There are a number of statements here that are presented as fact, but seem to be statements of belief in their content.
When I was almost done responding my computer locked up and I lost it all so this response will be a little briefer than my former attempt.
I guess the following points you made are examples of what you mentioned above so I will respond to each.
- Have you surveyed all the other religions in order to determine that Christianity, more than any other offers its religious adherent an experience their gods as they enter communion with them?
Well I did mention that the faiths I was comparing Christianity to were faiths similar to it. I am making statements that are in a context pretty close to what you established in your original post in the thread. You only gave Islam, Christianity, and Baha'i for the context. I have responded in a context a bit larger than that which you established but not much larger than that. For clarity lets officially state the context as the top 5 faiths currently practiced in mainstream societies so our discussion may be manageable, however if you want pick any major faith you feel contradicts my primary claims to Christianity's exclusivity.
- How are you differentiating between "objective proof that is not available to others" and "self-persuasion until delusion"?
I differentiated between the two by specifically stating that only those Christians who are not deluding themselves have experienced objective validation.
- How are you determining that you are experiencing your god and not let's say, Islam's Shaytan tricking you into remaining in your non-Islamic path?
This issue is similar to most theological and historical claims. I am not arguing for a certainty (my position is the faith position after all), instead I am arguing to the best conclusion and in this case my best conclusion is far better than the alternative.
Let me give a few of the potential hundreds of premise' to draw a conclusion from.
1. According to both Christianity's and Islam's doctrines only God himself can forgive sins. Here I am speaking about not just the legal issues but the existential experience which can be physically experienced. When I was saved decades of depression accumulated through personal tragedy and tons of guilt that had accumulated so slowly over the years that I did not notice it was in one blinding moment eradicated entirely. There are no words that can describe what that feels like to anyone who has not experienced it.
2. Every Christian I know of was born again only after following what amounts to a spiritual roadmap contained in the gospels. If I do just as the Apostles commanded and I receive exactly what they promised then it is hard to fathom that entities on the opposite side caused that process to yield fruit. true faith is not born in a vacuum but only after following certain lines of evidence which lead to an experience.
3. The exact nature of that experience the Bible describes is exactly the experience I had and others I have spoken to about it. There is even a website where Christians do their best to describe the event and they are all similar in there core facets. It is hard to believe Satan or Shai·tan (please note spelling) has fooled all of the billions who have been born anew just as the bible describes or that we are all having delusional emotion based self fulfilling experiences.
4. Both Islam and the Bible claim that faith in God is what redeems an adherent. Why would Satan grant that which is supposed to save a person?
I could go on forever but the best conclusion by far from the premise' is that salvation experiences by and large are valid and properly rooted by those having them. Keep in mind that although the same intellectual foundations exist in Islam and Christianity for salvation, that only Christianity offers the universal promise to an experiential event that accompanies salvation.
In other words, you are offering subjective reassurance of a religion to someone that already believes in it. Which happens to be the point of my OP.
No, I am offering an objective experience which validates the intellectual proposition referred to as salvation. Many offer the intellectual proposition but only Christianity (among the current mainstream religions) offers a universal experience that validates the intellectual doctrine of salvation.
I see your point. And when it comes to many claims, you are right
But the difference is that were you to take two groups of two sticks and put them together, you'll always get four. However, if you pray to a god or read the Scriptures with an open heart, you'll always get x, where x = the god you happen to be praying to/scriptures you are reading. So Christianity is right in this regard not because 2+2=Christianity, but because 2+2=x.
I appreciate your honesty. As to the rest what you stated seems to disregard my primary contention.
Not all faiths offer salvation in the sense that the bible means by the term but some do. However none of the other faiths that do even make a doctrinal promise to or a foundation for having a spiritual experience which is offered to all those that actually believe. Within every other faith that offers the classic idea of salvation all but one are simply intellectual positions where one concedes to a proposition, only Christianity offers universal real time validation. In every other faith you can intellectually consent to it's proposition but you will not know your wrong until it is too late to go back and change your mind, only Christianity offers confirmation while it is still possible to change your mind.
What you are doing is putting forth the suggestion that experiential revelation is "the greatest possible foundation for faith" and then making a point based on experiential revelation. My issue is that this is not an objective statement, but your own belief and so the point that is derived from it, is nothing more than a statement of belief.
I cannot even imagine something more substantial than an intellectual position accompanied by an interface with the divine. If there is something offered by another faith I would certainly like to know what it is and what faith contains it. Experience is how we confirm almost every notion we have as to what constitutes reality. Maybe in the strictest sense an experience is subject to believe but experiences if merely belief are among the greatest possible reliable methods used to detect reality. In that sense every conclusion any human or animal has ever had is also simply a belief.
Especially if you don't intend to be making an argument for other religions that experience it.
Post a religion that offers an experiential event to everyone that comes to believe and then I can evaluate it. I cannot not evaluate these other faiths to which you refer because of all those that I am aware of none offer what Christianity does. I can evaluate an religion that is unknown to me.
I would say this section is the most relevant to the OP.
Essentially what you are saying here is, "prayer with a pure heart, wasn't enough for me as I needed argumentation, personal revelation, observations of moral examples, historical investigation and personal experience, but it will work for you, so have a go at it".
You misunderstand me. Lets say X is a set which contains all of the evidence, arguments, documentation, etc...... required to come to superficial faith in the biblical God. This superficial faith is where all other faiths end in this context, but this is only where Christianity starts. Let's say Y is a set which contains the spiritual experiences that occur when God interacts in a Christian's life to produce salvation, personal miracles, and direct supernatural revelation. In a very simple way then X's purpose is to lead a person into a rendezvous with God (or the risen Christ if you prefer). At that point X has served it's purpose in this context and the person moves onto set Y. Y produces the spiritual redemption necessary to save a person, and this event among other things produces a one of a kind experience which words cannot describe which is the fulfillment of the purpose for set X. At that point the Christian transfers reliance for his faith from the superficial use of X to the actual purposes of Y which serves to validate or fulfill the purpose of X. At this point a person knows God personally because X led them to experience Y and by which Y supersedes X as the foundation for a person's Christian faith. However Y is not available to a non-believer and so while Y is the primary foundation for the Christian the way he recommends his faith to non-believers is to use set X.
No other faith I am aware of offers set Y to all believers the moment they come to what is called saving faith. At best other mainstream faiths offer a potential Y to a very small group of followers, so small I have only encountered a hand full in all other faiths combined over the course of several decades of debate and even more of study.
I may have one more attempt in me but I do not know how much clearer I can make this. I do not expect you to agree with me at this point but I certainly hope you can at least understand my position.
I didn't mention in the OP those who suggest to other to examine: argumentation, personal revelation observation of moral examples, historical investigation and personal experience.
I specifically referenced believers tendency to suggest praying with a pure heart and reading scriptures as a means of coming to believe in their religions.
I added to what you originally stated by showing Christianity potentially has another category of evidence to appeal to therefor making the claims of all religion un equal. I specifically stated that not all religions claims to belief equal. It is a distinction which makes a massive difference.
The way I intended it, was as a question posed to believers who are inclined to suggest non-believers pray to their god or read their scriptures with an open heart. The point was that they question, based on the ideas mentioned prior, whether this could ever really be an effective way of converting non-believers.
That may explain why so far I have not been able to find a conclusion to the premise' you have posted. It is very hard to evaluate a position which is merely a few premise'. The only answers I have to your question are that regardless of how many competing systems make the same type of claims the one who is actually right is completely justified to make them, and he is no more wrong or right because many others make similar claims. I also showed that at least one difference between those making similar claims is that Christian's have more to offer concerning their claims compared to others making similar claims.
