How tolerant are you of other religions?

[Aaron11]

But what is the relevance to asserting a "truth" that cannot be proven or verified objectively? This puts all such assertions on an equal level as they are all unproveable.

Just because you can not prove the assertions does not mean that they are on an equal level. Like I said before, one being true would put it on a different level. Also, there are reasons to believe things that aren't proven. Evidences of whatever worldview are used to determine beliefs on the unproven.

 

[Aaron11]

Got may, in fact, exist, but be totally different that anything you know or could have imagined. God may exists in such a way that all the worlds religions are accurate reflections of him, while non of them being more right or wrong as a result. (Remember, God is omnipotent.)

Impossible. There is a rule of logic called the law of non-contradiction. It goes something like this: "A" can not be "B" and "not B" at the same time and in the same sense. For example, the earth (A) can not exist (B) and not exist (not B), at the same time and in the same sense. This is applicable to this situation because you are breaking this rule by suggesting that all world-religions can be correct. Islam and Judaism clearly state that Jesus IS NOT the Messiah and Son of God. Christians believe that Jesus IS the Messiah and the Son of God. This shows that not all world religions can be right. This can be fit into the law of non-contradiction as follows. Jesus (A) can not be the Savior of the world (B) and not the Savior of the world (not B) at the same time and in the same sense. This means that either Islam and Judaism or Christianity has to be wrong about Christ. Therefore, not all world-religions can be right.

 

[Aaron11]

I think what you are reallly trying to say is "it is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong." You would have to get at least this specific about god in order for your statement of "this is true or not true" to have any meaning whatsoever. And even then, regardless of what the "real truth" may be, for all intense and purposes , it's just your opinion, precisely because it cannot be verified. What possible value can an unverifiable assertion of a fact haveit is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong?

Nope, that is not what I was saying. I was saying, either a supernatural supreme being exists, or a supernatural supreme being does not exist.

Your statement that, "it is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong," is also a valid statement. However, for simplicity, I would rather keep my statement as I stated.

You asked, " What possible value can an unverifiable assertion of a fact haveit is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong?" The value is in the statement that is true. Just because you can not prove God or not God doesn't mean that there isn't plenty to know about it that can give you a good idea of the truth.

 

[tcampen]

Nope, that is not what I was saying. I was saying, either a supernatural supreme being exists, or a supernatural supreme being does not exist.

Your statement that, "it is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong," is also a valid statement. However, for simplicity, I would rather keep my statement as I stated.

You asked, " What possible value can an unverifiable assertion of a fact haveit is either true or not true that God is consistent with my interpretation and belief of what he is, and anyone who differs with me is wrong?" The value is in the statement that is true. Just because you can not prove God or not God doesn't mean that there isn't plenty to know about it that can give you a good idea of the truth.

And that is precisely what the world's various religions do. Yet the statement "I was saying, either a supernatural supreme being exists, or a supernatural supreme being does not exist" still presents a false dichotemy. For example, if it is reasonable to hold that a supernatural supreme being exists, there is absolutely no reason why multiple such beings could not exists. In fact, that it becomes more probable than just one existing. The only thing that provides insight into the nature of such a being or beings, if they exists at all, is religious faith. That's it. And in such matters, your guess is as good as anyother.

Even if it could be shown that the events in the NT, for example, were recorded without any material error, and were therefore accurate, that still does not prove anything beyond those events. The source or cause behind it could just as probably be extremely advanced beings from another planet, a group of gods with one being the elected leader for a 4 billion year term, or anything else. There are no rules when dealing with the supernatural other than those created by religious faith. Thus, anything goes.

 

[tcampen]

Impossible. There is a rule of logic called the law of non-contradiction. It goes something like this: "A" can not be "B" and "not B" at the same time and in the same sense. For example, the earth (A) can not exist (B) and not exist (not B), at the same time and in the same sense. This is applicable to this situation because you are breaking this rule by suggesting that all world-religions can be correct. Islam and Judaism clearly state that Jesus IS NOT the Messiah and Son of God. Christians believe that Jesus IS the Messiah and the Son of God. This shows that not all world religions can be right. This can be fit into the law of non-contradiction as follows. Jesus (A) can not be the Savior of the world (B) and not the Savior of the world (not B) at the same time and in the same sense. This means that either Islam and Judaism or Christianity has to be wrong about Christ. Therefore, not all world-religions can be right.

In fact, all can be wrong. Or different aspects of Christianity and Islam could be both correct. It is impossible to reduce Christianity to a simple value like "A" without incredibly specific definitions of what it is. In America alone, there are more than 1,200 christian denominations and countless independent churches, each with there own individual take on what Christianity is. Sometimes these differences are trivial, and other times they are material. Do you consider Mormons christian? Or Jehova's Witnesses? Or Santeria? Or Catholicism? Or Anglicans that accept a Gay Bishop? Or churches that allow female ministers? You'll get a lot of disagreement on these issues among Christians in these forums alone.

Until you define your terms adequately, the assertion remains meaningless.

Furthermore, this very view negates the whole premise asserted by countless christians in these forums that God is omnipotent, and can do infinite number of things our finite minds cannot comprehend.

Trust me, I have no problem regulating God to logic, but if you're going to do that, you have to stick to it. Period. There's no "god can do things we cannot understand" arguments anymore.

Are you really up for that? Ready to apply logic to the concept of the Trinity, or omniscience vs. freewill, or a number of other issues? If so, great, lets get to it.

 

[Aaron11]

And that is precisely what the world's various religions do. Yet the statement "I was saying, either a supernatural supreme being exists, or a supernatural supreme being does not exist" still presents a false dichotemy. For example, if it is reasonable to hold that a supernatural supreme being exists, there is absolutely no reason why multiple such beings could not exists. In fact, that it becomes more probable than just one existing.

OK, let me make it simpler for you so you can understand this time. If I say there is a supreme supernatural being and Joe Schmoe says there is not, then one of us is right and one of us is wrong in that statement. I didn't say that one has to be right in every belief they have ever had. I said that IN THE STATEMENT, one has to be right and one has to be wrong. If there are multiple gods, I would be right that there is a supreme supernatural being.

 

[Aaron11]

In fact, all can be wrong. Or different aspects of Christianity and Islam could be both correct. It is impossible to reduce Christianity to a simple value like "A" without incredibly specific definitions of what it is.

Listen. I am not talking about Christianity as a whole. I am talking about a specific issue. For instance, is there supernatural? That is an individual issue. It is getting tiring trying to explain this to you over and over again.

 

[Aaron11]

Until you define your terms adequately, the assertion remains meaningless.

Define what terms?

 

[Aaron11]

Furthermore, this very view negates the whole premise asserted by countless christians in these forums that God is omnipotent, and can do infinite number of things our finite minds cannot comprehend.

Trust me, I have no problem regulating God to logic, but if you're going to do that, you have to stick to it. Period. There's no "god can do things we cannot understand" arguments anymore.

I don't remember asserting that argument. I believe Him to be logical. I don't claim to understand Him perfectly, but I don't just accept rediculous arguments because God is "omnipotent". I believe God to be almighty in a certain sense, but some people take it way too far.

 

[Aaron11]

Are you really up for that? Ready to apply logic to the concept of the Trinity, or omniscience vs. freewill, or a number of other issues? If so, great, lets get to it.

Definetly. Start a thread on it and I will be more than happy to talk to you about it. Right now we are talking about relativism vs. absolute truth. If you really think you have any kind of argument that there is not absolute truth, we can continue this conversation. Keep on topic on this thread.

 

[tcampen]

Definetly. Start a thread on it and I will be more than happy to talk to you about it. Right now we are talking about relativism vs. absolute truth. If you really think you have any kind of argument that there is not absolute truth, we can continue this conversation. Keep on topic on this thread.

Sure. Show me evidence of an absolute truth that is based on objective criteria. Truth is true for its own sake, and is not dependent on any religion, culture, gender, age, or nationality. If the sky is blue, like it is outside my window right now, then that is true, and all reasonable people, regardless of their religion, culture, gender, age, or nationality would agree.

Objective, physical, experiential truths exist like this. Many scientific-based truths are very similar to this, but generally rely on the knowledge and expertise of those with specialist knowledge. That the earth is the shape of a sphere is such an example. Some truths are so widely accepted, that they approach absolute truth such that the two are indistinguishable.

But with regard to personal, subjective matters - which includes faith in supernatural entities - the concept of "absolute truth" is inapplicable in the broad, objective sense that "the sky is blue" is, or the "the Earth is round." These areas of so-called "truth" are qualitatively different. Nothing supernatural can be objectively experienced by its very character. Experiences can be very similar, don't get me wrong.

For example, all reasonable people of average intellegence in America or England would recognize the truth that the earth is the shape of a sphere. Only a whacked out luny dude would sincerely believe otherwise. But if you asked all christians in these nations how salvation is attained, you will find the answers vary greatly. Most christians in America believe works plays a significant role in salvation (see the Barnas Group research), some see salvation as predetermine by God since before creation and 100% his doing, while others believe it is up to the free will of the individual to accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Still others hold a combination of this belief. Then, before you know it, these various groups are points fingers as eachother, claiming all other ro be wrong - even not true Christians.

So how could such an "absolute truth" so fundamental to a religious belief system have so many different "truths"? Who is right? Why is this occuring at all? I realize there are theological excuses for this phenomena, but I view it as direct evidence that either their is no absolute truth regarding such matters, or such an absolute truth cannot be objectively established - so what's the point?

Tag. You're it.

 

[radorth]

Re: tcampen

So how could such an "absolute truth" so fundamental to a religious belief system have so many different "truths"? Who is right? Why is this occuring at all? I realize there are theological excuses for this phenomena, but I view it as direct evidence that either their is no absolute truth regarding such matters, or such an absolute truth cannot be objectively established - so what's the point?

Tcampen, I doubt one single Christian here would disagree with any part of the Nicene Creed, which has plenty of tests. If 90% of us say we agree with it, then we know that Christians are not that far apart in their beliefs, much as they argue about works vs faith and whether salvation is revocable. (Actually the things we argue about God has deliberately left vague, for to do otherwise would bring havoc. But that's a whole 'nother thread I must do when I get time)

Although we cannot be absolutely sure of a person's motives, the NT gives us many tests of the Christian and manifestaions and gifts of the Spirit, by which we can know that we are Christians, and know that we know God.

"He that believes in me, as the scripture says, will have rivers of living water flowing out of his innermost being."

When it happens, you KNOW it.

I once woke up in the middle of the night speaking in tongues spontaneously, as did my friend, and the whole room was filled with light. There is nothing subjective about that. You can't measure it with a ruler, but you KNOW it happened. No it didn't make me a perfect Christian, but it gave me as much faith in the reality of God as in this computer.

But tell us, what would it take for you to KNOW God was real? How would a direct physical manifestation change your life and your will? I contend God could manifest himself to us as he did to the people of Israel and we would still rebel against him. It's not about proof. It's about the human will.

Rad

 

[Aaron11]

Sure. Show me evidence of an absolute truth that is based on objective criteria. Truth is true for its own sake, and is not dependent on any religion, culture, gender, age, or nationality. If the sky is blue, like it is outside my window right now, then that is true, and all reasonable people, regardless of their religion, culture, gender, age, or nationality would agree.

Objective, physical, experiential truths exist like this. Many scientific-based truths are very similar to this, but generally rely on the knowledge and expertise of those with specialist knowledge. That the earth is the shape of a sphere is such an example. Some truths are so widely accepted, that they approach absolute truth such that the two are indistinguishable.

But with regard to personal, subjective matters - which includes faith in supernatural entities - the concept of "absolute truth" is inapplicable in the broad, objective sense that "the sky is blue" is, or the "the Earth is round." These areas of so-called "truth" are qualitatively different. Nothing supernatural can be objectively experienced by its very character. Experiences can be very similar, don't get me wrong.

For example, all reasonable people of average intellegence in America or England would recognize the truth that the earth is the shape of a sphere. Only a whacked out luny dude would sincerely believe otherwise. But if you asked all christians in these nations how salvation is attained, you will find the answers vary greatly. Most christians in America believe works plays a significant role in salvation (see the Barnas Group research), some see salvation as predetermine by God since before creation and 100% his doing, while others believe it is up to the free will of the individual to accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Still others hold a combination of this belief. Then, before you know it, these various groups are points fingers as eachother, claiming all other ro be wrong - even not true Christians.

So how could such an "absolute truth" so fundamental to a religious belief system have so many different "truths"? Who is right? Why is this occuring at all? I realize there are theological excuses for this phenomena, but I view it as direct evidence that either their is no absolute truth regarding such matters, or such an absolute truth cannot be objectively established - so what's the point?

Tag. You're it.

So you are saying that because there isn't common consensus on the supernatural, there isn't objective truth about it?

What about when there wasn't common consensus on the shape of the earth? Was there objective truth about that back then?

What about whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Is there objective truth about that?

The three issues above are three examples of questions that logically MUST have an absolute truth to them. They are also examples of things that people have all different kinds of opinions on. These examples show that common consensus are not necessary for truth to exist.

Furthermore, people can all agree on something that is not true. For instance, (the easy one that everyone uses) when people thought the earth was flat. It is just common sense that truth is not based on whether people believe it or not.

 

[Aaron11]

Sure. Show me evidence of an absolute truth that is based on objective criteria. Truth is true for its own sake, and is not dependent on any religion, culture, gender, age, or nationality. If the sky is blue, like it is outside my window right now, then that is true, and all reasonable people, regardless of their religion, culture, gender, age, or nationality would agree.

True. However, people agreeing is not what makes the sky blue.

 

[Aaron11]

So how could such an "absolute truth" so fundamental to a religious belief system have so many different "truths"? Who is right? Why is this occuring at all? I realize there are theological excuses for this phenomena, but I view it as direct evidence that either their is no absolute truth regarding such matters, or such an absolute truth cannot be objectively established - so what's the point?

You saying "Who is right?" would be an acknowledgement of absolute truth.

Why do you seem to want to push the issue of absolute truth away and get onto a topic like salvation? It seems that you just want to change the subject to argue with me on something you might have a better chance at.

 

[tcampen]

Re: tcampen



Tcampen, I doubt one single Christian here would disagree with any part of the Nicene Creed, which has plenty of tests. If 90% of us say we agree with it, then we know that Christians are not that far apart in their beliefs, much as they argue about works vs faith and whether salvation is revocable. (Actually the things we argue about God has deliberately left vague, for to do otherwise would bring havoc. But that's a whole 'nother thread I must do when I get time)

The Nicene Creed covers a lot of ground, but is certainly NOT exhaustive of what christianity is. It does not cover the method of salvation, which gets back to the point I was making.

Although we cannot be absolutely sure of a person's motives, the NT gives us many tests of the Christian and manifestaions and gifts of the Spirit, by which we can know that we are Christians, and know that we know God.

Are Jehova's Witnesses Christian? How about Mormons? Who decides who is and who is not a "real" Christian (other than God, of course)?

I once woke up in the middle of the night speaking in tongues spontaneously, as did my friend, and the whole room was filled with light. There is nothing subjective about that. You can't measure it with a ruler, but you KNOW it happened. No it didn't make me a perfect Christian, but it gave me as much faith in the reality of God as in this computer.

I would never deny you your personal spiritual experience or revelation that is a profound part of what you believe. Many evangelical Christians are hightly skeptical of speaking in tongues. Harold Campy of Family Radio says, "The minute you try to add to the Bible, from this vision or that tongue, or whatever, and one person adds this, and another one adds that, and someone else adds something else, and then attempt to interpret the Bible in the light of all this new information, you end up with a gospel that will take you almost anywhere. This is exactly what is happening today. The false gospels are going off in all directions."
In fact, he sees tongues as satanic. He's got millions of people following his bible analysis world wide, do you can't call him "fringe." It's even debated in these forums.

So you can interpret your experience however you like. Maybe is was the holy spirit, maybe it was satan, maybe it was aliens, maybe it was the power of your own mind, or any number of different reasons. But ultimately, it is for you to decide.

But tell us, what would it take for you to KNOW God was real? How would a direct physical manifestation change your life and your will?

I never said I didn't think God was real. I just don't believe in the same god you do.

I contend God could manifest himself to us as he did to the people of Israel and we would still rebel against him. It's not about proof. It's about the human will. Rad

I agree, it's not about proof, nor is it about "rebelling" against your concept of god, any more than you are rebelling against the true god Allah. It's called differences in opinion, spiritual experience, and personal revelation.

(And we won't agree on whether the people of Israel saw overwhelmeing proof and still did not believe, as such is just as good of evidence they didn't witness such at all.)

But that's cool - I'm all in favor of you pursuing where your heart leads you. Just remember that ultimately, it is personal.

 

[tcampen]

So you are saying that because there isn't common consensus on the supernatural, there isn't objective truth about it?

What about when there wasn't common consensus on the shape of the earth? Was there objective truth about that back then?

What about whether or not Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Is there objective truth about that?

The three issues above are three examples of questions that logically MUST have an absolute truth to them. They are also examples of things that people have all different kinds of opinions on. These examples show that common consensus are not necessary for truth to exist.

I don't disagree with you, necessarily, but you are really mixing apples and oranges. An objective truth about the natural world is totally different than any kind of truth about the supernatural. They can eventually be objectively verified, even if we're not able to do it at the moment. In the meantime, there is objective evidence that makes a particular concept more or less reliable as the truth. The supernatural is not subject to any testing, verification, objective experience or observation, recording, repeating, or anything else that all reasonable people would experience as being essentially the same thing.

My point is not whether, ultimately, there is an absolute truth to whether your particular faith is accurate or not. My point is that it is foolish to compare the natural with the supernatural as if they are qualitatively the same, subject to the same tests, rules, laws, etc. And the very character of the supernatural being unverifiable by its very definition makes it utterly subjective as far as our human abilities are concerned.

So, for intense and purposes, what's the point?

Furthermore, people can all agree on something that is not true. For instance, (the easy one that everyone uses) when people thought the earth was flat. It is just common sense that truth is not based on whether people believe it or not.

Exactly! but the flatness of the Earth is a falsifiable assertion, by travelling around the world in a boat, or orbiting the planet in a spacecraft. Please tell me what method or process could be used to falsify the existence of God.

 

[tcampen]

You saying "Who is right?" would be an acknowledgement of absolute truth.

Why do you seem to want to push the issue of absolute truth away and get onto a topic like salvation? It seems that you just want to change the subject to argue with me on something you might have a better chance at.

The point is that Many christians assert that a particular path to salvation is an absolute truth in and of itself. If this is true, one would expect far greater consensus among Christians on that issue. The lack of such a consensus is evidence that this is not an absolute truth, but I'm sure you would interpret the evidence differently. I'm not trying to get off topic, sorry.

 

[tcampen]

True. However, people agreeing is not what makes the sky blue.

No, but it is extremely compelling evidence that it is true. And in this natural world we share, that is what we have to rely on for establishing what the truth is. The strength of the evidence, and analyzing that evidence with proven methods.

 

[Palatka44]

Jesus is the one and only way into heaven.
Anything else is just religion, and I do not interfere with ones religion. Religion is man made ritual.
Jesus is God given life.