What makes you certain that you've chosen the correct faith?

Mind Over Matter said:
I make no asserion as to how "right with God" ANYone is. That is between them personally and God.

The question you asked is, "What makes you (that would be me, personally) certain that you're doing the right thing, and they are not? (in choosing to be a Catholic Christian as opposed to Jewish or Islamic)
Click to expand...

I don't see where you have answered that question -?
 
Adstar said:
I believe James was talking about people who did not Love their neighbours. The two laws we follow is Love God and Love your neighbour. James was saying that if you don't help your neighbour in their distress, in practical ways then it shows that you do not love your neighbour and thus you are a fake.

But still we are saved by faith. those who have the faith will seek to love their neighbour. That fruit comes from the genuine belief.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Click to expand...
But one can love their neighbor and not believe in the supernatural. Why should God care what you believe as long as you're doing the right thing?
 
Signal said:
What do you think about the point I have made earlier, namely, that the question of choosing the right religion presupposes a fear or conviction in an evil God?
Click to expand...

I think it's a valid position in the sense that people would likely be less concerned about choosing the right religion if there were no significant consequences to choosing the wrong one. But then again, many religions teach that there are consequences to getting it wrong, so the fear is not necessarily presupposed as much as it is learned from an investigation of religion itself.

What do you think -
Who can answer these questions?
Can one person answer them for other people?
Click to expand...

The answers may be different depending on the person giving them, and they will no doubt be little more than the product of their own individual experiences. But I must assume that in the case where one believes that the only way to God is by embracing a particular faith, then there must be something that convinces them that they have embraced the correct one (if indeed they believe that the faith that they have embraced which teaches that it is the only correct one, is indeed the only correct one).
 
Rav said:
I think it's a valid position in the sense that people would likely be less concerned about choosing the right religion if there were no significant consequences to choosing the wrong one. But then again, many religions teach that there are consequences to getting it wrong, so the fear is not necessarily presupposed as much as it is learned from an investigation of religion itself.
Click to expand...

The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?
- If these are the feared consequences, then this reveals the fear that God is evil.


The answers may be different depending on the person giving them, and they will no doubt be little more than the product of their own individual experiences. But I must assume that in the case where one believes that the only way to God is by embracing a particular faith, then there must be something that convinces them that they have embraced the correct one (if indeed they believe that the faith that they have embraced which teaches that it is the only correct one, is indeed the only correct one).
Click to expand...

You said earlier:

What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.
Click to expand...

To me, this seems to suggest that you are looking for a neutral, objective, non-denominational way to assess the choice of religion.
Is this correct?
 
Signal said:
The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?
- If these are the feared consequences, then this reveals the fear that God is evil.
Click to expand...

I think that the feared consequences are the result of investigation of religion itself, since consequences such as eternal damnation exist within some religious teaching themselves. I'm not sure how that doesn't address your question.

To me, this seems to suggest that you are looking for a neutral, objective, non-denominational way to assess the choice of religion.
Is this correct?
Click to expand...

I really am just interested in what experiences or arguments people have that support their position that they have chosen the correct one. Obviously the question is only applicable to those who believe that there is indeed a "correct" choice (many people don't).
 
Signal said:
The relevant issue is the kind of consequence for choosing the "wrong religion" vs. the "right one".

Are the consequence infinite, irrepairable? Does one have to "get it right in this one lifetime or burn in hell forever"?
Click to expand...
Dear one.
I believe your question and doubt is the stepping stone for you to desire the infinitely One. Keep on practising to look for TRUTH.
 
I asked myself "if Jesus came back tomorrow, which church would He walk into and accept?" And the answer was Buddhism because Buddhism has virtue and depth.

As such, I study Buddhism and fail to live a Buddhist life but try nonetheless.
 
Rav said:
I really am just interested in what experiences or arguments people have that support their position that they have chosen the correct one. Obviously the question is only applicable to those who believe that there is indeed a "correct" choice (many people don't).
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that beyond "I have personal revelation from God" or something to that effect, there can be no answer to your question that would not be a betrayal of the person's faith.

Namely, to provide an externalist, non-denominational, objective, neutral reasoning or other evidence for one's faith would be to say that there is something higher and more relevant than the highest authorities of one's religion.
 
Rav said:
Think of it this way. An educated agnostic who is seeking the truth knows that the Bible teaches that Jesus died for their sins. But they also likely know that the Qur'an teaches Jesus wasn't crucified at all. Specifically it teaches that regardless of the reports of such, Jesus was in fact taken up to heaven to be with Allah instead. It also teaches that while the Bible has some authority, and is indeed a good book for learn from, it has been superseded by the more recent revelation contained within the Qur'an. So the agnostic (agnostic theist in particular) who seeks to be "right" with God is put in the rather awkward position of trying to determine which set of revelations to embrace.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting distinction between 'agnostic' and 'agnostic theist'.

Epistemological agnostics these days generally are weak ontological atheists. They don't actually believe in any God, even if they don't totally deny the possibility. (I fit there, in some of my moods.)

But yeah, there are agnostic theists as well, individuals who do believe that a God exists, but believe that they personally, or mankind generally, lack cognitive proposiitonal knowledge of that God. At times in history, these represented the majority of agnostics. (Of course, the word 'agnostic' hadn't been coined yet.) We encounter agnostic theists among the deists and among a certain kind of religious mystic.

What I am getting at with this thread is something like this: what sort of assurance can the agnostic theist find in the act of embracing one over the other that allows them to feel certain (or close to it) that they've chosen correctly? If it actually doesn't matter which one they choose as long as they genuinely open their heart to God, then the question is kind of moot. But if it does matter, then the question is an important one.
Click to expand...

The deists accepted natural theology but were skeptical about whether any special revelation was true. So they accepted the abstract philosopher's God: first-cause designer and so on, but they questioned the literal truth of books like the Bible and the Qu'ran.

So your problem wouldn't have been felt with much force by the deists, since they were skeptical of all revelations by definition and weren't all that concerned to locate a supposedly one-true-one.

The religious mystics generally arise from out of a particular religious tradition and they typically absorb respect for their tradition's scriptures simply by default. Their agnosticism is usually religious-inspired, inspired not by a lack of religiosity but by an uusual abundance of it, resulting in their elevating God so highly in their thinking that God becomes totally transcendent, above finite and imperfect human conceptualization entirely. That in turn creates kind of a blow-back that puts the literal truth of the scriptures into question and often motivates analogical and allegorical readings.

So I don't think that most of the mystics would have felt the religious choice issue very strongly either. They were already too committed.

There are exceptions though, mystics who have promoted universalist ideas that all religions point towards the same goal and sometimes the idea that there is some perennial philosphy implicit in all religious traditions.
 
point is..don't get 'stuck' on religion..get stuck on God..

(which always made me question why are we worshiping jesus and not God..)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top