Sign in to follow this  
prisonchaplain

Why my religion is right

Recommended Posts

… and yours is wrong!  I do not say that, nor do I mean it.  However, in today’s post-modern milieu it is almost an offense to even say, “I am a Christian.”  The simple statement is interpreted as a religious triumphalism, an arrogance, and an intolerance of all else.  Ironically, those most offended are not my fellow religionists, but the rising tide of “nones.”  Those who have no religion, or no organized religion, or who are “spiritual, but not religious,” or just who choose not to be bothered with such things, tend to be the ones who put a bite into the question, “Why is your religion right?”

Still, the only way to answer the question is with innocence.  That is, as if the enquirer really wants to know.  I am a Christian because monotheism, universal appeal, and sacrificial love all strike as essential elements to a God that is real, and whom I would follow.  In today’s world, if God is not one then they are not all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present.  They are limited.  We shall, through invention and progress, eventually surpass them.  I would rather go about my life than be encumbered by demigods that just might bless me.

Along the same track, if God is one, then does He care about us—about me?  If not, again, I would avoid him.  If God cares, would He not find a mechanism to show that care, and bring about interaction, that is all over the world.  He would not limit himself to a tribe or language.

Finally, is God good?  I will not debate the presence of evil in the world today.  Rather, I look to the simple love story of Christianity.  God condescended to sending his Son, to become God-in-the-flesh.  A real, historical, human.  Jesus died so we could live.  What a love story!  No other God-story reads like that.  So, I prayed.  I believed.  Now I follow—a God who’s religion is universal, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present.  The God who loves me.  That’s why I am a Christian.  That’s why I am right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(slight disconnect from what PC said, but the same theory)

 

I’m not a person who feels called to stand up on a podium and proclaim how I love Christ.  What I do feel called to do is to learn about people, listen to what they believe, build bonds, and share what I believe that way.  When I listen to a person share their beliefs with me, I am honored because they are sharing part of their heart with me.  Sometimes I see things I disagree with, sometime passionately.  Or sometimes I feel that part of their beliefs are missing: that they have a hole in their heart.  In all cases, I marvel at the fingerprints of God I see all over that person’s heart. 

 

I love my God, and want desperately to share my heart with others.  When I see part of a heart that is errant or missing, I do not want to throw the entire heart out—that would be a waste of God’s creation.  It’s not about “I’m right” or “you’re wrong”, it's about joy and the value of your God created heart.  When someone’s heart aches, I want to help that person.  If that person lets me in, to help them on their walk with God, I am… oh, it’s too much for one word: I’m ecstatic, honored, marveled, prayerful—there!! That’s the word: I am “full”. 

 

Sometimes people do not want me to speak with them about God, or they shut Him out.  In the past, this caused me great sorrow…. Several years back my dearest friend was walking away from God, her testimony flickering dangerously in the wind.  I wanted to help, I wanted to share my flame, but she said “no”.  I spent many nights in prayer on her behalf, until God impressed His… I’m struggling for words again…  He’s in control, He’s got this.  I had to learn to let go of the steering wheel, cause He’s the one in charge.  And by golly, He’s a much better driver than I ever will be! 

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have reservations in responding but I believe this thread deserves some insightful and thoughtful responses.  First off when we lay claim to things that are right and true – we need to make sure we have done our homework.  By definition a demigod is the hybrid result of one divine parent and one mortal parent.  Jesus Christ by such definition was a demigod.  There are several others including Hercules, Baal and Zoroaster to name but a few.  Incidentally both Baal and Zoroaster were believed to have died that mankind could live (be resurrected) and both have more ancient root claim than does Christianity.   

 

Again do we understand enough concerning the love claim of other G-ds that our claim that our G-d is good; has sufficient separation and purpose for one to clearly stand above all the rest regardless of their religious claims of their deities?  One tenet claim I understand of Christianity that G-d’s love and respect is independent of person.  G-d loves the non-Christians as much as the Christians.  What then is the “goodness” of Christianity or our particular brand of Christianity that convinces us that it is the superior goodness of all other religions?

 

If G-d loves us – meaning all of us – why would he give us one structure of goodness in the days of Adam, another in the advent of Abraham, another with Moses and still another with Jesus.  Then so divide Christianity over the last 300 years to bring about the world’s greatest wars – between fellow Christians?

 

I have good friends that are Islamic, Jewish, And Hindu and some that are not sure there is a G-d.  Can we say our “goodness” is really that much better than theirs?   What more do we do than them to justify we are right and they are not?  If we make the claim we are right are we not under obligation to provide sufficient unlike any other reason for such a claim? 

 

I have sought understanding of these things – why is my religion better than any other?  I believe there are things only found in the Church of Jesus Christ that cannot be found anywhere else – and I have looked long and hard and am still looking – and not just concerning a few things.  Things as ancient as Adam and Eve, things that changed the world for a short time when Jesus walked the earth – and things that will be when Jesus reigns again for 1,000 years to end the great purpose of creation.  And it is the same for all that have ever lived or will live that G-d loves all and gives to all the same with no respecting of person, place or time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition a demigod is the hybrid result of one divine parent and one mortal parent.  Jesus Christ by such definition was a demigod.  There are several others including Hercules, Baal and Zoroaster to name but a few.  Incidentally both Baal and Zoroaster were believed to have died that mankind could live (be resurrected) and both have more ancient root claim than does Christianity.   

 

Traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus was fully human while He walked the earth.  Yes, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  Yes, He was still God.  Yet, he, according to Phil. 2, He condescended to becoming 'a little lower than the angels.'  I'm guessing many would gain theological heartburn at the suggestion that Messiah was a demigod.

 

Again do we understand enough concerning the love claim of other G-ds that our claim that our G-d is good; has sufficient separation and purpose for one to clearly stand above all the rest regardless of their religious claims of their deities?  One tenet claim I understand of Christianity that G-d’s love and respect is independent of person.  G-d loves the non-Christians as much as the Christians.  What then is the “goodness” of Christianity or our particular brand of Christianity that convinces us that it is the superior goodness of all other religions?

 

My suggestion is that Christianity (generic) is unique in claiming that God loves humanity so much that He would sacrifice his Son, condemning him to years of limited human existence, rejection by the creation, and then to experience human execution--all to win us back to devotion to Him.  I am willing to be corrected if there are other such teachings to be found.

 

If G-d loves us – meaning all of us – why would he give us one structure of goodness in the days of Adam, another in the advent of Abraham, another with Moses and still another with Jesus.  Then so divide Christianity over the last 300 years to bring about the world’s greatest wars – between fellow Christians?

 

First, I'd suggest God has one plan, not several.  Second, that Christianity grew out of Judaism, as a means of fulfilling the universal offer of reconciliation that many of the prophets described (Israel was to be a city on a hill that would lead all to come to God).  As for why Christ-followers have organized into many fellowships, how much of a problem that is, and how great the divide between most denominations is, remains a topic of discussion here.  I've contended that for the vast majority of denominations, our differences are not that great.  We do fellowship across the lines.

 

I have good friends that are Islamic, Jewish, And Hindu and some that are not sure there is a G-d.  Can we say our “goodness” is really that much better than theirs?   What more do we do than them to justify we are right and they are not?  If we make the claim we are right are we not under obligation to provide sufficient unlike any other reason for such a claim? 

 

I have sought understanding of these things – why is my religion better than any other?  I believe there are things only found in the Church of Jesus Christ that cannot be found anywhere else – and I have looked long and hard and am still looking – and not just concerning a few things.  Things as ancient as Adam and Eve, things that changed the world for a short time when Jesus walked the earth – and things that will be when Jesus reigns again for 1,000 years to end the great purpose of creation.  And it is the same for all that have ever lived or will live that G-d loves all and gives to all the same with no respecting of person, place or time.

 

I have limited my "right religion" claim to the tenants of my faith.  There is no question but that there are some Muslims who are much better at Islam than many Christians are at Christianity.  I would still contend that those mediocre Christians adhere to superior tenants--even if their execution of the faith badly falters.

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traditional Christian teaching is that Jesus was fully human while He walked the earth.  Yes, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit.  Yes, He was still God.  Yet, he, according to Phil. 2, He condescended to becoming 'a little lower than the angels.'  I'm guessing many would gain theological heartburn at the suggestion that Messiah was a demigod.

 

PC, can you explain the statement about Jesus being conceived by the Holy Spirit? I know that's essentially the wording Luke uses (if memory serves), but it's followed up by saying Jesus will be the Son of the Highest (which I interpret to mean the Father). How does this fit in with Jesus being subordinate to the Father, and the Spirit emanating from the Father and the Son (these might not be your particular creeds, in which case I apologize and we can move on)?

 

And to bring in a Brigham Young quip, is there a concern in a faith as charismatic as yours that young maidens will be filled with the Holy Spirit and start conceiving little messiahs? (a gentle ribbing among friends)

Edited by mordorbund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do believe that the Holy Spirit caused Mary to be pregnant, and that this was done as a miracle.  Jesus' subordination to the Father is that of position, not essence.  We believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one God.  So, they are "co-equal," even though, as Son, Jesus looks to the Father.  As for the Spirit, it does play out that He moves in accordance with the will of the Father.  Certainly, while Jesus walked the Earth, the Holy Spirit was directed by him.  Beyond that, you are right that we don't study the historic creeds too much.

 

As for the joke, if I respond or try to explain it will cease to be funny, so just know I'm smiling with you.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have limited my "right religion" claim to the tenants of my faith.  There is no question but that there are some Muslims who are much better at Islam than many Christians are at Christianity.  I would still contend that those mediocre Christians adhere to superior tenants--even if their execution of the faith badly falters.

 

I hope you enjoy the chance to talk in depth and specifics concerning why you follow the current tenets of your faith.  However, I wondered how you would handle the possibility that your tenets are not as unique as you claim.  I would put before you the possibility that there are others with the same claim and for good and perhaps better reason.

 

I had hoped that the introspection of such would cause you to ponder better your beliefs and expand in directions you may not have yet considered.  I know for myself that should I find something more complete than what I have that I would gladly embrace such a glorious gift from the G-d I worship and if he would show me better - I would, because of my faith in him accept any gift of truth he give me - and be thankful and appreciative of it.

 

That G-d so love the world that he gave his only begotten son - that who ever believes on him will have everlasting life.  But I would ask you - does ever person alive today have the same opportunity to know of such G-d and his son as you have had opportunity.  Has every human descendent of Adam and Eve had the same opportunity as you?

 

The witness I give you from my faith is that all that did not have such opportunity before they die; that they will.  They will before they stand before G-d as you and I will to make an account.  All will know of G-d and his son.  And all will have the same opportunity of the blessings of baptism and ministerings and all will know and hear.  But that some in hearing will hear not - and in seeing will see not.  Is this a teaching, tenet and doctrine in your faith?  Having heard of such - and that such is given to all - to hear or to put aside and not to hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traveler, by now you are aware that I have the unique blessing of being expected to know the rudiments of other faiths.  So, I am a bit surprised at the suggestion that I have not considered other truth claims.  Further, I know that the title of this string rankles.  That was intentional.  I meant to poke at the post-millenial "everything is gray" mentality.  Some things are true and others are false.  Further, there are many matters about which we cannot draw strong conclusions.  Nevertheless, it is better to say, "This is so," and allow others to challenge, than to close our hearts and minds and say, "I'll believe what I want, you believe what you want, and we'll stick to talking about the weather."  Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.  :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

... Those who have no religion, or no organized religion, or who are “spiritual, but not religious,” or just who choose not to be bothered with such things, tend to be the ones who put a bite into the question, “Why is your religion right?”

 

I'm thinking about a certain sit-com I enjoyed decades ago wherein a particular episode a religious leader tried very hard to induce his friend, a businessman, to take an action that would serve the religious leader's faith but violate his own sense of ethics.  In a final attempt to induce by guilt the leader exclaimed something like, "I guess this means you don't believe in God."  The businessman's answer was essentially, "Oh, I do believe in God--I just don't believe in *you*."

 

For me, trying to see things from the position of my brothers and sisters described in the OP, I can appreciate the perception of threats and the weariness of perceived offenses given by (to be charitable) well-meaning believers.  I can appreciate the fact that too often a non-believer's inability to see the metaphorical starlight of my God could result from the (neon-like) glare of me standing in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Traveler, by now you are aware that I have the unique blessing of being expected to know the rudiments of other faiths.  So, I am a bit surprised at the suggestion that I have not considered other truth claims.  Further, I know that the title of this string rankles.  That was intentional.  I meant to poke at the post-millenial "everything is gray" mentality.  Some things are true and others are false.  Further, there are many matters about which we cannot draw strong conclusions.  Nevertheless, it is better to say, "This is so," and allow others to challenge, than to close our hearts and minds and say, "I'll believe what I want, you believe what you want, and we'll stick to talking about the weather."  Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.  :cool:

 

It is not a matter of knowing other beliefs - it is a matter of embracing and utilizing truth.  If one has arrived - what is the point of looking at anything else?  I am skeptical of anyone that claims to have found the truth and more interested in those that have found a path to truth that they are willing to travel and help others to travel.  It is the LDS concept of believing that much more important things are needed to be sought, learned and applied beyond that which we have.  Those that think they have the end all - I am convinced that they have gone as far as they are going on the path of truth.  Not really a good idea to follow someone that is not actually going anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience as a Mormon (religious person) was that nones were more tolerant and less offended, in comparison to those of other organised religions or faiths. Like, I was always geared up to defend myself against the "none believers" but turned out that it was usually inactive members or those of other denominations that were quick to find fault within the church. So I guess my experience is different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those that think they have the end all - I am convinced that they have gone as far as they are going on the path of truth.  Not really a good idea to follow someone that is not actually going anywhere.

 

Almost without exception, every professor of religion, theology, biblical languages, etc. that I have met says that, after decades of full-time study, they have barely scratched the surface.  Anyone who believes they have learned all there is to know is atrophying, both spiritually and cognitively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience as a Mormon (religious person) was that nones were more tolerant and less offended, in comparison to those of other organised religions or faiths. Like, I was always geared up to defend myself against the "none believers" but turned out that it was usually inactive members or those of other denominations that were quick to find fault within the church. So I guess my experience is different.

 

Politically, "nones" are ascending.  Some have felt disregarded, and are now pushing back.  There is no doubt but that the majority of non-religious are simply disinterested.  Why be angry at something that doesn't matter much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politically, "nones" are ascending.  Some have felt disregarded, and are now pushing back.  There is no doubt but that the majority of non-religious are simply disinterested.  Why be angry at something that doesn't matter much?

Politically, "nones" are ascending.  Some have felt disregarded, and are now pushing back.  There is no doubt but that the majority of non-religious are simply disinterested.  Why be angry at something that doesn't matter much?

You must understand that for some, especially those born and raised into a faith, who later abandon their religion due to X, may feel deceived. I think this is how many ex-Mormons (maybe other Christians) feel. That's likely where the hard feelings come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience as a Mormon (religious person) was that nones were more tolerant and less offended, in comparison to those of other organised religions or faiths. Like, I was always geared up to defend myself against the "none believers" but turned out that it was usually inactive members or those of other denominations that were quick to find fault within the church. So I guess my experience is different.

 So true.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

… and yours is wrong!  I do not say that, nor do I mean it. 

 

I can understand why you "don’t say it" (political correctness and all), but I don't understand why you "don’t mean it"?

 

Quite frankly, (don't misunderstand me; I'm not accusing you of this) I don't understand someone who is afraid to pronounce their religion "right" (true) and someone else's "wrong" (false), and if they have no conviction that their particular religion is true I understand them even less. 

I expect any Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Mormon or what-have-you to have the courage to say, "I’m a ______________ because it's true (right)!

 

If we define religion as a specific, unified system of worshipping God (yes, I know there are nontheistic religions, but I'll leave those out here), then there is a point regarding religion which should go without saying (and it almost always does but for the wrong reason)---the point being, a religion is either true or it isn't.

It either teaches the truth about God or it doesn't.

It either correctly teaches what God expects from us, or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, then it's a false religion.

It's just that simple.

 

The idea that one religion is as good as another is patently ludicrous!

If Christianity is right; Islam is wrong!

If Islam is right; Judaism is wrong!

If Judaism is right; Christianity is wrong!

How can a religion that is WRONG be just as good as one that is RIGHT?

 

Any religion that does not teach the truth about God, our relationship to Him, and His expectations for us, (no matter how sincere they are about it) is a false religion, and that's all there is to it.

 

But the debate goes farther than that.

If Islam is right, which version of Islam is true? Is it the Sunni version or the Shia version or the Sufi version?

If Judaism is right, which version is true? Is it the Orthodox version or the Conservative version or the Reformed version?

If Christianity is right, which version is true? Is it the Catholic version, the Baptist version, the Assemblies of God version, or is it one of the hundreds of other sects?

 

Once again, it's patently ludicrous to suppose that one Christian sect is as good as another.

If one teaches that God has a body of flesh and bones, and another teaches that he doesn't; one of them is wrong!

If one teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation, and another teaches that it isn't; one of them is wrong!

If one teaches that there will be a bodily resurrection, and another teaches there won't be; one of them is wrong!

How can a Christian sect that is WRONG be just as good as one that is RIGHT?

 

I'm reminded of a story that Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve told:

"Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days."

 

Here was a man who was not afraid of his own convictions. Here was a man who was not afraid to pronounce his own religion true and Protestantism false. (And no doubt he was not afraid to pronounce Mormonism false either.)

 

I have great respect for such men no matter what religion they belong to.

I have great respect for anyone who has the courage to say, "my religion is true, and yours isn't."

 

I am a Mormon because I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, which obviously means that I know the others are false. And I'm not the least bit timid in making the declaration.  

 

You are a Christian, because as you proclaimed, "it is right".

You belong to the Assemblies of God, and I assume you belong because you believe it to be the correct version of Christianity.

Therefore, there is no reason you shouldn't say it, and especially no reason you shouldn't mean it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalist--it's not that I would not say my religion is right, and yours is wrong.  Rather, that in many cases I do not have to.  I just say I'm a Christian, and right away the reaction is, "Oh, so you think your religion is right and mine is wrong!!!"  The offense is taken long before I even considered giving one.

 

There certainly is a time and place to say, "Thus saieth the Lord...," and come what may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

... I don't understand someone who is afraid to pronounce their religion "right" (true) and someone else's "wrong" (false), and if they have no conviction that their particular religion is true I understand them even less. 

 

... there is no reason you shouldn't say it, and especially no reason you shouldn't mean it.

 

Based upon your adamant way of wording it I must presume (respectfully) that you mean what you say. That being the case it appears to demonstrate that the key is you "don't understand someone". If we determine (or wish) to understand someone in this context we must begin by accepting that one's reasons and feelings about one's religion are valid even if we don't understand them. Despite what so many (in the Mormon Church particularly but others as well) claim about certainty and certain knowledge, there are many who don't feel they may honestly echo the claim--and not for a lack of trying, sometimes over the period of an entire lifetime of seeking to know as it is suggested they ought to. Many people believe but know that they don't know. Some others live by faith (as they understand it, and to best of their current ability). Still some others believe because they choose to believe--because believing provides consolation in a world where the only certainty they *do feel* capable of exclaiming is that of their own eventual death and that of those they love. 

 

I frequently hear my fellow Mormons testify that they don't know how they could live if they didn't have (their testimony).  But many others of my fellow travelers here on Earth live precisely by hope.  

Edited by UT.starscoper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a deacon I was involved in a fight - actually more of a brawl between the two deacon's quorums that met in separate wards of the same building in Provo, Utah.  The conflict was brought to fists and blood over which ward was the "true" ward.  It is my experience that few think that their religious sect is the true sect but like LDS - attend a particular congregation based on a number of factors.  We LDS attend a particular ward based on geography - Other "Christians" attend their congregation for more liberal reasons. 

 

Some LDS are surprised to discover that many Christian sects in different parts of the world are more diverse in their particular and specific doctrines than separate individual Christian sects in their local towns.  LDS are kind of unique in their view of unity in doctrine, organization and use of funds - all of which we believe belong to a unique structure governed by a single priesthood source.  When we LDS say we belong the the true religion - it means something very different to other Christians - especially Protestants.

 

In many areas of the world where Christians are a persecuted minority they look upon each other, even though they are of different sects, as the same religion.  It is not a matter of "kingdom", it is only a matter of believing that Jesus is the Christ.  But historically and by tradition you cannot believe in Christ (be a Christian) without believing in the Trinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

When I was a deacon I was involved in a fight - actually more of a brawl between the two deacon's quorums that met in separate wards of the same building in Provo, Utah.  The conflict was brought to fists and blood over which ward was the "true" ward. ...

 

On one hand we could be generous and attribute this event as merely the foolishness of youth.  On the other hand it could serve as a case study related to the fact that God's children (of all ages) manage to find what they think are reasons to divide themselves into factions, cliques, opponents, etc.  I suspect any of us can recall examples in our own respective congregations (LDS or otherwise).  People divide themselves on relatively minor points of doctrine while they neglect the "weightier matters".  They divide themselves over income, education, social status, race, ethnicity, politics (especially) and just about anything else we could name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a deacon I was involved in a fight - actually more of a brawl between the two deacon's quorums that met in separate wards of the same building in Provo, Utah.  The conflict was brought to fists and blood over which ward was the "true" ward. 

 

Awesome!

 

Did your ward win the brawl?

 

Edit:

 

More importantly, did you dance fight like in West Side Story? 

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being the case it appears to demonstrate that the key is you "don't understand someone". 

 

Hmmm?

I state that I don't understand someone, and you clarify my statement be saying that I don't understand someone.

Thanks for clearing that up.  ;)

 

You wrote: "Despite what so many (in the Mormon Church particularly but others as well) claim about certainty and certain knowledge, there are many who don't feel they may honestly echo the claim--and not for a lack of trying, sometimes over the period of an entire lifetime of seeking to know as it is suggested they ought to."

 

How do you know it's "not for a lack of trying". Simply because they say so?

 

I would argue that when God says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him", He means it.

 

And I believe when he says, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened", He means it.

 

And when he says (regarding the BOM), "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost", He means it.

 

These aren't just "spin the lucky wheel" offers. (Step right up; spin the wheel; see if you get an answer; lots of winners here; step right up).

These are promises from a God who cannot lie. 

Edited by Capitalist_Oinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many areas of the world where Christians are a persecuted minority they look upon each other, even though they are of different sects, as the same religion. 

 

And is this logical? 

Does it make any sense in regards to "truth". 

 

Mormons believe in Christ right along with Catholics, Baptists and Lutherans, but it would be ludicrous to claim that we are all the same religion, and that one of us is as good as the other.

 

Only one of us is "true" or we are all false together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

… and yours is wrong!  I do not say that, nor do I mean it.  However, in today’s post-modern milieu it is almost an offense to even say, “I am a Christian.”  The simple statement is interpreted as a religious triumphalism, an arrogance, and an intolerance of all else.  Ironically, those most offended are not my fellow religionists, but the rising tide of “nones.”  Those who have no religion, or no organized religion, or who are “spiritual, but not religious,” or just who choose not to be bothered with such things, tend to be the ones who put a bite into the question, “Why is your religion right?”

Still, the only way to answer the question is with innocence.  That is, as if the enquirer really wants to know.  I am a Christian because monotheism, universal appeal, and sacrificial love all strike as essential elements to a God that is real, and whom I would follow.  In today’s world, if God is not one then they are not all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present.  They are limited.  We shall, through invention and progress, eventually surpass them.  I would rather go about my life than be encumbered by demigods that just might bless me.

Along the same track, if God is one, then does He care about us—about me?  If not, again, I would avoid him.  If God cares, would He not find a mechanism to show that care, and bring about interaction, that is all over the world.  He would not limit himself to a tribe or language.

Finally, is God good?  I will not debate the presence of evil in the world today.  Rather, I look to the simple love story of Christianity.  God condescended to sending his Son, to become God-in-the-flesh.  A real, historical, human.  Jesus died so we could live.  What a love story!  No other God-story reads like that.  So, I prayed.  I believed.  Now I follow—a God who’s religion is universal, who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present.  The God who loves me.  That’s why I am a Christian.  That’s why I am right.

good gosh i'd be ecstatic if people could just figure out if they  go around and show how they are right and not how others are wrong how much more i'd be inclined to stick around and listen to them, to say the least.

I have a brain I can figure out that if what i think isn't matching what the other is saying I'll assume that they'd consider my view as incorrect to some extent or another.

Is God Good? he's preserved my family throughout the generations when we've sacrificed to follow him. He's the only who has answered my prayers, and let me know he and christ exist, and that Joseph Smith was their servant.

which is more than any governmental/political organization has done for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this