Why is christianity the true religion.

[Joe7000]

Having been a good Christian for 45 years with more ernest study than anyone should ever have to go through, I am more than qualified to state what I have in all of my previous posts.

I once believed all of the essential Christian teachings. I belonged to most of the major Christian denominations at one time or other --I made it a point to read the bible seven times through. I had all but memorized it word for word. I am close to 71 years of age at present and I have not been a Christian for the last 26 years. These last 26 years have been my most productive and enlightening ones.

I not only do not believe in any religion, I dispise what all religions stand for. It is my well founded opinion that religion is the greatest singular cause of all the problems this world has faced since the first civilization planted its roots in the soil.

With the above said, I will also state that I am an extremely spiritual man.

However, I believe in no gods, no saviors, no devils, no heavens, no hells. This list of no's to me represents the greatest impediments to human progress than any secular activity ever perpetrated against homo-sapiens.

When the question is asked, "what is the true religion," I would reply, "what is the true excrement, dog, horse or human?" Both questions hold equal weight with me. Both are immaterial when it comes to defining the nature of spirituality.

Spirituality needs no object of adoration. Spirituality needs no religion.

Spirituality needs no heavens, hells, gods or devils.

Spirituality defines what the true nature of man is, not which religion is the true religion.

To contort one's mind trying to fit preconceived notions into religious dogmatism and/or idealism, be it Judaism, Christianity or any other religion, is an insult to true spirituality.

Spirituality needs no collection plates, nor does it need cathedrals or synagogs or fancy churches to manifest itself. Spirituality needs no priests, preachers or clergy of any type to make itself known throughout the earth.

Spirituality, human spirituality, like love, needs no organization to work its wonders. Spirituality needs no god or savior to lavish either its praise or energy upon.

SPIRITUALITY IS ITS OWN REWARD.

Spirituality needs no law books, no rule books, no commandments, no admonishments, no punishments, no restrictions whatsoever to materialize and manifest its awesome power.

To ask the trivial question, "what is the true religion," is like asking what is true love. If one has to ask, one hasn't the slightest idea.

This post is getting a bit long -- its more than enough to chew on...:smile:

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.

 

[Joe7000]

Yes, I believe C. S. Lewis -- Jesus was both a lunatic and a charlatan. He also had a messiah complex. This is my opinion.

Yes, the new testament Jesus claimed to be the messiah specified in the old testament. That doesn't make it so. No more so than the Rev. Moon in claiming to be the blessed fulfillment of Jesus' failed messiahship. Does anyone believe Moon represents the second coming of christ? You bet, many people do. But neither Moon's nor Jesus' name appear in the old testament. The only name given in the old testament, to the future political messiah, was Emanuel. I see no one claiming Emanuel is the third part of the christian trinity today. I certainly don't see any Jews praying to Emanuel. I don't see any churches dedicated to Emanuel. Has anyone seen the First Church of Holy Emanuel anywhere? Unless there's one under Bush's desk, right next to Usama bin Laden!

To stretch one's imagination in claiming Jesus is Emaunel one would be hard put to fit all of the criteria involved with both entities.

The differences, so obvious in the old and new testaments, are too monumental to state one is the natural outcome of the other. The differences are absolutely irreconcilable for sane discussion. Only a non-critical observer would try to reconcile the two.

I still hold that the christian and jewish god is an absentee landlord. Any god, fit to be called a god, who sits on his dead posterior while innocent blood soaks the earth is more than an absentee landlord --he's a whimp at best and a demon at worst. This too is my well founded opinion. I'd be a damn fool to say this lightly.

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.

 

[leejosepho]

We seem to be digressing a bit, but since nobody seems to mind ...

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.

Great metaphor!

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.

To avoid anything like preaching, I will not say very much here ... but that "heaven" you mention is not going to be so pleasant as many people think ...

At least the meek will never have to come face to face with their object of worship. They may even construct temples of worship ...

No, only religionists do that.

 

[leejosepho]

So, you are advocating robotic slavery to free will?

No, my quickly-written comment there was unintentionally misleading. As driven, or as "motivated" by the self-inflicted pain of my past, I am one who has simply followed through on a suggestion once made to me that I free-willingly accept and participate in an overall transformation that has led to my own will (at least most of the time) being aligned with that of The One who created us.

 

[leejosepho]

It seems to me that there is no way ... to make a case for Christianity (or any other religion) other than by experiencing it ...

Some believe they have experienced the living Christ and have been changed for the better for that experience ...

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 ... believes his/her belief is superior to all others ... [and] even presumptious enough to say so.

Greetings, AlbqOwl, and may you be commended for sticking to the original subject here!

I believe you are correct in your above reminder that an actual "experiencing" of something is required in order to bear right witness of it.

Questions: What do you mean by "changed for the better", from where does that kind of idea or "purpose" originate, and do you believe that kind of experience unique to Christianity?

At least in part, I ask as I do because you seem to be defending Christianity while nevertheless saying you "think it presumptious for Christians ... to assume that their own experience is all there is."

 

[leejosepho]

There is no such thing as "Judeochristian".

Agreed. The term "JudeoChristian" is an oxymoron coined in the middle of the twentieth century (or even sooner?) to help propagate pluralism.

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?

With some clarification considered, agreed. First, "Torah" is the same first-five books found in the KJV. However, the KJV is not "Scripture". Rather, it is a sometimes-fine and sometimes-flawed (even intentionally) translation of Scripture ... thereby occasionally producing the "flawed god" kind of dilemma you have mentioned.

Had neither of those "scriptures" existed, this particular God would never have been even contemplated.

Not so. It was prior to the recording (scribing, or "writing down") of Torah that the Pharoah of Egypt who was *then* (at the time of that writing) mentioned within (book two: Exodus) had seriously contemplated The One who created us (and was then also mentioned in writing for the first time).

Surely I am as trustworthy as any other flawed law/faith book!

With apology: Agreed!

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 ...

Agreed.

 

[leejosepho]

I think nobody can understand the New Testament either in content or meaning without a solid grounding in [the] Old Testament ...

Agreed.

... not to suggest that Christians are bound to Old Testament dictates ...

“... till the heaven and the earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall by no means pass from the Torah ...” (Matthew 5:18);
“... it is easier for the heaven and the earth to pass away than for one tittle of the Torah to fall” (Luke 16:17).
(Note: "Heaven and earth" are still here.)

I also gently disagree that people of faith should 'keep their experience to themselves' ...

... when asked.

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 ...

How many could there be?

 

[leejosepho]

I'm probably going to be much hated after posting this ...

Only possibly by religionists, and we need not mind them too much!

... my opinion: Christianity is not the true religion....Christianity is the true BELIEF, as Christianity is not a religion.

At least in principle (for the most part), we agree ... for Scripture does not constitute or suggest *any* so-called "religion" other than to care for the widows and orphans, and to keep oneself untainted.

Peter was the 1st Pope ...

Have you ever wondered what *he* (Peter) might say about that?!

... he was there ... and built a religion ...

Not so, as he had not been charged with building any religion.

... all other Christian religions [apart from Roman Catholicism] ... were started ... by ordinary people who didn't "like" what the Catholic Church was teaching or practicing ...

Yes, possibly so, but that fact proves nothing beyond just that: Those other religions were started by those very protest-ants.

 

[leejosepho]

... do any [religions] represent a true god?

No, not accurately.

 

[leejosepho]

I am close to 71 years of age at present and I have not been a Christian for the last 26 years. These last 26 years have been my most productive and enlightening ones.

To me, that is very believable.

It is my well founded opinion that religion is the greatest singular cause of all the problems this world has faced since ...

Agreed ... or at least that it runs a very close second.

With the above said, I will also state that I am an extremely spiritual man ... [believing] in no gods, no saviors, no devils, no heavens, no hells.

Again: Very believable.

... gods ... saviors ... devils ... heavens ... hells. This list ... to me represents the greatest impediments to human progress than any secular activity ever perpetrated against homo-sapiens.

Agreed, but only if we understand "progress" accurately.

Spirituality needs no object of adoration. Spirituality needs no religion. Spirituality needs no heavens, hells, gods or devils. Spirituality defines ... not which religion is the true religion.

Agreed ... with the exception of the "object of adoration" part.

To contort one's mind trying to fit preconceived notions into religious dogmatism and/or idealism, be it Judaism, Christianity or any other religion, is an insult to true spirituality.

Not necessarily, for those are simply some of its optional forms.

Spirituality needs no collection plates ... cathedrals or synagogs or fancy churches ... priests, preachers or clergy of any type to make itself known throughout the earth.

Yes, but it still at least *can* have or include any or all of those things.

Spirituality, human spirituality, like love, needs no organization to work its wonders. Spirituality needs no god or savior to lavish either its praise or energy upon.

Not so -- it needs humans (as evidenced just above) for its purpose(s).

SPIRITUALITY IS ITS OWN REWARD.

Agreed.

To ask ... "what is the true religion," is like asking what is true love. If one has to ask, one hasn't the slightest idea.

Agreed ... and that is precisely why people ask, is it not?!

This post is getting a bit long -- its more than enough to chew on...:smile:

Oh, come on, Joe, we were just getting rolling ...

 

[Joe7000]

Here's my take on what it means to be human. If it deviates from the question, "Is Christianity the true religion?," so-be-it; its a silly question anyway.

1. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that all humans, of all ages of all times and places, are on a spiritual journey. The "accident" of birth determines, almost wholy, what religion one will adhere to for the rest one's earthly life.

2. There are certain principles that are common to all people.

3. Culture (artificial civilization) tends to drive out commonly shared principles.

4. All battles fought while on this spiritual journey have been (and are) waged exclusively on the spiritual plane.

5. People who think any battle is being fought on a physical plane can be found primarily in fundamentalist churches and multi-leveled positions in government.

6. The greatest oxymoron on this planet is the notion that fundamentalists and politicians believe in what is otherwise commonly referred to as GOD.

7. The majority of people on planet earth have had most of their basic and commonly shared principles removed from their consciousness, thus the need for religions and wars.

8. Nature (physical reality) cares not a whit for individual members of any species, including the most arrogant of all; humans. Nature only provides for the survival of some, but not all, species.

9. It is human nature to believe in a "higher power". Ignorance above all, breeds dependency.

10. If 6 billion people inhabit earth, and they all believe in the anomaly called GOD, then there are, in reality, 6 billion GODs. (Talk about, "not having any other gods before me...")

11. With 6 billion GODs on earth and in heaven, there is little or no time for thinking original thoughts ("nothing new under the sun"). This in itself obviates free-will or the necessity for free will.

12. Any self respecting anthopomorphic god must want to puke at what it sees taking place on planet soon-to-be-cinder. If I were even the weakest of these 6 billion gods, I would demand a continuous spiritual battle in my one adherent, for enlightenment, throughout my one adherent's life. I want my one follower to fight me tooth and nail for truth. I would continence no slackards, no cowards, no whimps, no fundamentalists, no bullies, no excuses and most of all, no appeal to authority. For, I, your Lord and God gave you a logical and rational mind. To squander away that mind is an abomination to me.

And finally...

13. Anyone who thinks that all of the above is being fought out on a physical plane (no matter how high the river of human blood level rises) will spend the rest of eternity looking under George Bush's desk for WMDs, Usama, and the true religion. --jws

 

[nkgupta80]

thats a real interesting way of putting it...

 

[AlbqOwl]

leejosepho writes

Greetings, AlbqOwl, and may you be commended for sticking to the original subject here!

I believe you are correct in your above reminder that an actual "experiencing" of something is required in order to bear right witness of it.

Questions: What do you mean by "changed for the better", from where does that kind of idea or "purpose" originate, and do you believe that kind of experience unique to Christianity?

At least in part, I ask as I do because you seem to be defending Christianity while nevertheless saying you "think it presumptious for Christians ... to assume that their own experience is all there is."

Thank you for you greeting kind sir, and I compliment you on your thoughtful and wise commentary here.

In 'changed for the better' I speak from my own experience as well as from the testimony of others, some on this thread, that experiencing the living God and allowing Him to direct our perceptions, our goals, and our paths indeed changes us for the better. I know God as a God of love and goodness and Christianity, in its purest form, meanders and falters but generally moves in that direction. Accepting and experiencing God as the indwelling Christ--which is after all what makes us Christian--gives us a leg up in allowing Him to direct those perceptions, goals, and paths.

If I defend Christianity, it is because I know from first hand experience that it is genuine and it does change people for the better. I spent a good chunk of my life attempting to debunk Christianity, however, and in the process took an up close and personal look at every great religion out there plus a whole lot of minor ones, and found that every single one of them have pieces of the truth and are blessed with devoutly spiritual people. How can I possibly say that my spirituality is superior to yours? Or Joe's? Or anybody's? I haven't experienced what you have experienced.

The God I believe and trust is way too big to confine himself to my thoughts and understanding or even the sum total of what we all together think and understand.

One member objected to Christianity being presented as a religion, but I think the various Christian denominations all contain Christians and all represent Christianity just as I think all Jewish sects represent Judaism, all Islamic sects represent Islam, etc. Each sect simply reflects a different focus or point of understanding by its advocates.

So is Christianity the best religion? For me it is. For somebody else, maybe it isn't. I have no authority whatsoever to make that judgment.

Your question was so provocative and so unintentionally complex, I hope I have addressed it as you intended. :smile:

 

[leejosepho]

Here's my take on what it means to be human. If it deviates from the question, "Is Christianity the true religion?," so-be-it; its a silly question anyway.

Is it not because we are human, and because of the kinds of things you have mentioned that we ask that kind of question in the first place?

Paraphrasing just a bit, here are the initial questions actually placed before us:

>> How can anyone insist that the Christian religion is right and all others are wrong?
>> How is the Christian religion any different from any religion that came before (and is in fact a composite of several "pagan" religions)?
>> Does Christianity have any clue on what any all-powerful god actually is, and how he might actually act?
>> And overall (and my personal favorite): Why do Christian churches have lightning rods?!

... all humans, of all ages of all times and places, are on a spiritual journey. The "accident" of birth determines, almost wholly, what religion one will adhere to for the rest one's earthly life.

At the simplest level, right there is at least one reason any Christian (or anyone else) might say the Christian religion (or any other) is right and all others are wrong: Children will believe anything first told to them, and it is understandably human-natural for virtually any human being to later want to “be there on the other side” with “Mama” and/or friends.

There are certain principles that are common to all people.
Culture (artificial civilization) tends to drive out commonly shared principles.
The majority of people on planet earth have had most of their basic and commonly shared principles removed from their consciousness, thus the need for religions and wars.

If you might care to elaborate a bit, I suspect we will agree as to those principles you have mentioned. But either way, we certainly agree that “culture (artificial civilization)” tends to drive out certain inherent traits or “leanings”, curiosities, tendencies and the like.

All battles fought while on this spiritual journey have been (and are) waged exclusively on the spiritual plane.
People who think any battle is being fought on a physical plane can be found primarily in fundamentalist churches and multi-leveled positions in government.

Might I word that just a little differently by saying all battles being fought on the physical plane are evidences or manifestations of battles already taking place on (the) spiritual plane(s)? In any case, another reason certain people of whatever ilk are inclined to say their particular religion, politic or philosophy is the right one is to attempt to gain “strength” through physical numbers of people and/or their support in hopes of ultimately winning spiritual battle(s).

The greatest oxymoron on this planet is the notion that fundamentalists and politicians believe in what is otherwise commonly referred to as GOD.

Yes, it is a fact that the god of “In God We Trust” is absolutely *not* the same god more commonly pondered and even sought among the masses. But when people either do not know that or are even willingly deceived, it is easy to fall into and propagate a proffered “my way is right” death-trap.

Nature (physical reality) cares not a whit for individual members of any species, including the most arrogant of all: humans. Nature only provides for the survival of some, but not all, species ...

... thereby proving, at least in my own mind, that mankind needs some kind of “Provider” to even merely have any air to automatically (without thought) breathe.

It is human nature to believe in a "higher power". Ignorance above all, breeds dependency.

Whoa! Two essentially true statements, but placed together with quite a leap between them! It is prudence, not ignorance that can drive a logical connection between our “human nature to believe in a ‘higher power’” and our actual human needs. Ignorance, however, certainly is at least one factor that can lead to unsatisfactory dependencies.

If 6 billion people inhabit earth, and they all believe in the anomaly called GOD, then there are, in reality, 6 billion GODs.

Not so. In at least some cases, we would merely have varieties of mere *conceptions* or even misconceptions of whatever alleged single, sovereign god might actually exist.

With 6 billion GODs on earth and in heaven, there is little or no time for thinking original thoughts ...

Such a statement negates itself, for in the absence of a combination of so-called “original thoughts” and the free will to have them, there would be no proportional relationship between numbers of people and number(s) of god(s).

Any self respecting anthropomorphic god ...

I had to go look that one up:

Anthropomorphic (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
Described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes; ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things.

YHWH cannot be humanized, and the natural human mind cannot perceive Him correctly.

If I were even the weakest of ... gods, I would demand a continuous spiritual battle ... throughout ... life. I want my one follower to fight me tooth and nail for truth. I would continence no slackards, no cowards, no whimps, no fundamentalists, no bullies, no excuses and most of all, no appeal to authority. For, I, your Lord and God gave you a logical and rational mind. To squander away that mind is an abomination to me.

I would word some of that a little differently, but yes, we again definitely agree there.

Anyone who thinks that all of the above is being fought out on a physical plane (no matter how high the river of human blood level rises) will spend the rest of eternity looking under George Bush's desk for WMDs, Usama, and the true religion.

Agreed ... except for that “the rest of eternity” part, for all searching will actually end much sooner than at any alleged-yet-never-to-come end of eternity, eh?!

Ultimately, all politics, religions and philosophies are related to the matter of who will ultimately prove to be sovereign: “God”, or man ... and any politic, religion or philosophy claiming to be exclusively right wittingly or otherwise (and along with others) does so for self-serving reason(s).

 

[leejosepho]

Your question was so provocative and so unintentionally complex, I hope I have addressed it as you intended. :smile:

If your answer was "from the heart", so to speak, you most certainly have!

Sometimes I ask as I have to intentionally provoke or at least to challenge a bit, but not in this case. And yes, there is some complexity there.

At the moment I am a bit brain-tired, but I will try to come back to this from an appropriate angle in a day or so ...

 

[AlbqOwl]

leejosepho writes

Sometimes I ask as I have to intentionally provoke or at least to challenge a bit, but not in this case. And yes, there is some complexity there.

At the moment I am a bit brain-tired, but I will try to come back to this from an appropriate angle in a day or so ...

It is my belief that any conviction or opinion worth having can be defended when questioned or challenged. Further it can be defended without referencing the one asking the question or making the challenge (i.e. without killing the messenger.) I think such questions and challenges, when presented without rancor or malice, are helpful to weed out those things we do believe from those things we just want to believe..

I shall look forward to further discussion should you be inclined to continue it.

 

[Joe7000]

eejosepho wrote:
Ultimately, all politics, religions and philosophies are related to the matter of who will ultimately prove to be sovereign: “God”, or man ... and any politic, religion or philosophy claiming to be exclusively right wittingly or otherwise (and along with others) does so for self-serving reason(s).


We see eye to eye on many things. However, you are a Deist and I am not.

The reason Christians and Jews must anthropomorphize their GOD is because Adam and Eve were "created" in GOD's image and likeness. They, (Christians and Jews) have no alternative unless they agree to expunge their own scriptures.

Being a Deist you have the luxury of idealizing your GOD.

I am a strict rationalist: I'll see GOD when I believe HIM. :2razz:

As to proof of sovereignty: GOD HIMSELF could have cleared the matter up "in the beginning," the invention of Mr. Devil notwithstanding. If a true GOD wanted to be the object of worship from HIS creation, the least HE could have done would have been to erase any shadow of doubt as to WHO HE was. As it stands, 6 billion people have to guess (I use the word advisedly) not only who the true GOD is, but argue and war with all who believe in lesser gods. This is nothing short of religious roulette. Not the best way to decide one's eternal fate or destiny.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The New Testament relates snippets of claimed eye witness accounts of the activities of the one called Jesus. He made the blind see, he made the lame walk, and he made the dead rise. Many believed when he did these things, and yet, according to those New Testament accounts, many did not. In fact, if we are to believe the accounts, even his own chosen Twelve Apostles didn't understand who he was until near the end, and even then they did not understand what he was about until after his crucifixion.

Whether you believe such stories to be authentic or total fabrication, they are illustrative of the human condition. Even in modern politics, a thing may have failed in a hundred attempts, and there will be those who believe a one hundred and one attempt will work. There are those who have seen something done successfully numerous times, and still do not believe it will work the next time.

Again, the only way one can be certain of God is to experience Him. And even then we may deny what the experience is. God could make us into puppets if He chose and thus make us believe or think whatever He wanted. But I think He allows us to become so much more than puppets and that requires us to work at growing and understanding and even believing.

Personally I think it is quite worth the effort.

 

[Joe7000]

You are absolutely correct: now is the time for GOD to collect His 144,000 believers and leave the rest of us the hell alone!

The New Testament relates snippets of claimed eye witness accounts of the activities of the one called Jesus. He made the blind see, he made the lame walk, and he made the dead rise. Many believed when he did these things, and yet, according to those New Testament accounts, many did not. In fact, if we are to believe the accounts, even his own chosen Twelve Apostles didn't understand who he was until near the end, and even then they did not understand what he was about until after his crucifixion.

Whether you believe such stories to be authentic or total fabrication, they are illustrative of the human condition. Even in modern politics, a thing may have failed in a hundred attempts, and there will be those who believe a one hundred and one attempt will work. There are those who have seen something done successfully numerous times, and still do not believe it will work the next time.

Again, the only way one can be certain of God is to experience Him. And even then we may deny what the experience is. God could make us into puppets if He chose and thus make us believe or think whatever He wanted. But I think He allows us to become so much more than puppets and that requires us to work at growing and understanding and even believing.

Personally I think it is quite worth the effort.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Joe writes

You are absolutely correct: now is the time for GOD to collect His 144,000 believers and leave the rest of us the hell alone! :smile:

:rofl, don't you wonder who those 144,000 are? I figure there will be a lot of folks in heaven that many wouldn't expect to be there, though I think there might be special rooms reserved for those who think nobody will be there but them--it wouldn't be much of a heaven for them if they had to give up their notions about that.

 

[Joe7000]

Amen to that! I don't want to go to heaven -- none of my friends will be there!:rofl

Joe writes


:rofl, don't you wonder who those 144,000 are? I figure there will be a lot of folks in heaven that many wouldn't expect to be there, though I think there might be special rooms reserved for those who think nobody will be there but them--it wouldn't be much of a heaven for them if they had to give up their notions about that.

 

[leejosepho]

We see eye to eye on many things ...

Yes, and that has actually surprised me a bit. At times, I have even wondered if you might be able to present my own case better than I can!

The reason Christians and Jews must anthropomorphize their GOD is because Adam and Eve were "created" in GOD's image and likeness.

For those who actually do that, yes, now I understand what you had meant.

I'll see GOD when I believe HIM.

Yes, that is usually a requisite.

As to proof of sovereignty: GOD HIMSELF could have cleared the matter up "in the beginning," the invention of Mr. Devil notwithstanding. If a true GOD wanted to be the object of worship from HIS creation, the least HE could have done would have been to erase any shadow of doubt as to WHO HE was ...

Like at Sinai?

As it stands, 6 billion people have to guess (I use the word advisedly) ...

No, the message of Sinai is still quite available.

... [and] argue and war with all who believe in lesser gods. This is nothing short of religious roulette. Not the best way to decide one's eternal fate or destiny.

Yes, many of us have played (and/or yet play) that so-called "religious roulette", but the spinning stops, the fingers drop and the eyes go up when we cannot extract ourselves from the pit ... or something like that.

 

[leejosepho]

I shall look forward to further discussion should you be inclined to continue it.

Greetings once again, AlbqOwl, and thank you for you patience.

You have approached some of my most-favorite thoughts here:

“It is my belief that any conviction or opinion worth having can be defended when questioned or challenged.”

Rhetorically: Being defensible in what light can prove something “worth having” (profitable)? In other words, and in keeping with the overall topic of this thread:

Even the very best or most persuasive of apologetics do not prove Christianity ultimately “worth having” – Christianity is not proof of itself. And, I contend Christianity is actually a self-serving promotion of a subtle form of hedonism.

“Further, [any conviction or opinion worth having] can be defended without referencing the one asking the question or making the challenge (i.e. without killing the messenger.)”

We definitely agree there, and even if the conviction or opinion in question ultimately proves to have *not* been worth having: Participants in this kind of discussion are not its subjects (topics).

“I think such questions and challenges, when presented without rancor or malice, are helpful to weed out those things we do believe from those things we just want to believe.”

Yes, and they can even help to rid us of unprofitable things we *do* believe.

...

Here pulling some pieces from our past conversation and moving along ...

“It seems to me that there is no way ... to make a case for Christianity ... other than by experiencing it.”

In my own life, having experienced Christianity has made my case against it.

“Some believe they have experienced the living Christ and have been changed for the better for that experience.”

Yes, some believe that, but that does not prove “changed for the better” is what The Messiah’s work was/is all about.

“I can only say that those who experience [Christianity] know it to be a true religion. Whether it is THE true religion is still open to speculation.”

As Joe (I believe) has pointed out, all religions are “true” religions ... but of course, we mean to be talking about “pure religion”, as in “pleasing to The One who created us.” And in that light, surely you understand the danger(s) of speculation here.

I had previously asked, “What do you mean by ‘changed for the better’, from where does that kind of idea or ‘purpose’ originate, and do you believe that kind of experience unique to Christianity?”

Your response: “In 'changed for the better' ... experiencing the living God and allowing Him to direct our perceptions, our goals, and our paths indeed changes us for the better.”

To my hearing, that is not the message of reconciliation found in Scripture.

“... Christianity, in its purest form, meanders and falters but generally moves in that [directed life] direction.”

Agreed ... and/but years ago, that is what actually left me dying.

“The God I believe and trust is way too big to confine himself to my thoughts and understanding or even the sum total of what we all together think and understand.”

Although I do not call YHWH by the non-name “God”, we definitely agree there, and what you have just said is the essence of why I now know Christianity’s “boxed god” to definitely *not* be Him.

“So is Christianity the best religion? For me it is ...”

Might you possibly change your mind after learning “changed lives” is not what YHWH has in mind?

“Your question was so provocative and so unintentionally complex ...”

As we both already know, the complexity is inherent ... and as to the matter of “provocative”:

Well, why not?! Much is at stake here, and our brains do need stimulation ...

Shalom.

 

[Joe7000]

If Sinai still applies, then everyone better convert to Judaism. The 40 year trek was by Jews whose God was a war-god, originally names El. We now know that EL was one of the names of Enlil, brother to Ea Enki and the son of ANU. El's name morphed into YHVH which is really an occult designation for the Qabalistic Tetragrammaton.

My "religious roulette" analogy still holds.

(I like your style of argument, leejoseph. Substantive but not confrontational. We could become good friends in another world. The door to my world shows an EXIT sign.):smile:

...Yes, many of us have played (and/or yet play) that so-called "religious roulette", but the spinning stops, the fingers drop and the eyes go up when we cannot extract ourselves from the pit ... or something like that.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I hope we are still on target with the intent of the thread here. But perhaps the following exchange illustrates why some believe Christianity is at least A true religion as well as why others believe it is not.

Lee writes

You have approached some of my most-favorite thoughts here:

“It is my belief that any conviction or opinion worth having can be defended when questioned or challenged.” (Owl)

Rhetorically: Being defensible in what light can prove something “worth having” (profitable)? In other words, and in keeping with the overall topic of this thread:

Even the very best or most persuasive of apologetics do not prove Christianity ultimately “worth having” –– Christianity is not proof of itself. And, I contend Christianity is actually a self-serving promotion of a subtle form of hedonism.

Which is precisely why I say no one can prove the existence of God(YHWH)/Christ but that he must be experienced. I am certain that some Christian acivity/teachings/notions are deserving of your assessment of hedonism. But through my own experience, I know that is not always the case.

Lee writes

“Further, [any conviction or opinion worth having] can be defended without referencing the one asking the question or making the challenge (i.e. without killing the messenger.)”
We definitely agree there, and even if the conviction or opinion in question ultimately proves to have *not* been worth having: Participants in this kind of discussion are not its subjects (topics).

Thank you. If we could bottle this, we could change the world. :smile:

Lee writes

“I think such questions and challenges, when presented without rancor or malice, are helpful to weed out those things we do believe from those things we just want to believe.”(Owl)

Yes, and they can even help to rid us of unprofitable things we *do* believe.

A subtle distinction between ‘unprofitable things we ‘do’ believe and ‘those things we just want to believe’, I think, but given that many children once believed in Santa Claus, I won’t quibble the point.

Lee writes

Here pulling some pieces from our past conversation and moving along ...

“It seems to me that there is no way ... to make a case for Christianity ... other than by experiencing it.” (Owl)

In my own life, having experienced Christianity has made my case against it.

But is your experience the only experience possible? I doubt you would say so.

I had written:

“Some believe they have experienced the living Christ and have been changed for the better for that experience.”

Lee responded

Yes, some believe that, but that does not prove ““changed for the better”” is what The Messiah’’s work was/is all about.

Nor did I say that is what the Messiah’s work was/is all about. I just reported it as one of the results of the experience.

I had written

“I can only say that those who experience [Christianity] know it to be a true religion. Whether it is THE true religion is still open to speculation.”

Lee responded

As Joe (I believe) has pointed out, all religions are ““true”” religions ... but of course, we mean to be talking about “pure religion””, as in “pleasing to The One who created us.” And in that light, surely you understand the danger(s) of speculation here.

Yes there is a danger, but I think only when the claim is that one’s belief is all that is worthy of belief. The fanatic takes it to extreme and commits all manners of injustices, atrocities, and stupidities to please his/her diety. But the better way is to explain how pleasing one’s deity is profitable and desirable. It could even be considered an act of love to encourage others to try it. It does not have to take that ultimate step that attempts to require or force others to do it.

Lee writes

I had previously asked, “What do you mean by ‘‘changed for the better’’, from where does that kind of idea or ‘‘purpose’’ originate, and do you believe that kind of experience unique to Christianity?””

Your response: “In 'changed for the better' ... experiencing the living God and allowing Him to direct our perceptions, our goals, and our paths indeed changes us for the better.”

To my hearing, that is not the message of reconciliation found in Scripture.

In the Gospel of John, Jesus is quoted as saying something to the effect that he had to go away, but he (the human) would send another, the Counselor (the Spirit), who would lead us into all truth (one of Jesus’s words for reconciliation.). Also stated in many ways in various places in scripture, but summarized in Paul of Tarsus’s statement in I Corinthians: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then I shall known even as I am known.” (i.e. We don’t know where our spiritual journey will lead as we can only see bits and pieces now, but it gets better as we move along.) In various places we also find passages similar to Paul’s statement in Galatians: “. . . . 20and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.” (Once yielded and reconciled to God, we are changed.and better equipped to be what we are intended to be.)

This is what I believe the message of reconciliation found in what we call New Testatment Scripture to be. Do you have a different understanding?

I had said:

“Christianity, in its purest form, meanders and falters but generally moves in that [directed life] direction.”

To which Lee responds:

Agreed ... and/but years ago, that is what actually left me dying.

I do not fully understand your comment here, but it seems to refer to a bad experience with Christianity. If my interpretation is the correct one, I am sorry that it was that way for you, and I
acknowledge that you are not alone. Too many think Christianity is a set of rules and rituals, rewards and punishments, and too many are perhaps driven away permanently because of the way they were introduced to it. Personally I think we can’t agree with Paul re that ‘dark glass’ thing, and proceed to pronounce a lot of absolutes as if the glass was clear and the scene ahead was spotlighted.

I had said

“The God I believe and trust is way too big to confine himself to my thoughts and understanding or even the sum total of what we all together think and understand.”

To which Lee responded

Although I do not call YHWH by the non-name ““God””, we definitely agree there, and what you have just said is the essence of why I now know Christianity’s “boxed god” to definitely *not* be Him.

‘The God in a box’ scenario is one I have railed against most of my life and is a primary reason why I think Christianity has such a poor reputation with many. I try very hard not to be guilty of it, and can affirm that many Christians try very hard not to be guilty of it. I do teach of YHWH when I teach from what we call the “Old Testament” scriptures however. :smile:

I had said

“So is Christianity the best religion? For me it is ...”

To which Lee responded:

"Might you possibly change your mind after learning ““changed lives”” is not what YHWH has in mind?

Of course, if you could convince me that YHWH intended something different and/or what YHWH had in mind. I speak with conviction of my own experience only, but I do not presume to think my experience (or my knowledge and understanding) is all that there is.

Lee writes

“Your question was so provocative and so unintentionally complex ...”

As we both already know, the complexity is inherent ... and as to the matter of ““provocative””:

Well, why not?! Much is at stake here, and our brains do need stimulation ...

And we are definitely in agreement there, my friend. Shalom.