A Matter of Faith...

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
No, they don't.

Prove their prophecies exist.

Prove they WERE prophecies that came true beyond and evidence otherwise.

YOU CAN'T.



They can believe gravity doesn't exist also, but it ain't true.
Truth is truth.



One cannot provide objective truth when the SUBJECT will not allow themselves observance of objectivity.

Why do you insist on ME proving things when you still can't?

One cannot prove the existence of that which does not exist.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
That is your truth...The truth for Muslims, Jews , Hindus, Buddhists et al may be quite different from yours. Such variety of religious experience is a byproduct of the varying capacities and capabilities amongst us all. Each spiritual path suits the needs of the individuals following it, or are grown accustomed to by being raised in each faith. This diversity of views should be welcomed and examined as to reject them categorically and unquestioningly is like throwing away precious gems scooped up in a handfull of earth. It is this unquestioning and absolute adherence to dogma that leads to conflict between religions as well as the internecine conflict of sectarian struggles.

Im sorry that you dont seem to understand the concept of truth. Truth is things were, as they are, and as they will be. You cant have two contradictions and both have them be truth. In fact your whole statement about "their truth vs my truth" goes congrary to what you were saying earlier about it being impossible for both to be correct. Which one is it. Is it impossible for two contradictory statements to truth or is there relative truth? you cant have it both was.

Truth is constant. It can always be relied upon. Your personal views may waver to and fro in the wind, but the truth will always be an anchor to those who seek it out and love it. Either Jesus Christ was the Son of God or He was not. Both cannot be truth regardless of how blue in the face you get trying to argue it.

As ive stated before, contrary to your opinion. there are times when choice are black and white. Two clear options in which only one is correct. That is your problem. You try so hard to look at the color and you miss the fact that black and white colors.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
"There can only be one religion that is correct."

Why?

The real question is why is this such a difficult concept for you. if two religions say contradictory things they both cant be correct. this is basic logic. Either Jesus is the Christ or He is not. They cant both be true. Either the Bible contains the Word of God or it does not. There is an easy way to find out. Go to the source.

If its a choice between Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Bahai, whatever, they cant all be true because they all contradict. either one of them is true or none of them is true. They cant all be true . That defies logic. It also contradicts your original post in that none of them are true. Which is it?

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
One cannot prove the existence of that which does not exist.

Is that why you never try to prove anything you say?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
One cannot prove the existence of that which does not exist.

That's pretty funny.

You cannot prove something when it does not exist.
Therefore:
You cannot prove something does not exist because it does not exist.

Therefore:
You cannot disprove my point becasue you claim it does not exist.

Also:

You can prove something exists because it exists.
And:
You can prove something when it exists.

Therefore you ought to be able to prove your point since you claim your point exists. -But you can't.

We end up right back at square one.
I prove prophecy and fact, you claim blindness and hide behined pointless circular statements you don't even understand.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
"There can only be one religion that is correct."

Why?

Well, Avatar beat me to it. It's simple logic. It has nothing to do with religion, per se. Given several different choices which are all mutually exclusive, which the major religions of the world are, at most only one can be correct (an alternative is that none could be correct).

As for your comments about Lee Strobel, he set out to disprove Christianity, using the standards of proof and evidence used in the American legal system. When faced with the evidence, however, he was unable to reach that conclusion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
That's pretty funny.

You cannot prove something when it does not exist.
Therefore:
You cannot prove something does not exist because it does not exist.

Therefore:
You cannot disprove my point becasue you claim it does not exist.

Also:

You can prove something exists because it exists.
And:
You can prove something when it exists.

Therefore you ought to be able to prove your point since you claim your point exists. -But you can't.

We end up right back at square one.
I prove prophecy and fact, you claim blindness and hide behined pointless circular statements you don't even understand.

Nice.:clap1:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Well, Avatar beat me to it. It's simple logic. It has nothing to do with religion, per se. Given several different choices which are all mutually exclusive, which the major religions of the world are, at most only one can be correct (an alternative is that none could be correct).

As for your comments about Lee Strobel, he set out to disprove Christianity, using the standards of proof and evidence used in the American legal system. When faced with the evidence, however, he was unable to reach that conclusion.

First, you are operating under the premise that the major religions present mutually exclusive choices. This is an error. If you ignore the metaphysical issues, you find remarkable similarities in all of their moral philosophies. They only present mutually exclusive choices if you are unwilling to loosen the stranglehold you have upon your own dogma.

Second, religions metaphysical aspects are wholly subjective, they are not available for independent and objective verification. It is always a case of heresay evidence. And since this experience is different for everyone due to the nature of human perception and cognition, it is erroneous to assume that the general garment of any one system of religious doctrine is a proper fit for all.

Thirdly, just as conflicting claims with regards to territory, resources, goods, things... have led to conflicts throughout history, so to have conflicting religious and ideological claims led to conflict throughout history. This grasping after or clinging to things or ideas lies at the root of human conflict. This is what dogma is, grasping after, and clinging to ideas and ideals. It serves no purpose but to assuage the ego of the grasper...they are right, and all else is wrong. But underlying that is fear...fear of losing that which they hold dear and that fear ultimately leads them to cling ever more fiercely to that which they hold dear...be it ideas or things or people.

There is no reason then, to hold that religions present mutually exclusive choices. They merely present different choices.

As for Mr. Strobel, had he not been seeking after something which was lacking in <i>his</i> life, he would never have converted. He found what he needed, and I applaude him. He questioned his beliefs, and he found an answer other than what he expected. I went down that same road...I questioned my beleifs, and still do, and I arrived at a partial answer, and each days experiences fill in the blanks that are remaining. But such questioning takes a degree of effort many are unwilling to take. It can upset the delicate balance established by one's firmly grasped beliefs, and it requires daily and ongoing effort. So, until you've actually questioned your own beleifs, can you trully question those of others?

Go in peace. I've enjoyed the debate.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
The real question is why is this such a difficult concept for you. if two religions say contradictory things they both cant be correct. this is basic logic. Either Jesus is the Christ or He is not. They cant both be true. Either the Bible contains the Word of God or it does not. There is an easy way to find out. Go to the source.

If its a choice between Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Bahai, whatever, they cant all be true because they all contradict. either one of them is true or none of them is true. They cant all be true . That defies logic. It also contradicts your original post in that none of them are true. Which is it?

Actually, I never said that none of them were true. I said they could all be wrong. They could also all be right in that they just reveal the same path from a different perspective.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
First, you are operating under the premise that the major religions present mutually exclusive choices. This is an error. If you ignore the metaphysical issues, you find remarkable similarities in all of their moral philosophies. They only present mutually exclusive choices if you are unwilling to loosen the stranglehold you have upon your own dogma.

Second, religions metaphysical aspects are wholly subjective, they are not available for independent and objective verification. It is always a case of heresay evidence. And since this experience is different for everyone due to the nature of human perception and cognition, it is erroneous to assume that the general garment of any one system of religious doctrine is a proper fit for all.

Thirdly, just as conflicting claims with regards to territory, resources, goods, things... have led to conflicts throughout history, so to have conflicting religious and ideological claims led to conflict throughout history. This grasping after or clinging to things or ideas lies at the root of human conflict. This is what dogma is, grasping after, and clinging to ideas and ideals. It serves no purpose but to assuage the ego of the grasper...they are right, and all else is wrong. But underlying that is fear...fear of losing that which they hold dear and that fear ultimately leads them to cling ever more fiercely to that which they hold dear...be it ideas or things or people.

There is no reason then, to hold that religions present mutually exclusive choices. They merely present different choices.

Absolutely correct which is why a relationship with Christ is not religion and why you are comparing apples with oranges.

As for Mr. Strobel, had he not been seeking after something which was lacking in <i>his</i> life, he would never have converted. He found what he needed, and I applaude him. He questioned his beliefs, and he found an answer other than what he expected. I went down that same road...I questioned my beleifs, and still do, and I arrived at a partial answer, and each days experiences fill in the blanks that are remaining. But such questioning takes a degree of effort many are unwilling to take. It can upset the delicate balance established by one's firmly grasped beliefs, and it requires daily and ongoing effort. So, until you've actually questioned your own beleifs, can you trully question those of others?

Do you have a magnesium deficiency?

How do you know?

Are you metabolizing calcium as you should?

How do you know?

WHEN will you know?

Did the problem first occur when you knew it, or well before?

At what point are you then qualified to point out to another they are deficient and what the cure is?

Your logic sucks.

Go in peace. I've enjoyed the debate.

Debate only occurs when 2 sides claiming to solve an issue is compromised by one side refusing to acknowledge the facts of the situation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Actually, I never said that none of them were true. I said they could all be wrong. They could also all be right in that they just reveal the same path from a different perspective.

I can't believe you write things like this and expect to taken seriously.

Consider monotheism and polytheism generally. they can't both be right.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
First, you are operating under the premise that the major religions present mutually exclusive choices. This is an error. If you ignore the metaphysical issues, you find remarkable similarities in all of their moral philosophies. They only present mutually exclusive choices if you are unwilling to loosen the stranglehold you have upon your own dogma.

Second, religions metaphysical aspects are wholly subjective, they are not available for independent and objective verification. It is always a case of heresay evidence. And since this experience is different for everyone due to the nature of human perception and cognition, it is erroneous to assume that the general garment of any one system of religious doctrine is a proper fit for all.

Thirdly, just as conflicting claims with regards to territory, resources, goods, things... have led to conflicts throughout history, so to have conflicting religious and ideological claims led to conflict throughout history. This grasping after or clinging to things or ideas lies at the root of human conflict. This is what dogma is, grasping after, and clinging to ideas and ideals. It serves no purpose but to assuage the ego of the grasper...they are right, and all else is wrong. But underlying that is fear...fear of losing that which they hold dear and that fear ultimately leads them to cling ever more fiercely to that which they hold dear...be it ideas or things or people.

There is no reason then, to hold that religions present mutually exclusive choices. They merely present different choices.

As for Mr. Strobel, had he not been seeking after something which was lacking in <i>his</i> life, he would never have converted. He found what he needed, and I applaude him. He questioned his beliefs, and he found an answer other than what he expected. I went down that same road...I questioned my beleifs, and still do, and I arrived at a partial answer, and each days experiences fill in the blanks that are remaining. But such questioning takes a degree of effort many are unwilling to take. It can upset the delicate balance established by one's firmly grasped beliefs, and it requires daily and ongoing effort. So, until you've actually questioned your own beleifs, can you trully question those of others?

Go in peace. I've enjoyed the debate.

You havent really debated anything other than the ridiculous idea that contradicting religions can both be true. Look Either there is a resurrection from the dead or we are reincarnated until we reach a state of nirvana. they are not both true. Either Jesus lives or He doesnt. Either Mohammad was the last prophet or he wasnt. These arent metaphysics. These are key doctrines. And they cant all be correct. Deal with it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Both cannot be right, but they can both be wrong.

Thats a direct quote from your first post. What is it then Bully. Can contradicting religions both be true or cant they? Make up your freakin mind.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Thats a direct quote from your first post. What is it then Bully. Can contradicting religions both be true or cant they? Make up your freakin mind.

Such is the process of debate. You learn from the process. I saw a new point of view that I had not seen before. I learned something new, which is always a delight. Thank you.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Debate only occurs when 2 sides claiming to solve an issue is compromised by one side refusing to acknowledge the facts of the situation.

Indeed, I have examined your arguments and offered up rational and reasonable alertnatives. You respond with dogmatism and insults. Can you actually address the points I've made, or does your dogma not lend itself to being questioned? If it does not, then I do pity you...Good luck.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Indeed, I have examined your arguments and offered up rational and reasonable alertnatives. You respond with dogmatism and insults. Can you actually address the points I've made, or does your dogma not lend itself to being questioned? If it does not, then I do pity you...Good luck.

Insults?

Hellllooooo????

I threw out no insults, I countered your statements with fact or drew your statements out in logical proof format which proved them incorrect.

If you view that as an insult, you have moral relativity issues which are not my problem.

If you are offended when being shown wrong or if you are offended with truth, that is a reflection of your unwillingness to accept truth for it being truth in favor of selfishness.

Pity me all you like. It doesn't bother me. I am not here to win points or look good.

I also do not have to put a picture up of a person representing him as an antichrist to ignore the real one and hide behined moral relativism and new-age spirituality psychobabel to build my own faith and religion for support against seeing truth.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I can't believe you write things like this and expect to taken seriously.

Consider monotheism and polytheism generally. they can't both be right.

Monotheism and polytheism are but different views of the same thing. Same path...different perspective.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Insults?

Hellllooooo????

I threw out no insults, I countered your statements with fact or drew your statements out in logical proof format which proved them incorrect.

If you view that as an insult, you have moral relativity issues which are not my problem.

If you are offended when being shown wrong or if you are offended with truth, that is a reflection of your unwillingness to accept truth for it being truth in favor of selfishness.

Pity me all you like. It doesn't bother me. I am not here to win points or look good.

I also do not have to put a picture up of a person representing him as an antichrist to ignore the real one and hide behined moral relativism and new-age spirituality psychobabel to build my own faith and religion for support against seeing truth.

You end each post with barbs, both veiled and open. You know the words your religion provides you, but you have yet to learn their meaning. Go back and learn what they mean, and then you can have meaningful discussions about them, and you'll be a better person for having done so.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
You end each post with barbs, both veiled and open. You know the words your religion provides you, but you have yet to learn their meaning. Go back and learn what they mean, and then you can have meaningful discussions about them, and you'll be a better person for having done so.

Thank you. I forgot.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

This passge may be viewed as an admonishment not to become attatched to those that one loves as the fear of their loss can cause one to stray from the path. It is almost Buddhist in nature, save for the tone indignation at failure to follow the cross, the Lord, the prophet and the righteous man.

Greed, as exemplefied by grasping after and clinging to those things which one holds dear, and fear a losing those things lie at the root of human suffering.