only one correct religion with the truth?

[tonyfish58]

The most amazing thing about the rejection of Religion is that the most devoted/devout believers in religion are usually the first to reject the new message of God

History proves this to be undeniable

A Prophet can come and show all the wonders of God and reveal verses of Majesty. The followers of this Prophet can evince the most perfect morality and service to God and Humanity and be so transformed as to be a new people. Yet the rejection continues and continues and continues.

We can go back through History for Thousand of Years and prove this to be Fact.

Oh that one could see that the Love of God and Devotion to this His Causes is what it is, that is Devotion to the Truth. It is the Fruit that the Holy Books talk about. If this is rotten fruit, then all that have practiced a Faith in the past are just rotten fruit.

Look beyond Dogma into the Love and Oneness of God, be united in this Love and work the works that can achieve a unity of thought!

God bless all and May Gods Will be Done!

Regards Tony

 

[aragonjohn1]

aragonjohn1 - Thank you for the Thoughts

I believe in the One True God and His Truth can be found in all the Major World Religions.

I agree with this 100% - “Sacred Scripture is God’s love story to all with every word containing infinite interpretation and truth in His love”.

Why do we then Limit it to exclude others?

God has only revealed the One Truth through different Messengers, it is man that has concluded they are different messages. All the Messengers delivered to mankind what they were capable of understanding at the time. But in all the Words of God can be found the Truth about the Oneness of God.

In the Time of Moses the ultimate Truth was what Moses taught, in the Time of Jesus it was He that taught the ultimate Truth, the same for Muhammad and Krishna etc! that is why you have passages such as “I have more to say Unto you”.

Every one of these Messengers are the way the truth and the Life for the age and time that the Message was applicable. Gods way is not our way

Regards Tony

yes, i agree with You that there is only one Truth, one God, one love. But, is this is true does not every other religion excepting sin have only a portion of the truth that leads to the one and only truth?

Thank You

God bless

 

[Tom_Baum]

tonyfish58

You wrote, “In the Time of Moses the ultimate Truth was what Moses taught, in the Time of Jesus it was He that taught the ultimate Truth, the same for Muhammad and Krishna etc! that is why you have passages such as “I have more to say Unto you”.”

Actually, Jesus did not say that He was teaching the truth, what He said was, “I AM the Truth”, among other things that He said.

Big difference, you can gloss over what He said but that doesn’t change the fact that He said it.

Either Jesus was lying which would put a taint on everything else that He said or it is quite simply true.

I, personally, believe it to be true since the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus just like Jesus said and I “know” that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus since the Holy Spirit revealed this to me.

 

[ggarcia19]

maybe I will be a Catholic again…

 

[SteveVH]

The most amazing thing about the rejection of Religion is that the most devoted/devout believers in religion are usually the first to reject the new message of God

So, I’m just curious as to how you would react if I claimed to be the current “Manifestation of God” and also claimed that it was not Baha’u’llah at all. Would you reject my “new message of God” and why?

 

[ggarcia19]

Early 1800 America was characterized by an advent of the “cult of self”. The general appeal of those religions was “what I am going to get out of it”. The extended promise was this earth, this land, and its all yours, and no one else’s apart from a few other faithful so there is therefore more land for you.

There is no such thing as non-denominational, I tried that for 20 years, and it doesn’t work. Non-denominational is a denomination in it’s own right (not rite). Since you read the Bible, you will notice one important thing in the NT that is the word “one”. There is only one God, only one Lord Jesus Christ, only one baptism, faith, hope, and it goes on and on.

There is only one Truth, and there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Your right, there is no such thing as non denominational. I was baptised Catholic as a new born but raised Pentecostal until about 15. I have considered returning to the Catholic faith.
That is not morally wrong, unless God is morally wrong?

 

[ggarcia19]

Early 1800 America was characterized by an advent of the “cult of self”. The general appeal of those religions was “what I am going to get out of it”. The extended promise was this earth, this land, and its all yours, and no one else’s apart from a few other faithful so there is therefore more land for you.

There is no such thing as non-denominational, I tried that for 20 years, and it doesn’t work. Non-denominational is a denomination in it’s own right (not rite). Since you read the Bible, you will notice one important thing in the NT that is the word “one”. There is only one God, only one Lord Jesus Christ, only one baptism, faith, hope, and it goes on and on.

There is only one Truth, and there is only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

That is not morally wrong, unless God is morally wrong?

You are right, there is no such thing as non denominatiomal. I was actually baptised Catholic as a new born but raised Pentecostal until I became a man and went my separate way. Maybe, I will return to the Catholic faith.

 

[Contarini]

Early 1800 America was characterized by an advent of the “cult of self”. The general appeal of those religions was “what I am going to get out of it”. The extended promise was this earth, this land, and its all yours, and no one else’s apart from a few other faithful so there is therefore more land for you.

There is no such thing as non-denominational, I tried that for 20 years, and it doesn’t work. Non-denominational is a denomination in it’s own right (not rite).

You’re using “denominational” differently–I notice that Catholics do this a lot. A denomination is usually defined as an organization beyond the local church level. Independent local churches are quite justified in claiming to be nondenominational.

I actually wish Catholics would just stop using the word “denomination” as if it made any theological point at all. Protestants are divided, but the multiplicity of denominations does not, in itself, prove that they are any more divided than Catholics (who have 22 “sui juris churches”–i.e., parallel organizations embracing a bunch of local churches).

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

You’re using “denominational” differently–I notice that Catholics do this a lot. A denomination is usually defined as an organization beyond the local church level. Independent local churches are quite justified in claiming to be nondenominational.

I actually wish Catholics would just stop using the word “denomination” as if it made any theological point at all. Protestants are divided, but the multiplicity of denominations does not, in itself, prove that they are any more divided than Catholics (who have 22 “sui juris churches”–i.e., parallel organizations embracing a bunch of local churches).

Edwin

Well, within Protestantism, different groups can be in full communion with each other and still be seperate “denominations” (for example, the Episcopal Church and the ELCA). This isn’t possible within Catholicism however: if a group joins the Roman Communion, it has to give up being a “denomination” (or that’s how I see it anyhow).

 

[ggarcia19]

You’re using “denominational” differently–I notice that Catholics do this a lot. A denomination is usually defined as an organization beyond the local church level. Independent local churches are quite justified in claiming to be nondenominational.

I actually wish Catholics would just stop using the word “denomination” as if it made any theological point at all. Protestants are divided, but the multiplicity of denominations does not, in itself, prove that they are any more divided than Catholics (who have 22 “sui juris churches”–i.e., parallel organizations embracing a bunch of local churches).

Edwin

I
I believe that most people use the word “nondenominational" as there religion because as children they are raised in a certain religion or church that they no longer agree on there beliefs when they become adults. So then it just takes time finding a new church. Lakewood Church is the largest nondenominational church in the world but I believe most people that go there have left there current religion. I have visited that church a few times but I was only passing threw.

 

[Contarini]

Well, within Protestantism, different groups can be in full communion with each other and still be seperate “denominations” (for example, the Episcopal Church and the ELCA). This isn’t possible within Catholicism however: if a group joins the Roman Communion, it has to give up being a “denomination” (or that’s how I see it anyhow).

But they don’t in fact have to give up having their own separate organizational structure, which is all a denomination is, really. At least, when Catholics make claims about how many denominations there are, that’s the definition those sources are generally using. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t go on about how many denominations there are without paying attention to the standard definition of a denomination, by which the “sui juris churches” and “personal prelatures” and so on would be denominations.

I don’t see any difference between two Protestant denominations in full communion with each other and two Catholic “sui juris churches” both in communion with Rome. The difference is that who is in communion with whom is very nebulous. So there is plenty of division, but it’s not as clear-cut as Catholics think.

This is what I don’t like about the Ordinariate. The last thing Catholicism (or any other form of Christianity) needs is yet another parallel structure to give us excuses for not worshiping with each other.

 

[Contarini]

I
I believe that most people use the word “nondenominational" as there religion because as children they are raised in a certain religion or church that they no longer agree on there beliefs when they become adults. So then it just takes time finding a new church. Lakewood Church is the largest nondenominational church in the world but I believe most people that go there have left there current religion. I have visited that church a few times but I was only passing threw.

Yes–an argument has been made that many of the “nones” showing up in increasing numbers on polls are actually non-denominational Christians.

However, when applied to a local church as opposed to an individual “non-denominational” has a fairly clear meaning: it’s an independent local congregation that doesn’t have any kind of institutional authority over it. Any ties it has with other congregations are purely voluntary.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

But they don’t in fact have to give up having their own separate organizational structure, which is all a denomination is, really. At least, when Catholics make claims about how many denominations there are, that’s the definition those sources are generally using.

Well, I could say a few things about those Catholics, but I won’t. :getholy:

But anyhow, I think it makes more sense to compare the 23 Churches which comprise the Roman Communion with the please fill in number Churches which comprise the Anglican Communion.

 

[Contarini]

Well, I could say a few things about those Catholics, but I won’t. :getholy:

But anyhow, I think it makes more sense to compare the 23 Churches which comprise the Roman Communion with the please fill in number Churches which comprise the Anglican Communion.

Except that for the most part (the Episcopal Church being the major exception–and the policies of our current PB are making it more of one) they don’t exist in parallel with each other. They exist in different places. If you move from England to America and want to remain within the Communion, you attend the Episcopal Church instead of the C of E (OK–it’s a bit more complicated now with the ACNA, which would very much like to be recognized by the Communion and is recognized by some parts of it). If you then move to Uganda, you are now part of the Anglican Church of Uganda.

People belonging to the C of E but living in Indiana don’t say, “Oh dear–there’s no C of E parish here, let’s get one started.” People belonging to the Byzantine Catholic Church and living in Fort Wayne, Indiana not only do say this but did say it, and so now there is one. That’s a lot more like how Protestants would act. In fact, they would be in many cases less motivated than that to set up a church of “their own” denomination if there was one teaching the same doctrines and worshiping in basically the same way. For instance, members of the Mennonite Church and the Church of the Brethren routinely attend churches of the “other” denomination if their own doesn’t exist in a place. Similarly, for the most part, with members of the Wesleyan denominations: Nazarenes, Wesleyans, Free Methodists. And so on.

This is very confusing, because there’s no clear line for most Protestants between “churches that are just like mine and which I would happily attend if I l didn’t have mine” and “churches that are truly Christian but which I wouldn’t like to attend myself.” I mean that it’s a spectrum, and it’s not really an ecclesiological issue for most of them. And of course two Protestants going to the same church may have a very different idea of what the limits both of the true Church and of “the section of the true Church in which I’d be personally comfortable” are.

Edwin

 

[Darryl_B]

You’re using “denominational” differently–I notice that Catholics do this a lot. A denomination is usually defined as an organization beyond the local church level. Independent local churches are quite justified in claiming to be nondenominational.

I actually wish Catholics would just stop using the word “denomination” as if it made any theological point at all. Protestants are divided, but the multiplicity of denominations does not, in itself, prove that they are any more divided than Catholics (who have 22 “sui juris churches”–i.e., parallel organizations embracing a bunch of local churches).

Edwin

I think the correct application of “Denomination” would be to describe the parish, diocese, arch-diocese all being within the single organization. The same word is used of money pounds shillings pence, but it is all within the same currency. Catholic and Protestant are two seperate currencies, to draw the parallel. Within the Protestant churches there are denominations including churches named according to their location. eg Church of England, Church of Scotland, Dutch Reformed or according to their founder Lutheran, Wesleyan.

Non-denominational is actually an attempt at ecumenism, (not independence) primarily in response to the decline of professing Christians in Western Civilization. It was a response to the realization that people had no idea what constituted the fundamental differences between the various denominations (pounds shillings pence) of the Protestant (currency) and did those differences even really matter in the bottom line. The ones excluded from that non-denominational ecumenism were the usual cults but also of course the Catholic Church because that would be viewed as a different currency, to draw the parallel.

So I do believe I am using the word correctly.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The most amazing thing about the rejection of Religion is that the most devoted/devout believers in religion are usually the first to reject the new message of God

History proves this to be undeniable

Not really, no, not like you think. Every prophet in the Old Testament had the mission to
call people to repentance, they never contradicted each other, they foretold the coming
of the Messiah, and the Messiah came. Ever since then, according to Hebrews 1:1-2,
NO MORE PROPHETS! Then comes Muhammad, Joseph Smith, the Bab, and of
course Baha’u’llah, each coming to challenge the truths established in the Bible.
(Isaac vs Ishmael)

A Prophet can come and show all the wonders of God and reveal verses of Majesty. The followers of this Prophet can evince the most perfect morality and service to God and Humanity and be so transformed as to be a new people. Yet the rejection continues and continues and continues.

There were once these men called the Pharisees, who were the most perfect
people in all of Israel. They followed all of the Laws of Moses better than any-
one, but even they were not good enough.
ACCORDING TO JESUS, “For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more
than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven” (Matthew 5:20).
We cannot have perfect morality, cannot offer perfect service to God, and we will be
doomed if we were to try. Also, according to James, “And whosoever shall keep the
whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (James 2:10). If you com-
mit but ONE sin, which we are inclined to do from birth, we are worthy of Hell. THAT
is why Jesus came, “For God so loved the world, as to give his Only Begotten Son; that whosoever BELIEVETH IN HIM, may not perish, but may have life everlasting”
(John 3:16).

 

[tonyfish58]

So, I’m just curious as to how you would react if I claimed to be the current “Manifestation of God” and also claimed that it was not Baha’u’llah at all. Would you reject my “new message of God” and why?

Steve - I posted this in another thread but it is applicable to your question as Baha’u’llah answers it directly

…"O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it, O assemblage of false ones.

Nay, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another"… Link - bahaiprayers.org/ahmad.htm

Give it a go, get as many people you want to assist and show me what you come up with

Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

yes, i agree with You that there is only one Truth, one God, one love. But, is this is true does not every other religion excepting sin have only a portion of the truth that leads to the one and only truth?

Thank You God bless

The Word of God contains All Truth. All Truth can be found in all the worlds Great Religions.

The ability to see this Truth depends a lot upon the level of ones detachment to this world and the Love of God these attributes are also important “purity of motive, freedom of spirit and a sanctity of heart”.

I hope I can find some of that

As the Bible says there was a time when the word was closed up and there will be a time when it is open - The revelation of the Bab opened the Gate to this meaning Baha’u’llah flooded the world with it.

Regards Tony

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The Word of God contains All Truth. All Truth can be found in all the worlds Great Religions.

That contradict each other (Isaac vs Ishmael).

 

[Robyn_p]

maybe I will be a Catholic again…