With your god, sure. However to say they are false gods is a different story. They are as real as your man in the sky. None of them would come forward and prove themselves accept in things interpreted by someone.

Its all about perspective and point of view. Each religions says that it is the correct/true religion and it's god(s) is the one true god(s).

But as I said, I'm still waiting for the deity to come forward and prove itself, whomever it might be. If I am going to sell my soul, it better be for something real and present not an absentee deity. I wouldn't hire an employee that was sometimes there and doing some work in mysterious ways. You want my soul (my allegiance and me following your ways) you better do more than that.

I'd say that's unfair. Christians and Muslims pretty much have the "one true faith" market cornered.

Until the deity is challenged to prove itself. At which time it's the "I will not be asked to be proved" line.

I agree with Elchivito. Some religions do this but others welcome new deities into the pantheon. Hindus have innumerable gods. Buddhists don't have any gods and Confucians are focused on appropriate social behavior and not on the supernatural at all. So some religions are more adaptive to a multicultural society than others.

I stand correct. Thank you for the clarification.

Also I was going to make mention of Buddhist and Confucians but I could not recall 100%. Good point on mentioning.

My God has made his identity known through nature. He also made a point to mock all the other gods, that they will all pass away but He will remain.

I also find it rather interesting that the logical conclusion of your paradigm put any god that might exist below yourself. Simply, if God doesn't cowtow to a way of revealing himself acceptable by you... then He doesn't exist.

...kinda makes it seem like you think yourself as a god....

Curious as to how you reach this conclusion? There are lots of arguments for God's existence that I am familiar with but none of them to my knowledge are capable of identifying whether the god in question is the god of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus or . . . .

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things... [continued various results of rejecting God]."(Romans 1:19-22 ESV)

You said it was known via nature, not via a religious text so I'd like to know what aspect of nature proves the existence of the god of your particular religion as opposed to some creator in general.

There must be a huge disconnect here with some folks. Martureo pointed out pretty clearly what Jesus said and what the Bible says. Those rules or "policies" if you will seem incredibly clear. What point is there debating the rules for "membership" as some folks put it? A non-Christian or a Christian for that matter would seem incredibly silly arguing that the rules should be changed or modified to fit some other view. It is sort of like the clever poster who posted about some homosexual activist group "re-writing" the Bible so that Scripture now condones such activity. It seems to be a rather clear, binary decision: either you believe or you don't. Those who don't, don't.

You and Martureo are on completely different pages regarding this issue. Martureo thinks people can be 'corrected' so it's clear that for him it's not a matter of just 'accepting belief'. A person can only be corrected if there's a true answer that can be distinguished via some kind of method from a false answer. If it was just a matter of a kind of arbitrary belief, he wouldn't be a missionary to the Mormons. I'm assuming you have no plans to go on a mission.

A few things just to make sure there is no ambiguity in the truth.

I believe that I can correct someone from dawn til dusk and yet if they remain against God, my correction (or their acceptance of such correction) will not make someone believe or a Christian. It is God who works in men to believe. One can be a student of Christianity, act "like" a Christian, go to church and yet still be a rebel against God.

Thank you for the underlined portion.

My point is that I can find something good or fascinating from different teachings.
Buddhism, Confuscinism, Tao for example.
Why limit myself to focusing on one teaching exclusively.

It just seems that a couple of these fella's are obsessed with religion..and IMHO, that is a scary thing.
Once the obsession occurs, the chance of an individual becoming radicalised increases..to the point where they denounce any other religion/belief/teaching as being false.
Once that line is crossed , the next phase is entertaining the idea that a belief other than theirs becomes a threat...a threat that needs to be eliminated.