REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Whether trouble follows or not has nothing to do with the question of whether or not it really is truth.

but it has everything to do with whether it is a good for society... compromise and understanding do wonders for human relations... i'd almost go so far as to call that an absolute truth

Actually, it seems to me rather the reverse.

If you were walking with a group of people, and you all arrived at a fork in the road, suppose you were the only person who really knew which way was the correct way to your destination?

Everyone else might disagree with you, ignore your words. "No, we think it's this way."

"But I know it's this way!" you might say. "I've gone that way many times!"

"No, surely it's this way," they say, and they continue off that way.

That's often how it feels when people write off absolute truth, and the finding of it, as impossible. Simply because it is outside their own experience, they make judgments upon what other people's experience is. Rather than it being the Christian, or the Muslim, who is being presumptuous, it seems more presumptuous to say "you're wrong", making assumptions about the other person's experience.

you are comparing something that is knowable (a physical destination) with something that is not (the existance of god)... even some of the very religious posters here have admitted that god's existance cannot be definatively proven

btw, i am not saying "you're wrong"... i am saying that one must always consider the possibility that their beliefs are wrong

So naturally we should lump them all together and say none of them is right, correct?

yep

Huh? Just because in pre-history no one believed the earth went around the sun, does that mean it's not truth?

I really do not understand that argument.

With God it is the same as my example with the earth going around the sun. Maybe not everyone perceives it, but it is there. If it depended upon everyone perceiving it for it to exist, it could not exist. In other words, we are all controlled completely by our own perceptions, and there is nothing outside of our own perceptions. Our perceptions control everything. Right and wrong do not exist, as a matter of a fact, nothing exists unless I know it exists. Which is frankly ridiculous.

it seems ridiculous to us today... but it was perfectly valid to make the argument that the earth went around the sun 2000 years ago... it wasn't a "truth", because it wasn't proven... but it wasn't wrong either, because it wasn't disproven... god falls into the same category

Everyone cannot have their own truth. If you exchanged the word truth for the word belief, your statement, I think, would be quite accurate. The fact is, our own perceptions do not have such a great impact upon truth and reality. Truth exists independant of our own senses, even if everyone in the world has their senses telling them the wrong thing (for example, the sun). Spiritual reality doesn't have to be any different.

i'd say that maybe you need to exchange your word truth for belief... physical things can be proven (unless you want to get really esoteric), concepts like absolute truth and god are another thing entirely... one only needs to look as far as the myriad of "truths" that exist in our world concerning a supreme being to see how true this is

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Last Child of Ungoliant
Just out of interest, what religions do
we have represented here?

for instance, am i the only Buddhist?

(nicely back on topic!)

i'm not religious... but i find the teachings of buddha to be the most thought-provoking and reasonable

[Drgnslyer]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Ah, now to answer the excellent post by Dragonslayer .

All religions? Sorry, that seems a little of a leap. Though I definitely wouldn't contest the fact that there are similarities between many religions. Buddhism and Hinduism, for example.

I know many religions are linked. For example, the polytheistic religion of the Romans was heavily influenced by the numerous other religions and beliefs that it came into contact with. There are reasons for some religions being similar. Also many pagans on islands who have been influenced by Catholicism have beliefs that smack of Christianity.

These kinds of links do exist, and there are reasons for them. I also strongly respect your desire to see the truth in all religions. I tend to agree with the teachings in many religions aside from Christianity, though not in their entire beliefs. There are aspects of Islam that I greatly admire, such as the emphasis upon justice that we Christians so often forget, to our cost. Other religions have other things they emphasize.

So I do certainly see there as being one truth, and I tend to agree with you that fragments of that truth can be caught in many religions (maybe all, but that seems still to me a bit of a leap). Often it is these glimmerings of the truth that cause the huge appeal to the religions to exist.



Do you believes there are no falsehoods, in any of the religions? I think not- you said that the truth goes beyond the details of the religions. Where details do not correspond with reality, there is falsehood. I believe that all or most religions can show some aspect of the truth. Perhaps God speaks through those aspects to people, and help them come to know him. I do not know.

I believe that every religion has it's truths, and it's falsehoods...I don't think that any one religion is more accurate than another...for example the teachings of christianity as written in the bible are incredible, and anyone that follows the true path of christianity I have a colossal amount of respect for, definately incredible people.

I don't, however, believe in the christian version of the afterlife...from the experiences that I've had, that many of my friends have had *religious and non religious alike* and my mother has had *she worked 2 years as a coroner and 4 years as a hospice support organizer* I feel that there is definately a different swing on the afterlife that cannot be definatively proven correct or incorrect.

If you believe the Christian book of Revelation is from God, you'll just have to accept that it will never come about before the end of the world.


Why do you believe that Christianity in itself is not correct? In terms of the interpretation of Christians, that theirs is THE correct religion.

Not so much that Christianity in itself isn't correct, but my biggest qualm with christianity lies within the fact that the majority of christians*that i've met, and i've met more than a few* are content with reading 10 verses from the bible ever week from different sections of the book all claiming to be preaching the same point....sure the verses have a similar message, but once you read the entire book, each verse has a signifigantly different flavor so to speak...as well when people have said "well it says this, but really it means that" and everyone else nodding thier head, not willing to wonder why most people simply are not taking god's word at face value...instead of twisting it around into however it conveniences them most...

Like I said, i'm not trying to label all of christianity with that little blurb, but i am saying that the majority of christians that i've met *again, not all by any means* have followed their faith blindly by those means...

Furthermore....I am a huge supporter of the belief that our fates lie indeed in our own hands...ultimately you have the choice to do what you do, nothing or noone can MAKE you do something....the movie "Minority Report" puts an excellent perspective on this belief. *I had the belief before i saw the movie, however it simply illustrated it better than i can explain it*

As well.....one final little thing...the leader of a coven, or group of witches is known as a high priest/priestess.

[Nurvingiel]

Wow, so many posts I can't keep up. Someone said something about shamans way back that I felt needed clarification, but I can't even find the post!

BTW Drgnslyer, it's because of what you said about the Bible that I plan to read it at the frist opportunity. (This summer.) I have only read about ten verses, but I don't claim to preach out of it anyway. I can't, I don't know squat!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
One point I disagree with you in is when you say spirituality is impossible to achieve. The fact is, mankind is an incomplete product. We are not yet fulfilled, not as we should be. We all need God, and need him to be a part of our lives…

you lose me in your argument right from that point because you base all your arguments on how the christian god is the one true legitimate approach to spirituality. And my point was simply that I think that all religions and philosophies are simply a mask of an unreachable spirituality that we futily try to explain with human logic and human sensory tools.

Yes, to a massive extent God is unfathomable to us limited creatures. However, he is so great and mighty it seems presumptuous to say that he wouldn't be able to understand the creatures he has made, or care about them, and meet them where they are. You would be assuming a knowledge of his character, that it is uncaring for what he has wrought. This must have evidence and strong reason to support it, if it is to be believed (unless no other religion has better evidence).

ok yer really a long distance from understanding what I was trying to say. Im talking about things in the broadest possible terms. You view the argument through the lens that christianity is as big as it gets. So you cant see me way up here Im afraid. I don’t think talking about an ultimate creative force to the universe in human like terms is useful at all. I realize it’s the crux of the christian religion. That we are gods highest creatures and he stresses over us and is concerned about what we do in our bedroom and all that. But to me its simply shows the limitations of how our human mind grasps the ungraspable. It’s the veil. Its not the divine. The divine remains invisible in my opinion. Something we can only perceive through shadow and reflection. Never directly.

There are people in the time of Jesus who would agree with you. Yet these were contested by those who always referred to other aspects of him that make those statements impossible. For example, his miracles were used to back up that he was God. His frequently showing aspects that only a member of the Trinity could show also backs it up. For example, omnipresence and omniscience are shown by his prophesies and words telling how he saw events from history. "I saw you under the fig tree", "You had seven husbands, and the man you are with now is not your husband", "Jerusalem will be destroyed in this manner", "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven", along with numerous other prophesies and declarations of his omniscience and omnipresence.

um are you using the bible and mans statements to prove to me that jesus is god? Because men wrote that he could foretell the future? Because men wrote that he didn’t sin and that he could cure people? How is this supposed to affect my opinion about spirituality at all? Again yer deep in the details and Im way up here looking at the forest.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Muhammod I don't remember being insane. He claimed to be a prophet, but I don't know why you think he was insane, unless you think his visions were the influence of insanity.

When did I say that Muhammad was insane? Having a “common thread” to other singular individuals at the genesis of religions isn’t saying hes insane. And by the way Im pretty sure I specifically said I DON’T like the simple label of “lunatic” for jesus either. But I was given three choices and it seemed the best of the three but I certainly qualified it with statements about exactly what I meant. The idea is that I could easily see a jesus figure being someone (quite obviously) different mentally and spiritually from most other people considering how he is described. And then I pointed out how “spiritually gifted” individuals, for lack of a better term, seem to be more in touch with that esoteric mystery then most of the rest of us. And can act as a translator or a go between. But even they are imperfect in their ability to quantify the divine. In fact they don’t really know how their gift works it just does. Now this should be taken COMPLETELY SEPERATELY from the whole jesus is the son of god argument. Its not relevant to the point. That too is just part of the veil.

You're making a broad claim, saying Jesus is a part of one eccentric, insane kind of person that is just like numerous others.

No im talking about spirituality and how we as humans try to tap into it and understand it. Im not focusing on jesus per se. At least certainly not the Christian details about him. That’s irrelevant to me. Ive heard all the stories. That’s all fine and dandy but it doesn’t touch at all on the broader more fundamental aspect of what is the divine and are there rare extraordinary people for whom the veil is more transparent and there is more of a connection between that thing and themselves.

First of all, you haven't identified the prototype you're comparing him to.

Im supposed to identify a prototype?

Second of all, you're ignoring quite a lot of the evidence available that relates specifically to him (his sinlessness, his supernatural abilities, the prophesies directed to his coming, his utterly sane behavior, etc.).

again using christian sources as the verifiable proof of christianity is silly in my opinion. And misses my overall point anyway.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Ah, the old (and long deflated) Trilemma- "mad, bad, or glad".

There have been plenty of figures throughout history who have claimed to be the Chosen One, without necessarily being "lunatics" in the certifiable sense.

I don't see how other religions have any particular problem dealing with Jesus. To Jews, he's simply the most popular of many False Messiahs; to Muslims he's a prophet whose life and teachings were distorted by followers corrupted with Hellenistic paganism.

Hindus and Buddhists, when they think about him at all, regard him as a spiritual and ethical teacher like many thousands of others, who was unfortunately too mired in the limitations of his local traditions to see through the veils of Illusion and grasp the real Truth.

Exactly the same way that Christianity regards leading figures of other faiths- that is, when it's not condemning them as tools of Satan who will burn in Hell forever.

GrayMouser... I see that some others have given answers, but I'll try to respond as well, since I initiated this response from you.

I consider the following to be rather unique claims made by or about Jesus:

1. That He was divine... to the extent of being the Son of God in a sense that made Him also One with God... not something He 'achieved' while on earth, but that this was His very nature.

2. That He had authority to forgive sins and restore right relationship with God... not through the penitent actions of those seeking forgiveness, but again by His very nature, that part we Christians call 'grace', He had this authority.

3. That He was physically resurrected from the dead... showing that by His very nature and His sinless life, He had power over the physical death of this world as He had over the spiritual death of sin.

The third was certainly claimed by His earliest followers, the first two both by His followers and Himself, from their accounts - which, as others have stated, they went to their deaths rather than deny.

You can believe or not believe these claims - but He makes them and no other does... at least no other who has as much credibility.

My point about other religions is that they seem to feel a need to explain Him. I don't necessarily share the view you portray Christians as having in your last sentence. It may contain truth, but I leave those others in God's hands... I imagine they were all seeking... I believe Jesus to have been what they were really looking for.

Now, I don't expect you to necessarily accept all this right off just because I say I believe it - and you certainly seem familiar enough with Christian teachings that none of what I've just said would surprise you. In my own case, before I believed, I can see no reason why I would have believed. It's been a long time, and I was much younger, but I almost wonder if my 'heart' had to accept the claims of Jesus before my 'mind' could... Maybe that's not saying it best. But when I 'gave in' to the tuggings of my heart, it was not like I was changing my mind... it's more like I was changed... if that makes any sense at all.

I hope I've helped.

[Mercutio]

Part of my beliefs include this:

Do we have to question so much of the unknown and incomprehensible? Some things will never be learned until we (I hope eventually this means we, as in everyone here) get to heaven. My point is merely that not everything can be humanly explained, so we shouldn't try to humanly explain it.

We shouldn't worry about things such as predestination (a random example).

I love this quote:

One can always worry about the hidden God--what he might do in his great majesty. But to such questions as "Where was God before the creation of the world?", Augustine's answer is appropriate: "God was making hell for those who are inquisitive."

This was kind of off topic, I'm still perusing the other long and thoughtful posts.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Valandil
I almost wonder if my 'heart' had to accept the claims of Jesus before my 'mind' could... Maybe that's not saying it best. But when I 'gave in' to the tuggings of my heart, it was not like I was changing my mind... it's more like I was changed... if that makes any sense at all.

Of couse! (to me)

We are saved by grace through faith.

Faith is a gift from God . This means not by our own doing.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
again using christian sources as the verifiable proof of christianity is silly in my opinion. And misses my overall point anyway.

What reason do you have to believe that our sorces are not credible?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by Mercutio
What reason do you have to believe that our sorces are not credible?

well when someone says it was THIS way because it says so in the bible and the bible is the word of god you immediatly lose me because i dont have that same faith. i see that as faulty circular logic and I instantly discount it. But this isnt to say that many of the things in the bible arent tales from actual historical events. they are. And the bible can be certainly used to give us a window to an ancient time and to what many men believed to be truth. but simply because its written can not automatically make it Truth. At least no less so then other holy books written long ago and translated and retranslated and reinterpreted over the eons from one hand to the next.

[Mercutio]

I understand your point, but just because something is "circular" does that automatically discredit it?


Here is my argument for its credibility:

1. Test of Canonicity (canon = ruler, or standard)
A. Is it authoritative? (Does it have the sense of 'Thus says the Lord')
B. Is it prophetic? Was it written by a man of God?
C. Is it authentic?
D. Does it carry a life-changing message?
E. Was it received, accepted, and read by the early church?
THOSE ANSWERS ARE YES!

2. Reliability of the Bible.
*No ancient writing has ever come down to us in its original document* none
Examples:
Julius Caesar: wrote in 100-44 BC, earliest copy is from 900 AD (difference of 1000 yrs)and there were only 10 copies
Plato: wrote in 427-347 BC, earliest copy is from 900 AD (difference of 1300 yrs) and there were only 7 copies
Aristotle: wrote from 384-322 BC, earliest copy is from 1100 AD (difference of 1400 yrs), only 5 copies
the NEW TESTAMENT: wrote from 40-90 AD, earllist copy from 250-300 AD (difference of 200 yrs), number of copies? 5,000!

3. Handling
There were special rules the copiers had to follow:
a. synagogue roll had to use the skin of a clean animal
b. the ink had to e black, no other color, and only made with a special recipe.
c. between every consonant there had to be the space of a thread (exactly)
d. between each section...the space of 9 consonants (exactly)

4. Prophesy
Basic Bibilical truths:
1. Numbers 23:19
2. Deuteronomy 18:20-22
God cannot lie, and all prophecies must come true.
In the old testament there are over 2000 prohecies, and they ALL come true.
Compare to other major religions and their documents:
Buddha = 0 prophecies
Confucious = 0 prophecies
Koran = 1 prophecy (that Muhammad would return to Mecca, I think, how convient that the writer wrote that he would do something...)
If you want specific prophecies and their fullfillments, I can give you some.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I understand your point, but just because something is "circular" does that automatically discredit it?

I actually would avoid the argument: It's the Word of God, so it's all true. The argument is circular, and what you give below is much better .

Here is my argument for its credibility:

1. Test of Canonicity (canon = ruler, or standard)
A. Is it authoritative? (Does it have the sense of 'Thus says the Lord')
B. Is it prophetic? Was it written by a man of God?
C. Is it authentic?
D. Does it carry a life-changing message?
E. Was it received, accepted, and read by the early church?
THOSE ANSWERS ARE YES!

2. Reliability of the Bible.
*No ancient writing has ever come down to us in its original document* none
Examples:
Julius Caesar: wrote in 100-44 BC, earliest copy is from 900 AD (difference of 1000 yrs)and there were only 10 copies
Plato: wrote in 427-347 BC, earliest copy is from 900 AD (difference of 1300 yrs) and there were only 7 copies
Aristotle: wrote from 384-322 BC, earliest copy is from 1100 AD (difference of 1400 yrs), only 5 copies
the NEW TESTAMENT: wrote from 40-90 AD, earllist copy from 250-300 AD (difference of 200 yrs), number of copies? 5,000!

The earliest fragment from the Gospel of John, actually, dates from between 100 and 150 AD. That discovery completely debunked the argument of skeptical German theologians from last century, who said the Gospel of John was not written until the year 160.



Next to the New Testament, the greatest amount of manuscript evidence for an ancient document is Homer's Iliad. That has 650 Greek copies today, many extremely fragmentary, dating from between the second and third centuries AD, and following. Homer's Iliad was initially written at about 800 BC.

Look at the comparison, Insidious Rex, between the New Testament manuscript evidence and time placements, next to what is established the next most strongly.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

3. Handling
There were special rules the copiers had to follow:
a. synagogue roll had to use the skin of a clean animal
b. the ink had to e black, no other color, and only made with a special recipe.
c. between every consonant there had to be the space of a thread (exactly)
d. between each section...the space of 9 consonants (exactly)

4. Prophesy
Basic Biblical truths:
1. Numbers 23:19
2. Deuteronomy 18:20-22
God cannot lie, and all prophecies must come true.
In the old testament there are over 2000 prohecies, and they ALL come true.
Compare to other major religions and their documents:
Buddha = 0 prophecies
Confucious = 0 prophecies
Koran = 1 prophecy (that Muhammad would return to Mecca, I think, how convient that the writer wrote that he would do something...)
If you want specific prophecies and their fullfillments, I can give you some.

Are you sure about the Old Testament prophets? I mean, I believe those prophecies were fulfilled after they were made, but how do you prove that with ones that are really far back? The exception to this question I make is the book of Daniel, and the incredible evidence that the prophesies pertaining to Jesus Christ provide.

However, you don't have to go any further in the Old Testament prophesies than the prophesies pertaining to Jesus to obliterate arguments against the divine inspiration of Biblical prophesy.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well when someone says it was THIS way because it says so in the bible and the bible is the word of god you immediatly lose me because i dont have that same faith. i see that as faulty circular logic and I instantly discount it.

Doesn't sound like a convincing argument to me either.

But this isnt to say that many of the things in the bible arent tales from actual historical events. they are. And the bible can be certainly used to give us a window to an ancient time and to what many men believed to be truth. but simply because its written can not automatically make it Truth.

Definitely true. So let's just forget that argument, shall we? By the way, I don't think anyone here is making that argument, so it's useless to debate the point anyway.

At least no less so then other holy books written long ago and translated and retranslated and reinterpreted over the eons from one hand to the next.

Actually, there is a great deal of reason to put more faith in its accuracy than in the accurate handing down to us of other historical works.

Originally written in "The Case for Christ"
"We have great confidence in the fidelity with which this material has come down to us, especially compared with any other ancient literary work."

That conclusion is shared by distinguished scholars throughout the world. Said the late F.F. Bruce, eminent professor at the University of Manchester, England, and author of The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world that enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."

Metzger had already mentioned the name of Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum and author of The Palaeography of Greek Papyri. Kenyon has said that "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date off the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex

you lose me in your argument right from that point because you base all your arguments on how the christian god is the one true legitimate approach to spirituality.

Actually, I wasn't making an argument there. I was preaching . That would explain why I lost you.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
And my point was simply that I think that all religions and philosophies are simply a mask of an unreachable spirituality that we futily try to explain with human logic and human sensory tools.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, to a massive extent God is unfathomable to us limited creatures. However, he is so great and mighty it seems presumptuous to say that he wouldn't be able to understand the creatures he has made, or care about them, and meet them where they are. You would be assuming a knowledge of his character, that it is uncaring for what he has wrought. This must have evidence and strong reason to support it, if it is to be believed (unless no other religion has better evidence).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok yer really a long distance from understanding what I was trying to say. Im talking about things in the broadest possible terms. You view the argument through the lens that christianity is as big as it gets. So you cant see me way up here Im afraid. I don’t think talking about an ultimate creative force to the universe in human like terms is useful at all. I realize it’s the crux of the christian religion. That we are gods highest creatures and he stresses over us and is concerned about what we do in our bedroom and all that. But to me its simply shows the limitations of how our human mind grasps the ungraspable. It’s the veil. Its not the divine. The divine remains invisible in my opinion. Something we can only perceive through shadow and reflection. Never directly.

Yes. My point was that you ought to give evidence to support this belief. You are claiming knowledge of what God is like (that he is this the way you describe him as). Don't you have any evidence for this? If not, then you're largely doing what Atheists or Agnostics frequently accuse Christians of doing: holding belief based upon faith, without any evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are people in the time of Jesus who would agree with you. Yet these were contested by those who always referred to other aspects of him that make those statements impossible. For example, his miracles were used to back up that he was God. His frequently showing aspects that only a member of the Trinity could show also backs it up. For example, omnipresence and omniscience are shown by his prophesies and words telling how he saw events from history. "I saw you under the fig tree", "You had seven husbands, and the man you are with now is not your husband", "Jerusalem will be destroyed in this manner", "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven", along with numerous other prophesies and declarations of his omniscience and omnipresence.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

um are you using the bible and mans statements to prove to me that jesus is god? Because men wrote that he could foretell the future? Because men wrote that he didn’t sin and that he could cure people?

Men who knew him intimately taught that he knew sin. The authors of two of the gospels were actually his disciples, men who had known him for a long time.

Huge crowds had experienced his healing the sick, and the people that wrote the gospels were witnesses. We have writings from other apostles and disciples that experienced his miraculous power as well.

His having huge numbers of followers is attested to in sources outside of Christianity, and we actually have evidence concerning his miracles from the mouths of his enemies. We have documents from the religious leaders, saying that he was a practicer of black magic. This tends to support very strongly his being a miracle worker. If those people could in any way have denied his miracles, they would have had every reason to do so.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Muhammod I don't remember being insane. He claimed to be a prophet, but I don't know why you think he was insane, unless you think his visions were the influence of insanity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

When did I say that Muhammad was insane? Having a “common thread” to other singular individuals at the genesis of religions isn’t saying hes insane. And by the way Im pretty sure I specifically said I DON’T like the simple label of “lunatic” for jesus either. But I was given three choices and it seemed the best of the three but I certainly qualified it with statements about exactly what I meant.

I know you did. You effectively flattened any argument anyone might make that you have an aversion to Jesus (something I never thought). You said he was extremely gifted and an incredibly passionate and good man. Crazy also, though, for one would have to be either crazy or lying or correct, if they were claiming to be God. Crazy seems most in keeping with his character and the fact that he was willing to be crucified to "save mankind from its sins."

However, in response to the argument that he was incredibly gifted, a wonderful person, and crazy, I gave a psychiatric argument against it. As yet, I have seen no evidence from you on the subject. Only belief.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
again using christian sources as the verifiable proof of christianity is silly in my opinion. And misses my overall point anyway.

The Christian sources are to be believed, not because of the argument that the Bible is the Word of God, but because of numerous other evidences. Many posted above, but others waiting above.

I've got to go, now. Afraid I can't get any more into this at this time.

[Mercutio]

Just an interesting tidbit:

John Rutter, a Christian English composer, attended a college with a high percentage of atheists as faculty. He said that he (Rutter) was often almost convinced of their atheist arguments. However, when he attended church and heard the music he could never understand how this (music) could have come from falsities and that that in itself knocked down there strongest arguments.

[Mercutio]

Just to make it clear, I am not of the opinion that all religions except for Christianity are totally wrong. Rather, they are merely "incomplete" in the sense that some things are correct and even parallel with Christianity, while other things major (and minor) are wrongly interpreted/or just (imo) wrong, and even more important things are left out or not considered.

For example:

Islam gets right that there is one god, however their beliefs about the nature of that one god are pretty different.

I'm also sure that some of the Buddhist moral teachings are completely correct and parallel to Christianity.

To add to my argument for the "rightness" of Christianity:

-I think it addresses the issue of original sin and evil in the world correctly. For some atheists who think that if there was a god, why would he make sin, I ask this: If God's purpose is for his people to love him and draw closer to him, why would he make them merely like "machines" and already perfect? Then what would God's purpose be? I wonder why I said that? Also, arguments about why God didn't make the world perfect: On the issue of pain and suffering, it 1. contributes to spiritual growth and fellowship with Christ, 2. Is a form of witness, 3. brings out grace and compassion in other people. Suffering "produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it" (Heb. 12:11).

I guess I just defended an argument that someone might make rather than something someone made recently. Oh well.

-There are miracles present now, not only in Biblical times. For example, one time my dad was asked at a church supper to pray for someone with cancer who was undergoing surgery the next day. Well, the next day, they opened them up for surgery and the cancer was completely gone. Is that not a miracle?

-Christianity is my ancestry. I know, some of you won't like to here that, but I don't just say "Hey, I've decided the hundreds of people directly before me in my family are completely wrong and stupid."

I will post more as I learn and think and ponder and read other posts (and ask my dad about it!).

[GrayMouser]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Starting with GrayMouser's.

Wouldn't someone know if they were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent?

It's pretty clear from the description of Jesus' life that he was humble, yet you have to imagine him full of incredible arrogance, to make the claim that he has never sinned. Other inconsistencies than these two I expect would appear, if you say he thought he was God, but he was neither raving nor evil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's certainly possible to live a life that is outwardly humble, while having total confidence in your own moral rectitude.

:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how other religions have any particular problem dealing with Jesus. To Jews, he's simply the most popular of many False Messiahs;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Which means they choose the option: he's bad. Something that doesn't seem to answer the problem of his permitting himself to be crucified. He was executed because he claimed to be God. If he knew he wasn't God, he probably wouldn't have allowed himself to be executed. .

To be a False Messiah doesn't mean that you are claiming to be the True Messiah when you know you are not (i.e. deliberately deceiving people); it means claiming to be the Messiah when in fact you are not- you could just be deluded- and many deluded people have chosen martyrdom in defense of their beliefs.

In any case, the fact that they have an answer doesn't mean that they don't have a problem

But the original point was that other religions have a problem with Jesus in relation to their own beliefs- and clearly they don't, whatever may be the real truth as revealed on the Day of Judgement.

Same point about the Muslims- it's not whether or not they are correct in their beliefs - just whether or not the Christian claim presents some kind of challenge that they can't handle comfortably from within their own framework.

That same question doesn't exist for other humans that claimed to be deities. First of all, they gave no evidence to back up their claims, unlike Jesus. Second, they certainly weren't the type to be willing to die for the belief that they were a type of being that clearly they were not. The attributes of Yaweh are very, very supernatural.

And Jesus's evidence, as written down by his followers....

And again, through history, many people have been martyred rather than give up their supernatural claims, and millions of followers have died in the same cause.

[GrayMouser]

I'm taking a walk on a nice winter's day, and I come across an apple tree.

"Boy, I'd sure like a nice ripe apple- but wait, it's the middle of winter and there are no apples on the tree."

So I take up my chainsaw and, in a fit of anger, chop the the offending tree down.

How would you characterise my actions?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
I'm taking a walk on a nice winter's day, and I come across an apple tree.

"Boy, I'd sure like a nice ripe apple- but wait, it's the middle of winter and there are no apples on the tree."

So I take up my chainsaw and, in a fit of anger, chop the the offending tree down.

How would you characterise my actions?

Irrational. Rather crazy. Illegal. Why?

Originally posted by GrayMouser
It's certainly possible to live a life that is outwardly humble, while having total confidence in your own moral rectitude.

He believed that he was sinless. That's rather different than being 'morally correct.' Also, you ought to take note of the fact that at least the vast majority of saintlike people have always been the people most aware of their own sinfulness.

I don't think it would be easy at all for any human to behave humbly, while at the same time believing incorrectly that they are morally perfect. If you look at history, everyone who's believed they are perfect (mainly kings) end up losing touch with reality, frequently being ruthless, always supremely arrogant and self indulgent.

Originally posted by GrayMouser
To be a False Messiah doesn't mean that you are claiming to be the True Messiah when you know you are not (i.e. deliberately deceiving people); it means claiming to be the Messiah when in fact you are not- you could just be deluded- and many deluded people have chosen martyrdom in defense of their beliefs.

When you're stating that you are omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, you do know whether you are or not.

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, the fact that they have an answer doesn't mean that they don't have a problem
------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the original point was that other religions have a problem with Jesus in relation to their own beliefs- and clearly they don't, whatever may be the real truth as revealed on the Day of Judgement.

The opinions don't make sense, as thus far expressed. However, since that has nothing to do with what you were saying, I will subside.

Same point about the Muslims- it's not whether or not they are correct in their beliefs - just whether or not the Christian claim presents some kind of challenge that they can't handle comfortably from within their own framework.

We don't have any Muslims here to debate the issue with. I think in general Muslims don't have huge problems with it. I'm going to admit you're probably right on this matter of other religions' attitudes to Christianity, GrayMouser. The argument that they all have a problem as regards Christ (though maybe it does have evidence), I don't know it. I'll leave that to Valandil, if it is solid enough.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by brownjenkins

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Whether trouble follows or not has nothing to do with the question of whether or not it really is truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

but it has everything to do with whether it is a good for society...

Huge numbers of religions have engaged in religious warfare. Christianity is not separate from that, but that does not mean it is not good for society.

compromise and understanding do wonders for human relations... i'd almost go so far as to call that an absolute truth

What can one say to that? It's not really an argument- just what you'd almost say.

Originally posted by brownjenkins

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it seems to me rather the reverse.

If you were walking with a group of people, and you all arrived at a fork in the road, suppose you were the only person who really knew which way was the correct way to your destination?

Everyone else might disagree with you, ignore your words. "No, we think it's this way."

"But I know it's this way!" you might say. "I've gone that way many times!"

"No, surely it's this way," they say, and they continue off that way.

That's often how it feels when people write off absolute truth, and the finding of it, as impossible. Simply because it is outside their own experience, they make judgments upon what other people's experience is. Rather than it being the Christian, or the Muslim, who is being presumptuous, it seems more presumptuous to say "you're wrong", making assumptions about the other person's experience.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

you are comparing something that is knowable (a physical destination) with something that is not (the existance of god)...

On the contrary. You're making an absolutely incorrect assumption that people cannot know God. I have met God. Vast numbers of other Christians have.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
even some of the very religious posters here have admitted that god's existance cannot be definatively proven

I also have been one of those that say God's existence cannot be definitely proven. But does one have to prove to the people at the fork in the road that this road is right? No, you give your word, and then if the others believe you rather than their instinct, they'll go that way. They'll find out its true. Not when they reach heaven , but during the physical life. Have you never heard of the Born Again experience? Or the Baptism of the Holy Spirit?

Originally posted by brownjenkins

btw, i am not saying "you're wrong"... i am saying that one must always consider the possibility that their beliefs are wrong

Some beliefs are more likely to be wrong than others. It always best to have good reasons to uphold your beliefs.

Originally posted by brownjenkins

quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So naturally we should lump them all together and say none of them is right, correct?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

yep

Humph.

Originally posted by brownjenkins

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh? Just because in pre-history no one believed the earth went around the sun, does that mean it's not truth?

I really do not understand that argument.

With God it is the same as my example with the earth going around the sun. Maybe not everyone perceives it, but it is there. If it depended upon everyone perceiving it for it to exist, it could not exist. In other words, we are all controlled completely by our own perceptions, and there is nothing outside of our own perceptions. Our perceptions control everything. Right and wrong do not exist, as a matter of a fact, nothing exists unless I know it exists. Which is frankly ridiculous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

it seems ridiculous to us today... but it was perfectly valid to make the argument that the earth went around the sun 2000 years ago... it wasn't a "truth", because it wasn't proven...

Incorrect. It wasn't a "belief" because it wasn't proven. However, it was still truth. One absolute truth that was unalterable, by people's opinions.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
but it wasn't wrong either, because it wasn't disproven... god falls into the same category

See my above answer.

Originally posted by brownjenkins

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone cannot have their own truth. If you exchanged the word truth for the word belief, your statement, I think, would be quite accurate. The fact is, our own perceptions do not have such a great impact upon truth and reality. Truth exists independant of our own senses, even if everyone in the world has their senses telling them the wrong thing (for example, the sun). Spiritual reality doesn't have to be any different.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


i'd say that maybe you need to exchange your word truth for belief... physical things can be proven (unless you want to get really esoteric), concepts like absolute truth and god are another thing entirely...

One does not have to prove something, in order to believe it. Or in order to have good reason to believe it. For example, I could ask my mother to buy some sourdough bread, and she probably would. I would have faith in her, based upon my previous experience. This is not a logical proof that she would, but it is still significant enough to go with.

Originally posted by brownjenkins
one only needs to look as far as the myriad of "truths" that exist in our world concerning a supreme being to see how true this is

Eh? I see a myriad of beliefs, most of them incorrect. A nonreligious person also must admit the vast majority of them must be at least essentially incorrect, because they disagree so frequently with one another. One might not be able to prove the existence of God, but one can show so much evidence that lack of belief becomes unreasonable, and one can show sufficient evidence to support faith.