only one correct religion with the truth?

[PJM]

I think what really disappoints me on here is that I hold with the song that says “They will know that we are Christians by our Love!” Yes so much of what I see on here is legalizing, useless proofing by lines and verses, pedigrees, etc. Does anyone here really find that attractive? Convincing?

The ones on here who have really moved me are those who are able to demonstrate understanding from experience in such a way as to point to foundational virtues that religion might include, but are not themselves necessarily religious, as the Golden Rule in its forms which are found in many times and cultures regardless of religion. People who can demonstrate understanding and compassion beyond their personal faith, or lack of it, and make connections and fell barriers, as does Music, those people have some understanding that all the quoting and legalizations and scriptural verifications used as weapons are vacant of. This is why to some extent Pope Francis is such a breath of fresh air, drawing many to favor by simple goodness. Lawyerizm in religious argument is, to be kind, less than attractive–and, really, very much beside the point.

So friend, here then is the SECOND part of that particular song of “love.”

John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:21 “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him” John 15:10
If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’ s commandments, and do abide in his love"

What you and MANY others fail to GRASP is that the NEW Covenant meaning of the term “MY commandments” MUST and certainly does encompass ALL that Ordians, teaches, mandates AND Commands.’ The key word being “ALL.”

Mt. 16: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this [YOU Peter] rock I will build my church,[Singular] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in” heaven."

Mt. 28: " And the eleven disciples [Apostles] went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded [taaught to] you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world"

Friend, I’m NOT picking on you; only explaining Gods singular truth. Amen?.

 

[Sochi]

So friend, here then is the SECOND part of that particular song of “love.”
…
Friend, I’m NOT picking on you; only explaining Gods singular truth. Amen?.

 

[seanman611]

Of course there is only one correct religion with the truth and it is called “Anglicanism.”

Don’t believe me? Taken together, Anglicans encompass pretty much every spectrum of Christian belief, so the “truth” has to be somewhere in the Anglican Church. Since no two Anglicans think alike, it is going to be tough and time-consuming to locate the truth.

 

[tm21]

It is a doctrine of the Church that there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Put in a positive sense…all sanctifying grace comes from the Church, who’s head is Christ. This must be understood to include the possibility for salvation of those persons who are not formal members of the Catholic Church due to no fault of their own. If such persons respond to God’s grace and live a virtuous life…they have an implicit union with the Church and its saving grace and have the possibility of salvation. Recommend reading a letter from the Holy Office to the Arch Bishop of Boston in 1949 (with approval of Pope Pius XII): .ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFFEENY.HTM

 

[benjohnson]

Taken together, Anglicans encompass pretty much every spectrum of Christian belief, so the “truth” has to be somewhere in the Anglican Church.

You know the trouble about the “How many Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb?” joke?

There’s 928 different answers!

 

[marywarfield]

You know the trouble about the “How many Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb?” joke?

There’s 928 different answers!

Watch out Ben! From where I sit it takes 928 Anglicans
100 Lutherans and 3 Catholics. And it’s NOT a chandelier!

 

[benjohnson]

And as I may have mentioned before, some of the most ethical, loving, people I know are atheists, and some religious the biggest hypocrites. This easily leads me to conclude that goodness as a quality transparent to Divinity has little if any correlation with religious affiliation.

The fact that religions people can be jerks is great news! Christ brings his message of salvation to the downtrodden sinner.

That means a repentant sinner like me has hope in Christ Jesus and not in my own ethical works of love - for how can I repay God for his gift to me and for the sins I have done?

Indeed you are giving us good news! News that I’m a sinner and not perfect.

For if I was perfect, I would have no need of God. And without God where would I be?

 

[Sochi]

The fact that religions people can be jerks is great news! Christ brings his message of salvation to the downtrodden sinner.

That means a repentant sinner like me has hope in Christ Jesus and not in my own ethical works of love - for how can I repay God for his gift to me and for the sins I have done?

Indeed you are giving us good news! News that I’m a sinner and not perfect.

For if I was perfect, I would have no need of God. And without God where would I be?

Well, that is not big news, really, we are all learning. Adn God or no, all I’m saying is that having a religion correlates little with being good. Pretty simple.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that is not big news, really, we are all learning. Adn God or no, all I’m saying is that having a religion correlates little with being good. Pretty simple.

If you are going to posit something that sounds scientific, can you please cite your sources?

What studies have been done that demonstrate the lack of correlation between religious folks and goodness? How was it measured? What criteria were utilized to qualify “goodness”?

 

[PRmerger]

You know the trouble about the “How many Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb?” joke?

There’s 928 different answers!

 

[Sochi]

Well, that is not big news, really, we are all learning. And God or no, all I’m saying is that having a religion correlates little with being good. Pretty simple.

I refuse to believe that you have no powers of simple observation.

 

[PRmerger]

I refuse to believe that you have no powers of simple observation.

My powers of observation state that the most religious people are the best people in the world.

In fact, I defy you to offer any non-religious alternative to St. Maximilian Kolbe, who stepped forward in a Nazi concentration camp, and gave his life OUT OF LOVE for a complete stranger.

Are there any non-religious people who have done anything similar?

Regardless, your claim, then, that there is no correlation between religion and goodness, as you have no studies to back it up, is mendacious. You are simply making up something you can’t offer any evidence to support.

 

[seanman611]

You know the trouble about the “How many Anglicans does it take to change a lightbulb?” joke?

There’s 928 different answers!

I’m sure many of you have seen this one before. It’s funny, yet hits really close to the mark for some of us.

 

[benjohnson]

God or no, all I’m saying is that having a religion correlates little with being good.

Even when I was a petulant agnostic, it’s was pretty evident that religious people ware much more generous than non-religious people.

From here: academia.edu/1470605/Who_gives_A_literature_review_of_predictors_of_charitable_giving_Part_One_Religion_education_age_and_socialisation

You’ll find that just about every study has shown that religious people are more generous than the non-religious.

 

[daler]

PJM;12010603:

The most useful and efficient lessons of my life were swift, simple, uncomplicated and directly in the moment, without strained references to Bible verses, tenets or dogmas. And as I may have mentioned before, some of the most ethical, loving, people I know are atheists, and some religious the biggest hypocrites. This easily leads me to conclude that goodness as a quality transparent to Divinity has little if any correlation with religious affiliation.
…

Sochi,
. Thank you for your originality and the courage to speak your mind and share what your heart tells you to say. There is a great big difference between being “religious” and being close to God. If religion draws one closer to God, that is what it is for. Nevertheless, some people are better off without what religion has too often become.

. I know you don’t like a bunch of quotes and prefer “live” thinking and conversation, but to add to that “much needed originality” something may at times seem appropriate, if not overdone, I would hope. Anyway, to reinforce what I think you are saying, may I share something with you without offending?

. This is from a talk given by Abdul Baha to the Theosophical Society in Paris around 1912 concerning the subject:

. Religion should be the Cause of Love and Affection

. “Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician.”

reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/pt-41.html
.

 

[PRmerger]

Even when I was a petulant agnostic, it’s was pretty evident that religious people ware much more generous than non-religious people.

From here: academia.edu/1470605/Who_gives_A_literature_review_of_predictors_of_charitable_giving_Part_One_Religion_education_age_and_socialisation

You’ll find that just about every study has shown that religious people are more generous than the non-religious.

Not to mention, according to this study, religious people who attend weekly services have the most frequent fun in bed:

heritage.org/research/reports/2006/12/why-religion-matters-even-more-the-impact-of-religious-practice-on-social-stability

 

[Tom_Baum]

And that proclamation, Tom, is…a dogma.

You are simply allowing yourself to have dogmas, and proclaim them, while objecting to others doing the same thing.

Because you are proclaiming it as a truth.

If it’s true, then I should believe it,right?

And that makes it a dogma that you’re proclaiming.

But you don’t get to go around proclaiming truths about God while denying others that right as well.

First off, I can proclaim anything I want about anything I want.

Second, you can believe or disbelieve anything I or anyone else says.

Third, you, sad to say, seem to be the one who does not wish others to express their opinions, that is unless their opinion is in “lockstep” with yours.

Unity is not uniformity.

God made ALL of us different, could be God had a reason for doing that as opposed to making us a bunch of clones.

Also, if God wanted us to be a bunch of parrots, I would think that God could have done it that way but God did NOT do it that way.

 

[PRmerger]

First off, I can proclaim anything I want about anything I want.

Well , you do want it to be true what you’re proclaiming of course, yes?

You would want to come to a forum professing to be a Catholic while saying “the Catholic Church teaches that women are forbidden from wearing lipstick!”

That would make you look rather foolish, eh?

 

[Sochi]

Sochi;12010657:

Sochi,
. Thank you for your originality and the courage to speak your mind and share what your heart tells you to say. There is a great big difference between being “religious” and being close to God.

No kidding, Sherlock. At least on the conceptual level. Ultimately Unicity is unavoidable as it is already fact, only not seen due to "mind.

If religion draws one closer to God, that is what it is for. Nevertheless, some people are better off without what religion has too often become.

No one can be closer to God than they already always are. The difficulty and blockage of experience of that is what needs all that work, and often religiosity of the literal sort can impede that.

Religion should be the Cause of Love and Affection

Both are respectable bodies of individuals. My contention, nevertheless, is that Love and Affection are their own causes, and because we necessarily identify with our mind until that is gotten past, we seek an explanation. That explanation is called “religion.” Ultimately, all that is needed is Love and Affection, because the referent for those words is indeed all there really is behind the veil of mind.

. “Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion. All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician.”

Yes, that is a way some may use to look at it for the moment. However, “shoulds” and “oughts” are still concepts. When Unicity is perceived and felt, all else simply becomes the task of dispelling illusion.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/pt-41.html

Thanks. There are three Baha’i in my book club. We have some wonderful discussions!
.

 

[daler]

daler;12012186:

No kidding, Sherlock. At least on the conceptual level. Ultimately Unicity is unavoidable as it is already fact, only not seen due to "mind.
No one can be closer to God than they already always are. The difficulty and blockage of experience of that is what needs all that work, and often religiosity of the literal sort can impede that. Both are respectable bodies of individuals. My contention, nevertheless, is that Love and Affection are their own causes, and because we necessarily identify with our mind until that is gotten past, we seek an explanation. That explanation is called “religion.” Ultimately, all that is needed is Love and Affection, because the referent for those words is indeed all there really is behind the veil of mind. Yes, that is a way some may use to look at it for the moment. However, “shoulds” and “oughts” are still concepts. When Unicity is perceived and felt, all else simply becomes the task of dispelling illusion. Thanks. There are three Baha’i in my book club. We have some wonderful discussions!
.

Sochi,
. I find that “mind” sometimes gets in the way, At least my in brain, there is this incessant word producing thought machine that sometimes I’d like to pull the plug on…

. I’m not fully sure what you mean by “unicity”. As an extension of unity? We need the unity while maintaining our diversity, both individually and in our cultural expression. Our varied heritages are important to us, yet we need to be on the same page in a world setting, where climate change affects us all, as one example.

. As to love and affection, these are the byproducts (I think?) of a healthy spirit. How we pray to the Great Spirit affects our love and affection towards each other, our tolerance, and understanding. The illusion of separateness must be overcome, as in the idea that there are many races, when in reality there is but one human race.

. “The earth is but one country, mankind its citizens…”