only one correct religion with the truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ggarcia19
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Saul Saul why are you persecuting ME, Who are you? Jesus.

Who was Saul persecuting?? Christ? The Catholic Church?

Christ tells him you are persecuting ME, Christ and his Church are ONE!

So you cannot fully accept Christ without fully accepting all of his teaching.
I have heard this so many times. The Christ and the Church are not the same thing.

If it were true the Church would never have to update its dogmas.

The Christ does not have to do that, whatever he said is true forever, however this is not the case for the Church and its pronouncements.
 
I have heard this so many times. The Christ and the Church are not the same thing.

If it were true the Church would never have to update its dogmas.

The Christ does not have to do that, whatever he said is true forever, however this is not the case for the Church and its pronouncements.
I have heard this forever also. Just because the Holy Spirit is forever teaching the ONE TRUTH has nothing to do with creating One Truth.

Show me one Dogma of the Church that has changed its truth?
 
Actually I do accept the Christ. I just don’t accept all the dogmas of the Church.
Can you please list the dogmas of the Church that you cannot accept. Allow Catholics to show you the truth. This is not an arrogant “better than thou” statement but a genuine concern for you. I am happy that you accept Christ. I am concerned of the Church is standing in your way to become a Catholic.
 
IgnatianPhilo - Can we agree that the Truth is Christ, His Word and His Sacrifice for Us?

God Bless and Regards Tony
I have no idea what that means to you. I know what It means to the Christian but to the bahai? You can’t even define some of your most basic concepts. Truth seems to some to be an annoying foe.
 
Can you please list the dogmas of the Church that you cannot accept. Allow Catholics to show you the truth. This is not an arrogant “better than thou” statement but a genuine concern for you. I am happy that you accept Christ. I am concerned of the Church is standing in your way to become a Catholic.
There are many of these dogmas that I don’t agree with. However, I think such a discussion would really be off topic in this thread.

(But just to give you an idea: I don’t agree that using contraceptives is a mortal sin. Apparently over 50% of Catholics agree with me on this. But lets not discuss it here).
 
There are many of these dogmas that I don’t agree with. However, I think such a discussion would really be off topic in this thread.

(But just to give you an idea: I don’t agree that using contraceptives is a mortal sin. Apparently over 50% of Catholics agree with me on this. But lets not discuss it here).
I could say something about contraception ad divorce but I agree, lets not discuss it here.
 
I have no idea what that means to you. I know what It means to the Christian but to the bahai? You can’t even define some of your most basic concepts. Truth seems to some to be an annoying foe.
No truth is not a foe. Far from it. Truth is God, so how can the truth be a foe?

Truth at the expense of a sincerely seeking human heart being trodden on and oppressed (whether physically, intellectually or emotionally) is a foe.

Unity and truth go hand in hand

If truth causes the peoples of the world to be segregated and fighting amongst themselves, then it no longer is Truth.

This is the main reason why Baha’is consider Christianity a corrupted religion. Man-made “truths” have inserted themselves in there and we have all professing to love Jesus yet willing to kill each other for it.

That’s not Truth.

.
 
This is the main reason why Baha’is consider Christianity a corrupted religion.
I’m afraid Servant19 is not speaking for me as a Baha’i here.

I simply don’t consider Christianity “corrupted”.
 
I’m afraid Servant19 is not speaking for me as a Baha’i here.

I simply don’t consider Christianity “corrupted”.
Maybe the word “corrupted” is the wrong word. It has connotations of incorrectness.

I do not consider the religion of Christ as “incorrect”

I do not consider Catholicism as “incorrect”

I do consider many of the Christian sects out there as being “incorrect”…especially those that refuse to mix with “non-Christians” (and theres a lot of those just down our street!)

I also do consider some of the fundamental teachings of Catholic theology as being “sincerely derived from mans understanding of Christs Message”, yet not the truth

After dialoguing with the Catholic friends here, a fundamental theological foundation of Catholicism derives from the concept that an “Eternal Being” is God

I do not believe that you are God, even though you have an eternal nature.

The Kingdom of Heaven is also eternal, but it is not God.

Incorrect theologies derive from that premise. But the spirit of Christianity is fundamentally good.

So, maybe I was too hasty in using a word (corruption) that was not intended as a means of implying “insincerity”

Hope that helps clarify 🙂

.
 
If you are interested in some new ideas on religious pluralism and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:
  1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
  2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
  3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.
Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.
  • The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.
** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes
 
Maybe the word “corrupted” is the wrong word. It has connotations of incorrectness.

I do not consider the religion of Christ as “incorrect”

I do not consider Catholicism as “incorrect”

I do consider many of the Christian sects out there as being “incorrect”…especially those that refuse to mix with “non-Christians” (and theres a lot of those just down our street!)

I also do consider some of the fundamental teachings of Catholic theology as being “sincerely derived from mans understanding of Christs Message”, yet not the truth

After dialoguing with the Catholic friends here, a fundamental theological foundation of Catholicism derives from the concept that an “Eternal Being” is God

I do not believe that you are God, even though you have an eternal nature.

The Kingdom of Heaven is also eternal, but it is not God.

Incorrect theologies derive from that premise. But the spirit of Christianity is fundamentally good.

So, maybe I was too hasty in using a word (corruption) that was not intended as a means of implying “insincerity”

Hope that helps clarify 🙂

.
How about coming to the thread I opened to discuss whether or not Christianity was actually corrupted? You can make your case there without diverting this thread. That is if you can actually make the case.

In terms of truth, this is the first time I have seen the bahai open up and admit they think Christians wrong and mistaken. I am quite shocked. However you are mistaken, unity and truth do not go together. In the new testament we are told the word of the lord is like a sword which divides and the word of the Lord is truth. History has born witness to the division which truth causes, the different understandings of what is truth. We are at heart fundamentally divided in our religions as you admitted when you think Christians get things fundamentally wrong, even if our spirit is good, whatever that means.

Truth does not change from one generation to the next, it is eternal. Either God became man or he didn’t, there is no in between. Either A does not have B or it has it. A Cannot both have B and not have B at the time same time.
 
If you are interested in some new ideas on religious pluralism and the Trinity, please check out my website at www.religiouspluralism.ca, and give me your thoughts on improving content and presentation.

My thesis is that an abstract version of the Trinity could be Christianity’s answer to the world need for a framework of pluralistic theology.

In a constructive worldview: east, west, and far-east religions present a threefold understanding of One God manifest primarily in Muslim and Hebrew intuition of the Deity Absolute, Christian and Krishnan Hindu conception of the Universal Absolute Supreme Being; and Shaivite Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist apprehension of the Destroyer (meaning also Consummator), Unconditioned Absolute, or Spirit of All That Is and is not. Together with their variations and combinations in other major religions, these religious ideas reflect and express our collective understanding of God, in an expanded concept of the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity Absolute is portrayed in the logic of world religions, as follows:
  1. Muslims and Jews may be said to worship only the first person of the Trinity, i.e. the existential Deity Absolute Creator, known as Allah or Yhwh, Abba or Father (as Jesus called him), Brahma, and other names; represented by Gabriel (Executive Archangel), Muhammad and Moses (mighty messenger prophets), and others.
  2. Christians and Krishnan Hindus may be said to worship the first person through a second person, i.e. the experiential Universe or "Universal” Absolute Supreme Being (Allsoul or Supersoul), called Son/Christ or Vishnu/Krishna; represented by Michael (Supreme Archangel), Jesus (teacher and savior of souls), and others. The Allsoul is that gestalt of personal human consciousness, which we expect will be the “body of Christ” (Mahdi, Messiah, Kalki or Maitreya) in the second coming – personified in history by Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Buddha (9th incarnation of Vishnu), and others.
  3. Shaivite Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucian-Taoists seem to venerate the synthesis of the first and second persons in a third person or appearance, ie. the Destiny Consummator of ultimate reality – unqualified Nirvana consciousness – associative Tao of All That Is – the absonite* Unconditioned Absolute Spirit “Synthesis of Source and Synthesis,”** who/which is logically expected to be Allah/Abba/Brahma glorified in and by union with the Supreme Being – represented in religions by Gabriel, Michael, and other Archangels, Mahadevas, Spiritpersons, etc., who may be included within the mysterious Holy Ghost.
Other strains of religion seem to be psychological variations on the third person, or possibly combinations and permutations of the members of the Trinity – all just different personality perspectives on the Same God. Taken together, the world’s major religions give us at least two insights into the first person of this thrice-personal One God, two perceptions of the second person, and at least three glimpses of the third.
  • The ever-mysterious Holy Ghost or Unconditioned Spirit is neither absolutely infinite, nor absolutely finite, but absonite; meaning neither existential nor experiential, but their ultimate consummation; neither fully ideal nor totally real, but a middle path and grand synthesis of the superconscious and the conscious, in consciousness of the unconscious.
** This conception is so strong because somewhat as the Absonite Spirit is a synthesis of the spirit of the Absolute and the spirit of the Supreme, so it would seem that the evolving Supreme Being may himself also be a synthesis or “gestalt” of humanity with itself, in an Almighty Universe Allperson or Supersoul. Thus ultimately, the Absonite is their Unconditioned Absolute Coordinate Identity – the Spirit Synthesis of Source and Synthesis – the metaphysical Destiny Consummator of All That Is.

After the Hindu and Buddhist conceptions, perhaps the most subtle expression and comprehensive symbol of the 3rd person of the Trinity is the Tao; involving the harmonization of “yin and yang” (great opposing ideas indentified in positive and negative, or otherwise contrasting terms). In the Taoist icon of yin and yang, the s-shaped line separating the black and white spaces may be interpreted as the Unconditioned “Middle Path” between condition and conditioned opposites, while the circle that encompasses them both suggests their synthesis in the Spirit of the “Great Way” or Tao of All That Is.

If the small black and white circles or “eyes” are taken to represent a nucleus of truth in both yin and yang, then the metaphysics of this symbolism fits nicely with the paradoxical mystery of the Christian Holy Ghost; who is neither the spirit of the one nor the spirit of the other, but the Glorified Spirit proceeding from both, taken altogether – as one entity – personally distinct from his co-equal, co-eternal and fully coordinate co-sponsors, who differentiate from him, as well as mingle and meld in him.

For more details, please see: www.religiouspluralism.ca

Samuel Stuart Maynes
But that ceases to be the trinity. Your simply redefining it. The third person of the trinity is not a concept but a person with a mind called the Holy spirit who imbues believers with his presence. You can’t redefine a doctrine and then say that redefinition makes the person who believes in the previous definition totally compatible with different world views and understandings.

Theres a reason why Athanasius was exiled from his see five times and it wasn’t because he and the arians misunderstood each other.
 
Here is some real truth, but some will deny it.

To say that any religion is 100% true is inconceivable and, more than likely, a grave sin. If you follow what the bible teaches us, as well as life experiences you will know that the following is true: people crave power…power corrupts people…people of power serve the needs to maintain that power…man is imperfect…only God is perfect…man is bias…only God is truly just.

We are also taught in the bible to question our leaders. It is our right given by God, so we will not be easily led astray. Now, looking at the facts above, it is mathematically impossible and flat out naive to say that, in thousands of years, a high person of power in a religion has not done so purely for the gain of power, and that they have not corrupted their religion to ensure their power, increase it, or believed their opinion was factual, yet not divinely given. If you believe that a single religion is 100% true then what you are saying is man is perfect, which is blasphemy.

Therefore, the only real truth, regarding religion, is that all religions are NOT 100% accurate. The only thing we can say is a 100% truth is God himself, so there is where our faith must rest. God is the only 100% truth. Anyone who says otherwise is blinded by pride and bias, and they themselves are sinners because of it.
 
Maybe the word “corrupted” is the wrong word. It has connotations of incorrectness.

I do not consider the religion of Christ as “incorrect”

I do not consider Catholicism as “incorrect”

]I do consider many of the Christian sects out there as being “incorrect”…especially those that refuse to mix with “non-Christians” (and theres a lot of those just down our street!)

I also do consider some of the fundamental teachings of Catholic theology as being “sincerely derived from mans understanding of Christs Message”, yet not the truth

After dialoguing with the Catholic friends here, a fundamental theological foundation of Catholicism derives from the concept that an “Eternal Being” is God

I do not believe that you are God, even though you have an eternal nature.

The Kingdom of Heaven is also eternal, but it is not God.

Incorrect theologies derive from that premise. But the spirit of Christianity is fundamentally good.

So, maybe I was too hasty in using a word (corruption) that was not intended as a means of implying “insincerity”

Hope that helps clarify 🙂

.
What do you mean by “mix with non-Christians”? Do you mean mix with socially, or mix with during and for worship?

Jon
 
Maybe the word “corrupted” is the wrong word. It has connotations of incorrectness.

I do not consider the religion of Christ as “incorrect”

I do not consider Catholicism as “incorrect”

I do consider many of the Christian sects out there as being “incorrect”…especially those that refuse to mix with “non-Christians” (and theres a lot of those just down our street!)

I also do consider some of the fundamental teachings of Catholic theology as being “sincerely derived from mans understanding of Christs Message”, yet not the truth

After dialoguing with the Catholic friends here, a fundamental theological foundation of Catholicism derives from the concept that an “Eternal Being” is God

I do not believe that you are God, even though you have an eternal nature.

The Kingdom of Heaven is also eternal, but it is not God.

Incorrect theologies derive from that premise. But the spirit of Christianity is fundamentally good.

So, maybe I was too hasty in using a word (corruption) that was not intended as a means of implying “insincerity”

Hope that helps clarify 🙂

.
I think you take the Catholic concept and teaching out of context.

Here is an example whatsoever you do for the least of my brother that you do unto me.

You can read that and say oh, so if I hurt you I hurt God. Yes. Its true. But because you hurt God by hurting me by no means makes me God.

The CC has never taught heaven is God, the CC has always taught heaven is eternal LIFE WITH GOD.

You cannot take personal opinions for the word of God.

Our own Pope Paul ll has his own personal opinions on things. It does in no way claim true Catholic teaching. Only his own ideas.

Unless something is said in the voice of the Holy Spirit it is never claimed to be the true word of God.

We all have our own understandings of the message of God, And its not always wrong either. Here is a great example.

We had a great Priest who said don’t give to the men begging for money, you are not helping them when they beg, they only buy more drugs and alcohol.

My Dad a very faithful Catholic, went and served Mass everyday after his retirement, Still stopped dead in his tracks and gave to the beggar on the street. Every SINGLE time. His thinking was this, if a Man has to lower himself to beg and belittle himself there has to be something truly mentally wrong with him. Or a horrible experience in life to bring him to this place in life.

While neither are theologians, they both had their own views on things, God gives us this Grace to use and free will to think and do with our own heart.

Who is right?? Only God can answer.

In my Dads eyes he could no see a man hungry, if he has money in his pocket that mans going to eat. In his heart he prayed the man would do the right thing and eat, and somehow get back on track with life and God, He continued that whole week to pray for him.

But to show you there are some answers not out there, some are right some are wrong, sometimes both views are right, It happens.
 
Here is some real truth, but some will deny it.

To say that any religion is 100% true is inconceivable and, more than likely, a grave sin. If you follow what the bible teaches us, as well as life experiences you will know that the following is true: people crave power…power corrupts people…people of power serve the needs to maintain that power…man is imperfect…only God is perfect…man is bias…only God is truly just.

We are also taught in the bible to question our leaders. It is our right given by God, so we will not be easily led astray. Now, looking at the facts above, it is mathematically impossible and flat out naive to say that, in thousands of years, a high person of power in a religion has not done so purely for the gain of power, and that they have not corrupted their religion to ensure their power, increase it, or believed their opinion was factual, yet not divinely given. If you believe that a single religion is 100% true then what you are saying is man is perfect, which is blasphemy.

Therefore, the only real truth, regarding religion, is that all religions are NOT 100% accurate. The only thing we can say is a 100% truth is God himself, so there is where our faith must rest. God is the only 100% truth. Anyone who says otherwise is blinded by pride and bias, and they themselves are sinners because of it.
Then you should put me at the top of your list as being the largest sinner for stating and believing God when he said he will send the Advocate the Holy Spirit to lead the RCC. He promised to never leave us orphans and be with us until the end of age.

Christ told us the CC was the Pilar of all truth. You claim there is no fullness of the truth, Christ said there is in his Church.

If you believe the word of God and believe he kept his promise to lead the CC through the power of the Holy Spirit how can you deny that truth?

So either you are wrong and there is absolute truth in the Church, or Christ left us orphans and did not keep his promise.🤷
 
Here is some real truth, but some will deny it.

To say that any religion is 100% true is inconceivable and, more than likely, a grave sin. If you follow what the bible teaches us, as well as life experiences you will know that the following is true: people crave power…power corrupts people…people of power serve the needs to maintain that power…man is imperfect…only God is perfect…man is bias…only God is truly just.

We are also taught in the bible to question our leaders. It is our right given by God, so we will not be easily led astray. Now, looking at the facts above, it is mathematically impossible and flat out naive to say that, in thousands of years, a high person of power in a religion has not done so purely for the gain of power, and that they have not corrupted their religion to ensure their power, increase it, or believed their opinion was factual, yet not divinely given. If you believe that a single religion is 100% true then what you are saying is man is perfect, which is blasphemy.

Therefore, the only real truth, regarding religion, is that all religions are NOT 100% accurate. The only thing we can say is a 100% truth is God himself, so there is where our faith must rest. God is the only 100% truth. Anyone who says otherwise is blinded by pride and bias, and they themselves are sinners because of it.
Follow a book compiled by a religion that considers itself to be 100% true? If no religion is 100% and power corrupts you can’t cite the Bible as your source given that it is the product of a religion that considers itself to be the authority of the truth about God. You can’t even cite Jewish holy texts.
 
No truth is not a foe. Far from it. Truth is God, so how can the truth be a foe?

Truth at the expense of a sincerely seeking human heart being trodden on and oppressed (whether physically, intellectually or emotionally) is a foe.

Unity and truth go hand in hand

If truth causes the peoples of the world to be segregated and fighting amongst themselves, then it no longer is Truth.

This is the main reason why Baha’is consider Christianity a corrupted religion. Man-made “truths” have inserted themselves in there and we have all professing to love Jesus yet willing to kill each other for it.

That’s not Truth.

Okay just a thought. Please answer honestly. Do you believe God is worth dying for?
.
And one other questions if I may. How can you have sin in the world and truth in the world and have them go hand in hand.

Example Abortion, Catholic view Please don’t kill that baby, It is a baby you are killing.

World view, its not a baby, not until its out of the womb, go ahead and kill it, its cool.

So how can a Catholic sit back and say, Okay go ahead, because I don’t want no waves and I don’t want to argue with you.

Truth has always caused people to be separated from one another. ITs called good and evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top