Is there a scriptural firewall of sorts, where a functionally literate person who isn't familiar with the finer points of scripture could read a passage or passages from the Bible and be reasonably certain that a religious zealot is acting in bad faith, absent obvious signs of bad faith behavior?

TL:DR, there are endless scriptures bad faith conmen can use to manipulate seekers; which scriptures protect against them?

sphere wrote:

I've probably watched 20-something series or episodes about cults, primarily U.S. based, most of which I've never heard of, and the common thread is charismatic leader claiming to have a personal connection to God, receiving revelations, and demanding unyielding loyalty to them as commanded by God. Obviously that can lead to bad outcomes. Yet in every one of these religions-based cults, they cite scripture that, to the followers, reinforces their obligation to follow and commit whatever God commands of them. And consistently, they follow, over and over and over again. I'm currently watching a Hulu series called Cult Justice, which dedicates an hour or so to different cult cases that have ended up typically in child abuse and murder, and have been successfully prosecuted. It's a fascinating series and leaves you with more questions than answers (and a whole lot of rage over parents not protecting their children), but it did bring to mind a question that I hadn't considered before.

Is there a scriptural firewall of sorts, where a functionally literate person who isn't familiar with the finer points of scripture could read a passage or passages from the Bible and be reasonably certain that a religious zealot is acting in bad faith, absent obvious signs of bad faith behavior? In other words, if a preacher says God speaks directly to him and has commanded X, and X seems reasonable and not in literal conflict with scripture, even if unconventional (give up worldly possessions, put their faith above disapproving family, etc.) how does a follower protect themselves against these people when the Bible itself holds up people who today we'd deem crazy as true followers of God, canonized for all of eternity?

TL:DR, there are endless scriptures bad faith conmen can use to manipulate seekers; which scriptures protect against them?

Intelligent people use their intelligence to justify their emotional behavior.

Sincere question. What do you believe God does with all of those who consume and act out in response to these wolves, false prophets? And don’t repent because they don’t think they need to.

This is as true in cult bible study, as it is MIT astrophysics..

if a preacher says God speaks directly to him and has commanded X, and X seems reasonable and not in literal conflict with scripture, even if unconventional (give up worldly possessions, put their faith above disapproving family, etc.) how does a follower protect themselves against these people

TL:DR, there are endless scriptures bad faith conmen can use to manipulate seekers; which scriptures protect against them?

Recent topical example is the expose on Stanford Professor/Research Andrew Huberman - who has developed a second career as a bro-science podcaster pimping supplements among other things. Clearly very smart. But also has clearly enjoyed developing a cult-like following of people who latch onto his "optimization protocols."

Example Jehovah's witness predictions. They predicted end of world via exact years multiple times, and those years passing by they are still convinced they are following the correct prophet. This is done by guilt trips done by fellow members, especially family

Unrepentance could be because any number of reasons. For example, one hears God's word and rejects it. Alternatively, one ignores God's word and believes someone who falsely proclaims God's word.

I appreciate your posts here, first one in particular.



This seems to be the logic trap many of these cult victims find themselves unable to entangle themselves from. When you're hearing God's word from a trusted source, and it shocks the mind and conscience but has Biblical backing (from the mouth of the wolf, in the mind of the sheep), how do you reject it?

One of the episodes featured a boy, now a man, who was convinced by their Pastor, that his younger sister, age 2 at the time of her death, was a demon and had to be treated as such. Beaten mercilessly because she was not human, but evil incarnate. Not possessed by a demon, but a demon herself. This belief was reinforced by his own mother and other adults in the church. It took him years, adulthood actually, to come to the acceptance that she was not, in fact, a demon but his helpless baby sister who was the target of malicious abuse.

More on this point later, getting called to work while working...the nerve of these people

To enter into the Kingdom of God, God calls all to hear His word and believe/repent (Mt. 4: 17; Mk: 1 14-15).

Unrepentance could be because any number of reasons. For example, one hears God's word and rejects it. Alternatively, one ignores God's word and believes someone who falsely proclaims God's word.

I'm not sure, but it seems like you're implying ignorance (and subsequent deception) should be a mitigating factor.

In my day job, I'm an attorney. It is an axiom of law that "Ignorance of the law is no defense." The law does not reward ignorance. Thus, to me it would be strange if someone who ignores God's word, then is deceived (e.g., out of ignorance) by someone who falsely preaches God's word, then subsequently received a lighter sentence than another person who otherwise heard/knew God's word and rejected it.

If anything, this issue is a charge to Christians to zealously preach God's word. Note: God's response to Jeremiah in his complaint was to tell Jeremiah [paraphrasing]: a) stop worrying about the false prophets; and b) do your job (i.e., preach God's word). "Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully." (Jer. 23: 28)

Acknowledged. And that was the root of my question. I understand the individual responsibility to know/share/live the word as written. I struggle with the wide range of subjective interpretation that can exist, and how folks can deeply believe they have interpreted something correctly, or put their trust in a person/belief in someone who interprets it for them.

A more rational example, as opposed to cult, in my mind is the disagreement over gender/sexuality doctrine in United Methodists.

If someone claimed that the faith practice of the last 3,500 years had been wrong all along, my spidey senses would be tingling. Especially if the claim just happens to mirror the current culture..

See Galileo vs. Catholic Church

What recent scientific discovery do you think should reverse Christian practice? What exactly are you worshiping?

To some extent, you have to look at this like anything else. Why do you trust the source in front of you? It doesn't matter if it's scripture, ideology, medicine, physics, etc. If you're relying on a single human source with unquestioning trust, you're leaving yourself open to getting it wrong. If you're relying on a single source, when every other source tells you something else, then you're willfully increasing that risk.

Isn't there somewhere that Jesus say that many will come after me claiming they are me but don't trust them etc ? People who are lonely are relatively easy to influence with acceptance, fear and hope.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—
7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

If someone claimed that the faith practice of the last 3,500 years had been wrong all along, my spidey senses would be tingling. Especially if the claim just happens to mirror the current culture.

are there scriptures that specifically address the issue of modern day prophets, either leaving open or eliminating the possibility? I've read the false prophet verses, but they don't really speak to it beyond warning, from what I've read.

But surely you don't think the faith practices of the Egyptians were legit or the Hindus, Buddhists? I'm not sure of the duration of those but it's got to be at least in the ballpark to the judeo-christian tradition. There are probably numerous other ones that didn't become widespread but nonetheless were around for a long time.

there a scriptural case against people making the claims that Smith did, explicitly warning that prophets who claim to experience and know what he claimed to experience and know will be false prophets?

Where could Senator Romney, for example, look in his Bible and be confronted with the warning to reject what Joseph Smith was selling? Certainly he fits the description of the outlier slowguy was describing in his response to me, and yet 17,000,000+ otherwise Christian believers joined his cult.

I am not aware of any passage like that.

Paul does say in Galatians 1:6-9:

The key here is that you have to know what the gospel is in the first place so that you will know when a counterfeit is being preached.

So, if Joseph Smith is going to teach something that is different from the understanding clearly represented in Scripture, then either: it's wrong; or, b) should be accompanied by miracles ("signs and wonders").

It is the consistency more so than the length of the practice during that period of time. Certain groups are saying that parts of the NT have been wrongly interpreted the entire time despite the clear practice of the Church for those 2,000 years.

A major change, like the nullification of the OT dietary laws, was accompanied by clear and direct teaching. We don't have any record of that happening in regard to the issue that was raised.

Where could Senator Romney, for example, look in his Bible and be confronted with the warning to reject what Joseph Smith was selling? Certainly he fits the description of the outlier slowguy was describing in his response to me, and yet 17,000,000+ otherwise Christian believers joined his cult.

In your estimation what are these sinful desires that prevent people from following Christ?

Shouldn't that be chaff not shaft in that passage?

ThisIsIt wrote:

I don't know, when he met another woman he really wanted to screw, and then convinced his wife and the rest of the faithful that an angel had come to him and revealed that God was down with polygamy seems like a miracle of sorts to me :)

In your estimation what are these sinful desires that prevent people from following Christ?

Shouldn't that be chaff not shaft in that passage?

That we have itching ears that we hear what we want to hear (2 Tim: 4:3) and that following Christ means that we must submit ourselves against our carnal desires and to someone higher. Consider the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3), Satan tempted Adam/Eve with: a) appealing to their immediate carnal desires ("it was good for food and a delight to the eyes", v.6) and b) their desire to not have authority over them ("you will be like God", v.5)



Ugh, my poor typing. Thanks. I'll edit it.

the majority of american evangelicalism is one big cult right now. it checks all the boxes.

Interesting, I would have thought the materialism of the modern world would have been a bigger one than the sexual prohibitions.

But then again, I have no idea how much churches push the former.

Some quick googling I found a survey of people who left Christianity and the most common reason listed for leaving was LGBQ+, so maybe you're onto something.

At this point in the discussion, I'm not attempting to make a distinction on which is worse: a) materialism; or b) sexual prohibitions. That was not my point. Each would fall under the things that we're tempted by. Each satisfy our personal desires ("pleasing to the eyes" aspect) and go against God's word (our revolt against God's authority and teaching).

This is painting with a broad brush. Yet, in some real sense, American evangelicalism is suffering from losing its way by--ironically--getting what it wants. It is experiencing a desire for easy life and power, and getting it. To be a follower of Christ necessarily means losing those things. Again, the same temptations that Satan tempted Adam and Eve with.

Sphere, to get an understanding of this, do me a favor ... read Mk. 10: 32-36. Feel the weight of how hard it was for Jesus's own disciples to "get it". Being a follower of Christ is hard to get because it goes against our sinful desires. In Mk. 10, when you get to v. 33, read it two times, slowly. Concentrate on what Jesus is telling the disciples. Then, read v. 34 VERY slowly three times, and feel the weight of each thing that Jesus is telling will happen to him. It's going to be brutal. Then, go to vv. 35-36 and see how the disciples completely miss the weight of what will happen to Jesus and they are just focused on themselves. It's sadly quite comical in the telling. But, this is all of us. This is what we miss about what it means to be a Christian. We (me included) often focus on what we want to hear and miss the stuff that we don't want to hear.

So I'd take it you think the prosperity preachers are way off the mark?

As are churches that are liberal towards LGBQ+?

about that broad brush: about 80 percent of white evangelicals support donald trump. read galatians 1:6 thru 9. this is the american evangelical church.

let us stipulate for a moment that christianity is true. the bulk of evangelical christianity forfeits its place in the world to come in order to establish its kingdom here. what good does it do you to gain the whole world, only to lose your soul? evangelicals - the majority, if you just ask them - would prefer have their kingdom now. it's a kingdom they intend to rule by hate and division. their leader, donald trump, has already clearly stated that his rule will be marked by retribution and revenge.

if you believe we're in the last days and you believe the antichrist will arrive in the last days, who is more tailor made than trump? he and all his followers proudly wear maga on their foreheads. anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows it. persecuting others is so much more satisfying than being persecuted yourself.

but this should not be a mystery to you. the gate is broad that leads to destruction. true christians enter by the narrow gate and few there are who find it. if christianity is true evangelicals aren't just going to get a talking to when they get to heaven. they live under the "curse of god" according to paul the apostle.

When you go to these churches and talk to congregants, you get an idea of what is important to them. It's not a high view of God's word and His authority. Instead, they focus on what is "pleasing to the eye and good for food."

The balance of scripture seems to heavily favor the deceivers. If not entirely.

That survey I referenced above asking about why people have left Christianity, which I think was of former evangelicals, support of Trump was the 3rd most common reason.

if christianity is true then here is what we know: a lot of people will have their brackets busted when they see who advanced to heaven and who lost in the first round. jesus specifically championed, for example, prostitutes. and those in prison. (and no, don't "manage" that by stating that jesus was only talking about religious prisoners.) evangelicals know this. they preach this. but they only believe this in the abstract. they do not, themselves, champion society's discards. meanwhile, jesus said to the thief on a cross alongside him, "today you will be with me in paradise." i don't see any mention of that thief ever having, you know, gone through the ritual. accepting jesus as lord and savior. being born again. confessing sins. and so on.

however, jesus specifically stated that the religious order of the day was damned. not just off-base. not just flawed. damned. so, i'm not the judge, but i would not find it surprising that the pure of heart who left christianity because of what it has become end up at the right hand of god while those who remain in the churches they left end up in the "lake of fire." assuming it's all true, of course.

When you go to these churches and talk to congregants, you get an idea of what is important to them. It's not a high view of God's word and His authority. Instead, they focus on what is "pleasing to the eye and good for food."

I forget who I've heard say this, but I think it applies. Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it's a religion about Jesus (which I would add, as far as I understand, mainly Paul's religion about Jesus).

about that broad brush: about 80 percent of white evangelicals support donald trump.

read galatians 1:6 thru 9. this is the american evangelical church.

let us stipulate for a moment that christianity is true.

the bulk of evangelical christianity forfeits its place in the world to come in order to establish its kingdom here. what good does it do you to gain the whole world, only to lose your soul? evangelicals - the majority, if you just ask them - would prefer have their kingdom now. it's a kingdom they intend to rule by hate and division. their leader, donald trump, has already clearly stated that his rule will be marked by retribution and revenge.

the majority, if you just ask them - would prefer have their kingdom now.

if you believe we're in the last days and you believe the antichrist will arrive in the last days, who is more tailor made than trump? he and all his followers proudly wear maga on their foreheads. anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows it. persecuting others is so much more satisfying than being persecuted yourself.

Edit to add: I'm not sure how that relates to the question you were directly responding to though, about Joseph Smith.

well, the religion "of" jesus was judaism, but judaism pivoted and jesus was the agent of that pivot.

I disagree with this, and it's an important distinction. I think, if you asked them, that they think they are doing God's work for God's Kingdom. They are missing it, to be sure. Christian nationalism is about bringing God's Kingdom to the world; but, Christianity is about bringing the world to God's Kingdom.

I forget who I've heard say this, but I think it applies. Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, it's a religion about Jesus (which I would add, as far as I understand, mainly Paul's religion about Jesus).

Now we're putting all of Christianity into one bucket? Argh.

Christianity and its various segments are fairly critiqued. But, let's at least be fair and distinctive.

As for prosperity gospel, I have no idea how anyone reconciles that with the actual life and teachings of Jesus.

I think Jesus' take was not mainstream Judaism rather he was an end of times preacher who literally thought a physical Kingdom of God was at hand and he would be the ruler of it.

The Roman's executed him for that. Then his follower's including Paul concocted a religion around his death and resurrection, of course his teachings were a part of that, but not necessarily the main thing.

That's what I meant by Christianity is not the religion of Jesus, but a religion about Jesus.

not paul. paul was a gentile - an abject nonbeliever -

4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more:
5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless.

This is an important sentiment. Maybe, you don't see it because it's not scratching you where you're itching. People who believe strongly in homosexuality find an allowance for homosexuality in the Bible. To others (not so tied to this view), it's plainly not there and they express "I have no idea how anyone reconciles" sentiments. People who wish for prosperity find prosperity. Many years ago, I read the Prayer of Jabez. It was taking the church by storm and sold millions of copies. It was scratching people where they were itching. That's how sin works.

People who believe strongly in homosexuality find an allowance for in the Bible.

Not even close. Philipians 3:4-6

maybe. that's one take. but just to be clear there has never been a time from the first century on when believers didn't think they were in the end times. to me, what argues against your take are these points:

- he emphasized the need to believe in him. he considered himself the agent of the world's salvation. and he certainly didn't think he would be the ruler of the kingdom of god on earth. he expressly denied that. his kingdom was in the next world. you were getting saved in the world to come and that didn't mean here, next week, but there, when you're dead.
- he opened up the gates of his religion to jew and gentile alike. he broke from judaism wholly in this regard. prior to jesus the religion of the jews was only for the jews. no sammy davis juniors. jesus ushered in a religion where there was no distinction between jew and gentile. gentiles had equal standing. this was jesus' doing, not paul's, and this was pretty well an irreconcilable break from judaism.

If God really existed, we would see evidence of it/him/her. Well, let me rephrase that: because there is no actual evidence of God, ALL religions have to create a clever narrative for why we can never see, hear or touch god. Collectively, this points more towards god being a human construct.

well, the religion "of" jesus was judaism, but judaism pivoted and jesus was the agent of that pivot. not paul. paul was a gentile - an abject nonbeliever - and pretty much an asshole by his own account before his conversion on the "road to damascas." i think paul's expression of christianity pretty much paralleled what you read that was said by jesus in the gospels with this exception: both jesus - and notably the writer of the book of james - say and write more about not just what you say, and think, but what you do.

evangelical christianity just entirely ignores this. and to be fair so did martin luther, the father of protestantism, when back in the 16th century he called the book of james the "epistle of straw."

but this is at a whole new level with today's evangelicals. they don't struggle with the book of james, and the words of jesus, as to the consequences of bad behavior.

they don't wrestle with the dichotomy. they just don't think their own behavior is relevant to their salvation. just about everything in the new testament not in paul's epistles argues otherwise. but today evangelical believes he could shoot somebody on 5th avenue and god would still wear his hat and come to his rally.

TMI wrote:

Kay Serrar wrote:

If God really existed, we would see evidence of it/him/her. Well, let me rephrase that: because there is no actual evidence of God, ALL religions have to create a clever narrative for why we can never see, hear or touch god. Collectively, this points more towards god being a human construct.

I have been listening to an excellent docu-series called The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. It chronicles the rise and fall of the New Atheist movement and interviews several important thinkers who are reconsidering Christianity. It's worth a listen if you have any interest at all in finding out if Christianity could be true.

https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/

Well that gets into which parts of the gospels and other books are historically accurate vs. myth, filling in the blanks, spinning oral tradition, etc. to tell the story you want to tell decades (in the case of the gospels) after Jesus was dead.

I leave it up to you to set me right.

Which sects today practice the religion of Jesus?

I have been listening to an excellent docu-series called The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God. It chronicles the rise and fall of the New Atheist movement and interviews several important thinkers who are reconsidering Christianity. It's worth a listen if you have any interest at all in finding out if Christianity could be true.

https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/

What specifically would Mormons have to tune out in scripture in order to convince themselves of Smith’s legitimacy?

Cults, gangs, and the like have the common thread of taking advantage of people down on their luck that are in need of belonging.

for the purpose of this exercise i'm stipulating that christianity is true, which means attaching significant belief in what's written in the synoptic gospels while acknowledging that certain writers didn't get it exactly right (notwithstanding the whole inerrancy thing). otherwise, i rely on the same things you rely on: contemporaneous accounts from 2000 years ago. you either read the synoptic gospels and attach weight to them; or you read josephus; or both. but if you deny what's written in the gospels then you're just replacing this with your own oral tradition, filling in the blanks, are you not?

1. View of history. In Mormon thinking, the rise of Mormonism was not merely a reformation or renewal of the church. It was a complete restoration. Following the death of Christ’s apostles, the church fell into complete apostasy. The church lost divine authority and true doctrine. There is no unbroken continuity from the early church to the present. Christianity, for almost all of its history, was false and without the truth—until Joseph Smith and his revelation. Mormonism not only rejects historic orthodox Christianity, the entire religion is based on the need for such repudiation.

2. View of revelation. Mormons believe the Bible (the KJV version), but do not consider it inerrant. Neither do they consider the Bible complete. What makes Mormonism unique is their belief in continuing revelation sustained through prophets, seers, and revelators. So while Mormons affirm the Bible, they also affirm the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Through an elaborate hierarchy of President, First Presidency, Twelve Apostles, First Quorum of the Seventy, and Second Quorum of the Seventy, Mormons can receive authoritative interpretations and new authoritative revelations.

3. View of man. According to Mormon theology, men and women are the spirit sons and daughters of God. We lived in a premortal spirit existence before birth. In this first estate we grew and developed in preparation for the second estate. In this second estate we walk by faith. A veil of forgetfulness has been placed over our minds so we don’t remember what we did and who we used to be in our premortal existence. Our purpose in this life is to grow and mature in a physical body to prepare us for our final eternal state.

Mormons do not believe in human depravity. We are not implicated in Adam’s fall. We are basically good in our eternal nature, but prone to error in our mortal nature. The human is a being in conflict, but also a being with infinite potential.

4. View of God. In Mormon thought, God has a physical body. According to Doctrine and Covenants, “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also;” but “The Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.”

Whether God the Father is self-existent is unclear. There was a long procession of gods and fathers leading up to our Heavenly Father. Brigham Young once remarked, “How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds.” What is clearer is that the Mormon God is not a higher order or a different species than man. God is a man with a body of flesh and bones like us.

Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. They affirm the unity of three personages, but the unity is a relational unity in purpose and mind, not a unity of essence. The three separate beings of the Godhead are three distinct Gods.

5. View of Christ. Mormons believe Jesus is Redeemer, God, and Savior. He is endless and eternal, the only begotten son of the Father. Through Jesus, the Heavenly Father has provided a way for people to be like him and to live with him forever.

But this familiar language does not mean the same thing to Mormons as it does to Christians. Jesus was born of the Father just like all spirit children. God is his Father in the same way he is Father to all. Whatever immortality or Godhood Jesus possesses, they are inherited attributes and powers. He does not share the same eternal nature as the Father. Jesus may be divine, but his is a derivative divinity. Mormon theology teaches, in the words of Joseph Smith, that Jesus Christ is “God the Second, the Redeemer.”

6. View of the Atonement. Mormons believe Jesus died for sins and rose again from the dead. The atonement is the central event in history and essential to their theology. And yet, Mormons do not have a precise doctrine of the atonement. They do not emphasize Christ as a wrath-bearing substitute, but emphasize simply that Christ somehow mysteriously remits our sins through his suffering.

While the atonement itself is not overly defined, the way in which the atonement is made efficacious is much more carefully delineated. Salvation is available because of the atoning blood of Christ, but this salvation is only received upon four conditions: faith, repentance, baptism, and enduring to the end by keeping the commandments of God (which include various Mormon rituals).

Finally, it should be noted Mormon theology stresses the suffering in the garden rather than the suffering on the cross. Atonement may have been completed on Golgotha, but it was made efficacious in Gethsemane.

7. View of salvation. The goal of Mormon salvation is not about escaping wrath as much as it is about maximizing our growth and ensuring our happiness. Salvation is finding our way back to God the Father and recalling our forgotten first estate as his premortal spirit children.

Mormon theology teaches that we cannot receive an eternal reward by our own unaided efforts. In some respects, salvation is based on what we have earned, but what we earn is by grace. How this plays out in Mormon life may differ from person to person, but they stress that the gift of the Holy Ghost is conditional upon continued obedience. Mormons must keep the First Principles and Ordinances, which consist of the Ten Commandments, tithing, chastity, and the “Word of Wisdom” which prohibits tobacco, coffee, tea, alcohol, and illegal narcotics.

Temples are also important in Mormon doctrine and practice. Couples must be married in a Mormon temple to have an eternal marriage, and every Mormon must be baptized in one of their 135 (and counting) authorized Temples. Because of the importance of baptism in the Temple, baptisms for the dead are extremely common. Mormons keep detailed genealogical records so that their ancestors can be properly baptized. By one estimate more than 100 million deceased persons have been baptized by proxy baptism in Mormon temples. Those who received this baptism are free in the afterlife to reject or accept what has been done on their behalf.

Death in Mormon thinking is seen as another beginning, complete with opportunities to respond to postmortem preaching in the world to come. We will live in the spirit world, and at some point our spirit and body will be reunited forever.

There are four divisions in the afterlife. The Lake of Fire is reserved for the Devil, his demons, and those who commit the unpardonable sin. The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. The lukewarm-not quite good, not quite evil-go to the Terrestrial Kingdom when they die. This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. The Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous. Here God’s people live forever in God’s presence. We will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate. This is the aim and the end of Mormon salvation.

when i read the new testament ...

here is the overarching theme: god's power flows to those who are willing to give up power.

it's the meek who will inherit the kingdom of god. the peacemakers. saying you're persecuted doesn't make you persecuted. executing your power grab now means that you've forfeited your place in the kingdom to come. aligning with trump to make that happen - fusing your religion and your politics - is exactly what jesus railed against in his day.

beware of false profits who come in sheep's clothing. you will know them by their fruits. we know - now more than we ever did - american evangelical christians by their fruits. certain people have called this out and i might name tony campolo for one. rick warren is "embarrassed" but very few today, warrent included, have the cajones of a jeremiah. or a jesus. or a paul. or for that matter a chuck smith. where are the principled christians who are willing to stand up and call out what they see in unvarnished terms? who is willing to tell the truth while god watches? almost no one. and this is why i believe we are in the age of the great unmasking of evangelicalism and if i was a christian - a true christian - i would consider this a good thing. and i would certainly not shy from telling the truth about this false church and then we'd see who really is persecuted and as you and i know blessed that person would be.

Jesus was killed not because of "do" (after all, the Pharisees were all about the "do"), but because of the "say" and "think".



Frankly, this criticism of people who "pick out of context" while you pick things out of context is wonderous. Luther did not call James an "epistle of straw" because of the "do" aspect of James. Among other things, Luther was all about the "do". Instead, it was about the paradoxical/apparent conflict with a certain "sola fide" aspect of James. Argh. And, after this "epistle of straw" claim, Luther later came around to James's paradoxical view. Plenty is written on this topic.



I think what you'll find, if you just spend any time interacting with these people, is that they don't struggle much with any parts of the Bible. They are generally Bible illiterate. They have different general knowledge of the Bible and they identify with it. But, it's not great. It's like someone calling oneself a triathlete who did a sprint triathlon once a long time ago. Sure, I guess. But, identifying that person with a pro triathlete (while both are triathletes, in some sense) is not really fair and needs a lot of qualifications. Sure, but getting angry at a pro triathlete because Couch Joe is a fat slob is painting with a broad brush. Not inaccurate, just a broad brush.



Again, they don't wrestle with these things. They don't wrestle with any aspect. You're angry at Couch Joe (who did a spring triathlon 15 years ago) because he doesn't wrestle with his aero bike fit ... because you are a bike fitter. But, Couch Joe doesn't wrestle with any aspect of being a good triathlete, and your anger at Couch Joe and focusing on his poor bike fit tells as much about you and your relationship to triathlon than than about Couch Joe. It says very little about triathlon and the people who go out there everyday to truly work hard to go fast, and despite their great effort they fail.

I think Jesus' take was not mainstream Judaism rather he was an end of times preacher who literally thought a physical Kingdom of God was at hand and he would be the ruler of it.

The Roman's executed him for that.

prosperity gospel - whether it's in the black church or whether it's oral roberts - is a charlatan scam. it's a false religion simply and only for the purpose of enriching those who prey on the weak and the poor. those who preach a prosperity gospel (assuming christianity is true) will end up occupying one of dante's deeper circles. happy to show you any number of scriptures that demonstrate this, but i'm sure you know them all. call this stuff out, trifloyd! call out the hypocrisy and the false gospels! it's pretty ironic that i - not part of this religion - am calling it out while those inside the religion are afraid to do so.

TriFloyd wrote:

Since I taught a class on the Kingdom of God a couple weeks ago, I may have a lot to say on this topic. Suffice it to say that the Kingdom of God has an "already and not yet" aspect to it. While Jesus certain inaugurated this Kingdom of God, it will later be consummated.

ThisIsIt wrote:

The Roman's executed him for that.

No. The Romans found "no guilt in him". Read how Pontius Pilate declares 3x this statement in Lk. 23 (v.4, 15, 22). The Romans executed him for expediency, to satisfy the Jewish mob.

Yeah, that one has always perplexed me.

Another would be divorce.

what surprises me is that those who probably actually are christians are largely silent about this.

That’s a good example. Thank you. Even so, you’re talking about a concept that defies true human understanding so I can see how some Christians might be swayed in thinking it’s one of many interpretations that don’t “break the deal” with Christianity. In my layman’s view anyway.

It is a false religion. I have said so. But, where we break is that you view it all as a power play. I view it as sinners trying to make allowance for their sin, and being convinced by someone who views their sin as not sin. That "teacher" is not necessarily seeking power, but a way to rationalize their sin. Sure, power is a sub-part of sin, but I don't view everything through that lens.

i'll say it even if you won't: according to any new testament-based definition of christianity the majority of evangelical christians are in fact not christians if anyone is asking god. this doesn't surprise me. what surprises me is that those who probably actually are christians are largely silent about this. that's a moral failure at the very least.

1 John 4:1.

Christianity is a historical religion. If somebody comes along with some teaching that is quite at odds with mainline historical orthodoxy in the church it should raise red flags.

Its not a moral failure. Its proof that the Christian Right exists for political purposes only. The Christian Right is a false religion. TriFloyd can tell you what the punishment is for worshipping a false religion.

You can be a Conservative Christian and not be part of the Christian Right. I suppose I think "will you vote for Donald Trump," is an indication if you are part of the former or the ladder. But its not even that simple, really.

See when I read that I think OK so only Roman Catholicism is the legit sect of Christianity, all the rest are at odds with mainline historical orthodoxy and raise red flags, and if it's not the Roman church than it's the Eastern Orthodox church that is legit.

It is a false religion. I have said so. But, where we break is that you view it all as a power play. I view it as sinners trying to make allowance for their sin, and being convinced by someone who views their sin as not sin. That "teacher" is not necessarily seeking power, but a way to rationalize their sin. Sure, power is a sub-part of sin, but I don't view everything through that lens.

One could have an entire discussion about that. The bishop of Rome evolved in the early church to be maybe the most important one but its claims to be the only legit sect of Christianity doesn't really hold water with me. Major consensus on Orthodoxy like the council of Nicea involved numerous bishops from all over the early Christian church. There was a very vigorous church outside of Rome from the very beginning.

Couldn't you apply this to any religion? What is the difference between what is considered a cult and an established religion like Christianity, Scientology, or Hinduism?

i agree that trifloyd can tell me what the punishment is for worshipping a false religion. but as far as i can see he won't do it and i have sympathy for this position. this would require him to be a prophet in the old testament sense. daniel, jeremiah, isaiah. or john the baptist. or the writer of the book of james. or even paul (see his letter to the galations). but... finding a true christian today who will condemn self-proclaimed christians (false tho they may be) is like finding a doctor who'll serve as an expert witness against another doctor. and by condemn i don't mean say they're in error. i mean say they're not christians. this isn't done in the evangelical world. it's sure done in the bible. it's just not done by those who say they read and follow the bible. it's just not a thing you do in america. you'll say a mormon's not a christian; that'll roll easily off your tongue. you might say a gay christian - even if he's professed his sin, repented, accepted jesus as his savior, been baptised - is not a christian. but you won't say an evangelical christian is not a christian.

Yeah a bunch of major heresies too, but are any modern sects descended from those other churches, at some point the Catholic Church became the only game in town, right?

Although the more I think about it, were there sects that survived in the Middle East or elsewhere like North Africa that didn't fall under Rome's sway? If there were did they die out with the coming of Islam?

I cannot tell you an evangelical Christian is not a Christian because if I do that, I am conflating my politics with my faith which is exactly what I am accusing the Christian Right of doing.

I can tell you that I don't know what a gay Christian is other than a Christian who happens to be gay so maybe I'm not much help here.

i just googled it, and here is the first thing that came up, from the national catholic register. In fact, Luther referred to the Book of James as an “epistle of straw” and sought unsuccessfully to have the entire book removed from sacred Scripture. Why? Because it didn’t agree with his newly-reasoned idea of “faith without works.”

i'm not the only one who takes luther at face value. it's inconvient for protestants today to wrestle with what luther wrestled with: the inconsistency between that book's emphasis on works and paul's emphasis on faith regardless of behavior.

if i were a christian i wouldn't try to reconcile everything. don't reconcile. wrestle. be jacob wrestling with the angel of god. demand the blessing. you know what buechner said about the inconsistencies that exist in the synoptic gospels? "somebody made a mistake." you don't need to pretty up your bible and its history.

i'm not angry at couch joe the triathlete. i spent 40 years running that good race. i've fought the good fight. i've made converts to my "gospel" and some have slipped through the cracks.

i'm not angry at couch joe the christian. not my fight. not my race. but i understand the implications. that religion has big implications. when you sign up it's like signing up for the marines. it's not a hobby. i believe you know this. the problem that you have is your particular burden to speak the truth in love. but that does not mean speak the truth with the corners rounded off. i hear you loud and clear and i'll say it even if you won't: according to any new testament-based definition of christianity the majority of evangelical christians are in fact not christians if anyone is asking god. this doesn't surprise me. what surprises me is that those who probably actually are christians are largely silent about this. that's a moral failure at the very least.

in my opinion the writer of james was more right than wrong: it may be faith that saves you, but while you're here, walking this earth, according to both god and the rest of us, it doesn't matter fuck all what you say; it only matters what you do. "this is true religion: to come to the aid of widows and orphans in distress, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."

At my church we don't spend a lot of time on worrying about Christian Nationalists or the Prosperity Gospel.

And yet this is often how people settle on a specific chruch within a specific branch of a specific religion, right, by filtering through beliefs and concepts and practices shared by millions until you find one in particular that speaks to you subjectively as truth, and rejecting all the others as less so, generally speaking.

That isn't how it works in science and medicine, where it's fairly easy to figure out if your doctor is a quack or practicing EBM by the guidelines. You may sift through dozens before you find one that feels right to you in terms of credentials and personality, but objective truth is generally available to anyone seeking it.

More on topic, are there scriptures that specifically address the issue of modern day prophets, either leaving open or eliminating the possibility? I've read the false prophet verses, but they don't really speak to it beyond warning, from what I've read.

i agree that trifloyd can tell me what the punishment is for worshipping a false religion. but as far as i can see he won't do it and i have sympathy for this position.

this would require him to be a prophet in the old testament sense. daniel, jeremiah, isaiah. or john the baptist. or the writer of the book of james. or even paul (see his letter to the galations). but... finding a true christian today who will condemn self-proclaimed christians (false tho they may be) is like finding a doctor who'll serve as an expert witness against another doctor. and by condemn i don't mean say they're in error. i mean say they're not christians.

this isn't done in the evangelical world. it's sure done in the bible. it's just not done by those who say they read and follow the bible. it's just not a thing you do in america. you'll say a mormon's not a christian; that'll roll easily off your tongue. you might say a gay christian - even if he's professed his sin, repented, accepted jesus as his savior, been baptised - is not a christian. but you won't say an evangelical christian is not a christian.

How do you determine what is a false religion or a true religion? Are you using a set of criteria to evaluate the religions defining characteristics? Christianity is based heavily on religions that existed prior to it. What is to say it is a true religion?

no writer of any book in the bible had any trouble explaining who was and wasn't in god's favor and by "not in god's favor" i don't mean god was simply disappointed.

it's pretty clear what are and aren't hallmarks of christianity and i know that and i think that's pretty clear an i'm not even a part of that religion. that almost no christian is willing to stand up for his or her own religion, and explain that others who appropriate the christian religion are doing so falsely and heretically,

is why christianity is dying in america.

it's no different than anyone in any religion or group who won't police its own. it's why we're disgusted by the silence of police about rogue cops. when you refuse to condemn the rogue or heretical behavior among those in your cohort, your silence makes you complicit in the failure of your cohort's mission.

I'm happy to entertain your particular examples if you offer them. Beyond that, here are my comments.
1) Every author of any book in the Bible was inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). That is not true of anyone here today. Certainly not me.
2) God often warns Christians not to do the thing that you're asking.

Mt. 5:22c - "... and who says, "you fool!" will be liable to the hell of fire."

3) Two examples of critiques from Paul. Galatians and Corinthians. Both churches had significant issues. In Galatians, Paul criticizes their system of faith; not their practice. Insofar as they had this bad system of belief, Paul condemned them to hell ("Let them be anathema"). As far as I can tell, you have not critiqued any system of faith/doctrine; only what they do insofar as you don't like how they are confusing their politics and their church. I agree. But, I don't know that this condemns them to eternal damnation. You readily call them "Evangelical", which assumes that their system of faith is true to the Gospel, Apostles Creed, etc. In Corinthians (both books), Paul criticized their practice (e.g., speaking in tongues, taking the Lord's Supper, etc.). He did not condemn them to hell.
4) Book of Revelation - In Rev. 4/5, seven churches are identified. Harsh critiques. Harsh penalties. I have no ability to write an inspired letter.



I have critiqued this system so many times in this thread. You just seem very focus that my critique to include damning them to eternal lake of fire. That you conflate "not condemning them" with not "stand up for" is not reasonable.



Your claim eats itself. On the one hand, you say that these Evangelical Church members are are not Christians. In that sense, you're saying that Christians are few. On the other hand, implicit in your critique of new and growing Evangelical church, is that the church was much smaller (i.e., few), albeit true Christians, before this apparent growth. In each case, Christians are few. This, you say, is Christianity dying in America.



No. This is a misapplication of the concept. I have offered lots of critique of the modern Evangelical Church. I have not condemned them to hell. Taking your metaphor, I have no ability to kick people out of the police force. I have no ability to condemn them to hell. I can only critique their behavior and their belief system. I have done that.

because of this christianity is dying because it has no defender. jesus has no defender. jesus has no advocate.

i would say that same to a mosque that stood silent after october 7th. i say the same about police departments and unions who are silent every time a cop kills an innocent person. i say it about the cycling community when one of us acts like a dope on the road and gets caught doing so.

I have not been silent. You are equivocating my reluctance to condemn people with silence. I have written in this thread many times that I disagree with the MEC's methods. There are books (ones that you don't apparently read) on this topic. It is not like Oct 7th, and I think many people would be quite offended at the comparison. It's not like the police force, which is a man-made organization with members. God's church is not that.

great that your church is feeding the hungry. and i mean that. but so are the muslims.


Ugh. This is your single-issue weirdness coming up again. The state of the MEC is not new to Christianity. It has beset Christianity for all times, since the very beginning. At the same time, the state of the MEC is not one of the primary concerns of a good church. It is but one of many. the MEC needs the gospel. Triathletes need the gospel. Atheists need the gospel. To our church, we are focused on bringing the gospel to all nations, knowing God, and helping the sick/needy. That includes the MEC, but they are not a special group for us. I live in a college town. I have a direct and immediate impact on them.

i am questioning the belief system of evangelicals. not what's on the apostles creed on the back of the program when they enter church. the actual belief system they live.

christian nationalism is certainly nationalism. but it's not christian.

your charge is to go into the world and use argument, reproof and appeal to bring people to christ. obviously that's not your job alone. but the remnant, the few, those who have the capacity to see what you see in your savior, those people won't see that because true christians are too timid to stand up to the false gospel. true christians are too afraid of the persecution that will come from the false gospel of trump-flavored christianity. which is the supreme irony. true christians have nothing to fear from pagans like me. it's the false gospel christians that stand ready to take you down if you criticize them.

which is too bad because there is much to admire in certain religions and christianity in particular has a sweet appeal. standing up for the weak. finding power in the giving up of power. redemption for those who feel the possibility of redemption has passed them by. hope for the hopeless. but that christianity is gone now.

Ugh. This is your single-issue weirdness coming up again. The state of the MEC is not new to Christianity. It has beset Christianity for all times, since the very beginning. At the same time, the state of the MEC is not one of the primary concerns of a good church. It is but one of many. the MEC needs the gospel. Triathletes need the gospel. Atheists need the gospel. To our church, we are focused on bringing the gospel to all nations, knowing God, and helping the sick/needy. That includes the MEC, but they are not a special group for us. I live in a college town. I have a direct and immediate impact on them.

Interesting, it seems like every time I see anything about this the numbers are still climbing in the US for the percentage of people leaving churches, Christianity, religion.

Seems like Mormonism is the sect that I see referenced as growing?

Google Fu results.

Seems like before there's an uptick you'd likely see a stop in the slide. Not sure if there is more recent data.

https://www.pewresearch.org/...d-in-recent-decades/

This series is focused on the intellectual vacuum left by the implosion of the New Atheist movement

in this world it doesn't matter very much what was in your heart.

the only thing of consequence is what you did and lieutenant kendrick was right: god was watching.

other than methodist episcopal church i don't know what MEC is.

Rom. 2: 29: "But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcisions is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God."

The irony of this last part speaks directly to you. You seek the praise of man, and so you judge everyone by only what he does and you think you have a window to a man's soul. Not so with God. That's why I have a hard time condemning to hell the Modern Evangelical Church. Sure, I think they have missed the mark. But to the cost of their soul? I can't judge that.



Even though you don't understand the Bible and use it like a clay thing to mold it how until it forms to your chosen tool, you get high marks for quoting A Few God Men.

i've waterboarded you enough. thanks for being a gentleman throughout.

Great question. I would use God's word..

This series is focused on the intellectual vacuum left by the implosion of the New Atheist movement and on how serious thinkers are reexamining both the existence of God and the case for Christianity.

I'd usually recommend starting with the first episode, but you've mentioned your position about the lack of evidence for God, so maybe Episode 9 might pique your curiosity. It contains conversations with two individuals and what evidence finally convinced them to believe.

Which god? There have been thousands of gods through history. Many existing before the rise of Christianity and many after. Much of Christian scripture was taken from prior religious texts. How can Christianity be a true religion when it borrowed most of its core tenets from religions that came before it?

This series is focused on the intellectual vacuum left by the implosion of the New Atheist movement and on how serious thinkers are reexamining both the existence of God and the case for Christianity.

I'd usually recommend starting with the first episode, but you've mentioned your position about the lack of evidence for God, so maybe Episode 9 might pique your curiosity. It contains conversations with two individuals and what evidence finally convinced them to believe.

That was kind of a circular response from TriFloyd. You can't really logically answer the question "How do you know which religion is true (i.e. which is the real god)?" by answering, "I'd go to my God's word for the answer."

Let's be honest about what this means though. The self-proclaimed 4 Horsemen of the New Atheism movement were for the most part kind of dicks. Toss in a healthy dose of misogyny. Add some ethnic hatred and a lot of aggressive tactics and people got tired of them. They acted much like the fundamentalist religious preachers they loved to bash.

That does not mean people are returning to a belief in the supernatural. To the contrary. The numbers of those who claim no belief in a divine being continue to grow.

I listened to a lot of that stuff back in the day and while I'll agree Dawkins and Hitchens could be dicks, I don't remember ever getting the impression of misogyny or ethnic hatred? Then again, I can't remember ever hearing much if anything from Dennett so it's not like I have complete knowledge of the views they put forth.

This goes over part of it - https://qz.com/...cas-atheism-movement

And they really liked to pile on anti-Islamic discussion that kind of bled over into anti-Arab adjacent discussions.

While I agree with a lot of what they say, they could be very difficult men to have a conversation with. Hitchens especially from my POV.

I feel like this is a great and overlooked selling point for Mormonism.

“There are four divisions in the afterlife. The Lake of Fire is reserved for the Devil, his demons, and those who commit the unpardonable sin. The Telestial Kingdom is where the wicked go. It is a place of suffering but not like the Lake of Fire. Most people go to the Telestial Kingdom where they are offered salvation again. The lukewarm-not quite good, not quite evil-go to the Terrestrial Kingdom when they die. This Kingdom is located on a distant planet in the universe. The Celestial Kingdom is for the righteous. Here God’s people live forever in God’s presence. We will live as gods and live with our spouses and continue to procreate. This is the aim and the end of Mormon salvation.”

So all the bonafide assholes go to hell, the religious zealots go to heaven, and the rest of us get our own freaking planet! Why am I just now hearing about this??

Literally had the same exact thought. I might answer the door now and have a chat.

.

I’ll give it a listen. Wasn’t Christopher Hitchens one of the primary drivers of it? I’d think his death would have a lot to do with it. It does seem like that was a brief period of pushing atheism that has faded. I listen to Sam Harris’ podcast and it hardly ever gets mentioned except in passing.

OK, I listened to the first guy. He said absolutely nothing* that would dissuade me from being an atheist, let alone think Christianity is the one true religion. You've got a guy that sounds like he was basically a nature spiritualist, a Buddhist, and even into Wiccan that then ends up a Christian, essentially because he feels it to be true, that God is talking to him, that there is magic and enchantment in nature which is evidence of the divine (I don't think he actually said that but that's the impression I got). I'm still where I was before listing to it which is that someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.

*He did make some good points about the spiritual void left by modern materialism which frankly I think should make Christianity appealing to many people, but as far as I'm aware, the trends are going in the opposite direction.

OK, listened to the second guy while at the gym. I'm not sure either of these guys were ever atheists that converted to Christianity, especially this guy. But that's neither really here nor there. This guy had a 15-20 second experience in the woods, and then started dreaming about Jesus. OK, that's great for him, but similarly as unconvincing as the first guy.

I appreciate that for you and many others this sort of testimony is evidence of the existence of the supernatural, and even the Christian God in particular. I can only think you've not listened to the arguments of people like Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. if you think that is the sort of evidence that would move an atheist or agnostic of that stripe in the direction of being a Christian.

I'd also add there was nothing really intellectual about their positions, basically just saying I experienced this, this is what I feel is true, etc.

What are the odds that two guys in the English Isles find Jesus and both end up in Eastern Orthodox Churches?

TL:DR, there are endless scriptures bad faith conmen can use to manipulate seekers; which scriptures protect against them?

I agree that, as you said, “someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.” When I listened to Kingsnorth’s and Shaw’s experiences, I saw cause and effect. When they prayed, they received answers. If you ask for a sign, and you get one, will you respond as Shaw or Atkins?

I agree that, as you said, “someone subjectively feeling something to be true has no bearing on it being true or not.” When I listened to Kingsnorth’s and Shaw’s experiences, I saw cause and effect. When they prayed, they received answers. If you ask for a sign, and you get one, will you respond as Shaw or Atkins?

Literally had the same exact thought. I might answer the door now and have a chat.

.

So far it seems the answer to that question is, it doesn’t and can’t.

This is an interesting response. Let's assume--arguendo, as we've been doing--that the Bible is true and that God is true. In that sense, like any true system, it acts (itself) on a check on itself. IOW, "it" can and "it" does. But, to inure the benefit of "it" you need to avail yourself of "it". You need to use those built-in checks; and if you don't then you can fall prey to falsities.

Let's say a 7th grade math teacher, and some nefarious 7th grader Bobby wants to sway fellow students. He goes to them in secret and persuades them of the new "Bobby" math. If/when those students just listen to Bobby and don't concur with the math teacher, read the math book or do actual math problems to see their wrong conclusions using Bobby math, then yes, they will fail the test. Yet, to state that there is no check on the system is not really true. It's true to state that they didn't properly avail themselves of the checks. If the parents of the failed students go to the math teacher and complain, then her response is rightly: the check on the system was: a) true math; and b) the math textbook; and c) the math teacher; none of which Bobby's targets bothered to avail themselves of. Instead, they went exclusively to Bobby. We have concluded multiple times together in this thread that the Bible is like many topics, to the ignorant (who don't avail themselves of the available checks) they are susceptible prey. Yet, that does not expose a problem with the subject material, but with the object prey.

Almost certainly not

Let me ask you this, if everything about these two guys' story was the same except it was Islam they had converted to, would you still see the same cause and effect?

Surely you'll concede there are conversion stories in that direction that for all intents and purposes mirror these conversion stories.

But aren’t you assuming that the checks are equally verifiable? The math checks can be proved, but the Bible “checks” are merely your interpretation (though I understand your beliefs and “superior knowledge” suggest you are 100% right).

On what basis do you lean toward that conclusion?

It has been reported for years now that Muslims are seeing visions of Jesus during the month of Ramadan that results in people converting to Christianity. YMMV

I disagree with your "(i.e., which is the real god)". I took it to mean, (i.e., which religion actually corresponds to God's word). I think my interpretation is better because Sphere set up the initial problem as cult or false religions. Normally, when people ask that question, they see people being swayed by religions that present themselves as "Christian", and use certain biblical passages to support that. But, they are just a little off. Other posts in the thread buttress this view.

In this way, the whole discussion was "Arguendo". IOW, Sphere was asking (assuming as fact, for the sake for argument, that the Bible and its God are true) how does one determine a false religion? In fact, he asks for a "scriptural firewall" or passages of Scripture to guard against this. He reinforces this "arguendo" when he asks (in Post #4), "Perfect example. Where in Scripture can followers look ..." Thus, he set up (and reinforced) the question as "I don't want to get into a discussion here about whether the Bible is true or the God of the Bible is real; let's just assume, arguendo, that they are."
Most posters got this. Slowman (in our fun back-and-forth) even expressly stated something like "for the sake of argument" a few times, for which I expressly thanked him.

Thus, when Kay or Trieatalot jump in to change the thread to an apology on whether God is true, they are changing the course of Sphere's thread. Fine, that's a common LR thing to hijack a thread. But, it does constitute a hijack, which is why I didn't respond to Kay or Trieatalot. Otherwise, normally, I love talking about apologetics.

If the thread has run its course, then OK, let's have some apologia fun. I just was taking issue with your allegation of me using circular logic. Arguendo discussions are not circular. In symbolic logic, it is setting up a premise/given, which is not later proven.

That was kind of a circular response from TriFloyd. You can't really logically answer the question "How do you know which religion is true (i.e. which is the real god)?" by answering, "I'd go to my God's word for the answer."

how it might fit the real God's written word.

Or maybe we could talk about how just because some religious traditions due to historical contingency wrote their beliefs and stories down we seem to assume that gives them some sort of weight towards being true that other oral traditions don't get.

We don't give them more weight for that reason. We give them more weight to the research that was done. That's why they document the reasons why they got to their end, and the context for which they were produced. So, if someone wants to re-raise the same issue later in history that reasoning is so documented. This is no different from how any research is done. This is how science builds onto the work of the past. Same process.

It’s possible we read the question differently. Since Sphere specifically cited non-Christian religions, such as those that preceded Christianity, I read it as broader than just determining which sects or denominations within the Christian umbrella were closest to God’s word. If he had used different language like “which church” or “which sect” I would have not had the same issue with your answer.

You know my thoughts on this generally.

At the meta analysis level, philosophies are a matter of opinion and religions are a matter of truth or fiction. In my view they’re all fiction, but some are objectively more problematic than others. So my OP question wasn’t asking how to separate truth from fiction but rather how does the Bible protect seekers from falling prey to covert malignant actors who would bend the “truth” of God’s word to their own will. So far it seems the answer to that question is, it doesn’t and can’t.

Let me ask you this, if everything about these two guys' story was the same except it was Islam they had converted to, would you still see the same cause and effect?

Surely you'll concede there are conversion stories in that direction that for all intents and purposes mirror these conversion stories.

I'm sure, but that's beside the point. Is it your contention that no one who coverts to a religion other than Christianity has a similar sort of conversion experience that essentially provides the same sort of evidence you're citing?

If you really think about it I think you'll find that you understand my position because it's the same one you have towards other religions than Christianity, you just make an exception that I don't.

#2 I'm aware that people have and I have had both what might be called unusual and transcendent experiences and they didn't budge me one iota towards believing in the supernatural, let alone believing in some kind of God, let alone being a Christian.

#1 Because I'm a rationalist skeptic.

I understand your point, but I think you have arrived at an unwarranted conclusion. If two people each receive a sign, and that leads them to different faiths, you conclude that neither faith could be true and that each person has convinced themselves of what they want to be true.

While both could be wishful thinking, I am also open to the possibility that one could be the result of an answered prayer. While a sign isn't guaranteed to anyone, why close off that possibility?

Shaw described how he could have either nurtured and cherished his experience, or he could have filed it away on a shelf of “strange spiritual experiences.” Sounds like the latter has been your choice.

Have you considered taking the approach of a rational truth-seeker? The last 20 minutes of Episode 15 (01:13:27) is an interview with journalist and associate university professor, Molly Worthen. She eventually came to belief only after her intellectual doubts were satisfied by the evidence. Perhaps a personal sign isn't even needed.