How is one religion more valid than the others

[fredeasy]

One of the big problems I have as an atheist is people who try and legislate the morality they find in their religious books that has absolutely no reasoning outside of the context of their religious book.

The best example I can think of off hand is a hot button issue and I want to make it clear that I am not here to debate it, I am sure there are many other threads about it. I am simply using it as an example for you to better understand what I am talking about.

For me gay marriage has to be the prime example. We have a large outpouring of religious folks telling us all kinds of horrible things will happen if we allow homosexuals the right to call themselves married. Many people I have met have no problems allowing these couples the same rights as married couples have but just not allowing them to be called "married". The reason I use this example is because we have a whole heck of a lot of data from other countries around the world who have legalized gay marriage and we have yet to find a secular reason to ban it. We know the worst thing for the kids is not being raised by 2 men, but being picked on by "normal" kids for being raised by 2 dads. Recently studies have actually shown that in countries that are more accepting of homosexuality show lower rates of depression and suicide among gay people. So from a secular standpoint there is no reason to ban the "marriage" of 2 people of the same faith.

Now I have no problems with people believing whatever they feel they need to. While I consider it pretty sad, I also have no problems with you teaching your kids the earth is 6000 years old or that Jews need the blood of a Christian child to make matza. I do however have a problem with you trying to make me follow this same version of morality when your brand of religious faith has no more evidence towards it divinity than any other.

As a Christian how would you feel is all pork was banned? I mean as a secular society we have no reason to ban pork, at all. However according to Jews and Muslims these animals must not be consumed. I am sure you personally adopt my policy of "keep it to yourself" and have no problems with either group not eating pork. However it does become a problem when, for no other reason than their religion forbids it, they try and impose on you.

Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest? Keep in mind I am not looking for subjective (dreams, something appearing to only you, near death experience, voices in your head...) or open ended philosophical ("I am right because we are here", or "nothing can't come from something when something is nothing but nothing can be something someday with nothing but something") answers. I just want to know what makes your religion more valid than the rest and why it gives us a platform to legislate morality from?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest?


For anyone other than me, it's not more valid than any other.

[baysidetrey]

One of the big problems I have as an atheist is people who try and legislate the morality they find in their religious books that has absolutely no reasoning outside of the context of their religious book.

The best example I can think of off hand is a hot button issue and I want to make it clear that I am not here to debate it, I am sure there are many other threads about it. I am simply using it as an example for you to better understand what I am talking about.

For me gay marriage has to be the prime example. We have a large outpouring of religious folks telling us all kinds of horrible things will happen if we allow homosexuals the right to call themselves married. Many people I have met have no problems allowing these couples the same rights as married couples have but just not allowing them to be called "married". The reason I use this example is because we have a whole heck of a lot of data from other countries around the world who have legalized gay marriage and we have yet to find a secular reason to ban it. We know the worst thing for the kids is not being raised by 2 men, but being picked on by "normal" kids for being raised by 2 dads. Recently studies have actually shown that in countries that are more accepting of homosexuality show lower rates of depression and suicide among gay people. So from a secular standpoint there is no reason to ban the "marriage" of 2 people of the same faith.

Now I have no problems with people believing whatever they feel they need to. While I consider it pretty sad, I also have no problems with you teaching your kids the earth is 6000 years old or that Jews need the blood of a Christian child to make matza. I do however have a problem with you trying to make me follow this same version of morality when your brand of religious faith has no more evidence towards it divinity than any other.

As a Christian how would you feel is all pork was banned? I mean as a secular society we have no reason to ban pork, at all. However according to Jews and Muslims these animals must not be consumed. I am sure you personally adopt my policy of "keep it to yourself" and have no problems with either group not eating pork. However it does become a problem when, for no other reason than their religion forbids it, they try and impose on you.

Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest? Keep in mind I am not looking for subjective (dreams, something appearing to only you, near death experience, voices in your head...) or open ended philosophical ("I am right because we are here", or "nothing can't come from something when something is nothing but nothing can be something someday with nothing but something") answers. I just want to know what makes your religion more valid than the rest and why it gives us a platform to legislate morality from?

I don't believe that my religious views are more important than anothers rights. However, I believe that my rights end where yours begin and vice versa. I also believe that if 50.01% of Americans vote for gay marriages, more power to them. I also feel that if I as a christian do not agree with that (or pork or whatever), I am free to move where I feel welcomed in my views/lifestyle. I personally believe that this is a states rights issue and not a federal issue. If the majority of people in my state are christians and do not want homosexual marriages to be legal, so be it. Does that help or make sense to you?

[Scruffy]

Why aren't they happy with civil unions? Why do they push for marriage, so that priests will have to marry homosexuals in a church that believes this is an abomination?

I don't care what people do in their beds. Even though I believe homosexuallity is a perversion, but why do they try to push it into the sacrament of marriage?

Why don't they work towards civil unions and getting the same equal rights for their partners that the spouse's have in heterosexual marriages?

[loupgarou1317]

I will have to agree with Koushi Shinigami on this one.......As long as you do not force your views on me, I will not force mine on you........:silenced:

[captusa]

Originally Posted by fredeasy
Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest?

BECAUSE IT'S MY RELIGION.

Next question.

[captusa]

Why aren't they happy with civil unions? Why do they push for marriage, so that priests will have to marry homosexuals in a church that believes this is an abomination?

I don't care what people do in their beds. Even though I believe homosexuallity is a perversion, but why do they try to push it into the sacrament of marriage?

Why don't they work towards civil unions and getting the same equal rights for their partners that the spouse's have in heterosexual marriages?

I would assume that sacrements of marriage refer to a religious marriage.
Presently some Protestant denominations perform same sex marriages that are not recognized by the state they are in.
A religion can not be forced to perform a sacrement that that religion doesn't recognize.
A Catholic church can not be forced to marry a couple where one or both parties have been divorced.

[Dipperdap]

Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest?

Easy. One is real and the others aren't.

[PercyVere]

All religions are equally valid.

[RayMan]

BECAUSE IT'S MY RELIGION.

Next question.

That pretty much wraps it up. Time to lock the thread now.

[TaylorW65]

All religions are equally valid.

I am very eclectic in my spiritual views. A minister friend of mine said I am more interested in orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. Orthopraxy is more concerned with the correct practice of spiritual principles than concerned with correct spiritual beliefs.

Many groups seem to stress what you believe is very important because they believe that without the correct beliefs, or Biblical interpretation, God will not acccept you and you will burn in hell forever. I have found the truth to be that certain groups will not accept you if you do not adhere to their dogma. They then tend to project that onto God and act as if he...or she...will not accept you either.

But after 24 years in a 12 step group my experience has shown me it is not any intellectual adherence to correct spiritual beliefs that actually helps people it is the daily practice of those spiritual principles which are helpful.

The spiritual principles which I speak of are found in all religions despite their theological differences.

These principles include and are not limited to. surrendering of the self to a power greater than the self, prayer and meditation, inner reflection, love, forgiveness, compassion for the self and all others, service to those in need...

I could go on and on...:pray:

[fredeasy]

Why aren't they happy with civil unions? Why do they push for marriage, so that priests will have to marry homosexuals in a church that believes this is an abomination?


As much as I wanted to leave this alone I have to let you know that is a strawman for the same reason that I can't sue to have a Rabbi marry me (atheist) and my wife (baptist). I mean don't you think someone would have sued the Catholic church for any number of their practices that would be considered discrimination in business? No communion for anyone having anything to do with abortion, supporting it or voting for a politician who supports it. Would that fly in the business world?????


I don't care what people do in their beds. Even though I believe homosexuallity is a perversion, but why do they try to push it into the sacrament of marriage?


If it was truly and issue of you not wanting to word "marriage" soiled then why are you not fighting against polygamy is Saudi Arabia where they use the term marriage, or how about gay marriage in Europe. I guess in my mind both sides are being silly. If I were gay I would be thrilled if I could get all the legal benefits of marriage but call it something different, I would just think I outsmarted the conservatives. At the same rate if I were and evangelical I think gay people calling themselves married would rate close to the bottom of my "important things" list. I would be trying to live the teachings of Jesus and worry about REAL problems with REAL consequences like the divorce rate and genocide.


Why don't they work towards civil unions and getting the same equal rights for their partners that the spouse's have in heterosexual marriages?

Principle, same as you.

[fredeasy]

All religions are equally valid.

Then why do all their holy books say differently?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Then why do all their holy books say differently?

Hard to make a buck if you encourage all your followers to go down the street and join someone else.

[hillplus]

As much as I wanted to leave this alone I have to let you know that is a strawman for the same reason that I can't sue to have a Rabbi marry me (atheist) and my wife (baptist). I mean don't you think someone would have sued the Catholic church for any number of their practices that would be considered discrimination in business? No communion for anyone having anything to do with abortion, supporting it or voting for a politician who supports it. Would that fly in the business world?????



.......


Ask Catholic Charities if they feel the argument to be a strawman when they had to shut down their adoption agency or be forced to accept those they didn't feel it was appropriate to accept.

[captusa]

All religions are equally valid.

I disagree.
All religions are equally invalid.

[TaylorW65]

I disagree.
All religions are equally invalid.

I am curious since you feel that what what are your thoughts about my post #11?

[Koushi Shinigami]

Ask Catholic Charities if they feel the argument to be a strawman when they had to shut down their adoption agency or be forced to accept those they didn't feel it was appropriate to accept.

So you're saying that it was not possible to force Catholic Charities to go against their principles?

[captusa]

I am curious since you feel that what what are your thoughts about my post #11?
I was being flippant.
Actually
"All religions are equally invalid" and "All religions are equally valid" are equivalent (if all religions were 100% valid then all religions would be 0% invalid.)

I respect everyone's beliefs as long as they don't denograte mine.
Sorry if you took my remark seriously.
It had no real relevence to your post.
After at the end of so many religious discussions having informed of the certainty of being judged by harshly by their vengeful Deity for disagreeing with them, I can't resist an occasional shot.

[Koushi Shinigami]

After at the end of so many religious discussions having informed of the certainty of being judged by harshly by their vengeful Deity for disagreeing with them, I can't resist an occasional shot.


One wonders what the inference is if by disagreeing with a poster, that poster claims you are disagreeing with God. :think:

[captusa]

One wonders what the inference is if by disagreeing with a poster, that poster claims you are disagreeing with God. :think:

One also wonders if a poster assumes that disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God they believe (but not admit) that their opinion is equal to God's opinion.
(And inversely If an opinion isn't their opinion, then it couldn't be God's opinion)
Or am I just paraphrasing what you just posted.

[Koushi Shinigami]

One also wonders if a poster assumes that disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God they believe (but not admit) that their opinion is equal to God's opinion.
(And inversely If an opinion isn't their opinion, then it couldn't be God's opinion)
Or am I just paraphrasing what you just posted.

;) :clap: You state it in a simpler manner than I.

Isn't it dangerous to one's self to start thinking they speak for God? More thought is necessary... :think:

[Meriweather]

One of the big problems I have as an atheist is people who try and legislate the morality they find in their religious books that has absolutely no reasoning outside of the context of their religious book.

"Legislate morality" is no more than a catch phrase; buzz words. It waves aside all the reasoning behind why some stand behind their own reasonings.

I am one who does not object to "civil unions," but I do object to "gay marriage." You will immediately jump to the conclusion that my reasoning is Biblically based, and you would be wrong.

Through the ages, "marriage" has come to mean and to stand for certain ideologies. It puzzles me that some homosexuals insist that term to apply to their unions. Why that term? And why do they want to be mainly known for their sexual identity?

The purpose for laws is not so much to legislate anything, as it is to build a community willing to work for the overall good, not just for the good of the individual. I've been in some great arguments from people who insist that individual good is the best for the overall good, but I am not convinced--particularly when it comes to children and teenagers.

When it comes to children and teenagers, our younger generation thrives best in a loving home that has both mother and father. People will quickly give this their nodding acceptance--but immediately dismiss it with the claim as society isn't perfect, we MUST, instead, make room for other ideologies and accept them as "good enough."

It is my thought that for the overall good of society as a whole, society must teach the best ideology and have everyone aiming for that, and not letting everyone settle for whatever it is they decide is "good enough."

What may make one religion more valid than another? Possibly, one that is very caring of the individual, but insists that upon the overall good of the whole has slightly more importance.

[PercyVere]

I disagree.
All religions are equally invalid.Then we agree.

[TaylorW65]

I was being flippant.
Actually
"All religions are equally invalid" and "All religions are equally valid" are equivalent (if all religions were 100% valid then all religions would be 0% invalid.)

I respect everyone's beliefs as long as they don't denograte mine.
Sorry if you took my remark seriously.
It had no real relevence to your post.
After at the end of so many religious discussions having informed of the certainty of being judged by harshly by their vengeful Deity for disagreeing with them, I can't resist an occasional shot.

Yeah, I do think I misunderstood what you said. No problem though. :)

[LeroyBrown]

One of the big problems I have as an atheist is people who try and legislate the morality they find in their religious books that has absolutely no reasoning outside of the context of their religious book.

The best example I can think of off hand is a hot button issue and I want to make it clear that I am not here to debate it, I am sure there are many other threads about it. I am simply using it as an example for you to better understand what I am talking about.

For me gay marriage has to be the prime example. We have a large outpouring of religious folks telling us all kinds of horrible things will happen if we allow homosexuals the right to call themselves married. Many people I have met have no problems allowing these couples the same rights as married couples have but just not allowing them to be called "married". The reason I use this example is because we have a whole heck of a lot of data from other countries around the world who have legalized gay marriage and we have yet to find a secular reason to ban it. We know the worst thing for the kids is not being raised by 2 men, but being picked on by "normal" kids for being raised by 2 dads. Recently studies have actually shown that in countries that are more accepting of homosexuality show lower rates of depression and suicide among gay people. So from a secular standpoint there is no reason to ban the "marriage" of 2 people of the same faith.

Now I have no problems with people believing whatever they feel they need to. While I consider it pretty sad, I also have no problems with you teaching your kids the earth is 6000 years old or that Jews need the blood of a Christian child to make matza. I do however have a problem with you trying to make me follow this same version of morality when your brand of religious faith has no more evidence towards it divinity than any other.

As a Christian how would you feel is all pork was banned? I mean as a secular society we have no reason to ban pork, at all. However according to Jews and Muslims these animals must not be consumed. I am sure you personally adopt my policy of "keep it to yourself" and have no problems with either group not eating pork. However it does become a problem when, for no other reason than their religion forbids it, they try and impose on you.

Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest? Keep in mind I am not looking for subjective (dreams, something appearing to only you, near death experience, voices in your head...) or open ended philosophical ("I am right because we are here", or "nothing can't come from something when something is nothing but nothing can be something someday with nothing but something") answers. I just want to know what makes your religion more valid than the rest and why it gives us a platform to legislate morality from?

The problem with all this, besides a lack of sources for any of what you quote to be fact, is that here in America we can not legislate morality by popping open our bibles and creating a law.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html

http://www.mediabistro.com/agencyspy/original/nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg

[captusa]

I am very eclectic in my spiritual views. A minister friend of mine said I am more interested in orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. Orthopraxy is more concerned with the correct practice of spiritual principles than concerned with correct spiritual beliefs.

Many groups seem to stress what you believe is very important because they believe that without the correct beliefs, or Biblical interpretation, God will not acccept you and you will burn in hell forever. I have found the truth to be that certain groups will not accept you if you do not adhere to their dogma. They then tend to project that onto God and act as if he...or she...will not accept you either.

But after 24 years in a 12 step group my experience has shown me it is not any intellectual adherence to correct spiritual beliefs that actually helps people it is the daily practice of those spiritual principles which are helpful.

The spiritual principles which I speak of are found in all religions despite their theological differences.

These principles include and are not limited to. surrendering of the self to a power greater than the self, prayer and meditation, inner reflection, love, forgiveness, compassion for the self and all others, service to those in need...

I could go on and on...:pray:
BTW I hope I am not misrepresenting him, I believe Meriweather has a similiar belief in that different concepts of God and Gods share similar spiritual origins in their attempts to learn about God.

[Chicken Little]

IMHO- There are three points of view here.

1. Athiest - all religions are wrong. (While still proclaiming that they are right.)

2. Believers - my religion is right (No matter which one it is)

3. God - My path is right (now it is up to man to find and follow them)

[basilisk]

IMHO- There are three points of view here.

1. Athiest - all religions are wrong. (While still proclaiming that they are right.)

2. Believers - my religion is right (No matter which one it is)

3. God - My path is right (now it is up to man to find and follow them)
I know a lot of folks who fall into category three: they think they are God and that whatever they do is right--because it's their choice to do it.

[biggles53]

Easy. One is real and the others aren't.

Oh dear.

How many nasty, bitter conflicts have started with that simple assertion..........?

[Semi-Sweet]

Easy. One is real and the others aren't.

There are not too many references to the word religion in the Bible. In acts 26:5 the apostle Paul speaks to King Agrippa about "our religion," referring to Judaism.

James 1:26 refers to "vain religion" referring to an undisciplined life.

In the next verse "religion that is pure and undefiled" is described as benevolence toward widows and orphans, as well as keeping oneself unstained by the world.

That is about it insofar as the Bible is concerned, depending on what disposition translators make of the Greek words involved.

The real one is __________?

[Angryamerican]

I think and believe God made it easy for us,no different than it was for adam. Giving us just a few things we need to do to receive eternal life.

For adam it was to remain perfect and do not eat from the tree.

Well God knows we can't live up to his standards,so he sacrificed his son so we have forgiveness of our sins.

So we still need to be the best person we can be by following his laws and putting our faith in his son Jesus.

I just can't believe God is gonna judge us by our religion.

[HardHammer]

One wonders what the inference is if by disagreeing with a poster, that poster claims you are disagreeing with God. :think:

If one 'reads' the Holy Bible, they quickly discover, it's not the reader they disagree with.

God makes His points very clear in manys areas, it's mankind that chooses their own way opposed to His.

Though I do realize your affection for the melding of world religions, from my POV there is only One.

[HardHammer]

One also wonders if a poster assumes that disagreeing with them is disagreeing with God they believe (but not admit) that their opinion is equal to God's opinion.
(And inversely If an opinion isn't their opinion, then it couldn't be God's opinion)
Or am I just paraphrasing what you just posted.

If I post scripture directly from the Holy Bible is it really my 'opinion' or Gods Words, Words I happen to believe are true.

If I didn't write the Bible, how can it be 'my' opinion and not Gods thoughts on the matter, what ever that might be?

[Koushi Shinigami]

If one 'reads' the Holy Bible, they quickly discover, it's not the reader they disagree with.


Nope. The reader comes up with their interpretation of what they read. It's the reader I disagree with.


God makes His points very clear in manys areas, it's mankind that chooses their own way opposed to His.


'Many' areas... not so much. But at least you acknowledge that it's not clear in all areas.


Though I do realize your affection for the melding of world religions, from my POV there is only One.

There is. It's God's. And, unfortunately, it does not exist in its entirety on this Earth.

[Koushi Shinigami]

If I post scripture directly from the Holy Bible is it really my 'opinion' or Gods Words, Words I happen to believe are true.


Your interpretation of those words is your opinion.



If I didn't write the Bible, how can it be 'my' opinion and not Gods thoughts on the matter, what ever that might be?

If you not writing the bible makes the bible not your opinion,
then the fact that God did not write the bible makes it not His opinion also.

[khigh]

IMHO- There are three points of view here.

1. Athiest - all religions are wrong. (While still proclaiming that they are right.)

2. Believers - my religion is right (No matter which one it is)

3. God - My path is right (now it is up to man to find and follow them)

That is not entirely true. I believe in my religion, but I do not believe it is the only correct path to enlightenment. Mother Teresa was enlightened, but not a Hindu. Mahatuma Ghandi was enlightened and a Hindu. For me, there are many paths to one truth. I just follow the path that I believe will take me to enlightenment- Hinduism.

Maybe that is why there are not a lot of Hindu converts in America- they don't actively convert. I believe you can be a Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Jew and obtain enlightenment and become one with the gods in a future life.

[TaylorW65]

If I post scripture directly from the Holy Bible is it really my 'opinion' or Gods Words, Words I happen to believe are true.

If I didn't write the Bible, how can it be 'my' opinion and not Gods thoughts on the matter, what ever that might be?

How you view the Bible and what is written is your opinion. Some believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, others believe that the entire book is nothing more than the writings of man.

[graatz]

what makes your religion more valid than the rest

What makes a religion valid? Valid in the eyes of American law? Valid as opposed to a cult being an invalid religion?

[Koushi Shinigami]

What makes a religion valid? Valid in the eyes of American law? Valid as opposed to a cult being an invalid religion?

I'd suppose it would be the number of followers and how many congressmen they have in their pockets.

[dmaddy1]

America was founded on Christianity ...IN GOD WE TRUST /.... ONE NATION UNDER GOD .. for hundreds of years we have prospered......now with modern issues such as people getting too big for their shirts...and ppl thinking they can do anything bec "Americas the land of the free" which it is ...but this is not an ascuse to change our ways bed of liberal idiots...GOD BLESS AMERICA AND KEEP IT THAT WAY !!!!!!!!

[TaylorW65]

America was founded on Christianity ...IN GOD WE TRUST /.... ONE NATION UNDER GOD .. for hundreds of years we have prospered......now with modern issues such as people getting too big for their shirts...and ppl thinking they can do anything bec "Americas the land of the free" which it is ...but this is not an ascuse to change our ways bed of liberal idiots...GOD BLESS AMERICA AND KEEP IT THAT WAY !!!!!!!!

We have never been a theocracy. We are a land of many faiths. We are all free to practice any faith we choose or none at all. Our founding fathers were of a diverse religious backgrounds: Christians, Deists, Unitarians, Atheists etc. God is mentioned in our founding documents but it is never defined as being a Christian understanding of God.

I see you are a Christian yet call people idiots? Where is the love of Christ in that?

[agoodfoundation]

answer to the question.

what makes one religion more valid?

My Saviour is alive, not dead. I don't serve a dead god.

I serve a risen Saviour he's in the world today. I know that he is with me whatever man may say. I see his hand of mercy, I hear his voice of cheer. And just the time i need him he always near. He Lives! He Lives! My Jesus lives today, He walks with me and talks with me along lifes narrow way, He Lives!He Lives! Salvation to impart! YOU ask me how I know he lives, He lives WITHIN MY HEART!!

Once far from God and dead in sin,
No light my heart could see;
But in God’s Word the light I found,
Now Christ liveth in me.

Matthew 28:

1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

[TaylorW65]

answer to the question.

what makes one religion more valid?

My Saviour is alive, not dead. I don't serve a dead god.

I serve a risen Saviour he's in the world today. I know that he is with me whatever man may say. I see his hand of mercy, I hear his voice of cheer. And just the time i need him he always near. He Lives! He Lives! My Jesus lives today, He walks with me and talks with me along lifes narrow way, He Lives!He Lives! Salvation to impart! YOU ask me how I know he lives, He lives WITHIN MY HEART!!

Once far from God and dead in sin,
No light my heart could see;
But in God’s Word the light I found,
Now Christ liveth in me.

Matthew 28:

1In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
3His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
4And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
5And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.
11Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
12And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
13Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
14And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
15So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
16Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
17And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
18And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

The point which makes one religion as valid as another is not whether or not its founder is dead or alive but whether or not the teachings of those faiths point in the direction of of God.

I think the biggest mistake many Christians make is feeling that have cornered the market on God and that he is on their side and against those other faiths.

The the things which Christ taught are universal and are not just for the Jew but also for the Gentile. In other words Christianity is much bigger than this exclusive man made box we have placed it in.

[spinpolitico]

Well you hit upon the hypocrisy of religion. If you accept an "all-knowing God" as the foundation of your religion, then it must follow that ALL truths are God's truth.

Suicide and depression rates are down amongst gays when they are more accepted? Well, I guess there is a good argument to remain against it..

Religion need not be an argument against same sex marriage. Personally, I could care less what someones ABNORMAL sexual preferences are. What I vehemently oppose is having if stuffed down my throat that it is normal. I resent my children being taught "that some kids have Mommy and Daddy as parents. while other kids have Daddy and Daddy as parents, and this is perfectly normal children." If it was so normal, lets see Bob and Neil produce an offspring and perpetuate the species. Its NOT normal...PERIOD.

Now I have heard the arguments, "well, they removed it from the DSM-IVR as a disorder". (argument #1). #2..."i was born this way".

In regards to these 2 most often used arguments:

1. It was removed from teh DSM-IVr for two reasons: (i) lobbyists pressure and ACLU pressures to do, so it was done after a heated debate to define what the DSM-IVr should be used for, which is pscyometrically verified disorders. Inasmuch that homosexuals will follow the same curve of functionality as the rest of humanity, without any abnormalities of FUNCTION, it was thusly removed. It nonetheless is considered to be in 97% of all cases, an arrestment is psychosexual development. Additionaly, at the APA conference in 2010, the most heated topic of debate at this meeting, will be the re-inclusion of homosexuality as a disorder...which leads me to #2

2. (I was born this way). (i) Acutally, you have no idea how you were born, what you are really saying is that as far as you know, you have always been this way. THAT is valid. But also herein lies the difference between a neurosis and a character disorder. a neurosis is less servere and treatable, the condition itself being known as 'ego-dystonic'; meaning it causes the host individual pain or anxiety. In a character disorder, the maladaptive behaviors and conditions have become so habitualized that they are a pattern for living that are 'ego-systonic', meaning there is no longer any capacity to feel any anxiety or pain due to the problem (such as in Narcissism, in which everyone around them will end up therapy, but never will the Narcissist be the one going).

3. Ironicially enough there are currently over 300,000 gays in treatment for ego-dystonia due to their own homosexuality. This is not inclusive of anxieties or depressions related to Societal non-acceptance or ridicule (which is another matter altogether). What it does illustrate however is a differentiation of degree of serverity similar to all other neurosis vs character disorders.

But, bottom line...I dont need God to have figured out on my own accord that there is something kinda peculiar about Bob wanting Neil.

[agoodfoundation]

The point which makes one religion as valid as another is not whether or not its founder is dead or alive but whether or not the teachings of those faiths point in the direction of of God.

I think the biggest mistake many Christians make is feeling that have cornered the market on God and that he is on their side and against those other faiths.

The the things which Christ taught are universal and are not just for the Jew but also for the Gentile. In other words Christianity is much bigger than this exclusive man made box we have placed it in.


If you are talking about my God in my Religion says God is against other faiths if they lead you down the the wrong path. YOu can't have many different faiths and still come to the same God. its like having a group all take a different path and still expect them all to meet at the end. Not all Paths meet.
MY faith says you can only get to Heaven by accepting Christ as your Saviour, not all faiths say that. (not being disrespectful, just telling what my God in my "religion" says)

[Koushi Shinigami]

All roads lead to Rome.

[graatz]

If it was so normal, lets see Bob and Neil produce an offspring and perpetuate the species.

What a weird definition for normalcy... :rolleyes:

[agoodfoundation]

All roads lead to Rome.


haha, or airplanes :)

[Koushi Shinigami]

I don't get it.

[RayMan]

Apparently Planes, Trains and Automobiles all eventually lead to Rome.

[agoodfoundation]

I don't get it.


me neither! hahahahha :) sorry.

[agoodfoundation]

Apparently Planes, Trains and Automobiles all eventually lead to Rome.

:)

[Semi-Sweet]

Socrates taught. . . . .it is the humble man who is wise. Learning humbles one, for he realizes that the more he learns the more there is to be learned. The more one learns, the more ignorant he realizes he is!

Humility and wisdom go together. . . .one can't be wise who is not humble, and one who is wise will be humble. The wise man realizes he is on a journey in quest of truth. . .a journey that never ends. A "know-it-all" in any field is a fool. The problem is that he can't see that he is a fool. If he ever sees it, that is when he starts being wise. That must be what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 3:18: "If anyone thinks that he is wise in this world, let him become a fool that he might be wise."

Isaiah 45:15. . . ."Truly, thou are a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior."

By His very nature the God of heaven seems to be beyond man's reach, even though He reveals something of Himself to us. Paul sees God as giving to all men "life and breath and everything" and as setting their allotted periods and boundaries "that they might feel after Him and find Him."

While the apostle insists that "he is not far from each one of us," he makes it clear that God must be sought out and found. Once we learn this great truth of the hiddenness of God we will not be inclined to presume that we can put Him in a box and limit Him to the vagaries of our own sect. . . . .

[TaylorW65]

If you are talking about my God in my Religion says God is against other faiths if they lead you down the the wrong path. YOu can't have many different faiths and still come to the same God. its like having a group all take a different path and still expect them all to meet at the end. Not all Paths meet.
MY faith says you can only get to Heaven by accepting Christ as your Saviour, not all faiths say that. (not being disrespectful, just telling what my God in my "religion" says)

Of course you can have different faiths that lead to the same God. Because there really only is one God. Religion is a man made vehicle for human beings to experience the divine. There is a common thread running through all faiths despite their theological differences.

Jesus taught things that are universal, applicable to everyone no matter who they are. It is we human beings who slap exclusive religious labels on one another to brand ourselves to let others know what faith we adhere to and we make religion an I'm right and your wrong ego motivated battle.

Jesus taught that God is universally available to all who seek him. I think God responds to the heart's cry of people no matter what concepts or theologies of God they adhere to. It is we human beings who are legalistic, I don't believe God is. God is transcendent of religion.

I don't think Christians own God, nor do Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc, etc. The attributes of God, love, inner peace, forgiveness, hope, joy, surrender, service, compassion are all available to all people no matter the religious label they place on themselves and they are not the copyright of any one faith. They are universal.

[captusa]

...;...What I vehemently oppose is having if stuffed down my throat that it is normal. I resent my children being taught "that some kids have Mommy and Daddy as parents. while other kids have Daddy and Daddy as parents,and this is perfectly normal children" If it was so normal, lets see Bob and Neil produce an offspring and perpetuate the species. Its NOT normal...PERIOD.

......


It is a fact that that some kids have Mommy and Daddy as parents. while other kids have Daddy and Daddy as parents.

It may be a fact that it may true about children in your child's class.

Probably a teacher should not comment on whether the situation was normal, abnormal, moral or immoral but the children should be aware that it is a fact that that some kids have Mommy and Daddy as parents, while other kids have Daddy and Daddy as parents.

[hben]

Socrates taught. . . . .it is the humble man who is wise. Learning humbles one, for he realizes that the more he learns the more there is to be learned. The more one learns, the more ignorant he realizes he is!

Amen. This is why parents get so much smarter as their child grows older.

Humility and wisdom go together. . . .one can't be wise who is not humble, and one who is wise will be humble. The wise man realizes he is on a journey in quest of truth. . .a journey that never ends. A "know-it-all" in any field is a fool. The problem is that he can't see that he is a fool. If he ever sees it, that is when he starts being wise.

Is this a hint for me to stop singing, "Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble..."? :eh: :cool: :whistle:

That must be what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 3:18: "If anyone thinks that he is wise in this world, let him become a fool that he might be wise."

Isaiah 45:15. . . ."Truly, thou are a God who hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior."

By His very nature the God of heaven seems to be beyond man's reach, even though He reveals something of Himself to us. Paul sees God as giving to all men "life and breath and everything" and as setting their allotted periods and boundaries "that they might feel after Him and find Him."

While the apostle insists that "he is not far from each one of us," he makes it clear that God must be sought out and found. Once we learn this great truth of the hiddenness of God we will not be inclined to presume that we can put Him in a box and limit Him to the vagaries of our own sect. . . . .

I believe the cross was where the Great Shepherd came down from heaven and found us...His lost sheep.

[hben]

Apparently Planes, Trains and Automobiles all eventually lead to Rome.

Except for the train that some Aggie hijacked to Cuba...it never made it to Rome. :cool:

[Gem]

Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest?

I don't think I can answer that because God will be the judge of this.

[Semi-Sweet]

Of course you can have different faiths that lead to the same God. Because there really only is one God. Religion is a man made vehicle for human beings to experience the divine. There is a common thread running through all faiths despite their theological differences.

Jesus taught things that are universal, applicable to everyone no matter who they are. It is we human beings who slap exclusive religious labels on one another to brand ourselves to let others know what faith we adhere to and we make religion an I'm right and your wrong ego motivated battle.

Jesus taught that God is universally available to all who seek him. I think God responds to the heart's cry of people no matter what concepts or theologies of God they adhere to. It is we human beings who are legalistic, I don't believe God is. God is transcendent of religion.

I don't think Christians own God, nor do Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc, etc. The attributes of God, love, inner peace, forgiveness, hope, joy, surrender, service, compassion are all available to all people no matter the religious label they place on themselves and they are not the copyright of any one faith. They are universal.

Well said Taylor!

[Semi-Sweet]

Is this a hint for me to stop singing, "Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble..."? :eh: :cool: :whistle:



That'll be the day. . . .:whistle:

:mrgreen:

[barre53]

[QUOTE]Of course you can have different faiths that lead to the same God. Because there really only is one God. Religion is a man made vehicle for human beings to experience the divine. There is a common thread running through all faiths despite their theological differences.

How can you say that there is only one God? How can you say that all the different faiths lead to the same God? Did God tell you that or did you make it up on your own?

I am not trying to be combative, but asking a serious question. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." In the next paragraph you blame men for slapping exclusive religious labels on one another. But Jesus is the one who made an exclusive claim.

Jesus taught things that are universal, applicable to everyone no matter who they are. It is we human beings who slap exclusive religious labels on one another to brand ourselves to let others know what faith we adhere to and we make religion an I'm right and your wrong ego motivated battle.

Jesus taught that God is universally available to all who seek him. I think God responds to the heart's cry of people no matter what concepts or theologies of God they adhere to. It is we human beings who are legalistic, I don't believe God is. God is transcendent of religion.

Things are universally applicable to everyone, no matter who they are. But what are the things that are universally applicable? Jesus said, "If you honor the Son, you honor the Father. If you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father." That is true of everyone. Not all religious honor Jesus. Where does that leave them?

I don't think Christians own God, nor do Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc, etc. The attributes of God, love, inner peace, forgiveness, hope, joy, surrender, service, compassion are all available to all people no matter the religious label they place on themselves and they are not the copyright of any one faith. They are universal.

No one owns God. But you are guessing at the attributes of God unless God came and told you what he is like. You have decided that God must be found by comparing all that is similar in the major religions of the world.

[Semi-Sweet]

How can you say that there is only one God? How can you say that all the different faiths lead to the same God? Did God tell you that or did you make it up on your own?

I am not trying to be combative, but asking a serious question. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." In the next paragraph you blame men for slapping exclusive religious labels on one another. But Jesus is the one who made an exclusive claim.



Things are universally applicable to everyone, no matter who they are. But what are the things that are universally applicable? Jesus said, "If you honor the Son, you honor the Father. If you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father." That is true of everyone. Not all religious honor Jesus. Where does that leave them?



No one owns God. But you are guessing at the attributes of God unless God came and told you what he is like. You have decided that God must be found by comparing all that is similar in the major religions of the world.

John 1:9. . ."That was the true Light which gives light to every person who comes into the world."

That passage from John 1:9 alone should give us pause if we have an exclusive view of the Christian faith. The Light that has come into the world. . . which the darkness could not apprehend. . .is the Christ, who is more than what we call "Christianity," That Light. . .by virtue of coming into the world (and apart from any human initiative) has put some light into every soul that is born into this world.

That means there is something of the light of Christ in every Buddhist, every Muslim, every Hindu, every pagan, and every atheist. The light may not always break through but it is nonetheless there.

Acts 14:17. . ."He did not leave you without evidence of himself."

God reveals Himself through Holy Scripture, the Bible, but there have been multitudes, perhaps most people of all of human history who never saw a Bible, much less read one. The Bible is God's revelation to particular people. . .covenant people, special people, called for special purposes. . .the Jews under the Old Covenant and the disciples under the New Covenant. It was not intended for all nations.

The wonderful Person of the Bible was given to the world as its Savior. . .not a book.

Who are you to limit God?

[barre53]

John 1:9. . ."That was the true Light which gives light to every person who comes into the world."

That passage from John 1:9 alone should give us pause if we have an exclusive view of the Christian faith. The Light that has come into the world. . . which the darkness could not apprehend. . .is the Christ, who is more than what we call "Christianity," That Light. . .by virtue of coming into the world (and apart from any human initiative) has put some light into every soul that is born into this world.

That means there is something of the light of Christ in every Buddhist, every Muslim, every Hindu, every pagan, and every atheist. The light may not always break through but it is nonetheless there.

Acts 14:17. . ."He did not leave you without evidence of himself."

God reveals Himself through Holy Scripture, the Bible, but there have been multitudes, perhaps most people of all of human history who never saw a Bible, much less read one. The Bible is God's revelation to particular people. . .covenant people, special people, called for special purposes. . .the Jews under the Old Covenant and the disciples under the New Covenant. It was not intended for all nations.

The wonderful Person of the Bible was given to the world as its Savior. . .not a book.

Who are you to limit God?

I am nothing. I could not limit God if I tried. However, God limits himself in his own revelation. The Bible teaches us that God does not lie. So God limits himself to telling the truth. God sent Jesus to be the Savior of the world. He didn't send anyone else. He made his own limitations. He said that "whosoever believeth in Him (Jesus) shall not perish, but have everlasting life." I didn't put that limit on believing in Jesus, God did. In the midst of a world with many religions and concepts of God, he says in the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Worshipping the gods of other religions puts them before the God of the Bible and is a sin. I didn't make that up, its the first commandment. Not everyone who has light has life. Jesus came to give us life and we can only receive it though him.

[agoodfoundation]

God reveals Himself through Holy Scripture, the Bible, but there have been multitudes, perhaps most people of all of human history who never saw a Bible, much less read one. The Bible is God's revelation to particular people. . .covenant people, special people, called for special purposes. . .the Jews under the Old Covenant and the disciples under the New Covenant. It was not intended for all nations.


John 3:16 For God so loved the WORLD......
Salvation and God's Word was and still is intended for the whole.
Thats why God says in Mark 16:15 "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"

The Bible was at first preached only to the Jews and when the Jews became hard against God. He said okay if you won't listen to me anymore I will bring the word to the Gentiles.

[TaylorW65]

John 3:16 For God so loved the WORLD......
Salvation and God's Word was and still is intended for the whole.
Thats why God says in Mark 16:15 "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"

The Bible was at first preached only to the Jews and when the Jews became hard against God. He said okay if you won't listen to me anymore I will bring the word to the Gentiles.

I hate to break it to you but the Bible wasn't compiled until many many centuries after the time of Jesus.

[RayMan]

I hate to break it to you but the Bible wasn't compiled until many many centuries after the time of Jesus.

I imagine agoodfoundation intended to convey that "the Gospel was preached" rather than the Bible.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I imagine agoodfoundation intended to convey that "the Gospel was preached" rather than the Bible.

Yeah. Those pesky words and their limited meanings. :rolleyes:

[TaylorW65]

How can you say that there is only one God? How can you say that all the different faiths lead to the same God? Did God tell you that or did you make it up on your own?

I am not trying to be combative, but asking a serious question. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me." In the next paragraph you blame men for slapping exclusive religious labels on one another. But Jesus is the one who made an exclusive claim.



Things are universally applicable to everyone, no matter who they are. But what are the things that are universally applicable? Jesus said, "If you honor the Son, you honor the Father. If you do not honor the Son, you do not honor the Father." That is true of everyone. Not all religious honor Jesus. Where does that leave them?



No one owns God. But you are guessing at the attributes of God unless God came and told you what he is like. You have decided that God must be found by comparing all that is similar in the major religions of the world.

Jesus made a claim of being the way the truth and the life. How can a person be a "way" how can a person be the "truth" and how can a person be the "life?" Jesus also said he was the vine and a branch and also a door. So it is obvious Jesus was speaking metaphorically.

I interpret his words to mean nobody comes to the Father except through the way in which he taught. In other words through faith, trust, love and compassion. Those are the way to the father and every faith and religion has those.

I don't interpret what Jesus said as meaning "the only way to the Father will be this religion that will spring up in my name."

The path to the father is one of surrendering their will, heart and life over to the care of God, no matter who they understand God to be.

If I may borrow Sem-Sweet's words because it was said so beautifully and eloquently....

That means there is something of the light of Christ in every Buddhist, every Muslim, every Hindu, every pagan, and every atheist. The light may not always break through but it is nonetheless there.

[RayMan]

Yeah. Those pesky words and their limited meanings. :rolleyes:


Billy Idol and Koushi get it...

[Semi-Sweet]

I am nothing. I could not limit God if I tried. However, God limits himself in his own revelation. The Bible teaches us that God does not lie. So God limits himself to telling the truth. God sent Jesus to be the Savior of the world. He didn't send anyone else. He made his own limitations. He said that "whosoever believeth in Him (Jesus) shall not perish, but have everlasting life." I didn't put that limit on believing in Jesus, God did. In the midst of a world with many religions and concepts of God, he says in the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Worshipping the gods of other religions puts them before the God of the Bible and is a sin. I didn't make that up, its the first commandment. Not everyone who has light has life. Jesus came to give us life and we can only receive it though him.

2 Cor. 5:19. ."God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."

To be reconciled means "to be made friendly again" or even "to settle a quarrel" between persons. The idea of "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" is that through Jesus, God restored friendship between Himself and man. Because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross, mankind is restored to God . . . .the quarrel is settled. Mankind has direct access to God the Father.

The Word was the true light that enlightens ALL men; and he was coming into the world. . .John 1:9

Every person, by virtue of God's abundant grace, receives some measure of light from the Christ who came into this world.

[Semi-Sweet]

John 3:16 For God so loved the WORLD......
Salvation and God's Word was and still is intended for the whole.
Thats why God says in Mark 16:15 "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature"

The Bible was at first preached only to the Jews and when the Jews became hard against God. He said okay if you won't listen to me anymore I will bring the word to the Gentiles.

The Gentiles includes all nations. . .the whole world. (everyone except the Jews) The good news was preached first to the Jews, and then to the whole world. It was not because some of the Jews rejected Jesus that the good news was sent to the world, but because " God so loved the world," that He sent Jesus to save the world.

1 Timothy 4:10. . ."For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." Scripture affirms that Jesus is the Savior of all people, and that he died on the cross for every person. . . . .

Hebrew 2:9. ."but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."

Jesus is not the potential Savior or the conditional Savior. . .if one will believe this or do that. . . .but the Savior. . . Period.

John the Baptist introduced him in like terms, "Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" John 1:29

1 Cor. 15:22. . ."As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The word all has the same force in both instances.

[captusa]

Bump!

Originally Posted by fredeasy
Back to the bigger point here though, how is your religion any more valid than the rest?


IMO
I still think this sums up the discussion.

BECAUSE IT'S MY RELIGION.

Next question.

[RayMan]

Bump!


IMO
I still think this sums up the discussion.

BECAUSE IT'S MY RELIGION.

Next question.

Yeah, that's about right. Can we get a thread lock now please?

[khigh]

Bump!




IMO
I still think this sums up the discussion.

BECAUSE IT'S MY RELIGION.

Next question.

:clap: But, not all of us think this way. I don't believe my religion is the only right religion. Just the right one for me.

[captusa]

:clap: But, not all of us think this way. I don't believe my religion is the only right religion. Just the right one for me.

I agree but my summation deals with the premise of the OP.

[Amallek]

I would assume that sacrements of marriage refer to a religious marriage.
Presently some Protestant denominations perform same sex marriages that are not recognized by the state they are in.
A religion can not be forced to perform a sacrement that that religion doesn't recognize.
A Catholic church can not be forced to marry a couple where one or both parties have been divorced.

Marriage was not a sacrament in the Catholic church until the 1400s and Martin Luther threw it out for Protestants. The Bible makes a pretty good case for polygamy actually, Abraham could not get his wife pregnant so he screwed the maid.

[RayMan]

Marriage was not a sacrament in the Catholic church until the 1400s and Martin Luther threw it out for Protestants. The Bible makes a pretty good case for polygamy actually, Abraham could not get his wife pregnant so he <snip> the maid.

Hi Amallek,
Might want to watch your language here in the RF. We are expected to show a little more class than the folk in the WP or GIT forums.

[Remus Lupin]

I'm a devout Christian but I don't think one religion is better than the orther one.
There is a purpose in ALL religions and that they are to be respected.

[Amallek]

Thanks Ray, will do.

[TaylorW65]

I'm a devout Christian but I don't think one religion is better than the orther one.
There is a purpose in ALL religions and that they are to be respected.

I agree with you and you said what I believe very well and I would like to expand on what you said with my own thoughts.

Being a devout Christian myself I feel that God is present in all other faiths and is reachable through any faith. Because i don't think you can put God and matters of faith in a box and restrict where God and his truth is present nor restrict by what means God will operate in the lives and hearts of human beings.

[barre53]

I agree with you and you said what I believe very well and I would like to expand on what you said with my own thoughts.

Being a devout Christian myself I feel that God is present in all other faiths and is reachable through any faith. Because i don't think you can put God and matters of faith in a box and restrict where God and his truth is present nor restrict by what means God will operate in the lives and hearts of human beings.

No, but God can restrict himself. He said in Exodus that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." If he were present in every religion, then he would not have needed to ban idolatry nor speak against other religions. But God thought other religions were bad and said so.

[Expo Man]

Jesus Christ said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one cometh unto the Father but by me." That is why I believe Christianity, which is a relationship not a religion, is the one and only way to obtain eternal life.

[TaylorW65]

No, but God can restrict himself. He said in Exodus that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." If he were present in every religion, then he would not have needed to ban idolatry nor speak against other religions. But God thought other religions were bad and said so.

I guess it all depends on your point of view.

Let me put it this way. Is the concept of God that a person holds in their minds God? In other words, can a finite mind grasp all of who God is?

No. Every human being has a concept of who or what God is. I think all human concepts fall short of defining and completely understanding all of who God is.

So is a Hindu's concept of the Ultimate more wrong than a Christians? That is speaking in generalities because the truth is each person develops their own understanding of God.

So does God only honor those who get his description more accurately? Is a relationship with God based on a theology test and if you have the wrong concept of God on your mind you get a failing grade and he'll have nothing to do with you?

I think not.

Remember that wringing in Exodus came from a time period in human history when people were more polytheistic. There isn't a panoply of gods there is just One with millions of different human being all having opinions on who God is.

So that scripture, in my opinion, doesn't mean "do not have other religious beliefs other than a Christian interpretation" it means place your heart (the will) on God first and foremost. People can do that no matter what religious tradition they adhere to.

[captusa]

No, but God can restrict himself. He said in Exodus that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." If he were present in every religion, then he would not have needed to ban idolatry nor speak against other religions. But God thought other religions were bad and said so.

If the GOD of Exodus was not aware of other Gods HE would not have found it necessary to demand that the Israelites shouldn't hold any of those Gods before HIM(YHVH).

[captusa]

......

Remember that wringing in Exodus came from a time period in human history when people were more polytheistic. There isn't a panoply of gods there is just One with millions of different human being all having opinions on who God is.

So that scripture, in my opinion, doesn't mean "do not have other religious beliefs other than a Christian interpretation" it means place your heart (the will) on God first and foremost. People can do that no matter what religious tradition they adhere to.

You are right.
The phrases you note from Exodus where originally written in J-strand from a time where there many Gods worshipped in the area.

Of course Exodus does not refer to Christian interpetation.

[Gem]

No, but God can restrict himself. He said in Exodus that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." If he were present in every religion, then he would not have needed to ban idolatry nor speak against other religions. But God thought other religions were bad and said so.


I will say this about it.

God's church is not a building.
And if there are people standing in any church building, ( I don't care what church building it is. ) if someone is in that building really and truly searching for God and wanting Him to be in their lives, then God will meet that person no matter where that person is. If its in a building or not God will meet with that person.

[TaylorW65]

I will say this about it.

God's church is not a building.
And if there are people standing in any church building, ( I don't care what church building it is. ) if someone is in that building really and truly searching for God and wanting Him to be in their lives, then God will meet that person no matter where that person is. If its in a building or not God will meet with that person.

Quoted for truth.

[barre53]

I guess it all depends on your point of view.

Let me put it this way. Is the concept of God that a person holds in their minds God? In other words, can a finite mind grasp all of who God is?

No. Every human being has a concept of who or what God is. I think all human concepts fall short of defining and completely understanding all of who God is.

So is a Hindu's concept of the Ultimate more wrong than a Christians? That is speaking in generalities because the truth is each person develops their own understanding of God.

So does God only honor those who get his description more accurately? Is a relationship with God based on a theology test and if you have the wrong concept of God on your mind you get a failing grade and he'll have nothing to do with you?

I think not.

Remember that wringing in Exodus came from a time period in human history when people were more polytheistic. There isn't a panoply of gods there is just One with millions of different human being all having opinions on who God is.

So that scripture, in my opinion, doesn't mean "do not have other religious beliefs other than a Christian interpretation" it means place your heart (the will) on God first and foremost. People can do that no matter what religious tradition they adhere to.

I believe that we cannot fully know God. I also believe that God has revealed himself through the Bible. This revelation from God is God telling us about his plan, character and any other information he things we need to know. From that basis, I will compare any other religion with the teachings of the Bible.

If we do not use the Bible as a foundation, then we are left only with our own logic, and unfortunately, history has shown that human logic is not always logical.

[barre53]

I will say this about it.

God's church is not a building.
And if there are people standing in any church building, ( I don't care what church building it is. ) if someone is in that building really and truly searching for God and wanting Him to be in their lives, then God will meet that person no matter where that person is. If its in a building or not God will meet with that person.

I didn't even mention a building. God said that "thou shalt have no other gods before me." He rejected the gods found in the religion groups that were around Israel. God will meet a person wherever they are, but he will lead them to Jesus.

[biggles53]

I believe that we cannot fully know God. I also believe that God has revealed himself through the Bible. This revelation from God is God telling us about his plan, character and any other information he things we need to know. From that basis, I will compare any other religion with the teachings of the Bible.

If we do not use the Bible as a foundation, then we are left only with our own logic, and unfortunately, history has shown that human logic is not always logical.

If your god "reveals" himself through your Bible, and he is the "only" god, then why do so many people from other parts of the world have different 'bibles'? Why does your god, if he is the only one, reveal himself to different people in such totally different ways..?

[TaylorW65]

I believe that we cannot fully know God. I also believe that God has revealed himself through the Bible. This revelation from God is God telling us about his plan, character and any other information he things we need to know. From that basis, I will compare any other religion with the teachings of the Bible.

If we do not use the Bible as a foundation, then we are left only with our own logic, and unfortunately, history has shown that human logic is not always logical.

That is your belief that God has revealed himself through the Bible. I believe that the Bible is purely a human book, a very important book, but a human book none the less.

All religions have many things in common, and vast differences also, but you'd be surprised that when it comes down to real important and basic things of life many religions say the same thing.

[barre53]

If your god "reveals" himself through your Bible, and he is the "only" god, then why do so many people from other parts of the world have different 'bibles'? Why does your god, if he is the only one, reveal himself to different people in such totally different ways..?

They don't have different Bibles. He doesn't reveal himself to different people in totally different ways. The Bible is the Word of God and he reveals himself in the Bible and through Jesus.

[barre53]

That is your belief that God has revealed himself through the Bible. I believe that the Bible is purely a human book, a very important book, but a human book none the less.

All religions have many things in common, and vast differences also, but you'd be surprised that when it comes down to real important and basic things of life many religions say the same thing.

I would disagree with the above statement. The most important issue is this: "How can I be right with God?" There is no more important question. On this issue, the major world religions do not agree.

[biggles53]

They don't have different Bibles. He doesn't reveal himself to different people in totally different ways. The Bible is the Word of God and he reveals himself in the Bible and through Jesus.

I would suggest that the manner in which 'god' is revealed to his Islamic worshippers is totally different to the multi-persona revelation of the Hindus, is totally different to Jews, is totally different to Christians. Each of these 'revelations' comes with a 'bible' attached (remember, "bible" just simply means "book"), promising totally different outcomes for its adherents....

[Semi-Sweet]

I would disagree with the above statement. The most important issue is this: "How can I be right with God?" There is no more important question. On this issue, the major world religions do not agree.

Multiplied millions have never heard the gospel. That they have not yet obeyed the gospel does not necessarily mean that they have rejected God and are lost. God rejects only those who reject him.

If that were not true, he would not be a merciful God who is eager to save. The only fair judgment must be in reference to how those multiplied millions respond to such light as they have.

God does not require one to do what he doesn't know to do. . .just as he does not require a blind man to see. But God does require one to respond in faith to such light (revelation) as he has.

[hben]

Multiplied millions have never heard the gospel. That they have not yet obeyed the gospel does not necessarily mean that they have rejected God and are lost. God rejects only those who reject him.

If that were not true, he would not be a merciful God who is eager to save. The only fair judgment must be in reference to how those multiplied millions respond to such light as they have.

God does not require one to do what he doesn't know to do. . .just as he does not require a blind man to see. But God does require one to respond in faith to such light (revelation) as he has.

Too often we are blessed with much light, but we sit around getting a good suntan rather than using the light to lead others out of their darkness. And too often we are blessed with an over abundance of salt, but we end up using it to season our breakfast and lunch which only serves to help us grow fatter and lazier rather than using it to season the world around us.

[Liberal Linguist]

Marriage. Traditionally a union between one man and MANY women.

[Koushi Shinigami]

They don't have different Bibles. He doesn't reveal himself to different people in totally different ways. The Bible is the Word of God and he reveals himself in the Bible and through Jesus.

I've heard some Christian bibles have seven more books than other Christian bibles do.

[khigh]

I would suggest that the manner in which 'god' is revealed to his Islamic worshippers is totally different to the multi-persona revelation of the Hindus, is totally different to Jews, is totally different to Christians. Each of these 'revelations' comes with a 'bible' attached (remember, "bible" just simply means "book"), promising totally different outcomes for its adherents....

Hindus don't have a "bible" per say. We have the Vedas and the Upanishads which are just moral codes to live by passed on from Brahman to the people. I don't even have a particular incarnation that I worship. Some days I feel like praying to Shiva and other days to Ganesha.

There is nothing to indicate that you must be a Hindu to obtain total enlightenment. I believe Mother Teresa obtained enlightenment in her last lifetime and is now part of the Universal Soul. She has reached eternal life and does not have to suffer rebirth again.

[Mikko]

I believe that we cannot fully know God. I also believe that God has revealed himself through the Bible. This revelation from God is God telling us about his plan, character and any other information he things we need to know. From that basis, I will compare any other religion with the teachings of the Bible.

If we do not use the Bible as a foundation, then we are left only with our own logic, and unfortunately, history has shown that human logic is not always logical.

Ah, but the Bible is itself nothing but a product of human logic. It is far from being a revelation directly from God. It is a revelation of of its writers' perceptions of God, and nothing more.:)

[Mikko]

They don't have different Bibles. He doesn't reveal himself to different people in totally different ways. The Bible is the Word of God and he reveals himself in the Bible and through Jesus.
That's your belief, and that's fine. It is simply opinion that the Bible (in its entirety, at any rate) is the direct Word of God, and claiming that it is His revelation through Jesus is quite a stretch given that there is not so much as a syllable in the Bible that was penned by Jesus.:)

[RayMan]

Ah, but the Bible is itself nothing but a product of human logic. It is far from being a revelation directly from God. It is a revelation of of its writers' perceptions of God, and nothing more.:)

That is of course Mikko's opinion. Some of us would opine differently.

[TaylorW65]

I would disagree with the above statement. The most important issue is this: "How can I be right with God?" There is no more important question. On this issue, the major world religions do not agree.

You disagree because you start with a premise that people are not right with God. I think that is a false human premise.

[Marleysdaddy]

They don't have different Bibles.

:think:

There's the Bible that most Protestants use, and then there are all these other Bibles that contain additional books.

The Roman Catholic Church recognizes the following books:

* Tobit
* Judith
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* Wisdom of Solomon
* Sirach also called Ecclesiasticus
* Baruch
* Greek Additions to Esther
* Greek Additions to Daniel

In addition to those, the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches recognize the following:

* 3 Maccabees
* 1 Esdras i.e. Greek Ezra paraphrase
* Prayer of Manasseh
* Psalm 151 as part of the Psalter

Some other Eastern Orthodox Churches include a few others, typically:

* 2 Esdras i.e. Latin Esdras in the Russian and Georgian Bibles
* Odes

The Syriac Orthodox Church also has:

* The Apocalypse of Baruch 2 Baruch
* The Letter of Baruch

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church also has some others such as:

* Jubilees
* Enoch

The Anglican Church uses some of the Apocryphal books liturgically, but not to establish doctrine. Therefore, editions of the Bible intended for use in the Anglican Church include the Deuterocanonical books accepted by the Catholic Church, plus 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, which were in the Vulgate appendix.

There is also 4 Maccabees which is only accepted as canonical in the Georgian Church, but was included by St. Jerome in an appendix to the Vulgate, and is an appendix to the Greek Orthodox Bible, and it therefore sometimes included in collections of the Apocrypha.

I count at least 6 different Bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible#Christian_Bible

[RayMan]

:think:

There's the Bible that most Protestants use, and then there are all these other Bibles that contain additional books.



I count at least 6 different Bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Bible#Christian_Bible

I am fond of the Protestant O.T. Canon because it has the same books as the Jewish Tanach. Some of the books are combined in the Tanach so there are less books in total, but it is the same material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

Following Jerome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome)'s Veritas Hebraica, the Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible), but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Samuel), Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Kings), and Chronicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Chronicles) to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_prophets)Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezra) and Nehemiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nehemiah) a single book.
into one book, and also considers Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezra) and Nehemiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nehemiah) a single book.

[Mikko]

That is of course Mikko's opinion. Some of us would opine differently.
The operative word there is opine. It remains a matter of opinion, and people select opinions to hold for all kinds of reasons.:)

[Mikko]

I am fond of the Protestant O.T. Canon because it has the same books as the Jewish Tanach. Some of the books are combined in the Tanach so there are less books in total, but it is the same material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Old_Testament_canon

Following Jerome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome)'s Veritas Hebraica, the Protestant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) Old Testament consists of the same books as the Hebrew Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Bible), but the order and numbering of the books are different. Protestants number the Old Testament books at 39, while Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism) numbers the same books as 24. This is because Judaism considers Samuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Samuel), Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Kings), and Chronicles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_Chronicles) to form one book each, groups the 12 minor prophets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_prophets)Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezra) and Nehemiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nehemiah) a single book.
into one book, and also considers Ezra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezra) and Nehemiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Nehemiah) a single book.
This is an interesting demonstration of the fact that the authenticity of apocriphality of any given text is a matter of human opinion.:)

[RayMan]

The operative word there is opine. It remains a matter of opinion, and people select opinions to hold for all kinds of reasons.:)

That's why I used the word. :angel:

[RayMan]

This is an interesting demonstration of the fact that the authenticity of apocriphality of any given text is a matter of human opinion.:)


I like to think the Jews have the last word on the Tanach or O.T. canon since it was given to them not to the Christian Church.

[Mikko]

I like to think the Jews have the last word on the Tanach or O.T. canon since it was given to them not to the Christian Church.
The operative word there is think. The "Early Church Fathers" obviously thought differently.:)
I find it iteresting that protestantism, which rejects the Jewish understanding of humanity's relationship to God, particularly with regards to soul salvation, would insist that the scripture in the form it was given to the Jews is more valid than the scripture in the form it was given to the Christian church.:)

[RayMan]

Can't blame me for that. I wasn't at any of those meetings.

[Mikko]

Can't blame me for that. I wasn't at any of those meetings.
I've been to enough for the both of us; besides, one needn't to go to those meetings - just read these here boards for a spell, pardner!:)

[barre53]

You disagree because you start with a premise that people are not right with God. I think that is a false human premise.

How can you say that you can find God in every religion and then exclude Christianity? One of the major teachings of Christianity is that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." What criteria can you use to find God in all religions? Your only criteria is your own mind. You pick and choose what you want to pick and choose from all the religions. You, in essence, invent the God you want. I have heard people say, "I could never believe in a God who is not loving!" I understand their sentiment, but if there is a real God out there, which I think we agree that God is out there, then he is what he is. We cannot define him in our own terms, but only on his terms.

[TaylorW65]

How can you say that you can find God in every religion and then exclude Christianity? One of the major teachings of Christianity is that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." What criteria can you use to find God in all religions? Your only criteria is your own mind. You pick and choose what you want to pick and choose from all the religions. You, in essence, invent the God you want. I have heard people say, "I could never believe in a God who is not loving!" I understand their sentiment, but if there is a real God out there, which I think we agree that God is out there, then he is what he is. We cannot define him in our own terms, but only on his terms.

I think what people fail to see is that there no definitive proof that God exists. Therefore all beliefs are human constructs and we are all free, if we do believe in God, to develop our own understanding of God. In other words we all define God on our own terms.

Everybody picks and chooses what they will believe about God. We all invent the God we want. You just have chosen to follow people who have a different understanding of God than I do.

You believe that God has revealed himself as it is written in the Bible. Well, I don't see it that way. The Bible is a book written by human beings who had a certain understanding of God. Other sacred writings from other cultures are their understandings of God.

You act as if coming to my own understanding of God is such a bad thing, when, as I have said, we all do that. I spent years at Fundamentalist Churches being told what to believe and how to think about these things. But it never worked for me. So I have found my spiritual path in other places. I have also discovered that there are many people, who call them selves Christians, who see things more how I see it.

The world has a wonderful diversity of spiritual beliefs and aren't we wonderfully made by our creator that we can think and contemplate all of this with such love and freedom?

[RayMan]

I've been to enough for the both of us; besides, one needn't to go to those meetings - just read these here boards for a spell, pardner!:)



You were at meetings of the Early Church Fathers? Cool. I was responding to your line quoted below. :D


The operative word there is think. The "Early Church Fathers" obviously thought differently

[barre53]

I think what people fail to see is that there no definitive proof that God exists. Therefore all beliefs are human constructs and we are all free, if we do believe in God, to develop our own understanding of God. In other words we all define God on our own terms.

Everybody picks and chooses what they will believe about God. We all invent the God we want. You just have chosen to follow people who have a different understanding of God than I do.

You believe that God has revealed himself as it is written in the Bible. Well, I don't see it that way. The Bible is a book written by human beings who had a certain understanding of God. Other sacred writings from other cultures are their understandings of God.

You act as if coming to my own understanding of God is such a bad thing, when, as I have said, we all do that. I spent years at Fundamentalist Churches being told what to believe and how to think about these things. But it never worked for me. So I have found my spiritual path in other places. I have also discovered that there are many people, who call them selves Christians, who see things more how I see it.

The world has a wonderful diversity of spiritual beliefs and aren't we wonderfully made by our creator that we can think and contemplate all of this with such love and freedom?

I actually do not think this is so wonderful. First, if there is no God, we waste our time looking for him. I would prefer to deal with reality. Many atheists on this forum would say "amen" to that!

Second, if there is a God, I want to know Him as he is. I don't want to sit around, pool our ignorance and then vote on who God is and what he is like.

Third, though I would agree that all religions contain some truth about the human condition and the human experience, not all religions or religious leaders stand on equal ground historically, morally, or philosophically.

Fourth, if God does exist and he cares, he revealed himself. He revealed himself, not in religions which differ over who he is, but in one religion which gets it right.

[Tim]

You were at meetings of the Early Church Fathers? Cool. I was responding to your line quoted below. :D

Mikko is much older than he looks.... must have great genes! :D

[RayMan]

Mikko is much older than he looks.... must have great genes! :D

It might be that Texas air he breathes. That'll keep a fellla going a long time.

[TaylorW65]

I actually do not think this is so wonderful. First, if there is no God, we waste our time looking for him. I would prefer to deal with reality. Many atheists on this forum would say "amen" to that!

If there is no God, why would it be a waste of time believing in him? The belief offers so much comfort and help to people in this life that I would think it would provide much meaning and purpose for people in this life.

And at our death if there is no God and moments before we fade to nonexistence would the belief in God had been a waste if it had lead us to a full and meaningful life?

Whether there is an after life or not isn't the most important thing. We can spend all of our days focusing on the after life to the point where we are not living in the moment and in the here and now as fully possible. How can any life that is fully lived in each moment be considered a waste?

Second, if there is a God, I want to know Him as he is. I don't want to sit around, pool our ignorance and then vote on who God is and what he is like.

Ah, now you're speaking my language! I too want to know God. But for me filling my head with the various theologies of all the various religions is an enjoyable pursuit. But it doesn't feed the soul.

So that is where I find comfort in the Christian Mystics like Thomas Merton, Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Ávila. These people were not so consumed by understanding God on an intellectual or theological level, but they were consumed by knowing and experiencing God within their soul. So they practiced slient contemplative prayer and meditation.

Like them, I am more interested in orthopraxis which is the proper usage of spiritual principles. I am not so conderned with orthodoxy or having the correct spiritual beliefs or theology. For the fintie mind cannot fully concieve or conceptualize God (which is why we all have our own beliefs which I feel never will have God figuered out) so instead I seek through prayer and meditation to come in contact with God and to experience his divine presense.

Third, though I would agree that all religions contain some truth about the human condition and the human experience, not all religions or religious leaders stand on equal ground historically, morally, or philosophically.

For me all religions do have that mystical tradition of contemplation and meditation to experience the divine. It is at this level of spiritual development where all religions have acommon language and that is the language of the mystic. It is the place where we sit in silence and experience the great divine mystery and experience who God is.

Our mind is too limited of a container to grasp all of what God is, but we can experiewnce his presense and his love.

Now maybe you can see why I find value in all faiths and that the God I believe in is too big to be defined by limited human langage. We often feel our beleifs and our concepts ARE GOD when they are merely our feeble attempts at understanding that which we expereince.

Fourth, if God does exist and he cares, he revealed himself. He revealed himself, not in religions which differ over who he is, but in one religion which gets it right.


I think all religions are man made and not one is all right and not one is all wrong.

Religion isn't about who's beliefs are more right than the others! That attitude is just our human ego!!! Our hman egos love to be right! Religion is the vehicle that takes us to God, it is the path by which we experience God. Our religion is not synonomous with God.

So instead I try to stay more in the realm of experiencing God and the practice of spiritual principles in my life.

[Semi-Sweet]

I actually do not think this is so wonderful. First, if there is no God, we waste our time looking for him. I would prefer to deal with reality. Many atheists on this forum would say "amen" to that!

Second, if there is a God, I want to know Him as he is. I don't want to sit around, pool our ignorance and then vote on who God is and what he is like.

Third, though I would agree that all religions contain some truth about the human condition and the human experience, not all religions or religious leaders stand on equal ground historically, morally, or philosophically.

Fourth, if God does exist and he cares, he revealed himself. He revealed himself, not in religions which differ over who he is, but in one religion which gets it right.

(bolded part) Where is this found in Scripture?

No religion is the way to God. It is the humble and contrite heart. . .which is the essence of religion. . .that is the way to God. As Christians we can believe that Christ is the way. . the only way. . .to God, and yet believe that Christ reaches beyond Christianity.

Whoever is saved. . .whether the saints of the OT (who were not Christians) or honest and good hearts among pagans. . .it will be only because of Christ, who died for every person. It is not any religion that saves us, but God's mercy.

[Mikko]

(bolded part) Where is this found in Scripture?

No religion is the way to God. It is the humble and contrite heart. . .which is the essence of religion. . .that is the way to God. As Christians we can believe that Christ is the way. . the only way. . .to God, and yet believe that Christ reaches beyond Christianity.

Whoever is saved. . .whether the saints of the OT (who were not Christians) or honest and good hearts among pagans. . .it will be only because of Christ, who died for every person. It is not any religion that saves us, but God's mercy.
I certainly like the tone of the above statement, which is actually a very nice credo.:)

[Semi-Sweet]

I certainly like the tone of the above statement, which is actually a very nice credo.:)

At least two of us like it . . . . :cool:

[RayMan]

At least two of us like it . . . . :cool:

Get more one and you can start a denomination...then you can have a disagreement over something else and split into two denominations.

Oh wait, that really happens. Sorry. :redface:

[Marleysdaddy]

Get more one and you can start a denomination...

I like it too...Mikko and Semi-Sweet, what shall we call our denomination? ;)


I found this sentence excellent
( It is the humble and contrite heart. . .which is the essence of religion. . .that is the way to God.

[RayMan]

I like it too...Mikko and Semi-Sweet, what shall we call our denomination? ;)

"The Three Amigos" is already copyrighted, so that's out.

[Marleysdaddy]

"The Three Amigos" is already copyrighted, so that's out.

What about "Trinitar...oh wait :D

[barre53]

If there is no God, why would it be a waste of time believing in him? The belief offers so much comfort and help to people in this life that I would think it would provide much meaning and purpose for people in this life.

And at our death if there is no God and moments before we fade to nonexistence would the belief in God had been a waste if it had lead us to a full and meaningful life?

Without God, any meaning we attach to life is self-induced. There is no greater validity to living a life of giving and sacrifice than there is a life of luxury and ease. To get comfort and help based on false pretenses (i.e. there is a God if there is, in fact none), wouldn't bring me any comfort.

Whether there is an after life or not isn't the most important thing. We can spend all of our days focusing on the after life to the point where we are not living in the moment and in the here and now as fully possible. How can any life that is fully lived in each moment be considered a waste?

I suppose that if the afterlife doesn't exist, then focusing on today would make a lot of sense. But if the after life does exist, it would seem to me to be very important to focus on it as we will spend hundreds of years in it vs. the paltry hundred that we might spend in this life. However, my Christian faith says that eternal life begins when I receive Jesus. His life is meant to affect how I live on this earth, which it has, as well as give me the assurance of eternal life.



Ah, now you're speaking my language! I too want to know God. But for me filling my head with the various theologies of all the various religions is an enjoyable pursuit. But it doesn't feed the soul.

So that is where I find comfort in the Christian Mystics like Thomas Merton, Meister Eckhart, St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Ávila. These people were not so consumed by understanding God on an intellectual or theological level, but they were consumed by knowing and experiencing God within their soul. So they practiced slient contemplative prayer and meditation.

Like them, I am more interested in orthopraxis which is the proper usage of spiritual principles. I am not so conderned with orthodoxy or having the correct spiritual beliefs or theology. For the fintie mind cannot fully concieve or conceptualize God (which is why we all have our own beliefs which I feel never will have God figuered out) so instead I seek through prayer and meditation to come in contact with God and to experience his divine presense.

John 17:3 says that "this is life eternal, that we know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Certainly knowing theology is not the same as knowing God. But if we are to know God, we need to know the God who is really there, not one we make up in our own minds.



For me all religions do have that mystical tradition of contemplation and meditation to experience the divine. It is at this level of spiritual development where all religions have acommon language and that is the language of the mystic. It is the place where we sit in silence and experience the great divine mystery and experience who God is.

Our mind is too limited of a container to grasp all of what God is, but we can experiewnce his presense and his love.

Now maybe you can see why I find value in all faiths and that the God I believe in is too big to be defined by limited human langage. We often feel our beleifs and our concepts ARE GOD when they are merely our feeble attempts at understanding that which we expereince.




I think all religions are man made and not one is all right and not one is all wrong.

Religion isn't about who's beliefs are more right than the others! That attitude is just our human ego!!! Our hman egos love to be right! Religion is the vehicle that takes us to God, it is the path by which we experience God. Our religion is not synonomous with God.

So instead I try to stay more in the realm of experiencing God and the practice of spiritual principles in my life.

Sounds good, but if I read you correctly, you are just guessing that you experience God through meditation. God has not told you that meditation is the common language through which all people come to know him. It makes you feel good, so you go with it.

I would also say that knowing God is not an ego trip nor a contest to see who is right. In my case, it is submission to the God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. If I had the freedom to invent my own God, he would be much different than the one in the Bible.

[TaylorW65]

Sounds good, but if I read you correctly, you are just guessing that you experience God through meditation. God has not told you that meditation is the common language through which all people come to know him. It makes you feel good, so you go with it.

I am not just guessing. There is a deep rich mystical tradition within Christianity.

http://christianmystics.com/

I would also say that knowing God is not an ego trip nor a contest to see who is right. In my case, it is submission to the God who has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. If I had the freedom to invent my own God, he would be much different than the one in the Bible.

We all do come to understand God in our own way.

[basilisk]

We all do come to understand God in our own way.While that's true, it's also true that we each come to understand mathematics, child psychology, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Batman in our own way.

If you believe God is real, and actually exists, not just in our own minds as some sort of psychosis or coping mechanism of sorts, then the reality about him is some specific reality. Our beliefs and mental capacity as human beings notwithstanding, facts are. God is.

I believe he is real and has thoughts, a way to show himself to man if he so chooses, and that he has the wisdom and capacity to do whatever it is in his interest to do. I do not believe that God is just an idea beyond our comprehension.

[Koushi Shinigami]

While that's true, it's also true that we each come to understand mathematics, child psychology, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Batman in our own way.

If you believe God is real, and actually exists, not just in our own minds as some sort of psychosis or coping mechanism of sorts, then the reality about him is some specific reality. Our beliefs and mental capacity as human beings notwithstanding, facts are. God is.

I believe he is real and has thoughts, a way to show himself to man if he so chooses, and that he has the wisdom and capacity to do whatever it is in his interest to do. I do not believe that God is just an idea beyond our comprehension.

None of your examples contradict what Taylor has said.

math: Scientific math or Philosophical mathematics?
Regan: doddering old fool or economics wizard and conqueror of communism?
Bill: Greatest president ever or 'depends on what the meaning of 'is' is'?
Batman: Dark Knight or campy TV character from the 60s.

[TaylorW65]

While that's true, it's also true that we each come to understand mathematics, child psychology, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Batman in our own way.

If you believe God is real, and actually exists, not just in our own minds as some sort of psychosis or coping mechanism of sorts, then the reality about him is some specific reality. Our beliefs and mental capacity as human beings notwithstanding, facts are. God is.

I believe he is real and has thoughts, a way to show himself to man if he so chooses, and that he has the wisdom and capacity to do whatever it is in his interest to do. I do not believe that God is just an idea beyond our comprehension.

The bigger point is, what do you believe God feels toward people who may not get their beliefs right?

I also don't believe God is just an idea beyond our comprehension I believe God is a being beyond our full comprehension but not beyond experiencing within the context of a relationship.

I don't think God has a requirement that we should believe certain things about him in order to have a relationship with Him.

[Reeder]

The bigger point is, what do you believe God feels toward people who may not get their beliefs right?

I also don't believe God is just an idea beyond our comprehension I believe God is a being beyond our full comprehension but not beyond experiencing within the context of a relationship.

I don't think God has a requirement that we should believe certain things about him in order to have a relationship with Him.

Its difficult to have a real relationship with someone if you perceive that person in the wrong way.


John 17: 3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[barre53]

The bigger point is, what do you believe God feels toward people who may not get their beliefs right?

I also don't believe God is just an idea beyond our comprehension I believe God is a being beyond our full comprehension but not beyond experiencing within the context of a relationship.

I don't think God has a requirement that we should believe certain things about him in order to have a relationship with Him.

I would answer the question by saying, "What has God said?" If you follow Christian mysticism, the God of the Bible is God Christian mystics seeks to know. And he said, "I am a jealous God." He didn't ask that every belief be right, but he wanted people to be truly connecting to him, not to some invention of their own mind.

[TaylorW65]

I would answer the question by saying, "What has God said?" If you follow Christian mysticism, the God of the Bible is God Christian mystics seeks to know. And he said, "I am a jealous God." He didn't ask that every belief be right, but he wanted people to be truly connecting to him, not to some invention of their own mind.

I was talking about jealousy in another thread. Jealousy is a very human emotion based on fear and insecurity and it describes God in a very human term using our limited language. I think human emotions are for beings who live and need to survive in this physical world but I believe God is transcendent or beyond human emotions. My mind cannot grasp what that would be like. That is why describing God with our limited language creates a limited God and a limited view of God. I think God is beyond being described by our human language. However, I believe God is Love and Love is much more than an emotion.

[Mikko]

Its difficult to have a real relationship with someone if you perceive that person in the wrong way.


John 17: 3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Of course, the person who wrote the above verse may have perceived God in the wrong way.;)

[Mikko]

I would answer the question by saying, "What has God said?" If you follow Christian mysticism, the God of the Bible is God Christian mystics seeks to know. And he said, "I am a jealous God." He didn't ask that every belief be right, but he wanted people to be truly connecting to him, not to some invention of their own mind.If a mystic is seeking to experience God according to a preconceived representation of God, then that person has already confined God to a human definition, and is, therefore, not a true mystic.:)

[TaylorW65]

Its difficult to have a real relationship with someone if you perceive that person in the wrong way.


John 17: 3

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

That may be true in relationships between two humans. But with a finite human being and an infinite God the two certainly are not going to be on equal levels of knowing one another. God knows us intimately more than we know ourselves but we cannot know God as fully as he knows us. Our minds cannot comprehend all of what God is. If we try we end up creating a very human like God full of our human faults and weaknesses.

[barre53]

I was talking about jealousy in another thread. Jealousy is a very human emotion based on fear and insecurity and it describes God in a very human term using our limited language. I think human emotions are for beings who live and need to survive in this physical world but I believe God is transcendent or beyond human emotions. My mind cannot grasp what that would be like. That is why describing God with our limited language creates a limited God and a limited view of God. I think God is beyond being described by our human language. However, I believe God is Love and Love is much more than an emotion.

I would have to disagree with your assessment of jealousy. If a woman commits adultery, jealousy is not a response of fear or insecurity, it is the natural expression of love gone bad. When the God who made us for himself finds us worshipping someone else, then this God, who is love, sees our love go bad. And he is jealous. To say that God cannot have emotion also limits God, I would say that God cannot have sinful emotions, but per the example above, when we follow after gods of wood, stone, or our own imaginations, then jealousy is the proper response.

[barre53]

If a mystic is seeking to experience God according to a preconceived representation of God, then that person has already confined God to a human definition, and is, therefore, not a true mystic.:)

If a mystic is seeking a personal relationship with God based not on preconception, but rather on revelation, then he has not confined God, but rather has built a foundation on which further contemplation of God can develop.

[TaylorW65]

I would have to disagree with your assessment of jealousy. If a woman commits adultery, jealousy is not a response of fear or insecurity, it is the natural expression of love gone bad. When the God who made us for himself finds us worshipping someone else, then this God, who is love, sees our love go bad. And he is jealous. To say that God cannot have emotion also limits God, I would say that God cannot have sinful emotions, but per the example above, when we follow after gods of wood, stone, or our own imaginations, then jealousy is the proper response.

I have to disagree as a therapist psychology has shown there are two basic primary emotions Contentment and Fear. All other emotions flow from these two basic emotions.

You cannot feel jealous if you are not threatened in some way and fear losing something with which we have formed an emotional attachment. Jealousy has at its roots a fear of loosing something with which we are attached. A God who gets jealous or afraid is a very human anthropomorphic projection of God.

We all come to understand God in our own ways. I do not believe God requires correct concepts in our imaginations or minds in order to enter into a relationship all he requires is a contrite and surrendered will and heart.

[TaylorW65]

If a mystic is seeking a personal relationship with God based not on preconception, but rather on revelation, then he has not confined God, but rather has built a foundation on which further contemplation of God can develop.

A Mystic seeks unity and joining with the Divine; to be wrapped in the experience of Divine Love, therefore it seeks a joining through experience and beyond intellectual definitions of God. For the Mystic a God defined is not God at all.

[Reeder]

That may be true in relationships between two humans. But with a finite human being and an infinite God the two certainly are not going to be on equal levels of knowing one another. God knows us intimately more than we know ourselves but we cannot know God as fully as he knows us. Our minds cannot comprehend all of what God is. If we try we end up creating a very human like God full of our human faults and weaknesses.

There is a difference between understanding "all of what God is," and coming to "know God."

[TaylorW65]

There is a difference between understanding "all of what God is," and coming to "know God."

I don't believe to "know God" is synonymous with being a religious exclusionist. There are many things concerning God which transcends all faith and religious definitions.

[Mikko]

If a mystic is seeking a personal relationship with God based not on preconception, but rather on revelation, then he has not confined God, but rather has built a foundation on which further contemplation of God can develop.
Based on whose revelation? If a "mystic" is seeking a personal relationship with God based on a description of God by another human's "revelation," i.e., a scriptural description, then that "mystic" is using that "revelation" as a preconception. If a mystic is truly, sincerely, seeking God, he or she is probably in for some real surprises when he or she finally has a genuine "revelation" of his or her own.:)

[Mikko]

I don't believe to "know God" is synonymous with being a religious exclusionist. There are many things concerning God which transcends all faith and religious definitions.
Almost all things concerning God transcend all faith and religious definitions.:)

[Mikko]

A Mystic seeks unity and joining with the Divine; to be wrapped in the experience of Divine Love, therefore it seeks a joining through experience and beyond intellectual definitions of God. For the Mystic a God defined is not God at all.
:clap: +1. Certainly for the true mystic.:)

[Reeder]

There are many things concerning God which transcends all faith and religious definitions.

I agree. But I also believe that truth stands on its own, and if religions and denominations contradict each other, one of them or all of them must be wrong, wouldn't you agree?

[RayMan]

I agree. But I also believe that truth stands on its own, and if religions and denominations contradict each other, one of them or all of them must be wrong, wouldn't you agree?


Spoilsport. :whistle:

[Reeder]

Spoilsport. :whistle:

Ray, what is your new avy?

[RayMan]

Ray, what is your new avy?

google "psychedelic image" and voila!

Decided to go retro with avie and sig.

[Reeder]

google "psychedelic image" and voila!

Decided to go retro with avie and sig.

Retro fits you well. :shifty:

[TaylorW65]

I agree. But I also believe that truth stands on its own, and if religions and denominations contradict each other, one of them or all of them must be wrong, wouldn't you agree?

I do believe that some religions have gotten some things wrongs but we won't know until we get to the other side who is wrong about what! So until then all faiths have value and all opinions are welcome.

I think your statement runs on the paradigm which asserts God requires correct belief about him in order to enter into a relationship with him.

I think the "whose God is right" who believes "the Truth" or who has "the right" religion is a very human ego based belief system.

[Koushi Shinigami]

I think the "whose God is right" who believes "the Truth" or who has "the right" religion is a very human ego based belief system.

Makes one wonder, how much of ones religous belief system is self-centered... :think:

[Marleysdaddy]

I agree. But I also believe that truth stands on its own, and if religions and denominations contradict each other, one of them or all of them must be wrong, wouldn't you agree?

Not necessarily...one religion or denomination may be "right", but it's members can't know that...at least not yet ;)

[TaylorW65]

Makes one wonder, how much of ones religous belief system is self-centered... :think:

Since we all view religion through our own thoughts, experiences and our minds I think all of it is self-centered. That is why we can be so touchy about our spiritual beliefs because we become identified by them and they reflect who we are.

That doesn't mean that we have to act self-centered about our beliefs.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Since we all view religion through our own thoughts, experiences and our minds I think all of it is self-centered. That is why we can be so touchy about our spiritual beliefs because we become identified by them and they reflect who we are.

That doesn't mean that we have to act self-centered about our beliefs.

:cool:

[Mikko]

Makes one wonder, how much of ones religous belief system is self-centered... :think:
One thing's for sure, they are all, to one degree or another, human-centered.:)

[Koushi Shinigami]

One thing's for sure, they are all, to one degree or another, human-centered.:)

Of course. That's the very nature of religous beliefs. "I believe so that I will receive the reward. And if there's something that I don't believe, it's because it doesn't make sense to me." It's not "I believe so my fellow man will be rewarded."

[Mikko]

Of course. That's the very nature of religous beliefs. "I believe so that I will receive the reward. And if there's something that I don't believe, it's because it doesn't make sense to me." It's not "I believe so my fellow man will be rewarded."
Well, I must respectfully point out that I have know several religious people who were amazingly selfless. When I said "human-centered," I meant that religion is a human artifact. It is a way of answering the overarching existential questions attending the human condition. The "reward" question is part of it, but it's not the only issue involved.:)

[Reeder]

I do believe that some religions have gotten some things wrongs but we won't know until we get to the other side who is wrong about what!

I assume, then, that you don't believe in revelation?


<snip>.....all faiths have value and all opinions are welcome.

I completely agree.


I think your statement runs on the paradigm which asserts God requires correct belief about him in order to enter into a relationship with him.

If you have incorrect information about someone, how can you possibly enter into an "ideal" relationship with him/her? If you think someone is a liar, or a murderer, or I'll go so far as to say you believe the person is a woman when, in fact, "he" is a man.......how can such a relationship be established if such things are not true?


I think the "whose God is right" who believes "the Truth" or who has "the right" religion is a very human ego based belief system.

Fact is fact. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with human ego. If God truly exists, then those who say otherwise are wrong. Its not a matter of pride. Its simply the truth. If Jesus is the Christ, then the Jews are wrong. If He isn't, then the Christians are wrong. There are not "versions" of the truth. It is what it is.

[Reeder]

Not necessarily...one religion or denomination may be "right", but it's members can't know that...at least not yet ;)

I disagree. I believe in revelation - both personal as well as revelation received by Prophets to direct mankind. I believe people CAN know that something is true or not.

[Koushi Shinigami]

Well, I must respectfully point out that I have know several religious people who were amazingly selfless. When I said "human-centered," I meant that religion is a human artifact. It is a way of answering the overarching existential questions attending the human condition. The "reward" question is part of it, but it's not the only issue involved.:)


I know...... Blanket statement. :whistle:

[Marleysdaddy]

I disagree. I believe in revelation - both personal as well as revelation received by Prophets to direct mankind. I believe people CAN know that something is true or not.

Has your deity revealed to you that Mormonism is the/one of the "right" religion/s?

[basilisk]

The bigger point is, what do you believe God feels toward people who may not get their beliefs right?

I also don't believe God is just an idea beyond our comprehension I believe God is a being beyond our full comprehension but not beyond experiencing within the context of a relationship.

I don't think God has a requirement that we should believe certain things about him in order to have a relationship with Him.
I would certainly say that the more accurate your understanding of God, the better your relationship with him ought to be.

[Marleysdaddy]

I would certainly say that the more accurate your understanding of God, the better your relationship with him ought to be.

Perhaps...but none of us have any idea how accurate or inaccurate our understanding of a supernatural deity actually is.

[Mikko]

I disagree. I believe in revelation - both personal as well as revelation received by Prophets to direct mankind. I believe people CAN know that something is true or not.
Mankind doesn't need to receive revelation through prophets, fallible human beings. God can speak directly to every single human being alive.

[Mikko]

I assume, then, that you don't believe in revelation?



I completely agree.



If you have incorrect information about someone, how can you possibly enter into an "ideal" relationship with him/her? If you think someone is a liar, or a murderer, or I'll go so far as to say you believe the person is a woman when, in fact, "he" is a man.......how can such a relationship be established if such things are not true?



Fact is fact. Truth is truth. It has nothing to do with human ego. If God truly exists, then those who say otherwise are wrong. Its not a matter of pride. Its simply the truth. If Jesus is the Christ, then the Jews are wrong. If He isn't, then the Christians are wrong. There are not "versions" of the truth. It is what it is.
There may not be "versions" of the truth, but there are certainly perceptions of it, and they vary. Most religions maintain that their perception of the truth is the only totally accurate perception of it. Really?:think:

[Reeder]

Has your deity revealed to you that Mormonism is the/one of the "right" religion/s?

Yes. I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's Church. Jesus Christ stands at the head of the Church.

BTW, I'm not trying to sound arrogant or unaccepting. I believe that many of the world's religions have some truth, and that there are God-fearing, selfless people involved in many of these organizations. However, like I said, there are not "versions" of the truth, and I believe the LDS Church contains the fulness of the truth (or all the truth that God has revealed thus far).

[Reeder]

There may not be "versions" of the truth, but there are certainly perceptions of it, and they vary. Most religions maintain that their perception of the truth is the only totally accurate perception of it. Really?:think:

If there is only one truth then isn't it logical to think that there is only one true religion? (or none, for that matter)

My whole point is that if religions contradict each other, then some (if not all) of those religions must inevitably be incorrect.

[TaylorW65]

If there is only one truth then isn't it logical to think that there is only one true religion? (or none, for that matter)

My whole point is that if religions contradict each other, then some (if not all) of those religions must inevitably be incorrect.


If you're right...and there really is only one true religion, then while we are on Earth who gets to judge who is right and who is wrong?

[Reeder]

If you're right...and there really is only one true religion, then while we are on Earth who gets to judge who is right and who is wrong?

I'm not sure "judging" is the right way to put it. As I said in an earlier post, I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to seek out the truth. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is to lead us to the truth, and to testify of the truth.

[RayMan]

If you're right...and there really is only one true religion, then while we are on Earth who gets to judge who is right and who is wrong?


Everybody.

[TaylorW65]

I'm not sure "judging" is the right way to put it. As I said in an earlier post, I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to seek out the truth. The purpose of the Holy Ghost is to lead us to the truth, and to testify of the truth.

Then why is everyone coming up with different truths?

[baptistgal]

Then why is everyone coming up with different truths?


different people=different opinions=different truths

[TaylorW65]

different people=different opinions=different truths

I completely agree. But if Reeder thinks the Holy Spirit is guiding every one to truth you would think we would all arrive at the same conclusions. But since we don't it speaks volumes to me how subjective religious truth really is.

[Reeder]

Then why is everyone coming up with different truths?

Truth can't contradict itself. If what they're coming up with contradicts the truth, then it 'aint truth, is it?

[Reeder]

I completely agree. But if Reeder thinks the Holy Spirit is guiding every one to truth you would think we would all arrive at the same conclusions.

Are you of the opinion, then, that the Holy Ghost leads people away from truth? :think:


But since we don't it speaks volumes to me how subjective religious truth really is.

Truth is not subjective.

[TaylorW65]

Truth can't contradict itself. If what they're coming up with contradicts the truth, then it 'aint truth, is it?

No we're going in circles. Sure, truth cannot contradict itself, but with a subjective issue such as Religion, which is based on personal belief. who gets to decide who is right or wrong?

What you may deem a religious truth may not be true for someone else. Maybe you're the one who is right, maybe you're not, so who gets to decide?

[TaylorW65]

Are you of the opinion, then, that the Holy Ghost leads people away from truth? :think:



Truth is not subjective.

I think truth is universal and not religious specific. In other words, I don't believe the Holy Spirit guides us to formalizing doctrine and dogma.

[Reeder]

No we're going in circles. Sure, truth cannot contradict itself, but with a subjective issue such as Religion, which is based on personal belief. who gets to decide who is right or wrong?

What you may deem a religious truth may not be true for someone else. Maybe you're the one who is right, maybe you're not, so who gets to decide?

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. It is irrelevant what any of us "believe" is the truth. The truth stands on its own. There is only one truth - would you agree with this or not?

If God exists, then He exists and those who believe otherwise are wrong - and vice-versa.

If 1 orange + 1 orange = 2 oranges, then those who thought it was anything other than 2 are wrong.

We cannot decide the truth. The truth stands on its own.

[Reeder]

I think truth is universal and not religious specific. In other words, I don't believe the Holy Spirit guides us to formalizing doctrine and dogma.

Is Jesus the Christ, or not?

[basilisk]

Perhaps...but none of us have any idea how accurate or inaccurate our understanding of a supernatural deity actually is.
Inasmuch as there is a difference between knowledge and belief, we may not know how accurate our beliefs are, but we ought to know how accurate our knowledge is. Knowledge, correctly defined, is completely dependent on the truthfulness of something. In other words, lots of people "know" things that aren't true, but they really are confusing belief with knowledge. Actual knowledge can provide absolute certainty regarding the actual, real, certain characteristics of a supernatural deity.

To claim that such knowledge is unavailable to mankind is to claim that an all-powerful God is incapable of revealing himself to man. I don't believe that about God. I believe he is real, exists, has definite, definable characteristics, and is perfectly capable of revealing himself to whomsoever he chooses.

[TaylorW65]

Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. It is irrelevant what any of us "believe" is the truth. The truth stands on its own. There is only one truth - would you agree with this or not?

Sure Truth exists. 1 orange + 1 orange = 2 oranges. I need food, air and water to survive. I will some day die. Those are some example of truth.

If God exists, then He exists and those who believe otherwise are wrong - and vice-versa.

You said the big word IF. IF God exists. So that leaves room for doubt. God may exist, then again he may not. So, what anyone believes about the existence of God is subjective and not based on observable data. So can it be called Truth then? Sure, only if you believe it. But it may not make it true.

You can die and cease to exist, then again you may not. That truth we cannot objectively know until each one of us dies.


If 1 orange + 1 orange = 2 oranges, then those who thought it was anything other than 2 are wrong.


We cannot decide the truth. The truth stands on its own.

Yes, we cannot decide the truth. I may believe that I can survive without food but that will not change the truth that I can't live without food.

When you get into the area of religion. I don't think you're talking about Truth as we have been defining it. Because our religions are based on faith.

[basilisk]

Sure Truth exists. 1 orange + 1 orange = 2 oranges. I need food, air and water to survive. I will some day die. Those are some example of truth.



You said the big word IF. IF God exists. So that leaves room for doubt. God may exist, then again he may not. So, what anyone believes about the existence of God is subjective and not based on observable data. So can it be called Truth then? Sure, only if you believe it. But it may not make it true.

You can die and cease to exist, then again you may not. That truth we cannot objectively know until each one of us dies.





Yes, we cannot decide the truth. I may believe that I can survive without food but that will not change the truth that I can't live without food.

When you get into the area of religion. I don't think you're talking about Truth as we have been defining it. Because our religions are based on faith.
Our worship, not our religion, is based on faith. Our religion is based on facts, namely the revelations God has chosen to give to mankind. God showed himself to men in modern times as he did to men in ancient times. Such truth fits our definition because it really happened, regardless of what anyone believes. Of course, I wasn't there. I can't prove it to you. I believe it. However, the mere fact that I can't prove it, and must rely on my faith for worship, has no bearing on the actuality of the events having occurred.

It also is separate from the actual knowledge I possess, regarding the revelations God has given me, which are for me and not for the world at large. Suffice it to say that I have actual knowledge of certain things, but God has not granted me authority to share them with the world as authoritative because all things must be done in order. God is a god of order and not of confusion. I know for certain that God has given power to men to act in his name, to perform miracles, to teach his gospel, and to do his work.

[TaylorW65]

Our worship, not our religion, is based on faith. Our religion is based on facts, namely the revelations God has chosen to give to mankind. God showed himself to men in modern times as he did to men in ancient times. Such truth fits our definition because it really happened, regardless of what anyone believes. Of course, I wasn't there. I can't prove it to you. I believe it. However, the mere fact that I can't prove it, and must rely on my faith for worship, has no bearing on the actuality of the events having occurred.
Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Just because I don't believe it, it doesn't make it false either. So that leaves a multitude of options open on what we all may choose to believe.

I have beliefs that I cannot prove either. So here we stand toe to toe both of us claiming to believe things we cannot prove. So are we really that different?

So, If I believe that God is found in all faiths and not one religion demonstrates the ultimate truth. I cannot prove that my belief is true anymore than you can prove that I am wrong.

It also is separate from the actual knowledge I possess, regarding the revelations God has given me, which are for me and not for the world at large. Suffice it to say that I have actual knowledge of certain things, but God has not granted me authority to share them with the world as authoritative because all things must be done in order. God is a god of order and not of confusion. I know for certain that God has given power to men to act in his name, to perform miracles, to teach his gospel, and to do his work.

When people start sharing that they have been given actual knowledge that others do not have a large warning sign goes off for me. I will just leave it at that.

[rmpw8]

For me gay marriage has to be the prime example. We have a large outpouring of religious folks telling us all kinds of horrible things will happen if we allow homosexuals the right to call themselves married. Many people I have met have no problems allowing these couples the same rights as married couples have but just not allowing them to be called "married". The reason I use this example is because we have a whole heck of a lot of data from other countries around the world who have legalized gay marriage and we have yet to find a secular reason to ban it. We know the worst thing for the kids is not being raised by 2 men, but being picked on by "normal" kids for being raised by 2 dads. Recently studies have actually shown that in countries that are more accepting of homosexuality show lower rates of depression and suicide among gay people. So from a secular standpoint there is no reason to ban the "marriage" of 2 people of the same faith.
....
Now I have no problems with people believing whatever they feel they need to. While I consider it pretty sad, I also have no problems with you teaching your kids the earth is 6000 years old or that Jews need the blood of a Christian child to make matza. I do however have a problem with you trying to make me follow this same version of morality when your brand of religious faith has no more evidence towards it divinity than any other.

Well, with regard to marriage, marriage was and is a religious thing; that our government chooses to incentivize marriage (tax benefits) is no fault of religion. I think the issue here (and in many cases with regard to battles of separation of church and state) is that the government has imposed legislation (be it positive or negative) on something religious. As much as secularists hanker for "separation of church and state," the government gets itself involved in all kinds of religious matters (making Christmas a Federal holiday, for example), which opens up all kinds of cans of worms (i.e. debate about "gay marriage"). Let's face it, if there were no government incentives for marriage, how many homosexuals would want to get married (especially with our nation's divorce rate!)? Not many.

Now, to answer your question about what makes my religion valid compared to others, I think Stephen Colbert says it best: *Disclaimer: these comments are made in a satirical context.*
"There is a single idea common to most religions: inherent in my belief is your wrongness" ... "I know Roman Catholicism is the one true faith because Roman Catholicism tells me it's the one true faith and if you remember from the beginning of this sentence, Roman Catholicism is the one true faith, so how can it be mistaken?"

[barre53]

I have to disagree as a therapist psychology has shown there are two basic primary emotions Contentment and Fear. All other emotions flow from these two basic emotions.

You cannot feel jealous if you are not threatened in some way and fear losing something with which we have formed an emotional attachment. Jealousy has at its roots a fear of loosing something with which we are attached. A God who gets jealous or afraid is a very human anthropomorphic projection of God.

We all come to understand God in our own ways. I do not believe God requires correct concepts in our imaginations or minds in order to enter into a relationship all he requires is a contrite and surrendered will and heart.

So where do you get this insight? Did God show you that he is not concerned about how we view him? Is your imagination correct? How can you be sure that it is god you are understanding and not just an imaginary friend?

[Reeder]

You said the big word IF. IF God exists. So that leaves room for doubt.

It was a hypothetical proposition. I know that God exists.


God may exist, then again he may not.

He exists, and each of us can know it for a fact.


So, what anyone believes about the existence of God is subjective and not based on observable data.

Truth is not subjective.


So can it be called Truth then?

Yes


Sure, only if you believe it. But it may not make it true.

You can "KNOW" it - beyond belief.


You can die and cease to exist, then again you may not. That truth we cannot objectively know until each one of us dies.


I disagree. Revelation allows us to know things we otherwise could not know.


Yes, we cannot decide the truth. I may believe that I can survive without food but that will not change the truth that I can't live without food.

Exactly, and we can't decide whether or not God exists. He exists, and that fact cannot be changed by anyone's lack of belief.


When you get into the area of religion. I don't think you're talking about Truth as we have been defining it. Because our religions are based on faith.


So now "truth" does not stand on its own? God can both exist and not exist simultaneously? Jesus is the Christ and not the Christ simultaneously? I can't emphasize this enough - TRUTH STANDS ON ITS OWN, REGARDLESS OF OUR BELIEFS.

[TaylorW65]

It was a hypothetical proposition. I know that God exists.



He exists, and each of us can know it for a fact.



Truth is not subjective.



Yes



You can "KNOW" it - beyond belief.




I disagree. Revelation allows us to know things we otherwise could not know.



Exactly, and we can't decide whether or not God exists. He exists, and that fact cannot be changed by anyone's lack of belief.




So now "truth" does not stand on its own? God can both exist and not exist simultaneously? Jesus is the Christ and not the Christ simultaneously? I can't emphasize this enough - TRUTH STANDS ON ITS OWN, REGARDLESS OF OUR BELIEFS.


If God exists..prove it.

[Reeder]

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true. Just because I don't believe it, it doesn't make it false either. So that leaves a multitude of options open on what we all may choose to believe.

I have beliefs that I cannot prove either. So here we stand toe to toe both of us claiming to believe things we cannot prove. So are we really that different?

So, If I believe that God is found in all faiths and not one religion demonstrates the ultimate truth. I cannot prove that my belief is true anymore than you can prove that I am wrong.


The question was not "is God found in all faiths," but rather "how is one religion more valid than the others." I'm not sure I like how the latter was worded, but like I said, there are not "versions" of the truth.

God knows the truth, and He can reveal it to each of us:

James 1: 5

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.



When people start sharing that they have been given actual knowledge that others do not have a large warning sign goes off for me. I will just leave it at that.

All the Holy Prophets throughout history, and even Jesus Christ, Himself all fall into that category............:think:

[TaylorW65]

So where do you get this insight? Did God show you that he is not concerned about how we view him? Is your imagination correct? How can you be sure that it is god you are understanding and not just an imaginary friend?

Well, many of the things I have believed in I have read from liberal theologians and Biblical scholars much more learned than I.

If I am getting these things from an imaginary friend that would be the symptom of some type of mental illness.

[Reeder]

If God exists..prove it.

"Assuming that I have never tasted salt, explain to me just what it tastes like.

My friend, spiritually speaking, I have tasted salt. I am no more able to convey to you in words how this knowledge has come than you are to tell me what salt tastes like."

-Boyd K. Packer

[TaylorW65]

The question was not "is God found in all faiths," but rather "how is one religion more valid than the others." I'm not sure I like how the latter was worded, but like I said, there are not "versions" of the truth.


Then my answer is I don't think one religion is more valid than others because God is found in all faiths.

I don't think Truth is synonymous with doctrine and correct beliefs.


God knows the truth, and He can reveal it to each of us:

James 1: 5

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Yes, God has given me wisdom, he never said he would give me correct doctrinal beliefs.

I don't think that correct theological beliefs are a requirement to enter into a relationship with him.


All the Holy Prophets throughout history, and even Jesus Christ, Himself all fall into that category............:think:

I get leery about self proclaimed prophets.

[TaylorW65]

"Assuming that I have never tasted salt, explain to me just what it tastes like.

My friend, spiritually speaking, I have tasted salt. I am no more able to convey to you in words how this knowledge has come than you are to tell me what salt tastes like."

-Boyd K. Packer

Weak analogy. I know salt exists, I can see it with my eyes and touch it with my fingers, smell it with my nose, and taste it with my tongue.

How can you prove that God exists and he is not just a concept?

The greatest philosophical minds throughout history have never been able to prove it.

[noelle12]

Weak analogy. I know salt exists, I can see it with my eyes and touch it with my fingers, smell it with my nose, and taste it with my tongue.

How can you prove that God exists and he is not just a concept?

The greatest philosophical minds throughout history have never been able to prove it.

The analogy given was not the existence of salt compared to the existence of God. The analogy was comparing how do you describe the taste of salt compared to how do you describe how you know that God exists.

[TaylorW65]

The analogy given was not the existence of salt compared to the existence of God. The analogy was comparing how do you describe the taste of salt compared to how do you describe how you know that God exists.

I realize that. It seemed like he was basically contradicting what he said earlier that he knows God exists, but then this taste of salt analogy seems to say that you cannot describe how salt tastes and neither can you describe how you know God exists.

To me that puts you right back where we started: Even though a person may be convinced beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt that God exists they cannot prove it.

I think people often confuse conviction of belief with evidence that what they believe is true and real.

Well, atheists are the same way. I have seen and talked to atheists who are absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that God DOES NOT exist.

So the two camps, the believers and the non-believers, have identical thinking styles, they just reach different conclusions.

So therefore, since no-one can prove that the convictions of their heart are true, things gets even more difficult to prove when people start getting very specific about the nature, the desires and the theology and dogma of this unprovable deity in which they believe.

But this type of thinking and arguing and being convinced they're right happens among believers also.

I am a believer, but I cannot prove my beliefs anymore than any other believer. So believers fight over correct interpretation of scripture thinking the way they understand things is the way God has revealed things to be. Yet both sides cannot prove that what they believe to be true is objectively true.

So, until we get to the other side I believe all religions are valid because we will not know objectively until then.

[Mikko]

So the two camps, the believers and the non-believers, have identical thinking styles, they just reach different conclusions.

It has been my observation that, often, the thinking style remains intact even among those who change camps.

[TaylorW65]

It has been my observation that, often, the thinking style remains intact even among those who change camps.

Exactly, a rigid and close minded thinking style can be found in all types of fundamentalism. I used to think it was religious conservatives who engaged in fundamentalist type of thinking (being rigid and unbending) but I have found that religious liberals can be just as rigid.

Makes me wonder how can you avoid rigid thinking when you believe something with such conviction? :think::think:

[Mikko]

Exactly, a rigid and close minded thinking style can be found in all types of fundamentalism. I used to think it was religious conservatives who engaged in fundamentalist type of thinking (being rigid and unbending) but I have found that religious liberals can be just as rigid.

Makes me wonder how can you avoid rigid thinking when you believe something with such conviction? :think::think:
By being secure enough in your beliefs to be open to their being amended if the data rendered by experience so dictates.
It has also been my observation that people who are truly secure in their beliefs are far less rigid that those who aren't. They are much more concerned with knowing the truth than with proving that what they believe is true.

[RayMan]

Exactly, a rigid and close minded thinking style can be found in all types of fundamentalism. I used to think it was religious conservatives who engaged in fundamentalist type of thinking (being rigid and unbending) but I have found that religious liberals can be just as rigid.

Makes me wonder how can you avoid rigid thinking when you believe something with such conviction? :think::think:

It helps to keep in mind that regardless how strongly you believe something is one way, you could be wrong. Also refusing to take yourself too seriously helps.

[TaylorW65]

By being secure enough in your beliefs to be open to their being amended if the data rendered by experience so dictates.
It has also been my observation that people who are truly secure in their beliefs are far less rigid that those who aren't. They are much more concerned with knowing the truth than with proving that what they believe is true.

Very good points. I have been toying around with starting athread about Fowlers stages of faith which follows a developmental model. A lower stage of faith tends to be rigid and literal, while more developed faith in later stages becomes personal, open and contemplative.

I may start that thread.

[Reeder]

I realize that. It seemed like he was basically contradicting what he said earlier that he knows God exists, but then this taste of salt analogy seems to say that you cannot describe how salt tastes and neither can you describe how you know God exists.

How is that a contradiction? I know that God exists, yet I cannot prove it to YOU. Those statements do not contradict, and I have stated multiple times now that I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to discover the truth for themselves, which only supports my salt analogy.

"Weak analogy you say," thats because you obviously didn't understand it. Noelle hit it spot on. The entire point of the analogy was to show that just because you haven't tasted salt doesn't mean I haven't. I may not be able to accurately describe it to you in a way that you can understand, but that does not negate the fact that I have, indeed, tasted salt (as I also know that God exists).


To me that puts you right back where we started: Even though a person may be convinced beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt that God exists they cannot prove it.

So what? Should someone (besides God) have to prove to you that He exists?


I think people often confuse conviction of belief with evidence that what they believe is true and real.

I have received evidence that God exists. If you have not yet received evidence, how does that negate the fact that I have?


Well, atheists are the same way. I have seen and talked to atheists who are absolutely convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that God DOES NOT exist.

And I'm not going to sit here and try to convince them that they are wrong. But I will ask you if you believe that the Holy Ghost is real? If the answer is "yes," then do you believe He sends out mixed or contradicting messages? Will He tell someone that God exists, and someone else that He does not?


So the two camps, the believers and the non-believers, have identical thinking styles, they just reach different conclusions.

Ayup. Again (I'm sounding like a broken record), it is the responsibility of each individual to find the truth for themself.


So therefore, since no-one can prove that the convictions of their heart are true, things gets even more difficult to prove when people start getting very specific about the nature, the desires and the theology and dogma of this unprovable deity in which they believe.

Surely you're not suggesting that because someone else doesn't believe in God, or in His nature, that I (or anyone else) should cater to that person and "change" what they know to be true? Should Jesus had listened to those who tried to tell Him that He wasn't the Christ? Over and over people tried to break Him by saying "IF thou be the Christ........" That word "IF" was a challenge. Should He have just dropped everything He was doing and said "You're right, I can't do it, I must not be the Christ?" No. Just because others don't believe it, doesn't change the truth of it.


But this type of thinking and arguing and being convinced they're right happens among believers also.

Yes it does. The "doctrines of men" have been mixed into the picture. Which is why it is so important to "ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally."


I am a believer, but I cannot prove my beliefs anymore than any other believer. So believers fight over correct interpretation of scripture thinking the way they understand things is the way God has revealed things to be. Yet both sides cannot prove that what they believe to be true is objectively true.

Which is why, IMHO, it is so important that God continue to send us Prophets and Apostles to lead and guide us.


So, until we get to the other side I believe all religions are valid because we will not know objectively until then.

If by "valid" you mean that they contain all the truth that God has revealed thus far, I would disagree. But I do agree that God (and some of His truths) can be found in many religions.

[basilisk]

If God exists..prove it.
Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith is essential for worship. If I were to prove to you the existence of God, you would not then worship him, so I would be doing you a grave disservice.

If alarm bells go off in your head whenever someone talks about personal knowledge of God, maybe that's all the proof you need...that you don't really want proof, because if you had it, you'd be worried about setting off other people's alarms left and right. As much as you might think my claim to knowledge about certain divine things is unique to me, it isn't. It's quite common. My own experience is unique to me, but the knowledge gained by that experience isn't. It's consistent with what others have also stated via their own unique experiences. Just ask Alaric or Reeder. They haven't had my experience, but their experience has revealed to them the same truths.

People only believe as much as they want to believe. Your supposed lack of evidence is not the problem. You have evidence in great abundance. You just don't want to believe because you're worried about how you'll be perceived, because you think others will perceive you the way you perceive others. Ergo, you don't want knowledge. You just want to be perceived as a knowledge seeker.

[TaylorW65]

How is that a contradiction? I know that God exists, yet I cannot prove it to YOU. Those statements do not contradict, and I have stated multiple times now that I believe it is the responsibility of each individual to discover the truth for themselves, which only supports my salt analogy.

Just because you are convinced of your beliefs it doesn't make them true.

"Weak analogy you say," thats because you obviously didn't understand it. Noelle hit it spot on. The entire point of the analogy was to show that just because you haven't tasted salt doesn't mean I haven't. I may not be able to accurately describe it to you in a way that you can understand, but that does not negate the fact that I have, indeed, tasted salt (as I also know that God exists).

You believe God exists with great conviction, but that doesn't equal proof. Atheists also "know" God doesn't exist. Believers and non-believers share something in common. They both think they know.

So what? Should someone (besides God) have to prove to you that He exists?

No..because they can't prove to me that God exists. no one can.

I have received evidence that God exists. If you have not yet received evidence, how does that negate the fact that I have?

All our beliefs point to the fact that we believe in something that cannot be seen nor proven. Therefore the evidence you feel you have about the existence of God might not be evidence for someone.

And I'm not going to sit here and try to convince them that they are wrong. But I will ask you if you believe that the Holy Ghost is real? If the answer is "yes," then do you believe He sends out mixed or contradicting messages? Will He tell someone that God exists, and someone else that He does not?

The bigger question is, if the Holy Spirit does exist, then why do all believers come up with so many different beliefs about who God is? Why are their so many different religions in the world?

My answer to that question is this. Truth is not defined as having correct doctrines. All doctrines are man made speculations.

I am as convinced of that belief as you are of yours.

Ayup. Again (I'm sounding like a broken record), it is the responsibility of each individual to find the truth for themself.

How do you handle people who arrive at different truths than you do? Do you think they're wrong?


Surely you're not suggesting that because someone else doesn't believe in God, or in His nature, that I (or anyone else) should cater to that person and "change" what they know to be true? Should Jesus had listened to those who tried to tell Him that He wasn't the Christ? Over and over people tried to break Him by saying "IF thou be the Christ........" That word "IF" was a challenge. Should He have just dropped everything He was doing and said "You're right, I can't do it, I must not be the Christ?" No. Just because others don't believe it, doesn't change the truth of it.

Just because others may not share your views doesn't mean you, not I, should change them.

I think you should stand on what you believe, just as much as I stand on what i believe.

Yes it does. The "doctrines of men" have been mixed into the picture. Which is why it is so important to "ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally."

What you believe to be the "doctrines of men" someone else may believe to be divine the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Then we have two different camps both believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding them but they each arrive at different conclusions.

There then is no objective neutral party to decide who is right or who is wrong.

Which is why, IMHO, it is so important that God continue to send us Prophets and Apostles to lead and guide us.

That still leaves the problem which I stated above. There will not be agreement amongst believers as to who is or is not a prophet or apostle or agreement on what they are saying.

There is not a neutral arbitrator or judge that can make an objective verdict.

So until there is we will always have human beings who think their beliefs are TRUTH.

Does that mean you should change your views? Know, it just means to recognize that you may be right, or you may be wrong.

If by "valid" you mean that they contain all the truth that God has revealed thus far, I would disagree. But I do agree that God (and some of His truths) can be found in many religions.

I don't believe that one religion contains the total revelation of God. I don't think Christianity is the complete revelation of God. Then if God and some of his truths are found in other faiths that is sufficient enough for God to reach these people in no matter what faith they find themselves.

[Reeder]

Just because you are convinced of your beliefs it doesn't make them true.

And round and round we go.


You believe God exists with great conviction, but that doesn't equal proof. Atheists also "know" God doesn't exist. Believers and non-believers share something in common. They both think they know.

I've never suggested that I'm out to "prove" anything to anyone.



No..because they can't prove to me that God exists. no one can.

Sounds to me like you want nothing short of God appearing to you personally.


All our beliefs point to the fact that we believe in something that cannot be seen nor proven. Therefore the evidence you feel you have about the existence of God might not be evidence for someone.

Obviously. And both myself and Basilisk have been suggesting that all along.


The bigger question is, if the Holy Spirit does exist, then why do all believers come up with so many different beliefs about who God is? Why are their so many different religions in the world?

Because they're not following the Holy Spirit. If they all were, there would be only one religion, because (again) there are not "versions" of the truth.


My answer to that question is this. Truth is not defined as having correct doctrines. All doctrines are man made speculations.

Frightning statement. When did you decide to limit God and suggest that He cannot have doctrines?


How do you handle people who arrive at different truths than you do? Do you think they're wrong?

The 11th Article of Faith in my Church states:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."


Just because others may not share your views doesn't mean you, not I, should change them.

I think you should stand on what you believe, just as much as I stand on what i believe.

Agreed.


What you believe to be the "doctrines of men" someone else may believe to be divine the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Then we have two different camps both believing that the Holy Spirit is guiding them but they each arrive at different conclusions.

There then is no objective neutral party to decide who is right or who is wrong.

If we trust in God to lead us, and continue on that path, keeping His commandments and following the example of our Savior, we will be lead where God desires.

This idea that there should be some form of judicial system in place to decide which doctrines and religions are correct completely destroys the entire purpose of the Holy Ghost. It is His work to testify of the truth, and to lead mankind to God. Trust in God, not the "arm of flesh."


That still leaves the problem which I stated above. There will not be agreement amongst believers as to who is or is not a prophet or apostle or agreement on what they are saying.

There is not a neutral arbitrator or judge that can make an objective verdict.

So until there is we will always have human beings who think their beliefs are TRUTH.

Does that mean you should change your views? Know, it just means to recognize that you may be right, or you may be wrong.

See above.

I'm sorry thats how you feel. Amos 3:7 says:

Amos 3: 7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.


How can we know if someone is a true Prophet?

Matthew 7: 15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



What are these "fruits?"

Galatians 5: 22-23

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.



And when we finally encounter an individual or individuals who possess such characteristics.....what then?

James 1: 5

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.



God has the ultimate answer.



I don't believe that one religion contains the total revelation of God. I don't think Christianity is the complete revelation of God. Then if God and some of his truths are found in other faiths that is sufficient enough for God to reach these people in no matter what faith they find themselves.

I believe God can and does reach people no matter what faith they find themselves in, but I also believe that God is not a God of confusion, and that He has established a plan and made it known to His Prophets and to many others throughout history. It is a specific plan full of specific truths, and He is always trying to lead us toward that path. His work and glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

[TaylorW65]

Without faith it is impossible to please God. Faith is essential for worship. If I were to prove to you the existence of God, you would not then worship him, so I would be doing you a grave disservice.

I do believe in the existence of God. I may come across as agnostic or atheistic and that is because I can be somewhat objective after I have looked at religion from the perspective of a sociologist and psychologist (I am a therapist) looking at all human beings and their religions and their responses to religion.

Despite religions being very different on one level the human response to religion is pretty consistent across the board. The largest common denominator being that all human beings believe that what they believe is the Truth and that God is as their religions define him.

So since all human beings who are religious and claim different beliefs, and since I do believe that there is something or someone behind of all creation, I came to view religion not as something which defines the ultimate truth about God, but that religion is merely the lens by which human beings view God and that our religions are not God but are merely pointing the way to God.

If alarm bells go off in your head whenever someone talks about personal knowledge of God, maybe that's all the proof you need...that you don't really want proof, because if you had it, you'd be worried about setting off other people's alarms left and right. As much as you might think my claim to knowledge about certain divine things is unique to me, it isn't. It's quite common. My own experience is unique to me, but the knowledge gained by that experience isn't. It's consistent with what others have also stated via their own unique experiences. Just ask Alaric or Reeder. They haven't had my experience, but their experience has revealed to them the same truths. If we use our experience as a guide then you can understand why and how I have come to view God differently than you for my experience has been very real for me and through my experience and my path..God found me. :)

People only believe as much as they want to believe. Your supposed lack of evidence is not the problem. You have evidence in great abundance. You just don't want to believe because you're worried about how you'll be perceived, because you think others will perceive you the way you perceive others. Ergo, you don't want knowledge. You just want to be perceived as a knowledge seeker.Yes, I guess you're right human beings do only believe what they want to believe. But I would put it a different way. Human beings believe things that make logical sense to them and they believe things that make their environment feel stable and in order. We as human beings do not like living with cognitive dissonance. So we try to make order out of conflicting beliefs.

So in the end you and I are not too different. You believe in God and yet you find that there are so many conflicting religions telling you what to believe. So to end this cognitive dissonance you chose to believe that Christianity is True and that other faiths are Not True.

I, on the other hand, solved my cognitive dissonance by rejecting the exclusivity or the belief that only one religion is TRUE. I have come to see that religion is a man made practice, which is valuable, but they arose out of specific cultures at specific times in history and rather than religions being the revelation of God, they demonstrate the human response to God. So despite differences I have found God hidden within the similar and common spiritual principles that run throughout all faiths and realized that the God I believe in is found not in a system of religion but God is found in our own hearts.

When it comes to belief in God you cannot take human behavior and psychology out of the equation.

[TaylorW65]

And round and round we go.



I've never suggested that I'm out to "prove" anything to anyone.




Sounds to me like you want nothing short of God appearing to you personally.



Obviously. And both myself and Basilisk have been suggesting that all along.



Because they're not following the Holy Spirit. If they all were, there would be only one religion, because (again) there are not "versions" of the truth.



Frightning statement. When did you decide to limit God and suggest that He cannot have doctrines?



The 11th Article of Faith in my Church states:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."



Agreed.



If we trust in God to lead us, and continue on that path, keeping His commandments and following the example of our Savior, we will be lead where God desires.

This idea that there should be some form of judicial system in place to decide which doctrines and religions are correct completely destroys the entire purpose of the Holy Ghost. It is His work to testify of the truth, and to lead mankind to God. Trust in God, not the "arm of flesh."



See above.

I'm sorry thats how you feel. Amos 3:7 says:

Amos 3: 7

7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.


How can we know if someone is a true Prophet?

Matthew 7: 15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.



What are these "fruits?"

Galatians 5: 22-23

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.



And when we finally encounter an individual or individuals who possess such characteristics.....what then?

James 1: 5

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.



God has the ultimate answer.




I believe God can and does reach people no matter what faith they find themselves in, but I also believe that God is not a God of confusion, and that He has established a plan and made it known to His Prophets and to many others throughout history. It is a specific plan full of specific truths, and He is always trying to lead us toward that path. His work and glory is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39)

I think my response to you in post #207 answers all these as well. In that post I am not trying to convince you that I am right but it may shed some light on how I got where I am at.

[Reeder]

So in the end you and I are not too different. You believe in God and yet you find that there are so many conflicting religions telling you what to believe. So to end this cognitive dissonance you chose to believe that Christianity is True and that other faiths are Not True.

Not to speak for basilisk, but I highly doubt thats why he "chose to believe that Christianity is true."

[RayMan]

Not to speak for basilisk, but I highly doubt thats why he "chose to believe that Christianity is true."


Sounds just a tad presumptuous to me.

[TaylorW65]

Not to speak for basilisk, but I highly doubt thats why he "chose to believe that Christianity is true."

How about speaking for yourself then? How does your psychological world view and paradigms explain religious differences?

[Reeder]

Sounds just a tad presumptuous to me.

Indeedy. I'll take my chances.

[Reeder]

How about speaking for yourself then?

Yessir!


How does your psychological world view and paradigms explain religious differences?

My psychological view and paradigms?

[RayMan]

Yessir!



My psychological view and paradigms?

Have fun kid. :whistle:

[TaylorW65]

Yessir!



My psychological view and paradigms?

We are psychological beings. Our brains and personalities are designed to ensure our physical survival. We grow up with undeveloped minds and as we mature we create beliefs and opinions about the world we live in. We try our best to form beliefs which explains our world to ourselves without too much cognitive dissonance. The beliefs we develop are uniquely our way of viewing the world. We have many countless influences which shape our world view. They range from our parents, the media, our culture, the time period in which we live, our social customs, our gender and on and on.

So, how have all of those influences lead you to your religious beliefs? If you just place all the responsibility for your religious beliefs on divine revelation, that takes you and your ability to choose, think and rationalize out of the equation.

We don't live in a vacuum and many things influence our thinking and beliefs. So what were your thoughts and beliefs that influenced you choosing the religious path that you're on?

[Ron Jon]

Of course, the person who wrote the above verse may have perceived God in the wrong way.;)You sure do like to stir the pot.

[basilisk]

Sounds just a tad presumptuous to me.
Reeder is correct. I did not choose to believe Christianity to be true because of a desire to resolve my own cognitive dissonance. My cognitive clarity brought me to that conclusion. I actually find some aspects of Christianity to be illogical in many ways. Reason is inadequate to bring me to an understanding of what I understand to be truth. I found the truth in an honest search for it, through prayer and study. I was quite the skeptic, but my desire for knowledge was real and honest. As I prayed and studied, what had once been unclear and confusing became clear and opened itself to my understanding. As Jesus taught, the Holy Spirit can bring all things to our remembrance whatsoever he has said. That clear, still, small voice of wisdom cuts through the confusion and brings clarity to the mind. That experience has been described by many people in many different ways, but it's the Holy Spirit teaching the truth directly to the heart, and it's undeniable, if you can recognize it for what it is.

Anyone with an honest heart desiring knowledge, beyond faith, just has to exercise a little faith, just enough to ask God in prayer, with sincerity, a willingness to submit to God's will, and faith that he will answer. In other words, one who will experiment on the word of God as found in the scriptures, can know for himself if it is true. It can go beyond belief, beyond faith, as a natural fruit of the exercise of faith.

[TaylorW65]

Reeder is correct. I did not choose to believe Christianity to be true because of a desire to resolve my own cognitive dissonance. My cognitive clarity brought me to that conclusion. I actually find some aspects of Christianity to be illogical in many ways. Reason is inadequate to bring me to an understanding of what I understand to be truth. I found the truth in an honest search for it, through prayer and study. I was quite the skeptic, but my desire for knowledge was real and honest. As I prayed and studied, what had once been unclear and confusing became clear and opened itself to my understanding. As Jesus taught, the Holy Spirit can bring all things to our remembrance whatsoever he has said. That clear, still, small voice of wisdom cuts through the confusion and brings clarity to the mind. That experience has been described by many people in many different ways, but it's the Holy Spirit teaching the truth directly to the heart, and it's undeniable, if you can recognize it for what it is.

Anyone with an honest heart desiring knowledge, beyond faith, just has to exercise a little faith, just enough to ask God in prayer, with sincerity, a willingness to submit to God's will, and faith that he will answer. In other words, one who will experiment on the word of God as found in the scriptures, can know for himself if it is true. It can go beyond belief, beyond faith, as a natural fruit of the exercise of faith.

My search for God was never an intellectual pursuit. I needed help and I needed it fast or I would not be here today. God literally saved me. He saved my mind. But I was never looking for knowledge in the way you have described it. I was looking for God's participating presence in my life and thank God he found me.

All of this debate and counter point that we do is fun and I enjoy it. However, if I had been involved in all of this Christian apologetics and study for understanding I would not have made it.

Because I was getting a lot of that at Church but it didn't help me with the problems that would have killed me.

I didn't need understanding, sure, that has come later, but first things first, I need help and divine intervention not theology and instruction in correct doctrine.

So for me it is the practice of Spiritual principles, like submitting my will to God, surrendering, letting go, looking within, prayer and meditation and many other practices that I need in my life.

I am reminded of my favorite saying: Religion is for those who want to avoid hell, and Spirituality is for those who are in Hell and want to get out.

The type of truth that I need was not doctrinal or dogmatic in nature.

[Tim]

(snip)
Anyone with an honest heart desiring knowledge, beyond faith, just has to exercise a little faith, just enough to ask God in prayer, with sincerity, a willingness to submit to God's will, and faith that he will answer. In other words, one who will experiment on the word of God as found in the scriptures, can know for himself if it is true. It can go beyond belief, beyond faith, as a natural fruit of the exercise of faith.

The statement starts with "Anyone" - There are many living examples that prove this statement to be false.

[basilisk]

The statement starts with "Anyone" - There are many living examples that prove this statement to be false.
Such as?

[basilisk]

My search for God was never an intellectual pursuit. I needed help and I needed it fast or I would not be here today. God literally saved me. He saved my mind. But I was never looking for knowledge in the way you have described it. I was looking for God's participating presence in my life and thank God he found me.

All of this debate and counter point that we do is fun and I enjoy it. However, if I had been involved in all of this Christian apologetics and study for understanding I would not have made it.

Because I was getting a lot of that at Church but it didn't help me with the problems that would have killed me.

I didn't need understanding, sure, that has come later, but first things first, I need help and divine intervention not theology and instruction in correct doctrine.

So for me it is the practice of Spiritual principles, like submitting my will to God, surrendering, letting go, looking within, prayer and meditation and many other practices that I need in my life.

I am reminded of my favorite saying: Religion is for those who want to avoid hell, and Spirituality is for those who are in Hell and want to get out.

The type of truth that I need was not doctrinal or dogmatic in nature.
Taylor, I know some claim to be spiritual but not religious, but all spirituality is religious to some extent. It's just a question of how public its expression might be. My brother is just such a person. He claims he isn't religious, but he'll preach to you for hours on end about his beliefs in an effort to get you to believe as he does, and for him, his beliefs are truth and there is no room for argument on that fact, as he sees it. His lack of religiosity is itself a religious expression, of a particular type as suits him.

Religion and spirituality are married to each other, no matter how hard some people try to persuade others that they are only one or the other.

[Tim]

Such as?

such as me

see: http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=51578941&postcount=47

[TaylorW65]

Taylor, I know some claim to be spiritual but not religious, but all spirituality is religious to some extent. It's just a question of how public its expression might be. My brother is just such a person. He claims he isn't religious, but he'll preach to you for hours on end about his beliefs in an effort to get you to believe as he does, and for him, his beliefs are truth and there is no room for argument on that fact, as he sees it. His lack of religiosity is itself a religious expression, of a particular type as suits him.

Religion and spirituality are married to each other, no matter how hard some people try to persuade others that they are only one or the other.

Of Course a person's religion is their set of beliefs. But a person's religious beliefs can run from being adhering to an already established organized religion or they can be a collection of beliefs from many sources.

I emphasize in my life the practice of Spiritual principles which I have found in many sources and they make complete sense to me. I am not like your brother in that I really don't talk to people about my faith other than with my wife and two best friends who are ministers but it really isn't all that often.

Can you see the commonality running through myself, you, your brother and everyone else on this forum?

you said: his beliefs are truth and there is no room for argument on that fact

That is the common human theme for all people in the world from believers to non-believers. We all believe what we chose to believe and we all think our beliefs are right.

So, although I do believe in God I cannot ignore the fact that people's psychological processes also play a role in the development of belief.

You can't take people's psychology out of the equation when it comes to belief in God. That is why it is my firm belief we all come to understand God in our own way.

How could it be a voided?

[khigh]

Reeder is correct. I did not choose to believe Christianity to be true because of a desire to resolve my own cognitive dissonance. My cognitive clarity brought me to that conclusion. I actually find some aspects of Christianity to be illogical in many ways. Reason is inadequate to bring me to an understanding of what I understand to be truth. I found the truth in an honest search for it, through prayer and study. I was quite the skeptic, but my desire for knowledge was real and honest. As I prayed and studied, what had once been unclear and confusing became clear and opened itself to my understanding. As Jesus taught, the Holy Spirit can bring all things to our remembrance whatsoever he has said. That clear, still, small voice of wisdom cuts through the confusion and brings clarity to the mind. That experience has been described by many people in many different ways, but it's the Holy Spirit teaching the truth directly to the heart, and it's undeniable, if you can recognize it for what it is.

Anyone with an honest heart desiring knowledge, beyond faith, just has to exercise a little faith, just enough to ask God in prayer, with sincerity, a willingness to submit to God's will, and faith that he will answer. In other words, one who will experiment on the word of God as found in the scriptures, can know for himself if it is true. It can go beyond belief, beyond faith, as a natural fruit of the exercise of faith.

Anyone is a very definitive statement which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I sat in a Catholic Church for the first 18 years of my life and was very happy the day I turned 18 because that was the day that my parents let me stop going to church with them. Today, I have an "honest heart desiring knowledge" and have found the Rig Veda and Upanishads to be true.

How, if the Holy Spirit, wanted me to be a Christian, did he not keep me in the Christian faith? How is it that I heard the calling of the Universal Spirit?

[Reeder]

Anyone is a very definitive statement which I wholeheartedly disagree with. I sat in a Catholic Church for the first 18 years of my life and was very happy the day I turned 18 because that was the day that my parents let me stop going to church with them. Today, I have an "honest heart desiring knowledge" and have found the Rig Veda and Upanishads to be true.

How, if the Holy Spirit, wanted me to be a Christian, did he not keep me in the Christian faith? How is it that I heard the calling of the Universal Spirit?

Would you mind expounding on "Universal Spirit?" Thanks.

[Reeder]

you said: his beliefs are truth and there is no room for argument on that fact



No, he said "FOR HIM his beliefs are truth and there is no room for argument on that fact."

Big difference.

[Mikko]

Would you mind expounding on "Universal Spirit?" Thanks.
The Universal Spirit is God.

[TaylorW65]

Would you mind expounding on "Universal Spirit?" Thanks.

Speaking for myself, the universal Spirit to me is that God is transcendent of human defined religions.

God is not the God of only one religious faith. That is a very man made belief. God is the God of all faith and is found within each religion and yet he also stands above or beyond any faith.

We cannot contain God in the box of our specific religion and slap a label on Him and claim that our religion owns God and it is the only right way to God.

[Reeder]

Speaking for myself, the universal Spirit to me is that God is transcendent of human defined religions.

God is not the God of only one religious faith. That is a very man made belief. God is the God of all faith and is found within each religion and yet he also stands above or beyond any faith.

We cannot contain God in the box of our specific religion and slap a label on Him and claim that our religion owns God and it is the only right way to God.

Strawman.

No one here is claiming that they "own God," or that God is not the God of all mankind.

I am claiming, however, that God is not a God of confusion, and that there are not versions of the truth. Therefore anything that contradicts the truth does not come from God, because God does not lie. He does not mislead. He does not deceive. He is a God of order, and He has, indeed, established a Church that contains all of the truth that He has revealed thus far.

[Reeder]

The Universal Spirit is God.

And the Holy Spirit is God as well. The reason I asked was because khigh appeared to be distinguishing between the Holy Spirit, and the Universal Spirit. What is the difference?

[RayMan]

Here is my fave Scripture on the subject:

Weymouth N.T.
1Ti 4:10 and here is the motive of our toiling and wrestling, because we have our hopes fixed on the ever-living God, who is the Saviour of all mankind, and especially of believers.

[RayMan]

And the Holy Spirit is God as well. The reason I asked was because khigh appeared to be distinguishing between the Holy Spirit, and the Universal Spirit. What is the difference?

Universal Spirit sounds more hip.

[Outdoorgirl]

To catch those whom are ready for God he may bring them in by a broad spiritual or religious base, but through His direction, He will then bring them in closer to Him. Based on cultural, demographic and persons readiness, God reels in each person and pulls on thier heart to bring them in closer and closer to know Him based on their own capacities to adjust to His Truth.

Religion has not come forth out of the blue, but its "Trueness" can be accounted for by a True and accurate study of its History, The true Claims of the religion, Physical documented proofs, fruits and Revelations given by the Lord.

God has revealed Himself and deeply desires a True relationship with us, but knowing God is not what we make up or imagine (although God can work through our imaginations) but God has His own nature, And has sent His Word and Tradition to guide us closer into a True relationship with Him.

God allows us to Spiral through His funnel to His Apex, do not allow sin to splash us out of the funnel.:idea:

[Reeder]

Here is my fave Scripture on the subject:

Weymouth N.T.
1Ti 4:10 and here is the motive of our toiling and wrestling, because we have our hopes fixed on the ever-living God, who is the Saviour of all mankind, and especially of believers.

Thanks, Ray! Eeeeeeexcellent!

[TaylorW65]

Strawman.

No one here is claiming that they "own God," or that God is not the God of all mankind.

I am claiming, however, that God is not a God of confusion, and that there are not versions of the truth. Therefore anything that contradicts the truth does not come from God, because God does not lie. He does not mislead. He does not deceive. He is a God of order, and He has, indeed, established a Church that contains all of the truth that He has revealed thus far.

Well, God is doing a very poor job then at keeping order because we as a race of beings have countless religious beliefs about him. So either God is doing a very poor job or there is truth that having the same religious beliefs is not high on God's list of priorities for us.

[Reeder]

Well, God is doing a very poor job then at keeping order because we as a race of beings have countless religious beliefs about him. So either God is doing a very poor job or there is truth that having the same religious beliefs is not high on God's list of priorities for us.


God is not doing a poor job, we are. He will not deny us our agency to choose for ourselves. He will not force anything upon us. There are forces in the world today which entice us to go one way or the other, and the world is telling us that money and pleasure are more desirable than God, and eternal life. There are so many distractions, but God also has people and powers throughout the world which are leading and guiding many back to Him.

[Outdoorgirl]

Yes God is Absolutly organized, clear and Truth! He is also compassionate and Knows perfectly what each person can handle based on their circumstances. I know that Truth is Absolute and He is Truth, again He also knows the Truth of each persons heart and what it will take to brings each person to Him if they will be open, even if it is through a broad funnel.

[RayMan]

Thanks, Ray! Eeeeeeexcellent!

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:4SFumL1fo3yQmM::pauljlane.files.wordp ress.com/2009/03/mr-burns.jpg


My pleasure.

[TaylorW65]

God is not doing a poor job, we are. He will not deny us our agency to choose for ourselves. He will not force anything upon us. There are forces in the world today which entice us to go one way or the other, and the world is telling us that money and pleasure are more desirable than God, and eternal life. There are so many distractions, but God also has people and powers throughout the world which are leading and guiding many back to Him.

Let me ask you these questions. Is choosing God the same as choosing a religious system or is it something deeper?

Why do people think that because someone follows a different path to God that they think they are really rejecting God?

Let me turn the table on you. What would you think, or how would feel, if I told you I thought you were rejecting the One true God just because you followed a different religious tradition than me?


Please answer these specific questions.

[Values]

Well, God is doing a very poor job then at keeping order because we as a race of beings have countless religious beliefs about him. So either God is doing a very poor job or there is truth that having the same religious beliefs is not high on God's list of priorities for us.

Maybe God wants you to use what He gave you. You have the ability to think, free will and freedom to believe what you choose, maybe this is your chance to do what He wants of you!

[TaylorW65]

Maybe God wants you to use what He gave you. You have the ability to think, free will and freedom to believe what you choose, maybe this is your chance to do what He wants of you!


Yes, and I have come to believe that God wants me to have a relationship with him, he wants to heal the places in me where his love doesn't shine through and he wants me to be his light of Love in the world.

He has never shown me that he wants me to join a specific religion or to believe specific religious dogma.

He is trying to change my character not trying to recruit me to sell Amway products.

[Reeder]

Let me ask you these questions. Is choosing God the same as choosing a religious system or is it something deeper?

No. I believe there are many good, God-fearing people in the world of many different faiths.


Why do people think that because someone follows a different path to God that they think they are really rejecting God?

Who are these people you're talking about?


Let me turn the table on you. What would you think, or how would feel, if I told you I thought you were rejecting the One true God just because you followed a different religious tradition than me?

Been hearin' it all my life, including on these forums. It doesn't change what I know.


Doctrine and Covanents 123: 12-17

12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—

13 Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—

14 These should then be attended to with great earnestness.

15 Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things.

16 You know, brethren, that a very large ship is benefited very much by a very small helm in the time of a storm, by being kept workways with the wind and the waves.

17 Therefore, dearly beloved brethren, let us cheerfully do all things that lie in our power; and then may we stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.

[Reeder]

Yes, and I have come to believe that God wants me to have a relationship with him, he wants to heal the places in me where his love doesn't shine through and he wants me to be his light of Love in the world.

He has never shown me that he wants me to join a specific religion or to believe specific religious dogma.

He is trying to change my character not trying to recruit me to sell Amway products.

Spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ can hardly be equated with selling Amway products.

[TaylorW65]

Who are these people you're talking about?



I have met them in my life and they're here on this forum. They believe if you find God through another spiritual path you have really rejected the One True God.

[RayMan]

I have met them in my life and they're here on this forum. They believe if you find God through another spiritual path you have really rejected the One True God.

I assume you are referring to the Pastafarians. :whistle:

[I am the Eggman]

Spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ can hardly be equated with selling Amway products.

I agree 100%. I have use for some Amway products.

[TaylorW65]

Spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ can hardly be equated with selling Amway products.

It was meant to be a joke. I should have used a smiley. I find some people's evangelizing is just like the way people recruit others for Amway.

I view a relationship with God as just that, a relationship, it is not about being recruited into a specific religion. I just see God as being bigger than any religion.

I do not begrudge anyone's religious faith but I don't let anyone tell me I don't have a relationship with God just because I don't subscribe to their religious beliefs.

[Tim]

It was meant to be a joke. I should have used a smiley. I find some people's evangelizing is just like the way people recruit others for Amway.

I view a relationship with God as just that, a relationship, it is not about being recruited into a specific religion. I just see God as being bigger than any religion.

I do not begrudge anyone's religious faith but I don't let anyone tell me I don't have a relationship with God just because I don't subscribe to their religious beliefs.

Do you remember Evangelism Explosion, The 4 Spiritual Laws, The Roman Road, etc? All provided very detailed training (in amway-like meetings with all the emotional triggers in place) on how to lead someone to Christ and all used sales techniques beginning with "create a need" for the product - For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

[TaylorW65]

Do you remember Evangelism Explosion, The 4 Spiritual Laws, The Roman Road, etc? All provided very detailed training (in amway-like meetings with all the emotional triggers in place) on how to lead someone to Christ and all used sales techniques beginning with "create a need" for the product - For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

In studying psychology and communication tactics and psychological games through Transactional Analysis I have learned and understood many of the manipulative tactics of preachers and proselytizers.

I know when people are using guilt to try to manipulate or scare me into believing a certain way.

[barre53]

Exactly, a rigid and close minded thinking style can be found in all types of fundamentalism. I used to think it was religious conservatives who engaged in fundamentalist type of thinking (being rigid and unbending) but I have found that religious liberals can be just as rigid.

Makes me wonder how can you avoid rigid thinking when you believe something with such conviction? :think::think:

One man's rigid thinking is another man's reasoned conclusions. To believe in the existence of God, for example, is a conclusion based on observable evidence. Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God..." God is not proved, he is assumed to be real and personal. Some religious beliefs are more valid than others. People who say that god is found in a statue, or in the wind or sun have less evidence than those who believe in an invisible God. I believe in the Bible more than the Book of Mormon in part because of the confirmation of the historical places. With what I considered an open mind, I checked out the web sites the Latter Day Saints pointed me to and was not impressed by the evidence for any of the place names mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I read the Bible and see that Jerusalem exists, Babylon is there, etc. This is just one part of my faith system, but faith is built on evidence. Science makes statements as well that are conclusions based on the evidence before it. Open mindedness is the willingness to change your conclusions if the evidence warrants it.