• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is christianity the true religion.

Greetings, folks! I was searching for one of my favorite flavors of forum the other day and I found this great thread on this particular board ...
Thank you all for already being here!
After coming back and registering today, I have just finished reading this discussion so far and saving a few excerpts. Like some of you, I truly enjoy sticking to the subject at hand while investigating and sharing details from various angles. The excerpts I have copied are preceded by these: “>>”.

>> ... [the] question here is not whether god exists ...
>> ... [but] how can [one] ... insist that the christian religion is right and all others wrong.
>> ... debating whether christianity has any clue on what this [alleged supreme] being is and how he might act.
---

Yes, the sectarian religion called “Christianity” does have at least a few clues about The Creator of all things – His Sovereignty, Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience – but it also misses a few ... such as even just knowing His name. Throughout Christendom, one would be hard-pressed to find accurate answers to these questions (from Proverbs 30):
“Who has gone up to the heavens and come down? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His Name, and what is His Son's Name, if you can tell?”

Next, most/much of Christianity completely misses or even misrepresents this:
"... whosoever shall call on YHWH [not ‘Jesus’] shall be delivered" (Joel 2:32);
"... whosoever shall call on the name of YHWH shall be saved" (Acts 2:21; Romans 10:13);
"[He is] YHWH and there is no saviour but [Him]" (Isaiah 43:11; Hosea 13:4).

There is much more, of course, but I do not want to make my very first post here too very long!

>> ... how do Christians know that God in the bible isn't Satan? Wouldn't that be the ultimate deception?
>> ... what if some [bible] books were inspired by Satan?
Yes, that kind of thing would certainly be the ultimate deception, but as best I can tell, the “evil one” or “Satan” has actually “inspired” only some subtle changes for the sake of obfuscation, confusion and deception, and without being allowed (as also restricted concerning Job) to actually destroy (either Job or the overall content or “message” of Scripture).

>> Moses did cross the red sea ... there are still chariot marks on the bottom of its depths.
>> ... I'd have to see proof of that.
>> ... enclosed in an airtight dome to prevent sediment ...
I do not recall ever hearing about any “chariot marks” still being observable, but there actually is plenty of physical and historical evidence to make the entire Exodus story quite believable ... including even the finding of the unique-sized and sedimentized wheels of the deceased Pharaoh’s personal chariot. I do not ever solicit or advertise for myself or for anyone else, but I will respond to any private message or e-mail from anyone asking for a link to a site where some impressive video footage can be purchased ... and if necessary, I will even pay for a copy and have it sent to anyone who absolutely cannot afford one on his or her own (and who is willing to possibly wait for a while if I get more than one or two such requests).

Having already filled a page, I would nevertheless like to add one more comment for now:

>> ... you are able to back the involvement of demons in helping people manage their recovery from drugs with evidence, I assume?

Maybe not in any way that would fully convince anyone else, but yes, just as surely as I have both seen and experienced convincing evidence of the very character of YHWH, Himself.
 
common misconception that all religions believe there's it the only true one. Hinduism for one certainly doesn't believe that. The guiding rule is, if you are living your life in the search of truth then you are a Hindu. Thus we were taught to consider anyone of any religion or philosophy a Hindu if they follow that simple guideline.

We'd have religious panels in our school, where certain religious heads from each religion were brought up to share their views. It was interesting to note that all the leaders, including the Muslim leader, when asked if their's was the true religion, replied that it is true for me, but ultimately it is you who decides what will help you discover happiness in life. Something like this was the answer for all the religions.

But for the Christian guys it was different. When asked this question they'd argue why the other religions are wrong. I'm pretty sure this is not common in all denominations of Christianity, but instead of truly giving a sense of what their religion was about, they'd resort to convoluted logic and historical/scientific evidence, to basically prove that other religions were wrong.
 
nkgupta80 said:
common misconception that all religions believe there's it the only true one. Hinduism for one certainly doesn't believe that. The guiding rule is, if you are living your life in the search of truth then you are a Hindu. Thus we were taught to consider anyone of any religion or philosophy a Hindu if they follow that simple guideline.

We'd have religious panels in our school, where certain religious heads from each religion were brought up to share their views. It was interesting to note that all the leaders, including the Muslim leader, when asked if their's was the true religion, replied that it is true for me, but ultimately it is you who decides what will help you discover happiness in life. Something like this was the answer for all the religions.

But for the Christian guys it was different. When asked this question they'd argue why the other religions are wrong. I'm pretty sure this is not common in all denominations of Christianity, but instead of truly giving a sense of what their religion was about, they'd resort to convoluted logic and historical/scientific evidence, to basically prove that other religions were wrong.

I would venture to guess it is true in all denominations of Christianity. The biggest reason many Christians believe that other religions are wrong is not because of who they worship. Muslims, and Jews worship the same God, it all centers on Christ. Muslims and Jews do not believe he is the son of God. If you think Muslims do not think other religions are wrong, straight ask them if a Christian is wrong or right in not believing that Mohammad is the one true prophet. Any other answer besides yes or no, is pure PC BS.
 
blogger31 said:
I would venture to guess it is true in all denominations of Christianity. The biggest reason many Christians believe that other religions are wrong is not because of who they worship. Muslims, and Jews worship the same God, it all centers on Christ. Muslims and Jews do not believe he is the son of God. If you think Muslims do not think other religions are wrong, straight ask them if a Christian is wrong or right in not believing that Mohammad is the one true prophet. Any other answer besides yes or no, is pure PC BS.
Yes, I would venture to guess that Hinduism has met two religions which resist its Ameoba-like ability to absorb spiritual paths. They are having trouble with Islam in India, after all. I would like to use my history eraser button to get the (human) guy who made up the line "I am the Lord, thy God, you shall have none other". Whatever good came of the cultural cohesion this fellow gained for his people has to pale compared to harm this one line has created.
 
>> common misconception that all religions believe there's it the only true one.

I am no expert here, but it seems there are three Scripture-related or –drawn religions that are fundamentally exclusive (or exclusive in their fundamental forms): Judaism, Islam and Christianity. As a former Christian, I was certainly taught that “we” were right and “everybody else” was wrong, and yes, fundamental Islam bears evidence of similar thinking. However, I have yet to hear any Jew ever speak of his or her religion (beliefs and practices) in comparison to any other. Rather, and while certainly not unaware of surrounding contrast or even conflict, it seems that the Jew generally continues to do whatever Jews do, and without believing or finding it necessary to initiate frustration for others.

As already pointed out, other religions are more commonly relatively tolerant, openly inclusive or even actively pluralistic ... thereby found “acceptable” to people otherwise offended by certain tenets or elements of sectarian religion.

>> The biggest reason many Christians believe that other religions are wrong ... all centers on Christ. Muslims and Jews do not believe he is the son of God.

Again admitting I am no expert here, I believe that statement is essentially correct. Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe the man wrongly called “Jesus” – a name that comes from dragging a Hebrew name through Greek – was once actually here, but they variously disagree on the matter of that man’s alleged divinity, purpose and “work” (in allegedly doing away with “the law”). However, it is interesting that at least even certain Muslims believe that alleged “Son” is returning, for they have walled the Eastern Gate to try to prevent that! And as another side note: There are even some Christians who believe Muslims’ belief along that line actually qualifies them for salvation.

>> I would like to use my history eraser button to get the (human) guy who made up the line "I am the Lord, thy God, you shall have none other".

It is pure speculation to imply that particular “line” was “made up” by any man, and the hard evidence of the overall “Exodus from Egypt” and something specific having then actually taken place at Sinai can easily erase any such possibility.

>> Whatever good came of the cultural cohesion this fellow gained for his people has to pale compared to harm this one line has created.

Religious misuse of certain truths is a travesty nearly as old as man, but the “cultural cohesion” of the Hebrew people actually began long before Moshe’ was ever brought onto YHWH’s global stage.

Shabbat Shalom.
 
Its Wonderful to find out that Palestinians and Iraqis are not frustrated by Zionism. Boy, I feel so much better now. Thanks!


leejosepho said:
>> common misconception that all religions believe there's it the only true one.

I am no expert here, but it seems there are three Scripture-related or –drawn religions that are fundamentally exclusive (or exclusive in their fundamental forms): Judaism, Islam and Christianity. As a former Christian, I was certainly taught that “we” were right and “everybody else” was wrong, and yes, fundamental Islam bears evidence of similar thinking. However, I have yet to hear any Jew ever speak of his or her religion (beliefs and practices) in comparison to any other. Rather, and while certainly not unaware of surrounding contrast or even conflict, it seems that the Jew generally continues to do whatever Jews do, and without believing or finding it necessary to initiate frustration for others.

As already pointed out, other religions are more commonly relatively tolerant, openly inclusive or even actively pluralistic ... thereby found “acceptable” to people otherwise offended by certain tenets or elements of sectarian religion.

>> The biggest reason many Christians believe that other religions are wrong ... all centers on Christ. Muslims and Jews do not believe he is the son of God.

Again admitting I am no expert here, I believe that statement is essentially correct. Jews, Muslims and Christians all believe the man wrongly called “Jesus” – a name that comes from dragging a Hebrew name through Greek – was once actually here, but they variously disagree on the matter of that man’s alleged divinity, purpose and “work” (in allegedly doing away with “the law”). However, it is interesting that at least even certain Muslims believe that alleged “Son” is returning, for they have walled the Eastern Gate to try to prevent that! And as another side note: There are even some Christians who believe Muslims’ belief along that line actually qualifies them for salvation.

>> I would like to use my history eraser button to get the (human) guy who made up the line "I am the Lord, thy God, you shall have none other".

It is pure speculation to imply that particular “line” was “made up” by any man, and the hard evidence of the overall “Exodus from Egypt” and something specific having then actually taken place at Sinai can easily erase any such possibility.

>> Whatever good came of the cultural cohesion this fellow gained for his people has to pale compared to harm this one line has created.

Religious misuse of certain truths is a travesty nearly as old as man, but the “cultural cohesion” of the Hebrew people actually began long before Moshe’ was ever brought onto YHWH’s global stage.

Shabbat Shalom.
 
leejosepho said:
>>
>> I would like to use my history eraser button to get the (human) guy who made up the line "I am the Lord, thy God, you shall have none other".

It is pure speculation to imply that particular “line” was “made up” by any man, and the hard evidence of the overall “Exodus from Egypt” and something specific having then actually taken place at Sinai can easily erase any such possibility.
It is not pure speculation. It is reasonable to believe that it was likely made up. But you are right, I was begging the question.

>> Whatever good came of the cultural cohesion this fellow gained for his people has to pale compared to harm this one line has created.

Religious misuse of certain truths is a travesty nearly as old as man, but the “cultural cohesion” of the Hebrew people actually began long before Moshe’ was ever brought onto YHWH’s global stage.

Shabbat Shalom.
Yes, of course, many people have developed cultural cohesion without unigods. India is a nice example. Nevertheless, it is helpful, when you're a young tribe wandering in the wilderness, to have a common faith. Or, at any time, for that matter. And... speaking of speculation: It is high speculation to assume that Moses came after a long period of cultural cohesion. Or that things were holding together out there in the wilderness. Which it kinda seems like they weren't.


And Welcome to Debate Politics. It is a pleasure to meet you.
:gunner::blastem:
 
Joe7000 said:
Its Wonderful to find out that Palestinians and Iraqis are not frustrated by Zionism. Boy, I feel so much better now. Thanks!

As I either understand or misundertand it, Zionism is not an inherent part of Judaism. In other words, not all Jews are Zionists any more than all Muslims are "radicals" or all Christians are exclusivists. Just as with Muslims and Christians, there might be some Jews -- not knowing for sure, I can only assume there are some -- who believe they are always right and should be in charge or control or at least dominant or whatever, but that does not automatically mean they have actually been sovereignly-charged with any such responsibility. The "message" of Scripture first charged to the Jew is that of YHWH's power (to deliver), Love (in provision) and Way of Life (in right fellowship and worship), and as best I understand things, Zionism is an entirely different matter. For example, it is my understanding that the temple site in Jerusalem already belongs to the Jews, but that they do not desecrate the Mosque and evict Muslims. It is in that type of context that I say Jews do not by conscious intent categorically frustrate others.
 
Dezaad said:
... many people have developed cultural cohesion without unigods. India is a nice example.

Personally, I would hardly call letting children starve in streets where cows run free "cultural cohesion". But, maybe I have been misinformed about one thing or another.

Dezaad said:
Nevertheless, it is helpful, when you're a young tribe wandering in the wilderness, to have a common faith.

Other than their being at least over 400 years old, I do not know the Hebrews' actual "age" as a culture or "people" at that time, but their overall unity even before entering the wilderness indicates to me that it is *not* any alleged "high speculation to assume that Moses came after a long period of cultural cohesion." In fact: Their "common faith" (as connected to and passed along through Abraham) certainly preceded Moshe' by an appreciable time.

Dezaad said:
... high speculation to assume ... that things were holding together out there in the wilderness. Which it kinda seems like they weren't.

For example?!

Dezaad said:
And Welcome to Debate Politics. It is a pleasure to meet you.

Thank you so very much, truly, and I say the same. And, it is perfectly okay with me if we might completely disagree on everything as long as we can maintain at least a modicum of intellectual honesty while looking together in a common search for truth.
 
Last edited:
I suppose no non-extremist sect of any religion advocates the frustration of others. However, the Zionists are completely in charge of Israel. Most Zionists are Jews (or claim to be). Fundamentalist Christianity (a very extreme sect) supports just about everything Zionists Jews do. That includes the "frustration" (I could use a more fitting term) of Palestinians and Iraqis and Iranis and European Christians and all Arabs in general. (If I've left someone out, I apologize!) :2razz:

As to the Temple Mount: There is growing evidence that the original Solomon's Temple was outside the gates of Jerusalem. There will be much argument over this, but such is the nature of several thousand years of religious bloodshed (I mean frustration).

As to scripture: Depending solely on what side of a given argument, one is on, any proof can be forthcoming supporting that particular side. Such is the nature of manmade/manwritten/maninforced religions. If there were a "true" God, there would be (nor would there ever have been) no argument. Especially if we are considering a "true" LOVING God. The other kind need not apply for my support.:(


leejosepho said:
As I either understand or misundertand it, Zionism is not an inherent part of Judaism. In other words, not all Jews are Zionists any more than all Muslims are "radicals" or all Christians are exclusivists. Just as with Muslims and Christians, there might be some Jews -- not knowing for sure, I can only assume there are some -- who believe they are always right and should be in charge or control or at least dominant or whatever, but that does not automatically mean they have actually been sovereignly-charged with any such responsibility. The "message" of Scripture first charged to the Jew is that of YHWH's power (to deliver), Love (in provision) and Way of Life (in right fellowship and worship), and as best I understand things, Zionism is an entirely different matter. For example, it is my understanding that the temple site in Jerusalem already belongs to the Jews, but that they do not desecrate the Mosque and evict Muslims. It is in that type of context that I say Jews do not by conscious intent categorically frustrate others.
 
Last edited:
leejosepho said:
Personally, I would hardly call letting children starve in streets where cows run free "cultural cohesion". But, maybe I have been misinformed about one thing or another.
Well, we do, some of us, have our religion based food taboos, don't we. It is reasonable to believe that such taboos arose out of pre-existing (and wise, for the time) traditions. Simple people seem to need taboos to guide them away from serious errors of a certain time and place. Later, when the threat is gone, simple people continue to adhere to such taboos, because the original reason for the tradition might be long forgotten. This seems far more reasonable than believing that cows actually are holy, or that pigs make you actually unclean. In any case, India has risen and fallen, yet remains always through the millennia. While some periods may be marked by decadence, others by dangerous simple-mindedness, and yet others by profound enlightenment, it remains. Cohesion remains. So, yes I would call India, on the whole, cohesive.

As for Cow eating in a very overcrowded land. Perhaps it was deemed wise to discourage cow eating for the following reasons. Cows eat a tremendous amount of people food (grains), in certain places, on their way to becoming people food themselves. In other places the land that would support the (people food) grains is used strictly for cow food (grass). A taste for beef would encourage the depletion of an overtaxed land. Far more would starve if the elite were to selfishly raise un-tabooed beef for slaughter, which as a meat is quite tasty.

So, whether the taboo arose from these reasons or not, it is perhaps wise in any case that it remain in place. It is the holiness of the cows that should perhaps not. Yet, how does one untangle such a web once it is woven.

Oh, and they do provide milk. Which is not holy. Or is, and they are allowed to drink it anyway. And perhaps, in balanced numbers, they provide enriched soil for people food growing as well.

Other than their (The Jewish People) being at least over 400 years old ...
You seem fairly certain of this. Why so?

... *not* any alleged "high speculation to assume that Moses came after a long period of cultural cohesion."
Mmmm, I'd have to see some fairly strong extrabiblical evidence to agree with you here.

In fact: Their "common faith" (as connected to and passed along through Abraham) certainly preceded Moshe' by an appreciable time.
More certainty, where evidence lacks.

For example?!
So, you're going to be able to present passages out of the Bible where things were going swimmingly when Moses went up onto the mountain?



Thank you so very much, truly, and I say the same. And, it is perfectly okay with me if we might completely disagree on everything ...
I have this hunch this will be true. Nevertheless, the welcome was completely sincere, and remains so. I like the way you present things with which I disagree. For that, I respect you.

... as long as we can maintain at least a modicum of intellectual honesty while looking together in a common search for truth.
I like truth. Now, if I could just determine which things are.
 
the cow taboo mainly arose from the fact that due to high after-birth mortality for mothers, the cow would be considered as the "mother" for these children by providing milk. Thus killing such an animal was considered taboo. This idea was furthered by ofshoots of hinduism such as jainism where all harm against living creatures was forbidden.
 
Joe7000 said:
As to scripture: Depending solely on what side of a given argument, one is on, any proof can be forthcoming supporting that particular side. Such is the nature of manmade/manwritten/maninforced religions. If there were a "true" God, there would be (nor would there ever have been) no argument. Especially if we are considering a "true" LOVING God. The other kind need not apply for my support.:(

Yes, sectarian misunderstanding, mis-use or even intentional twisting of Scripture definitely plays a significant role in conflict and bloodshed around the world, and yes, Christian arrogance and opportunism do help to fuel Zionism. However, does any of that truly prove there is something either wrong with or unloving about a Supreme Being who would nevertheless allow man to exercise the free will He had already first sovereignly granted to him?

Personally, I believe it best to hold judgment on that particular matter for yet a little while ... and in the meantime, to stay as far as possible away from any human being(s) claiming any kind of advantage or superiority over even the very least of mankind ...

... and to then see who is still standing after the smoke clears.
 
I guess I haven't made myself clear on this topic.

Free will means the ability to make one's mind up with neither the rules of some ambiguous God breathing down one's neck nor the punishment that follows for making the wrong choices.

If all the bloodshed, pain, torture, innocent death and suffering down through history only has significance with reference to who is left standing when the smoke clears, then my first act of free will is to renounce free will. Better to live in heaven for eternity as a robotic slave than to exercise free will in hell for eternity.

I don't know how to say it any plainer. Gods (be they singular or pluralistic) have no relevance for me. If there is a life after the expiration of this mortal coil, I'll deal with it when it comes my turn. If "this" is all there is, I care not. I've had a full and happy life in spite of religions, wars, politics and economic stress, sickness and universal bigotry.

If there is some Creator who will judge me, I will judge Him/It/ first, for He/It is found absolutely wanting in my estimation. Perhaps after I judge Him/It, He/It will attempt to apologize to the whole human race for the abomination He/It has visited upon it. I, for one, will not accept an apology.

At best, God (or Gods) are completely ignorant of human suffering and, at worst, they are evil in their hearts from their youth. As far as I am concerned, God's righteousness is as filthy rags.

This is what my free will prompts me to say.:smile:



leejosepho said:
Yes, sectarian misunderstanding, mis-use or even intentional twisting of Scripture definitely plays a significant role in conflict and bloodshed around the world, and yes, Christian arrogance and opportunism do help to fuel Zionism. However, does any of that truly prove there is something either wrong with or unloving about a Supreme Being who would nevertheless allow man to exercise the free will He had already first sovereignly granted to him?

Personally, I believe it best to hold judgment on that particular matter for yet a little while ... and in the meantime, to stay as far as possible away from any human being(s) claiming any kind of advantage or superiority over even the very least of mankind ...

... and to then see who is still standing after the smoke clears.
 
Dezaad said:
India has risen and fallen, yet remains always through the millennia. While some periods may be marked by decadence, others by dangerous simple-mindedness, and yet others by profound enlightenment, it remains. Cohesion remains. So, yes I would call India, on the whole, cohesive.

If for no other reason than the fact I do not know any differently, I can easily leave that at that. My question concerning the matter of "cultural cohesiveness" was more along the line of something like altruism in the light of certain things a close Hindu friend of men has said about Karma and starving children. I was shocked to hear that he thought that best for them.

Concerning the Hebrews ...

Their "captivity" in Egypt was somewhere around 400 years before Moshe' came along, and they were already "cohesive" by that time. I am no historian here, but they all knew they were all descendents of Abraham, and that they had been brought into being for some kind of specific purpose.

Dezaad said:
... you're going to be able to present passages out of the Bible where things were going swimmingly when Moses went up onto the mountain?

No, I do not do that kind of thing. You had made a comment, and I had simply left it there with you for elaboration. While hoping to not read you or anyone else wrongly here, I would nevertheless share that I do not usually spend much time in rhetorical arenas. Or to say that differently: If we were going to play a little poker, I would likely only play for long at all if all the cards were always facing up and we were all working together to help everyone have the best hand possible ... or something like that!
 
nkgupta80 said:
the cow taboo mainly arose from the fact that due to high after-birth mortality for mothers, the cow would be considered as the "mother" for these children by providing milk. Thus killing such an animal was considered taboo. This idea was furthered by ofshoots of hinduism such as jainism where all harm against living creatures was forbidden.

Yes, I have heard at least some of those kind of things, and maybe I should have been more thoughtful before saying what I had said. My Hindu friend occasionally used to roll his eyes at what he called my "Western mindset" ...
 
Joe7000 said:
If all the bloodshed, pain, torture, innocent death and suffering down through history only has significance with reference to who is left standing when the smoke clears, then my first act of free will is to renounce free will.

My point there was simply that the elitist-tyrants are going to be vaporized, and that the remaining will "inherit the earth" or whatever ...

... but if everyone would do as you have mentioned along the line of free-will abandonment of free will, all the "bloodshed, pain, torture, innocent death and suffering" yet making ever more ugly history would stop immediately.
 
Yes, I suppose the meek shall inherit the earth. But, by that time it will be a cinder. The survivors will all glow in the dark.

And by that time, the rich will have bought their way into heaven, where they and their corrupt "true" god can laugh throuout eternity at the gullability of the "meek" ones.

But this too might be a great irony: At least the meek will never have to come face to face with their object of worship. They may even construct temples of worship, to a god they still think is all-righteous, all-caring, all-loving and all-powerful!:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl


leejosepho said:
My point there was simply that the elitist-tyrants are going to be vaporized, and that the remaining will "inherit the earth" or whatever ...

... but if everyone would do as you have mentioned along the line of free-will abandonment of free will, all the "bloodshed, pain, torture, innocent death and suffering" yet making ever more ugly history would stop immediately.
 
So, you are advocating robotic slavery to free will?

Maybe the "true" god will hear you and stop this free-will idiocy.

The "true" god already destroyed earth once for what "the sons of the gods did". Vaporizing the elitist-tyrants with smart bombs along with acceptable collateral damage from said "true" god would only show us how loving he is, as George Carlin would say!

And wasn't it the "true" god who installed all of these tyrants, and then admonished the common folk to obey them? Wasn't King David an elitist, womanizing, murdering tyrant? Will King David also be vaporized? (I doubt it, David wrote so many nice things about the "true" god!)

(I can't wait for the part where God rapes Mary so Christianity can begin!):lol:


leejosepho said:
My point there was simply that the elitist-tyrants are going to be vaporized, and that the remaining will "inherit the earth" or whatever ...

... but if everyone would do as you have mentioned along the line of free-will abandonment of free will, all the "bloodshed, pain, torture, innocent death and suffering" yet making ever more ugly history would stop immediately.
 
It seems to me that there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God or gods or to make a case for Christianity (or any other religion) other than by experiencing it. Those who believe they have experienced God by whatever name via any relgiion will have a different perspective than those who have not. Some believe they have experienced the living Christ and have been changed for the better for that experience. These are the true Christian believers and they generally call their belief Christianity.
Christians who are the true believers, however, should not be confused with those who have or who do profess Christianity out of political and social expediency. Such are a different breed altogether as is the occasional nut who confuses fanatical psychosis with religious experience.

There are probably as many different Christian beliefs as there are religions of the world, and that is no doubt confusing to nonbelievers. What Christians believe now is influenced by the beliefs outlined in the Bible, but all Judeochristian history must always be viewed in its own time through the culture and experience of those who were writing it or now living it. Personally, I think it presumptious for Christians, athiests, or any other to assume that their own experience is all there is. And I think everybody who has adopted a religious belief, whether it is to believe in God and/or Christ or believe in no god, believes his/her belief is superior to all others. Most of us are even presumptious enough to say so. :)

Personally, I think a God that could be fully understood, described, explained,or defined by any of us mere mortals wouldn't be much of a God. There's plenty of room for everybody here.
 
Last edited:
A couple of points:

1. There is no such thing as "Judeochristian". Judaism is as far from Christianity as heaven is from hell. Jews adhere to the law as espoused by the Torah and Christians adhere to faith in John 3:16. Jews believe in one God: YHVH. Christians believe in a triune God, with Jesus as God incarnate. Jews believe a political messiah has yet to come for the first time; Christians believe the messiah will return for the second time.

2. People must understand that if scripture is flawed (whether the Jewish Torah or the King James version of the bible) then the Gods of both religions must also be flawed. Where else did Jews and Christians get their notion of God, if not from the above sources? Had neither of those "scriptures" existed, this particular God would never have been even contemplated. Have you ever heard of the God whose name is ExCrat? No? The reason you haven't is because the Great God ExCrat has never been publicized. Of course, a thousand years from now the Great God ExCrat will be known throughout the earth as the ONE and only TRUE GOD. How do I know? Because I just invented Him. Surely I am as trustworthy as any other flawed law/faith book!

3. I do agree with you on one very important point: For those who sincerely believe they have experienced some "true" God, allow me to make this small suggestion: KEEP YOUR EXPERIENCE TO YOURSELF. YOUR ACTIONS WILL SHOW OTHERS IF YOU ARE CONVERTED TO GOODNESS, MORE SO THAN ALL THE WORDS IN THE WORLD. And whatever you do, don't start up another religion -- the world is choking to death with the ones already here. If you have to pray, go into a closet and do so in secret. (Where have I heard THAT before?):smile:



AlbqOwl said:
It seems to me that there is no way to prove or disprove the existance of God or gods or to make a case for Christianity (or any other religion) other than by experiencing it. Those who believe they have experienced God by whatever name via any relgiion will have a different perspective than those who have not. Some believe they have experienced the living Christ and have been changed for the better for that experience. These are the true Christian believers and they generally call their belief Christianity.
Christians who are the true believers, however, should not be confused with those who have or who do profess Christianity out of political and social expediency. Such are a different breed altogether as is the occasional nut who confuses fanatical psychosis with religious experience.

There are probably as many different Christian beliefs as there are religions of the world, and that is no doubt confusing to nonbelievers. What Christians believe now is influenced by the beliefs outlined in the Bible, but all Judeochristian history must always be viewed in its own time through the culture and experience of those who were writing it or now living it. Personally, I think it presumptious for Christians, athiests, or any other to assume that their own experience is all there is. And I think everybody who has adopted a religious belief, whether it is to believe in God and/or Christ or believe in no god, believes his/her belief is superior to all others. Most of us are even presumptious enough to say so. :)

Personally, I think a God that could be fully understood, described, explained,or defined by any of us mere mortals wouldn't be much of a God. There's plenty of room for everybody here.
 
Joe writes
A couple of points:

1. There is no such thing as "Judeochristian". Judaism is as far from Christianity as heaven is from hell. Jews adhere to the law as espoused by the Torah and Christians adhere to faith in John 3:16. Jews believe in one God: YHVH. Christians believe in a triune God, with Jesus as God incarnate. Jews believe a political messiah has yet to come for the first time; Christians believe the messiah will return for the second time.

2. People must understand that if scripture is flawed (whether the Jewish Torah or the King James version of the bible) then the Gods of both religions must also be flawed. Where else did Jews and Christians get their notion of God, if not from the above sources? Had neither of those "scriptures" existed, this particular God would never have been even contemplated. Have you ever heard of the God whose name is ExCrat? No? The reason you haven't is because the Great God ExCrat has never been publicized. Of course, a thousand years from now the Great God ExCrat will be known throughout the earth as the ONE and only TRUE GOD. How do I know? Because I just invented Him. Surely I am as trustworthy as any other flawed law/faith book!

3. I do agree with you on one very important point: For those who sincerely believe they have experienced some "true" God, allow me to make this small suggestion: KEEP YOUR EXPERIENCE TO YOURSELF. YOUR ACTIONS WILL SHOW OTHERS IF YOU ARE CONVERTED TO GOODNESS, MORE SO THAN ALL THE WORDS IN THE WORLD. And whatever you do, don't start up another religion -- the world is choking to death with the ones already here. If you have to pray, go into a closet and do so in secret. (Where have I heard THAT before?)

I gently disagree that 'Judaism is as far from Christianity' as heaven is from hell. I think nobody can understand the New Testament either in content or meaning without a solid grounding in Old Testament history, law, metaphor, poetry, and prophecy. That is not to suggest that Christians are bound to Old Testament dictates, but we cannot deny that New Testament faith is firmly grounded in the Old.

I also gently disagree that people of faith should 'keep their experience to themselves'. To do so would even be against the mandates of many. I do not, however, approve of using any belief as a bludgeon or threat. I can't imagine many, if any, have ever been converted by being told they were going to hell, nor can I imagine any are impressed by being told their faith is inferior.

The question of this thread was "Why is Christianity the true religion". I can't answer that without violating my own beliefs. I can only say that those who experience it know it to be a true religion. Whether it is THE true religion is still open to speculation.
 
Last edited:
If Christians base their faith on the torah, and the major and minor prophets, they must also denounce Jesus. Nowhere is he mentioned in the so-called old testament. What is mentioned in the O.T. are ten mandates called the decalogue. It also states that god does not equivicate: when he says something its forever. Thus, the voluminous contradictions therein. While many sons of god are mentioned, none were associated with an incarnation of god.

Also, all religions are true religions: the question is, do any of them represent a true god?

My position is that if there was a true god, he (it) wouldn't act like an absentee landlord. The Jewish/Christian god's house is falling apart and he keeps raising the rent. I moved to the suburbs where the air is cleaner.:smile:


AlbqOwl said:
Joe writes


I gently disagree that 'Judaism is as far from Christianity' as heaven is from hell. I think nobody can understand the New Testament either in content or meaning without a solid grounding in Old Testament history, law, metaphor, poetry, and prophecy. That is not to suggest that Christians are bound to Old Testament dictates, but we cannot deny that New Testament faith is firmly grounded in the Old.

I also gently disagree that people of faith should 'keep their experience to themselves'. To do so would even be against the mandates of many. I do not, however, approve of using any belief as a bludgeon or threat. I can't imagine many, if any, have ever been converted by being told they were going to hell, nor can I imagine any are impressed by being told their faith is inferior.

The question of this thread was "Why is Christianity the true religion". I can't answer that without violating my own beliefs. I can only say that those who experience it know it to be a true religion. Whether it is THE true religion is still open to speculation.
 
Well Joe, in my understanding of the Old Testament, there are several hundred prophecies believed to point to the Messiah of whom Jesus claimed to be. And, as C.S. Lewis points out, if Jesus isn't who he claimed to be, then he had to be a lunatic or a charlatan.

And that brings us back to the experience issue. One does not experience God or the Christ from a distance. It is up close and personal. Which eliminates the concept of an absentee landlord.

That is what I believe. I do not require that you believe it.
 
I'm probably going to be much hated after posting this, If I'm not already, BUT, this is my opinion. Christianity is not the true religion....Christianity is the true BELIEF, as Christianity is not a religion. I really can't stand when someone is asked what religion they are & they say Christian....bothers me...so very much. Methodism is a religion....Lutheranism is a religion....Christianity is NOT. I believe Roman Catholicism to be the 1 true religion.....why? Peter was the 1st Pope, and was Jesus's closest apostle...he was there to witness the rising of christ, and built a religion around Jesus's teachings....it is also the only Christian religion to use blind faith, and all other Christian religions were started WELL after Jesus's death, by ordinary people who didn't "like" what the Catholic Church was teaching or practicing at the time.
 
Back
Top Bottom