Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

comparing religions

natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 5:55:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

To mention one, the historicity of Jesus Christ.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:05:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

Christian Particularism, pretty sophisticated philosophical view lately.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:05:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:55:23 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

To mention one, the historicity of Jesus Christ.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:45:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

Do YOU think there are any compelling arguments for Christianity? What do you think is different about it than any other religion or do you at all? Is there any elements of Christianity that you like or that make more sense than other religions or is it all the same to you?
likespeace
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 6:57:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

Suppose, after a detailed survey of the world's most religions, you determined Islam won by being a whole 2% likely?

Clearly, being the most likely religion isn't enough to adopt a religion. There could be no God and thus the most likely religions are wrong. There could be a God but still the most likely religions are wrong. A more interesting question--does any religion have compelling evidence of its truth in your estimation? In the absence of that, we should live our lives in such a way that best ensures our own personal happiness, and that of those around us that we care about. :)
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead? And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:13:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?

Can you definitively prove that Christ claimed that he had exclusive access to God? Given that you have accepted that the Bible has errors and falsehoods, can you prove that your "evidence" is not an error or a falsehood? Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:25:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?

Can you definitively prove that Christ claimed that he had exclusive access to God?

Lol, do you mean cartesian mathematical proof? That would just be a hokey expectation. But if you mean plausibility, then of course that'd be easy, stay tuned for my debate with Dannille.

Given that you have accepted that the Bible has errors and falsehoods, can you prove that your "evidence" is not an error or a falsehood?

Whoever said I accept that the bible has errors and falsehoods? I accept that the bible is without error on what it teaches. And what it teaches is spiritual matters, not matter of science, technology, engineering, art, etc. Who in the world said I accepted the bible is in error? lol

Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?

That's a hokey view too, stay tuned to my future debates, which will most likely revolve around this very question at first.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:34:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:25:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?

Can you definitively prove that Christ claimed that he had exclusive access to God?

Lol, do you mean cartesian mathematical proof? That would just be a hokey expectation. But if you mean plausibility, then of course that'd be easy, stay tuned for my debate with Dannille.

Do you try to be irritating on purpose? No, don't use a Cartesian proof. I want a proof based on a prior reasoning only, please.

I don't want proof that it's "plausible" that he said it. I want definitive proof that he actually said this.
Given that you have accepted that the Bible has errors and falsehoods, can you prove that your "evidence" is not an error or a falsehood?

Whoever said I accept that the bible has errors and falsehoods? I accept that the bible is without error on what it teaches. And what it teaches is spiritual matters, not matter of science, technology, engineering, art, etc. Who in the world said I accepted the bible is in error? lol

. "The Lord reigns, he is clothed with majesty; The Lord is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established so that it cannot be moved."

The Earth does move, so the Bible is false.

In Genesis 1:16 says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." According to this, the moon is a light source just like the sun, only not as bright. If this was the case, we couldn't land on the moon, it would be too hot. It is also strange that it took God the day to make the sun and the moon, but the stars are portrayed as an afterthought of sorts. "He made the stars also", this is a definite sign that the Bible is inspired by man. It is clear that man could not have perceived that the stars were the same as the sun, but in most cases much larger. Naturally they thought that these specks were just thrown about. The verse should read "God created the stars and planetary objects, he also made the earth, sun, and moon". But man, in those days, would have never seen it that way.

Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. "moon shall not cause her light to shine." Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception.

According to Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. Last time I checked, rabbits don't chew cud.

According to the Bible, our brother mammal, the bat, is a bird. This one has been debated through e-mail quite a bit, but if one looks in Leviticus 11:13 a list of Fowls is started, and the Bat is included in this list in Leviticus 11:19.

The locust, grasshopper, and beetle all have four feet according to Leviticus 11:22, then in the next verse, it mentions a group of flying animals with four feet. I can't think of any.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?

That's a hokey view too, stay tuned to my future debates, which will most likely revolve around this very question at first.

No, I won't stay tuned and I won't read your "scholars". Are you ever going to actually present an argument, or am I just going to keep waiting indefinitely for arguments every time I have a discussion with you?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:25:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?

Can you definitively prove that Christ claimed that he had exclusive access to God?

Lol, do you mean cartesian mathematical proof? That would just be a hokey expectation. But if you mean plausibility, then of course that'd be easy, stay tuned for my debate with Dannille.

Given that you have accepted that the Bible has errors and falsehoods, can you prove that your "evidence" is not an error or a falsehood?

Whoever said I accept that the bible has errors and falsehoods? I accept that the bible is without error on what it teaches. And what it teaches is spiritual matters

Very Good :)

, not matter of science, technology, engineering, art, etc. Who in the world said I accepted the bible is in error? lol

Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?

That's a hokey view too, stay tuned to my future debates, which will most likely revolve around this very question at first.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:34:36 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:25:19 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:13:02 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?

Can you definitively prove that Christ claimed that he had exclusive access to God?

Lol, do you mean cartesian mathematical proof? That would just be a hokey expectation. But if you mean plausibility, then of course that'd be easy, stay tuned for my debate with Dannille.

Given that you have accepted that the Bible has errors and falsehoods, can you prove that your "evidence" is not an error or a falsehood?

Whoever said I accept that the bible has errors and falsehoods? I accept that the bible is without error on what it teaches. And what it teaches is spiritual matters

Very Good :) ^ That above is truth.


, not matter of science, technology, engineering, art, etc. Who in the world said I accepted the bible is in error? lol

Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?

That's a hokey view too, stay tuned to my future debates, which will most likely revolve around this very question at first.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:45:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Mathematical inaccuracy:

Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.[6][7][8]

A circle with a diameter of 10 units should have a circumference of about 31.4159265358979(") units (10"π) and not 30. Alternatively, if we used these numbers to calculate π (circumference " diameter) we would get a result of precisely 3.[9] There is nevertheless some controversy over this error.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:45:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
According to the Genesis creation myth, the Earth was formed before the Sun. Aside from bio-mechanical problems, this flatly contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, in which planets form in the accretion disk created by a young star.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:48:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Matthew 1: (KJV)

"11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:"

According to the Tanakh Jechonias only had one brother.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:56:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:34:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:



Lol, do you mean cartesian mathematical proof? That would just be a hokey expectation. But if you mean plausibility, then of course that'd be easy, stay tuned for my debate with Dannille.

Do you try to be irritating on purpose? No, don't use a Cartesian proof. I want a proof based on a prior reasoning only, please.

a prior reasoning is self-evident, no claims in historical, a posteriori, sciences are of the order of a prior reasoning. Rather science as such presupposes a prior reasoning for inductive based arguments. What you're asking is unreasonable, untenable, and ultimately rests upon a misunderstanding of, well, your beloved scholarship.

I don't want proof that it's "plausible" that he said it. I want definitive proof that he actually said this.

Nothing in history has such a proof, would you like then to turn this conversation into historical skepticism? If so regard the debate I won against a professor of logic that supported your strange position,

http://debate.org...




Whoever said I accept that the bible has errors and falsehoods? I accept that the bible is without error on what it teaches. And what it teaches is spiritual matters, not matter of science, technology, engineering, art, etc. Who in the world said I accepted the bible is in error? lol

. "The Lord reigns, he is clothed with majesty; The Lord is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established so that it cannot be moved."

The Earth does move, so the Bible is false.

Lol, you're sounding like a darn loyal creationist-literalist! :-) Here the psalmist is obviously expressing God's kingship over his creation and YAWEH's enthronement. The psalmist is lavishly praising God with poetic language, hence a PSALM lol. No one is forced here to adopt a literal police report of the world that the author is bespeaking. Unless of course you had some preconceived notion going on. Which you do.

In Genesis 1:16 says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." According to this, the moon is a light source just like the sun, only not as bright. If this was the case, we couldn't land on the moon, it would be too hot. It is also strange that it took God the day to make the sun and the moon, but the stars are portrayed as an afterthought of sorts. "He made the stars also", this is a definite sign that the Bible is inspired by man. It is clear that man could not have perceived that the stars were the same as the sun, but in most cases much larger. Naturally they thought that these specks were just thrown about. The verse should read "God created the stars and planetary objects, he also made the earth, sun, and moon". But man, in those days, would have never seen it that way.

Again, no one is forced to adopt these verses as a literal police report of sorts like you want them to. Ever since the authorship of these verses non-literalist translations are spoken of. In fact it's my view that the whole of Gen.1-2 is allegorical, and used to demonstrate a spiritual contrast to the pagan mythologists who worshipped the creation rather than the creator. You're completely straw-manning my position, it's laughable, but also warrants an accusation of an obvious violation of the principle of charity, and this counts as your second warning,

http://debate.org...

Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. "moon shall not cause her light to shine." Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception.

According to Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. Last time I checked, rabbits don't chew cud.

According to the Bible, our brother mammal, the bat, is a bird. This one has been debated through e-mail quite a bit, but if one looks in Leviticus 11:13 a list of Fowls is started, and the Bat is included in this list in Leviticus 11:19.

The locust, grasshopper, and beetle all have four feet according to Leviticus 11:22, then in the next verse, it mentions a group of flying animals with four feet. I can't think of any.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?

That's a hokey view too, stay tuned to my future debates, which will most likely revolve around this very question at first.

No, I won't stay tuned and I won't read your "scholars". Are you ever going to actually present an argument, or am I just going to keep waiting indefinitely for arguments every time I have a discussion with you?

The rest of your lists of verses obviously is taken out of context or given a misinterpretation. Further it seems you're too emotionally compromised to discus this subject with me, I'd refer you to professional scholars but you've already expressed your distain for fine scholarship. Lord know why, perhaps you just get irritated whence proved wrong?
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 10:58:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Royal, we're not here to discuss your version of innerency, we were discussing the historicity of Christ, which view the premarkan passion and Mark as a historical document, not as a religious text.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2013 11:09:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:56:39 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 10:34:17 PM, royalpaladin wrote:



Lol, do you mean cartesian mathematical proof? That would just be a hokey expectation. But if you mean plausibility, then of course that'd be easy, stay tuned for my debate with Dannille.

Do you try to be irritating on purpose? No, don't use a Cartesian proof. I want a proof based on a prior reasoning only, please.

a prior reasoning is self-evident, no claims in historical, a posteriori, sciences are of the order of a prior reasoning. Rather science as such presupposes a prior reasoning for inductive based arguments. What you're asking is unreasonable, untenable, and ultimately rests upon a misunderstanding of, well, your beloved scholarship.
I was being sarcastic, lol. I know what a prior reasoning is. That was why I asked for the proof-it was meant to be impossible :)

I don't want proof that it's "plausible" that he said it. I want definitive proof that he actually said this.

Nothing in history has such a proof, would you like then to turn this conversation into historical skepticism? If so regard the debate I won against a professor of logic that supported your strange position,

http://debate.org...

Anaxa is probably your alternate account. I doubt that he's a professor of logic. I'll send this to the mod.


Whoever said I accept that the bible has errors and falsehoods? I accept that the bible is without error on what it teaches. And what it teaches is spiritual matters, not matter of science, technology, engineering, art, etc. Who in the world said I accepted the bible is in error? lol

. "The Lord reigns, he is clothed with majesty; The Lord is clothed, He has girded Himself with strength. Surely the world is established so that it cannot be moved."

The Earth does move, so the Bible is false.

Lol, you're sounding like a darn loyal creationist-literalist! :-) Here the psalmist is obviously expressing God's kingship over his creation and YAWEH's enthronement. The psalmist is lavishly praising God with poetic language, hence a PSALM lol. No one is forced here to adopt a literal police report of the world that the author is bespeaking. Unless of course you had some preconceived notion going on. Which you do.
Can you prove that this is what it means? I interpret it literally because that is what it said.

In Genesis 1:16 says "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." According to this, the moon is a light source just like the sun, only not as bright. If this was the case, we couldn't land on the moon, it would be too hot. It is also strange that it took God the day to make the sun and the moon, but the stars are portrayed as an afterthought of sorts. "He made the stars also", this is a definite sign that the Bible is inspired by man. It is clear that man could not have perceived that the stars were the same as the sun, but in most cases much larger. Naturally they thought that these specks were just thrown about. The verse should read "God created the stars and planetary objects, he also made the earth, sun, and moon". But man, in those days, would have never seen it that way.

Again, no one is forced to adopt these verses as a literal police report of sorts like you want them to. Ever since the authorship of these verses non-literalist translations are spoken of. In fact it's my view that the whole of Gen.1-2 is allegorical,
Definitive proof instead of speculation that supports your religious beliefs in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary?
and used to demonstrate a spiritual contrast to the pagan mythologists who worshipped the creation rather than the creator.
I consider myself a pagan. I don't worship creation, and neither do many other pagans. Why was this targeting a specific group of pagans?

Also, you're totally off from a historical perspective. Genesis was written in an Palestinian king's court. It was about recording literal religious tradition and not about creating an account to convince pagans. In fact, Judaism is not a religion that actively seeks converts. Nice try :)
You're completely straw-manning my position, it's laughable, but also warrants an accusation of an obvious violation of the principle of charity, and this counts as your second warning,

No, it's not a strawman. You said that the Bible has no errors. I provided evidence of some. "Principle of charity" =/= "I don't like what you said".
http://debate.org...

Isaiah 13:10 also says that the moon is a source of light. "moon shall not cause her light to shine." Again this is another example of the Bible seeming to be inspired by man and limited to his own perception.

According to Leviticus 11:5-6 Rabbits (Coney) chew their cud and because of this they are unclean. Last time I checked, rabbits don't chew cud.

According to the Bible, our brother mammal, the bat, is a bird. This one has been debated through e-mail quite a bit, but if one looks in Leviticus 11:13 a list of Fowls is started, and the Bat is included in this list in Leviticus 11:19.

The locust, grasshopper, and beetle all have four feet according to Leviticus 11:22, then in the next verse, it mentions a group of flying animals with four feet. I can't think of any.

http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com...

Can you prove that he was discussing literally worshiping him rather than respecting the spirit of his message?

That's a hokey view too, stay tuned to my future debates, which will most likely revolve around this very question at first.

No, I won't stay tuned and I won't read your "scholars". Are you ever going to actually present an argument, or am I just going to keep waiting indefinitely for arguments every time I have a discussion with you?

The rest of your lists of verses obviously is taken out of context or given a misinterpretation.
I'm sorry, but what context do you need to know that a bat is listed as a bird? Please provide the original context instead of blanketly asserting them.

You know what? I don't care if you are being dishonest. You aren't going to change my mind. I hope you recognize that you are being dishonest because if you're being dishonest to "save" your religion, obviously something is wrong with it. I'm merely planting seeds of doubt, and nothing more. If you can live with lying and have no problem with it, then that just demonstrates that you are not a true Christian.
Further it seems you're too emotionally compromised to discus this subject with me, I'd refer you to professional scholars but you've already expressed your distain for fine scholarship. Lord know why, perhaps you just get irritated whence proved wrong?

You haven't proven anything wrong. The people you cite are not scholars unless reading a book of fairy tales makes one a scholar. I don't like when you post scholars because you never post any arguments; you tell me to read the book. No, I don't want to read the book. If I wanted to waste my time reading the justification on my own, I would have enrolled in the theology school that you are attending. I asked you for the argument, not for the book.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:27:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:45:31 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
According to the Genesis creation myth, the Earth was formed before the Sun. Aside from bio-mechanical problems, this flatly contradicts the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation, in which planets form in the accretion disk created by a young star.

Cause, a guy that can create everything in less than a week really needs to listen to the nebular hypothesis of stellar formation.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 12:53:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
*looks at a bat*

What, it has wings... WINGS... thats what a bird is right? XD
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
devient.genie
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 1:42:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 6:05:36 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

Christian Particularism, pretty sophisticated philosophical view lately.

william Lame craig? You sure dont demand much :)
DevientGenie 3:45--Religion is a crime against human intelligence. The Genie is a Vigilante against such criminal activity :)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 8:32:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 5:35:09 PM, natoast wrote:
I was just curious as to whether or not there are any compelling arguments as to why Christianity, or any other religion, is more likely to be true then the rest of the religions out there.

I don"t think such exclusivity of truth is a tenet of the Christian faith and I do not believe it is Biblically derived. The central commandment of Christianity is that "The Lord our God is one Lord" which expresses a divine unity, and we must "love our neighbors as we love ourselves", there is no other commandment greater than these in Christianity. To love our neighbor as we love ourselves we must necessarily recognize that his religion is to him, what our religion is to us.

The basic Christian epistemological postulate is that God transcends human understanding, the limiting distinctions and categories of normal human thought just do not apply; human knowledge is "finite" knowledge and the way we "know" is a function of our limited capacity to know. The true reality is much more, perhaps infinitely more, than we think it is, much more than we are even capable of thinking. God is transcendent to human knowledge, we can never have perfect understanding of God; He is as "seen through a glass darkly" such that "no man knows as he ought to know". I think you can broadly characterize religious cognition as such that there is a direction involved the journey, and characterize the associated epistemological development as an ascent of religious discernment.

If you stand the various religions side by side you can draw lines horizontally between them and find great differences, but these are the surface level differences, cultural differences of form rather than content, solely exoteric differences. But there is another way to draw the lines, you can draw them vertically along a graded scale of ascending religious discernment in esoteric recognition that every religion has, underlying their various and conflicting literal meanings, a transcendent dimension, which is essential, primordial and universal. Ontologically speaking, there is a transcendent Divine Unity, commonly referred to as God; and using the vertically graded scale of the Christian worldview it can be said that "above" the religions converge, and "below" they differ. I think it can also be said that epistemologically speaking, and on the same Christian vertical scale that I referred to as ascending religious discernment, that cognitively, religious discernment unites also. Each religion approaches the transcendent reality from different cultural directions or frames of references but they do essentially converge on this understanding of the epistemology of knowledge.

Man"s mind cannot imagine a Divine Unity that excludes nothing any more than it can visualize light that is simultaneously wave and particle, or an electron that moves from place to place without traveling the distance between those two points, but that is the way the authorities of physics tell us the underlying reality is. In much the same way, the Absolute Unity that is referred to with the word God defies visualization or even consistent description, and the Philosophia Perennis which is being imparted by those who wrote the Bible is in fact, represented in a variety of cultural contexts, it is one and the same Spirit that is presented in a variety of different forms in all of the great religions of Mankind. The Divine Unity in all its fullness cannot in any way be circumscribed or even exhaustively defined by any single tradition, to circumscribe is to bound and limit, and "the word of God is not bound".

This understanding is Biblically derived, Divine unity is not just the concept that there is one God; it precludes any existence apart from God. The Christian vision is of a Metaphysical tiered reality with a transcendent and Divine Unity at its apex, usually referred to with the word God, which is an absolute, categorical, undifferentiated Unity in which we live and move and have our being. For it to be the reality in which "we live and move and have our being", this Divine Unity must include everything, if anything possessed reality apart from it, this would reintroduce the division that Absolute Unity by definition precludes. While the Christian faith cannot circumscribe the Divine Unity, the Divine Unity of the Christian faith does circumscribe the other religions.

The various founders and great religious leaders were esoterics that had travelled farther than the audience they were addressing, which is why we consider them to be people of authority, they were above the line and the journey is in their direction, from exoteric to esoteric understanding, or from the letter to the Spirit, so to speak. I think this is why we have esoterics like Meister Eckhart saying things like "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me".

Going back to our graded cognitive scale of the religious journey, epistemologically speaking, the Divine Unity precludes final distinction between knower and known, and anthropologically speaking, precludes final distinction between human and divine. Jesus said things like "The Father and I are one" while he also said things like "Why do you call me good, no man is good but God alone". Perhaps these statements only appear to be contradictory, but from the "higher" understanding of esoteric consciousness, they are different aspects of one and the same truth. The things He did and said caused His contemporaries to think of Him in completely new dimensions and that there was something to this man's life that caused those who knew it best to reach the conclusion that it was divine in nature.

The founders of the great religions were men who had broken through the interior conceptual walls that separate man, expressing this world-transcending wisdom with world-transcending symbols. Ironically we have built religions around these founder"s lives that translate their teachings back into the types of verbalized thoughts that structure the interior walls that they had themselves transcended and represented to mankind. I believe that recognition of this could eliminate the petty pursuits and trifling quarrels and through fellowship with the internal life, cut across political and ecclesiastical boundaries by penetrating beneath the external surface of all of mankind"s divisive religious doctrines.

Christ said he came for "all men", transcending the very concept of religious exclusivity, and I believe that religious one-upmanship is a betrayal of His spirit. As a Christian I believe "The Lord our God is one Lord" which expresses a divine unity in which I can also say that I believe Jesus was his Savior, Muhammad was his Prophet, and Buddha was his Enlightened One. It is from this Christian perspective that I believe that the conflicting religious influences that seem to tear our world apart can disappear and it is my logical basis for my strong conviction that all faiths are One.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 9:02:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

I'm sorry. That is in no way an answer to my question, and is naught but a tautology. If Jesus was raised from the dead by god, then of course what he said is true. Because that embodies what he said. My question is, how does the historicity of a man named Jesus, show that Christianity is in any way correct. How does the fact that a man named Jesus existed, show that he was super natural? How can historical evidence be evidence for such a claim?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 11:23:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:09:24 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 9:44:58 PM, natoast wrote:
At 3/2/2013 8:28:00 PM, Apeiron wrote:
At 3/2/2013 7:12:00 PM, muzebreak wrote:
To the two who claimed the historicity of Jesus is evidence for Christianity.

I am curious. How does the existence of a historical figure named Jesus, go towards proving that this character was supernatural, or that anything supernatural occurred because of, or around, him?

If he was raised from the dead by God, then his radical and particularist claims were vindicated. It would be a veritable divine revelation in a man, Christ. Major theological context that goes contrary to universalism.

Is there sound evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead?

I believe there is, see the work of Craig, McGrew, NT Wright, and Pannennberg on the matter.

And how do you know that historical claims from other religions, say, the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, are false?

Because Christian Particularism is true. Or at least more plausibly true. Recall that to assert A is to immediately deny ~A. And if A contradicts all ~A's, and if A is true, then all ~A's are false.

Christ implicitly and explicitly claimed A. He claimed to be the exclusive way to know God. If a girl claims to be exclusive with you, and you affirm this by marrying her thereby vindicating her claims, then all potential cheaters are just false loves now aren't they?

I'm not familiar with Christian Particularism. But it seems like your claiming that just because the resurrection of Jesus seems to be historically true then other religions must be historically false. That seems a little unreasonable, to assume it's false without looking for evidence.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2013 11:38:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/2/2013 10:56:39 PM, Apeiron wrote:

The rest of your lists of verses obviously is taken out of context or given a misinterpretation. Further it seems you're too emotionally compromised to discus this subject with me, I'd refer you to professional scholars but you've already expressed your distain for fine scholarship. Lord know why, perhaps you just get irritated whence proved wrong?