the right religion

[Nakosis]

The rest of this is not worth addressing.

Sorry I opened you up for this and our conversation was derailed.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Sorry you just making claims for the sake of being argumentative.

Yes, I can understand how you would believe that considering you find it merely argumentative when others are quantifying your belief in supernatural entities for simple feelings and emotions.

You want you get a point across, fine, but your are not engaging in a conversation with me. You are not really paying attention to what's been said.

Yes, I am.

So if you're not going to respond to what is actually being said I see no benefit in continuing.

Yes, I can see how not wanting to hear something that deconstructs your belief system into terrestrial terms would be of no benefit to you.

 

[1robin]

Sorry I opened you up for this and our conversation was derailed.

How so? I have been banging around on so many subjects I don't remember your doing so. Anyway no apology needed. It is his habit to post that stuff.

 

[1robin]

You cling tenaciously to this perfection fallacy, or in other words, you upbraid your opponents using the false saw that because we cannot know for certain everything in the universe, we cannot know anything. And it's really, really sad to watch. When you get to some good points, please highlight them, because your posts are simply emotional denials based on nothing else.
LOL, you know only the religions based on, or the predecessor of, your own. That's it. What 'eastern philosophies', specifically? What is 'religion', that you use as if it's somehow a specific subject, rather than an empty generalization? You might as well state 'I've read up on paganism' as if that is any indication of anything but your ignorance, precisely as I noted. I think my point is clearly made by you. You've done no comparisons, but claim a wide range of awareness.. which you are unable to demonstrate.

Easter religion and philosophy is based on pluralism "the and method" Again your making absolute claims, that I being the only one of us who could possibly know, know are false. For the rest read or reread my original post again.

Again, a ridiculous [please note the correct spelling of that word] false requirement. You are putting your own experiences out there for us to read. From them, I am perfectly capable opf judging.. especially since they are faaaaar from unique. And human psychological patterns are what they are. And they are knowable. I know them

. I have noticed many misspellings and myriad other descrepancies, I have generally refrained from drawing attention to them as I consider it dishonorable and argumentative. You are apparently unencuburd by such quaint notions orf morality. You should go into buisness giving a complete pschological diagnosis from a paragraph of the internet. I didn't claim my experience which obviously you don't have any but the smallest amount of detail about was unique. I said it was unique to Christianity, not all experiences either, just the one that I had but you seem to know more about my experience than me. It would probably take less time if you just stated what you don't believe you know.

That is hysterical

Yes yes, throw another tantrum.
It is true.

If by tantrum you mean continue laghing very well.

First, ingenue, all the fallacies I have named are legitimate. I realize in your desperation you throw away any established concept that disagrees with you, but it's beyond tiresome at this point, not to mention embarrassingly immature.
List of fallacies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, I could only find spiderman in the urban dictionary but it was missused by you and dog whisperer only exists in your head. It's not even the ones you make up it's the missuse of them.

You are only going with people who agree with you. This is called 'cherry picking' and it seems you live on it in your arguments. For the sake of saving space Im not going to waste all the readers' times playing quote wars with you, especially since it would be me, lowering myself to your same, weak, fallacious appeal to authority. There are just as many scholars whom I can find on Google to disagree. But, again,it would just be a game.

It is far too late for you to think of the readers at this point. Since anyone who finds that the evidence for the ressurection is suffecient would probably become a Christian your argument is well, over.

Funny, all people who have no way of knowing for sure if it were true [ooh, your own words, how do they taste?]! just people who wish it to be true.
Aside this, I will also point out you are using quotes from people using the standards of the courtroom, not science, making statements about 'evidence'.. and British court rule evidence, on top of it. The difference is important. But it is, I ken, lost on you. All you see is someone agreeing with you, and using the word 'evidence' in their statements.
It's an irony though, since these people are not considering the FACT that the gospels are not written by eyewitnesses, and the authors are not for whom they are named.. except Luke, possibly [scholars agree] and he was NOT an eyewitness to any of Jesus' life, either. Gods, I don't know how may times this fact has been repeated and then ignored.. by the ignorant.
Tell me, how many of these early British barristers were addicts earlier in life? The correlation would be interesting to note.

I already ignored and then went back and addressed this stuff in another post.

 

[Muffled]

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.

However that is not the fault of the religion but of those who don't understand it well enough and/or are not willing to do what is required. Anyone can take on a Christian label but it is much more difficult to take on Jesus. However that difficulty is not inherent in the religion but it comes from a desire of people to control their own lives.

If viewed from a practice viewpoint but not in the essentials.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I wouldn't rule out that possiblity but it is just as likely that you are declaring your darkness to be light.

You declared belief in the wrong religion.

I just had a brother die who liked to take the devils advocate with me as a humorous activity. (I will miss him greatly) However I am not so sure that you don't think that you might have the wrong religion but aren't willing to admit it.

 

[Muffled]

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?

It does not appear that God was seeking conversions. More likely He ws doing groundwork for later conversions. He is very patient. After all He has all of time in His hands.

Perhaps the old saying applies "you catch more bees with honey." However King Nebuchadnezzar was brought low by God and Nebuchadnezzar repented and recognized Jehovah as the one true God. The Samaritans also recognized that things wwren't going their way and decided to follow the local God to appease Him.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

IMHO the right religion is to simply limit your beliefs to what you know. I know the earth is not flat but a slightly oblate sphere and I know it goes around the sun and not the other way around and I know it is considerably much much older than 6,000 years in spite of what the young earth creationists tell us. What I don't know can be placed under varying degrees of plausibility, like I don't know with absolute certainty there is or not a God but do I find an Abrahamic God to be extremely implausible. I do know I am going to die some day but where my ego came from and where it is going beyond my death I have absolutely no idea but as for living on as some entity which retains some or all of them memories of this life as some supernatural spirit realm such a heaven I also find extremely implausible. I keep my beliefs practical like for instance I think it is far safer to believe smoking is bad for your health believing or not in the existence of God.

 

[waitasec]

I wouldn't rule out that possiblity but it is just as likely that you are declaring your darkness to be light.

You declared belief in the wrong religion.

I just had a brother die who liked to take the devils advocate with me as a humorous activity. (I will miss him greatly) However I am not so sure that you don't think that you might have the wrong religion but aren't willing to admit it.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

The apostle Paul was not a Christian when he had his experience. In fact he was about as far from being a Christian as he could be. So according to the Bible it is not necessary to be a Christian to have a revelation. However Paul became a disciple afterwards. He believed in Jesus.

I see truth in what Jesus taught. However I don't see that same truth in much of Christianity. What Jesus taught and Christianity are not one in the same. Christianity is based on man's interpretation of the Bible. They, Christians see themselves as having the authority to make that interpretation. I suppose that is what Christians have faith in. Their ability to have correctly interpreted the teachings of Jesus.

My disagreement with Christianity is not about Jesus. It's about the doctrines they've developed from what he taught.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

It does not appear that God was seeking conversions. More likely He ws doing groundwork for later conversions. He is very patient. After all He has all of time in His hands.

Well, then they cannot be blamed.
I will add though, that treating the living, human Egyptians as mere disposable characters probably doesn't paint god in a very good light. He allowed them to die and go to Hell, simply as a convenience.

As regards the question I was answering, did the Egyptians do right by not choosing God as the 'right religion', then?

Perhaps the old saying applies "you catch more bees with honey." However King Nebuchadnezzar was brought low by God and Nebuchadnezzar repented and recognized Jehovah as the one true God. The Samaritans also recognized that things wwren't going their way and decided to follow the local God to appease Him.

Still doesn't sound very moral or appealing, though, does it?

 

[1robin]

The apostle Paul was not a Christian when he had his experience. In fact he was about as far from being a Christian as he could be. So according to the Bible it is not necessary to be a Christian to have a revelation. However Paul became a disciple afterwards. He believed in Jesus.

Right he definately was not, but he was from then on. It is not necessary to be a Christian to have a revelation but that revelation will be consistent with Christianity.

I see truth in what Jesus taught. However I don't see that same truth in much of Christianity. What Jesus taught and Christianity are not one in the same. Christianity is based on man's interpretation of the Bible. They, Christians see themselves as having the authority to make that interpretation. I suppose that is what Christians have faith in. Their ability to have correctly interpreted the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus taught he is the only way to God and we must be born again of the spirit to get to heaven. Do you believe these statements made by him? Chrstians being human will never reflect Christianity perfectly and sometimes terribly. Christians in conjunction with the holy spirit are qualified to make interpretations but that doesn't gurantee the correct one unless done correctly.
New International Version(©1984)
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
This also means that anyone claiming to be a Christian or not who is not in possession of the holy spirit be virtue of the new birth cannot establish the truth effectively.

When G.K. Chesterton was asked what is wrong with Christianity he replied "I am"

Even true Christians are faulty but God is not.

My disagreement with Christianity is not about Jesus. It's about the doctrines they've developed from what he taught.

Are you sure? Will you list some specifics. I will agree that all interpretations are not true.

 

[Nakosis]

Right he definately was not, but he was from then on. It is not necessary to be a Christian to have a revelation but that revelation will be consistent with Christianity.

Jesus taught he is the only way to God and we must be born again of the spirit to get to heaven. Do you believe these statements made by him?

Yes, however I think we've discussed how I interpret this differently then what is generally accepted by Christian theology.

Chrstians being human will never reflect Christianity perfectly and sometimes terribly. Christians in conjunction with the holy spirit are qualified to make interpretations but that doesn't gurantee the correct one unless done correctly.
New International Version(©1984)
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

I'll tell you what I do. I pray for understanding and sometimes it is given. Sometimes it is not. When I've try to use reason to understand, I'm often shown that I'm wrong.

The problem I find is that once to receive such revelations it is easy to start thinking or really mistaking your own reasoning as that of the Holy Spirit. I find the intervention of the Holy Spirit in one's life is actually pretty rare. I suspect some assume after having one such experience, their own thinking, their own rationalization has the authority of the Holy Spirit. It's what I thought and I see many who make the same mistake.

Doesn't stop me from rationalizing what is in the Bible however I tend to question the reliability of what I've rationalized.

Also I don't see myself as having the prerogative to say who is and is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

This also means that anyone claiming to be a Christian or not who is not in possession of the holy spirit be virtue of the new birth cannot establish the truth effectively.

When G.K. Chesterton was asked what is wrong with Christianity he replied "I am"

Even true Christians are faulty but God is not.

Ok, however if I cannot reliably determine who is and is not in possession of the Holy Spirit, this doesn't help much.

Are you sure? Will you list some specifics. I will agree that all interpretations are not true.

Kind of hard to find a place to start since I don't know specifically which doctrines you might agree or disagree with.

I suppose the biggest one is that of accepting the Bible in it's entirety has the authority of God.

 

[1robin]

Yes, however I think we've discussed how I interpret this differently then what is generally accepted by Christian theology.

I don't remember that but very well. Why is Paul's (the man far more able to judge than you, me, or any other) statement and description not taken as the most likely to be true. He emphatically states his conversion and then spends the rest of his life demonstrating that.

I'll tell you what I do. I pray for understanding and sometimes it is given. Sometimes it is not. When I've try to use reason to understand, I'm often shown that I'm wrong.

I wish more non-Christians were half as humble. In Christian theology the prayers of a non-believer are far less effective than that of a believer for obvious reasons, but I think on occasion that their answered. (that last part is my opinion only)

The problem I find is that once to receive such revelations it is easy to start thinking or really mistaking your own reasoning as that of the Holy Spirit. I find the intervention of the Holy Spirit in one's life is actually pretty rare. I suspect some assume after having one such experience, their own thinking, their own rationalization has the authority of the Holy Spirit. It's what I thought and I see many who make the same mistake.

I agree with this almost completely. I have had maybe ten or so unmistakeable profound experiences with the holy spirit but I am often frustrated by my inability to feel his presence more often, but according to the bible he is always there and haveing an input. I agree with your misinterpretation problem.

Doesn't stop me from rationalizing what is in the Bible however I tend to question the reliability of what I've rationalized
Also I don't see myself as having the prerogative to say who is and is not guided by the Holy Spirit.



Ok, however if I cannot reliably determine who is and is not in possession of the Holy Spirit, this doesn't help much..

I try not to either but I will state the bibles clear statements concerning the character and details concerning his initial and continuing involvment in salvation, but allow others to draw conclusions.

Kind of hard to find a place to start since I don't know specifically which doctrines you might agree or disagree with.

I suppose the biggest one is that of accepting the Bible in it's entirety has the authority of God.

Are you familiar with the Chicago statement of faith?

 

[Nakosis]

I don't remember that but very well. Why is Paul's (the man far more able to judge than you, me, or any other) statement and description not taken as the most likely to be true. He emphatically states his conversion and then spends the rest of his life demonstrating that.

Where did Paul call himself a Christian?
Or what about Paul do you think defines him as being Christian?

I wish more non-Christians were half as humble. In Christian theology the prayers of a non-believer are far less effective than that of a believer for obvious reasons, but I think on occasion that their answered. (that last part is my opinion only)

I agree with this almost completely. I have had maybe ten or so unmistakeable profound experiences with the holy spirit but I am often frustrated by my inability to feel his presence more often, but according to the bible he is always there and haveing an input. I agree with your misinterpretation problem.

Ok, having had such experiences, do you feel you are capable of speaking for God? Could people take what you say or what you write as having come from God?

I try not to either but I will state the bibles clear statements concerning the character and details concerning his initial and continuing involvment in salvation, but allow others to draw conclusions.

There are passages which can be readily understood from the context of the Bible. Some of it is even obvious to me.

Are you familiar with the Chicago statement of faith?

Somewhat, it's a basic statement of faith on the inerrancy of the Bible. I see it as a statement of faith, which is fine one is free to accept it on faith. However being a statement of faith I take it as not otherwise being supported.

 

[1robin]

Where did Paul call himself a Christian?
Or what about Paul do you think defines him as being Christian?

I must be missing something here. Are you suggesting that the most prolific writer in the new testament wasn't a Christian. The only thing necessary is faith in Christ as a risen savior and the corresponding spiritual experience. Since paul went from killing Christians as hard as he could go to claiming and promoting the teaching of a risen Christ and was exhaustively descriptive about it, I don't understand the question.

Ok, having had such experiences, do you feel you are capable of speaking for God? Could people take what you say or what you write as having come from God?

Absolutely not, in any genaral sence. I believe and have evidence that others would testify to that I on rare occasions have relayed messages from God, but my interpretations or statements should never be taken in isolation from the bible or your own views if you are born again. While it may be true that God has used me at times I would never suggest my statements be taken as authorative in any case whatsoever that is not derived through personal prayer and biblical study of the other individual. This is a hard question to answer accurately. I will say definately not in any general sense of the term and only in conjunction with the bible and prayer in individual cases. I also will say that my views of general Christian theology are consistent with the most prevelant conclusions of theologians.

There are passages which can be readily understood from the context of the Bible. Some of it is even obvious to me.

Couldn't agree more, there are many. I have however found that there are some where I thought the interpretation was simple until God either showed me or used someone else to show me the unimaginable range of wisdom and profound meaning in a simple statement.

Somewhat, it's a basic statement of faith on the inerrancy of the Bible. I see it as a statement of faith, which is fine one is free to accept it on faith. However being a statement of faith I take it as not otherwise being supported.

It's most important statement is that concerning the infallability of the bible. It states the belief in the infallability of THE ORIGINAL REVELATION not necessarily the statements found in our bibles today. The textual scholarly concensus is generally that the bible (any) has thousands of errors. Most 95% or so are irrelevant, like the use of two nns in Johnn instead of one. Only 5% are actually significant and most bibles point them out as such. So the bible while not perfect is remarkably almost supernaturally accurate in all matters of faith or doctrine. The bible has the distinction of being by a huge margin the most well attested and textually reliable document in ancient history.

 

[Nakosis]

I must be missing something here. Are you suggesting that the most prolific writer in the new testament wasn't a Christian. The only thing necessary is faith in Christ as a risen savior and the corresponding spiritual experience. Since paul went from killing Christians as hard as he could go to claiming and promoting the teaching of a risen Christ and was exhaustively descriptive about it, I don't understand the question.

My point is there was no defined Christian belief at the time of Paul. There were people who followed Jesus. From my understanding they referred to themselves as Saints. Christianity as a "belief system" was defined much later. Granted much of it based on his letters to other churches. Still no guarantee he would have been accepting of how Christian theology has evolved and developed into what it is today.

Absolutely not, in any genaral sence. I believe and have evidence that others would testify to that I on rare occasions have relayed messages from God, but my interpretations or statements should never be taken in isolation from the bible or your own views if you are born again. While it may be true that God has used me at times I would never suggest my statements be taken as authorative in any case whatsoever that is not derived through personal prayer and biblical study of the other individual. This is a hard question to answer accurately. I will say definately not in any general sense of the term and only in conjunction with the bible and prayer in individual cases. I also will say that my views of general Christian theology are consistent with the most prevelant conclusions of theologians.

I just wanted to understand were you stood on this. Which leads to the next question...

An individual guided by the Holy Spirit is still human, possessing free will of how to interpret/relate what was shown to them by the Holy Spirit. Still subject to error and temptation. (Ok, more of a statement than a question but here's the question)

Given your own experience with the Holy Spirit, isn't any prophet of the Bible or church leader such as Paul, possessive of his own freewill and so subject to error?

Couldn't agree more, there are many. I have however found that there are some where I thought the interpretation was simple until God either showed me or used someone else to show me the unimaginable range of wisdom and profound meaning in a simple statement.

Using your experience as an example, I would assume Paul's understanding would evolved and develop over time. His position of some theological ideas may have changed over time as his understanding developed.

It's most important statement is that concerning the infallability of the bible. It states the belief in the infallability of THE ORIGINAL REVELATION not necessarily the statements found in our bibles today. The textual scholarly concensus is generally that the bible (any) has thousands of errors. Most 95% or so are irrelevant, like the use of two nns in Johnn instead of one. Only 5% are actually significant and most bibles point them out as such. So the bible while not perfect is remarkably almost supernaturally accurate in all matters of faith or doctrine. The bible has the distinction of being by a huge margin the most well attested and textually reliable document in ancient history.

I'm not talking about translation errors. I'm talking about the fallibility of Prophets. Assuming they were human just as you and me. (Setting aside Jesus himself). Why assume the biblical writers themselves were not capable of error?

 

[1robin]

My point is there was no defined Christian belief at the time of Paul. There were people who followed Jesus. From my understanding they referred to themselves as Saints. Christianity as a "belief system" was defined much later. Granted much of it based on his letters to other churches. Still no guarantee he would have been accepting of how Christian theology has evolved and developed into what it is today.



I just wanted to understand were you stood on this. Which leads to the next question...

An individual guided by the Holy Spirit is still human, possessing free will of how to interpret/relate what was shown to them by the Holy Spirit. Still subject to error and temptation. (Ok, more of a statement than a question but here's the question)

Given your own experience with the Holy Spirit, isn't any prophet of the Bible or church leader such as Paul, possessive of his own freewill and so subject to error?



Using your experience as an example, I would assume Paul's understanding would evolved and develop over time. His position of some theological ideas may have changed over time as his understanding developed.




I'm not talking about translation errors. I'm talking about the fallibility of Prophets. Assuming they were human just as you and me. (Setting aside Jesus himself). Why assume the biblical writers themselves were not capable of error?

In essence you are asking what Satan did in the Garden. "Did God really say?"
Genesis 3:1-7 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Ways to verify the accuracy of the bible.
1. Historical accuracy.
2. Existential accuracy.
3. Prophecy.
4. Claims to knowledge not available at the time but now known to be accurate.
5. Narrative consistency.
6. Explanitory suffeciency.

The bible has almost supernaturally passed all tests. If fallable humans were writing on their own there would be many mistakes with the points above. The writers even claim things like a prophet must be 100% accurate to be from God, or that they require and offer a spiritual experience with a deity. These are things a writer writing in a vacume would never do as it would self distruct. The bible is know as "Theoneustos" a greek word meaning God breathed. God unlike his dealing with me actually dictated through the spirit exactly what was to be written. He guarantied the revelations accuracy and obviously has the power to make it happen.

Here is some other sites that deal with this.
Is the Bible truly God's Word?
How Do We Know God Wrote the Bible? at Christianity 101
Who Wrote The Bible?

This subject needs more time to answer than I have but you can find all the info you want through these links.

The bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. It is the most intesely studied book in human history. It's critics fade away and it remains.

 

[beerisit]

Wait a minute, didn't someone write that dialogue thousands of years after it was allegedly spoken?

 

[waitasec]

Ways to verify the accuracy of the bible.
1. Historical accuracy.
2. Existential accuracy.
3. Prophecy.
4. Claims to knowledge not available at the time but now known to be accurate.
5. Narrative consistency.
6. Explanitory suffeciency.

The bible has almost supernaturally passed all tests.

you're kidding, right?