the right religion

[Muffled]

So much of what I've run across, I tend to think you're so often right with this. What I continually see is the strutting around by some claiming to be of the right belief while telling others that they're wrong. To me, it's simply a variation of the "my daddy is bigger than your daddy" argument that we see with little kids. This is not to say, however, that this is the m.o. of all or even most, but it is very common with those who take the "my way or the highway" approach to religion.

I believe when one has the right religiion it is difficult not to feel good about oneself but the reality is that the right religion is not usually self generated and therefore doesn't leave any room for boasting about oneself.

I believe there is a lot of that like cheering for the home team. It is my religion so it must be the best. And your team stinks.

I don't believe it is an all or nothing proposition but decisions are like that. If one decides not to drink coffee one does not have coffee. So a person is stuck with tea perhaps. I can drink coffee or tea but I believe coffee is better for waking up and tea is better for relaxing. I believe if one wishes a right relationship with God only Christianity will do that. If one wants to do self improvement, many relgions are good for that. AA works pretty well and it is basicly theist.

 

[Muffled]

BUT - do you understand that others believe just as strongly in their particular religion, - and think of YOU - as you are calling them - on the wrong path?

I do understand that but thinking it doesn't make it so.

And as you have no proof? Whom are the rest of us to believe?

The only proof I have is my testimony and God's testimony in the Bible but that seems good enough for me. I believe in atomic structure. I believe it because it sounds reasonable. I don't have any personal proof. I believe the testimony of those who have experienced it.

Christianity has no better argument then any other religion.

*

I believe in my previous posts I have used those arguments and that they are better. Can Hinduism take away a person's sin? No. Can Islam take away a person's sin. No. Can Judaism take away a person's sin? No. Can Buddhism take away a person's sin. No. Only Christianity can do it.

 

[Muffled]

God? What God??

Jehovah. I believe He is the only one that has to be obeyed to have eternal life.

 

[Quirkybird]

I don't wish to live forever, eternal death is my preference.

 

[metis]

I believe when one has the right religiion it is difficult not to feel good about oneself but the reality is that the right religion is not usually self generated and therefore doesn't leave any room for boasting about oneself.

I believe there is a lot of that like cheering for the home team. It is my religion so it must be the best. And your team stinks.

I don't believe it is an all or nothing proposition but decisions are like that. If one decides not to drink coffee one does not have coffee. So a person is stuck with tea perhaps. I can drink coffee or tea but I believe coffee is better for waking up and tea is better for relaxing. I believe if one wishes a right relationship with God only Christianity will do that. If one wants to do self improvement, many relgions are good for that. AA works pretty well and it is basicly theist.

Since I'm non-theistic, I have no irons in the fire, but it seems illogical that God would only appear to one small area of the world very late in human history and ignore everyone else. To me, if "God" is real, moral, and demand we be moral, then I would assume that he would "speak" to all peoples at all times in some fashion. Maybe something like a "God gene", as some have hypothesized; or an "inner light", as the Society of Friends ("Quakers") tend to believe.

 

[metis]

Can Judaism take away a person's sin? No.

If you have a concordance, look up the word "forgive" and its variations, and you'll see that the above is wrong.

 

[1robin]

I have belief, just not your belief.myou're making it a black and white, which is a typical fundamentalist and extremist thinking. That's not who I am.

I love how liberals term anything they do not agree with as extreme and fundamental. If you only want to spend what you have your an economic extremist. If you only believe those that are here legally should be given rights your an extreme nationalist. If you believe the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to fail to act you are an extreme militant.

In a human sense you may have a point. There are different levels of faith about the bible in general. However the Bible divides people into two groups. 1. Includes those that have reached a level of faith where they have been born again 2. A group that includes everyone else. The latter contains all shades and types of faith but not a saving faith that results in direct access to the Holy Spirit of truth. Not to offend but the Bible considers group 2 as still unregenerate and stumbling around in the dark speculating about supernatural truth.

Now I do not expect you to buy that. I however wanted to make you knew why it is I believe the Bible places people in two groups. Because one group being cut off from God is floundering around guessing at truth and one has access to it directly from God.

A disclaimer: This has nothing to do with intelligence, morality, or even sincerity. It has to do with access. Nor does it mean born again Christians have all the answers (it varies depending on obedience), it just means we have access to some answers and at least know the truth about salvation. I have spent decade on either side of that equation and know the differences and habits of people on either side very well. It is what turns rebellious thugs like Johnny Cash and George Forman into lovable Teddy bears.

 

[1robin]

No. There's not two sides to the biblical debate. Only a person who refuse to open his eyes, ears, and mind have to deny that.

What I meant by sides is camps. There is a camp that is coming from the prospective of being born again and united to God, and the camp that is outside of God. Maybe if I used camp it would have been more exact. In each individual camp there are many factions and divisions but there are two and only two camps according to the Bible.

So, thanks. That's so nice of you. I use double standards, lies, and use Harry Potter constantly as an arbiter for all things.

I said your camp does so, and does so continuously. That is not to say each member does so. So far you have only mentioned Harry Potter and I have no awareness of you doing any of the others. Now it is hardly an indictable crime to suggest the unusual but true habit of using Harry Potter books as criteria was in fact done so by you, is it? Your camp/side has several common traits associated with argumentation and you happened to have used one. So what? It was comical observation but below there appears another one from you that is not.

You're so nice. You're doing a great job promoting your religion.

Now this tactic is not as common to your side as the others but is common of the most vindictive subgroup. You get wounded or take offense and figure out what is the worst thing you can claim about a Christian that is post-able. It usually involves insinuating they are not living up to their faith and this is a textbook example. This is not an argument, it is a word fight with an easily offended person. I however, am not offended for several reasons.

1. My authority is far higher than you and that is where I take judgments from on my statements.
2. I am a Christian and am tasked with being as un-offendable as possible.
3. I readily admit my complete failure to measure up to Christ so pointing it out is redundant.
4. However this example is not even true. The people that Christ spoke the most scathing rebukes to were those that thought they were right but were not.

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Mathew 23:33

Now if Christ can condemn his own priests to Hell. I do not think suggesting an over use of Harry Potter as a reference is out of bounds. Come off it.

:areyoucra

Didn't get it.

 

[1robin]

I think that 'statements of pure truth' would have to follow basic grammatical rules.

I think that if you are having trouble composing grammatical sentences, it's possible that you are confused about your ability to produce statements of pure truth.

That is not true. The truth of the intent of a statement is not affected by it's grammar. It may suffer epistemologically (it may be less apprehensible) but it's ontology (foundations) remain unaffected. There are two divisions in philosophy. Things true about what we think about things (epistemology) and things true about their nature (ontology).

 

[1robin]

What could you possibly be trying to say to me?

Seriously... have you considered taking more time with the composition of your messages? Maybe edit a bit before you post them?

It was very understandable. Statements made more for effect, than for truth, are the trade of the disingenuous.

 

[Runewolf1973]

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?

No religion. The animals don't have religion, why should humans need it? The only reason religion is useful is because it helps to keep the masses in check.

 

[Tumah]

No religion. The animals don't have religion, why should humans need it? The only reason religion is useful is because it helps to keep the masses in check.

In check from what?

 

[1robin]

In check from what?

Reason.

 

[Ouroboros]

I love how liberals term anything they do not agree with as extreme and fundamental.

I love how extremists and fundamentalists label everything they don't agree with as liberal.

If you only want to spend what you have your an economic extremist. If you only believe those that are here legally should be given rights your an extreme nationalist. If you believe the only thing necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to fail to act you are an extreme militant.

You're rambling again.

In a human sense you may have a point. There are different levels of faith about the bible in general. However the Bible divides people into two groups. 1. Includes those that have reached a level of faith where they have been born again 2. A group that includes everyone else. The latter contains all shades and types of faith but not a saving faith that results in direct access to the Holy Spirit of truth. Not to offend but the Bible considers group 2 as still unregenerate and stumbling around in the dark speculating about supernatural truth.

"We vs them". It's also called group-think. Categorical attitudes are quite common in fundamentalism.

Now I do not expect you to buy that. I however wanted to make you knew why it is I believe the Bible places people in two groups. Because one group being cut off from God is floundering around guessing at truth and one has access to it directly from God.

I believe the truth being different than that, and as such, I don't think I belong to either one of your groups.

A disclaimer: This has nothing to do with intelligence, morality, or even sincerity. It has to do with access. Nor does it mean born again Christians have all the answers (it varies depending on obedience), it just means we have access to some answers and at least know the truth about salvation. I have spent decade on either side of that equation and know the differences and habits of people on either side very well. It is what turns rebellious thugs like Johnny Cash and George Forman into lovable Teddy bears.

I also have spent decades on both sides, actually on many different sides, not just two.

 

[ametist]

We find the right religion only through yearning for it is not a choice among many.

 

[Ouroboros]

What I meant by sides is camps. There is a camp that is coming from the prospective of being born again and united to God, and the camp that is outside of God. Maybe if I used camp it would have been more exact. In each individual camp there are many factions and divisions but there are two and only two camps according to the Bible.

I consider myself to be in the true God camp. Categorizing people like you're doing is harmful to yourself and others.

...

(deleted. I don't care discussing this.)

 

[1robin]

I love how extremists and fundamentalists label everything they don't agree with as liberal.

I love how liberals always adopt what I do not agree with. A counter claim does nothing to pardon the first claim even if it was true. I used to have homosexuality supporters (liberals mostly) suggest that murder was worse. I said I am not for murder either and that does not make abortion right even if more wrong. So even if I did characterize everyone I disagree with a liberal (and I cannot see the advantage in doing so) that would not change the correctness of my original claim.

You're rambling again.

You started it.

"We vs them". It's also called group-think. Categorical attitudes are quite common in fundamentalism.

So classifying right as right an d wrong as wrong is distasteful and illegitimate. No wonder virtually every moral statistic has plummeted since the secular revolution in the US in about 1960 and why this immoral plunge is called "progress"

I believe the truth being different than that, and as such, I don't think I belong to either one of your groups.

I was not discussing what our beliefs were, I was discussing what the bible claims. I am talking about the equivalent of what is true of gravity regardless of whether you agree with it. It is what is true of a concept. If the bible is true then you would be in a category regardless of whether you think the category exists or not. However it was only meant as context. If you were in the dark you would most likely not be able to see well enough to realize it.

I also have spent decades on both sides, actually on many different sides, not just two.

So you are claiming that you have been a born again Christian. To have experienced God then concluded at some point later you do not believe in God. I doubt this, but in biblical contexts that is what you must mean. This is like saying you were sick, took some medicine, got well and then later determined medicine does not exist and the entire medical field is full of it. I have spend thousands of hours in debate and listening to debate (formal and informal) you are one of two people I have heard claim that is if that is what you do claim. The other is Schumer of skeptic magazine which I like very much) but the claim is still irrational. I imagine rather you are interpreting differing levels of doubt as faith or non-faith. That is at least rational whether right or wrong. It is very much like a person asking another one if they have ever been in love. If you have you know it, if you have not (and in this case would like to think you were) you will interpret less doubt as faith. Again this is not a moral or intellectual distinction, it is one or access. The hardest person to convince of their irrationality (analogy to a lack of saving faith) are the most irrational. The most wrong (potentially) are the least able to know. Just for kicks do you know where the most self assured persons are held, insane asylums. They do not believe that Christ existed they KNOW for a fact they are Christ.

Let me summarize very briefly the experience of every born again Christian I know. I have been asked to write several papers on it so know in general what is common. You can get in the proximity of faith by diligent effort (historical, philosophical, personal introspection in general). However the last infinite foot hat separates our ability to know and God is all God's doing. I went from not having any good reason to doubt Christ to being cognizant of his reality and historical role as a certainty by supernatural means. I know it unlike I perceive anything else I have ever adopted as true. I have no way to explain that certainty but it is not of my own effort. I also have never known personally anyone born again who later disbelieved. I am sure it has occurred but I am also sure it is so rare that among the hundreds I know of it never has. Doubt of course a resignation of what was revealed never in my experience, it almost seems the supernatural component of born again faith compensates for whatever natural doubt exists dynamically.


I have to get out of here. So whatever side your own have a good one. A heart (kingdom) divided against it's self cannot stand was true long before Lincoln existed. Or as the great sage "rush" said there is no hero in neutrality or if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

 

[metis]

"We vs them". It's also called group-think. Categorical attitudes are quite common in fundamentalism.

And this has been a major problem with especially a great many fundamentalists who almost constantly stereotype people and then paint them as being angels or demons, such as stereotyping "liberals" as if they're a herd that simply follows the leader. Generally speaking, the term "liberal" actually equates a person who doesn't follow the herd but who typically develops their own train of thought, and studies done have helped confirm that they are generally more willing to do this and that it's the conservatives that are more herd prone.

 

[Flankerl]

Whenever an american says "liberal" my brain goes blank for five minutes, reboots and checks if he/she is still going on about it.

If so then *blank*

 

[Runewolf1973]

Reason.

No, human carelessness.