the right religion

[1robin]

i'm feeling nauseous ...

I get it you do not like Christianity and you view every verse in the worst light possible. Then why discuss it every day. I find my motivation to be that my faith increases, I learn a lot when researcheing challenges to my faith, and I might provide an answer to a question now and then. Since none of this applies to you IMO it seems you are merely venting.

 

[1robin]

Not Heaven, but the same place. Whether that's a paradise or torment depends on the collective choices we make.

Well heaven is a well documented and heavily believed in possible reality. What do you find that justifies a belief in a version of heaven that has little evidence of existance? Every one has the right to believe whatever they want but being that we are gambling our souls on these beliefs I find the adoption of a belief without vast evidence as very risky.

That too. I believe religion is the search for God, no more, no less. One culture's vocabulary is not superior to another's.

Vocabulary is not a relevant issue. If more than one system makes exclusive and contradictory claims (which is the case with the worlds great religions)to absolute truth then it is impossible for more than one to be true.

Define perfection.

That would require more space than we have I will supply a link to a description by a respected theological philosopher who was asked this question. He gives a very good explenation of what this entails. Look for the response of Dr William Lane Craig in the site. Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith

Annihilation is less objectionable. I still don't believe God, even a theistic God (I'm a panentheist) would give up on any of its children.

So you think it is a reasonable suggestion that we are on trial forever (so to speak). I have some issues when a 16 year old kid dies but for most of us I think 40-50 years is enough to decide if we want God or not. If anihilation is the end result of un belief I do not find anything unjust about God. He gave us life we choose to deny him and he takes it back which is exactly what we chose.

 

[waitasec]

Your statement concerned the importance of this life verses the afterlife. So your verses are not applicable.

this passage is fitting nonetheless
are you so far removed from your own statements that you don't realize what you are saying?
you stated SOME of those you care about will be with you...but you continually dodge the obvious. what of the others that are not? will you cease to care about what would happen to them?

Within the context of what is being discussed this is a rational statement. Since our allegience must be chosen between God or Satan, then this statement is an obvious implication of the nature of the issue. We are supposed to reflect God and seek him which means we will have an inherent incompatablity with people who reject God. This verse is only troubleing or irrational if the bible isn't true. If it isn't true then this verse isn't true. It is the same principle when your mother tells you not to associate with bad influences. Or when a philosopher says bad company corrupts good morals. It is a universal principle but is only a problem when God says it.

you continually dodge the obvious....how are you going to feel if your own son didn't make it?

I do not have a son and so this doesn't apply.

are you kidding me? of course, this is all about you isn't it...?

You are also forceing an impossible event to exist in order to make a point

you do realize that there are other believers too, right? and they have children who are potentially not going to make it...how is "your system" going to reconcile the issue i am putting forth?

I would not be aware of a son that wasn't with me. A non memory has no capability to cause harm. If I did have a son and he chose to reject God I could reluctantly accept that that will mean eventual seperation. Of course this will happen in your system as well. At least mine retains a relationship with my son if he chose God yours does not. Whatever problem you invent for heaven they are worse for eventual atheistic anihilation of every one and everything. This is all irrelevant any way because desireability is no basis for determining what is true or not at least to rational people.

how about someone you care about? is there anyone?

There is no implication of importance in that verse. There is an implication of outcome which is not a reference or related to importance. In fact the bible makes it clear that God is not a respecter of persons. Meaning he doesn't find one as more important or valuable than another. Which is exactly why Jesus died for all not only an important group.

of course there is...those that believe will not perish...do you mean that those that believe are just as important as those who do not believe? really? so why then do suppose those that believe won't be destroyed or come to ruin?

 

[waitasec]

I get it you do not like Christianity and you view every verse in the worst light possible. Then why discuss it every day. I find my motivation to be that my faith increases, I learn a lot when researcheing challenges to my faith, and I might provide an answer to a question now and then. Since none of this applies to you IMO it seems you are merely venting.

it's a chance for me to let out some steam...
and to expose the warped rationale.

you still haven't even tried to show me how you reconcile the idea of a loved one gone missing in heaven...
either one is aware
or they are not...
how do you reconcile either options?

 

[Hawkins]

it's a chance for me to let out some steam...
and to expose the warped rationale.

you still haven't even tried to show me how you reconcile the idea of a loved one gone missing in heaven...
either one is aware
or they are not...
how do you reconcile either options?

It is possible that earthly emotion is a "granted gift". So it may be gone after your physical death. Everyone in heaven will be brothers and sisters. They love God and each other. In general, love itself is a granted gift that once left God, your love is gone.

 

[waitasec]

It is possible that earthly emotion is a "granted gift". So it may be gone after your physical death. Everyone in heaven will be brothers and sisters. They love God and each other. In general, love itself is a granted gift that once left God, your love is gone.

if i understood you correctly,
that is so off the charts.

clarify one thing for me, if you will...do you believe there is a hell for those whose love is gone?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I can provide it. Here is the bare bones version:
Fundamental principles
The three fundamental principles of traditional Protestantism are the following:
·Scripture Alone
The belief in the Bible as the supreme source of authority for the church. The early churches of the Reformation believed in a critical, yet serious, reading of Scripture and holding the Bible as a source of authority higher than that of Church Tradition. The many abuses that had occurred in the Western Church prior to the Protestant Reformation led the Reformers to reject much of the Tradition of the Western Church, though some would maintain Tradition has been maintained and reorganized in the liturgy and in the confessions of the Protestant Churches of the Reformation. In the early 20th century there developed a less critical reading of the Bible in the United States that has led to a "fundamentalist" reading of Scripture. Christian Fundamentalists read the Bible as the "inerrant, infallible" Word of God, as do the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican churches, to name a few, but interpret it in a more literal way.
·Justification by Faith Alone
The subjective principle of the Reformation is justification by faith alone, or, rather, by free grace through faith. It has reference to the personal appropriation of the Christian salvation, and aims to give all glory to Christ, by declaring that the sinner is justified before God (i.e., is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficient merits of Christ as apprehended by a living faith, in opposition to the theory — then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by the Council of Trent — which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification."[7]
·Universal Priesthood of Believers
The universal priesthood of believers implies the right and duty of the Christian laity not only to read the Bible in the vernacular, but also to take part in the government and all the public affairs of the Church. It is opposed to the hierarchical system which puts the essence and authority of the Church in an exclusive priesthood, and makes ordained priests the necessary mediators between God and the people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Protestant_doctrines

These are the major tenants that define doctrine as protestant and as separate from Catholic. I support all the doctrine I listed above. The Chicago statement should be added to this list and can be found here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

These doctrines compose the core of Protestantism and I find them identicle to my views. Some denominations within Protestantism differ over secondary doctrine that is not really all that crucial. I will add that when I became a Christian I was not in a church and was not even aware of the doctrinal differences between denominations or Catholic/protestant traditions. I wished to define my own doctrine separate from any organized influence. I spent over a year reading the bible every day. When I had finished the bible and reviewed the core issues and had prayed and determined what I thought the truth to be I then selected the denomination that most reflected my understanding of the bible. I chose the Baptist church. I however would find most of my core beliefs shared by virtually all major protestant denominations. My beliefs determined my denomination not the other way around. Italics are my words. Did this answer your question?

Yes, yes...
I am well aware of what a Protestant is. I was once a Deacon in a Southern Baptist church.

What I am concerned about is your use of "Orthodox Protestant Christians"

What exactly is an orthodox protestant Christian?
You say Baptist. What of Lutheran? Calvinist? Anglican?
And who are the unorthodox Protestants?

 

[1robin]

Yes, yes...
I am well aware of what a Protestant is. I was once a Deacon in a Southern Baptist church.

What I am concerned about is your use of "Orthodox Protestant Christians"

What exactly is an orthodox protestant Christian?
You say Baptist. What of Lutheran? Calvinist? Anglican?
And who are the unorthodox Protestants?

I believe all the major protestant denominations have a similar core. This being being what I listed. Unorthedox protestants are people who have a doctrine contary to those I listed. For instance a works based salvation doctrine. I am failing to see any contention with my answers to you. Can you please state whatever the equivication is that you have with my position?
The word Orthedox in this context means:
or·tho·dox

   /ˈɔrθəˌdɒks/ Show Spelled[awr-thuh-doks] Show IPA
adjective 1.of, pertaining to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, pertaining to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.
3. customary or conventional, as a means or method; established.
4. sound or correct in opinion or doctrine, especially theological or religious doctrine.
5. conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church.
Orthodox | Define Orthodox at Dictionary.com

Again this is a common concept that I do not see a serious contention about. I would add that I believe the basic concepts I listed are the overwhelming common position of protestant faiths. I am sure however that there are isolated exceptions to this. If I could identify what it is that you find contentious I will be happy to address it.

 

[1robin]

it's a chance for me to let out some steam...
and to expose the warped rationale.

I already knew that but figured it would be inapropriate to state. I have never understood the concept of hateing what you don't consider exists. I do not believe ETs built the pyramids but I do not not spend much time discussing them either. I live my life like they didn't and move on down the road.

you still haven't even tried to show me how you reconcile the idea of a loved one gone missing in heaven...
either one is aware
or they are not...
how do you reconcile either options?

What in the world have you been reading. I must have said a half dozen times that whatever the method it is an obvious fact if Heaven is real that we will not have bad memories. So by some method we wil not be aware of missing people at least in a form that will cause pain. How is it you think I can provide every detail of how God will do everything that he does. I do not have to know how to believe that something will happen. This is true with many concepts of everyday life. It is only a problem because you do not like the biblical concept which has nothing to do with it's reality.

 

[1robin]

this passage is fitting nonetheless

No it isn't.

are you so far removed from your own statements that you don't realize what you are saying?
you stated SOME of those you care about will be with you...but you continually dodge the obvious. what of the others that are not? will you cease to care about what would happen to them?

I have already adressed this so many times that to do so again would apparently be pointles.

you continually dodge the obvious....how are you going to feel if your own son didn't make it?

How can I dodge a situation that doesn't exist. I even hypothetically adressed this issue as if I did. What is it you are actually doing when you think you are reading my posts?

are you kidding me? of course, this is all about you isn't it...?

Yes when you ask Me about a son I potentially have I make the crazy assumption this concerns me.

you do realize that there are other believers too, right? and they have children who are potentially not going to make it...how is "your system" going to reconcile the issue i am putting forth?

They will have no memory concerning this person who did not make it that will cause any pain or unpleasantness. You do realise I am not in charge of heaven and do not have to figure out how to do these things? You might as well ask me how I would raise the dead. I do not know but believe along with billions that it has and will happen.

how about someone you care about? is there anyone?

No of course I am not aware of anyone outside my personal bubble. Good Lord... I have faith that the same God who created the universe can pull it off so I will not be in heaven crying my eyes out over missing loved ones. Why do you assign different probablities to supernatural events. One is just as probable as another.

of course there is...those that believe will not perish...do you mean that those that believe are just as important as those who do not believe? really? so why then do suppose those that believe won't be destroyed or come to ruin?

That is exactly what I mean and what the bible says. God loves all of us. We sure do not get into heaven or hell because we were important but because we consider God important. You sure appeal to some strange philosphy in an effort to dismiss theology. What will happen will happen because of God's promise and our acceptance or rejection of it.

 

[kjw47]

i didn't twist anything..jesus said it himself, he came to divide people...

matthew 10:34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law —
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]


i hope your son knows how you would feel if he didn't make it to heaven...you wouldn't care... and the interesting thing is, if you didn't make it, he would feel the same...but that's not going to happen is it,
as the underlying preconceived notion in your belief is "i am more meaningful than you"


sure it is...john 3:16..the cornerstone of your belief...
besides i was being poetic...
silent claim = preconceived notion
it sounds better.

At Matt 10:34-35--- i believe what this is teaching is that some members of ones family will listen to and find truth, while the rest may outright reject truth or just plain be mislead by false teachings. Most certainly Jesus would want every member of ones family to accept truth, but it wouldnt be the case. Its not that he purposely turns family members against one another--that would never be.

 

[in_lakech]

I don't believe that there is only one right religion, but there may be a religion that's right for you. Most of the beliefs today are just re-edits of older religions.

I cherry-pick my beliefs and I feel no remorse about it.

 

[kjw47]

I don't believe that there is only one right religion, but there may be a religion that's right for you. Most of the beliefs today are just re-edits of older religions.

I cherry-pick my beliefs and I feel no remorse about it.

I believe if one listens to Jesus at John 17:1-6-- they find they need to seek true knowledge of God( and apply it as well) Too many run around and think they can pick this part or that part and throw away the parts that do not suit them, but again Jesus warning to the laodecians that if one is sitting on the fence persay--he will vomit them out. There is a single truth in Gods written word and as the book of Daniel brought out the truth would become abundant in the last days( hidden until then) Daniel 12:4

 

[illykitty]

Jesus and the bible could be one big lie. What proof is there that they are true and not phoney? None. Everytime someone will quote the bible... How is quoting something that might be false proof of anything? Jesus could be lying too!

I'd rather just go with what fits my beliefs and what feels true to me. Christianity is NOT something that sounds true nor does it fit my beliefs.

 

[1robin]

Jesus and the bible could be one big lie. What proof is there that they are true and not phoney? None. Everytime someone will quote the bible... How is quoting something that might be false proof of anything? Jesus could be lying too!

I'd rather just go with what fits my beliefs and what feels true to me. Christianity is NOT something that sounds true nor does it fit my beliefs.

The bible has over 2300 prophecies. Over 1500 have come true 100% the others are for the future. There are 350 plus that concern Jesus alone that came true. There is a greater textual tradition for the bible by a vast amount than for any other text in ancient history. There are over 25000 and counting historical corroberations with the bible. It is philisophically consistent, has the greatest explanitory scope, and maintains a consistent theme over the course of 1000 plus years and over 40 authors. Jesus is even written about in many extra biblical sources. There is no reason at all to conclude the most studied and respected book in human history is false to any extent.

Since we are gambling our souls I find it bizarre that people would dismiss the most well established and accepted religion in the world and adopt one they made up that feels good. I respect anyones right to do so I just can't understand it. Whatever problems someone says the bible may have, whatever they choose instead will have far more.

The bible will be here long after it's critics are not. Throughout history it has repeatadly been attacked only to find it remains and it's detractors are gone. What you make sound trivial has been the most believed in and cherished book in human history. Here is some info concerning what has happened to the bible and it's detractors:

A The BIBLE is a unique book - because of its
​

ABILITY TO SURVIVE
The Greek writer, Porphyry, tried to destroy the credibility of the BIBLE back in 304 A.D. In the process he wrote fifteen books against the BIBLE and Christianity in general. Did he succeed? Apparently not. The BIBLE is still around (even stronger than before). And as for Porphyry, well, let's put it this way; can you name his fifteen books? Can anybody name just one? Can anyone even pronounce his name? Porphyry is just one of the many people who, throughout history, have tried to
ban, burn, destroy, outlaw, restrict, ridicule or discredit the BIBLE. Here's another example: A Greek writer of satire, by the name of Lucian, wrote two books in the second century to ridicule the BIBLE. These books were named The Dialogue of the Gods and The Dialogue of the Dead. There's an extremely good chance that you don't have a copy of either of these two books in your personal library... Yet you probably have a BIBLE somewhere around the house; a testimony to the BIBLE'S ability to 'out survive' its attackers. In A.D. 303, the Roman Emperor Diocletian issued an edict to stop Christians from worshipping and to destroy their scriptures. Twenty-five years later his successor, Constantine, issued another edict ordering 50 Bibles to be published at government expense. Atheist Robert Ingersoll once boasted; 'within 15 years I'll have the BIBLE lodged in a morgue.' Well, within 15 years, Robert Ingersoll was lodged within a morgue, but the BIBLE lives on! In the 1700's the atheist French writer Voltaire said, 'within 100 years, the BIBLE and Christianity will be swept out of existence, and pass into history.' Well, within 50 years, Voltaire was swept out of existence and passed into history, but the Geneva Bible Society used Voltaire's house and printing press to print and distribute thousands of BIBLES. L A man named Herodotus wrote his Greek history in 425 B.C. and 1500 years later, there was only one copy left. L The very year that Voltaire said '50 years from now, the world will hear no more of the BIBLE,' the British Museum paid $500,000 for an old manuscript of the BIBLE, while at the same time in Paris, one of Voltaire's books sold for eight cents. Neither of these authors could make their writings survive the test of time. DOWN through the centuries many attacks against the BIBLE have come through bitter persecution along with outright attempts to destroy it ...
- Christian martyrs in the 15th century were burned at the stake with a BIBLE tied around their necks. - William Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 because he translated the BIBLE from the Greek language into English. A few years earlier, the authorities had paid a large sum of money to a German man to have Tyndale's Bibles confiscated and burned. What the authorities didn't know was that the German was a friend of Tyndale and he used the money to help Tyndale further his efforts to print more Bibles. MANY attacks against the BIBLE have come from scoffers. But there have been some, who after examining the facts have changed their opinion. Here are two examples: - General Lew Wallace was a Territorial Governor following the days of the U.S. Civil War. He had been a Senator in Indiana at the age of 29 and was considered a very scholarly man. He had no confidence in Christianity or the BIBLE, so he set out to write a skeptical book to disprove both. In his study he instead found the BIBLE and Christ to be true, and became himself a devout Christian. General Wallace never wrote his book against the BIBLE. He wrote instead the classic Christian novel, Ben Hur. - William Ramsey, the English scholar went to Asia Minor with the expressed purpose of proving the BIBLE was historically inaccurate. As he painstakingly poured over the ancient artifacts and details, to his amazement he found that the BIBLE was accurate down to the tiniest detail. The evidence was so convincing that Sir Ramsey himself became a Christian and a great Biblical scholar.
Down through the years, the BIBLE has been a mighty anvil that has worn out many of the puny hammers of the scoffers.
Christian Home Bible Course _ Lesson 1

This is a very small section from just one site that shows the bible is anything but something that can be dismissed. Here is a couple of sites that give legal opinions of some of the world's great legal minds throughout history on the evidence for God and the bible. They make it very clear that there is far more legally acceptable evidence for the bible than is actually needed:
Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2
LEGAL APOLOGETICS: PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE AS APPLIED IN THEQUEST FOR THE VERACITY OF RELIGIOUS TRUTH

 

[Nakosis]

Jesus and the bible could be one big lie. What proof is there that they are true and not phoney? None. Everytime someone will quote the bible... How is quoting something that might be false proof of anything? Jesus could be lying too!

I'd rather just go with what fits my beliefs and what feels true to me. Christianity is NOT something that sounds true nor does it fit my beliefs.

What about Jesus don't you like?

 

[illykitty]

I don't dislike Jesus but I dislike the religion related to him. Big difference. Also, I don't think he's any more special than say, Krishna.

 

[1robin]

I don't dislike Jesus but I dislike the religion related to him. Big difference. Also, I don't think he's any more special than say, Krishna.

If what we like or dislike had any relation to what was true or not then death and taxes wouldn't exist. How is that a basis for determining what is or is not true?

How many Documented witnessed miracles did Krishna perform? Did he raise the dead? or heal the sick? Are characteristics of his life recorded in even secular texts of his day and confirm theological texts?

Can Krishna for which we have no contemporary accounts from eyewitness truly inspire words like these?

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."


William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.


He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish Theologian James Stuart


Christ has made a bigger impact on human history than any other person who ever lived. The bible is the most studied and cherished book that has ever existed. Christ's example is the most perfect standard in history. In what way can he even begin to be compared to a most likely mythical person who there is no reason to believe even existed or is anyway noteworthy in even secular terms..

 

[jasonwill2]

Are people still on Christianity?

Let's give some other faiths some spotlight,

Like maybe the Rastafari movement, or one of the sects of Hinduism. Heck, we could even maybe talk about Neo-Paganism.

(Note that none of the above are my religions).

 

[Nakosis]

I don't dislike Jesus but I dislike the religion related to him. Big difference. Also, I don't think he's any more special than say, Krishna.

Ok, I was just going to say, when I actually started reading the Bible, Jesus turned out to be a lot different then what was represented by his followers.