The First And Only Religion

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 169
Topic's author
#1
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
What many religious followers don't want to accept is that there are many religions, each claiming to be the only one and the only path to an afterlife of bliss for eternity.

So which is the right one?

Just because one subscribes to a particular religion (usually because of one's geographical placement), It doesn't make it the correct religion, Does it?

Well, May we all barrack for our national football team, but, surely religion is something different and the choice of a religion based solely on one's location or culture is fraught with danger.

Shouldn't we look at the first religion as being the one and only authentic religion and subsequent copies as fake?

According to the Ancient History Encyclopedia, Christianity, For example, Comes well down the timeline of when religions started.

Preceding all these religions, and, by a considerable margin of time is the Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime". 

We are looking at 40,000 years BCE and the religion is still followed by Aboriginals today.

So, Shouldn't we give these people the benefit of the doubt that what they say about their spiritual attachment to the land through Dreamtime is the one true and only valid religion?

In which case, Abrahamic religious followers should take note that their afterlife may not be one of their spirit returning to the Dreamtime but, because of their errant choice, will more likely end up existing in an eternal nightmare in the middle of the Simpson desert with not a drop of water to touch their tongues, enduring constant searing heat and constantly fending off satanic, deadly taipans.

Perhaps it may be time to throw those Bibles, Qurans, And Torahs in the fire, get out the souvenir boomerang and start a corroboree.



#2
ronjs
ronjs's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 268
0
2
2
ronjs's avatar
ronjs
0
2
2
-->
@Salixes
Researching the different religions can determine which is most tenable.
#3
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@ronjs
The only people who are going to claim that one religion is right over the others are those with a bias.  Religion switching is rare unless it's from some other religion to a christian one, or from christianity to atheism/agnosticism.
#4
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Alec
The only people who are going to claim that one religion is right over the others are those with a bias.  Religion switching is rare unless it's from some other religion to a christian one, or from christianity to atheism/agnosticism.
Everyone has a bias. There is no neutrality. The question is does that bias based on and reflect on the truth?

Logically the possibilities are only one, if any, can be true since they all state opposing things about God. The Christian religion is reasonable and logical and I argue necessary in making sense of existence. 

#5
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
The Christian religion is reasonable and logical and I argue necessary in making sense of existence. 

You never ARGUE this. You say it then don't explain any of the ways you 'make sense' of it. We've gone through it like six times now. I gave up because I don't think you're using "make sense" in the way I understand that phrase. 
#6
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
...the religion is still followed by Aboriginals today.
You call Aboriginals people subhuman and inferior, but advocate for their religion?

So which is the right one?
Finding out requires a brain. One not choked by irrational bitterness.

D'oh!
#7
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
You call Aboriginals people subhuman and inferior,

Huh? Where did this guy do that? Please highlight, here's the post just in case:

What many religious followers don't want to accept is that there are many religions, each claiming to be the only one and the only path to an afterlife of bliss for eternity.

So which is the right one?

Just because one subscribes to a particular religion (usually because of one's geographical placement), It doesn't make it the correct religion, Does it?

Well, May we all barrack for our national football team, but, surely religion is something different and the choice of a religion based solely on one's location or culture is fraught with danger.

Shouldn't we look at the first religion as being the one and only authentic religion and subsequent copies as fake?

According to the Ancient History Encyclopedia, Christianity, For example, Comes well down the timeline of when religions started.

Preceding all these religions, and, by a considerable margin of time is the Australian Aboriginal "Dreamtime". 

We are looking at 40,000 years BCE and the religion is still followed by Aboriginals today.

So, Shouldn't we give these people the benefit of the doubt that what they say about their spiritual attachment to the land through Dreamtime is the one true and only valid religion?

In which case, Abrahamic religious followers should take note that their afterlife may not be one of their spirit returning to the Dreamtime but, because of their errant choice, will more likely end up existing in an eternal nightmare in the middle of the Simpson desert with not a drop of water to touch their tongues, enduring constant searing heat and constantly fending off satanic, deadly taipans.

Perhaps it may be time to throw those Bibles, Qurans, And Torahs in the fire, get out the souvenir boomerang and start a corroboree.
Also WTF is the Simpson desert. 
#8
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
The Christian religion is reasonable and logical and I argue necessary in making sense of existence. 

You never ARGUE this. You say it then don't explain any of the ways you 'make sense' of it. We've gone through it like six times now. I gave up because I don't think you're using "make sense" in the way I understand that phrase. 

The underlined is simply false. I argue it all the time. For instance, what is more logical to you, that 1) we are freak, random, chance cosmic accidents or that 2) we owe our existence to a necessary being? If you say the former, how is that reasonable? How do conscious mindful beings come from inorganic matter and where do you witness this? You never do. You just make an assumption that it can happen, then you build a whole worldview around what you consider the evidence from that particular slant. You make the evidence fit through a biased interpretation of the evidence. You believe that the information obtained and interpreted from the data points to a chance happenstance universe. You, an intelligent and intentional being, believe that uniformity of nature is explained by unintelligent and unintentional matter that has no purpose or meaning. Experientially, you live life inconsistently from what you witness. You never witness life coming from something non-living. 

From a moralistic point of view, your worldview fairs no better. It can't explain morality as anything other than preference and then the question becomes why your relativistic and subjective view of what should be is any BETTER than any other relativistic and subjective viewpoint.  

I point out many inconsistencies in a worldview without God as the basis for making sense of the universe and our existence.

Then I point to the biblical record. I have argued on many threads for the biblical evidence. Primarily I use the prophecy argument because I find it very convincing. I don't think you can argue logically and reasonably from the evidence of history that my worldview is less reasonable than yours. Not only this, few are willing to step up and argue their point of view from the history available as to the reasonableness of their opposing view regarding prophecy. 
#9
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
That's not arguing your case. It's arguing against whatever you think mine is. What you never explain is what "making sense of existence" means, in practical terms. I'm ont getting into it again, there's plenty of other places we've had this argument. TLDR: "I exist because Jesus" is not how I understand the phrase "making sense of." It's assigning credit without sufficient demonstration, and even if it were true, it doesn't "make sense of" anything, it simply says "this is what caused something."
#10
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
That's not arguing your case. It's arguing against whatever you think mine is. What you never explain is what "making sense of existence" means, in practical terms. I'm ont getting into it again, there's plenty of other places we've had this argument. TLDR: "I exist because Jesus" is not how I understand the phrase "making sense of." It's assigning credit without sufficient demonstration, and even if it were true, it doesn't "make sense of" anything, it simply says "this is what caused something."
Yes, it is arguing my case. It is an argument in making sense of a worldview that excludes God. So, I appeal to logic from such arguments. I contrast the two positions in their reasonableness and ask how a worldview that excludes God can make sense of existence. 

***

Argument:
  1. an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
    "I've had an argument with my father" ·
    · difference of opinion · 
  2. a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
  3. "there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal" ·
    · line of reasoning · logic · case · defense · justification ·
  4. mathematics
    logic
    an independent variable associated with a function and determining the value of the function. For example, in the expression y = F(x1, x2), the arguments of the function F are x1 and x2, and the value is y.
  5. linguistics
    any of the noun phrases in a clause that are related directly to the verb, typically the subject, direct object, and indirect object.

#11
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, it is arguing my case. It is an argument in making sense of a worldview that excludes God
Can you make your argument without referring to any other worldview to do so? This way you're not saying "Mine doesn't make sense all the way either, but I think yours makes less sense, therefore mine is correct". Consider it an open challenge, much like "disprove the greek pantheon without reference to Christianity." 
#12
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
What you never explain is what "making sense of existence" means, in practical terms.
But I do. I contrast the two positions and ask how you can experientially live consistently from your starting point in what you believe and how your position explains your existence. I believe you act and do differently from what your default position would necessarily teach. Your position being outside of God or a god would resort to an explanation that does not start from logic or reason and without intention and purpose. Is that what you actually witness? 

As explained many times before, a worldview attempts to make sense of existence in a number of different ways. It askes 1) What are we? 2) Why are we here or how did we get here? 3) What difference does it make or why does it matter? 4) What happens when we die?

Concerning point three, it doesn't matter yet you experientially live as if it does. That is inconsistent. It does not follow from your starting point - a meaningless universe. Yet you continually look for meaning as you do right now. Why would you expect to find meaning from such a universe? 

I'm ont getting into it again, there's plenty of other places we've had this argument. TLDR: "I exist because Jesus" is not how I understand the phrase "making sense of."
It is more reasonable that intelligent, mindful, conscious beings would come from a necessary conscious, intelligent, mindful Being. The reason is that all we ever witness is beings giving rise to other beings of likeness. We do not see a stone or an inorganic process giving rise to a conscious being.

Morality is a mindful thing. It requires minds for meaning. But how do you get good without an objective, universal, absolute reference point, a necessary being? I keep asking you why I should believe that your opposing definition of "good" or "better" is actually better than my counter and opposite position in many cases, such as abortion. Are our positions the same? Do you believe it is wrong to kill an innocent human being? Where does your final authority in the matter derive from?

It's assigning credit without sufficient demonstration, and even if it were true, it doesn't "make sense of" anything, it simply says "this is what caused something."
The Bible states over and over again that it is God's revelation to us in which He speaks to people in time and what He says is recorded. Thus there is a source we refer to on the topic of making sense of things. The Bible. Even though it is not a science book, it does not refute science, except where miracles are concerned, it refutes scientism. It goes beyond and above our scientific understanding in the form of miracles. Could such a being as God do things that go beyond the natural world we live in? Could there be an explanation that scientists do not have the ability to explain in their limited understanding? The Bible tells the reader there is such an explanation.
#13
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
Yes, it is arguing my case. It is an argument in making sense of a worldview that excludes God
Can you make your argument without referring to any other worldview to do so? This way you're not saying "Mine doesn't make sense all the way either, but I think yours makes less sense, therefore mine is correct". Consider it an open challenge, much like "disprove the greek pantheon without reference to Christianity." 

I appeal to the Bible as its own witness.

We both make an appeal to authority, at least I think you do for we have to start somewhere. A worldview starts with core beliefs, beliefs that everything else is built upon. You can't start in a vacuum. You have to start somewhere and build upon that supposition as to whether it makes sense of things that exist. What is that authority that you appeal to? You appeal to science or some scientist, or yourself and your "feelings" or instinct as your authority and final case of appeal. I ask you is your scientist(s) necessary and true to what is the case? I ask you what would be necessary for certainty?

Genesis 1:1 (NASB)
The Creation
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 

I can appeal to what the Bible says of this God and whether it makes sense to what we witness experientially or practically as well as what would be consistent in explaining what we witness. 

I keep asking you what is more reasonable and you keep skipping over the answer. 

For instance, with morality, is it more reasonable to believe that morals are just preferences? If so, how do you arrive at what is good from subjective preferences? Do you appeal to the majority in might makes right, rather than right makes might. 'Might' should be based on what is right, not the other way around otherwise there is no justice. Justice needs a starting point, an actual good for laws and rules to be based upon. Your worldview can offer nothing but a preference. That makes nothing right. Right is a definite thing. The opposite cannot at the same time also be right. That is a contradiction. A contradiction is not logically consistent. That means one view or the other opposing view is definitely untrue. So, with limited, relative, subjective human beings how can you have surety that your view is actually the right view? Are you a necessary being that you can dictate to me that what you state is what actually is the case? No. You are subjective in the sense that you are limited. You do not see the whole picture. Your intelligence is limited. Thus you can't know every case. So, why should I believe what you say is true to what is? Can you actually say what is right or is all you can do is offer your opinion and if that is the case, why should I accept it?

So, can you say your position is more reasonable than mine based on your starting point, your core beliefs? If so, show me. 
#14
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
True and good religion is to abide in The Eternal Way of Truth and Love.


Love God, who is The Ultimate Reality, with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself, both being made in the image of God. 

It is easy to be confused by the manifestations of True Religion, but The Spirit behind these manifestations is what is important. The letter kills, but The Spirit brimgs forth life.








Topic's author
#15
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ronjs
And not one of them is.
#16
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I've already made my points on other threads, there's no reason to do it again as far as 'making sense of existence' goes. You're only saying X cause put life here and set all this up. That doesn't 'make sense' as much as it 'provides cause.' Making sense' is why, not how. Please feel free to make your point about Christianity being true without referring to any other religion, though. Using the claim as the evidence is a poor start. 
Topic's author
#17
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
Preaching biased nonsense hardly constitutes intelligent discussion at all.
#18
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Would you know it ?  If you were in the wrong religious group. 

With not one theist on this site in the ( INCORRECT ) religious group.  
The numbers show us thatttttt. 
People that believe in Gods are the ones that join religious groups  andddddddd thet are ( FREAKISHLY BRILLIANT ) religious group pickers.
Ask em....


#19
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Salixes
So which is the right one?
Whichever one you believe.

#20
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,209
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
For a small fee $1.99*  i can tell you what your true correct religion really is. 

Remember : If you ever see God ,  just keep saying real quickly over and over to him.  (  ' WHAT RELIGIOUS GROUP SHOULD I BE IN. ' )  

* price subject to change....
Topic's author
#21
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Outplayz
Exactly.
Or, "whichever one you were led to believe."
#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
Dismissing everything on hearing takes just as much thought and effort as believing everything on hearing.


None.

#23
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Salixes
Or, "whichever one you were led to believe."
That's true since we have humans of many degrees of intelligence. But i think if you do a little thinking on your own, you can create yourself in your own vision. At least, i turned away everything that was told to me to be true since birth... i guess i'm just not susceptible to indoctrination. There are many factors and degrees in this world. 
Topic's author
#24
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
And dismissing something with solid evidence and facts requires objective research and stimulates intelligent discussion.

So, I think it is obvious that somebody else is dismissing properly researched evidence and facts on hearing, refusing to put a single thought or effort into believing it because of a profound preconditioned bias and instead resorts to preaching some of the most proven malicious, gut-wrenching and thoughtless rhetoric..
#25
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
True Religion as I said, is to abide in The Eternal Way of Truth.


It has always been this way. True Religion has always existed. 


That is something you aren't interested in understanding, so you dismiss it outright.

#26
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
I've already made my points on other threads, there's no reason to do it again as far as 'making sense of existence' goes. You're only saying X cause put life here and set all this up. That doesn't 'make sense' as much as it 'provides cause.' Making sense' is why, not how.
I'm saying X and you're saying Y. 

There are only two reasonable possibilities, we exist due to design or chance happenstance, creation or chance, intent or indifference. Which is more reasonable to believe?

X makes sense for it is logically consistent and reasonable to believe. Blind, indifferent, chance is not because things just happen randomly. There is no purpose to them. To say that given time the chance of something happening still would not explain its sustainability or why it happened in the first place.

Please feel free to make your point about Christianity being true without referring to any other religion, though. Using the claim as the evidence is a poor start.
I'm not sure how you want me to do that. 

The Bible writers give voice to two confirmations of God, the written revelation and the natural one. 

The claim as the evidence? It is more than that.

Evidence: NOUN
  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Take for instance the destruction of Jerusalem. Is it reasonable to believe the prophecy was before the actual event? Well, we examine the evidence for both positions. Whose side is more reasonable from the evidence we have available?  
Topic's author
#27
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Mopac
Again you are making an erroneous supposition that I am not interested in understanding religion, based on your own biased judgement

I can, by the same token, say that you are not interested in understanding reality. Except that further more, I can back up my claim in that you refuse to address any of the well-supported and proven facts that I have presented.

You have also refused to elaborate on any of your claims when requested and your gratuitous use of the word "truth" is very telling.
In fact, deceitful.
#28
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Salixes
No, you just don't believe I mean exactly what I am saying.

True Religion is Truth Worship.


You dismiss the idea outright, so you don't even know what it looks like.

How do I know you don't understand? Because you don't have charity. Since you do not walk in The Way of Truth, I know that you are deceived. I have no motivation to be deceitful. I am not interested in making myself out to be something. Deceit is far from me.

And I don't believe you've asked me to clarify or elaborate anything. If you were to have a real conversation with me, I could write books to explain what I am talking about. However, it is not that complicated. It is actually so simple that it tends to be frustrating those who think that The Truth is something to be apprehended intellectually.



#29
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Huh? Where did this guy do that? Please highlight, here's the post just in case:
On DDO, and old posts here before he was banned.

Also WTF is the Simpson desert.
Lol. His spell check probably tried to "correct" a misspelling of  Sahara.

Why are you asking me what his posts means? Are you not on speaking terms?
#30
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
There are only two reasonable possibilities, we exist due to design or chance happenstance, creation or chance, intent or indifference.

How are you certain these are the only possibilities? Start there and then make your argument. 

X makes sense for it is logically consistent and reasonable to believe.
This is distinctly different from "x is true."

I'm not sure how you want me to do that. 
I want you to prove your claim without saying it's more reasonable than another similar claim, therefore it's likelier. It should be TRUE. Not likely. Not reasonable. If it's true, it's true. I can't tell you how to do it, because I find your claim unconvincing. The reason using the claim as the evidence doesn't work is as follows, watch:

Me: "PGA totally robbed this store."
PGA: "No I didn't!"
Me: "Officer, I have evidence PGA robbed this store."
Officer: "What is the evidence, let me see it."
Me: "I said he robbed the store, that's the evidence."

Do you think you'd be in the back of the cop car on your way to the station based on the above? Because according to you I've provided EVIDENCE, not an accusation.