"Do I have religion right?”

How to Know if You Have the Wrong Religion
Please read this very thought-provoking article:

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2021/08/25/how-to-know-if-you-have-the-wrong-religion/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John+Pavlovitz&fbclid=IwAR1ah_JgtSXrctrcV-mOWJtqtsMRuzNp_Jx2z8urz7Rcw_DvBXciG71gdeo

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2021/08/25/how-to-know-if-you-have-the-wrong-religion/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John+Pavlovitz&fbclid=IwAR1ah_JgtSXrctrcV-mOWJtqtsMRuzNp_Jx2z8urz7Rcw_DvBXciG71gdeo

I read the article and the writer says what I have thought for many, many years.

It's never what one BELIEVES, but how one ACTS. THAT is the right religion for anyone.

Belief-based religions are a throwback to our primitive selves. Witness how the Bible developed over the centuries. From talking snake stories for children to the sublime message of love from Christ. Even the Gospel message is still tainted with remnants of the original worship of power - the powerful sky god who demanded obeisance from all the adherents.

As humanity evolved, so his grasp of religion also evolved. Large segments of humanity remain in the throes of ancient gods which is a reflection of the different stages of evolution humans are subject to.

Your question is one worth discussing.

What does love and care and empathy get us in the end? And if someone has little or none, then what?

What does love and care and empathy get us in the end? And if someone has little or none, then what?

Loving, caring and empathizing are not done for our benefit that will get something for us in the end. They are for the one receiving those things. When they are carried out for OUR sake, they will quickly disappear.

For those who have little or none, what they get or don't get is not our concern. We can continue with them, or "shake the dust off our feet."

Will we earn heaven (or be consigned to hell) depending if we love/care/empathize (or not)?

Should attaining heaven be our reason for
loving/carving/empathizing?

Will we earn heaven (or be consigned to hell) depending if we love/care/empathize (or not)?

I understood your question the first time. I gave the best answer I could.


Should attaining heaven be our reason for loving/carving/empathizing?

Desiring the good should be our reason. Desiring heaven in exchange for loving is just another form of buying and selling.

It's never what one BELIEVES, but how one ACTS. THAT is the right religion for anyone.So that's what you believe?

You have both stated belief after belief above. Belief is everything. It governs actions. We act because we believe something.

The author in the article said this. "The right religious worldview is the one that makes you a more empathetic human being—period. It is the belief system that enables you to be more aware of the suffering in the world and propels you into other people’s lives to alleviate that suffering." That is, of course, a belief he has which he claims is right and which he BELIEVES everyone should adhere to, believe, and act on. It is, he said, the "right religious worldview". So I suppose it's safe to say that he considers believing the "right thing" to be everything.

I prefer to listen to the man who was raised from the dead.

So that's what you believe?

You have both stated belief after belief above. Belief is everything. It governs actions. We act because we believe something.

The author in the article said this. "The right religious worldview is the one that makes you a more empathetic human being—period. It is the belief system that enables you to be more aware of the suffering in the world and propels you into other people’s lives to alleviate that suffering." That is, of course, a belief he has which he claims is right and which he BELIEVES everyone should adhere to, believe, and act on.

I prefer to listen to the man who was raised from the dead.

I am sorry to say (again!) that you have missed the meaning.

Words have shades of meaning, sometimes connotations, sometimes based on context, sometimes just differences.

In this case, "belief" is used in the narrow sense of religious belief. Other shades of meaning would include my belief that I am sitting at a computer writing this. This latter sense is not the same as what the previous posts have referred to when using the word. I hope this isn't too confusing for you.

As far as the linked article goes, you may believe whatever you desire whether it agrees with the author or not. That is your privilege.

I prefer to listen to the man who was raised from the dead.
Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized.

Do you believe what He said?

Do you believe what He said?
What He said or what you say He said?

What He said as recorded in the New Testament. Do you believe those words?

What He said as recorded in the New Testament. Do you believe those words?
We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries.

Then how do you know this is true? "Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized."

BTW, this is hardly true. " just transcriptions and translations over the centuries." It's not even close to being true.

Then how do you know this is true? "Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized."

BTW, this is hardly true. " just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."
In the same way, how do you know hell exists?

Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes.

Because I believe what He said. You clearly do not. And there is no good reason to believe we do not have an accurate account of what He said.

Because I believe what He said. You clearly do not. And there is no good reason to believe we do not have an accurate account of what He said.
What do you believe He said? Everything exactly as printed in the KJV Bible?

I would reference the Greek manuscripts, but the KJV is sufficient.

But you have already said you don't believe we know what He said, so there's no real point in continuing this.

I would reference the Greek manuscripts, but the KJV is sufficient.

But you have already said you don't believe we know what He said, so there's no real point in continuing this.
You are already misconstruing what I'VE said!!!

We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries.Nothing has been misconstrued. This was a very clear statement. Your refusal to simply say you believe what He said also speaks volumes.

Nothing has been misconstrued. This was a very clear statement. Your refusal to simply say you believe what He said also speaks volumes.
So you KNOW which are His exact words.

If you don't believe the NT account is reliable, then you cannot know this is true. "Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized."

Can't have it both ways.

If you don't believe the NT account is reliable, then you cannot know this is true. "Who acted. He loved/cared/empathized."

Can't have it both ways.
We're talking about WORDS said, not account (the overall story).

Both the actions and statements of Christ are related with words. Either those words are reliable or they're not. Can't have it both ways just to suit your preconceived ideas. To suggest His actions are reliably recorded but His words are not is a preposterous idea.

If you ever decide, get back with me.

"Oh, His actions are reliably recorded, but His words are not." It's a preposterous idea.

If you ever decide, get back with me.
Who recorded them, wrote them down, when He said them?

Again, to suggest His actions are reliably recorded but His words are not is a preposterous idea. The same argument you just used for His statements can be used of those who observed His actions. There is no difference. You are only making a distinction because you think His actions support your preconceived notions (they do not) but His words don't. And you are the same person who just weeks ago had her hair on fire trying to suggest that a word He spoke repeatedly (agape) meant unconditional love. But how can you even know He ever used the word??? You say the accounts of His speech are unreliable ("We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."). If so, how can you know He ever used "agape"?

I should tell you that NO ONE tries to advance the argument you are using. NO ONE does. It is sheer foolishness.

Deleted...removed.

When Jesus spoke the word love, especially when He told us to love one another, He meant agape, unconditionally. Of course, He knows we're human, restrained by the bondage of sin, so we can only dream of loving unconditionally. Our flesh -- our ego, our selfness, -- won't allow it, and we can't get beyond philos.

When on the cross, did He really say,“Elí, Elí, lemá sabachtháni?” or is that the cry of despair that the Gospel writers knew Jesus would have uttered as our suffering Savior?

When Jesus spoke the word love, especially when He told us to love one another, He meant agape, unconditionally.How do you know He ever used the word "agape"? Remember that, according to you, the accounts of the words He spoke are unreliable.


"We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."
Even worse, according to you, "Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes."

So how can you claim to know He ever used "agape"? How can you claim to know what He said???

He spoke Aramaic and Greek. His entire life was one of selfless love -- the agape kind, not eros or philos. Selfless love was the center of His teachings.

His entire life was one of love -- the agape kind, not eros or philos.But how can you know any of that? Remember that, according to you, the NT text is not reliable. So how can you know these things?


"We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."



"Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes."

But how can you know any of that? Remember that, according to you, the NT text is not reliable. So how can you know these things?
They all agree regarding Jesus as being the perfect example of unconditional love.

Desiring heaven in exchange for loving is just another form of buying and selling.

If I may jump in here for a moment - all Christian denominations accept the hope for a heavenly reward as a valid motivator to live a good life.

I didn't want my original statement to be misleading.

They all agree regarding Jesus as being the perfect example of unconditional love.You are trying to have your cake and eat it as well. All of the unreliable NT texts (according to you) agreeing on something amounts to nothing. They all agree about a coming day of judgment, but you reject that. It all comes back to a simple guiding principle you use. Any text that agrees with you is great, and any text that disagrees with you is suspect. You inform the Bible rather than the Bible guiding your beliefs.

I think we've talked this to death. You have, it seems to me, such a predictable pattern. Your liberal worldview guides your beliefs, and then you go to the Bible in search of support. But you are always suspicious, so it's always about proof texts, or an unreliable NT text (unless it agrees with you), or someone is a fundie, and on and on it goes. Anything to keep from violating liberal dogma.

I hope you don't rue that upcoming day of judgment -- or maybe you're just getting your own personal unhappiness out. Like we learned in counseling psych grad school, bullying, incivility, intimidation, and other forms of disrespectful behavior chills communication and discussion, undercuts individual contributions to posts, and, in general, undermines morale.

Oh for goodness sake. You have an inconsistent belief. You believe the text of the NT when it seems to describe the Jesus you like, and yet you will not believe that same text when Jesus says what you don't like. It's not my issue. It's yours to deal with. You always want to blame the other person when it's you that needs correcting.

I'll give you the last word. It'll be your chance to explain the strange belief that the NT is reliable where it agrees with you and unreliable where it does not agree with you. Go for it.

Oh for goodness sake. You have an inconsistent belief. You believe the text of the NT when it seems to describe the Jesus you like, and yet you will not believe that same text when Jesus says what you don't like. It's not my issue. It's yours to deal with. You always want to blame the other person when it's you that needs correcting.

I'll give you the last word. It'll be your chance to explain the strange belief that the NT is reliable where it agrees with you and unreliable where it does not agree with you. Go for it.
Your conclusion is totally incorrect. As Athos has said more than once, reading comprehension is not your strong point.

That is such a thoroughly dishonest answer I can't let it go by. It's just another example of your idea that it's always the other guy's fault. This post said it all.

You said, "His entire life was one of love -- the agape kind, not eros or philos."


I replied, "But how can you know any of that? Remember that, according to you, the NT text is not reliable. So how can you know these things?" And I noted two former posts of yours clearly showing that you might have a writing comprehension problem, but reading comprehension is not the issue. They were scarcely a resounding endorsement of the NT's reliability.



"We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries."






"Of course the NT has been added to and changed to suit the ruler or pope or priest in power over the scribes."




Dear WG, if the text of the NT is unreliable as you say it is, then none of it can be trusted. Your faith is just emptiness in that case.

I never said the NT text isn't reliable! And we DON'T have Jesus' exact words!

We can't verify the accuracy of Jesus' words. Jesus spoke Aramic and Greek, not English. Matthew and Mark were not at the foot of the cross, yet they wrote Jesus' words that were translated over and over again for centuries. How accurate were they by the time we read them in English?

I never said the NT text isn't reliable! And we DON'T have Jesus' exact words!Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. The words we have of Christ are not really right, but by George the text sure is reliable! Surely you can see the silliness of that position.

Either we have an accurate account or we don't. If it is accurate, then we can be confident of both the words AND actions of Jesus. If it's not, then it cannot help us. But you cannot hold that it both IS and IS NOT accurate.

Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. The words we have of Christ are not really right, but by George the text sure is reliable! Surely you can see the silliness of that position.
Text = content. E.g., Jesus died on a cross so our sins will be forgiven. Let's expand text to mean teachings, the heart or moral of each story.

Back to the original question ------

If your Christian religion is based on belief and you find yourself acting in an un-Christ-like fashion by dispararging the religion of others and acting in a mean and insulting manner, then your professed religion is not the one for you.

It is a simple and effective test.

And that is a belief of yours.

WG, are you saying now that you accept the teachings of Jesus?

WG, are you saying now that you accept the teachings of Jesus?
"Now"????

Yeah. You remember what I asked about 5 million posts ago? "Do you believe what He said?" You have steadfastly refused to answer, and have come up with statements such as, "We don't have His exact words, just transcriptions and translations over the centuries." Or there was this scarcely faith-filled comment. "Who recorded them, wrote them down, when He said them?" But NOW you are saying you accept His teachings. Yet I bet you really don't. His teachings don't agree with your liberal ideas, so you cannot accept them.

Yup, reading comprehension. Literalist to the core!

And that is a belief of yours.

It certainly is.

If I didn't believe it was true, I would not have posted it.

If I didn't believe it was true, I would not have posted itI wasn't being necessarily critical of your comment. I was trying to draw attention to your first statement. "It's never what one BELIEVES, but how one ACTS. THAT is the right religion for anyone." That was also a belief statement. At the end of the day, I think that's what we need to be most careful of. Our actions are generally birthed by our beliefs.


Yup, reading comprehension. Literalist to the core!Just the comment of a person with no arguments. It's like saying, "I made statements I cannot defend, so I'll just call the other guy a literalist (which is really pitiful) and try to squeeze out of it." It's why I so dislike trying to discuss anything with you. When you get stuck, you always want to blame it on someone else. In your view, your liberal beliefs just couldn't be at fault.

I was trying to draw attention to your first statement. "It's never what one BELIEVES, but how one ACTS. THAT is the right religion for anyone." That was also a belief statement.

You're still missing the point. See my post #8 in this thread which I assume you didn't read. That post explains what you missed.

My quote above that you cited refers to RELIGIOUS belief - not to belief in general. You have equated the two usages of "belief". They are not the same.

Sorry to say it's that reading comprehension problem you have. You don't always understand the meaning of words when they are used within different contexts. Children learn how to distinguish the different nuances of same words as they begin to learn language as babies.

Our actions are generally birthed by our beliefs.d
Not at all. Our actions too often are the opposite of our beliefs.

Not at all. Our actions too often are the opposite of our beliefs.Maybe. It's an interesting thought, but only if you intend for us to take that statement literally. Is that the case? Perhaps you really meant, in a figurative way, that you completely agree with my ideas. I hope so!

I'm not sure I agree with that, but it is worth considering. I think it's more likely that our many beliefs contend for mastery with each other. So if "Joe" believes abortion is wrong, but refuses to take a public stand against it, then perhaps his belief that personal convenience and public approval are both really important simply overrides his weaker belief about abortion. Perhaps his belief that abortion is wrong is a relatively weak belief. I think that our stronger "faith" always wins. The outcome depends upon what our faith was looking at. But I still like your point. It's caused me to think, and I wouldn't be prepared to say your statement is wrong. Fears, prejudices, and desires enter into the picture as well.

And yes, I mean that literally.

You will not see me make a silly plea to someone else's reading comprehension in order to defend the weakness or lack of clarity of my statements.

Or "Sally," a Christian and the mother of five children, is 39 and four months pregnant. Two forms of birth control failed. She has been told by her husband, an agnostic, never to get pregnant again, that they can't afford another child, and he will divorce her if she goes through with this pregnancy. What now?

They can always kill an unborn human being. Would that solve the problem?

They could kill one of their already born children. How would that be different?

This Christian woman does not know how to pray and appeal to her Heavenly Father for help? Why did that option not occur to you? So sad that a professing Christian never even thought of prayer. Well, I know what my wife would have told me. "Get out of this house, you piece of garbage. You'll not have my baby killed."
"When I came, why was there no one? When I called, why was there no one to answer? Was my arm too short to deliver you? Do I lack the strength to rescue you? By a mere rebuke I dry up the sea, I turn rivers into a desert; their fish rot for lack of water and die of thirst. I clothe the heavens with darkness and make sackcloth its covering.”Baby at about four months. How sad that you seem to be so eager to present a case for death.

https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/f0069163/800wm/F0069163-Foetus_at_18_weeks,_artwork.jpg

How would prayer help?

Are you serious??? You are actually asking how prayer could help? Don't really know what to say to that. The truth is revealed, I guess.


7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. 9 Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? 11 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!What would Jesus say to you for asking such a question?


16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. 17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”At some point a person has to take a stand. It is better to suffer for doing what is right than to engage in what amounts to murder and live a soft life.

Truly, how would prayer help? God isn't going to whisper in her ear. Sally could pray and decide God wants her to abort the baby so as not to lose the husband she loves dearly and who is the devoted father of their children.

I can think of a more productive/utilitarian way to work this out and not only save the pregnancy but also save the marriage. AND it would be God-pleasing.

If your Christian religion is based on belief and you find yourself acting in an un-Christ-like fashion by dispararging the religion of others and acting in a mean and insulting manner, then your professed religion is not the one for you.

It is a simple and effective test.

Back to the original question.

Don't most (all?) of the major religions profess the Golden Rule?

If I'm near or with a person whom I know to be a Christian disparaging another's religion or even someone's Christian denomination, what should I say, if anything?

Truly, how would prayer help? God isn't going to whisper in her ear. How do you know?


Sally could pray and decide God wants her to abort the baby so as not to lose the husband she loves dearly and who is the devoted father of their children.Well, why wouldn't God just tell her to kill one of her other children? You really think God would tell this woman to kill her unborn child, and do so in order to hold on to a husband who demands she have an abortion?

Find out what happened to Samuel's mother when she prayed. Sometimes it seems you have the littlest faith of anyone I've met in a long time who claims to be a Christian. Perhaps I have a false impression.


Don't most (all?) of the major religions profess the Golden Rule?
How many of the world's religions believe that Jesus is the only way to God as He said He was? Oops. I forgot. You discount the NT.

If I'm near or with a person whom I know to be a Christian disparaging another's religion or even someone's Christian denomination, what should I say, if anything?

Easy. Tell them that's not very Christ-like. Christ didn't disparage the religion of others. In fact, he said to love your neighbor. Neighbors come in all sizes and religions.


How many of the world's religions believe that Jesus is the only way to God as He said He was?

Irrelevant. Only Christianity says that. No other religion says that. I hope you don't think that's some sort of proof that Christianity is the only way to God. Even the largest Christian denomination doesn't claim that.

The best religion is the one that teaches its adherents to behave lovingly and ethically towards one's neighbor. A Christian (or non-Christian) acting otherwise is a bad example and not to be imitated or admired.

Easy. Tell them that's not very Christ-like. Christ didn't disparage the religion of others. In fact, he said to love your neighbor. Neighbors come in all sizes and religions.
Rather than scold them (and they immediately stop listening), I would use "I" statements and gently dig into their reasoning/rationale. Then I would, along the way, carefully remind them what Jesus encouraged us to do.

Rather than scold them (and they immediately stop listening), I would use "I" statements and gently dig into their reasoning/rationale. Then I would, along the way, carefully remind them what Jesus encouraged us to do.

Excellent!

(No one was scolding anyone, if that's what you were thinking).

carefully remind them what Jesus encouraged us to do.Except that, as you know, you have already repeatedly said that we really don't know what Jesus said.


I hope you don't think that's some sort of proof that Christianity is the only way to God.I'm just telling you what Jesus said. Perhaps you will have a chance to correct Him someday.


The best religion is the one that teaches its adherents to behave lovingly and ethically towards one's neighbor.Why do you believe that?

from Athos
I hope you don't think that's some sort of proof that Christianity is the only way to God.




I'm just telling you what Jesus said.

Thank you. Then you do NOT think it is some sort of proof that Christianity is the only way to God?


Perhaps you will have a chance to correct Him someday.

Here you seem to be saying Christianity IS the only way to God. I will go with this one.

A not-so-veiled threat.

Thank you.

It gives me a chance to tell more about primitive religion. It is characteristic of these religions that the gods brook no acknowledgement of other religions. The adherents will usually condemn non-believers to death or to a more hideous fate - eternal punishment in hell.

Christianity is the prime example that has both a primitive retention of origins dating back to Judaism while also possessing an evolved sense of altruism, also dating back to Judaism.

The primitive aspect is in the process of being discarded, being held only by a marginal faction at present.


from Athos
The best religion is the one that teaches its adherents to behave lovingly and ethically towards one's neighbor.


from Jlisenbe
Why do you believe that?

It is common among those religions that have developed over long periods of time. It is also self-evident that humanity is at its best when acting lovingly and ethically toward one another.

It is common among those religions that have developed over long periods of time. It is also self-evident that humanity is at its best when acting lovingly and ethically toward one another.So you accept that because it is taught by the same religions that also teach the concept of judgment? Interesting that you accept one idea but not the other. Still, go to India. Look around. See how the Hindu religion seems to be teaching loving your neighbor. Moslems? The evidence is plain that ethical behavior towards your neighbor is not high on the list of priorities. See how their women are treated. Look at the religions developed among the native Americans here. They routinely attacked and killed neighboring tribes. It is self-evident to you because you have been influenced by the remnants of the Christian west, but to many people around the world, it is self evident that the world is proceeding best when your neighbors are being killed or subjugated.

As to the rest of your comments, I'll stick with the words of the man who was raised from the dead. If He says that people only come to God through Him and that a day of judgment is coming, then that's good enough for me. I find no reason why I would want to take your word over His.

Except that, as you know, you have already repeatedly said that we really don't know what Jesus said.

I'm just telling you what Jesus said. Perhaps you will have a chance to correct Him someday.

We don't know His EXACT WORDS. We do know the messages He taught.

We don't know His EXACT WORDS. We do know the messages He taught.So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?

See how the Hindu religion seems to be teaching loving your neighbor. Moslems? The evidence is plain that ethical behavior towards your neighbor is not high on the list of priorities. See how their women are treated. Look at the religions developed among the native Americans here. They routinely attacked and killed neighboring tribes. It is self-evident to you because you have been influenced by the remnants of the Christian west, but to many people around the world, it is self evident that the world is proceeding best when your neighbors are being killed or subjugated.
The kindest, gentlest, most loving people I have ever known and worked with for years were from India. Many library patrons were Muslim, also wonderful people. They truly followed the Golden Rule!

Thank God Christians individually and in groups have not and still don't murder, torture, rape, etc. people of their own religion or in other religions! </sarcasm>

The kindest, gentlest, most loving people I have ever known and worked with for years were from IndiaThen you need to find a different church to attend.

Please don't evade this. "So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?"

So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?
Why would He send people to hell?

Again, please don't evade this. "So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?"

That is based upon this comment of yours. "We don't know His EXACT WORDS. We do know the messages He taught."

Then you need to find a different church to attend.
Why? I am loved and return that love. And am still in touch with many via email, LinkedIn, Quora, Zoom, Skype, FB Messenger.


Again, please don't evade this. "So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?"

That is based upon this comment of yours. "We don't know His EXACT WORDS. We do know the messages He taught."
What was the REAL lesson He was teaching?

Again, please don't evade this. "So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?"

That is based upon this comment of yours. "We don't know His EXACT WORDS. We do know the messages He taught."

Again, please don't evade this. "So you do accept that in Matthew 25 (and a number of other places) Jesus taught a "message" of Him someday sending people to hell?"

That is based upon this comment of yours. "We don't know His EXACT WORDS. We do know the messages He taught."
Nope. There is a message He taught that supersedes the obvious (literal) one you're hung up on.

So you don't accept his messages after all. At least you admit it. Only those which survive the journey through your liberal philosophies are accepted in your world.

And then, of course, comes the pathetic appeal to literalism.

So you accept that because it is taught by the same religions that also teach the concept of judgment? Interesting that you accept one idea but not the other.

As noted, religions are in various stages of development. They can contain both a primitive nature and a developed nature. It is no surprise that judgement is taught by many. Judgement can be fair or not fair. It depends on the circumstances.

This is not a case of "accepting one idea but not the other" as though you have discovered something faulty in the reasoning. In all walks of life including religion, some ideas are good, others are not. You should not be having trouble with this obvious concept.


Still, go to India. Look around. See how the Hindu religion seems to be teaching loving your neighbor. Moslems? The evidence is plain that ethical behavior towards your neighbor is not high on the list of priorities. See how their women are treated. Look at the religions developed among the native Americans here. They routinely attacked and killed neighboring tribes.

This shows how little you know of other religions.

Your disparagements of other religions are equally true of Christianity. In fact, historically, Christianity is the worst. No religious god has been more evil than the god of the Bible who destroyed the entire race of humans on a whim. And who, according to some, sends people to hell for the simple fact of not believing in him. No God is or ever has been more primitive.

However, with the onset of the Hebrew prophets and with Jesus Christ, this religion has made giant steps away from the raw killing nature of the god it began with. There is much left to be done.


It is self-evident to you because you have been influenced by the remnants of the Christian west

When a thing is self-evident, that means it stands on its own, not requiring additional proof.


to many people around the world, it is self evident that the world is proceeding best when your neighbors are being killed or subjugated.

There is nothing self-evident about those people. They are driven by religion which they misinterpret as demanding killing and violence. It requires many factors to believe such evil, none of which are self-evident.


As to the rest of your comments, I'll stick with the words of the man who was raised from the dead. If He says that people only come to God through Him and that a day of judgment is coming, then that's good enough for me.

That is your privilege to believe whatever you wish to believe. You have every right to believe what is written in a series of two thousand year old books, as many do. Those books also have a message of love and ethics, without which a belief in miracles doesn't matter much.


I find no reason why I would want to take your word over His.

No one is asking you to take one word over another. As noted, it is your privilege to believe what you want to believe. You, and others like you, are simply being presented with a reasonable examination of the growth and development of religion.

As noted, religions are in various stages of development.Your belief. Nothing more.


However, with the onset of the Hebrew prophets and with Jesus Christ, this religion has made giant steps away from the raw killing nature of the god it began with. There is much left to be done.I'm sure God has noted your objections.


There is nothing self-evident about those people.No one said there was.


Those books also have a message of love and ethics, without which a belief in miracles doesn't matter much.Again, just your belief which you are entitles. However, it makes no sense and there is no compelling reason to believe it.

Your belief. Nothing more.

A REASONED observation. It will take more to cast it aside than merely denying it.


I'm sure God has noted your objections.

Which God?


Again, just your belief ........ However, it makes no sense and there is no compelling reason to believe it.

It makes eminent good sense to anyone rationally examining the issue. To those blinded by an unreasoning faith in bad religion, not so. Merely denying is not a compelling REASON not to believe it. You need more than that.

It will take more to confirm it than your agreement.

the God of the Bible.


It makes eminent good sense to anyone rationally examining the issue. To those blinded by an unreasoning faith in bad religion, not so. Merely denying is not a compelling REASON not to believe it. You need more than that.You are asking us to accept that your examination makes eminently good sense, yet you've not given anyone any good reason to agree with your views. Merely affirming is not a compelling REASON to accept it.

So you don't accept his messages after all. At least you admit it. Only those which survive the journey through your liberal philosophies are accepted in your world.

I admit nothing! I said, "There is a message He taught that supersedes the obvious (literal) one you're hung up on." You can't read between the lines as to what Jesus was actually saying???

Where does it say that? You are saying that Jesus was lying?

You would be well served to quit the silliness of the literal accusations. Every time a statement doesn't favor your preconceived ideas, it's always because someone took it too literally. It's just a ridiculous claim and it seems to indicate you really don't understand the concept.

Where does it say that? You are saying that Jesus was lying?
Um, not at all!

You would be well served to quit the silliness of the literal accusations. Every time a statement doesn't favor your preconceived ideas, it's always because someone took it too literally. It's just a ridiculous claim and it seems to indicate you really don't understand the concept.
I made no literal accusation toward you. I said there's a literal message -- and there's a metaphorical one.

the God of the Bible.

Picking the God of the Bible with all his murderous activities and horrendous torture should tell you much about yourself. Sad to say, it's not pretty.


You are asking us to accept that your examination makes eminently good sense, yet you've not given anyone any good reason to agree with your views.

I am not asking you to accept anything. I am laying out for you the evolution of religion.

As for my "good reasons", they are presented as clearly as possible for you to ruminate and process them through your own mind, rather than simply offering a blanket denial.


Merely affirming is not a compelling REASON to accept it.

See the answer above.

Also, taking my comment on YOUR merely denying and turning it around is nothing more than a feeble trick when you lack cogent reasons of your own.

Also, taking my comment on YOUR merely denying and turning it around is nothing more than a feeble trick when you lack cogent reasons of your own.
I'd love it if this thread had honest and interesting discussions about belief in God. Who is God? Where did He (She?) come from? Why do so many cultures believe in a God? Is He (She?) the same one for all?

I'd love it if this thread had honest and interesting discussions about belief in God.

It started that way, but it was soon hijacked by a "true believer".

By someone who doesn't just accept everything you say. I learned from the Aquinas incident.


I'd love it if this thread had honest and interesting discussions about belief in God. Who is God? Where did He (She?) come from? Why do so many cultures believe in a God? Is He (She?) the same one for all?Do you mean that to be taken literally?

Do you mean that to be taken literally?
Honest and interesting discussions stem from "I" statements and questions, not accusatory "you" ones.

I tell you what. I would prefer you have your I statements conversation with someone else. I don't like any discussion which is as evasive as this one has been. I much prefer speaking with someone who has the moral courage to state his/her honest convictions.

By someone who doesn't just accept everything you say. I learned from the Aquinas incident.

No one is required to "just accept everything I say". My posts are for all to read and reply if they want with reasoned discourse. Something you have notably failed to do, and for which you have been cited by more than one member of this website. Lacking a talent for anything but a knee-jerk reliance on your brand of Christianity, you don't contribute much to the discussion.

Your continued bringing up "the Aquinas incident" which is about two years old is a case in point. Besides the fact of it's being ancient history by now, it was clearly explained to you, but in your troll-like fervor to disagree with anything, you can't let go of it. Whenever you bring it up, it's a clear sign you have nothing intelligent to say.

It's an example of you giving a partial quote to supposedly support a contention of yours. When the entire quote was provided, it plainly contradicted your belief. It was, shall we say, suspicious in the extreme. So when you make a statement, I don't just fall into lockstep like you expect. I don't mean that in an offensive manner. It's just how it is.

My "brand of Christianity" is to depend on what Jesus said. You plainly don't agree with that. That's your choice.

I tell you what. I would prefer you have your I statements conversation with someone else. I don't like any discussion which is as evasive as this one has been. I much prefer speaking with someone who has the moral courage to state his/her honest convictions.
If you stop making every one of your responses derogatory toward others and agree to speak to the topic on the table, I will do my part as requested.

If you stop making every one of your responses derogatory toward othersLike you just did? I think I'll pass on it. You have never done your part if you consider honest, forthright answers to be your part.

Like you just did? I think I'll pass on it. You have never done your part if you consider honest, forthright answers to be your part.
Please read Matthew 6:14-15.

Do you mean that literally?

This is what is tiresome. When you get in a corner, it's always an appeal to what someone else needs to do, someone else is mean, someone else is a literalist, someone else is using a proof text, and now it's someone else is not forgiving. Wow. You accept that statement of Christ, but not the ones you dislike. I can't handle that. I told you weeks ago that above all, you should be consistent in your beliefs. You are not.