The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Trailblazer]

Facilitate means make more likely. Money multiplies options. But it takes wisdom to know how to use the money, wisdom is knowing what brings lasting contentment.

I cannot argue with that, and it also takes wisdom knowing how to manage the money so you don't run out!
Lots of rich people wind up being poor.

Your material world changed, and with it, your inner world. That was the point.

That's true, and a good way of putting it. It changed overnight, but it can change again, overnight.

Then we are in agreement now. Originally, you, "thought only God has foreknowledge."

Only God has perfect foreknowledge. Scientists can predict certain occurrences such as an eclipse at a certain place and a certain time and that is the next best thing, but a human who makes plans for the future cannot always know for sure that those plans will work out as planned since there are many things that can interfere with their plans.

If that were the reason, Judaism, which is older, would be larger than Christianity.

How old the religion is is not the only determining factor as to how large it is.
I ran across this website about Ethnic vs. Universalizing Religions several years ago. It explains the difference between these two kinds of religions. A universalizing religion looks for new members and welcomes anyone and everyone who wishes to adopt their belief system. Throughout history, some of these religions such as Christianity have attempted to convert people to their religion.

By contrast, ethnic religions consist of beliefs that were handed down from generation to generation within an ethnicity and culture and these religions do not try to convert others to their belief system. That is one reason Judaism is relatively small religion, with only about 14 million after over 4000 years. Compare that with Christianity and Islam, who have 2.3 billion and 1.9 billion members, respectively.

The Baha’i Faith is not included on this website but it goes without saying that it is universalizing religion.

Ethnic vs. Universalizing Religions: AP Human Geography Crash Course

I wasn't discussing whether the message was true, but rather, whether using messengers was an efficient method for a god to use to get its word out. My comment had been, "Regarding your question so what, it answers why this method of message dissemination didn't work. Few people see the message, and fewer are convinced of its authenticity."

That is true at the inception of the religion, and when the religion is still young, but eventually the religion spreads, as had happened with all the older religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam. The Baha'i Faith is still very young by comparison to those other religions. We won't be around to see the day when everyone in the world knows about Baha'u'llah and most people believe in Him.

This is you deviating from critical thinking. Don't take it personally. Learn if you can. Learn how and why.

No, every time a believer has a belief it is not deviating from critical thinking.

I predicted you would react that way, but I am entitled to my beliefs.
If God is all-knowing and all-wise God does not do things that are bad ideas. That is not logical.

Sure they can. The news of the pandemic was spread by print and broadcast media as well as by word of mouth.

The Baha'i Faith is spread by print and word of mouth, and sometimes it is spread by broadcast media.

Then your power of discernment is low here. You can't distinguish between what any man could have written and what no man could have written.

I can distinguish it and I did. Of course, it is only my personal opinion that no man could have written what Baha'u'llah wrote unless he was Messenger of God, just as it is your personal opinion that any ordinary man could have written it.

That doesn't make it adversarial to me like it does to you. You could stand down, but you prefer to engage. So do I. But I don't feel like we are at war. You would be able to discern that in my posting style if I did. It might contain pokes at you, or snark. It doesn't.

Stand down and agree that only atheists can think critically? Not on your life, because I won't stand down for what I know is not true. Baha'u'llah taught that truth is the foundation of all virtues.

You do not have to be snarky and poking fun of me, but you are constantly criticizing my thinking abilities. Do I do that to you? No, I don't, but you think it is fine because you think you are right. That is called ego.

For example, you said:
"This is you deviating from critical thinking."
"Then your power of discernment is low here."

Sorry that you feel that way, but that interpretation is your choice. So you think I'm pumping myself up to point out to you where I find you wrong? I don't need to pump myself up. I need to exercise my mind. I'm amazed that you see me that way. And disappointed. It doesn't have to be this way. Or maybe it does.

If you did not need to pump yourself up you would not be doing it. I don't know why you need to but I can read what is on the page.
Pointing out that I am wrong and you are right constantly is pumping yourself up. Why not just speak for yourself like I do? Why the need to point out that I am wrong? So you can think you are right. That's ego.

Then you are the only human being for whom that is true.

No, I am not the only person for whom that is true, there are others.
My spiritual happiness is an inner state that is not contingent on what happens in my life.
I have been through hell to get to where I am at now so nobody can take it away from me.

 

[Trailblazer]

This isn't what I mean. To examine something objectively means to avoid peronal bias. Bias can assume personal desires and assumptions. For example someone who already believes a God exists and wants to find justification to believe it will not be objective in reading certain texts, like Baha'u'llah's. This is a problem theists have hanging over their heads. Can they be truly unbiased and objective?

Nobody can be completely objective because everyone has a personal bias since everyone has personal desires and assumptions.

That cuts both ways. For example, someone who does not believe a God exists and wants to find justification not to believe in Baha'u'llah will not be objective in reading Baha'u'llah's texts. This is a problem atheists have hanging over their heads. Can they be truly unbiased and objective when they have already decided that Messengers of God do not exist because God would not communicate via Messengers?

But you yourself admit you don't know if the source is God. Who can honestly KNOW that any text is from a God given what we have available to us today?

Baha'is do know, but we cannot prove what we know to other people. Everyone has to come to that knowledge by themselves.

First, where in the text does it say this?

Correction: The Writings of Baha'u'llah were intended to appeal to ordinary people, but in order to understand what is written a person needs to have some background reading and understanding scriptures. Still they might have an issue understanding the meaning but that is why we have study groups.

Second, then no wonder Baha'ism isn't working. The planet is covered in ordinary people.

The Baha'i Faith is working for those who have embraced it, who are ordinary people just like you and me.

Third, this sounds like self-service to assert that it only appeals to who "already have a high level of spiritual understanding". Frankly this kind of boasting (and tough luck to all ordinary losers, right?) doesn't sound very much like "spiritual understanding".

I am not religiously inclined and I don't enjoy reading and studying scriptures, so I do not have a high level of spiritual understanding and the other Baha'is leave me behind in the dust. My friend @Truthseeker is always having to explain to me what the Baha'i Writings mean.

Why weren't the orginal texts sufficient? You need more texts from people who aren't messengers? This sounds as unreliable as the Gossip Game.

The interpreters were appointed by Baha'u'llah through His Will to explain what Baha'u'llah meant, since not everyone can grasp the meaning in His writings.

And anyway, do you think I have a "high level of spiritual understanding" who can make sense of these extra texts? Or am I ordinary and just a lost soul who will never get it? Either way, you are suggesting I read it. But how is it not a trap? I get it and I'm suddenly a convert, or it isn't convincing and I'm a lost ordinary soul. As Ella stated, why not just explain why these extra texts are so crucial and filled with truth?

I did not say that the additional Writings are crucial to read, I said they are easier to understand and they contain the same information and what we need to know. The very first two books I read were Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era and Bahá’í World Faith. I did not read Gleanings till much later.

No you said it wasn't written for ordinary people. Why wouldn't truth be understanable by well educated, critical thinkers?

It would be understandable if they had some religious background and they made a serious effort to understand. I was just an ordinary person but I did not understand Gleanings until I read it several times since I had no religious background.

So in your way of thinking critical analysis isn't effective to discern what is true in your religion even though it is highly reliable in all other ways?

Any chance this is just your bias and frustration at work, insisting the very process pointing out problems in your religion should not be used?

I do not know exactly what you mean by critical analysis. Baha'u'llah told us how we should go about recognition of God and His Prophets.
The following is part of the last sentence of a longer paragraph, the part I want to point out and explain.

“…… inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 3-4

What it essentially says is that we will never discover the truth for ourselves if we use the words and deeds of other people as a standard by which to understand God and His Prophets. In other words, we cannot determine whether Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God according to what other people say or do. Rather, we need to look at the words and deeds of Baha'u'llah by ourselves and come to our own conclusion regarding what they mean (was He a Messenger of God or not?) In other words, we should never base our conclusions on other people's opinions.

Any theist will naturally assume a god exists. You admit to not knowing a God exists, so that is synonmous with assuming it does. You often refer to God as if it is real phenomenon, and refer to characteristics it supposedly has. That all indicates assumption. I know you claim to have evidence, but it isn't sufficient given the nature of the claim.

No, believing that God exists is not assuming that God exists. Nobody can know that God exists as a fact, but they can believe with certitude.

Then how do Baha'i expect to unify the planet?

That is a long way off in the future. We cannot unify people who don't want to be unified. It has to be their choice.

More "you have to be special to understand religious text", yet no explanation that it is true. Critical thinking is the most reliable tool we have, and you reject that process in favor of some vague spiritual whatever. How is that not faith, and just personal whim? Where is the examples of this approach being true and reliable? Your appeal is laughable and absurd.

I am anything but special but I am a hard worker so when I set my mind to something I do it.
You should use critical thinking as a tool to assess the Baha'i Faith.

Seven Characteristics of Critical Thinking

• Flexibility.
• Clear Purpose.
• Organization.
• Time and Effort.
• Asking questions and finding answers.
• Research.
• Logical Conclusion.

Seven Characteristics of Critical Thinking - Lumen Learning​

 

[PearlSeeker]

This is in the debate thread but the debate was not intended to be about evidence for my beliefs, it was intended to be about Christianity.

Not exactly. It was about your beliefs about Christianity - the Baha'i interpretation of Christian scripture. And this is based on the belief that Baha’u’llah is the messenger of God who has the exclusive power to (re)interpret all other religions/scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not exactly. It was about your beliefs about Christianity - the Baha'i interpretation of Christian scripture. And this is based on the belief that Baha’u’llah is the messenger of God who has the exclusive power to (re)interpret all other religions/scriptures.

Do you have a point to make?
Of course I am going to analyze Christianity's claims from a Baha'i perspective, I am a Baha'i.
However, the debate was not intended to be about evidence for my beliefs, it was intended to be about the accuracy of Christianity's claims.
I don't see anyone talking about that.

 

[PureX]

... or we remain agnostic about it (until we discover more). I think this is more reasonable than taking a wild guess.

Except that we still have to act, to live, without sufficient knowledge for doing so. And that means we HAVE TO act on faith. As we humans do all the time.

 

[Muffled]

Me, I believe in 1 God and I may be open to Christianity next year. If I go with Christianity it will be a liberal form of Christianity, which to me means other religions are good as well. I don't believe all Christians are exclusive I will not be.

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will do you more good, then He can lead you to a congregation. I believe liberal Christian churches are probably not any better than any other religion.

 

[Muffled]

What has the Messenger method achieved? Only half of the believers are monotheist. And only half of the the monotheists have the same concept of God, his will, salvation...

Yes, believers have faith but they don't know God personally. 99,99 % don't have a personal experience. Is this good communication?

I believe communication is a two way street.

 

[GardenLady]

One hundred percent of true Christians say no other religion can save.

As a practicing Christian, I reject this claim.

First, what is a "true Christian"? I have heard Oneness Pentecostals ("Jesus Only") say they are the only true Christians. I have heard JWs say they are the only true Christians. I grew up in the Catholic church back in the "One True Church" days. I have heard those of other sects claim such exclusivity. Many Christian denominations claim they are the only true Christians, with lots of selective proof-texts.

I know many Christians who accept that there are those outside Christianity who are or will be saved (for a layman's explication of this, see the story of Emeth in CS Lewis' last of the Narnia books, The Last Battle").

Jesus said all who are saved are saved through him. He didn't say he cannot save those who don't know him (or only heard of him under threat or at the point of a sword).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do you have a point to make?
Of course I am going to analyze Christianity's claims from a Baha'i perspective, I am a Baha'i.
However, the debate was not intended to be about evidence for my beliefs, it was intended to be about the accuracy of Christianity's claims.
I don't see anyone talking about that.

As a practicing Christian, I reject this claim.

First, what is a "true Christian"? I have heard Oneness Pentecostals ("Jesus Only") say they are the only true Christians. I have heard JWs say they are the only true Christians. I grew up in the Catholic church back in the "One True Church" days. I have heard those of other sects claim such exclusivity. Many Christian denominations claim they are the only true Christians, with lots of selective proof-texts.

I know many Christians who accept that there are those outside Christianity who are or will be saved (for a layman's explication of this, see the story of Emeth in CS Lewis' last of the Narnia books, The Last Battle").

Jesus said all who are saved are saved through him. He didn't say he cannot save those who don't know him (or only heard of him under threat or at the point of a sword).

This is the Catholic teaching (from Compendium):

163. How are non-Catholic Christians to be considered?

In the churches and ecclesial communities which are separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found. All of these blessings come from Christ and lead to Catholic unity. Members of these churches and communities are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and so we recognize them as brothers.

170. What is the bond that exists between the Catholic Church and non-Christian religions?

There is a bond between all peoples which comes especially from the common origin and end of the entire human race. The Catholic Church recognizes that whatever is good or true in other religions comes from God and is a reflection of his truth. As such it can prepare for the acceptance of the Gospel and act as a stimulus toward the unity of humanity in the Church of Christ.

171. What is the meaning of the affirmation “Outside the Church there is no salvation”?

This means that all salvation comes from Christ, the Head, through the Church which is his body. Hence they cannot be saved who, knowing the Church as founded by Christ and necessary for salvation, would refuse to enter her or remain in her. At the same time, thanks to Christ and to his Church, those who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and his Church but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience can attain eternal salvation.

Source: Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

[PearlSeeker]

@Trailblazer

Bible verses:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mk 16:16)

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (Jn 3)

 

[PearlSeeker]

Except that we still have to act, to live, without sufficient knowledge for doing so. And that means we HAVE TO act on faith. As we humans do all the time.

Yes, but not necessarily on faith in God. That's why I admire more all without faith in God (atheists and agnostics) for finding purpose and not losing hope in life and humans.

 

[PureX]

Yes, but not necessarily on faith in God. That's why I admire more all without faith in God (atheists and agnostics) for finding purpose and not losing hope in life and humans.

"God" is just a label we use for however we choose to characterize the unknowable and uncontrollable in life. Calling it something else makes no difference. It's still placing our faith in the unknowable and uncontrollable of life.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"God" is just a label we use for however we choose to characterize the unknowable and uncontrollable in life. Calling it something else makes no difference. It's still placing our faith in the unknowable and uncontrollable of life.

No. It is different.

Theists say: life is good because God is with us and after death heaven awaits us.

Non-theists say: life is good despite (not because of) unknowable and uncontrollable. Life is good despite there is no one with us and we don't know what happens after death.

 

[PureX]

No. It is different.

Theists say: life is good because God is with us and after death heaven awaits us.

Non-theists say: life is good despite (not because of) unknowable and uncontrollable. Life is good despite there is no one with us and we don't know what happens after death.

Both of them are fools. We all are. People say lots of dumb things that they cannot possibly know to be so. Talk is easy.

 

[Trailblazer]

As a practicing Christian, I reject this claim.

What that article is saying that you are not a true Christian uness you believe that only Christianity (as he believes it) can save.
I also reject the claim that no other religion can save.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer

Bible verses:

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mk 16:16)

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. (Jn 3)

According to the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah is the Dayspring of God's Revelation and the Fountain of God's laws.

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 19

65: EXPLANATION OF A VERSE IN THE KITÁB-I-AQDAS

Question.—It is said in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas “…whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed.” What is the meaning of this verse?

If man has not this knowledge, he will be separated from God, and when this separation exists, good actions have not complete effect. This verse does not mean that the souls separated from God are equal, whether they perform good or bad actions. It signifies only that the foundation is to know God, and the good actions result from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is certain that between the good, the sinners and the wicked who are veiled from God there is a difference. For the veiled one who has good principles and character deserves the pardon of God, while he who is a sinner, and has bad qualities and character, is deprived of the bounties and blessings of God. Herein lies the difference.

Therefore, the blessed verse means that good actions alone, without the knowledge of God, cannot be the cause of eternal salvation, everlasting success, and prosperity, and entrance into the Kingdom of God.

Some Answered Questions, p. 238

 

[Trailblazer]

No. It is different.

Theists say: life is good because God is with us and after death heaven awaits us.

Non-theists say: life is good despite (not because of) unknowable and uncontrollable. Life is good despite there is no one with us and we don't know what happens after death.

Not everyone says life is good.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior will do you more good, then He can lead you to a congregation.

I know from experience that the opposite was true in my case. Abandoning faith was a move in the right direction, as was walking away from Christian congregations some forty years ago. How many false beliefs and mistakes have I avoided rejecting faith for critical thought? How may hours of Bible reading, praying, and attending churches I repurposed to other activities that have brought me satisfaction, such as reading, becoming proficient at public music performance and being a part of several bands. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have I saved not underwriting religion?

"God" is just a label we use for however we choose to characterize the unknowable and uncontrollable in life. Calling it something else makes no difference.

It does to me. That word carries baggage I don't intend be suggested when talking about such matters. For how many months were you misunderstood in recent years because you used that word? I'm assuming that you mean a person, something I don't assume about anybody clinging to that word.

It's still placing our faith in the unknowable and uncontrollable of life.

Faith is not required, nor is it desirable. Faith is a logical error. It generates only non sequiturs (unsound conclusions).

every time a believer has a belief it is not deviating from critical thinking.

Agreed. Just when his belief is based in unsound reasoning (faith-based guesses).

I predicted you would react that way,

I wrote, "This is you deviating from critical thinking. Don't take it personally. Learn if you can. Learn how and why." Yes, and you can keep accurately predicting that, because I also predict that I will respond this way, and we will both be correct

The Baha'i Faith is spread by print and word of mouth, and sometimes it is spread by broadcast media.

You had said that the means by which the message cannot be compared to the way news of a pandemic was spread. I disagreed and pointed out that both could be spread by print and broadcast media and word of mouth. Now you seem to be agreeing with me. Are you aware of that?

it is only my personal opinion that no man could have written what Baha'u'llah wrote unless he was Messenger of God, just as it is your personal opinion that any ordinary man could have written it.

My opinion can be demonstrated to be correct. Yours cannot.

Stand down and agree that only atheists can think critically?

No, agree that you believe what you believe by faith alone. Nobody will argue with that. And as long as you usurp terms like critical thinking and reason for faith, many will object. Your choice.

you are constantly criticizing my thinking abilities.

You make false claims about them.

Do I do that to you? No, I don't, but you think it is fine because you think you are right. That is called ego.

Feel free to call my ideas wrong, and rebut them if you can. As far as being right, we can know when we are correct if we stick to evidence-based critical analysis and do it properly. Yes, I know that I am correct. You don't, but then you don't possess competence in the method that allows one to reliably decide such things, which is why you think all opinions are equal and any rules of inference are allowed in coming to them.

Trump, a vengeful narcissist who demands unilateral loyalty and is a black hole incessant need requiring praise (does that remind you of any deities?) has an ego that hurts him, but my ego, brimming with self-confidence based in past successes, serves me well. Nobody but you an a few other faith-based thinkers on RF criticize my ego, and usually in the context of being steadfast and resolute. The faith-based thinker is often conditioned to see that as rebellion or playing god, as he has been taught to submit and substitute the will of others for his own by others using those memes. So, he sees qualities that are considered assets elsewhere in those terms. Do you want to know how to win at Jeopardy? Be quick buzzing, be bold betting, and be right answering. And the people that do that well have well-developed egos (sense of self) are rewarded and admired. For example, you said:

"This is you deviating from critical thinking."
"Then your power of discernment is low here."

Those opinions are carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered. You were unable to rebut either. If I were wrong, you could do that. If I am right, you cannot successfully rebut me. And I was correct. That was a deviation from critical thought (fallacious thinking leading to an unsound conclusion), and it would be easy to demonstrate that you wouldn't be able to distinguish unfamiliar writings from your prophet from AI.

If you did not need to pump yourself up you would not be doing it.

But I don't need to pump myself up. You also cannot distinguish between promoting self and promoting reason.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Not everyone says life is good.

You are right. Some say: life will be good...

 

[Trailblazer]

You are right. Some say: life will be good...

Some don't even say that.
The reason some don't say "life is good" is because their live is not good, not because they are hoping for it to be good in the afterlife.