Which Religion is the One True Religion?

Every "born again" Christian is a priest...

This is why we can pray and talk directly with God and why God can talk directly through us.

RexRed wrote:

Every "born again" Christian is a priest...

This is why we can pray and talk directly with God and why God can talk directly through us.

There is a difference between a minister and a priest.

God no longer talks through us and hasn't since the bible was completed. If we wish to make a point, we must let the bible speak for us.

References supplied on request.

Comment:
Where does prophecy come from Neo? Where does "interpretation" of tongues come from?

<chuckle> Some folks just never will "get it".

Lets lookagain at the as-yet-in-this-discussion unanswered questions, this time phrased in wholly objective manner.

1) Is there possibly a god? (no need to answer this one - we'll stipulate the possibility)

2) If so, is there in fact a god?
2a) If so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is the existance of that god deduced?

3) If 2) is so, as demonstrated by its corrolary 2a), is that god the god of the Abrahamic tradition?
3a) If 2 and its corrolary are so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is that god the god of the Abrahamic tradition?

4) If 2) and 3), as successively and interconnectedly demonstrated by their attendent corrolaries are so, has the Judaeo-Christion subset of the Abrahamic tradition the sole and authentic authority of that god?
4a) If so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is that authority demonstrated?

5) If 2), 3), and 4), as successively and interconnectedly demonstrated by their attendent corrolaries, all are so, has the Protestant subset of the Christian subset of the Judaeo-Christian subset of the Abrahamic tradition a superior claim to authority than do any other subset of the Judaeo-Christian subset?
5a) If so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is it established that the Protestant Christian subset has the superior claim to authority?

Now, go ahead - take all the time you need to answer the questions, concretely, in wholly objective, forensically, scientifically, academically valid manner, without resort to the abstract of "Faith" or to internal justification derived exclusively from the texts foundational to the central proposition, or to other circular reasoning or petitio fallacy, employing no unsupported assumptions, utilizing no further stipulations, and make the case both for the existence of god and for the primacy of the Protestant Christian claim to the authority of that god.

Pretty simple, really; establish the successive and interconnected validity of 4 sub-propositions, thereby establishing and validating the core proposition, and the job is done. Now, don't preach, proselytize, or parrot - just answer the questions, in building-block fashion. That's all it will take to convince me it ain't just a myth.

Don't avoid the questions, Rex, answer them, without preaching, proselytizing, or parroting. Correctly establish your proposition.

timberlandko wrote:

Don't avoid the questions, Rex, answer them, without preaching, proselytizing, or parroting. Correctly establish your proposition.

You think I haven't read the RULES to this forum?

They were read before I even posted a single comment on this forum...

I also went back 5 years on Abuzz.

You know what ASSumptions are for?

You are just setting traps and I do not appreciate it...

B]...You find someone else to lay your traps for with a few less brains. You may enjoy talking with them even more than me

Don't worry, Frank - I intend to grant it all the credence and respect it merits.

<chuckle> Some folks just never will "get it".

Lets lookagain at the as-yet-in-this-discussion unanswered questions, this time phrased in wholly objective manner.

1) Is there possibly a god? (no need to answer this one - we'll stipulate the possibility)

2) If so, is there in fact a god?
2a) If so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is the existance of that god deduced?

3) If 2) is so, as demonstrated by its corrolary 2a), is that god the god of the Abrahamic tradition?
3a) If 2 and its corrolary are so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is that god the god of the Abrahamic tradition?

4) If 2) and 3), as successively and interconnectedly demonstrated by their attendent corrolaries are so, has the Judaeo-Christion subset of the Abrahamic tradition the sole and authentic authority of that god?
4a) If so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is that authority demonstrated?

5) If 2), 3), and 4), as successively and interconnectedly demonstrated by their attendent corrolaries, all are so, has the Protestant subset of the Christian subset of the Judaeo-Christian subset of the Abrahamic tradition a superior claim to authority than do any other subset of the Judaeo-Christian subset?
5a) If so, by what objective, external, empirical evidence is it established that the Protestant Christian subset has the superior claim to authority?

Now, go ahead - take all the time you need to answer the questions, concretely, in wholly objective, forensically, scientifically, academically valid manner, without resort to the abstract of "Faith" or to internal justification derived exclusively from the texts foundational to the central proposition, or to other circular reasoning or petitio fallacy, employing no unsupported assumptions, utilizing no further stipulations, and make the case both for the existence of god and for the primacy of the Protestant Christian claim to the authority of that god.

Pretty simple, really; establish the successive and interconnected validity of 4 sub-propositions, thereby establishing and validating the core proposition, and the job is done. Now, don't preach, proselytize, or parrot - just answer the questions, in building-block fashion. That's all it will take to convince me it ain't just a myth.

I see you put a different spin on your question, Timber.

Are you assuming that the only source of knowledge is empirical? 2a certainly appears to assume such, but I ask for your clarification.

Good to see you chuckle BTW. You must be feeling good.

Knowledge by definition requires objective, valid, direct experiential reference - hard data, observation, confirmation, and corroboration, testing, comparing, and verifying the available data, affirming it is not at odds with itself or with the conclusion drawn, ascertaining there is no contraindication of the validity of the conclusion drawn, thus establishing that conclusion as the best available definition of the state or nature of the thing or condition at question, to the clear, qualitative, quantitative preferrence to any alternative definition. With knowledge, one may proceed to deduction, the practice of using such knowledge as is at hand to arrive at assumptions concerning the state or nature of a thing or condition unknown, which, though often presented as conclusions, remain subjective, not objective, and are at end but assumptions, no matter how firmly convinced may be the proponent of such assumptions.

One readilly may be be convinced of that which either is not so or remains untested and unproven. Such conviction may be based on essentially, or at least apparently, valid reasoning, or may not be whichever is of no consequence; absent objective, valid, direct experiential reference - hard data, observation, confirmation, and corroboration, testing, comparing, and verifying the available data, affirming it is not at odds with itself or with the conclusion drawn, and ascertaining there is no contraindication of the validity of the conclusion drawn, thus establishing that conclusion as the best available definition of the state or nature of the thing or condition at question, in clear, qualitative, quantitative preferrence to any alternative definition, one only may be at best convinced one's assumptions are correct, one does not know. Assertion, assumption, passion, and conviction do not equal knowledge, they equal assertion, assumption, passion, and conviction.

Of course it is convenient to try, by definition, to exclude all but what we want to consider.

defined as a non-corporeal Being.

seem a clever dodge to state, 'The only acceptable evidence of God is that which can be seen, touched, etc' , but a dodge it is nonetheless.

It is like saying "The only acceptable evidence that Silence exists is if I can taste it."

Or as another has said it is like trying to smell the color nine. Nine is not a color; and even if it was , you do not smell colors.

Every "born again" Christian is a priest...

This is why we can pray and talk directly with God and why God can talk directly through us.