How do we know our religion is right?

[WannaLearn]

I wouldn't call Christianity "unfair" but is fairness equated with truth? I read the article you posted. I can understand it saying that Atheists will face judgement, that's a given in this case. I think I'd be kinda pissed too if someone told me I don't exist. The article talked about God generically but was obviously implying the Christian God. There are people who believe in other versions of a monotheistic god, as well as those who believe is many gods. Some people believe in God but don't ascribe to a particular religion. Even some Buddhists believe in a god. Although the article did a good job in making it's point, it seemed to exclude anyone who was not raised as a Christian. If you were raised in a religion that worshiped a god, but not necessarily the Christian God, wouldn't you find asking for forgiveness from the Christian God slightly odd. You would think that your religion is right. This other religions that believes in some sort of monotheistic entity could easily have a loving god who can grant forgiveness without having to sacrifice himself to him self. This is essentially what happened God send Jesus (who is also God) to suffer for sins on the cross. Why was this necessary? It would be pretty simple for a powerful being such as God to simply forgive. You could say it is because he wanted only those who believe in him to receive forgiveness. But this would require that anyone who is to be forgiven accept Jesus as the savior. Look at the story from an outsider's perspective. Outside of the bible Jesus isn't mentioned as a savior. There are a couple other texts, such as the Quran, which view him as a prophet. Going even further, as far as I can fine, there are no records of Jesus in Roman crucifixion records or any other secular records. The idea of why God, being all powerful, would have to send Jesus to earth, perplexes me. Why did God create a world where forgiveness would be necessary in the first place? Ya, I know it's supposedly because man is sinful and Satan encourages man to act sinfully. But, an all powerful God would have known that man would be sinful when he started life. It's like allowing your child to run around in the mud then getting mad at him because he is dirty. You didn't necessarily tell him it was okay to run in the mud, but you allowed him to go where you knew he would get dirty. This seems to be what God did. He created an existence where getting "dirty" is inevitable, then gets upset when we get "dirty."

This was off an old post I found and couldn't seem to any responses to it. I Would like to know how yall would respond to it.

[WannaLearn]

Not everybody respond all at once now.

[Byblos]

Not everybody respond all at once now.

Too many topics to respond to in any meaningful way. What I will say is this, the road-map I would take in approaching the does-God-exist-to-what-religion-is-the-right-one topic is as follows:

1. Existence of God can be proven metaphysically (from Aristotle's first causation to Aquinas' 5 ways)
2. From divine simplicity the God of the Bible can be proven to the exclusion of all other lesser gods. This leaves us with the 3 major religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
3. From the historicity of the resurrection we can state that Christianity is the fulfillment of the OT (and therefore of Judaism).
4. Also from the resurrection we can state that Jesus was/is the last revelation to mankind, which makes Islam false.

That's about it. Simple, right?

[Stu]

Interesting video on Islam and it's history.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCmSBfVXEmA[/youtube]

[B. W.]

I wouldn't call Christianity "unfair" but is fairness equated with truth? I read the article you posted. I can understand it saying that Atheists will face judgement, that's a given in this case. I think I'd be kinda pissed too if someone told me I don't exist. The article talked about God generically but was obviously implying the Christian God. There are people who believe in other versions of a monotheistic god, as well as those who believe is many gods. Some people believe in God but don't ascribe to a particular religion. Even some Buddhists believe in a god. Although the article did a good job in making it's point, it seemed to exclude anyone who was not raised as a Christian. If you were raised in a religion that worshiped a god, but not necessarily the Christian God, wouldn't you find asking for forgiveness from the Christian God slightly odd. You would think that your religion is right. This other religions that believes in some sort of monotheistic entity could easily have a loving god who can grant forgiveness without having to sacrifice himself to him self. This is essentially what happened God send Jesus (who is also God) to suffer for sins on the cross. Why was this necessary? It would be pretty simple for a powerful being such as God to simply forgive. You could say it is because he wanted only those who believe in him to receive forgiveness. But this would require that anyone who is to be forgiven accept Jesus as the savior. Look at the story from an outsider's perspective. Outside of the bible Jesus isn't mentioned as a savior. There are a couple other texts, such as the Quran, which view him as a prophet. Going even further, as far as I can fine, there are no records of Jesus in Roman crucifixion records or any other secular records. The idea of why God, being all powerful, would have to send Jesus to earth, perplexes me. Why did God create a world where forgiveness would be necessary in the first place? Ya, I know it's supposedly because man is sinful and Satan encourages man to act sinfully. But, an all powerful God would have known that man would be sinful when he started life. It's like allowing your child to run around in the mud then getting mad at him because he is dirty. You didn't necessarily tell him it was okay to run in the mud, but you allowed him to go where you knew he would get dirty. This seems to be what God did. He created an existence where getting "dirty" is inevitable, then gets upset when we get "dirty."

This was off an old post I found and couldn't seem to any responses to it. I Would like to know how yall would respond to it.

I thought we answered this a dozen times or so in many locations but this one i guess slipped through the cracks...

There is an old adage that goes like this: If it sounds too good to be true, then it is.

All the world’s religions, except biblically based Christianity, are based on the same principles that people can earn favor and entrance into a bliss state by either working very hard or doing nothing. Eternal recompense is not really eternal, etc and etc.

Therefore, one is bound to say, which religion is correct: The answer would be the one that stands out the most from the rest – it has a different message that the world’s idea conveyed in the quote summed up as this – if God were real he would behave thus and such a way – all would be bliss then.

Well, if it sounds too good to be true, then it is.

You see, it is the uniqueness of the central message of biblically based Christianity that points to a narrow road – the only way back to God who is absolutely just, fair, righteous in all his ways to himself and to all. He made a way back to himself that counters all other paths or roads anyone or thing devised.

To make metal pure, you turn up the heat, to remove the dross. One discards the dross. That simple principle explains what Rev 21:6 means. We simply live in God’s divine snap that removes dross without injustice, partiality, unrighteousness, to himself reflected to all…

What the quote above expresses is a demand that God must act unjustly in forcing individuals to accept him in an unfair manner to the person. Without choice – God cannot be just. Think about it.
-
-
-

[Philip]

Without choice – God cannot be just. Think about it.

And if we cannot truly and freely choose to sin (as opposed to obey and honor God), and totally of our OWN decisions, then we could not JUSTLY be held accountable for our sins. And IF our sins are NOT OUR OWN decisions and actions, then it would have to mean God wanted and caused us to sin - which we know to be Scripturally false/an impossibility. Alas, this is a discussion for another thread.

But I also see something else that is very unique about Christianity - certainly as opposed to Islam, Hinduism/polytheistic religions, or Mormonism and some of the other "Christianity"-based CULTS. And that is, no one or two supposed holy men went off in some cave or dark corner and came back with writings or proclamations they claimed to be from God. With Judaism/Christianity, God send a large number of patriarchs, judges, prophets and apostles, over 16 centuries, on several continents, and different cultures - with ALL of them preaching, teaching and revealing the very same God, and that are in complete agreement on a tremendous number of teachings about God, Who He is, and His desires and communications to mankind. So many people sent, and covering a myriad of complex issues, they manage to be on the same theological and spiritual page, ALL claiming to be sent by the very same God. And their teachings perfectly and comprehensively fit and subsequently build upon the teachings of those that came before them - all leading to and later focusing on Jesus as being God in the flesh.

Compare the Bible's inspired writers to, say, Mohammed claiming He received a series of revelations from God via the archangel Gabriel. Or Mormonism's Joseph Smith saying he was directed by an angel to find revelations from God on buried Golden Plates. Each of these have ONE person attesting that God communicated with them - without any corroboration from history, or any substantiating miracles or fulfilled prophecies. To believe these religions, one must have total faith in the ones whom started them and came up with their religion's writings. Or key people that came after them, whom said THEY say, God communicated with their founder. And yet look at the subsequent factions that quickly developed following key religious figures. Which of Mohammed's grandsons do you follow? Which is correct? And let's not forget that Islam was largely spread by the sword - "convert lest we will behead you!" The only people Muslims hate more than Westerners and Christians is rival Muslim factions. The God of Christianity unfolded His words in front of the people, in broad daylight with many fulfilled prophecies and miraculous confirmations. He takes Israel out of Egyptian bondage and with copious loot, without firing a shot - all while performing incredible miracles that were also perfectly designed so as to simultaneously humiliate the so-called Egyptian gods (where's the Sun god during three days of Yahweh turning out the lights?).

Uniquely, the Bible reads like a 21st century history book filled with known archaeologically substantiated information. It is factual and well-corroborated. You read of places in the Bible - even back to ancient, OT times, and you can find most of them on a map or that have been archaeologically documented. So many religions piggy-backed off of Christianity (to give them credibility), and THEN their teachings totally contradicted Christian teachings found in the Bible.

The Pantheistic religions believe god or gods are all part of all that exists. But how can any god only exist ONLY within his creation? What created HIM? We know the universe had a beginning. So any god that is also a part of the universe, necessarily, once did not exist. And any such god could not create himself!

What other book asserted to be from God compares to the enormous detail in the Bible? It's a life road map revealed by a loving Creator to His creatures, so that they will understand Him, desire and pursue fellowship with Him, and to love Him BACK. It's a highly detailed and comprehensive instruction manual on how to live and how to gain eternity with God. There are few subjects that it does not cover. And here's the thing: When we look at the heavens, the universe, the planets and stars, the incredible levels of detail built by God into our spectacular planet - on the chemical, biological, microscopic levels, our DNA, the complexity and design apparent in such a mind-boggling array of precisely interactive systems and guiding physical/chemical/astronomical laws - what we see is a Creator Who has left absolutely NOTHING to chance. He has created with a level of detail we scarcely understand.

And as this God of Christianity has been a fanatic about the tiniest of breath-taking details, would we expect such a God with such fanatic and extraordinary attention to detail simply throw us here without any instructions or concern as to how we conduct life on our planet, how we interact with each other, how we are to be stewards of his magnificent planet? This is a Creator God Whom we would expect precisely the miraculous series of communications such as our Bible reveals. And so where is such comparable book with anywhere near the tremendous level of detail and substantiated and validated (through extensive fulfilled prophecies, miracles, or anything like the Resurrection, etc) with such enormous credibility? Such a comparable book is NOT TO BE FOUND! No, all we have are people that have written or asserted communications from gods that have no credibility, no credible evidences whatsoever - just the lone word of people like Joseph Smith and Muhammad. Or pantheists that tell us God is a part of what once did not exist. He (and/or many other such gods) basically would have had to create himself/themselves. But we know that's impossible. And none of these many supposed gods have left us any credible communications to substantiate their existence with expected evidences.

One other thing - no other major religion's founder claimed to actually be GOD (as Jesus clearly did). And a God that DIES an agonizing, humiliating death for His CREATED beings? That reveals His followers to be fickle, disobedient and continuously rebellious and clueless? That He continuously both loves, punishes, redeems/restores, gives eternal promises? That left so much examinable and powerful physical and historical evidence? Wow! Let's not forget the many DETAILED and FULFILLED Bible prophecies, not to mention those revealing and leading up to Christ.

NO other religion has ANY book or writings that are remotely like the incredible/miraculous book that is our Bible! It's preservation alone is a testimony to the power and purposes of God!

[jlay]

The question, "why Christianity?" has to first arrise out of a theistic presupposition. You can speak about Christ to a pantheist, Hindu, or Buddhist, but you are working from fundamentally different starting points. Theism is the only logically coherent explanation for a universe that is goverened by universal laws in the areas of physics, logic and morals. Every polytheistic, pantheistic and atheistic position is either self-defeating and/or untenable.

Both Plato and Aristotle, despite being immersed in a polytheistic culture, managed to establish the foundation of natural theology and what attributes should be ascribed to the first cause (creator). As Byblos said there are only three viable choices. Islam, as Richard Dawkins said, is such a blatant rip off of Judeo/Christian tradition that it doesn't deserve sincere consideration. It is woefully inadequate to stand up to the textual criticism.

With Judaism/Christianity, God send a large number of patriarchs, judges, prophets and apostles, over 16 centuries, on several continents, and different cultures - with ALL of them preaching, teaching and revealing the very same God, and that are in complete agreement on a tremendous number of teachings about God, Who He is, and His desires and communications to mankind.

Phil,
What is even more remarkable is that much of what is scriptural was written by those considered to be enemies of the state at the time it was written.
Isaiah and Jeremiah were threats to the leadership of Israel at the time they lived. Yet, their writings are revered by that same culture as divine revelation. Daniel is scriptural, yet never set foot in Israel as far as we know, and wrote as a captive and conscribed servant of a foriegn invader. And that doesn't even begin to cover the apostle Paul.

[WannaLearn]

But why those three religions and not the others?

[Philip]

Phil,
What is even more remarkable is that much of what is scriptural was written by those considered to be enemies of the state at the time it was written.
Isaiah and Jeremiah were threats to the leadership of Israel at the time they lived. Yet, their writings are revered by that same culture as divine revelation. Daniel is scriptural, yet never set foot in Israel as far as we know, and wrote as a captive and conscribed servant of a foriegn invader. And that doesn't even begin to cover the apostle Paul.

Yes, jlay, ditto those points as well! And just look at a geographical/historical/political map of tiny little Israel - for centuries, surrounded by enemies dedicated to her destruction. Exiles, sackings, the Romans finally destroying Israel proper and her sacrificial system, the Jews scattered across the world, for centuries, and then they become a nation once again - with a significant number of Jews following the very same beliefs in the same God, speaking and writing in the same ancient language, in exactly the same place that God promised Abraham. Israel, literally, a dot surrounded by an ocean of enemies, still stands. With two of the greatest modern threats to mankind (the Nazis and the Islamists) sharing a fanatic focus in their hatred and determination to irradiate Israel (not coincidence). And yet that tiny sliver of land called Israel remains to this day. Anyone who thinks that it is an accident - that Scripture just got lucky in predicting Israel would return as a nation again, her people gathered back from across so many nations and centuries - well, people who think that have FAR more faith than I do - although their faith isn't logical or reasonable.

[jlay]

But why those three religions and not the others?

This may sound rude, but I would say the onus is on those religions to show why they should be considered. Religions that deny ultimate, objective truth are worthless. Relgions that are internally contradictory and inconsistent also deserve the same treatment. What we are speaking to here is, TRUTH. Does truth exist?

Let's just suppose for example that Steve is on a quest to find ultimate truth. If the conclusion of a religion or ideology is that there is no ultimate truth, then what does it have to offer Steve, or anyone for that matter? Further, it claims that the statement, 'there is no ultimate truth,' to be an objective, ultimate truth. So, it's self-defeating.

Natural theology allows us to examine reality and infer what kinds of attributes we must expect to find from a creator. Those other religions simply do not comply. Again, they are untenable, and logically incoherent. Hinduism has millions of Gods, and it's explanations for the origin of the Cosmos don't even remotely jive with what we know of the natural world.

From an evidential perspective, I would present the Cosmological argument, the moral argument, the ontological argument and the teleological argument (or anthropic principle).
A nice, simple (well, kind of) explanation of the OA here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
Quick intro to the MA: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/mo ... -god-video
TA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO-QyzsDmps
And here is our own Jac (Chris Morrison) with a great breakdown of the Cosmological argument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRY5kQCcFo8

Now, if you want to tie all of this together, regarding the other religions, then i would recommend starting with Ravi Zacharias who does a better job than anyone dealing with Eastern religions and why they don't work.
Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzUUsnIeVBw

Regardless, this ought to give you plenty to review.

[Byblos]

And here is our own Jac (Chris Morrison) with a great breakdown of the Cosmological argument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRY5kQCcFo8

Very nice Jac, very informative. Permit me to offer a correction on your facts, however. That was Captain Jean-Luc Picard, not James T. Kirk.

[RickD]

I've gotten part way through (14:00-15:00) professor Morrison's video, and unless my ears deceive me, Jac says "14 billion years" when he talks about the universe coming into existence.

Good grief Jac!!! I sure hope you're not compromising like the rest of us OECs.

[B. W.]

I've gotten part way through (14:00-15:00) professor Morrison's video, and unless my ears deceive me, Jac says "14 billion years" when he talks about the universe coming into existence.

Good grief Jac!!! I sure hope you're not compromising like the rest of us OECs.

[RickD]

And here is our own Jac (Chris Morrison) with a great breakdown of the Cosmological argument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRY5kQCcFo8

Very nice Jac, very informative. Permit me to offer a correction on your facts, however. That was Captain Jean-Luc Picard, not James T. Kirk.

I just reached that part of Professor Morrison's video. I cannot go any further. Jac, all credibility is shot, if you don't know that's not Captain Kirk. Btw, that wasn't Spock sitting across from him...

[Philip]

What's a few billion years between friends? Or for God, that's like the time of a bathroom break during a TV commercial.

Never mind the rabbit trail.