up the claim.

 

[Nakosis]

I am having trouble just figureing out what you are claiming. You use language in a strange vague sort of way. I think you are claiming that the Holy spirit is present in other religions. First of all this subject is irrelevant to the topic I was addressing unless you are able to provide a reasonable justification for your claims.

I just wanted to get a feel for your awareness. People understand based on the extent of their experience. You don't so I'm not trying to push something on you you are not ready to accept. But you never know until you interact.

It is relevant to why some people are former Christians. Some come to see Christianity as an alteration of what Jesus taught.

Just because you don't like the idea of exclusivity and like the idea of plarailty which can't be at least universally true is not a claim to take seriously. I have studied other religions mainly the montheistic abrahamic religions that dominate the world. I found the others so illogical and unreliable and based on such nonesense inconsistent with any veriable reference point that I don't feel they are worthy of further research.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by plarailty. I've no problem with exclusivity it's just I don't happen to find it to be the case.

What you feel about these other religions others feel about Christianity. You choose a reference point. I don't know what yours is or if there is any reason to think it's any better then the next persons.

While Islam is based on Judaism and Christianity and claims to have the same God. If you had actually done any research you would have realised that two God's which make claims of truth which are mutually exclusive both can't be right (or devine). Only Judaism contains any reasonable claims of a holy spirit consistent with the new testament. Any orthedox Jew will tell you point blank that a born again experience is not provided in the old testament however. Your plurality claim will not and has not survived even a basic philisophical evaluation. Even eastern philosophers are beginning to aknowledge the weakness of the "and" position. However even if both Christianity and Islam were true, the bible is the only one who offers and demands a supernatural experience like the one that is being discussed. The required condition necessary for this experience is only found in Christianity. So even if contained in another religion it could not be accessed outside Christianity. Even the necessary action that made the requirement an available action can not be found outside of Christianity.
If you desire I will supply a discussion held between two of the world's greatest living philosophers discussing plurality. The wester philosopher made a case against the idea of plurality in religion so absolute the eastern philosopher cinceeded the point. You plurality argument while being unable to refute the original point of my posts is also almost certainly incorrect. I would advise you to research the implications of plurality before stating it, and have something to back up the claim.

No plurality. Just a consistency of spiritual experience that gets interpreted according to various beliefs.

 

[1robin]

I just wanted to get a feel for your awareness. People understand based on the extent of their experience. You don't so I'm not trying to push something on you you are not ready to accept. But you never know until you interact.

It is relevant to why some people are former Christians. Some come to see Christianity as an alteration of what Jesus taught.



Sorry, I don't know what you mean by plarailty. I've no problem with exclusivity it's just I don't happen to find it to be the case.

Sorry I meant plurality.

What you feel about these other religions others feel about Christianity. You choose a reference point. I don't know what yours is or if there is any reason to think it's any better then the next persons.



No plurality. Just a consistency of spiritual experience that gets interpreted according to various beliefs.

I am not evaluating competing belief systems based on feelings. I use reason, logic, philosophy, historical cooperation, existentialism, and the explanatory power and consistency of their texts or claims. By these standards you can eliminate the majority of religions very easily. I may use personal experience to illustrate a specific point or for clarification but not for what I think you are suggesting. For your contentions to be true then a plurality of divinity or at least religion is necessary. You really didn't challenge my assertions so I have no further response.

If you would make your point simply and clearly and as specific as you can I can give a well reasoned response that you might find helpful.

 

[Nakosis]

If you would make your point simply and clearly and as specific as you can I can give a well reasoned response that you might find helpful.

Just a question. What do you think is unique about your actual experience?

Not the theological implications, just the actual event(s).

 

[Me Myself]

What´s wrong with the left religion?

 

[1robin]

Just a question. What do you think is unique about your actual experience?

Not the theological implications, just the actual event(s).

Reasonable question. I had been carrying around a lot of despair or depression (for lack of a better word) that had built up over the years incrementally and unnoticed. I had lost some people I loved and had suffered some other extremely painful events. I however thought that I was normal but that experience removed those tons of emotional weight I was carrying instantly my sadness dissapeared. I had also been fighting unsuccessfully some addictions. My desire for these things that was unstoppable up until this point completely dissapeared. Guilt from some bad mistakes that had built up slowly over 27 years completely dissolved. I lost any fear of death or judgement whatsoever from that instant but small part of the fear of actually dyeing (not death) crept back years later but is no comparison to my original state. I felt a joy for life that I had not felt since I was a child. I who the military and life had made hard and unemotional, cried like a child out of sheer joy for a few minutes. I could not stand to hear cursing for a long time after this. I actually felt a love or a compassion for people that I didn't even like. I hadn't been in a church for many years and had no idea what I was supposed to feel or any labels for it. However in my attempt to describe to myself the way I felt, I used an analogy to being new or reborn or childlike. The next day people kept asking me what was different about me and I was still trying to understand that myself. My roomate instantly stopped several habits because he said he felt some force take away his desire at the same time as I had my event. He attributed that to the overwhelming power of the holy spirit but doesn't consider himself as saved at that time. Without a reference to Christianity other aspects of this experience would have no meaning. I cannot make the uniqueclaim without reference to religion. I however have never heard of an account of an experience of this nature outside of Christianity. I am aware that other religions have other supernatural claims but if I am allowed to use religion I will show you the difference and relevance between them.

 

[1robin]

What´s wrong with the left religion?

Perhaps because it's description implies you get left.

 

[Me Myself]

Perhaps because it's description implies you get left.

Depending on who leaves you that might be a very good thing

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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?

Why do you assume there is one right religion? We could all be guessing at nothing at all, or we all could be guessing and none of the guesses are even close to right.

 

[1robin]

Why do you assume there is one right religion? We could all be guessing at nothing at all, or we all could be guessing and none of the guesses are even close to right.

I don't know about him but for me. The pervassiveness of virtually all cultures claiming a religion is an argument for the requirement of religion to be a inherent universal basic need therefore a likely reality. Most religions can be dismissed on the grounds of logical incoherence, inconsistent claims, existential incompatability, philisophical invalidation, etc..... The ones left mainly the Abrahamic religions make so many mutually exclusive claims that they can't all be right, even though they could all be wrong. The wealth of witnesses and the textual integrity of the bible when compared with any other work of ancient history, the logical coherence, the philisophical consistency, prophecy, the unparralleled historical life of Christ, and the explanitory power of Christianity makes it the most likely candidate for the truth but will never rise to the level of proof. It requires a reasoned faith which removes the possability of proof existing.