Problem: can we all be right?

[john mcmillan76]

Hi,
Buddhists pray for things and may or may not receive them. Muslims pray to Allah and Hindus pray to their many. many dieties and may receive what they pray for. Witches and Satanists do their spells and sometimes their spells work. New Age people ask their spirit-guides or angels for things and they may receive them. Hell even atheists may get what they want without praying lol. The problem is all of the many people who pray to their god (which isn't Jesus) are getting results from their prayers or spells.

Something's working for these non Christian people therefore is that proof that there is no Jesus answering our prayers? We can't all be right about the same God existing can we?

You can't go by success in life either. Many Hindus or Buddhists or Satanists or Witches or NEW Agers are successful people too.

 

[quatona]

Hi,
Buddhists pray for things and may or may not receive them. Muslims pray to Allah and Hindus pray to their many. many dieties and may receive what they pray for. Witches and Satanists do their spells and sometimes their spells work. New Age people ask their spirit-guides or angels for things and they may receive them. Hell even atheists may get what they want without praying lol. The problem is all of the many people who pray to their god (which isn't Jesus) are getting results from their prayers or spells.

Something's working for these non Christian people therefore is that proof that there is no Jesus answering our prayers? We can't all be right about the same God existing can we?

You can't go by success in life either. Many Hindus or Buddhists or Satanists or Witches or NEW Agers are successful people too.

It seems to me that you start out from a pragmatic approach ("it works for them"), but then you jump to considerations of truth ("can/can´t be right").

 

[OldWiseGuy]

People often pray for success in what they are attempting. This act often reveals the very attitude needed for success. When success comes, usually through the person's own efforts, credit is given to God(s). Prayer is often a ritual exercise in religiosity rather than a special appeal for help.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why is this surprising? God gives rain and sun to the just and the unjust. In the words of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, "God is not a Christian"

 

[Received]

Hi,
Buddhists pray for things and may or may not receive them. Muslims pray to Allah and Hindus pray to their many. many dieties and may receive what they pray for. Witches and Satanists do their spells and sometimes their spells work. New Age people ask their spirit-guides or angels for things and they may receive them. Hell even atheists may get what they want without praying lol. The problem is all of the many people who pray to their god (which isn't Jesus) are getting results from their prayers or spells.

Something's working for these non Christian people therefore is that proof that there is no Jesus answering our prayers? We can't all be right about the same God existing can we?

You can't go by success in life either. Many Hindus or Buddhists or Satanists or Witches or NEW Agers are successful people too.

This doesn't mean that there is no Jesus, but that Jesus is not as our fundamentalists would have us believe. Jesus (and anyone or anything in the cosmos) is not identifiable with any names or concepts we associate with them. So "believe in Jesus" does *not* mean "have certain ideas about him," which will result in an exclusive set of rights to have your prayer answered and your soul taken to heaven. Cf. Buber's fascinating statement: "The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God."

"Jesus" is the logos (see John 1), the Word that was made flesh only for thirty-three years, outside of which he's doing things like, I don't know, upholding the very cosmos (Colossians 1). This "Jesus" (Logos) is something we arguably all have the ability to relate to the moment we speak "God", or even deeper ask in a certain way for the universe, God, goodness, whatever it is beckoned for with good intentions. It's this "Jesus" that other religions are relating to when they ask for things, according to a Christian inclusivistic (but not pluralist) perspective.

So what's the point of accepting Jesus as a real historical figure and even becoming a Christian? Well, that's like asking what's the point of truly naming something for what it is and getting to know this thing as it really is.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Hi,
Buddhists pray for things and may or may not receive them. Muslims pray to Allah and Hindus pray to their many. many dieties and may receive what they pray for. Witches and Satanists do their spells and sometimes their spells work. New Age people ask their spirit-guides or angels for things and they may receive them. Hell even atheists may get what they want without praying lol. The problem is all of the many people who pray to their god (which isn't Jesus) are getting results from their prayers or spells.

Something's working for these non Christian people therefore is that proof that there is no Jesus answering our prayers? We can't all be right about the same God existing can we?

You can't go by success in life either. Many Hindus or Buddhists or Satanists or Witches or NEW Agers are successful people too.

No. We cannot all be right. We can all be wrong, but we cannot all be right.

Why?

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.

The Gospels record Jesus as having been crucified under Pontius Pilate, a historical fact attested to outside of the bible.

The Quran denies this. Thus they both cannot be true. Either Christ actually did die by crucifixion or He did not.

Thus either the Quran is right and the bible is wrong. Or the bible is right and the Quran is wrong. The evidence in favor of the bible's account indicates that the Quran is simply false and therefore cannot be the Word of God as it claims.

Christians claim that Jesus is God incarnate. All other religions deny this. So Either Christians are right and everyone else is wrong, or everyone else is right and we are wrong. We cannot all be right by virtue of the law of noncontradiction.

There is good evidence in support of the claim that Jesus is God incarnate. Thus there is good reasons and evidence to maintain that all other religions are false.

 

[Feldon]

No. We cannot all be right. We can all be wrong, but we cannot all be right.

Why?

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.

The Gospels record Jesus as having been crucified under Pontius Pilate, a historical fact attested to outside of the bible.

The Quran denies this. Thus they both cannot be true. Either Christ actually did die by crucifixion or He did not.

Thus either the Quran is right and the bible is wrong. Or the bible is right and the Quran is wrong. The evidence in favor of the bible's account indicates that the Quran is simply false and therefore cannot be the Word of God as it claims.

Christians claim that Jesus is God incarnate. All other religions deny this. So Either Christians are right and everyone else is wrong, or everyone else is right and we are wrong. We cannot all be right by virtue of the law of noncontradiction.

There is good evidence in support of the claim that Jesus is God incarnate. Thus there is good reasons and evidence to maintain that all other religions are false.

Great response!

 

[bhsmte]

Hi,
Buddhists pray for things and may or may not receive them. Muslims pray to Allah and Hindus pray to their many. many dieties and may receive what they pray for. Witches and Satanists do their spells and sometimes their spells work. New Age people ask their spirit-guides or angels for things and they may receive them. Hell even atheists may get what they want without praying lol. The problem is all of the many people who pray to their god (which isn't Jesus) are getting results from their prayers or spells.

Something's working for these non Christian people therefore is that proof that there is no Jesus answering our prayers? We can't all be right about the same God existing can we?

You can't go by success in life either. Many Hindus or Buddhists or Satanists or Witches or NEW Agers are successful people too.

This reminds me of a very funny routine George Carlin performed on religion, which can be found on youtube.

He said, he was only getting about 50% of his prayers answered when praying to God, so he changed and started praying to Joe Pesci and he got the same results.

If you want a good laugh, look it up.

 

[bhsmte]

This doesn't mean that there is no Jesus, but that Jesus is not as our fundamentalists would have us believe. Jesus (and anyone or anything in the cosmos) is not identifiable with any names or concepts we associate with them. So "believe in Jesus" does *not* mean "have certain ideas about him," which will result in an exclusive set of rights to have your prayer answered and your soul taken to heaven. Cf. Buber's fascinating statement: "The atheist staring from his attic window is often nearer to God than the believer caught up in his own false image of God."

"Jesus" is the logos (see John 1), the Word that was made flesh only for thirty-three years, outside of which he's doing things like, I don't know, upholding the very cosmos (Colossians 1). This "Jesus" (Logos) is something we arguably all have the ability to relate to the moment we speak "God", or even deeper ask in a certain way for the universe, God, goodness, whatever it is beckoned for with good intentions. It's this "Jesus" that other religions are relating to when they ask for things, according to a Christian inclusivistic (but not pluralist) perspective.

So what's the point of accepting Jesus as a real historical figure and even becoming a Christian? Well, that's like asking what's the point of truly naming something for what it is and getting to know this thing as it really is.

The issue of Jesus being a real historical figure is not an issue for most. While the historians who argue he was not real, can and do make a compelling argument, I believe even most atheists likely agree Jesus was probably a real historical figure.

Now, when it comes to exactly what Jesus said and what he did, that is where the real questions come in.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The issue of Jesus being a real historical figure is not an issue for most. While the historians who argue he was not real, can and do make a compelling argument, I believe even most atheists likely agree Jesus was probably a real historical figure.

Now, when it comes to exactly what Jesus said and what he did, that is where the real questions come in.

That's basically how I feel. In my opinion, Jesus was a sort of traveling shaman, who happened to use better medical practices than most thanks to his Jewish background (at the time the Jews had some of the best medical practices), and the fact that his remedies worked made people think it was magic. It is possible Jesus also thought it magic. It wasn't uncommon however for such people to perform parlor tricks to keep their image of being miracle workers, hence the turning water into wine. Add in some exaggeration over time and Jesus is made out to be far more than he actually was.

 

[Feldon]

That's basically how I feel. In my opinion, Jesus was a sort of traveling shaman, who happened to use better medical practices than most thanks to his Jewish background (at the time the Jews had some of the best medical practices), and the fact that his remedies worked made people think it was magic. It is possible Jesus also thought it magic. It wasn't uncommon however for such people to perform parlor tricks to keep their image of being miracle workers, hence the turning water into wine. Add in some exaggeration over time and Jesus is made out to be far more than he actually was.

That doesn't seem to make much sense, because Jesus was mainly preaching & teaching other Jews, so the Jews wouldn't think their own customs were "magical" right???

 

[john mcmillan76]

There is good evidence in support of the claim that Jesus is God incarnate. .

There actually is absolutely no evidence for that. In fact, it's impossible to even have a sensible, rational debate on this issue. For a start you assume that God exists as a given without any kind of verifiable proof or evidence other than subjective feelings and hearsay (i.e. faith).

The idea that Jesus even existed I am not sure that his existence was accounted for in any official historical document other than the gospels (are they even official historical documents?)

Pontius Pilate's existence is apparently accounted for yes. Trying to go a step further and claiming that you have evidence that Jesus was "God" is even more far -fetched and nonsensical.

My pet dog existed. I remember him and I even took photos of him and I have living witnesses that knew him. Yes I have a good deal of evidence that my pet dog existed but, "Jesus"? No.

Maybe a guy called Jesus did exist at that time in that area and did preach and was crucified, ok but you cannot say that there is evidence that he was, "the one and only son of God/Logos"

 

[bhsmte]

No. We cannot all be right. We can all be wrong, but we cannot all be right.

Why?

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context.

The Gospels record Jesus as having been crucified under Pontius Pilate, a historical fact attested to outside of the bible.

The Quran denies this. Thus they both cannot be true. Either Christ actually did die by crucifixion or He did not.

Thus either the Quran is right and the bible is wrong. Or the bible is right and the Quran is wrong. The evidence in favor of the bible's account indicates that the Quran is simply false and therefore cannot be the Word of God as it claims.

Christians claim that Jesus is God incarnate. All other religions deny this. So Either Christians are right and everyone else is wrong, or everyone else is right and we are wrong. We cannot all be right by virtue of the law of noncontradiction.

There is good evidence in support of the claim that Jesus is God incarnate. Thus there is good reasons and evidence to maintain that all other religions are false.

If you believe what is written in the gospel of John and call that good evidence, then yes.

Problem is, Matthew, Mark and Luke never mention Jesus was God and how could those three gospels miss such a crucial point?

John is also the least credible of the gospels according to many historians and was written the latest and has issues with text being added etc., such as the women taken into adultery story, that is no where to be found in the oldest copies of John.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That doesn't seem to make much sense, because Jesus was mainly preaching & teaching other Jews, so the Jews wouldn't think their own customs were "magical" right???

Why not? But anyways, Jesus was viewed not just from a Jewish perspective, thus much of how Jesus was written about reflects other cultures.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

There actually is absolutely no evidence for that. In fact, it's impossible to even have a sensible, rational debate on this issue. For a start you assume that God exists as a given without any kind of verifiable proof or evidence other than subjective feelings and hearsay (i.e. faith).

The idea that Jesus even existed I am not sure that his existence was accounted for in any official historical document other than the gospels (are they even official historical documents?)

Pontius Pilate's existence is apparently accounted for yes. Trying to go a step further and claiming that you have evidence that Jesus was "God" is even more far -fetched and nonsensical.

My pet dog existed. I remember him and I even took photos of him and I have living witnesses that knew him. Yes I have a good deal of evidence that my pet dog existed but, "Jesus"? No.

Maybe a guy called Jesus did exist at that time in that area and did preach and was crucified, ok but you cannot say that there is evidence that he was, "the one and only son of God/Logos"

We can debate this if you like.

I find it ironic that you are a Catholic. Tell me, if there is no evidence for your worldview, why do you hold it?

 

[Feldon]

There actually is absolutely no evidence for that. In fact, it's impossible to even have a sensible, rational debate on this issue. For a start you assume that God exists as a given without any kind of verifiable proof or evidence other than subjective feelings and hearsay (i.e. faith).

The idea that Jesus even existed I am not sure that his existence was accounted for in any official historical document other than the gospels (are they even official historical documents?)

Pontius Pilate's existence is apparently accounted for yes. Trying to go a step further and claiming that you have evidence that Jesus was "God" is even more far -fetched and nonsensical.

My pet dog existed. I remember him and I even took photos of him and I have living witnesses that knew him. Yes I have a good deal of evidence that my pet dog existed but, "Jesus"? No.

Maybe a guy called Jesus did exist at that time in that area and did preach and was crucified, ok but you cannot say that there is evidence that he was, "the one and only son of God/Logos"

Now you are the one who is being guilty of extremism, I'm afraid. There IS some evidence:

1. The most famous book in the world, written by those who personally knew Jesus & by those who personally knew those who knew Jesus, says he was the Son of God.

2. There are multiple eye witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus after his crucifixion. If we accept the fact that Jesus truly lived, and if we accept the fact that he was crucified, then the fact that eye witnesses SAW HIM AFTER HE WAS RESURRECTED seems like it might be mildly important!

3. In very real, very documentable ways, the lives of those closest to Jesus were forever changed. SOMETHING led men like Peter to devote their lives to "just a man" in such an extreme way that he would be crucified upside down.

4. The success of Christianity. Billions of people have evaluated the evidence, and concluded Christ is Lord, and Christianity has become the preeminent & most successful religion in the world. If you believe that God loves us and wants us to succeed, and if Christianity is God's one true faith, then wouldn't you expect that Christian nations would be more successful than nonChristian nations?

5. People have felt Christ in their heart & been reborn -- millions of people! That's a LOT of witnesses to Christ's truth!

There's more than just this of course.........

Now this evidence might not be sufficient to convince YOU. But you're wrong, and kind of insulting, to say there is NO evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

Now you are the one who is being guilty of extremism, I'm afraid. There IS some evidence:

1. The most famous book in the world, written by those who personally knew Jesus & by those who personally knew those who knew Jesus, says he was the Son of God.

2. There are multiple eye witnesses who claim to have seen Jesus after his crucifixion. If we accept the fact that Jesus truly lived, and if we accept the fact that he was crucified, then the fact that eye witnesses SAW HIM AFTER HE WAS RESURRECTED seems like it might be mildly important!

3. In very real, very documentable ways, the lives of those closest to Jesus were forever changed. SOMETHING led men like Peter to devote their lives to "just a man" in such an extreme way that he would be crucified upside down.

4. The success of Christianity. Billions of people have evaluated the evidence, and concluded Christ is Lord, and Christianity has become the preeminent & most successful religion in the world. If you believe that God loves us and wants us to succeed, and if Christianity is God's one true faith, then wouldn't you expect that Christian nations would be more successful than nonChristian nations?

5. People have felt Christ in their heart & been reborn -- millions of people! That's a LOT of witnesses to Christ's truth!

There's more than just this of course.........

Now this evidence might not be sufficient to convince YOU. But you're wrong, and kind of insulting, to say there is NO evidence.

I have no problem with you personally using this as evidence, but it is not objective or verifiable, which means it must be taken on faith.

Relying on one source (the bible) to verify itself as true is dicey at best. Add in, the gospels were written by unknown authors decades after Jesus died and don't hold up well to objective historical critique, the problem worsens, from an objective standpoint.

And, people's personal experiences and perceptions can also not be verified and are simply not reliable.

Again, no problem with people who take this and say they believe it on faith though.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

If you believe what is written in the gospel of John and call that good evidence, then yes.

Problem is, Matthew, Mark and Luke never mention Jesus was God and how could those three gospels miss such a crucial point?

John is also the least credible of the gospels according to many historians and was written the latest and has issues with text being added etc., such as the women taken into adultery story, that is no where to be found in the oldest copies of John.

The point I made stands.

Either Christianity is true and every other worldview that makes claims that contradict Christianity's claims is false, or Christianity is false, or they are all false.

What is not possible is that they all be true, which was what the OP was asking. To support this I have utilized one of the three basic laws of logic.

Now whether or not the gospels record Christ as claiming or alluding to being God incarnate is something that is subject to verification or falsification and we can debate that issue if you would like.

We could also debate the issue of whether or not the gospels are reliable biographies of Jesus of Nazareth, something also open to investigation and scrutiny.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I agree, to many contradictions and specifics in religions for them all to be right. They could all get some of the details right perhaps, but not all of them.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

it is not objective or verifiable, which means it must be taken on faith.

what do you mean "objective" and "verifiable"? Do you have an example of what would constitute "objective evidence" or "verifiable evidence"?

What would you require in order to be persuaded that the gospels were reliable biographies of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and why would you require it?

Relying on one source (the bible) to verify itself as true is dicey at best.

When talking with skeptics, I do not rely on one source, but multiple and independent sources, most of which are extra-biblical and non-partisan.

Add in, the gospels were written by unknown authors decades after Jesus died and don't hold up well to objective historical critique, the problem worsens, from an objective standpoint.

Why do you say the authors were unknown? Why do you say they do not hold up well to historical critique?

And, people's personal experiences and perceptions can also not be verified and are simply not reliable.

This is false for eyewitness testimony today just as it was then is considered to be indispensable when attempting to reconstruct a reliable account of events that happened in the past that are not subject to investigation via the scientific method.