how can any one religion make a valid claim to be the fundamental truth?

Well, isn't that special. Now we are attacking the word proof.Well prove only works when you need to do it, but not when you need to prove God?

I am not picking and choosing. If I believe in God, that does not make me religious. People who believe in God are theists: That does not make you religious. If I use the bible to find God, It makes me religious, because I am using the belief's of those who wrote it to find the truth, but it does not have any specific religion tied to it. Unless you just want to use the word Christianity, but that only means that I believe in Jesus, not any specific religion. It should be all the same, but its not, and that is a short coming of man. I didn't pick it, it was a link in websters, so it was in caps. It only means that you are aware of your religious beliefs, not that you are aware of God. Thats not the question here. The question is how to find the truth. The question to ask most people here, is how did riverrat find the truth, through what religion. No-one here could answer that until now. Believeing in God and religion are 2 different things.Most people here in this forum would agree. Most people, regardless of what any dictionary says, see religion as the organization of people with their own set of rules on how to go about the worship of God. That's called tradition.So what If I belonged to a church where we let God make the rules? What if I wanted to know something, I would just ask God, and not refer to my religion?Yes, I am religious, yes I belong to a church, and it has a label. But that is not how I came to know the truth, which is what this thread is about.Initially when searching for the truth, I didn't believe in Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. I did ask him into my life at one point in a search for the truth. 5 years later he smack me upside the head and showed me just how real he is.You see Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit. It is to be our guide in life, our consuler: Can I get a witness? Look at the word witness in Acts 1:8. What does that word mean? When I experienced the Holy Spirit, I became a witness. I chose to follow God's ways, and now the Holy Spirit is in my life everyday. I use him as my guide in life.But in my journey to find the truth, I wasn't following a religion. Yes, yes. 100% true. I used portions of all those books to help me find the truth. So should you. If you read something in one of those books, and it doesn't make sense to you, you should go and let someone who represents that religion, and have them explain it to you.It is by that method that we can determine where the truth lies. But careful, as this is where the deception can occur. You must follow your heart. God put his laws in the minds and hearts of everyone, remember that.I did not come to fully believe in the truth until the truth came down and hit me like a ton of bricks. I was just minding my own business, more or less. I wasn't really searching for God, any harder than most people do. I was contempt right where I was. I believed in a lot of the morals of the bible, but that did not mean I knew the truth. If you understand the verses I put to you here in this reply, and what I am saying about the promise that Jesus made us, and the Holy Spirit, and you understand that the Holy Spirit is the truth. That is half the battle. Now all you have to do is seek him alittle, or ask him to come into your life. Remember the prayer earlier in this thread?Once you experience the Holy Spirit, you will come to know the truth.
You don't need a religion. So you do understand, that is good.

quote:

---

Well, isn't that special. Now we are attacking the word proof.

---

No, not at all. I am simply asking you to be precise in your meaning.Which definition or "type" of "proof" do you mean when you ask, "Can you prove that you love someone?"?Do you mean the type or kind of "proof" that onhai and I were just talking about (mathematical) or another kind?I am sorry that I am somewhat belaboring this point, but, see, the meanings of words are important. I am absolutely not trying to be difficult or avoid answering the question. I just need you to be much more precise in your language and tell me which way you are using the word "prove" if I am to give you an accurate answer.(See, my suspicion is that you are not wanting to be precise in your definition because vagueness is a good place to hide in debate. )

quote:

---

Well prove only works when you need to do it, but not when you need to prove God?

---

I don't know what you mean by "prove" yet, so I can't answer this question.Here's our last exchange where I asked my question and explained why I was asking it:

quote:

---

No you asked me what I meant by prove love.
You can't really can you.

---

quote:

---

If I use the bible to find God, It makes me religious, because I am using the belief's of those who wrote it to find the truth, but it does not have any specific religion tied to it.

---

Wait a minute.Are you actually advancing the argument that the Bible is not connected to any specific religion?LOLOL!!!

quote:

---

Unless you just want to use the word Christianity, but that only means that I believe in Jesus, not any specific religion.

---

LOLOLOL!!!!You believe in the specific religion of Christianity, rat.Perhaps you mean to say that you do not call yourself a Methodist or an Evangelical, but those are not different religions, those are different denominations of the same religion; Christianity.

quote:

---

Once you experience the Holy Spirit, you will come to know the truth.
You don't need a religion.

---

But you obviously do, because you are clearly a major adherent to Christianity.

Schrafinator Wrote: thankyou for that,
was beginning to think it was me going mad.I also found this one quite funny. -- Blinks--Then And you are right claiming the bible has no connection to any specific religion is truly risible.--Edit--
BTW: it's ohnhai, I know I get it wrong sometimes but, I do like to correct it when I see it spelt wrong (pronounced "on high" but spelt ohnhai, long story not worth telling)This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01-27-2005 10:38 AM

quote:

---

BTW: it's ohnhai, I know I get it wrong sometimes but, I do like to correct it when I see it spelt wrong (pronounced "on high" but spelt ohnhai, long story not worth telling)

---

Of course, my apologies.Oh, an no, you are definitely not going mad.

No worries.As to our friend I can forgive him the recent posts as, with our help, he does seem to have backed himself into a corner.On one hand agreeing that no religion can hold claim to the fundamental truthAnd on the other suddenly trying to distance himself from the very obvious Christian views, teachings and texts which he openly confesses are the core of his belief structure and religious outlook.I’m not inclined to push him any further on this matter.If he is desperate enough to try and disassociate the Bible with Christianity to avoid his beliefs falling under the banner of ‘religion’, and thus an already agreed notion that religions can’t absolutely claim to have the only truth( meaning his beliefs cant make a valid claim to be 100% true either) then the notion of admitting that there is even the slightest chance he could be wrong as to the nature of god must fill him with such anxiety and anguish that I don’t want to be the cause of that kind of conflict in someone else. Mainly cause I’m not a cruel person, and secondly, if it’s causing that much trouble for him to say that "yes I could be wrong" then I don’t have the right to inflict that kind of torture on anyone.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 01-27-2005 20:18 AM

quote:

---

If he is desperate enough to try and disassociate the Bible with Christianity to avoid his beliefs falling under the banner of ‘religion’, and thus an already agreed notion that religions can’t absolutely claim to have the only truth( meaning his beliefs cant make a valid claim to be 100% true either) then the notion of admitting that there is even the slightest chance he could be wrong as to the nature of god must fill him with such anxiety and anguish that I don’t want to be the cause of that kind of conflict in someone else. Mainly cause I’m not a cruel person, and secondly, if it’s causing that much trouble for him to say that "yes I could be wrong" then I don’t have the right to inflict that kind of torture on anyone.

---

I understand what you mean, but remember that you aren't forcing him to be here, or continue in the conversation. He has every right and freedom to not read this thread at all.On the other hand, the rat seems like a nice enough fellow so I also understand your desire to be gentle.This IS a debate forum, though, so don't think that you don't have a "right" to simply debate with someone who is here of their own volition.

I understand all that but would you really want to keep kicking someone when they are down?Though I may be wrong, I feel ratty has got him self in an un-defendable position.He is clearly a Christian and follows that religion. He even admits to being religious, going to church, that the message of bible is the at the core of this belief system, and that God, Jesus, and the holy spirit are the ultimate truth, and you can’t get much more Christian than that. He has also stated no religion can hold the truth absolute. Thus it follows that his Christian views on the nature of God can’t make the claim to be absolutely true as they are clearly of a religious nature and more specifically pertaining to the religion of Christianity, which as has been agreed by both parties can’t claim to hold the absolute truth because it is a religion, and thus open to error.Now to avoid accepting this conclusion and the ramifications of that on his personal views he twists and turns making some extremely tenuous claims as to the nature of the bible and his beliefs Such as claiming the bible isn’t a Christian text, or claiming that believing in a god doesn’t make you religious.I can’t see he has any where to go other than accepting his views are religious and thus carry the possibility that they could be wrong, or retracting the agreed statement that religions can’t make a claim to hold the fundamental truth.He doesn’t want to admit the first because that would mean he could be wrong as to the nature of God. He doesn’t want to do the latter because it means any of the other religions out there could be the truth. After all if it is possible for a single religion to actually have the absolute truth at the exclusion of all others then there is no guarantee that is going to be his.

and I'd like to explore it slightly further.This also may tie in with another discussion going on relating ER to PR.I think we need to distinguish between the issue of GOD and religion. Whether or not there is a GOD or GODs is totally independant of what belief systems exist. Regardless of what anyone believes, if there is a GOD, GOD will exist. Even if 100% of the people were Atheists, the GOD would still be there.On the other hand, if there is no GOD, even if 100% of the people believed in some GOD, that GOD would not exist.When it comes down to issues of Fundamental Truth, the only possiblity is to examine ANY belief system in relation to the world around us and coexistence. If a belief system works then it can be said to be true. This is religion. Religion can only be judged based on the actions and behavior of those that embrace it.Many people confuse GOD and religion. When certain of their personal practices are challenged, they take that as an attack on GOD. Instead, it would be more appropriate to look at what is being said about their religion itself. Are there certain practices, actions, attributed to a given religion that run counter to coexistence?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Indeed, indeed. The belief in the god/s either way has no relevance as to their actual existence. Believing in the existence of the divine doesn’t prove the divine to exist. Same as the lack of belief in the existence of the divine doesn’t prove the divine’s lack of existence. Again, true. The God/s and their religions are separate entities. To question one isn’t to implicitly question the other. Unfortunately, for many religions I would have to say yes, especially for monotheistic religions, whose main tool for maintaining validity is the total denial of the existence of other gods.Polytheistic religions on the whole tend to be a bit more flexible (but not much) because as they have many gods they can’t very easily deny the existence of yet more gods can they? After all what’s one more god when you have a few hundred already? When Polytheistic structures clash is it not the case, that an argument for equivalents gets made, such as the merging of the English and Roman deities of water to create Sulis-Minerva? In other words Hey! We both have a god of water they are probably the same god so let’s lump them together, but worship her in our modern way.Monotheistic Religions on the other hand DO have a problem with the existence of other gods, as this does tend to undermine the validity of their claim to know the one true God. This is more pronounced if one Monotheistic Religion bumps heads with another, as you then have 2 gods both claiming to be THE only God both with the three Os. What do you do? Typically what you do is end up arguing the toss for thousands of years occasionally resorting to killing each other when things get over heated.All things considered it would be a whole lot better if the religions had a ‘believe and let believe’ policy, but that tends to be tricky when you are teaching absolutes to your followers.

I must not be getting e-mails when people reply to me This is what I am saying. There is no real way to prove it. If there is, I really don't know what it is, and if I did claim to know, you guys would rip it apart anyway.You see, there is the theory of Love (TOL) then there is Love, the fact, then there is the overwelming evidence of Love.When does it all end?
Whats next, Love in a petri dish, oops I forgot, artificial insemination.True Love is everlasting, and it is not selfish. How can we prove Love without time?

100% correct Schraf.But I did not study only Christianity to find the truth. I studied mostly Christianity, and the truth came and got me.So what religion do we study to find the truth?

Not ever if your life would you be able to do that with me.
You ability to keep missing the point is truely amazing, both you and schraff.I have confessed over and over, that I am a Christian. My chruch is non-denominational.I have studied all religions, and through that study, have found the truth.There are "truths" in all religions.The bible contains 2 "religions".The truth is in your heart, not the bible or religion.The truth is in lies, for once we find out they are a lie, we can then see the truth.The truth is a being, your friend, and your guide.I know its fustrating for you to undersatnd, because all you want to do is pick me apart, or pick a certain religion apart, and say, it cannot be true because of this or that. but so far, everytime I have seen someone in this forum try to pick apart Christianity, it is really directed towards man, not God.People here mostly accuse God, when it is really man that is to blame for mis-conceptions about God.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 01-29-2005 06:25 AM

Thank you.I think scraf would be my witness to me admitting several times in this forum to being wrong. Something I have seen no-one else do, even when they were dead wrong.I am a busy fellow, so I do not have all the time in the world to read the whole thread sometimes, and I limit myself to people who reply to me.The gall of ohn to think that he could cause "that kind of conflict" in me, or anyone else, is truely amazing. That whole statement he contradicts himself. First he is claiming to be all powerful causing human, then he is humble enough not to do it (which he does try to anyway).I am way ahead of him. It is human nature to doubt. The only thing you guys do not understand is why.