Your argument against "many paths to God"

[Foxfyre]

How would you persuade somebody who seeks God that Christianity is either the best way or the only way (without simply quoting from Christian sources that the other person doesn't yet accept)?

I suggest that people let God be God. And Jesus was God incarnate after all, so Christianity is God. Is God in anything else? I don't know. All I know is that Christianity was my path to God.

But in the end, it is only a personal relationship with the Christ, the God who was God incarnate on Earth, who is God. And I believe he loves every soul on Earth and does not will that any should perish. I know that without quoting a single passage of Scripture.

So. . .

I counsel people to open their heart and mind and ask God to make himself known to them. It is important to leave when and how that will happen strictly up to God. It might take five seconds. It might take years. I don't know. But I do know those who are open to God, who put no conditions on God, who put no requirements on how God must be God, will know God.

 

[Tolworth John]

Every religion is unique. It's kind of what differentiates it from other religions.... :-/

Yes the masonic rligion require a left trouser leg be rolled up and one use ritual language while also performing rituals. Most religions have there changes on this. But you are missing the point. All religions have a goal of getting to God.
Only Christianity says the worshipper does not do all the work of getting right with God, but that this is done by God for the worshipper.

You may not see this as a distinct differencebut it is, as an illistration.
If you want to meet the president, you have to jump through hoops, explaning why, getting security clearances etc, but if the president sends you an ivitation all you do is walk up to the door ad show your invite.

Which would you prefer?

 

[Tolworth John]

They all do. So they all require a closer look?

All religions claim they will get the worshipper to be with God.
Only Christianity says the worshipper cannot do enough to get to God, so Goddoes it for the worshipper.

This is so unique that it stands out from all other religions.
An illistration. Should you want to meet the president, you have to provide a reason to meet him, get security clearance, make an apointment etc etc, but if the president sends you an invite all you have to do is turn up.

 

[Tolworth John]

YHWH is high above the humanity - His Ways are not man's ways, nor are His Thoughts man's thoughts at all.

Any unique claims of the devil/ the world/ man's religion not from YHWH:
"There is a way that seems right to men, yet
it is the way of death."

vs
"Every good comes from YHWH"

so seek Him, His Kingdom, His Way, Truth, Life = JESUS!
Christ Crucified ! and raised from the dead never to die again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have you any idea what I have been saying in this thread?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

All religions claim they will get the worshipper to be with God.
Only Christianity says the worshipper cannot do enough to get to God, so Goddoes it for the worshipper.

Once again, uniqueness isn’t evidence that something is true. But if you really want to talk about whether Christianity is unique, let’s talk about the similarities it has with other religions, starting with the gods that predate Jesus that endured a passion, died, and then rose from the dead...

This is so unique that it stands out from all other religions.

Pick any religion and I’ll show you how it stands out from all other religions.

An illistration. Should you want to meet the president, you have to provide a reason to meet him, get security clearance, make an apointment etc etc, but if the president sends you an invite all you have to do is turn up.

How terrible. Seems much too informal. I’d much rather go through the hoops to meet the president.

Of course, you’d have to determine if the president actually exists before saying anything else...

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's funny, in an eternally sad way.....
sorry so many people in your life totally deceived you,
but realize that is commonplace on earth among humans - the whole system is deceptive,
and
few ever find and get on the narrow road to life. (you might have heard this before; well, this is why it is still true)

I heared it before. Only it was a muslim saying it.

 

[Tolworth John]

Once again, uniqueness isn’t evidence that something is true.

I'm not useing uniqueness as the only evidence of truth, but as an argument against the post, that there are many paths to God.

Evidence of the truth of Christianity is, as we've gone overbefore, found in the historical facts of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Here is a thought: As far as I know, Christianity is the only path that claims to be the only path.

False.

Furthermore, Christianity claims that people on other paths will suffer some horrible fate in hell.

Just like most other religions.

If a person was forced to choose between established religions, it would make sense to choose Christianity.

Why?

If Christianity's claims are false, and some other religion's claims are true, then you are still o.k. - you just weren't on the ideal path.

Ow, because of Pascal's Wager. lol.

Unfortunately, Christianity is also unique in the emphasis it places on belief. You might reason that Christianity is the best choice to minimize the risk of a wrong choice, but you might not be able to believe Christian claims. (Of course some versions of Christianity such as Orthodox do not care as much about belief - even though ironically Orthodox means "right belief" LOL.)

More of Pascal's Wager.

So, do you also have rational reasons, or are fear tactics really your only argument?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes the masonic rligion require a left trouser leg be rolled up and one use ritual language while also performing rituals. Most religions have there changes on this. But you are missing the point. All religions have a goal of getting to God.

Or gods.

And it's kind of silly to imply that these gods are all the same. Clearly they aren't.

Only Christianity says the worshipper does not do all the work of getting right with God, but that this is done by God for the worshipper.

And only the viking religion of the norse gods says that the only honorable death, is one on the battle field with a sword in your hand.

You may not see this as a distinct differencebut it is, as an illistration.

As I said, all religions are unique. It's what sets every religion apart from every other religion.
So you'll find unique claims, assertions, rules, etc in all religions.

If you want to meet the president, you have to jump through hoops, explaning why, getting security clearances etc, but if the president sends you an ivitation all you do is walk up to the door ad show your invite.

Which would you prefer?

The president is demonstrably real. That's one.
Two, what I would "prefer" has absolutely no impact on what is actually true.

Nore are my "preferences" a good rationale to build beliefs upon.
I might "prefer" to be healthy and not to have a cancer, but if I happen to have one, my "preferences" aren't going to make that tumor disappear.

 

[Freodin]

All religions claim they will get the worshipper to be with God.

I cannot see that. Most religions do no claim that at all... it is only from the perspective of a Christian who needs to point out that his religion does "better" what other religions do not try to achive.

Only Christianity says the worshipper cannot do enough to get to God, so Goddoes it for the worshipper.

And only Christianity says that even if God does everything for the worshipper, it is still not enough, right?

This is so unique that it stands out from all other religions.
An illistration. Should you want to meet the president, you have to provide a reason to meet him, get security clearance, make an apointment etc etc, but if the president sends you an invite all you have to do is turn up.

"All you have to do..."
I thought you cannot "do" enough to get to God, God does it for you?

So how about in your illustration, instead of "having to turn up", the president turns up?

You want to have it both ways, but you cannot. You cannot claim that the unique point of your religion is that God does everything, and then blame the human for not doing anything.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evidence of the truth of Christianity is, as we've gone overbefore, found in the historical facts of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection.

Which "historical facts" support the assertion that Jesus was anything other then a human being who got crucified by the Romans?

 

[Tolworth John]

Which "historical facts" support the assertion that Jesus was anything other then a human being who got crucified by the Romans?

Please do your research befor making statements like this.
Historians acceptJesus lived, he died and that his tomb was found to be empty.
What happen to the body? Lee Strobel investigated this very carefully his results can be found in the book/dvd the case for Christ.
There is only one reasonable explanation, that he came to life again.

 

[Tolworth John]

And only Christianity says that even if God does everything for the worshipper, it is still not enough, right?

Wrong. If God has resolved the issue then it is resolved.
All the Christian has to do is love God.

 

[Freodin]

Wrong. If God has resolved the issue then it is resolved.
All the Christian has to do is love God.

"All the Christian has to do..."
"...the worshipper cannot do enough to get to God, so Goddoes it for the worshipper."

If you really cannot see the contradiction, I cannot help you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Please do your research befor making statements like this.

I did.

Historians acceptJesus lived, he died and that his tomb was found to be empty.
What happen to the body?

For starters, it is impossible to prove that whatever tomb you are talking about, was actually the tomb of jesus. At best, one can say that it is consistent with the story. But thousands of such tombs, consistent with the story, have been found.

Wealthy jews in those days always burried their dead in such tombs carved out of rock. And we found MANY of them. It is no surprise that the story describes such a tomb, as it was simply the common way of burrying jews back then.

And a lot of such found tombs were empty, by the way.

A tomb being empty is only evidence for the tomb being empty. And the most rational explanations of a tomb being empty are:
- it was raided
- it was never used

Not: all the laws of nature were ignored and the biologically impossible happened

Lee Strobel investigated this very carefully his results can be found in the book/dvd the case for Christ. There is only one reasonable explanation, that he came to life again.

The laws of nature being suspended, never is the "reasonable explanation", unless you can actually demonstrate that
- such a thing is even possible
- that it actually happened.

If all you got is "well, the tomb is empty!"... then you ain't go much.
Plenty of ancient tombs are empty. So many, in fact, that people get extra excited when finding a tomb that isn't empty.

 

[Tolworth John]

"All the Christian has to do..."
"...the worshipper cannot do enough to get to God, so Goddoes it for the worshipper."

If you really cannot see the contradiction, I cannot help you.

What contradiction.
Let me put it another way.
A todler cannot tie his shoe laces, so Daddy ties them.

You or I cannot do enough good deeds to earn forgiveness from God, but God offers to forgiveness to those who will recieve it.

 

[Tolworth John]

The laws of nature being suspended, never is the "reasonable explanation", unless you can actually demonstrate that
- such a thing is even possible
- that it actually happened.

If all you got is "well, the tomb is empty!"... then you ain't go much.
Plenty of ancient tombs are empty. So many, in fact, that people get extra excited when finding a tomb that isn't empty.

As Sherlock Holmes used to say, when every reasonable explanation has been proved incorrect what ever remaining explanation there is has to be examined.

So as someone who has done the research what is your explanation for the empty tomb, the sudden willingness of the disciples to risk and to go to their deaths for a belief that Jesus was alive.

It is not enough to say it couldn't happen, something happened that resulted in turning the world upside down. If you discount it you have to provide an explanation of what happed.

 

[Freodin]

What contradiction.
Let me put it another way.
A todler cannot tie his shoe laces, so Daddy ties them.

And all the toddler has to "do" is wear the shoes, right?

You or I cannot do enough good deeds to earn forgiveness from God, but God offers to forgiveness to those who will recieve it.

But in case you haven't noticed, forgiveness does not work that way. It doesn't take any kind of participation of the forgiven party, just the forgiver.

If you need to "receive" it - whatever that is to mean in this context - you have to actively do something to show yourself "worthy". And, according to your previous statements, there is never anything enough that a human can do to be worthy.

So, put in another way: if I say you owe my 2000$, but I forgive you your debts... it doesn't matter what your position on that is. You can agree, you can be thankful, you can be haughty, you can even deny that you owe my anything... it doesn't matter. The result will always be that you don't have to pay me anything.

That is how it should work. And that would really be a unique approach in a religion. But it would also destroy the whole system of Christianity... so Christians can never accept that. It would destroy their claims to power.

 

[Freodin]

As Sherlock Holmes used to say, when every reasonable explanation has been proved incorrect what ever remaining explanation there is has to be examined.

So as someone who has done the research what is your explanation for the empty tomb, the sudden willingness of the disciples to risk and to go to their deaths for a belief that Jesus was alive.

It is not enough to say it couldn't happen, something happened that resulted in turning the world upside down. If you discount it you have to provide an explanation of what happed.

I know that it is really difficult for a believer to accept that, but if you were to carefully consider the explanations given in the apologetic works, you will notice that it always comes down to some kind of "this wouldn't work, they would never do that".

So "every reasonable explanation" has NOT been proven incorrect... they have just been discarded out of incredulity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As Sherlock Holmes used to say, when every reasonable explanation has been proved incorrect what ever remaining explanation there is has to be examined.

How was it proved that:
- the tomb in question was actually the tomb of jesus
- the tomb wasn't raided at some point the past 2000 years

Occam's Razor says that the explanation that requires the least assumptions, is the most reasonable one. Tombs are raided all the time, but people never come back from the dead.

That the tomb was raided is an extremely reasonable assumption - most ancient tombs are in fact raided. To assume on the other hand, that this human was actually a god in the flesh who resurected himself after being dead for 3 days...well... I shouldn't have to explain how that is an unreasonable assumption.

So as someone who has done the research what is your explanation for the empty tomb

I alread told you in the post you are replying to.
1. it's not a fact that this is jesus' tomb; it's not proven
2. assuming it is, plenty of ancient tombs are empty
3. it is a fact that plenty of tombs throughout history were raided
4. ...

There's a whole range of reasonable explanations for empty tombs, with loads of precedents. There is zero reason and zero precedents for biologically impossible events taking place.

, the sudden willingness of the disciples to risk and to go to their deaths for a belief that Jesus was alive.

Faith is a powerfull thing in the mind of the believer.
Early christians happily facing their imminent deaths for their beliefs are no different from jihadists blowing themselves up, in that respect.

Every religion has its martyrs. Every ideology even, it doesn't even need to be religious.
Every single soldier of every single army, proudly risks his/her life out of pure patriotism.
Japanese pilots in WW2 happily went on kamikaze suicide missions.

Why would the case of early christian martyrs be any different? Why would it require a "special" explanation?

It is not enough to say it couldn't happen, something happened that resulted in turning the world upside down.

And that thing was that a new religion was born. We see the same thing happen everywhere when new religions see the light of day and spread through the masses.

If you discount it you have to provide an explanation of what happed.

No, I don't actually. I don't have a burden of proof when simply rejecting claims that fail to meet their burden of proof.

The evidence/reasoning you provide for your claims is simply extremely insufficient to accept those claims.

I pointed out a few problems with it, but you seem to simply ignore it.