Total Posts:301|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why any Particular Faith?

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 1:59:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

...and:

1. Why should we take 'fulfilled' prophecies and discount failed prophecies?
2. Were these 'fulfilled' prophecies clear and specific? (would they have been understood before fulfillment?)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:01:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

Human interpretation after the fact can account for your 'fulfilled' prophecies.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:27:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.

Except that there is no evidence that what was written in the gospels was reliable as words from Jesus (if Jesus even existed) and that Mark, the first Gospel written, is dated to being written after 70CE.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:31:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because they can't all be true, the contradict each other. Some believe Christ is the son of God, some believe he is the same as God, some believe that God is everything and nothing, etc. For one concept of God to be right means that someone else is wrong, and if someone is wrong then not everyone is right. Therefore, religious plurality is contradictory by nature and impossible. So no.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:33:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:31:34 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because they can't all be true, the contradict each other. Some believe Christ is the son of God, some believe he is the same as God, some believe that God is everything and nothing, etc. For one concept of God to be right means that someone else is wrong, and if someone is wrong then not everyone is right. Therefore, religious plurality is contradictory by nature and impossible. So no.

I think you're misunderstanding what pluralism is arguing. It isn't arguing that all religions are literally true. It is arguing that all religions (or, at least most religions) contain elements of truth that reveal a greater, unifying divinity.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:43:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

If someone keeps his cow as god, would you do also so, if you would see that cow? I wouldn"t. Only one that I am willing to keep as my God is the Bible God. And that is mainly because of the Bible, which in my opinion is something that people could not have managed to do without God. Bible tells the truth about people and in my opinion that is one of the greatest things in the Bible and one of the greatest reasons why I believe it is done with help of God.

In my opinion it is totally irrelevant if other so called god"s exists, because I wouldn"t keep them as my God anyway. They have not managed to cause anything like the Bible and therefore I think they are not really worthy of being called God.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:45:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:43:26 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

If someone keeps his cow as god, would you do also so, if you would see that cow? I wouldn"t. Only one that I am willing to keep as my God is the Bible God. And that is mainly because of the Bible, which in my opinion is something that people could not have managed to do without God. Bible tells the truth about people and in my opinion that is one of the greatest things in the Bible and one of the greatest reasons why I believe it is done with help of God.

In my opinion it is totally irrelevant if other so called god"s exists, because I wouldn"t keep them as my God anyway. They have not managed to cause anything like the Bible and therefore I think they are not really worthy of being called God.

Have you read the Quran? What about the Torah (which is basically the Bible minus some parts)? Have you read any of the Hindus' or Sikhs' religious texts?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:45:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:01:45 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

Human interpretation after the fact can account for your 'fulfilled' prophecies.

Possibly. But it doesn't take a whiz to read:

"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

... and reach the "human interpretation", whether before the fact or after, that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the temple.

And again, after this statement and many others concerning the preceding signs,

"This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished."

My "human interpretation" would be that the generation of men to whom Jesus was then speaking would not all die off before the prediction was fulfilled.

I have another "human interpretation" that the temple and city were destroyed in AD 70. Of course, I interpret it "after the fact" - as a part of history, well-documented.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:48:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:27:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.

Except that there is no evidence that what was written in the gospels was reliable as words from Jesus (if Jesus even existed) and that Mark, the first Gospel written, is dated to being written after 70CE.

If you concede that Mark was the first gospel account written (which I do not, by the way), then you must be conceding that it was written before the gospel of Luke. But the gospel of Luke predates the Acts. And Acts is a running historical narrative which abruptly ends at AD 62/63. I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 2:58:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
bsh1, you might find these blog posts interesting. I don't have the time right now, but I'm come back later.

"Start with Christianity because it works"
http://randalrauser.com...

The other day a tentative theist asked me what I might say in favor of Christianity. Needless to say, that"s a huge topic.

Let"s start with this. Once you are persuaded that God does exist (or that God is at least a live option) the next question to consider is whether God might have spoken.

I think God has spoken in many ways. He speaks, for example, through the moral law written on the heart. He speaks through transcendent aesthetic beauty and in the love, friendship and other relational goods that we find in our midst. He speaks through cosmic design and order. He speaks through the inexplicable mathematical structure of reality that has led more than one great mind to exclaim, "O God, I am thinking thy thoughts after thee."

But does God speak specifically, in a particular revelation? It seems that a question like this is not going to be settled a priori. Instead, we ought to take a look and see. Presumably, the place to begin is in the realm of religion. But which religion?

I would think the place to start in answering this question is with the most widely adhered to religion. The simple reason is that all things being equal, the most widely accepted thesis or theory or movement in any particular competitive field is more likely to be correct (or accurate or reliable) than the minority opinions.

Certainly this is the case in the realm of punditry (i.e. of experts) If you want to figure out whether global warming is human induced, or whether an economic stimulus is required to revitalize the economy, or whether you ought to get the flu shot this year, the best place to start is by surveying the relevant group of pundits in the area. All things being equal, in their respective fields the majority of climatologists or economists or doctors are more likely to be right (or more right) than are the minority groups.

That may be true of punditry. But does it still apply when we"re talking about the hoi polloi, i.e. the average people the world over?

Ahh, now that"s an interesting question. When you want the goods on climatology, you should stick with the climatologists. But do pundits (in this case theologians, philosophers of religion, and other scholars of religion) provide the only relevant input when considering the viability of various religious belief systems?

The short answer is, no. At the same time, let me add immediately that we certainly ought to pay heed to what the scholars say. If scholars can provide evidence for and/or against a particular religion then we ought to consider that evidence carefully. However, absent defeaters against (or evidence for) a particular religion, we ought to pay attention to the hoi polloi for a very specific reason: religion is also judged " critically judged " by its ability to speak to the masses. Put it this way: if God has spoken to the world, he has presumably spoken in a way that will be found meaningful and helpful for the general population. (As with all else this statement is subject to a ceteris paribus clause.)

Consider an analogy. How do we judge the worth of a car? We might judge it by the opinions of automotive journalists testing it on a closed circuit, and that could certainly provide some relevant information. However, the real test comes in the real world as average people consider the car in day to day life. If average people find the car ugly, impractical, unreliable, or otherwise unappealing, then it matters little what the journalists conclude, for cars live not on the closed circuit: they live in the real world.

So it is with religion. It is judged not merely by scholars on a closed circuit. It must also be judged " and ultimately is judged " in the real world of lived experience. And on that criterion, Christianity has been an overwhelming success. Over the last two millennia it has adapted to countless circumstances with its story of creation, fall, and redemption, transforming the world in the process, such that even now it claims a third of the world"s population (at least nominally) including a dizzying cross-section of humanity from great scientists in Europe to millionaire business people in China to sheep herders in the Caucasus to hunters in the tropical rainforest.

Were God to speak, all things being equal we would expect to find that his words have found purchase in the world, that they spoke to humanity not merely on the closed circuit but also on the open road.

And that provides an excellent reason to begin with Chrsitianity.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:00:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

If you are looking for a scientific answer, there isn't one. We don't know which religion is correct in the sense that we know what the force of gravity is on Earth, or that we know certain mathematical theorems are correct. In other words, you cannot scientifically prove any religion is correct. That is why believers have faith. Faith in a religious context is the belief that your religion's teachings are correct, even though you cannot conclusively prove them to be true. It's like the story of doubting Thomas. He could not bring himself to believe in Christ's resurrection until he received visual proof, so his faith was weak. One whose faith is strong doesn't need that proof.

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

First of all, the Christian God is the same as the Muslim God, they just call him by a different name. Jewish Yahweh, Christian the Lord, Muslim Allah, are different names for the same God. But to answer your question, it's because of faith. A Christian has faith that his God is the one true God. A Hindu has faith that the gods he worships are real. If you have faith that all gods are real, then you would embrace religious pluralism. If you have faith that no gods are real, then you wouldn't believe any faith is real at all. It all boils down to what you believe. But there isn't any mathematical or scientific basis to believe or disbelieve any of these things.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:04:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:48:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:27:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.

Except that there is no evidence that what was written in the gospels was reliable as words from Jesus (if Jesus even existed) and that Mark, the first Gospel written, is dated to being written after 70CE.

If you concede that Mark was the first gospel account written (which I do not, by the way), then you must be conceding that it was written before the gospel of Luke. But the gospel of Luke predates the Acts. And Acts is a running historical narrative which abruptly ends at AD 62/63. I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's.

Except that Luke is dated between 80-100CE and Acts is dated to 80-90CE, so... You are wrong.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:08:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm not so sure that religious pluralism is incorrect, even though I identify with a specific religious tradition. I'm inclined to think (and hope) that it's like the parable of the three blind men and the elephant. One felt it and found a flexible trunk, one felt a sturdy pillar like leg, and the other felt a thin tail. These things, to a person given only that information, seem contradictory but to someone with a full picture of the situation, they aren't.

The video I linked is really good, but kind of long. The point coming off it I'd like to mention is that he says that the purpose of religions are to make man more aware of God, not the other way around. Whatever religion makes you feel closest to God is the one that calls to you..and if they're all false, well, we'll never know the difference after we die and if finding God in some way helps someone live a more fulfilling life, I say go for it.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:10:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

I agree entirely, I believe in and love god. I do not worship any man, or follow any religion. God does not have a chosen religion.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:12:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:04:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:48:51 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:27:25 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.

Except that there is no evidence that what was written in the gospels was reliable as words from Jesus (if Jesus even existed) and that Mark, the first Gospel written, is dated to being written after 70CE.

If you concede that Mark was the first gospel account written (which I do not, by the way), then you must be conceding that it was written before the gospel of Luke. But the gospel of Luke predates the Acts. And Acts is a running historical narrative which abruptly ends at AD 62/63. I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's.

Except that Luke is dated between 80-100CE and Acts is dated to 80-90CE, so... You are wrong.

That hardly counts as "pretty weighty evidence" concerning the statement, "I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's."

The Book of Acts closes in AD 62. It is obviously a historical narrative. Repeat: there is no decent evidence that it was written after that date. I do concede, however, that there is a whopping desire to do so.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.

I believe scientifically and historically the oldest know copy of any new testament scripture is 100 AD so the prophecy you quote is not a good example.
http://www.dts.edu...
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:20:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:31:34 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because they can't all be true, the contradict each other. Some believe Christ is the son of God, some believe he is the same as God, some believe that God is everything and nothing, etc. For one concept of God to be right means that someone else is wrong, and if someone is wrong then not everyone is right. Therefore, religious plurality is contradictory by nature and impossible. So no.

So you are saying an all powerful god cannot be God, Gods Son, everything and nothing all at the same time? Why not? The way i see it each religion is looking at God from a different perspective. Each perspective yielding only part of the truth. The whole truth being reveled when you study all religions and sciences.
drpiek
Posts: 589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:22:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:43:26 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

If someone keeps his cow as god, would you do also so, if you would see that cow? I wouldn"t. Only one that I am willing to keep as my God is the Bible God. And that is mainly because of the Bible, which in my opinion is something that people could not have managed to do without God. Bible tells the truth about people and in my opinion that is one of the greatest things in the Bible and one of the greatest reasons why I believe it is done with help of God.

In my opinion it is totally irrelevant if other so called god"s exists, because I wouldn"t keep them as my God anyway. They have not managed to cause anything like the Bible and therefore I think they are not really worthy of being called God.

Actually there are many texts like the bible, some older, some newer.
Give this a watch. https://www.youtube.com...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:25:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 2:45:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:01:45 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

Human interpretation after the fact can account for your 'fulfilled' prophecies.

Possibly. But it doesn't take a whiz to read:

"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

... and reach the "human interpretation", whether before the fact or after, that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the temple.

And again, after this statement and many others concerning the preceding signs,

"This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished."

My "human interpretation" would be that the generation of men to whom Jesus was then speaking would not all die off before the prediction was fulfilled.

I have another "human interpretation" that the temple and city were destroyed in AD 70. Of course, I interpret it "after the fact" - as a part of history, well-documented.

...and how do you interpret this (which is also part of the Olivet discourse)?

--15 "Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

--29 "But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Do you interpret this literally as you do for the destruction of the temple?

At any rate, prophecy is not a very good way to confirm the Christian god is the valid god since it relies on completely subjective interpretation.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:25:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:15:24 PM, drpiek wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:56:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:51:28 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

What prophicies?

Well, many of them, but the prophesies of Christ concerning the fall of the temple and destruction of Jerusalem in Matt 24, Mark 13, etc would be an example of them. Presumably these prophesies were issued in AD 30-33, recorded by the NT writers in AD 50-60, and the city fell in AD 68-70. That would be one example.

I believe scientifically and historically the oldest know copy of any new testament scripture is 100 AD so the prophecy you quote is not a good example.
http://www.dts.edu...

Do you mean to sit there and tell us that "the oldest known copy" of a particular work is your method of dating the work? That's ridiculous.

"There are no surviving extant manuscripts of Josephus' works that can be dated before the 11th century". Thus by your standard, we can't date the writings of Josephus prior to the year 1,000 AD! Your objection will not hold up on ANY ancient writing.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:27:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:25:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:45:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:01:45 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

Human interpretation after the fact can account for your 'fulfilled' prophecies.

Possibly. But it doesn't take a whiz to read:

"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

... and reach the "human interpretation", whether before the fact or after, that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the temple.

And again, after this statement and many others concerning the preceding signs,

"This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished."

My "human interpretation" would be that the generation of men to whom Jesus was then speaking would not all die off before the prediction was fulfilled.

I have another "human interpretation" that the temple and city were destroyed in AD 70. Of course, I interpret it "after the fact" - as a part of history, well-documented.

...and how do you interpret this (which is also part of the Olivet discourse)?

First you tell us how you interpret the passages cited? I fail to see how you can interpret them any differently that I have. Once you've done that, we can be pretty sure that everything in-between refers to the same time frame.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:27:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:12:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:04:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Except that Luke is dated between 80-100CE and Acts is dated to 80-90CE, so... You are wrong.

That hardly counts as "pretty weighty evidence" concerning the statement, "I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's."

The Book of Acts closes in AD 62. It is obviously a historical narrative. Repeat: there is no decent evidence that it was written after that date. I do concede, however, that there is a whopping desire to do so.

Acts lacks analogies in Hellenistic literature (which would be unexpected if it was a history). The model for his writing is similar to Josephus and Dionysius (he could have copied his writing model from them). What it says about the church contradicts with Paul's writings (which we know came from to 50's), there are some contradictions with Paul about certain aspects of the religion itself. The author of Luke never claims to have been an eye-witness to the events, and probably wasn't one. The writing style also is more similar to the style that developed after the fall of the temple in 70CE then the style from before the fall of the temple.

With all the above, the most likely dating is a later dating.

The only reason people try and date Luke-Acts at an early date anymore is because it would allow for the gospels to have a higher chance of also being an early date. An early date is hardly ever proposed by secular scholars.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:30:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:27:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:12:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:04:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Except that Luke is dated between 80-100CE and Acts is dated to 80-90CE, so... You are wrong.

That hardly counts as "pretty weighty evidence" concerning the statement, "I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's."

The Book of Acts closes in AD 62. It is obviously a historical narrative. Repeat: there is no decent evidence that it was written after that date. I do concede, however, that there is a whopping desire to do so.

Acts lacks analogies in Hellenistic literature (which would be unexpected if it was a history). The model for his writing is similar to Josephus and Dionysius (he could have copied his writing model from them). What it says about the church contradicts with Paul's writings (which we know came from to 50's), there are some contradictions with Paul about certain aspects of the religion itself. The author of Luke never claims to have been an eye-witness to the events, and probably wasn't one. The writing style also is more similar to the style that developed after the fall of the temple in 70CE then the style from before the fall of the temple.

With all the above, the most likely dating is a later dating.

Boy, you've somehow proved your point by not knowing a thing about the book. Tell me, have you even read the book in its entirety - or did you merely parrot what someone else had to say about it?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:33:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:27:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:25:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:45:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 2:01:45 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:49:55 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 1:47:47 PM, bsh1 wrote:
So, let's assume that a diety or deities exist. How do we know which religion correctly describes that deity, if any religion does at all?

Why is the Christian god any more valid or real than the Muslim god or the Hindu gods? Why not embrace religious pluralism? Why believe any faith is the true faith at all?

-----

I'd be interested to hear any responses to these questions. Please keep the discussion civil.

Because the Bible contains certain prophesies which came to pass over time, and were given so far in advance of the actual event that nothing other than divine intervention could account for it. That's one reason.

Human interpretation after the fact can account for your 'fulfilled' prophecies.

Possibly. But it doesn't take a whiz to read:

"And Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way; and his disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. But he answered and said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

... and reach the "human interpretation", whether before the fact or after, that Jesus is referring to the destruction of the temple.

And again, after this statement and many others concerning the preceding signs,

"This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished."

My "human interpretation" would be that the generation of men to whom Jesus was then speaking would not all die off before the prediction was fulfilled.

I have another "human interpretation" that the temple and city were destroyed in AD 70. Of course, I interpret it "after the fact" - as a part of history, well-documented.

...and how do you interpret this (which is also part of the Olivet discourse)?

First you tell us how you interpret the passages cited? I fail to see how you can interpret them any differently that I have. Once you've done that, we can be pretty sure that everything in-between refers to the same time frame.

I interpret the temple will be destroyed, the abomination of desolation will be standing in the temple, and Jesus will return in glory all within the same time period. You can argue the destruction of the temple in 70AD fulfills one of the three. Only by being inconsistent with your interpretation method can you claim more.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:33:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:30:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:27:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:12:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:04:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Except that Luke is dated between 80-100CE and Acts is dated to 80-90CE, so... You are wrong.

That hardly counts as "pretty weighty evidence" concerning the statement, "I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's."

The Book of Acts closes in AD 62. It is obviously a historical narrative. Repeat: there is no decent evidence that it was written after that date. I do concede, however, that there is a whopping desire to do so.

Acts lacks analogies in Hellenistic literature (which would be unexpected if it was a history). The model for his writing is similar to Josephus and Dionysius (he could have copied his writing model from them). What it says about the church contradicts with Paul's writings (which we know came from to 50's), there are some contradictions with Paul about certain aspects of the religion itself. The author of Luke never claims to have been an eye-witness to the events, and probably wasn't one. The writing style also is more similar to the style that developed after the fall of the temple in 70CE then the style from before the fall of the temple.

With all the above, the most likely dating is a later dating.

Boy, you've somehow proved your point by not knowing a thing about the book. Tell me, have you even read the book in its entirety - or did you merely parrot what someone else had to say about it?

Oh, ad homs instead of actually addressing the points that are agreed upon by secular scholars. Good job. Btw, when you propose something contrary to the consensus (which you are by claiming the early dates), then YOU have the BoP.

Also, I have read the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. I was almost tempted to ignore your pathetic comments in this thread since you have shown previously in the religion forums that you lack the ability to address Christianity from an unbiased standpoint.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 3:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/11/2015 3:33:55 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:30:10 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:27:24 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:12:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 2/11/2015 3:04:06 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Except that Luke is dated between 80-100CE and Acts is dated to 80-90CE, so... You are wrong.

That hardly counts as "pretty weighty evidence" concerning the statement, "I know of no evidence at all for dating the book of Acts past that point. Thus, unless you can supply some pretty weighty evidence to the contrary, the Book of Mark dates at least into the AD 50's, and possibly the 40's."

The Book of Acts closes in AD 62. It is obviously a historical narrative. Repeat: there is no decent evidence that it was written after that date. I do concede, however, that there is a whopping desire to do so.

Acts lacks analogies in Hellenistic literature (which would be unexpected if it was a history). The model for his writing is similar to Josephus and Dionysius (he could have copied his writing model from them). What it says about the church contradicts with Paul's writings (which we know came from to 50's), there are some contradictions with Paul about certain aspects of the religion itself. The author of Luke never claims to have been an eye-witness to the events, and probably wasn't one. The writing style also is more similar to the style that developed after the fall of the temple in 70CE then the style from before the fall of the temple.

With all the above, the most likely dating is a later dating.

Boy, you've somehow proved your point by not knowing a thing about the book. Tell me, have you even read the book in its entirety - or did you merely parrot what someone else had to say about it?

Oh, ad homs instead of actually addressing the points that are agreed upon by secular scholars. Good job. Btw, when you propose something contrary to the consensus (which you are by claiming the early dates), then YOU have the BoP.

"Secular scholars" are not the standard by which authorship/dating is determined.

Also, I have read the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. I was almost tempted to ignore your pathetic comments in this thread since you have shown previously in the religion forums that you lack the ability to address Christianity from an unbiased standpoint.

But your "secular scholars" who seek to offer ridiculous and often meaningless objections such as "lacks analogies in Hellenistic literature" are wont to give us an unbiased view.

So you've proven that you can cite biased scholars. So can I. So I guess we'll do a head count of biased scholars. I asked for YOUR evidence - and good, compelling evidence - and you cited "what so-and-so said about it." That's hardly evidence.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."