Which one is correct?

[Eeset]

The one that teaches and lives how Jesus taught and lived. Because they are those who are truly following him.

It's not a religion, it's a way and that way is Jesus, true religion isn't which denomination you belong to, it's the way, the truth and the life and that way, truth and life is in Christ Jesus and is seen through all those who truly belong to him.

James said pure religion and undefiled before God and the father is this, to visit the fatherless and the widow's in their affliction, and to keep ourselves unspotted from the world. And in doing so we put God first in our lives, truly loving him and caring for others, worshiping the father in Spirit and in truth, and this is truly following Jesus.

I have heard this all my life and watching society all those years I conclude that priests want to control your life and mine with garbage rhetoric swallowed by the masses much to the delight of the upper classes who certainly don't behave in a like manner.

 

[marhig]

I have heard this all my life and watching society all those years I conclude that priests want to control your life and mine with garbage rhetoric swallowed by the masses much to the delight of the upper classes who certainly don't behave in a like manner.

They can speak all they want, but if they are not living it then it's nothing! How can people tell others how to live if they are not living it themselves. Those who do so are hypocrites!

And I'm not talking about just the priests, but everyone, do they live like Jesus? Can you see the heart of Christ in them? If any of them do, then they are living right before God. Whatever the denomination. It's not the denomination, it's the life and the heart of the person. And all those who belong to Christ will have his heart and you will see his life and God's love, in and through them. They are Gods true people. All these denominations are made by man, Jesus isn't a denomination, he's the way and his way is the true way to follow. And those following him will be denying themselves, and they will bare their cross, turning from the world and works of the flesh to live by the will of God. And in doing so they glorify God and Christ.

So it doesn't matter what they say, people are great with words, but if they don't live right right before God then it's nothing. It's in the life and the word. It's no good knowing all the scriptures if we love our flesh before God. God wants our hearts and minds and we should be thinking of how to please him daily putting ourselves last. And caring for those we see in need in our daily life because the life of Christ is in us and he cared for everyone.

If there's no love and care there, then there's no life there! Words without the life mean nothing, as James said, I'll show you my faith by works.


Matthew 15

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Colossians 3

And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.

 

[Hawkins]

If one religion is right then the rest of them are wrong. How would you choose?

To me, it boils down to the answers of two questions.

1) What is the nature of a religion?
2) How humans can get to a truth?

The cruciality of a religion is that it is an advocate of a future. While humans don't have the ability to have a direct access of the future.

It's not only a future, but also a future affecting our dead or alive. If a religion is not so, it can be ignored, or remains an option that you can reject. It's not a necessity if a religion doesn't concern your own life. It concerns you only when 1) it's an advocate about a future which humans don't have the ability either to confirm or to reject, while 2) the advocate, if true, affects your own life.

That's where the importance of a religion (and its truth) is.


How can humans get to a truth?
Without humans own awareness, humans have to rely on faith to reach a truth. Humans, without their consent, will have to rely on a method to approach a truth. This method can be regarded as putting faith in human testimonies.

Now if humans themselves failed to reckon this fundamental method, who else knows this method with consent. It seems that the Bible God does, as the whole Bible was written by employing this method which mankind are unaware of. Not only that, the Bible is the only religious document employing this method, and with Christianity the only religion emphasizing on testimonies.

 

[Hawkins]

Now if humans themselves failed to reckon this fundamental method, who else knows this method with consent. It seems that the Bible God does, as the whole Bible was written by employing this method which mankind are unaware of. Not only that, the Bible is the only religious document employing this method, and with Christianity the only religion emphasizing on testimonies.

To a certain extent, even science can be considered as the testimonies of our scientists (small amount of humans as eyewitnesses), for the 99% of human majority to get to a truth without any evidence presented.

In a nutshell, we don't have the evidence that, say black holes exist. We trust (with faith) that our scientists (as eyewitnesses) have the evidence.

==============
Atheistic thinking is heavily based on the term evidence. They are educated or rather indoctrinated to think that evidence should be the way in confirming a truth. However this is not true in reality. Evidence, other than science, comes scarcely that humans (in majority) don't actually rely on evidence to approach a truth. They rely on faith instead to get to a truth. This is where the flaw of atheistic thinking is, due mainly to the indoctrination of secular education.

Science can be evidenced simply because science is always about a phenomenon which can repeat (infinitive number of times) for humans to do their speculations/observations unlimited number of times. This kind of repeatable truth (i.e., scientific truth) is a very narrow and limited set of truth. Our secular education however mistakenly treats it as the norm of what a truth is. That's why we (atheists that is) keep asking for evidence in backing a up claim in order for it to be considered a truth.

In reality, we can't even back one out of the million meals we ever had with evidence. It is because "what we ate" is not something which can be repeatable as a science is. 7 billion humans (not to count those already died) can't even back up one of his past meals with evidence. That's how insignificant evidence is. We don't practically approach a fact of this kind (not repeatable) with evidence. We approach it with faith instead. You simply tell us what you ate such that we can believe with faith to know what you ate. What we actually examine is your credibility and reliability instead of evidence. If you are a friend I can trust, I swallow it right away without a second thought. This flash of a second in getting to a truth is the efficiency of what faith is, in terms of approaching a truth (i.e., what you said about what you ate)!


Do we have an alternative way to get to know what you ate? Unfortunately we don't. Science/evidence etc. won't tell what you ate, say, on Jul 11, 2012. Someone wrote down what you ate that day and for others to believe with faith, that remains the only way we could possibly know what you ate.

 

[Stripe]

If one religion is right then the rest of them are wrong. How would you choose?

You should ignore all of them and demand adherence to your standards.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Bee1]

To me, it boils down to the answers of two questions.

1) What is the nature of a religion?
2) How humans can get to a truth?

The cruciality of a religion is that it is an advocate of a future. While humans don't have the ability to have a direct access of the future.

It's not only a future, but also a future affecting our dead or alive. If a religion is not so, it can be ignored, or remains an option that you can reject. It's not a necessity if a religion doesn't concern your own life. It concerns you only when 1) it's an advocate about a future which humans don't have the ability either to confirm or to reject, while 2) the advocate, if true, affects your own life.

That's where the importance of a religion (and its truth) is.


How can humans get to a truth?
Without humans own awareness, humans have to rely on faith to reach a truth. Humans, without their consent, will have to rely on a method to approach a truth. This method can be regarded as putting faith in human testimonies.

Now if humans themselves failed to reckon this fundamental method, who else knows this method with consent. It seems that the Bible God does, as the whole Bible was written by employing this method which mankind are unaware of. Not only that, the Bible is the only religious document employing this method, and with Christianity the only religion emphasizing on testimonies.

If I am understanding you right, believe that the writers were inspired by God? Correct.

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

 

[Bee1]

What if someone wrote down what you ate, then say God told me what to write. Later that someone's original words were "revised" because certain food items you ate were offensive to certain groups then translated into another lanugage.Then translates again in another lanugage as empires and dynasties come and go. Then these words were amended to because everyone uses microwaves in this new society and your words was not intended for this group.Then centuries later we find that you and your village fast that whole week so you ate nothing.So who made the mistake,definitely not God so it was you.Oh but wait, we find an old copy of what you ate but it does not match. When we investagate we find someones made a copy but changes were made so they combine the two. Now no one knows what your wrote but since God told you what to write,these writing must be from God and taken on faith? Is that how it supoose to go?

 

[Bee1]

What if someone wrote down what you ate, then said God told me what to write. Later that someone's original words were "revised" because certain food items you ate were offensive to certain groups then translated into another lanugage.Then translates again in another lanugage as empires and dynasties come and go. Then these words were amended to because everyone uses microwaves in this new society and someone's words was not intended for this group.Then centuries later we find that you and your village fast that whole week so you ate nothing.So who made the mistake,definitely not God so it was someone.Oh but wait, we find an old copy of what you ate but it does not match. When we investagate we find someones made a copy but changes were made so they combine the two. Now no one knows what you ate but since God told someone what to write,these writing must be from God and taken on faith? Is that how it suppose to go?

 

[MennoSota]

If one religion is right then the rest of them are wrong. How would you choose?

You can't choose.
The Sovereign God of Creation doesn't sit in a shopping aisle hoping you pick him over all the other gods.
God hates human corruption and sin. He has no obligation to save you from your own criminal actions.
If God chooses to pluck you out of your utterly hopeless condition and have the payment of Jesus Christ and his sacrificial atonement justify you, he will. But you have no say in the matter.
Pray that God has graciously chosen to adopt you and save you. You cannot choose God. You are too corrupt and unholy for him to consider you...outside of Christ's atonement.
As Jonathan Edwards stated: You are like a spider dangling over the fire by a thread. Your demise is sure if God does not intervene.

 

[Bee1]

You can't choose.
The Sovereign God of Creation doesn't sit in a shopping aisle hoping you pick him over all the other gods.
God hates human corruption and sin. He has no obligation to save you from your own criminal actions.
If God chooses to pluck you out of your utterly hopeless condition and have the payment of Jesus Christ and his sacrificial atonement justify you, he will. But you have no say in the matter.
Pray that God has graciously chosen to adopt you and save you. You cannot choose God. You are too corrupt and unholy for him to consider you...outside of Christ's atonement.
As Jonathan Edwards stated: You are like a spider dangling over the fire by a thread. Your demise is sure if God does not intervene.

There must be some standard or requirement, am sure God just don' t wily- nily and pick anyone so makes you any better than I if Jesus came tonight?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

There must be some standard or requirement, am sure God just don' t wily- nily and pick anyone so makes you any better than I if Jesus came tonight?

Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk

There is a standard and all humanity misses the mark.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
God tells us that he chose whom he adopts from before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1:4-5) God made his choice with no consultation from anyone. He doesn't reveal how he chose. He only reveals that humans are hopelessly corrupt and cannot do anything to merit God's forgiveness. How mad would you be if a murderer told a judge he was sorry and wouldn't kill again...and the judge just said..."okay, you're free to go"? There would be no justice.
God did justly punish sin for those whom he chooses to pardon. That punishment fell upon Jesus who gave himself as a propitiation for those whom God gives faith.
No one is better than any other person. God isn't measuring out the self-righteous and picking them. If that were the case, then the Pharisees were the best of the best.
If Jesus came tonight, I could only fall at God’s feet and say "I do not merit your choice. I am at your mercy. Do with me as you deem right. May Jesus Christ be praised."

 

[Bee1]

There is a standard and all humanity misses the mark.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."
God tells us that he chose whom he adopts from before the foundation of the world. (Ephesians 1:4-5) God made his choice with no consultation from anyone. He doesn't reveal how he chose. He only reveals that humans are hopelessly corrupt and cannot do anything to merit God's forgiveness. How mad would you be if a murderer told a judge he was sorry and wouldn't kill again...and the judge just said..."okay, you're free to go"? There would be no justice.
God did justly punish sin for those whom he chooses to pardon. That punishment fell upon Jesus who gave himself as a propitiation for those whom God gives faith.
No one is better than any other person. God isn't measuring out the self-righteous and picking them. If that were the case, then the Pharisees were the best of the best.
If Jesus came tonight, I could only fall at God’s feet and say "I do not merit your choice. I am at your mercy. Do with me as you deem right. May Jesus Christ be praised."

Touch`e

Sent from my SM-J727P using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

no religion is the best religion.

If you are saying that none of the existing religions can be considered to be the best religion, then you may be right.
If you are saying that the best religion is a lack of any religion, then you are definitely wrong.

 

[God's Truth]

If one religion is right then the rest of them are wrong. How would you choose?

Jesus tells you how to find out.

He says to get his teachings and obey them, and then you will know.

See John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus tells you how to find out.

He says to get his teachings and obey them, and then you will know.

See John 7:17 Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Says the legalist...

 

[God's Truth]

Says the legalist...

It is a shame to you to obey Jesus.

That is a bad thing to put out there.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus came and gave his Last Will and Testament; which is also the Covenant because, yet though he died, he has risen and ascended.

Wills and Covenants have to be followed exactly.

Don't put down doing what the Testator and Covenant Maker says.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Jesus came and gave his Last Will and Testament; which is also the Covenant because, yet though he died, he has risen and ascended.

Wills and Covenants have to be followed exactly.

Don't put down doing what the Testator and Covenant Maker says.

More nonsense from the legalist.

It is a shame to you to obey Jesus.

That is a bad thing to put out there.

Says the legalist...

 

[God's Truth]

More nonsense from the legalist.Says the legalist...

Your mere opinion is no defense for the truth.

Now how about speak about Last Will and Testaments and Covenants?

You are still a young man and haven't made a Last Will and Testament yet?

You don't have anything to leave?

Go get more knowledge before you try to just tell me to shut up.

When you do make a Last Will and Testament, do you expect it to be followed exactly, or do you call that legalism?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Your mere opinion is no defense for the truth.

Now how about speak about Last Will and Testaments and Covenants?

You are still a young man and haven't made a Last Will and Testament yet?

You don't have anything to leave?

Says the one giving her opinion on an internet forum...

Go get more knowledge before you try to just tell me to shut up.

Someone's cranky today.

When you do make a Last Will and Testament, do you expect it to be followed exactly, or do you call that legalism?

God expected that those that He addressed it to would follow it to the letter. But when the circumstances changed and they were no longer eligible for the things in it, God cut them off, and grafted in the Gentiles.

Why that's so hard for you to understand is beyond me... Then again, you are a legalist, so...